INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
AERIAL HERBICIDE SPRAYING
ECUADOR
v.
COLOMBIA
REPLY OF ECUADOR
VOLUME IV
ANNEXES
31 JANUARY 2011 VOLUME IV
ANNEXES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEWSARTICLES
Annex 52. Steve Salisbury, “Pray and Spray: SOF With Coke-Bustin’Broncos”,
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (July 1998)
Annex 53. Tod Robberson, “2 U.S. Pilots Die on ColombianAnti-Narcotics
Mission”, DALLAS MORNING NEWS (Dallas, 29 July 1998)
Annex 54. Larry Rohter, “To Colombians, Drug War is Toxic Enemy”,
THE NEWYORK TIMES (New York, 1 May 2000)
Annex 55. “The Void of the Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 28 May 2000)
Annex 56. “Mayor Denounces Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 22Aug. 2000)
Annex 57. “In Mataje the Implementation of Plan Colombia Causes First
Ravages”, LAHORA(Quito, 18 Sept. 2000)
Annex 58. “44Affected by the Fumigations”, EL COMERCIO
(Quito, 22 Oct. 2000)
Annex 59. “No To Fumigation: Governors”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 15 Jan. 2001)
Annex 60. Juan Forero, “No Crops Spared in Colombia’s Coca
War”, THE NEWYORK TIMES (New York, 31 Jan. 2001)
Annex 61. “The Drama of Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 10 July 2001)
Annex 62. “Fumigation Dispute”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 22 July 2001)
Annex 63. “Colombia Drug Czar to Keep Spraying”, THE NEWYORK TIMES
(New York, 31 July 2001)
Annex 64. “Colombia Denounces Indiscriminate Spraying in Putumayo”,
EL COMERCIO (Quito, 10 Jan. 2002)Annex 65. “Binational Meeting of Indigenous Communities— Plan Colombia
terrorizes the communities”, LAHORA(7Apr. 2002)
Annex 66. “Between Faith and Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO
(Bogotá, 10 May 2002)
Annex 67. “Another Controversy Over Fumigation”, EL COMERCIO
(Quito, 9 July 2002)
Annex 68. “Hunger and Misery from Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 7 Sept. 2002)
Annex 69. “FarmersAgainst Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 19 Sept. 2002)
Annex 70. “Ecuadorians Demand Compensation”, LAHORA
(Quito, 26 Sept. 2002)
Annex 71. “GlyphosateAffects Crops in Sucumbíos”, EL COMERCIO
(Quito, 8 Oct. 2002)
Annex 72. “Requesting an End to Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO
(Bogotá, 10 Oct. 2002)
Annex 73. “Fumigations Cause Concern in Putumayo”, EL COMERCIO
(Quito, 10 Nov. 2002)
Annex 74. “Glyphosate Rain”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 25 Feb. 2003)
Annex 75. “Spray Program on Indigenous Territories Is Struggling”,
ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 28Apr. 2003)
Annex 76. “We Will Continue To Fumigate While IAm President”, ELTIEMPO
(Bogotá, 30 June 2003)
Annex 77. “Anti-drug plane shot down, U.S. says”, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
(Chicago, 23 Sept. 2003)
Annex 78. “Billiard Shot on Three Fronts”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 13 Nov. 2003)
Annex 79. “Suarez new Environment Minister as Rodriguez Quits”, BUSINESS
NEWSAMERICAS (14 Nov. 2003)
Annex 80. “EU criticises Colombia on rights”, BBC (London, 22 Jan. 2004)Annex 81. “More RefugeesAs a Result of FumigationsAlong the Border”,
EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 8 Feb. 2007)
Annex 82. “ColombiaAnnounces Ceasing of Fumigations to Ease Relations with
Quito”, EL UNIVERSAL.COM (Caracas, 9 Feb. 2007)
Annex 83. “Colombia Sprayed Within 1 km of the Border”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 10 Feb. 2007)
Annex 84. “Fishermen in Esmeraldas Fear Spraying with GlyphosateAffects
Mangroves”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 20 Feb. 2007)
Annex 85. “Putumayo: Governor Denounces Fumigations”, HOY
(Quito, 29 July 2007)
Annex 86. “AConstitutionAppeal Is Ordered In San Jorge:AJudge Recognizes
the Risk of Glyphosate Fumigations”, ENTRE RIOS ENTRE TODOS
(Entre Rios, 13Apr. 2009)
Annex 87. Crytstal Gammon, “Weed Killer Kills Human Cells:
6WXG\▯,QWHQVL¿HV▯'HEDWH▯RYHU▯µ,QHUW¶▯,QJUHGLHQWV´▯▯
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEWS (22 June 2009)
Annex 88. “Santa Fe:ARuling In Favor of Life”, RENACE (4 Jan. 2010)
Annex 89. “It Is Warned that FumigationsAre Being Carried Out in Paraná
Despite Them Being Prohibited”, LAVOZ (9 Jan. 2010)
Annex 90. “Fumigations with Glyphosate Is Not Permitted on the the Peninsula”,
BARILOCHE2000 (Bariloche, 10 Feb. 2010)
Annex 91. Shane Romig, “Argentina Court Blocks Glyphosate Spraying Near
Rural Town”, DOW JONES NEWSWIRES (21 Mar. 2010)
Annex 92. “Colombian Government Violates Pact and Fumigates with
Glyphosate”, VOCES.ORG (10 Nov. 2010)
Annex 93. “Colombia FumigatesAgain”, LAHORA(Quito, 11 Nov. 2010). MULTILATERALORGANISATION DOCUMENTS
Annex 94. Commentary on the United Nations Convention Against
,OOLFLW▯7UDI¿F▯LQ▯1DUFRWLF▯'UXJV▯DQG▯3\VFKRWURSLF▯6XEVWDQFHV▯
1988, U.N. Doc. E/ CN.7/590 (20 Dec. 1988)
Annex 95. European Union, &RXQFLO▯'LUHFWLYH▯&RQFHUQLQJ▯WKH▯3ODFLQJ▯RI▯3ODQW▯
3URWHFWLRQ▯3URGXFWV▯RQ▯WKH▯0DUNHW, 91/414/EEC (15 July 1991)
Annex 96. United Nations, &RQIHUHQFH▯IRU▯WKH▯$GRSWLRQ▯RI▯D▯&RQYHQWLRQ▯DJDLQVW▯
,OOLFLW▯7UDI¿F▯LQ▯1DUFRWLF▯'UXJV▯▯2I¿FLDO▯5HFRUGV (1994)
Annex 97. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD),
$FWLYLWLHV▯WR▯5HGXFH▯3HVWLFLGH▯5LVNV▯LQ▯2(&'▯DQG▯6HOHFWHG▯)$2▯
&RXQWULHV▯▯3DUW▯,▯▯6XPPDU\▯5HSRUW, OCDE/GD(96)121 (1996)
Annex 98. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, *XLGHOLQHV▯
RQ▯*RRG▯3UDFWLFH▯IRU▯$HULDO▯$SSOLFDWLRQ▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV (2001)
Annex 99. European Parliament, 5HVROXWLRQ▯RQ▯3ODQ▯&RORPELD▯DQG▯6XSSRUW▯IRU▯
WKH▯3HDFH▯3URFHVV▯LQ▯&RORPELD, EUR. PARL. DOC. B5-0087
(1 Feb. 2001)
Annex 100. Andean Community, Decision 501 Border Integration Zone in the
$QGHDQ▯&RPPXQLW\▯▯2I¿FLDO▯*D]HWWH▯RI▯$JUHHPHQWV▯RI▯&DUWDJHQD▯▯
No. 680 (28 June 2001)
Annex 101. Andean Community, Border Integration Zone Colombia-Ecuador,
'LSORPDWLF▯1RWHV▯'0▯'')▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ ▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯*0▯'*$)▯▯2I¿FLDO▯
Gazette ofAgreements of Cartagena, No. 888 (21 Jan. 2003)
Annex 102. 5HSRUW▯RI▯WKH▯6SHFLDO▯5DSSRUWHXU▯RQ▯WKH▯6LWXDWLRQ▯RI▯+XPDQ▯5LJKWV▯
DQG▯)XQGDPHQWDO▯)UHHGRPV▯RI▯,QGLJHQRXV▯3HRSOH▯▯0U▯▯5RGROIR▯
6WDYHQKDJHQ▯▯Mission to Colombia, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
(10 Nov. 2004)
Annex 103. Commission of European Communities, 7KH▯,PSDFW▯$VVHVVPHQW▯
RI▯WKH▯7KHPDWLF▯6WUDWHJ\▯RQ▯WKH▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV,
SEC(2006) 894 (12 July 2006)
Annex 104. Commission of European Communities, $▯7KHPDWLF▯6WUDWHJ\▯RQ▯WKH▯
6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV▯▯7HFKQLFDO▯$QQH[, SEC(2006) 895 Final
(12 July 2006)Annex 105. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD),
Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and The Working Party on
Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, 5HSRUW▯RI▯WKH▯2(&'▯3HVWLFLGH▯
5LVN▯5HGXFWLRQ▯6WHHULQJ▯*URXS▯▯7KH▯6HFRQG▯5LVN▯5HGXFWLRQ▯6XUYH\, ENV/
JM/MONO (2006)14 (19 July 2006)
Annex 106. European Commission, (8▯3ROLF\▯IRU▯D▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV▯▯
7KH▯6WRU\▯%HKLQG▯WKH▯6WUDWHJ\ (2007)
Annex 107. Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to the HighestAttainable
Standard of Health, &ORVLQJ▯5HPDUNV▯WR▯WKH▯3UHVV, Quito, Ecuador
(18 May 2007)
Annex 108. 8QLWHG▯1DWLRQV▯2I¿FH▯RQ▯'UXJV▯DQG▯&ULPH▯▯&RFD▯&XOWLYDWLRQ▯LQ▯WKH▯
$QGHDQ▯5HJLRQ▯▯$▯6XUYH\▯RI▯%ROLYLD▯▯&RORPELD▯▯(FXDGRU▯DQG▯3HUX
(June 2007)
Annex 109. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 'LUHFWLYH▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯(&▯▯(VWDEOLVKLQJ▯D▯)UDPHZRUN▯IRU▯&RPPXQLW\▯$FWLRQ▯WR▯
$FKLHYH▯WKH▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV (21 Oct. 2009)
Annex 110. 8QLWHG▯1DWLRQV▯2I¿FH▯RQ▯'UXJV▯DQG▯&ULPH▯▯:RUOG▯'UXJ▯5HSRUW▯▯▯▯▯
(2010)
OTHER
Annex 111. Guillermo Fernández-Soto, /D▯,OXVLyQ▯3RVLEOH▯▯8Q▯7HVWLPRQLR▯6REUH▯/D▯
3ROtWLFD▯([WHULRU▯&RORPELDQD (Grupo Editorial Norma, 2004)
Annex 112. Freedom of InformationAct Correspondence With United States
Environmental ProtectionAgency Including Roundup Export Label
(3 Mar. 2009)
Annex 113. Letter from Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador, to
8QLWHG▯6WDWHV▯'HSDUWPHQW▯RI▯6WDWH▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯
Services (3Apr. 2009)
Annex 114. /HWWHU▯IURP▯0DUJDUHW▯3▯▯*UDIHOG▯▯'LUHFWRU▯▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯
Programs and Services, United States Department of State to Rebecca
L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador (13 Nov. 2009)
Annex 115. Letter from Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador,
WR▯$▯▯+DUROG▯▯+DO▯▯(LVQHU▯▯8QLWHG▯6WDWHV▯'HSDUWPHQW▯RI▯6WDWH▯2I¿FH▯
of Information Programs and Services (19 Feb. 2010)Annex 116. )D[▯IURP▯$▯▯+DUROG▯(LVQHU▯▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯
Services, United States Department of State to Rebecca L. Puskas,
Counsel to Government of Ecuador (12 Mar. 2010)
Annex 117. United States District Court of the District of Colombia, $ULDV▯▯HW▯DO▯▯
Y▯▯'\QFRUS▯▯HW▯DO▯▯▯4XLQWHURV, et al. v. Dyncorp, et al., Declaration of
Redacted Witness (2 June 2010)
Annex 118. Freedom of InformationAct Correspondence With United States
Environmental ProtectionAgency Including Email from Stephen
J. Wratten, Monsanto Company, to Jay Ellenberger, United States
Environmental ProtectionAgency (30 Oct. 2010) Annex 52
Steve Salisbury, “Pray and Spray: SOF With Coke-Bustin’Broncos”,
SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (July 1998)Annex 52Annex 52Annex 52Annex 52Annex 52Annex 52 Annex 53
Tod Robberson, “2 U.S. Pilots Die on ColombianAnti-Narcotics Mission”,
DALLAS MORNING NEWS (Dallas, 29 July 1998) Annex 53
The Dallas Morning News: Document Display Page 1 of 1
The Dallas Morning News
July 29, 1998
2 U.S. pilots die on Colombian anti-narcotics mission
7RG▯5REEHUVRQ▯6RXWK▯$PHULFD▯%XUHDX▯RI▯7KH▯'DOODV▯0RUQLQJ▯1HZV▯▯
Two American pilots working for the U.S. government on an anti-narcotics-related mission died when their airplane went
down in a battle-scarred region of southeastern Colombia, the U.S. Embassy said Tuesday.
The pilots were identified as Wayne Harley Mulgrew of Napa, Calif., and Gary Clyde Chestnut of Leesburg, Ala. Both
were 46.
The embassy said in a prepared statement Tuesday that the two men were killed Monday when their Thrush turboprop
crop-dusting aircraft went down near a military base at San Jose del Guaviare, 200 miles southeast of Bogota.
Colombian and U.S. military sources said the base is in a chief cocaine-producing region of southeastern Colombia and is
usually surrounded by leftist guerrillas, who frequently try to shoot down government aircraft on illicit-crop eradication
missions.
The embassy termed the deaths an accident, although it said the cause of the crash was still under investigation. The
statement said there were “no indications of hostile activity during the accident.”
The embassy statement added that one of the pilots was training the other pilot on how to conduct training exercises when
their plane went down.
The last death involving a government-contracted anti-narcotics pilot occurred in January 1997, when Robert Martin, 35,
flew his crop-dusting aircraft into a tree while on an eradication mission only one day after arriving in the country.
Mr. Mulgrew and Mr. Chestnut were providing training to Colombian anti-narcotics pilots under a State Department
contract with East Inc., based in Chantilly, Va. A company spokesman declined to comment and referred all inquiries to the
State Department.
East Inc. and DynCorp Aerospace Technologies, a Fort Worth-based company, provide more than 100 aircraft pilots and
maintenance technicians to work in dangerous areas of Colombia where, in many cases, U.S. law restricts the activities of
U.S. military personnel.
Their work has become so dangerous in recent months -due mainly to anti-aircraft fire from guerrillas and other gunmen
protecting illicit-crop fields and drug laboratories -that earlier this year, they began conducting eradication missions at night
to make their aircraft harder to target, a U.S. official said.
The night missions, however, entail a higher accident risk because of the need for pilots to fly at low altitudes to ensure
their crop dusters hit their targets with herbicide spray.
In addition, the Colombian National Police, which conducts most anti-narcotics operations, has been forced to ground the
bulk of its U.S.-supplied helicopter fleet twice in recent months because of mechanical problems.
Copyright © Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=print&p_docid=0ED… 11/16/2010Annex 53 Annex 54
Larry Rohter, “To Colombians, Drug War is Toxic Enemy”, THE NEWYORK TIMES
(New York, 1 May 2000) Annex 54
To Colombians, Drug War Is Toxic Enemy
By LARRY ROHTER
Published: May 1, 2000
RIOBLANCO DE SOTARA, Colombia— The children and their teachers were in the
schoolyard, they say, playing soccer and basketball and waiting for classes to begin when the
crop-duster appeared. At first they waved, but as the plane drew closer and a gray mist
began to stream from its wings, alarmed teachers rushed the pupils to their classrooms.
Over the next two weeks, a fleet of counternarcotics planes taking part in an American-
sponsored program to eradicate heroin poppy cultivation returned here repeatedly. Time
and time again, residents charge, the government planes also sprayed buildings and fields
that were not supposed to be targets, damaging residents' health and crops.
''The pilot was flying low, so there is no way he could not have seen those children,'' said
Nidia Majin, principal of the La Floresta rural elementary school, whose 70 pupils were
sprayed that Monday morning last June. ''We had no way to give them first aid, so I sent
them home. But they had to cross fields and streams that had also been contaminated, so
some of them got sick.''
In fact, say leaders of this remote Yanacona Indian village high in the Andes, dozens of other
residents also became ill during the spraying campaign, complaining of nausea, dizziness,
vomiting, rashes, blurred vision and ear and stomach aches. They say the spraying also
damaged legitimate crops, undermining government efforts to support residents who have
abandoned poppy growing.
Such incidents are not limited to this village of 5,000, say critics in Colombia and the United
States, but have occurred in numerous parts of Colombia and are bound to increase if the
fumigation program is intensified, as the Clinton administration is proposing as part of a
$1.6 billion emergency aid package to Colombia.
Critics say they frequently receive reports of mistakes and abuses by the planes' Colombian
pilots that both the American and Colombian governments choose to ignore.
State Department officials deny that indiscriminate spraying takes place, with an American
Embassy official in Bogota describing the residents' claims of illnesses as ''scientifically
impossible.''Annex 54
But to local leaders here the situation brought on by the spraying remains one of crisis. ''The
fumigation was done in an indiscriminate and irresponsible manner, and it did not achieve
its objective,'' said Ivan Alberto Chicangana, who was the mayor when the spraying
occurred.
''The damage done to the physical and economic well-being of this community has been
serious,'' he said, ''and is going to be very difficult for us to overcome.''
He and other local leaders say that people were sick for several weeks after the spraying, and
in interviews a few residents complained of lasting symptoms. Three fish farms with more
than 25,000 rainbow trout were destroyed, residents said, and numerous farm animals,
mostly chickens and guinea pigs, died, while others, including some cows and horses, fell ill.
In addition, fields of beans, onions, garlic, potatoes, corn and other traditional crops were
sprayed, leaving plants to wither and die. As a result, community leaders here say, crop-
substitution projects sponsored by the Colombian government have been irremediably
damaged and their participants left impoverished.
The spraying around this particular village has since stopped, residents say, though they
fear that it could resume at any time, and it continues in neighboring areas, like nearby
Guachicono, and year-round elsewhere in Colombia.
Peasants in the coca-growing region of Caqueta, southeast of here, last year complained to a
reporter that spray planes had devastated the crops they had planted after abandoning coca,
and similar reports have emerged from Guaviare, another province to the east.
Indeed, American-financed aerial spraying campaigns like the one here have been the
principal means by which the Colombian government has sought to reduce coca- and
opium-poppy cultivation for nearly a decade. The Colombian government fleet has grown to
include 65 airplanes and helicopters, which fly every day, weather permitting, from three
bases. Last year, the spraying effort resulted in the fumigation of 104,000 acres of coca and
20,000 acres of opium poppy.
Yet despite such efforts, which have been backed by more than $150 million in American aid,
cocaine and heroin production in Colombia has more than doubled since 1995.
''The damage done to the physical and economic well-being of this community has been
serious,'' he said, ''and is going to be very difficult for us to overcome.'' Annex 54
He and other local leaders say that people were sick for several weeks after the spraying,
and in interviews a few residents complained of lasting symptoms. Three fish farms with
more than 25,000 rainbow trout were destroyed, residents said, and numerous farm
animals, mostly chickens and guinea pigs, died, while others, including some cows and
horses, fell ill.
In addition, fields of beans, onions, garlic, potatoes, corn and other traditional crops
were sprayed, leaving plants to wither and die. As a result, community leaders here say,
crop-substitution projects sponsored by the Colombian government have been
irremediably damaged and their participants left impoverished.
The spraying around this particular village has since stopped, residents say, though they
fear that it could resume at any time, and it continues in neighboring areas, like nearby
Guachicono, and year-round elsewhere in Colombia.
Peasants in the coca-growing region of Caqueta, southeast of here, last year complained
to a reporter that spray planes had devastated the crops they had planted after
abandoning coca, and similar reports have emerged from Guaviare, another province to
the east.
Indeed, American-financed aerial spraying campaigns like the one here have been the
principal means by which the Colombian government has sought to reduce coca- and
opium-poppy cultivation for nearly a decade. The Colombian government fleet has
grown to include 65 airplanes and helicopters, which fly every day, weather permitting,
from three bases. Last year, the spraying effort resulted in the fumigation of 104,000
acres of coca and 20,000 acres of opium poppy.
Yet despite such efforts, which have been backed by more than $150 million in
American aid, cocaine and heroin production in Colombia has more than doubled since
1995.
In an effort to reverse that trend and weaken left-wing guerrilla and right-wing
paramilitary groups that are profiting from the drug trade and threatening the country's
stability, the Clinton administration is now urging Congress to approve a new aid
package, which calls for increased spending on drug eradication as well as a gigantic
increase for crop-substitution programs, to $127 million from $5 million.
Critics, like Elsa Nivia, director of the Colombian affiliate of the advocacy organization
Pesticide Action Network, see the eradication effort as dangerous and misguided. ''TheseAnnex 54
pilots don't care if they are fumigating over schools, houses, grazing areas, or sources of
water,'' she said in an interview at the group's headquarters in Cali.
''Furthermore,'' she added, ''spraying only exacerbates the drug problem by destabilizing
communities that are trying to get out of illicit crops and grow legal alternatives.''
Those who have been directly affected by the spraying effort here also argue that
fumigation is counterproductive. In this cloud-shrouded region of waterfalls, rushing
rivers, dense forests and deep mountain gorges, poppy cultivation was voluntarily
reduced by half between 1997 and 1999, to 250 acres, said Mr. Chicangana, the former
mayor.
He said it was well on its way to being eliminated altogether when the spraying began.
''We were collaborating, and now people feel betrayed by the state,'' he lamented.
''The fumigation disturbs us a bit,'' said Juan Hugo Torres, an official of Plante, the
Colombian government agency supervising crop-substitution efforts, who works with
farmers here. ''You are building trust with people, they have hopes, and then the
spraying does away with all of that.''
In an interview in Washington, R. Rand Beers, the American assistant secretary of state
for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, said aerial spraying flights are
strictly monitored and targets are chosen carefully.
The fumigation program is devised so that pilots ''shouldn't be anywhere close to
alternative development projects,'' he said, since ''officials in the air and on the ground
should be equipped with geographic positioning devices that pinpoint where those
activities are taking place.''
''If that happened, the pilot who flew that mission should be disciplined,'' Mr. Beers said
referring to the accusations made by residents here. ''That shouldn't be happening.''
But the area fumigated here is wind-swept mountain terrain where illicit crops and their
legal alternatives grow side by side, making accurate spraying difficult. And in some
other places, pilots may be forced to fly higher than might be advisable, for fear of being
shot at by the guerrillas, whose war is fueled by the profits of the drug trade.
As for the complaints of illness, the American Embassy official who supervises the
spraying program said in an interview in Bogota that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Annex 54
the pesticide used here, is ''less toxic than table salt or aspirin.'' Calling it ''the most
studied herbicide in the world,'' he said it was proven to be harmless to human and
animal life and called the villagers' account ''scientifically impossible.''
''Being sprayed on certainly does not make people sick,'' the official said, ''because it is
not toxic to human beings.'' Glyphosate ''does not translocate to water'' and ''leaves no
soil residue,'' he added, so ''if they are saying otherwise, to be very honest with you, they
are lying, and we can prove that scientifically.''
But in an out-of-court settlement in New York state in 1996, Monsanto, a leading
manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup, though not necessarily
identical to those used here, agreed to withdraw claims that the product is ''safe,
nontoxic, harmless or free from risk.'' The company signed a statement agreeing that its
''absolute claims that Roundup 'will not wash or leach in the soil' is not accurate''
because glyphosate ''may move through some types of soil under some conditions after
application.''
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency has approved glyphosate for
most commercial uses. But the E.P.A.'s 1993 recertification study noted that ''in
California, where physicians are required to report pesticide poisonings, glyphosate was
ranked third out of the 25 leading causes of illness or injury due to pesticides'' over a
five-year period in the 1980's, primarily causing eye and skin irritation.
In addition, labels on glyphosate products like Roundup sold in the United States advise
users to ''avoid direct application to any body of water.'' Directions also warn users that
they should ''not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons,
either directly or through drift'' and caution that ''only protected handlers may be in the
area during application.''
The doctor in charge of the local clinic here, Ivan Hernandez, recently was transferred
and could not be reached for comment about the impact of the spraying on the health of
residents. Gisela Moreno, a nurse's aide, refused to speak to a visiting reporter, saying,
''We have been instructed not to talk to anyone about what happened here.'' When asked
the origin of the order, she replied: ''From above, from higher authorities.''
Here in Rioblanco de Sotara, half a dozen local people say they felt so sick after the
spraying that they undertook a 55-mile bus trip to San Jose Hospital in Popayan, the
capital of Cauca Province, for medical care. There, they were attended by Dr. NelsonAnnex 54
Palechor Obando, who said he treated them for the same battery of symptoms that more
than two dozen residents described to a reporter independently in recent interviews.
''They complained to me of dizziness, nausea and pain in the muscles and joints of their
limbs, and some also had skin rashes,'' he said. ''We do not have the scientific means
here to prove they suffered pesticide poisoning, but the symptoms they displayed were
certainly consistent with that condition.''
Because this is an area of desperate poverty where most people eke out a living from
subsistence agriculture, there is no stigma attached to growing heroin poppies, and
those who have planted the crop freely admit it. Yet even those who claim never to have
cultivated poppies say that their fields were also sprayed and their crops were destroyed.
''They fumigated everywhere, with no effort made to distinguish between potatoes and
poppies,'' complained Oscar Ceron, a 32-year-old farmer. ''We could even hear their
radio transmissions on the FM band, with the ground command referring to us in a
vulgar fashion.''
Other farmers said the air currents constantly swirling down from the 14,885-foot
Sotara volcano, on whose flank this town sits, blew the herbicide over fields planted with
legal crops.
''A gust of wind can carry the poison off to adjacent fields, so that they end up more
badly damaged than the field that was the original target, which sometimes is left
completely intact,'' explained Fernando Hormiga.
In the United States, glyphosate users are specifically warned not to spray by air ''when
winds are gusty or under any other condition that favors drift.'' The instructions also say
that ''appropriate buffer zones must be maintained'' to avoid contaminating surrounding
areas.
Once word got out about the illnesses that followed the spraying here, prices for milk,
cheese and other products that are a mainstay of the local economy dropped by more
than half. ''The rumors are that the land is contaminated, so we no longer get orders
from outside, and the middlemen can now name their own price,'' said Fabian Omen, a
farmer and town councilman. Annex 54
Worse still, government and private creditors are nonetheless demanding that the loans
made for crop-substitution projects like the fish farms must still be repaid, even though
the enterprises themselves have been destroyed.
Asked about the lack of an integrated policy that implies, Alba Lucia Otero, the Plante director
for Cauca Province, expressed frustration. ''The state is a single entity, but we work on one side
while those doing the fumigation work on another,'' she said. ''There should be coordination, but
they take their decision at the central level, and we are not consulted.''
x < PREVIOUS PAGE 1 2 3 4 5Annex 54 Annex 55
“The Void of the Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 28 May 2000) Annex 55
▯
EL TIEMPO
28 MAY 2000
THE VOID OF THE FUMIGATIONS
In Puerto Guzmán, Puerto Caicedo and Mocoa (Putumayo) peasants and even authorities speak
of the death of Anderson Iván Mejía every time you address the issue of the fumigation of illicit
crops.
They cite the case of child, who was under 2 years of age, and say that after suffering from
vomiting, diarrhea and fever, he died in the village of Campo Rojas late last year. However, there
is no scientific evidence that links either his case or the other two deaths recorded in official
reports to spraying with glyphosate,. In order for the herbicide to be mortal, one must drink two
liters, ensures the Narcotics Department.
What does exist is recent evidence in Putumayo of plantain, cassava and maize being literally
burned in the passage of aircraft, contaminated water sources and areas of less than three
hectares fumigated, even though the law forbids it.
In fact, only a few weeks ago, based on hundreds of such complaints, the Regional Corporation
of the Amazon (Corpoamazonia) suspended through a single broad stroke, that national security
policy, stranding the fleet of antinarcotics aircraft Turbo Trush of the Antinarcotics Police for six
days.
Corpoamazonia’s decision, which the Ministry of Environment repealed as unlawful, generated
institutional friction that has been kept secret but, above all, exposed gaps in the spray program,
a program to which the U.S. has contributed more than 60 aircraft and about 300 million dollars
annually and the monitored results closely.
While the country hopes to achieve the goals set in terms of hectares destroyed, Corpoamazonia
is ready to challenge again the presidential directives if faults persist.
The position of defiance, which senior government officials attribute to pressure from guerrillas
and paramilitaries, the great masters or custodians of illicit crops.
Violations in everything, EL TIEMPO found that there is evidence of violation of technical
standards for fumigation, legal crops affected and observers who do not supervise the
fumigation.
Even when the chief of police, Gen. Jose Rosso Serrano, attributed the attempts to discredit the
program and stop its aircraft to the drug traffickers, there is another perception among a
committee comprised of officials from the Attorney General, the Comptroller and regional
Ombudsman after following the tracks.
In the countryside, reporters from this newspaper confirmed the destruction of plantain plants
and corn, as well as expanses of virgin forest.
▯Annex 55
▯
The plane came and sprayed everything. Here, there was but one hectare of coca planted,
reported Victor Pantoja, farmer, Puerto Guzmán. I burned an acre of corn, said Felipe Ortega,
another local farmer.
Although there are growers of up to three acres of Peruvian coca in that area, at least 300 signed
complaints, supported by a national ID, signature or fingerprint, in order to attest to what is
happening.
The testimonies are buried in a folder on the Ombudsman’s Office of Puerto Guzmán. The last
two months I have not done anything other than receive complaints, explains Ombudsman
Yazmin Cruz.
And while farmers await government commissions with solutions, their claims are used by the
front 32 of the FARC to encourage them to participate in a new coca growers' march, similar to
that of 1996.
The first week of May that front summoned farmers to a meeting in Puerto Caicedo in which
they announced to the peasants that they needed a person per family to participate in the march.
The only condition: this time they should be armed.
Beyond the manipulation by the guerrilla, to Corpoamazonia and even officials of the Ministry
of Environment and control agencies it is clear that in some areas the spraying is being
performed indiscriminately.
There are signs that spraying is being performed on areas that are less than two hectares of coca,
a practice prohibited by resolution 001 of 1994, which dictates the parameters for fumigation.
Thus, according Corpoamazonia, this is threatening the food safety of indigenous people and
settlers. EL TIEMPO was able to witness how farmers in the area ask the mayor of Puerto
Guzmán markets sent to them by the network SOLIDARIDAD ( 6ROLGDULW\), as their crops were
spoiled.
If the allegations are proven for the first time, said Narcotics director, Gabriel Merchán, we will
compensate those affected.
However, he warns that it is difficult to prove that the damage occurred as a result of glyphosate,
since its remnants disappears in 15 days.
Moreover, Corpoamazonia never turned over to Narcotics the complaints on which it based its
suspension of the fumigation and Police has said to possess evidence that farmers planted
bananas, cocoa and cane next to the coca in order to denounce abuses and counter the program.
But the complaints are so many that on April 26, the Ministry of Environment requested that a
Narcotics technical committee of the military, administrative and judicial authorities be
convened to study the effects of fumigation.
▯ Annex 55
▯
Moreover, it was decided that a treatment program and a program to process complaints would
be designed, which is now under legal review. This program confirms that there are no human or
technical means to verify claims and to control the proper fumigation process.
Only Glyphosate?
We assume the good intentions of the people. That is the mechanism used by the Ministry of
Environment, according to the minister, to ensure that spraying is only carried out with
glyphosate and certify that the mixtures are adequate.
The poison that is being fumigated is now stronger than before. The plants are dying faster,
reported the Ombudsman of Puerto Guzmán, Marino Klinger Barreiro, on May 3rd.
A complaint that would be insignificant except for the fact that, with the assistance of the
Universidad de los Andes, the Ombudsman was able to verify the use of a prohibited substance:
Imazapyr, a granulated substance that cannot be used even in an experimental stage due to its
high degree of toxicity.
After fumigation, the Office collected four samples in the village of La Pradera (Puerto Guzmán)
which were handed over to the Andes for analysis. Via the importation of technology, weeks
later, it was certified that it contained the prohibited granules.
Coincidentally, that day of the fumigation, July 1998, 53 children from the school of La Pradera
temporarily lost their vision.
However, both the director general of Narcotics and general Serrano deny the use of a substance
other than glyphosate. They agree that farmers use a product with Imazapyr to plant coca and
clean it.
How did the peasants climb the papaya tree and sprinkle the granules that were found? The
Ombudsman asks itself in order to counter the claims of anti-drug officials.
Stopped Observers.
Add to this the fact that the Ministry of Environment has suspended its Committee for the
Verification Technique for Eradication of Illicit Crops for almost two years. Although it will
start operating once again, as announced by the minister Juan Mayr. No one has explained why it
was disabled.
We observed the spraying activities with certain regularity, the minister says, for who what is
even more serious is the deforestation of the jungle, which is now over a million hectares.
The Agrarian Ombudsman is another of the control entities. However, even the leader of that
office, Julio César Rodas, recognizes that he has neither the staff nor the expertise to verify
complaints.
▯Annex 55
▯
Sometimes they send prosecutors or ombudsmen to the area, but they are high risk areas for the
public order, the cases are filed two months after they occurred. We do not even have a
laboratory, he said.
Therefore, to Rhodes, the least we can do is indemnify the people and he let Narcotics know this.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Management Plan, the main tool for control and minimization of
the impacts of fumigation, turns seven years on paper without having been approved in its final
form.
Narcotic Drugs submitted the document, but last December, the Ministry of Environment and the
ICA asked that it complement the plan with sensitive topics such as the height at which the
chemical would be sprayed, the aircraft speed and even the composition of the chemical mixture
used. In addition, toxicological studies complement effects on aquatic organisms and soil.
The only authority that is working properly is the Environmental Audit paid by the Police, with
funding provided by United States, and which, in its opinion, everything is being done correctly.
Manual eradication. In the international hearing with the FARC, which has been suspended by
the Government and whose new date has yet to be set, visits are scheduled to areas of drug crops
and to hear the proposals of the farmers to find a strategy for eradicating the 116,000 hectares of
coca planted in Colombia today.
So less than a month ago farmers in nine municipalities in Putumayo and 37 thousand indigenous
peoples, including some from the Caucan boot, met together to devise an eradication plan that
they already handed to the Government.
The aim is to destroy coca crops by hand. What is being attempted is that no further legal crops
are affected and that we are given a real opportunity to replace them, says the indigenous
governor Aureliano Garreta Chindoy.
The only requirement made by the farmers and indigenous peoples alike is that, while the new
crops grow and prosper, the government will subsidize them with a kind of salary equivalent to
less than half of what one hectare eradicated with glyphosate costs today.
The proposal became known to the Plan for Substitution of Illicit Crops (Plante), who prefers to
stay out of the discussion on the spraying program as it deems that it is not within its jurisdiction.
While ecological solutions are sought, the fumigation plan strengthens, and has arrived in
Catatumbo, where farmers and paramilitaries began to complain about its effects this week. This
is compounded by the imminent activation of an anti-narcotics battalion of one thousand men
and the arrival of another 60 aircraft if the so-called Plan Colombia is approved.
Along with the huge investment, the figures of the Counter Narcotics Police and the U.S.
Department of State show that the phenomenon of drug crops is growing wildly (see chart).
▯ Annex 55
▯
Publication
eltiempo.com
Section
Justice
Date of Publication
28 May 2000
Author
Investigative Unit
▯Annex 55 Annex 55
Martes 19 de octubre de 2010 | Actualizado hace 7 minutos
Pico y placa Bogotáo Aplica Hoy MITIEMPOIngreso | Registro
Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo Sub
inicio debes saber debes hacer debes lee r secciones clasificados archivo ayudas
Temas del día Álvaro Uribe Alcaldía de Bogotá Partido de la U Juan Manuel Santos Paraguay Fútbol Internacionalanos en:
eltiempo.com / archivo
LOS VACÍOS DE LA FUMIGACIÓN
En Puerto Guzmán, Puerto Caicedo y Mocoa (Putumayo) campesinos y hasta autoridades hablan de la muerte de Anderson Iván Mejía
cada vez que abordan el tema de la fumigación de cultivos ilícitos.
Mencionan el caso del pequeño de 2 años y dicen que luego de sufrir de vómito, diarrea y fiebre murió en la vereda Campo Rojas a
finales del año pasado. Sin embargo, ni en su caso ni en el de otros dos muertos registrados en reportes oficiales y vinculados a la
aspersión con glifosato, existe prueba científica que los relacione. Para que el herbicida sea mortal se deben beber dos litros ,
asegura la Dirección de Estupefacientes.
De lo que sí existe reciente evidencia en el Putumayo es de cultivos de plátano, yuca y maíz literalmente quemados al paso de las
avionetas, de fuentes de agua contaminadas y de áreas menores a tres hectáreas fumigada, aunque la ley lo prohíbe.
De hecho, hace solo unas semanas, basada en centenares de esos reclamos, la Corporación Regional del Amazonas (Corpoamazonía)
suspendió de un solo plumazo esa política de seguridad nacional, dejando en tierra durante seis días la flotilla de aviones Turbo
Trush de la Policía Antinarcóticos.
La decisión de Corpoamazonía, que el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente derogó por antijurídica, generó roces institucionales que se han
mantenido en secreto pero, sobre todo, dejó al descubierto vacíos dentro del programa de fumigación, al que Estados Unidos ha
aportado más de 60 aeronaves y cerca de 300 millones de dólares anuales y cuyos resultados supervisa con lupa.
Mientras ese país espera obtener las metas fijadas en hectáreas destruidas, Corpoamazonía está dispuesta a desafiar de nuevo las
directivas presidenciales si persisten las fallas.
Una postura desafiante que altos funcionarios del Gobierno atribuyen a presiones de guerrilla y paras , los grandes dueños o
custodios de los cultivos ilícitos.
Violaciones Con todo, EL TIEMPO verificó que hay pruebas sobre violación de normas técnicas de fumigación, cultivos lícitos
afectados y veedores que no supervisan la fumigación.
Aun cuando el director de la Policía, general Rosso José Serrano, atribuye los intentos por desprestigiar el programa y por frenar sus
avionetas al narcotráfico, otra es la percepción tras seguir las huellas que recorrió un comité que integraban funcionarios de la
Procuraduría, la Contraloría y la Personería regionales.
En pleno monte, reporteros de este diario comprobaron la destrucción de matas de plátano y maíz, al igual que de extensiones de
bosque virgen.
El avión pasó y fumigó todo. Aquí no había sembrada sino una hectárea de coca , denunció Víctor Pantoja, campesino de Puerto
Guzmán. A mí me quemó una hectárea de maíz , añadió Felipe Ortega, otro campesino de la zona.
Aunque hay cultivadores de hasta tres hectárea de coca peruana en esa zona, al menos 300 quejas con firma, cédula o huella de los
campesinos dan fe de lo que está ocurriendo.
Los testimonios reposan en una carpeta en la Personería de Puerto Guzmán. Los últimos dos meses no he hecho otra cosa que recibir
quejas , explica la personera Yazmín Cruz.
Y mientras los campesinos esperan comisiones gubernamentales con soluciones, sus reclamos son utilizados por el frente 32 de las
Farc para incitarlos a participar en una nueva marcha cocalera, similar a las de 1996.
La primera semana de mayo ese frente citó a una reunión en Puerto Caicedo en la que anunció a los campesinos que necesitaba una
persona por familia para participar en la marcha. La única condición: esta vez debían ir armados.
La evidencia Pero más allá de la manipulación guerrillera, para Corpoamazonía e incluso para funcionarios del Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente y de organismos de control es claro que en algunas zonas se está fumigando indiscriminadamente.
Hay rastro de que se están regando áreas menores a dos hectáreas de coca, práctica prohibida en la resolución 001 de 1994, que
dicta los parámetros de fumigación.
De esa manera, según Corpoamazonía, se está poniendo en riesgo la seguridad alimentaria de campesinos, indígenas y colonos. EL
TIEMPO pudo presenciar cómo campesinas de la zona piden a la alcaldía de Puerto Guzmán mercados enviados por la Red de
Solidaridad, pues sus cosechas se echaron a perder.
Si se comprueban las denuncias dijo por primera vez el director de Estupefacientes, Gabriel Merchán, indemnizaremos a los
afectados .
No obstante, advierte que es difícil demostrar que los daños los produjo el glifosato, pues su rastro desaparece en 15 días.
Por lo demás, Corpoamazonía nunca entregó a Estupefacientes las denuncias en las que sustentó el freno de la fumigación y la
Policía dice poseer evidencias de que campesinos siembran plátano, cacao o caña al lado de coca para denunciar atropellos y
contrarrestar el programa.
Pero son tantas las quejas, que el pasado 26 de abril el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente pidió a Estupefacientes convocar a una
comisión técnica de autoridades militares, administrativas y judiciales para que se estudiaran los efectos de la fumigación.Annex 55
Es más, se decidió diseñar un proyecto de atención y trámite de quejas, que hoy se encuentra en revisión jurídica. Programa que
confirma que no existen medios técnicos ni humanos para verificar las denuncias y para controlar el correcto proceso de fumigación.
Solo glifosato? Nosotros partimos de la buena fe de la gente . Ese es el mecanismo que utiliza el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente,
según su ministro, para garantizar que sólo se fumiga con glifosato y certificar que las mezclas son las adecuadas.
El veneno con el que se está fumigando ahora es más bravo que el anterior. Las matas se mueren más rápido , denunció ante la
Personería de Puerto Guzmán Marino Barreiro Klinger, el 3 de mayo pasado.
Una denuncia que sería insignificante de no ser porque, con la ayuda de la Universidad de los Andes, la Defensoría del Pueblo pudo
comprobar la utilización de una sustancia prohibida: Imazapyr, un granulado que no se puede usar ni en etapa experimental por su
alto grado de toxicidad.
Luego de una fumigación, la Defensoría recogió cuatro muestras en la vereda La Pradera (Puerto Guzmán) que se entregaron a los
Andes para su análisis. Importando tecnología, semanas después, se certificó que se trataba del granulado prohibido.
Coincidencialmente, el mismo día de esa fumigación julio de 1998 53 niños de la escuela de La Pradera perdieron temporalmente la
visión.
Sin embargo, tanto el director de Estupefacientes como el general Serrano niegan el uso de una sustancia diferente al glifosato.
Coinciden en señalar que los campesinos utilizan un producto con Imazapyr para sembrar y limpiar coca.
Cómo hicieron los campesinos para subirse a los papayos y a los árboles a esparcir el granulado que encontramos? , se pregunta la
Defensoría para contrarrestar las afirmaciones de los funcionarios antidroga.
Veedores frenados A esto se suma que el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente desde hace casi dos años tiene suspendida su Comisión
Técnica de Verificación de Erradicación de Cultivos Ilícitos. Aunque volverá a operar, según lo anunció el ministro Juan Mayr, aún
nadie ha explicado por qué se desactivó.
Con alguna periodicidad acompañamos las tareas de fumigación , dice el Ministro, para quien lo grave es la depredación de selva que
va en más de un millón de hectáreas.
La Procuraduría Agraria es otro de los entes de control. No obstante, el propio jefe de ese despacho, Julio César Rodas, reconoce
que no tiene ni personal ni capacidad técnica para verificar esas quejas.
A veces se desplazan procuradores o personeros al lugar, pero son zonas de alto riesgo por orden público, además, los casos nos
llegan dos meses después de haber ocurrido. Ni siquiera contamos con un laboratorio , dice.
Por eso, para Rodas, lo menos que se puede hacer es indeminizar a la gente y así se lo hizo saber a Estupefacientes.
Entre tanto, el Plan de Manejo Ambiental, principal instrumento para controlar y minimizar los impactos de la fumigación, cumple
siete años en el papel sin que se haya aprobado en definitiva.
Estupefacientes ya entregó el documento, pero en diciembre pasado el Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y el ICA le solicitaron que lo
complementara en temas tan sensibles como la altura a la que se fumiga, la velocidad de las aeronaves y hasta la composición de la
mezcla química utilizada. Además, complementar estudios toxicológicos sobre efectos en organismos acuáticos y en el suelo.
La única instancia que está funcionando es la Auditoría Ambiental pagada por la propia Policía, con fondos entregados por Estados
Unidos, y para quien todo se está haciendo correctamente.
Erradicación manual En la audiencia internacional con las Farc suspendida por el Gobierno y cuya nueva fecha de realización aún no
ha sido fijado se tiene previsto visitar zonas de narcocultivos y escuchar las propuestas de los campesinos para buscar una estrategia
que permita erradicar las 116.000 hectáreas de coca sembradas hoy en Colombia.
Por eso, hace menos de un mes campesinos de nueve municipios del Putumayo y 37 mil indígenas incluidos los de la bota caucana se
reunieron para diseñar un plan de erradicación que ya le entregaron al Gobierno.
El objetivo es destruir los cultivos de coca en forma manual . De lo que se trata es de que no se sigan afectando las siembras lícitas
y de que nos dé una verdadera oportunidad de sustitución , asegura el gobernador indígena Aureliano Garreta Chindoy.
La única exigencia de campesinos e indígenas es que mientras prosperan los nuevos cultivos, el Gobierno les subsidie una especie de
salario que equivaldría a menos de la mitad de lo que hoy vale erradicar una hectárea con glifosato.
La propuesta ya la conoció el Plan de Sustitución de Cultivos Ilícitos (Plante), que prefiere mantenerse al margen de la discusión
sobre el programa de fumigación por considerar que no es de su competencia.
Mientras se buscan salidas ecológicas, el plan de fumigación arrecia: ya llegó al Catatumbo, donde campesinos y paramilitares
comenzaron esta semana a quejarse por sus efectos. A esto se suma la inminente activación de un batallón antinarcóticos de mil
hombres y la llegada de otras 60 aeronaves si se aprueba el llamado Plan Colombia.
A la par con la millonaria inversión, las cifras de la Policía Antinarcóticos y del propio Departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos,
revelan que el fenómeno de los narcocultivos crece desaforadamente (ver gráfica).
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Justicia
Fecha de publicación
28 de mayo de 2000
Autor
Unidad Investigativa
PUBLICIDAD
Volver arriba
Recibe las noticias de eltiempo.com en formato RSS
Empres-portafolio.com.co Annex 56
“Mayor Denounces Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 22Aug. 2000) Annex 56
▯
EL UNIVERSO
22 August 2000
MAYOR DENOUNCES FUMIGATIONS
Nueva Loja. (Elio Ortega). –Bolívar Botina, mayor of the population of Puerto Guzmán,
department of Putumayo, Colombia, denounced, in an interview to radio Sucumbíos, that at least
seven persons had died as a result of fumigations that are carried out in his jurisdiction starting
four months ago.
Botina declared that in the two preceding weeks, the population´s rejection, organizing protest
marches and forums, caused the fumigations to cease.
Two children
“They were normal persons, among them, two children under 12 that labored in the field in the
beginning of the month of august and after two to three days of the fumigations having been
carried out, they started to show fever, vomit and diarrhea and then the sudden death,” Botina
affirmed in an interview granted to reporter Ángel Rodrigo Sayo.
He added that, “the autopsies have not been able to carry out, but if it is proven that the deaths
were caused by fumigation, we will denounce it to the international courts of justice.
▯Annex 56Annex 56Annex 56 Annex 57
“In Mataje the Implementation of Plan Colombia Causes First Ravages”, LAHORA
(Quito, 18 Sept. 2000) Annex 57
▯
▯
LA HORA
18 September 2000
IN MATAJE IMPLEMENTATION OF
PLAN COLOMBIA CAUSES FIRST RAVAGES
Plan Colombia is in the midst of implementation; our fellow Ecuadorians have begun to
feel its first ravages. A commission was set up to monitor the plan.
The implementation of the famous Plan Colombia, apparently, has started to have negative
consequences on the inhabitants of northern populations in our country which border our
neighboring Colombia. Many individuals from the Mataje parish, border community with
Colombia, are suffering its first ravages.
“At this moment, skin infections, ongoing diarrhea and eye irritations have been caused,
seemingly as consequence of the fumigation of cocaine crops conducted by airplanes from our
neighboring country”, emphasized Paulina Nazareno Vivero, councilmember of the Atacames
district.
C OMMISSION HAS BEEN SET UP
She added that, for this reason, the District Council of San Lorenzo proceeded to constitute a
commission which would monitor Plan Colombia as its mission, to try and avoid the population
from being largely affected by this action.
The Commission is presided by Paulino Nazareno Vivero and Aldermen Roland Cabezas
Caicedo and Domingo Quintero Valencia form part of it as well.
“We possess certain information in the sense that the inhabitants of Mataje, in recent days, have
been suffering from skin infections, ongoing diarrhea and eye irritation. For this reason, we
decided to move ourselves to said area to gain knowledge about the reality of that which is
occurring and, in effect, both the parish nurse as well as the Political Lieutenant confirmed what
has already been noted,” assured Nazareno Vivero.
He affirmed that the inhabitants of Mataje expressed that Colombian helicopter and airplane
over-flights are frequent. “Of course, these are conducted on the other side of the river, that is,
on the Northern Country, but since this covers one same area, the harms of the fumigations are
affecting Ecuadorians,” he stated.
M IGRATION EXISTS
He added that Colombian peasants, populations belonging to the San Lorenzo district, have
started to arrive in communities such as San Francisco del Bogotá and Ricaurte.
“The concern is great among people from San Lorenzo because Plan Colombia will affect the
tourism and hospitality sectors, as well as the people dedicated to digging clams,” he exclaimed.Annex 57
▯
▯
He said that although it is true that the arrival of Colombians will increase the work force, the
sources of work will diminish, creating true social chaos. Taking into account easily deducible
consequences, the result is that people will not have enough income and will resort to
delinquency.
HOSPITAL WILL BE EQUIPPED
Additionally, the councilmember stated that Hospital Divina Providencia of San Lorenzo will be
equipped with an investment of 175 thousand dollars in equipment, computers, and additional
medical and paramedic personnel.
“The resources will be channeled by an Implementation Unit led by the Naval Base, Captain
Lenin (LOOHJLEOH), who informed /D▯ +RUD▯ that the improvements will be made with utmost
promptness, since the refurbishment of the hospital has the nature of “(LOOHJLEOH▯▯ people”,
Nazareno Vivero repeated.
The councilmember of San Lorenzo, Paulino Nazareno, concluded by stating that “Ombudsmen
from the Provincial Red Cross visited San Lorenzo last Saturday, aiming to engage in dialogue
with said district. The issues that they addressed had to do with discussions regarding first aid,
construction of ▯LOOHJLEOH▯▯ etc.”Annex 57Annex 57 Annex 58
“44Affected by the Fumigations”, EL COMERCIO (Quito, 22 Oct. 2000) Annex 58
EL COMERCIO
22 October 2000
44 AFFECTED BY THE FUMIGATIONS
In view of the fact that she is the wife of the president of Parish Junta, Beatriz Arroyo was able
to travel in the cabin of the dusty white truck, which makes two daily runs to transport the
population from San Lorenzo over to Mataje; her baggage consisted of two sacks of potatoes,
vegetables and legumes which are not available in her hometown, “well, over there, there is
plentiful conch, fish, and fresh water shrimp the coconut…”.
After crossing a narrow road, one reaches the parochial center of Mataje with a population of
150 inhabitants. A military detachment which has been under construction for three months is
located one and one half kilometers away from the center. The inhabitants of Mataje do not
know the cause for this “however, most likely it has to do with Plan Colombia,” says Beatriz
Arroyo.
As is the case for the rest of the people living along the border, there are no law enforcement
authorities in these areas. There has never been police protection.
The San Lorenzo military eventually got around to guarding the area. However, for those in
uniform, the construction of the unit is a routine procedure provided for in domestic security
activities. Upon reporting an emergency, the community is completely unprotected. The Naval
Base and the Port authorities are an hour away. The town has no telephone service or any other
means of communication.
Until the Plan Colombia announcement, there was no need for control, as the bonds of
friendship and family shared by the bordering towns have ancestral roots. According to land
owners, there has never been any danger, “because the neighboring populations have been
trading their products in Ecuador due to close proximity and since the express way was built.”
The president of the Parrochial Junta, Jorge Cortéz, says that so far, “no risky situations or the
presence of guerrilla members, or problems generating mistrust have arisen.”
In the outskirts of town, the Mataje health center, inaugurated last September 15 , has been
offering assistance to Ecuadorians and Colombians as a result of its strategic location.
Over a month ago, after the first fumigation of the coca plantations was carried out in
Colombian territory the health center funded by the World Bank, experienced a whirlwind of
activity. Reddened eyes, itching, and irritation, vomiting, and diarrhea, were the symptoms,
assured María Cevallos the area’s nurse. “After four days, the epidemic disappeared, and
apparently they have not fumigated again, which is why the epidemic has not reappeared.”
The exact cause for these diseases is not known precisely, but it has been attributed to the
Colombia Plan because Mataje is an arm of the Mira river in Colombia. The results of the
D125249.1Annex 58
water sample testing by the San Lorenzo Naval Base, and dispatched to Guayaquil however,
have still not been determined.
The medical report reveals that those affected were 26 children: 15 boys and 11 girls, and 18
adults. Twenty-nine other people were given assistance for the same problem in scattered
communities.
nd
On September 22 there was also a report involving water-poisoning killing fish and other
species close to the Molina bridge area before Mataje. “This could have been the fate of the
population/have spread to the population which is forced to drink water out of the river because
potable/drinking water is not available to them. Fortunately, they detected it in time/it was
detected in time,” says Cevallos.”
D125249.1Annex 58Annex 58 Annex 59
“No To Fumigation: Governors”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 15 Jan. 2001) Annex 59
▯
EL TIEMPO
15 January 2001
NO TO FUMIGATION: GOVERNORS
The governors of the departments of Caquetá, Cauca, Huila, Nariño, Putumayo and Tolima are
not in favor of the fumigation of illicit crops and therefore propose to the National Government
that the eradication of these crops should be effected manually.
[…]
Their proposal comes at a time in which the communities of southern Putumayo and several
political leaders in that department ask that the aerial spraying which began on December 22 be
suspended. The farmers complain that cassava, plantain and pepper crops were affected by these
operations.
Regional leaders argue that aerial spraying not only destroys the illicit crops, but also causes
severe damage to other plantations that grow in adjacent properties which have nothing to do
with illegal activities.
They also propose the creation of an oversight committee integrated by national and international
persons to monitor the process of manual eradication.
The governors of Huila, Juan de Jesus Cardenas, and Tolima, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo,
revealed that the proposal was discussed during a meeting of the six leaders and that the final
text is ready for the summit of thirty governors in mid-February.
When only one crop is sprayed, 50 or 100 farms in the vicinity of the sprayed crop are affected,
this means that the harming other crops is caused for one single crop, said the Huilan leader.
The governors believe that the reaching of agreements with farmers for manual eradication, as is
currently occurring in Putumayo, is a good alternative for the regions.
Covenants still remain in place.
Meanwhile, the presidential adviser for Convivencia and Seguridad Ciudadana ( &RKDELWDWLRQ▯
DQG▯ &LWL]HQ▯ 6DIHW\▯, Gonzalo de Francisco, denied that the government has violated its
commitment not to fumigate the Putumayo areas where communities expressed their intention to
accept manual eradication programs.
He noted that the spraying has been made in areas of Puerto Leguizamo, Guamués Valley and
San Miguel, where communities expressed their willingness to cooperate with the eradication
after the aerial spraying operations were initiated.
▯Annex 59
▯
The Government reaffirms its willingness to reach agreements with all communities in the
Putumayo, including those areas, said De Francis, noting that last Friday a new covenant was
established with indigenous leaders of the department to eradicate illicit crops.
Gilbert Latin, a spokesman for the indigenous people of the Lower Putumayo, expects this
agreement to suspend the fumigations, he said, which have been indiscriminate and resulted in
disease to animals and damage to subsistence crops.
De Francisco said the government promised the Indians to see if legal crops were affected. If that
situation is indeed found, we have offered to help recover these agricultural projects, he said.
We hope that aid will be immediate. We also hope that the agreements to avoid spraying include
the entire department and not a part of it, said the Chamber representative, Jorge Eliecer Coral.
Fumigation has also raised speculation that the FARC are preparing a new armed strike in
response to such operations. Amidst this scenario, a Government commission today travels to
Puerto Asis to endorse their willingness to establish crop substitution agreements and meet the
concerns of communities.
The committee shall be present at the signing of third voluntary eradication covenant with more
than 760 families in the department. This agreement will eliminate about 1,620 hectares of coca.
PHOTO:
Amid rumors of a new armed strike by the FARC, the Government today signed a new pact of
voluntary eradication in Putumayo.
Archive/ EL TIEMPO
Publication
eltiempo.com
Section
Politics
Date of Publication
15 January 2001
Author
NullValue
▯ Annex 59
Martes 19 de octubre de 2010 | Actualizado hace 8 minPico y placa Bogotá No Aplica Hoy MITIEMPO Ingreso | Registro
Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo
Sub
inicio debes saber debes hacer debes lee r secciones clasificados archivo ayudas
Síganos en:
Temas del día Álvaro Uribe Alcaldía de BogotáPartido de la U Juan Manuel Santos Procuraduría Policía de Bogotá
eltiempo.com / archivo
NO A FUMIGACIÓN: GOBERNADORES
Los gobernadores de los departamentos del Caquetá, Cauca, Huila, Nariño, Putumayo y Tolima no son partidarios de la fumigación de los cultivos ilícitos y por eso propondrán al
Gobierno Nacional que la erradicación de dichas siembras se efectúe a través del método manual.
Los gobernadores de los departamentos del Caquetá, Cauca, Huila, Nariño, Putumayo y Tolima no son partidarios de la fumigación de los cultivos ilícitos y por eso propondrán al
Gobierno Nacional que la erradicación de dichas siembras se efectúe a través del método manual.
Su propuesta se conoce en momentos en que las comunidades del sur del Putumayo y varios líderes políticos de ese departamento piden que se detengan las fumigaciones aéreas
que se iniciaron el 22 de diciembre. Los campesinos denuncian que cultivos de yuca, plátano y pimienta fueron afectados por esas operaciones.
Los mandatarios seccionales sostienen que la fumigación aérea no solo acaba con el cultivo ilícito, sino que también provoca severos daños a otros plantíos que crecen en
predios adyacentes y que nada tienen que ver con actividades ilegales.
Igualmente propondrán la conformación de una veeduría integrada por personalidades nacionales e internacionales para que efectúe el seguimiento sobre la forma cómo se
cumple el proceso de erradicación manual.
Los gobernadores del Huila, Juan de Jesús Cárdenas, y Tolima, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo, revelaron que la propuesta fue analizada durante una reunión de los seis
mandatarios y que su texto final quedará listo para la trigésima cumbre de gobernadores, a mediados de febrero.
Cuando se fumiga un solo cultivo se afectan 50 o 100 fincas que se encuentran en los alrededores del cultivo fumigado, eso quiere decir que por un solo cultivo se están
perjudicando las demás siembras , declaró el mandatario huilense.
Los gobernadores consideran que la concertación de pactos con los cultivadores para erradicar manualmente, tal como sucede en el Putumayo, es una buena alternativa para las
regiones.
Pactos siguen en pie.
Entre tanto, el consejero presidencial para la Convivencia y Seguridad Ciudadana, Gonzalo de Francisco, negó que el Gobierno haya incumplido su compromiso de no fumigar en
las zonas del Putumayo en donde las comunidades expresaron su voluntad de acogerse a programas de erradicación manual.
Señaló que las fumigaciones se han efectuado en zonas de Puerto Leguízamo, Valle del Guamués y San Miguel, en donde las comunidades manifestaron que estaban dispuestas a
concertar la erradicación después de que se iniciaron las operaciones aéreas.
El Gobierno ratifica su voluntad de firmar acuerdos con todas las comunidades del Putumayo, incluidas las de esas zonas , añadió De Francisco, al señalar que el pasado viernes
se estableció un nuevo pacto de erradicación con líderes indígenas del departamento.
Gilbert Latín, vocero de los indígenas del Bajo Putumayo, espera que con este acuerdo se suspendan las fumigaciones que, según él, han sido indiscriminadas y han provocado
enfermedades en los animales y daños en cultivos de pan coger.
De Francisco dijo que el Gobierno se comprometió con los indígenas a averiguar si hubo sembrados legales afectados. Si se comprueba esa situación, se ofrecerá ayuda para
recuperar esos proyectos agrícolas , dijo.
Esperamos que la ayuda sea inmediata. También esperamos que los acuerdos para evitar las fumigaciones incluyan a todo el departamento y no a una parte de él , dijo el
representante a la Cámara, Jorge Eliécer Coral.
Las fumigaciones también han despertado las versiones de que las Farc preparan un nuevo paro armado en respuesta a esas operaciones. En medio de ese panorama, una
comisión del Gobierno viaja hoy a Puerto Asís para refrendar su disposición de establecer los pactos de sustitución de cultivos y conocer las inquietudes de las comunidades.
La comisión estará presente en la firma del tercer pacto de erradicación voluntaria con más de 760 familias del departamento. Este acuerdo permitirá eliminar unas 1.620
hectáreas de coca.
FOTO:.
En medio de los rumores sobre un nuevo paro armado de las Farc, el Gobierno firma hoy un nuevo pacto de erradicación voluntaria en el Putumayo.
Archivo/EL TIEMPO
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Política
Fecha de publicación
15 de enero de 2001
Autor
NULLVALUEAnnex 59 Annex 60
Juan Forero, “No Crops Spared in Colombia’s Coca War”, THE NEWYORK TIMES
(New York, 31 Jan. 2001) Annex 60
No Crops Spared in Colombia's Coca
War
By JUAN FORERO
Published: January 31, 2001
SANTA ANA, Colombia, Jan. 29 — With considerable training and financing from
the United States, the Colombian Army has begun an aggressive land and air assault on
the country's coca-growing heartland, claiming to have killed a quarter of all coca crops
there in the last six weeks.
Low-flying aerial spray planes -- protected from groundfire by two elite battalions that
are dropped into coca fields -- have blanketed four regions of Caquetá and Putumayo
Provinces, spraying herbicide over 65,785 acres as of Sunday, according to newly
released military estimates. The two provinces are believed to produce three-quarters of
Colombia's coca, the leaves of which are used to make cocaine.
Although aerial defoliation of coca has been used across Colombia for 10 years,
government officials here say this is the first serious effort in this isolated region. The
effort is a centerpiece of President Andrés Pastrana's Plan Colombia, a multibillion-
dollar effort to cut Colombia's coca crop in half by 2005 and, with it, a crucial revenue
source for leftist guerrillas who are active in the area.
To reduce the supply of drugs, the United States has pledged $1.1 billion toward that
plan, mostly in the form of transport helicopters and training for antinarcotics troops.
Their role is to protect spray planes and destroy coca-processing laboratories in the
jungle.
The aerial eradication has not come without a price. Farmers in the Valley of Guamuez
in northwestern Putumayo, a swath containing the largest concentration of coca, have
complained that legal crops like plantains and yucca were destroyed along with coca.
The farmers are typically poor, and some, caught in a violent world between rebels and
paramilitaries, turned to coca to eke out a better subsistence.
''I have the proof to show that it wasn't just the coca farmers who have suffered,'' said
Carlos Alberto Palacios, secretary of human development in the town of La Hormiga.Annex 60
''We believe people will go hungry,'' said Mr. Palacios, an expert on the coca trade.
''They've fumigated everything, fields and plantain rows and yucca and everything that
people need to live on.'' Farmers have also complained of vomiting, rashes and other
side effects.
On a half-hour helicopter flight with Gen. Mario Montoya over what was once
Colombia's most bountiful coca-producing region, fields that once were bright green
with coca and other plants were a pale brown, wiped free of vegetation for miles around.
The tin roofs of farmers' huts stood out, shining in the sun in a sea of drab brown.
Military figures show that 45,551 acres of coca had been eradicated in that area -- a
triangle comprising the towns of La Hormiga, San Miguel and the western edge of
Puerto Asís -- as of Sunday.
''This is the only way,'' the general said, taking a look through the window of the copter.
''We don't have another way.''
General Montoya, who is in charge of the effort, said as much as 250,000 acres in the
two provinces was dedicated to coca before spraying began Dec. 19, a figure far higher
than an estimate last January of 185,000.
United States officials, who provide the Colombian authorities with satellite maps that
help pinpoint coca fields, confirmed General Montoya's assessments. American officials
also said the spraying -- using glyphosate, a powerful chemical found in many pesticides
-- is at least 90 percent effective in first-time use, wiping out fields within a few weeks.
General Montoya said that once a field has been sprayed, it takes three months before
farmers can replant.
Mr. Palacios, the coca trade expert, and other town officials said farmers did cultivate
coca, but also a host of legal crops, as well as cattle and other livestock. The defoliation,
Mr. Palacios said, has prompted many farmers and their families to abandon their
homes.
The health department of Putumayo is in the process of collecting testimony from
farmers whose lands were sprayed, said Nancy Sánchez, who is supervising the effort as
coordinator of the department's human rights section. The affidavits will be presented to
doctors studying the effects of the defoliation, as well as the Colombian government. Annex 60
''There's complaints about intoxication, diarrhea, vomiting, skin rashes, red eyes,
headaches,'' Ms. Sánchez said. ''In the children, above all, there are ill effects on their
skin.''
American officials dispute such reports, insisting that numerous tests on glyphosate
have demonstrated that the pesticide cannot cause harm to humans or animals.
Nonetheless, directions on the application of glyphosate products in the United States
warn users not to use ''this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons,
either directly or through drift.''
The Colombian government, which is concerned about how aerial spraying will be
viewed overseas by potential financial backers, points out that the farmers whose fields
were sprayed had ample opportunity to sign pacts that would have prevented aerial
eradication.
Under a program that already has 2,000 signatories across Putumayo, the farmers in
the Valley of Guamuez could have agreed to yank their coca plants in return for up to
$1,000 worth of livestock and food per family. Although many farmers across Putumayo
remain suspicious about the government's promises, the government has pledged to
those who sign that markets for legal crops are being developed.
''The people from this zone had not shown up,'' said President Pastrana's point man on
Putumayo, referring to the farmers in the Valley of Guamuez. The official, Gonzalo de
Francisco, added, ''These people can't be angry with the fumigation; they were doing
something outside legal norms.''
Mr. de Francisco has also noted that destroying coca farms prevents the use of millions
of gallons of pesticides and precursor chemicals needed to produce cocaine annually.
Eduardo Gamarra, an expert on the coca trade at Florida International University in
Miami, said the damage from coca farming and the processing of coca leaves has ''some
very serious environmental implications.''Annex 60 Annex 61
“The Drama of Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 10 July 2001) Annex 61
EL UNIVERSO
10 July 2001
THE DRAMA OF FUMIGATIONS
GUSTAVO ABAD
Sucumbíos - When Rosa Altamirano saw that the Finalín pills she kept at her bedside
had run out, she had a panic attack.
How was she able to relieve the headache and chills of her six children? What would
she do when the youngest began to burn with a fever? The only medication she had left was a
nearly empty tube of Benzoderma, which served only to relieve the itching of her youngest,
Robinson, barely 6 months old, who had been afflicted by a rash.
Rosa recently turned 41 years old, 15 years of which she has lived in the 10 de Agosto
community, a few kilometers from the border with Colombia, north of Sucumbíos, where
residents say that the aerial fumigation carried out on coca plantations as part of Plan
Colombia, has made them sick, since three or four months ago, most residents have reported
suffering from headaches, dizziness, breathing difficulties, skin irritations and stomach pains.
Edith, one of Rosa’s daughters, as well as her friend Gisella, both 5 years old, play
holding hands in the town’s Cayambe school playground. Spots and lacerations are evident
on their respective skins, a product of infections that never heal.
The teacher, Luis Quezada, who has lived in the area for 25 years, is certain that it has
all been caused by the fumigations. “Look, I will not say we never had diseases here, because
we have, but three months ago things worsened. The children, who previously only played in
the classroom, now fall asleep on their desks with fatigue and heaviness of the body, and they
complain of stomach pains...”
At 10 de Agosto, we rarely see a health team, and the villagers are forced to attend the
Vinicio Iza de Nueva Loja hospital, where the number of patients with respiratory problems,
skin irritations, gastrointestinal diseases, acute diarrhea, febrile syndromes, urinary tract
disorders and so on, has increased in the last semester according to statistical records.
However, 10 de Agosto is not the only population affected, so are the majority of
populations within 10 kilometers of the border line, from the vicinity of La Bermeja to the
surrounding area of Puerto El Carmen, according to testimonies from villagers
A deadly spray
Several kilometers to the east and only 3 from the boundary line is La Charapa, an
agricultural cooperative operated by the Association of Afro-Ecuadorians in Sucumbíos
(”$VRFLDFLyQ▯GH▯1HJURV▯GH▯6XFXPEtRV´▯ (Asone), where crops have been almost reduced to
zero.
Daniel Alarcon, a black 51 year old from Esmeraldas, president of the association,
remembers how, four or five months ago, a strange rain was swept onto his crops by the
wind, and an unbearable smell hung in the air.Annex 61
“That was a sign that they were fumigating in front_ as he points to the San Miguel
River area, which forms the border. From here, when we could not see them, we could at
least hear the noise of the planes. This is what made us sick, killed the plants as well as our
animals...” says Daniel, bare-chested, with machete in hand and big rubber boots to get
around the marshes.
In La Charapa, everyone is scared. Over 130 chickens used to be in María Reyna’s
farm, now there aren’t even 20 because the rest died as a result of seizures with their peaks
still on the ground. Of the ten pigs they had, there is not one left, the last one died last week
and its owners were unable to find any remedy.
“How could we save the animals if we ourselves were about to die...?” says Daniel, a
lifelong farmer, as he shows the burnt banana bunches, as if a flamethrower had been used to
burn everything.
Beyond that, corn crops were left half-grown, the ears of corn died before the grains
were fully formed. The rice field, usually green, is now yellow and its grains failed to
develop. Annex 61
▯
EL UNIVERSO
▯▯▯GH▯MXOLR▯GHO▯▯▯▯▯▯
El drama de las fumigaciones
GUSTAVO ABAD
6XFXPEtRV▯▯&XDQGR▯URVD▯$OWDPLUDQR▯YLR▯ODV▯SDVWLOODV▯GH▯)LQDOtQ▯TXH▯JXDUGDED▯MXQWR▯D▯VX▯
FDPD▯VH▯KDEtDQ▯WHUPLQDGR▯▯WXYR▯XQ▯DWDTXH▯GH▯GHVHVSHUDFLyQ▯▯
¢<▯DKRUD▯FRPR▯LED▯D▯FDOPDU▯HO▯GRORU▯GH▯FDEH]D▯\▯ORV▯HVFDORIUtRV▯GH▯VXV▯VHLV▯KLMRV"▯¢4XH▯
KDUtD▯FXDQGR▯ORV▯PDV▯SHTXHxRV▯FRPHQ]DUDQ▯D▯DUGHU▯HQ▯ILHEUH"▯/D▯~QLFD▯PHGLFLQD▯TXH▯OH▯TXHGDED▯
HUD▯XQ▯WXER▯GH▯%HQ]RGHUPD▯D▯SXQWR▯GH▯WHUPLQDUVH▯▯TXH▯QR▯OH▯VHUYLD▯PDV▯TXH▯SDUD▯DOLYLDU▯OD▯
SLFD]yQ▯GH▯OD▯SLHO▯GH▯5RELQVRQ▯▯HO▯PDV▯SHTXHxR▯▯GH▯DSHQDV▯▯▯PHVHV▯▯DWRUPHQWDGR▯SRU▯HO▯
VDOSXOOLGR▯▯
+DFH▯SRFR▯5RVD▯FXPSOLy▯▯▯▯DxRV▯▯▯▯▯GH▯ORV▯FXDOHV▯ORV▯KD▯YLYLGR▯HQ▯OD▯FRPXQLGDG▯GH▯▯▯▯
GH▯$JRVWR▯▯D▯SRFRV▯NLOyPHWURV▯GH▯OD▯IURQWHUD▯FRQ▯&RORPELD▯▯DO▯QRUWH▯GH▯6XFXPEtRV▯▯GRQGH▯ORV▯
SREODGRUHV▯DVHJXUDQ▯TXH▯ODV▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯DpUHDV▯TXH▯VH▯UHDOL]DQ▯VREUH▯ODV▯SODQWDFLRQHV▯GH▯FRFD▯
PRPR▯SDUWH▯GHO▯3ODQ▯&RORPELD▯▯ORV▯KD▯HQIHUPDGR▯▯SXHV▯KDFH▯WUHV▯R▯FXDWUR▯PHVHV▯OD▯PD\RUtD▯
FRPHQWR▯D▯VXIULU▯GRORUHV▯GH▯FDEH]D▯▯PDUHRV▯▯GLILFXOWDGHV▯SDUD▯UHVSLUDU▯▯LUULWDFLRQHV▯GH▯OD▯SLHO▯\▯
GRORUHV▯HVWRPDFDOHV▯▯
(GLWK▯▯XQD▯GH▯ODV▯KLMDV▯GH▯5RVD▯▯\▯VX▯DPLJD▯*LVHOOD▯▯DPEDV▯GH▯▯▯DxRV▯▯MXHJDQ▯WRPDGDV▯GH▯
ODV▯PDQRV▯HQ▯OD▯HVFXHOD▯&D\DPEH▯GH▯OD▯SREODFLyQ▯▯▯6REUH▯VX▯SLHO▯VRQ▯HYLGHQWHV▯ODV▯PDQFKDV▯\▯
ODFHUDFLRQHV▯TXH▯OHV▯GHMR▯OD▯LQIHFFLyQ▯TXH▯QR▯WHUPLQD▯GH▯FXUDUVH▯▯
(O▯SURIHVRU▯/XLV▯4XH]DGD▯TXH▯YLYH▯KDFH▯▯▯▯DxRV▯HQ▯OD▯]RQD▯▯HVWD▯VHJXUR▯TXH▯WRGR▯KD▯VLGR▯
SURYRFDGR▯SRU▯ODV▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯▯³0LUH▯▯QR▯YR\▯D▯GHFLU▯TXH▯QXQFD▯KXER▯HQIHUPHGDGHV▯DTXt▯▯SXHV▯
VL▯ODV▯KD\▯▯SHUR▯KDFH▯WUHV▯PHVHV▯ODV▯FRVDV▯VH▯DJUDYDURQ▯▯▯/RV▯QLxRV▯▯TXH▯DQWHV▯VROR▯MXJDEDQ▯HQ▯
FODVHV▯▯DKRUD▯VH▯TXHGDQ▯GRUPLGRV▯VREUH▯ORV▯SXSLWUHV▯▯WLHQHQ▯FDQVDQFLR▯\▯SHVDGH]▯GHO▯FXHUSR▯▯\▯VH▯
TXHMDQ▯GH▯GRORUHV▯GH▯HVWRPDJR«´▯
$▯▯▯▯GH▯$JRVWR▯FDVL▯QXQFD▯OOHJD▯XQD▯EULJDGD▯GH▯VDOXG▯▯\▯ORV▯SREODGRUHV▯VH▯YHQ▯IRU]DGRV▯D▯
DFXGLU▯DO▯KRVSLWDO▯9LQLFLR▯,]D▯GH▯1XHYD▯/RMD▯▯GRQGH▯HO▯QXPHUR▯GH▯SDFLHQWHV▯FRQ▯SUREOHPDV▯
UHVSLUDWRULRV▯▯LUULWDFLRQHV▯D▯OD▯SLHO▯▯HQIHUPHGDGHV▯JDVWURLQWHVWLQDOHV▯▯FXDGURV▯GLDUUHLFRV▯▯
VtQGURPHV▯IHEULOHV▯▯DIHFFLRQHV▯DO▯DSDUDWR▯XULQDULR▯\▯RWURV▯▯KD▯DXPHQWDGR▯HQ▯HO▯XOWLPR▯VHPHVWUH▯▯GH▯
DFXHUGR▯DO▯UHJLVWUR▯HVWDGtVWLFR▯▯
3HUR▯▯▯▯GH▯$JRVWR▯QR▯HV▯OD▯~QLFD▯SREODFLyQ▯DIHFWDGD▯▯OR▯VRQ▯OD▯PD\RUtD▯GH▯ODV▯TXH▯VH▯
HQFXHQWUDQ▯D▯PHQRV▯GH▯▯▯▯NLOyPHWURV▯GH▯OD▯OtQHD▯GH▯IURQWHUD▯▯GHVGH▯ODV▯FHUFDQtDV▯GH▯/D▯%HUPHMD▯
KDVWD▯ODV▯LQPHGLDFLRQHV▯GH▯SXHUWR▯(O▯&DUPHQ▯▯VHJ~Q▯WHVWLPRQLRV▯GH▯ORV▯SREODGRUHV▯▯
▯Annex 61
▯
Una rociada mortal
9DULRV▯NLOyPHWURV▯KDFLD▯HO▯2ULHQWH▯\▯VROR▯▯▯GH▯OD▯OtQHD▯GH▯IURQWHUD▯HVWD▯/D▯&KDUDSD▯▯XQD▯
FRRSHUDWLYD▯DJUtFROD▯PDQHMDGD▯SRU▯OD▯$VRFLDFLyQ▯GH▯1HJURV▯GH▯6XFXPEtRV▯▯$VRQH▯▯▯GRQGH▯ORV▯
FXOWLYRV▯KDQ▯TXHGDGR▯UHGXFLGRV▯FDVL▯D▯FHUR▯▯
'DQLHO▯$ODUFRQ▯▯XQ▯QHJUR▯HVPHUDOGHxR▯GH▯▯▯▯DxRV▯▯SUHVLGHQWH▯GH▯OD▯DVRFLDFLyQ▯▯UHFXHUGD▯
FRPR▯KDFH▯FXDWUR▯R▯FLQFR▯PHVHV▯XQD▯H[WUDxD▯OOXYLD▯OOHJDED▯DUUDVWUDGD▯SRU▯HO▯YLHQWR▯KDVWD▯VXV▯
KXHUWDV▯▯\▯XQ▯RORU▯LQVRSRUWDEOH▯VH▯LQVWDODED▯HQ▯HO▯DLUH▯▯
³(VD▯HUD▯VHxDO▯GH▯TXH▯DO▯IUHQWHB▯VHxDOD▯KDFLD▯OD▯]RQD▯GHO▯UtR▯6DQ▯0LJXHO▯▯TXH▯GHOLPLWD▯OD▯
IURQWHUD▯▯HVWDEDQ▯IXPLJDQGR▯▯▯'HVGH▯DTXt▯▯FXDQGR▯QR▯SRGtDPRV▯YHUODV▯▯SRU▯OR▯PHQRV▯
HVFXFKiEDPRV▯HO▯UXLGR▯GH▯ODV▯DYLRQHWDV▯▯(VR▯IXH▯OR▯TXH▯QRV▯HQIHUPy▯▯PDWy▯ODV▯SODQWDV▯\▯HOLPLQy▯
QXHVWURV▯DQLPDOHV«´▯▯GLFH▯'DQLHO▯▯FRQ▯HO▯WRUVR▯GHVQXGR▯▯PDFKHWH▯HQ▯PDQR▯\▯HQRUPHV▯ERWDV▯GH▯
FDXFKR▯SDUD▯EXUODU▯ODV▯FLpQDJDV▯▯
(Q▯/D▯&KDUDSD▯WRGRV▯HVWiQ▯DVXVWDGRV▯▯(Q▯OD▯ILQFD▯GH▯0DUtD▯5H\QD▯KDEtD▯PDV▯GH▯▯▯▯▯
JDOOLQDV▯▯DKRUD▯QR▯TXHGDQ▯QL▯▯▯▯▯SRUTXH▯HO▯UHVWR▯PXULy▯FRQ▯HO▯SLFR▯D▯WLHUUD▯HQ▯PHGLR▯GH▯
FRQYXOVLRQHV▯▯▯'H▯ORV▯GLH]▯FKDQFKRV▯TXH▯WHQLD▯\D▯QR▯TXHGD▯QL▯XQR▯▯HO▯XOWLPR▯PXULy▯OD▯VHPDQD▯
SDVDGD▯▯VLQ▯TXH▯VXV▯GXHxRV▯DWLQDUDQ▯UHPHGLR▯DOJXQR▯▯
³¢<▯FyPR▯tEDPRV▯D▯VDOYDU▯D▯ORV▯DQLPDOHV▯VL▯QRVRWURV▯PLVPRV▯HVWiEDPRV▯D▯SXQWR▯GH▯
PRULU«"´▯▯GLFH▯'DQLHO▯▯DJULFXOWRU▯GH▯WRGD▯OD▯YLGD▯▯\▯PXHVWUD▯ORV▯UDFLPRV▯GH▯SOiWDQR▯TXHPDGRV▯▯
FRVR▯VL▯XQ▯ODQ]DOODPDV▯ORV▯KXELHUD▯DOFDQ]DGR▯D▯WRGRV▯▯
0DV▯DOOi▯▯OD▯SODQWDFLyQ▯GH▯PDt]▯VH▯TXHGR▯D▯PHGLR▯FUHFHU▯▯ODV▯PD]RUFDV▯VH▯PXULHURQ▯DQWHV▯
GH▯IRUPDU▯SRU▯FRPSOHWH▯ORV▯JUDQRV▯▯▯/D▯FHPHQWHUD▯GH▯DUUR]▯▯QRUPDOPHQWH▯YHUGH▯▯DKRUD▯VH▯YH▯
DPDULOOHQWD▯\▯ORV▯JUDQRV▯QR▯OOHJDURQ▯D▯IRUPDUVH▯▯▯
▯
▯
▯ ▯▯▯▯▯▯ Annex 62
“Fumigation Dispute”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 22 July 2001) Annex 62
▯
EL TIEMPO
22 July 2001
FUMIGATION DISPUTE
In the highlands everyone was fighting to get even a drop of water. The farmers in the
agricultural town of the “Macizo caucano” ran last Saturday with pots, buckets and cans to
collect water in streams other than the stream near the “El Oso” ravine, which feeds the
aqueduct.
The uproar was caused by the mayor’s (Miller Cerón) announcement, who gave the order to
suspend the consumption of water from the watershed, since the fumigation of illicit crops in
Cauca and Nariño would begin that day.
Cerón said that he would not jeopardize the health of the 1,800 inhabitants of 14 villages who get
water from the ravine, as he claimed last year that the spraying of glyphosate contaminated the
water source and people suffered from poisoning, gastric problems, and eye and skin rashes.
In this county, there are only 15 poppy hectares, so I think the government should suspend the
spraying, claimed the mayor.
But the order was not reversed. Last Monday, President Andres Pastrana told the governors of
Cauca, Floro Tunubalá, and Nariño, Parmenio Cuellar, who traveled to Bogotá on behalf of six
departments in the south, that spraying would not be stopped.
And although the aircraft had already begun to spray illegal crops in eleven municipalities in
southern and eastern Cauca, governors still maintain the hope that the Government will accept
manually eradicating the crops in six months and stop the spraying.
For now, the Counter Narcotics Police reported the destruction of 366 hectares of poppies, of the
existing 1,800 and 655 of the 2,570 coca hectares.
Critical week
Due to the protests over the spraying, the government's eradication program had a critical week.
Whilst the Ombudsman, Eduardo Cifuentes, and the controller, Carlos Ossa, demanded that the
government immediately stop the spraying, the Ministry of Environment defended them and said
they had the support of that Agency, and the U.S. ambassador, Ann Patterson, said they would
not be suspended.
Gabriel Merchan Benavides, head of the National Narcotics Directorate (DNE), the state entity
responsible for the eradication plan, came out in defense of the glyphosate program and stated
that it is proving effective in reducing crops.
It wields statistics from the Integrated System of Illicit Crop Monitoring (SIMCI) as evidence,
comprised by the UN, the anti narcotic police and the Colombian Agency for International
Cooperation (ACCI), that the illicit crops grew only by 2 percent, as opposed to previous years
where the increase was 25 percent annually.
▯Annex 62
▯
The satellite images show that while in 1999 there were 160,000 hectares of coca crops, these
crops grew to 163,000 hectares last year.
Merchán stated that the criticisms and protests by Southern governors and other sectors are
unfounded, because of the total hectares, 65 percent (about 63,000 hectares) are made up of
industrial crops, in other words, more than 3 hectares, and those are the only ones that are
fumigated.
Aerial spraying is carried out based on satellite photos and maps, in other words, in very specific
areas, so that subsistence farmers crops need not be affected, maintains Merchán.
He argues that complaints about the harmful effects of glyphosate on the environment, humans
and animals have no scientific basis. (See box).
Regional Complaints.
But Cauca farmers do not agree. Although the director of the Narcotics Police, Gustavo Socha,
said that they have not contaminated any tributary and that everything is a conspiracy by drug
traffickers who are against the spraying, they say that several people have reported health
problems.
Hernán Molano, a health technician at Balboa Hospital, said that several people had been
admitted into the center this week with nausea, headaches and stomach problems, apparently due
to the effects of glyphosate. Meanwhile, communities of La Vega, in the south of Cauca,
reported the deaths of hundreds of fish from an indigenous fish farm.
For farmers in northern Colombia, where the crops have already been sprayed, the negative
consequences of these sprays are continuing.
The eradication of 35,000 coca crop hectares in seven municipalities of southern Bolívar, where
spraying began on February 17 for nearly two months, has left serious consequences.
People are distressed because the losses were many, the pastures and the licit crops were
destroyed, said a farmer, who has been unemployed since March.
And in Manaure (Cesar), in the highlands of Perija, where the police have sprayed 500 hectares
this year, there is disagreement. The Secretary of the Interior of the municipality, Jose Maria
Anez, said glyphosate fumigations have caused the loss of more than 100 hectares of tree tomato,
“lulo” and onion. In addition, he said 70 families have left the Highlands, on the border with
Venezuela, and have come to the main municipality.
The situation is similar in Sardinata and Tibú (Norte of Santander), where 7,000 hectares of coca
were sprayed between May and June in “La Gabarra” and “Las Mercedes”. Rafael Arciniegas, a
community leader in “La Gabarra”, said that the spraying left unemployment and hunger,
because aside from the coca plants, the poison burned plantain, cassava and cane.
Is there a substitute?
▯ Annex 62
▯
The protest is not only against the alleged damages caused by glyphosate, but also against crop
substitution programs.
Spokesmen for the National Alternative Development Plan (Plante) claim that there has been
support and affirm that substitution programs this year have benefited over 15,300 families with
more than 5,000 hectares of production projects and 47,000 people with health and education
services.
However, protests are being heard from senior officials to farmers. The Ombudsman said in a
letter to the Minister of Justice that there is no real substitution program, apart from the attempts
that are being pursued in Putumayo.
Farming associations from Cantagallo, San Pablo, Simiti, Santa Rosa, Morales, Rio Viejo
Arenal, municipalities in southern Bolívar, say that at least 20,000 people who made a living
from farming, scraping and processing coca paste are out of work and claiming government aid.
Many of those displaced have returned to their farms to collect what little they have left, others
remained on their land and continued to cultivate coca leaf, as crop substitution projects have not
started running in the region.
Crop substitution was also the main request of the pickers who protested for eight days in the
urban area of Tibu. There, the alternative program has not started, although Plante executives
assured the governor of North Santander, Juan Alcides Santaella, that it would begin in July.
Whilst this debate goes on, ranging between high-ranking government officials to communities,
the farmers of the highlands will continue to keep water in pots, until anti- narcotic aircrafts no
longer fly over the area.
PHOTO:
1. The government says that the aerial spraying of glyphosate will not stop, but will consider any
cases of small farmers in Cauca and Nariño.
Glyphosate in sight.
The Round Up or Glyphosate is a herbicide liquid for weed control which, according to the
production company, Monsanto, and the Ministry of Health of Colombia, is slightly toxic.
Its use is widespread in agriculture, especially to mature sugar cane.
Those who advocate for the product, among which are the National Narcotics Directorate
(DNE), say that 85 percent of glyphosate that reaches Colombia is used on legal crops.
It is only 15 percent which is used for spraying coca leaf and opium poppy crops, said Gabriel
Merchan Benavides, head of the DNE.
Merchán bases his comments on the study entitled Evaluation of Safety and Risk to Humans in
the use of Round Up, which has 186 research cases involving glyphosate.
These studies conclude that glyphosate absorption in humans is low and is eliminated before
metabolizing, with no genetic effects, cancer or fertility problems, he adds.
▯Annex 62
▯
Meanwhile, Marcos Alvarez, of the Ministry of Health of Ecuador, where it appears spraying
could extend to, claims that glyphosate exposure causes irritation of mucous membranes, blood
disorders, it reduces the oxygen content and causes neurological changes that prevent muscle
contractions.
He also says it may produce carcinogenic substances when in contact with the land.
Warning on chemicals used by coca growers
Research conducted by the Center for Information, Training and Research for the Amazon
Service (Cifisam) and UNICEF, in April 1997, published last year, said that conditions in
children and adults in areas of coca leaf crops are due to the use of chemicals by growers.
The chemicals used in coca cultivation (sulfuric acid, caustic soda, permanganate, gasoline,
ether, acetone and cement, among others), are highly flammable, toxic and / or irritants, says the
research.
According to the study, the effects on children and people who handle these chemicals include
the emergence of progressive allergies, facial disfigurement the destruction of tissue, airway
poisoning and destruction of ocular tissue.
During the second half of 96, in the medical center of Cartagena del Chaira, two cases were
detected of children born with birth defects. One of the newborns had no nasal septum and the
other had a defect in the skull and spine.
Doctors presume they are directly related to the mothers staying in areas of illicit crops.
Publication:
eltiempo.com
Section:
General Information
Date of Publication:
22 July 2001
Author: “De la Redaccion Nacional”
▯ Annex 62
eltiempo.com / archivo
TEMPESTAD POR FUMIGACIÓN
En La Sierra todos luchaban por conseguir siquiera una gota de agua. Los campesinos de este municipio agrícola del Macizo caucano corrían el sábado pasado con ollas, baldes y
canecas para recoger el líquido en otros riachuelos diferentes a la quebrada El Oso, que alimenta al acueducto.
En La Sierra todos luchaban por conseguir siquiera una gota de agua. Los campesinos de este municipio agrícola del Macizo caucano corrían el sábado pasado con ollas, baldes y
canecas para recoger el líquido en otros riachuelos diferentes a la quebrada El Oso, que alimenta al acueducto.
El alboroto fue ocasionado por el anuncio del alcalde, Miller Cerón, quien ordenó suspender el consumo de agua que se toma de la microcuenca, pues ese día comenzaba la
fumigación de los cultivos ilícitos en Cauca y Nariño.
Cerón aseguró que no pondría en riesgo la salud de los 1.800 habitantes de 14 veredas que se abastecen de esa quebrada, pues, según él, el año pasado las fumigaciones con
glifosato contaminaron la fuente hídrica y la gente padeció de intoxicaciones, problemas gástricos, en los ojos y brotes epidérmicos.
En este municipio solo hay 15 hectáreas con amapola, por eso creo que el Gobierno debe suspender las fumigaciones , clamó el Alcalde.
Pero la orden no tenía reversa. El pasado lunes, el presidente Andrés Pastrana les dijo a los gobernadores de Cauca, Floro Tunubalá, y Nariño, Parmenio Cuéllar, que viajaron a
Bogotá en representación de seis departamentos del sur, que la fumigación no se detendría.
Y aunque los aviones ya comenzaron a fumigar los cultivos ilícitos, en once municipios del sur y el oriente del Cacua, los gobernadores aún conservan la esperanza de que el
Gobierno acepte erradicar manualmente en seis meses y suspenda la aspersión.
Por ahora, la Policía Antinarcóticos reporta la destrucción de 366 hectáreas de amapola, de las 1.800 existentes, y 655 hectáreas de coca, de las 2.570.
Semana crítica.
Debido a las protestas que generaron estas fumigaciones, el programa gubernamental de erradicación tuvo una semana crítica.
Mientras el defensor del Pueblo, Eduardo Cifuentes, y el contralor, Carlos Ossa, exigieron al Gobierno suspender inmediatamente las fumigaciones, el Ministerio del Medio
Ambiente las defendió y aseguró que tenían el aval de esa cartera, y la embajadora de E.U., Ann Patterson, dijo que no se suspenderán.
Gabriel Merchán Benavides, jefe de la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes (DNE), entidad encargada del plan estatal de erradicación, salió en defensa del programa con
glifosato y afirmó que ya está demostrando que es eficaz para disminuir los cultivos.
Esgrime como pruebas las estadísticas del Sistema Integrado de Monitoreo de Cultivos Ilícitos (Simci), integrado por la ONU, la Policía Antinarcóticos y la Agencia Colombiana de
Cooperación Internacional (Acci), los cultivos ilícitos crecieron un 2 por ciento, cuando el incremento en los últimos años fue de 25 por ciento anual.
Las imágenes satelitales muestran que mientras en 1999 había 160.000 hectáreas de cultivos de coca, el año pasado esos sembrados crecieron a 163.000 hectáreas.
Merchán aseguró que las críticas y protestas de los gobernadores del sur y de otros sectores no tienen fundamento, porque del total de hectáreas sembradas, 65 por ciento (unas
63.000 hectáreas) corresponde a cultivos industriales, es decir, más de 3 hectáreas, y esas son las únicas que se están fumigando.
La aspersión aérea se hace con base en fotos de satélite y en mapas, es decir en áreas muy específicas, por lo que los cultivos campesinos de subsistencia no tienen por qué
afectarse , sostiene Merchán.
Agrega que las denuncias sobre los efectos dañinos del glifosato en el medio ambiente, el ser humano y los animales no tienen asidero científico. (ver recuadro).
Quejas regionales.
Pero los campesinos del Cauca no opinan lo mismo. Pese a que el director de la Policía Antinarcóticos, Gustavo Socha, dice que ellos no han contaminado ningún afluente y que
todo se trata de un complot de narcotraficantes contra la fumigación , ellos dicen que varias personas han presentado problemas de salud.
Hernán Molano, técnico de saneamiento del hospital de Balboa, informó que durante esta semana ingresaron a ese centro varias personas con náuseas, dolor de cabeza y
problemas estomacales, al parecer por los efectos del glifosato. Entre tanto, las comunidades de La Vega, en el sur del Cauca, denunciaron la muerte de cientos de peces de
una cooperativa piscícola indígena.
Para los campesinos del norte de Colombia, donde ya se fumigó, las consecuencias negativas por estas aspersiones no se han acabado.
La erradicación de 35.000 hectáreas de cultivos de hoja de coca en siete municipios del sur de Bolívar, iniciadas el 17 de febrero y durante casi dos meses, dejaron graves
consecuencias.
La gente está angustiada porque los perjuicios fueron muchísimos; los potreros y los cultivos lícitos fueron arrasados , afirmó un campesino, sin trabajo desde marzo pasado.
Y en Manaure (Cesar), en la Serranía del Perijá, donde la Policía ha fumigado este año 500 hectáreas, hay inconformismo. El secretario de Interior de ese municipio, José María
Añez, afirmó que las fumigaciones con glisfosato han ocasionado la pérdida de más de 100 hectáreas de cultivos de tomate de árbol, lulo y cebolla. Además, aseguró que unas 70
familias han salido de la Serranía, en la frontera con Venezuela, y han llegado a la cabecera municipal.
La situación es similar en Sardinata y Tibú (Norte de Santander), donde se fumigaron, entre mayo y junio, 7.000 hectáreas de hoja de coca en La Gabarra y Las Mercedes. Rafael
Arciniegas, líder comunal de La Gabarra, asegura que las fumigaciones dejaron desempleo y hambre, porque además de las matas de coca, el veneno quemó cultivos de plátano,
yuca y caña.
Hay sustitución?.
Pero las protesta no solo se remiten a los presuntos daños causados por el glifosato, sino a los programas de sustitución de cultivos.
Voceros del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Alternativo (Plante) aseguran que sí ha habido ayuda y afirman que con los programas de sustitución se han beneficiado este año más de
15.300 familias con más de 5.000 hectáreas de proyectos productivas y 47.000 personas con servicios de salud y educación.
Sin embargo, las protestas van desde altos funcionarios hasta los campesinos. El Defensor del Pueblo le dijo en una carta al Ministro de Justicia que no existen verdaderos
programas de sustitución, salvo los intentos que se están adelantando en Putumayo .
Asociaciones de campesinos de Cantagallo, San Pablo, Simití, Santa Rosa, Morales, Río Viejo y Arenal, municipios del sur de Bolívar, aseguran que al menos 20.000 personas que
vivían de cultivar, raspar y procesar pasta de coca se quedaron sin trabajo y reclaman ayuda gubernamental.
Muchos desplazados regresaron a sus fincas a recoger lo poco que les quedó, otros permanecieron en sus terrenos y siguieron cultivando hoja de coca, pues los proyectos de
sustitución de cultivos aún no ha empezado a ejecutarse en la región.
La sustitución de cultivos también fue la principal petición de los raspachines que durante ocho días protestaron en la zona urbana de Tibú. Allí, el programa de sustitución no
ha empezado, pese a que directivos del Plante le aseguraron al gobernador de Norte de Santander, Juan Alcides Santaella, que empezaría en julio.
Mientras se aclara este debate, que va desde el alto Gobierno a las comunidades, los campesinos de La Sierra siguen guardando el agua en ollas, mientras dejan de pasar por su
tierra los aviones de antinarcóticos.
FOTOS:.
1. El Gobierno dice que la aspersión aérea con glifosato no se detendrá, pero que estudiarán los casos de pequeños cultivadores en Cauca y Nariño.
Archivo EL TIEMPO.
Glifosato, en la mira.
El Round Up o glifosato es un herbicida líquido para control de malezas, que según su casa productora Monsanto y el Ministerio de Salud de Colombia es ligeramente tóxico.
En Colombia su uso es muy extendido en la agricultura, sobre todo como madurante en los cultivos de caña de azúcar.
Los defensores del producto, entre los que se cuentan la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes (DNE), afirman que 85 por ciento del glifosato que llega a Colombia se usa en
cultivos legales.
Apenas un 15 por ciento lo utilizamos para la fumigación de cultivos de hoja de coca y amapola , afirma Gabriel Merchán Benavides, jefe de la DNE.
Merchán se basa en el estudio titulado Evaluación de la Seguridad y el Riesgo para Humanos en el uso del Round Up, en el que aparecen 186 investigaciones sobre glifosato.
Esos estudios concluyen que la absorción del glifosato en el ser humano es baja y se elimina sin que haya metabolismo; no tiene efectos genéticos, ni cancerígenos ni sobre la
fertilidad , agrega.
Por su parte, Marcos Alvarez, del Ministerio de Salud del Ecuador, donde se asegura que las fumigaciones se podrían extender al ese territorio, afirma que la exposición al
glifosato causa irritación de las mucosas, alteración de la sangre, disminuye el contenido de oxígeno y produce cambios neurológicos que impiden la contracción de los músculos.
Además, dice, puede producir sustancias cancerígenas en contacto con los suelos.
Advierten sobre químicos usados por cocaleros.
Una investigación realizada por el Centro de Información, Formación e Investigación para el Servicio Amazónico (Cifisam) y Unicef, en Abril de 1997, publicada el año pasado,
dice que las afecciones en niños y adultos en las zonas de cultivos de hoja de coca obedecen al uso de químicos por parte de los cultivadores.
Las sustancias químicas que se utilizan en los cultivos de coca (ácido sulfúrico, soda cáustica, permanganato, gasolina, éter, acetona y cemento, entre otros), son altamente
inflamables, tóxicas y /o irritantes , afirma la investigación.Annex 62
Según el estudio, los efectos en niños y personas que manipulan esos químicos, incluyen la aparición de alergias progresivas, la desfiguración del rostro y destrucción de tejidos,
la intoxicación por vía respiratoria y la destrucción del tejido ocular.
Durante el segundo semestre de 96 se detectaron en el centro de atención médica de Cartagena del Chaira, dos casos de niños que nacieron con malformaciones. Uno de los
recién nacidos no tenía tabique nasal y el otro presentaba malformaciones en el cráneo y la columna vertebral.
Los médicos presumen que se encuentran relacionados directamente con la permanencia de las madres en zonas de cultivos ilícitos.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Información general
Fecha de publicación
22 de julio de 2001
Autor
De la Redaccion Nacional Annex 63
“Colombia Drug Czar to Keep Spraying”, THE NEWYORK TIMES (New York, 31 July 2001) Annex 63
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution
to your colleagues, clients or customers, please click here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any
article. Visitytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now. »
July 31, 2001
Colombia Drug Czar To Keep Spraying
BOGOTÁ, Colombia, July 30— The chief of Colombia's antinarcotics forces said today that he
intended to continue aerial spraying to destroy drug crops, contending that a court-ordered suspension
of spraying only applied to select Indian lands.
Gen. Gustavo Socha Salamanca said the Bogotá court's ruling on Friday only applied to the indigenous
communities involved in the case, places he said his team was not spraying.
''We are spraying both coca and poppy crops,'' General Socha said.
The court ruling, by Judge Gilberto Reyes Delgado, ordered ''the immediate suspension of the entire
fumigation project with spraying of glyphosate.''
He made no mention of any specific area of Colombia and told the government to provide studies on
glyphosate's effects on the environment and human health.
Opponents contend that glyphosate causes harm to people and other crops in the areas sprayed.
A forced end to aerial spraying of coca, the raw ingredient in cocaine, would deliver a major blow to
President Andrés Pastrana's American-assisted antidrug offensive.
The United States, a staunch supporter of aerial spraying, is pouring more than $1 billion in mostly
military aid into Mr. Pastrana's antinarcotics program. Glyphosate is commonly used as a weed killer
throughout the world. Colombia has been spraying glyphosate for years but vastly increased the effort
in 2000. Farmers argue that the spraying kills legitimate crops, makes people sick and damages the
environment.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times CompanyHome Privacy PolicySearch Corrections XML Help Contact Us
Back to TopAnnex 63 Annex 64
“Colombia Denounces Indiscriminate Spraying in Putumayo”, EL COMERCIO
(Quito, 10 Jan. 2002) Annex 64
▯
EL COMERCIO
10 January 2002
COLOMBIA DENOUNCES INDISCRIMINATE SPRAYING IN PUTUMAYO
La Hormiga
Anti narcotic agents from Colombia and the United States sprayed indiscriminately over the past
two months some 10,500 hectares of coca plantations and 33,000 of licit crops in the
municipality of "La Hormiga" (800 km south of Bogotá), local officials and farmer leaders
denounced today.
"The spraying has affected 43,000 of 78,000 hectares of fertile land in "La Hormiga", AFP told
Jairo Rivera, the engineer of the municipal office in charge of protecting the ecosystem.
Rivera said the spraying of glyphosate reached, as well as the cultivation of coca -the raw
material of cocaine-, the plantings of cassava (manioc), plantains, citrus, corn and cocoa, as well
as natural forest sources and water sources in the department of Putumayo, where "La Hormiga"
is located, also known as "Valle de Guamuez".
For its part, the Representative (Ombudsman) of La Hormiga, Leandro Romo, confirmed that the
aircraft have launched sprayed large quantities of herbicides on legal and illegal crops in the last
two months.
Romo added that following these fumigations, some 7,000 farmers and indigenous people,
including women and children, suffer from health problems and hunger and lack resources.
Some 3,500 of these labourers were forced to leave their land destined for other locations in
Putumayo -bordering Ecuador and Peru-, or the neighbouring department of Nariño, said Joaquín
Merino Romo.
The community leader in turn said that the spraying also damaged pastures and contaminated
rivers and streams, and that due to this, pets are dying.
Colombian government representatives in Bogota had previously confirmed that in the last 60
days there has been spraying in the Putumayo department, -which accounts for 50% of over
160,000 hectares of illegal crops in Colombia, the world's largest producer of coca and cocaine-
and that U.S. experts advise local authorities in charge of the spraying. AFP
&RS\ULJKW▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯*5832▯(/▯&20(5&,2▯&▯$▯▯▯
7KH▯UHSURGXFWLRQ▯LQ▯ZKROH▯RU▯SDUW▯RI▯WKLV▯FRQWHQW▯ZLWKRXW▯WKH▯SHUPLVVLRQ▯RI▯'LDULR▯(O▯&RPHUFLR▯
LV▯IRUELGGHQ▯▯
▯Annex 64 Annex 64
(10:45) Colombia denuncia fumigaciones indiscriminadas en Putumayo
10/1/2002
La Hormiga.
Agentes antidrogas de Colombia y Estados Unidos fumigaron indiscriminadamente en los últimos dos meses unas 10 500
hectáreas de plantaciones de coca y 33 000 de cultivos lícitos en el municipio de La Hormiga (800 km al sur de Bogotá),
denunciaron hoy funcionarios locales y líderes campesinos.
"Las fumigaciones han afectado a 43 000 de las 78 000 hectáreas de tierras fértiles de La Hormiga", dijo a la AFP
el ingeniero Jairo Rivera, de la oficina municipal encargada de la protección del ecosistema.
Rivera indicó que las aspersiones de glifosato alcanzaron, además de los cultivos de coca -la materia prima de la
cocaína-, a los plantíos de yuca (mandioca), plátanos, cítricos, maíz y cacao, así como al bosque natural y las fuentes de
agua del departamento de Putumayo, donde se localiza La Hormiga, municipio llamado también Valle de Guamuez.
Por su parte, el Personero (Defensor del Pueblo) de La Hormiga, Leandro Romo, confirmó que las avionetas han lanzado
en los últimos dos meses grandes cantidades de herbicida sobre los cultivos lícitos e ilícitos.
Romo añadió que, a raíz de esas fumigaciones, unos 7 000 campesinos e indígenas, incluidos mujeres y niños, padecen
problemas de salud y hambre y carecen de recursos.
Unos 3 500 de esos labriegos debieron abandonar sus parcelas con destino a otras localidades de Putumayo -fronterizo
con Ecuador y Perú- o al vecino departamento de Nariño, dijo Romo.
El líder comunal Joaquín Merino declaró a su vez que las aspersiones también dañaron los pastos y contaminaron los
ríos y quebradas, por lo que los animales domésticos se están muriendo.
Funcionarios del Gobierno colombiano confirmaron previamente en Bogotá que en los últimos 60 días se han efectuado
fumigaciones en Putumayo -departamento que concentra el 50% de las más de 160 000 hectáreas de cultivos
ilícitos existentes en Colombia, el mayor productor mundial de coca y cocaína- y que expertos estadounidenses
asesoran a las autoridades locales encargadas de la aspersión. AFP
Derechos reservados ® 2001-2008 GRUPO EL COMERCIO C.A.
Prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de este contenido sin autorización de Diario El ComercioAnnex 64 Annex 65
“Binational Meeting of Indigenous Communities— Plan Colombia terrorizes the communities”,
LAHORA(7Apr. 2002) Annex 65
▯
LA HORA
7 April 2002
BINATIONAL MEETING OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES— PLAN COLOMBIA
TERRORIZES THE COMMUNITIES
Indigenous peoples from Colombia and Ecuador scheduled a meeting in the Súa baths, Atacames
county, Esmeraldas to address issues related to Plan Colombia and its social, political and
economic impact on ancestral villages.
The First Binational Meeting of Indigenous Tribes from the Ecuadorian and Colombian Coast
was recorded with complete success last week, in the Súa baths, Atacames county.
The encounter was organized by the Confederación de Nacionalidades y Pueblos Indígenas de la
Costa (“Confederation of Coastal NatiRQDOLWLHV▯DQG▯,QGLJHQRXV▯7ULEHV”) – CONAICE -, in order
to analyze the effects of Plan Colombia on the indigenous peoples of Colombia and the
Ecuadorian boundary fringe.
Fifty delegates representing the indigenous tribes of Colombia: Awa, Páez, Eperas and Totoray,
as well as Awa, Chachi, Epera, Tsáchila, Manta, Wankavilka, Quichua de la Costa, Unión de
Organizaciones Campesinas de Esmeraldas (“8QLRQ▯RI▯)DUPLQJ▯2UJDQL]DWLRQV▯RI▯(VPHUDOGDV”)-
UOCE- and CONAICE leader of Ecuador, were the main participants of the encounter.
The topics addressed covered the suffering of the indigenous tribes through the years and to
which Plan Colombia is now added as yet another social problem that the ancestral tribes must
face.
The discussions continued on to manifest their discontent due to the state of abandonment and
the lack of fulfillment of Human Rights.
The people who committed to the meeting in Súa expressed that Plan Colombia is not a peace
plan, nor is it a plan for control of drug trafficking or development. Rather, it is a program of
war for large-scale armed confrontations, fumigations that will affect the health and nature, with
massacre deaths of civilians, permanent food insecurity and, at the same time, they assured that
despite the ongoing terror that beats on the lives of the indigenous tribes, the indigenous tribes
will continue resisting with organization, initiatives and courage.
Over the next few days, the definitive resolutions that arose from the Binational Meeting of
Indigenous Communities will recognize the same Human Rights organisms across the world.
▯Annex 65Annex 65Annex 65 Annex 66
“Between Faith and Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 10 May 2002) Annex 66
▯
EL TIEMPO
10 May 2002
BETWEEN FAITH AND FUMIGATION
It's a serious Tuesday in Orito. Farmers drenched with sweat and full of mud, due to hours-long
walk from the villages, take turns in front of the Ombudsman to lament about the same thing: A
spraying had taken place and it wiped out everything. Tears come to some of their eyes. (SEE
MAP: WHERE THERE ARE RANGERS)
They are former coca growers who have converted to being rangers and they speak about the
return of the aircrafts and the light glyphosate rain dropped on these coca crops. They reappeared
in the sky on March 9th, after six months of absence.
This time, they say that cassava, sugarcane, banana and corn crops were also sprayed. These
cultivations had replaced the illegal plants, pursuant to a promise to the president Alvaro Uribe
and in order to receive the 833,333 pesos that would be given to them every two months for
having manually eradicated coca.
Those gringos do not distinguish a coca plant from a cassava plant and those satellites are no
good at all. The Ombudsman records and promises to forward each complaint to the narcotics
police.
It was in this population of Putumayo, in the harsh heat and sudden downpours, that the
government began its program last year to recover strategic coca crop ecosystems, protect those
at risk and combat the drug trafficking that has made the guerrillas and paramilitaries so
powerful.
Official figures say that 2.2 million hectares of natural forest have been destroyed in the country
in the last 10 years as a result of illegal crops. But, that 553,000 have been kept free of coca since
the rangers have been there, either because it has been eradicated or because the land has been
protected from planting.
Being a ranger is an act of will. So while San José del Guaviare is one of the municipalities that
is most affected by cocaine, it was in Orito where the State first found farmers willing to change
their life.
Fifty-six of the 120 villages in this population embraced the program. Today, 3,406 families are
paid every two months to maintain land free of illegal crops. Of the total hectares that are now
free of illegal crops in the country, about 55,000 belong to this population.
In the same manner that will has, the fumigations exerted pressure on the village. They were
sprayed and everything was ruined. One would cut the coca plant quite small and wash it with
milk so as make it re-sprout, but after 15 days the aircrafts would pass and spray again so any
work that was done was futile. The animals were in pain and children had stomach aches from
drinking contaminated water.
▯Annex 66
▯
The confession is from Enrique Cucardo, who was responsible for manual eradication in the
Falklands. Of the 45 families in the village, 30 agreed to being rangers.
Mr Enrique, a planter of coca for four years, earned up to six million pesos quarterly from the
three hectares he cultivated. Today he prefers to earn 800,000 pesos every two months as long as
he is not sprayed.
The market, of course, is no longer the same. When there was coca in the earnings (the market)
was for big amounts. Now it is 80 thousand to 100 thousand pesos. Before they would allow us
to pay later for goods and waited for the harvest. Now they don't. They say that soon the
government will end the program.
Among the agonizing cassava crop, attributable to the recent spraying of glyphosate, he regrets
the fact that other legal farmers and he paid the 15 rebels in the village.
FAITH THREATENED
Mr Enrique and Anibal Gonzalez, perhaps the largest coca grower in the village of San Juan de
los Palmares, are trying to keep the faith among the rangers, threatened with fumigation. It's a
bad investment. We are paid to eradicate illegal crops and now they kill our legal crops, they say.
But they do not blame Alvaro Uribe, instead, they blame the Narcotics Police. He is the only
president who came directly to us farmers and not via those NGOs that did whatever they wanted
with us. He’s the only one to have understood the concern of having rangers, and to give us five
million per year. The Pastrana government projects are considered a lost cause.
If the Government doesn't spray our crops, we promise to deliver on our promises. We have to
fulfill our promises, otherwise the ones who are screwed are us, not them, says one of Mr
Enrique’s daughters.
She complains of the whole days spent scraping coca leaf, which made her hands bleed. Like
many committed farmers, she is worried that failure would show the guerrillas to be in the right.
Several eradicated despite front 48 banning uprooting in some villages and preaching that the
Government would not keep its end of the bargain. According to some, the guerrilla leader
throughout the area, does not preclude them from being rangers, but promises protection to those
who do not want to eradicate.
The Rangers now know they will only receive money from the state until December 31, 2006,
but by that time they hope to have returned to the soil their agricultural vocation.
The conviction is such that “Kiosko de la Rumba“, the bar that was full of drunken Rangers
during the first payments, has lost customers. Business for food traders on the other hand, has
improved. They say, it appears, that the Rangers are reviving the economy. Money from coca, on
the other hand was all going to Cali, for intermediaries and drug traffickers.
▯ Annex 66
▯
Today rangers spend only on food and save what is left in a common fund, as they say, destined
to purchase acres. Many are landless.
Greenhouses, cane for sugar mills, cassava for a processing plant and pigsty make up part of the
dreams of men like Don Enrique, who are delivering on their promises to Uribe.
Bridges and roads is what we are asking from the government, so as to reach people with our
products. The roads today are difficult even for animals.
Traps and penalties
But there are some people who signed up and continued planting coca since 833,000 pesos does
not cover what you can afford to pay with the sale of drugs or simply because that money comes
from hated gringos who have fuelled spraying and ruin.
Already, there are villages that have been sanctioned for failure to deliver. Some farmers were
punished because not only were they enrolled, but their wives were also enrolled, in order to
receive twice the income.
They thought that nobody would realize this. People used to say to me: Sign me up to that
program, it's not your money. But if you sell out once, you lose the village, you lose the
presidency of the board and the job as supervisor of eradication, said Mr Enrique, who roams the
liberated areas of coca to verify they are being cultivated, forested, or at least not replanted with
illegal crops.
There are other people cheating the program. A woman tells of mechanics, shopkeepers and even
a policeman in Orito that have benefited from the subsidy that is intended for poor farmers.
There are also those people who eradicated their crops and are dying of hunger because they
have not been able to enter the program, while a policeman and his wife, who is also employed,
are receiving subsidies using the father in law's farm.
The Government admits there were also those who divided their farms and offered every farmer
a hectare on loan for a commission of the money he received from the State. And there were
those who took money in order to attract people into the program.
Penalties for these and other reasons caused the program to be left with 3,406 of the 3,908
families registered at its inception in Orito.
Now that the list is refined, the leaders of the eradication hope that the fumigation aircrafts do
not need to reappear in the sky.
Only then can the Rangers be kept active, as they already see cedars and passion fruit grow
where coca once grew and caused the farmers to live at the margins of the law.
DRAWN UP MAPS
▯Annex 66
▯
The complaints over fumigation of coca crops in Orito, and in San Miguel and Puerto Asis
(Putumayo) as well, were presented last week in Congress by the department's congressperson
Eder Jair Sanchez Zambrano and the priest Campo Elías de la Cruz.
This spraying affected production projects, projects of hope on which many have bet on a new
life. It may be that the fumigation aircrafts made mistakes, as in the past, when the excuse was
that the neighbouring farmer had coca or coca intercropped with food crops, but that eradication
was confirmed by the United Nations. Victoria Eugenia Restrepo, director of the Alternative
Development Program, says that just a few days ago, the drawing up of a new geographical map
was agreed to with the Narcotics Police, such map should indicate the location of the rangers as
well as other legal crops.
PHOTO / EL TIEMPO
In the middle of cassava, agonizing due to the spraying, Enrique Cucardo shows a dried root of
coca in order to prove that he has fulfilled his promises to the Government of eradication.
Publication
eltiempo.com
Section
Nation
Publication Date
10 May 2004
Author
TEXT AND PHOTOGRAPHS BY MARISOL GOMEZ GIRALDO
▯ Annex 66
eltiempo.com / archivo
ENTRE LA FE Y LA FUMIGACIÓN
Es martes de alarma en Orito. Campesinos llenos de sudor y barro, por horas de camino desde las veredas, se turnan delante del personero para lamentarse por lo mismo: Paso
la fumiga y acabó con todo . A alguno se le aguan los ojos. (VER MAPA: DONDE HAY GUARDABOSQUES)
Es martes de alarma en Orito. Campesinos llenos de sudor y barro, por horas de camino desde las veredas, se turnan delante del personero para lamentarse por lo mismo: Paso
la fumiga y acabó con todo . A alguno se le aguan los ojos.
(VER MAPA: DONDE HAY GUARDABOSQUES).
Son antiguos cultivadores de coca convertidos a guardabosques y hablan del regreso de las avionetas y de la lluvia menuda de glifosato que estas dejan caer sobre los cultivos de
coca. Reaparecieron en el cielo el 9 de marzo, después de seis meses.
Esta vez, dicen, bañaron también la yuca, la caña, el plátano y el maíz, cultivos con los que remplazaron las matas ilegales para cumplirle al presidente Alvaro Uribe y recibir
los 833.333 pesos que les dan cada dos meses por haber erradicado manualmente la coca.
Esos gringos no distinguen una mata de coca de una yuca esos satélites no sirven pa nada . El personero toma nota y promete enviar cada queja a la Policía Antinarcóticos.
Fue en esta población del Putumayo, de calores inclementes y aguaceros repentinos, donde el Gobierno comenzó su Programa Guardabos ques hace un año para recuperar
ecosistemas estratégicos cultivados con coca, proteger los que están en riesgo y combatir el narcotráfico que ha fortalecido a guerrilleros y paramilitares.
Dicen las cifras oficiales que 2,2 millones de hectáreas de bosque natural han sido destruidas en los últimos 10 años en el país para cultivar ilícitos. Pero también, que 553.000
han logrado mantenerse libre de coca desde que existen los guardabosques, porque ha sido erradicada o porque las tierras han sido protegidas de la siembra.
Ser guardabosque es un acto de voluntad. Por eso, aunque San José del Guaviare es uno de los municipios más afectados por la coca, fue en Orito donde primero el Estado
encontró un campesinado dispuesto a cambiar de vida.
Cincuenta y seis de las 120 veredas que tiene esta población acogieron el programa. Hoy, 3.406 familias reciben pago cada dos meses por mantener la tierra libre de cultivos
ilegales. Del total de hectáreas liberadas en el país, cerca de 55.000 están en esa población.
Como la voluntad, jugó la presión de las fumigaciones. Al lado de lo ilegal uno tenía algo de yuca y plátano. Pasaba la fumiga y ahí quedaban. Uno cortaba bajita la coca y la
lavaba con leche pa que volviera a retoñar, pero a los 15 días volvían a pasar las avionetas y era trabajo perdido. Los animales se achaqueaban y a los niños se les dañaba el
estómago por tomar agua contaminada .
La confesión es de Enrique Cucardo, el que movió la erradicación manual en Malvinas. De las 45 familias de la vereda, 30 aceptaron ser guardabosques.
Don Enrique, sembrador de coca durante cuatro años, ganaba trimestralmente hasta seis millones de pesos con las tres hectáreas que cultivaba. Hoy prefiere 800.000 pesos cada
dos meses que vivir fumigao .
El mercado, claró está, ya no es el mismo. Cuando había coca la remesa (el mercado) era por bultos. La de ahora es de 80 mil o 100 mil pesos. Antes nos fiaban y nos esperaban
a la cosecha. Ahora no. Dicen que de pronto el Gobierno acaba con el programa .
Entre el cultivo agonizante de yuca por el reciente baño con glifosato, se lamenta de que él y otros campesinos legales hayan pagado por los 15 rebeldes de la vereda.
Fe amenazada.
Don Enrique y Aníbal González, tal vez el mayor cultivador de coca de la vereda San Juan de los Palmares, están tratando de mantener la fe entre los guardabosques,
amenazada por la fumigación. Invierten mal. Nos pagan por erradicar y ahora nos matan los cultivos legales , dicen.
Pero no culpan a Alvaro Uribe, sino a la Policía Antinarcóticos. Es es el único presidente que llegó directamente al campesino y no mediante esas ONG que hacían lo que querían
con nosotros. El único que salió con esa inquietud de guardabosques, de darnos cinco millones por año . Los proyectos de gobierno de Pastrana, los consideran perdidos.
Se el Gobierno no nos fumiga, le prometemos que le seguimos cumpliendo. Tenemos que cumplirle, el jodido no es él, somos nosotros , dice una de las hijas de Don Enrique.
Reniega de las jornadas enteras raspando hoja de coca, que le herían las manos. Como muchos campesinos comprometidos, está preocupada porque el fracaso le daría razón a
la guerrilla. Varios erradicaron a pesar del frente 48, prohibió arrancar en algunas veredas y predicó que el Gobierno no iba a cumplir. Algunos dicen que el jefe guerrillero de
toda la zona, según algunos, no impide ser guardabosque, pero promete protección a quienes no quieren erradicar.
Los ahora guardabosques saben que solo recibirán dinero del Estado hasta el 31 de diciembre del 2006, pero para ese tiempo esperan haberles devuelto a los suelos la vocación
agrícola.
El convencimiento es tal que ya Kiosco de la Rumba, la cantina que se llenaba de guardabosques borrachos durante los primeros pagos, ha perdido clientes. Los comerciantes de
víveres, al contrario, les ha crecido el negocio. Dicen que, al mercar, los guardabosques están reviviendo la economía. La plata de la coca, en cambio, se iba toda para Cali, con
los intermediarios y los narcos.
Hoy guardabosques que gastan solo lo del mercado y ahorran lo que les queda en un fondo común, que, dicen, será para comprar hectáreas. Muchos son campesinos sin tierra.
Viveros, caña para trapiches, yuca para una procesadora ya en marcha y marraneras hacen parte de los sueños de hombres como Don Enrique, que le están cumpliendo a Uribe.
Puentes y vías es lo que le piden al Gobierno para poder llegar al pueblo con los productos. Los caminos de hoy son difíciles hasta para las bestias.
Trampas y sanciones.
Pero hay quienes se inscribieron, pero siguieron sembrando coca. Porque 833.000 pesos no alcanzan a cubrir lo que se paga con la venta de la droga o porque esa plata llega del
odiado gringo que ha alimentado la fumigación y la ruina .
Ya hay veredas sancionadas por incumplimiento. Algunos agricultores fueron castigados porque se inscribieron ellos y, aparte a sus mujeres, para recibir doble aporte.
Pensaron que nadie se iba a dar cuenta. A mí la gente me decía: métame en el programa que esa no es plata suya. Pero si uno es alcahueta, pierde la vereda y pierde uno como
presidente de junta y veedor de la erradicación , dice Don Enrique, que recorren las zonas liberadas de coca para verificar que están siendo cultivadas, reforestadas, o al menos
no resembradas con ilícitos.
Hay otras trampas. Una mujer de Orito asegura que mecánicos, tenderos y hasta un policía le han sacado jugo a un subsidio pensado para campesinos pobres. Hay gente que
erradicó y se está muriendo de hambre porque no ha logrado entrar al programa, mientras que un policía y su mujer, que también es empleada, están recibiendo subsidio
usando la finca del suegro .
Hubo gente, admiten en el Gobierno, que parceló fincas y le ofreció a cada campesino una hectárea en préstamo para obtener una comisión del dinero que le entregaba el
Estado. Y no faltó quien cobró plata por conseguir cupos en el programa.
Sanciones por estas y otras razones dejaron en 3.406 las 3.908 familias inscritas al comienzo en Orito.
Ahora que la lista está depurada, los líderes de la erradicación esperan que las avionetas de fumigación no vuelvan a aparecer en el cielo.
Solo así podrán mantener vivos a los guardabosques, que ya ven pelechar cedros y granadillos en donde antes crecía la coca que los hacía campesinos ilegales.
LEVANTAMOS CARTA GEOGRAFICA.
La denuncias sobre fumigación de los cultivos que remplazaron la coca en Orito, pero también en San Miguel y Puerto Asís (Putumayo), fueron hechas la semana pasada en el
Congreso por el diputado de ese departamento Eder Jair Sánchez Zambrano y el sacerdote Campo Elías de la Cruz.
Esta fumigación tocó proyectos productivos, proyectos de esperanza con los que muchos le apostaron a una nueva vida. Es posible que se hayan equivocado las avionetas, como
en anteriores ocasiones, cuando las disculpas eran que el vecino tenía coca o que el campesino intercalaba la coca con cultivos de pancoger, pero esta erradicación fue
verificada por la ONU dijeron. Eugenia Victoria Restrepo, directora del Programa de Desarrollo Alternativo, asegura que justo hace algunos días se acordó con la Policía
Antinarcóticos el levantamiento de una carta geográfica que debe indicar dónde están los guardabosques y los cultivos alternativos.
FOTO/EL TIEMPO.
En medio del cultivo de yuca, agonizante por la fumigación, Enrique Cucardo enseña una raíz seca de coca para demostrar que le cumplio al Gobierno con la erradicación.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Nación
Fecha de publicación
10 de mayo de 2004
Autor
TEXTOS Y FOTOGRAFIAS MARISOL GOMEZ GIRALDOAnnex 66 Annex 67
“Another Controversy Over Fumigation”, EL COMERCIO (Quito, 9 July 2002) Annex 67
▯
EL COMERCIO
9 July 2002
ANOTHER CONTROVERSY OVER FUMIGATION
Hundreds of farmers from the Colombian department of southern Putumayo are abandoning their
lands due to the fumigations with herbicides that Bogota and Washington launched a month ago
in the coca-growing region. This was reported yesterday by humanitarian sources and
agricultural union leaders.
The Putumayo Ombudsman, Leandro Romo, said that farmers are leaving their farms by the
dozens bound for urban centers of the municipalities of Colombia and "to several villages of the
neighbouring Ecuador".
According to Romo, the spraying undertaken in Guamuez Valley and the nearby municipality of
San Miguel (800 km south of Bogota) has also caused damage to the health of the farmers, as
well as licit crops having been removed. "Every day I receive dozens of complaints from farmers
who complain of respiratory and skin diseases".
The U.S. State Department said the pesticide used in Putumayo is not harmful, but that
adjustments will be made to the formulation, to decrease the current toxicity of grade 3,
equivalent to "soft" to a grade of 4 or "mild" (1 being the most toxic).
&RS\ULJKW▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯*5832▯(/▯&20(5&,2▯&▯$▯▯▯
7KH▯UHSURGXFWLRQ▯LQ▯ZKROH▯RU▯SDUW▯RI▯WKLV▯FRQWHQW▯ZLWKRXW▯WKH▯SHUPLVVLRQ▯RI▯'LDULR▯(O▯&RPHUFLR▯
LV▯IRUELGGHQ▯▯
▯Annex 67 Annex 67
Otra polémica por la fumigación
9/7/2002
Cientos de campesinos del departamento colombiano de Putumayo (sur) están abandonando sus parcelas debido a las
fumigaciones con herbicidas que Bogotá y Washington emprendieron hace un mes en esa región cocalera. Así lo
denunciaron ayer fuentes humanitarias y líderes de los sindicatos
agrarios.
El Defensor del Pueblo putumayense, Leandro Romo, afirmó que los campesinos salen por decenas de sus fincas con
destino a los cascos urbanos de los municipios de Colombia y "hacia varios pueblos del vecino Ecuador".
Según Romo, las fumigaciones emprendidas en Valle de Guamuez y el cercano Municipio de San Miguel (800 km al sur
de Bogotá) también han causado daños a la salud de los labriegos, así como han eliminado los cultivos lícitos. "A diario
recibo decenas de denuncias de campesinos que se quejan de enfermedades respiratorias y cutáneas".
El Departamento de Estado de EE.UU. señaló que el pesticida usado en Putumayo no es nocivo, pero que se le harán
ajustes en la formulación, para que su toxicidad disminuya del grado 3, equivalente a "suave", al grado 4 o "leve" (el 1 es
el más tóxico).
Derechos reservados ® 2001-2008 GRUPO EL COMERCIO C.A.
Prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de este contenido sin autorización de Diario El ComercioAnnex 67 Annex 68
“Hunger and Misery from Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 7 Sept. 2002) Annex 68
▯
EL UNIVERSO
7 September 2002
HUNGER AND MISERY FROM FUMIGATIONS
The fumigation shifts occur daily; they begin at 8 a.m. and last until 4 p.m.
Pablo Madruñero, his wife Bertha, and their three kids had been standing for three hours at the
edge of the highway in Puerto Vega, awaiting a car to take them “wherever.”
“We want to run away, we have nothing left, the fumigations have destroyed everything and we
have all fallen ill,” said the man while the mother showed her 8-year-old daughter Paula’s body,
covered by boils.
“They spray evenly (everything), they not only destroyed the coca, but the bananas, cassava, and
pastures as well. We are all in the same situation and we have to leave, I do not know where, but
we will die of hunger here,” said Pablo.
Hunger, despair, desolation, scenes similar to those that the Madruñero experienced last
Thursday afternoon, occur daily in dozens of villages in the Colombian province Putumayo, near
the border with Ecuador, as a result of the aerial spraying that is being conducted by the
Colombian Antinarcotics Police these days in order to eradicate coca plantations.
A press team from El UNIVERSO toured these areas, some dominated by the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombian (“ 5HYROXWLRQDU\▯$UPHG▯)RUFHV▯RI▯&RORPELD´▯▯ (FARC), others by
paramilitaries and others that fall somewhere between these two forces as well as the regular
Colombian Army. Hundreds of families leave from here towards cities in the interior of the
country.
Damage
The damage is evident. José Ángel, in the village of Agua Blanca, was in despair because his
four cows, his only remaining possession of value, were dying due to lack of grass. “They
fumigated here about ten days ago and destroyed the pastures, plantain and yucca,” he affirmed.
Surrounding his house, in a one-kilometer radius, the soil is desert-like and contrasts with the
green of the jungle that can be seen from afar, where fumigations have not yet reached.
About 30 kilometers to the north, at the Y, Carmen Cadena looked inconsolably at her 40
hectares of pastures burnt by the chemicals. “There was a coca plantation in a nearby area but
they came and fumigated uniformly, the poison even fell on the roofs of houses, two weeks ago.
Since that date, 20 families have left,” she stated.
The dialogue was interrupted because, at around 2:00 p.m., three aircraft appear, escorted by the
same number of armed helicopters. “Let’s get into the house, but please don’t run because they
might shoot if they think we are an armed group,” said the woman.
▯Annex 68
▯
A few minutes later, the aircraft vomited streams of poison that settled on trees and on coca,
plantain and yucca crops. The chemical provoked a light cough and tearing.
The operation was repeated on five occasions and later continued in Miraflores. El Porvenir,
Nueva Granada and Cuembí, Puerto Vega.
The fumigation shifts occur daily; they start at 8 a.m. and last until 4 p.m. The inhabitants of the
Ecuadorian villages of la Punta and Puerto Nuevo asserted that at the beginning of last week the
aircraft fumigated along the riverbanks of the bordering San Miguel River.
▯Annex 68Annex 68 Annex 69
“FarmersAgainst Fumigations”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 19 Sept. 2002) Annex 69
▯
EL UNIVERSO
19 September 2002
FARMERS AGAINST FUMIGATIONS
Lago Agrio
By Ángel Sallo
More than one hundred farming families from the Pacayacu parish are affected by the
Colombian fumigations on coca and poppy crops, carried out on the other side of Río
San Miguel, complained Ángel Encarnación, leader of the Ecuadorian farming
community Chone 2.
The leader notes that the coca crop fumigations in the Colombian locations of Teteyé,
Aguas Blancas, Montañita, La Florida, La Piña, La Pedregosa and La Caucaza also
reached Ecuadorian soil and therefore, the effects are notable on plantations, vegetation
and domesticated animals.
Encarnación affirmed that six aircraft and eight helicopters work in intense fumigation
shifts, a few meters away from Ecuadorian soil.
José Aldaz, leader of Café Paraíso, notes that, as a result of Colombian fumigations, the
Ecuadorian cane, corn, plantain, coffee, fruits, and yucca crops, as well as other plants
have lost their natural color and have been damaged as a result.
The populations most affected by fumigations are Chone Uno, Chone Dos, la Playera,
Chanangué, Puerto Nuevo and Zozoranga.
▯Annex 69Annex 69Annex 69 Annex 70
“Ecuadorians Demand Compensation”, LAHORA(Quito, 26 Sept. 2002) Annex 70
▯
LA HORA
26 September 2002
ECUADORIANS DEMAND COMPENSATION
,QKDELWDQWV▯RI▯WKH▯(FXDGRULDQ▯$PD]RQ▯UHJLRQ▯ZLOO▯file an international FRPSODLQW▯DJDLQVW▯WKH▯
&RORPELDQ▯JRYHUQPHQW▯GHPDQGLQJ▯FRPSHQVDWLRQ▯IRU▯WKH▯GDPDJHV▯FDXVHG▯E\▯IXPLJDWLRQV▯▯
NUEVA LOJA
Approximately one week ago, six aircrafts fumigated the riverbanks of the San Miguel River, but
this time, they did so in Ecuadorian territory.
This is the statement made by Victoriano Bravo Caicedo, President of the Asociación de
Campesinos Palmeras Fronterizas (“Association of Border Palm Farmers”) located in the
province of Sucumbíos, Lago Agrio county, an organization that includes rural workers from the
General Farfán parish, Santa Marianita, Monterrey settlements and other villages such as Puerto
Mestanza and Puerto Nuevo.
This humble worker, with machete in hand, assures that he has embarked on the fight of his life
in denouncing the authorities and public opinion regarding the manner in which his crops and
animals perish in his farm, as a result of Plan Colombia fumigations.
The man elaborated a manifesto and dedicated himself to collecting over three thousand
signatures as support, to increase public awareness of the problem. The document was sent to
the President of the Republic, Ministers of Government, Foreign Affairs and Defense, as well as
Presidential candidates.
Violating Sovereignty
According to the complaint, the presence of a fumigating aircraft belonging to Colombia was
observed in Ecuadorian air space approximately one week ago. “In the view and patience of our
Armed Forces, it violated our sovereignty and fumigated our crops, causing numerous losses to
date.”
Bravo adds that he was accompanied by a group of peasants and representatives of various
means of communication, including certain foreign correspondents, who “directly confirmed the
damage caused to crops, animals, and the human beings that inhabit this region as a result of the
Colombian government fumigating in Ecuadorian territory.”
Without Harvests
In addition, he notes that, due to the start of fumigations one year ago, the fall of the price of
coffee was evident and the price decrease in the grain’s commercialization forced farmers to opt
for switching crops and dedicate themselves to the planting of corn as a new source of income,
but to date, this product has also been devastated in its entirety.
▯Annex 70
▯
Although it has been repeatedly indicated, Bravo insists that the “type of fumigating agent
employed has caused damages to all the vegetation, especially to pastures, rice, cacao, plantain,
coffee, and sugar cane, causing a true desert in the midst of the jungle.”
The affected area measures approximately 3 thousand hectares, which causes incalculable losses
to all farmers of the area who will lose their harvests and while they work to “build their country
along the Colombian-Ecuadorian border.”
Uncertainty and complaints
In addition, the document notes, that the “sector’s inhabitants are currently terrorized by the
presence of Colombian armed groups that circulate around the area, which implies lack of
security and vigilance in the border by the Armed Forces and National Police.”
“This situation has forced me to strongly request the support of authorities and Public Order, to
initiate a public international complaint against the Colombian government in order to request
appropriate compensation for damages caused on our farms and the loss of crops, diseases in
both children and adults alike and for the death of animals due to intoxication,” he notes.
Toxic Fumigants
At the same time, Nelly Gaibor, mother of a family residing in the boundary area, declared that
she ingested water from a stream and subsequently suffered digestive complications. And this is
due to the fact that the water from the majority of rivers in the area, and especially the water
from San Miguel, is used by the thousands of farmers who inhabit these riverbanks for the
preparation of foods, cleaning and personal hygiene.
Gaibor highlighted that many children have suffered skin rashes and a type of uncontrollable
allergy, including her children. For this reason, the people have chosen to ask for immediate
medical attention.
With respect to animals, the animals that have been most affected are barnyard fowl, which have
largely died after ingesting the water.
According to this citizen, there are cases of miscarriage, in addition to the case of a child who
was born in the Hospital de Lago Agrio, who presented bone malformations, a situation that was
attributed to the fumigations.
“This is the deepest poverty and desperation of our fellow citizens, which have invested
everything and even borrowed funds in order to cultivate and today, they have nothing, not even
their own arable lands,” Bravo affirms in his letter.
Negligence by authorities
For Bravo, “absolute inefficiency and negligence by the provincial authorities exists, starting by
the Governor of the Province of Sucumbíos, Victor Velasco, who does not lead a concerted
▯ Annex 70
▯
effort by the border civilian society in order to coordinate safety actions with the Armed Forces
for our territory.”
In such circumstances, the Asociación de Campesinos Palmeras Fronterizas requested direct
governmental intervention in order to adopt corrective measures as soon as possible.
The unionized farmers challenge the presidential candidates to visit the border fringe, “so that
they can directly observe the damages caused by Plan Colombia, in a plan of extermination and
war that directly compromises Ecuadorians, despite authorities affirming that nothing happens
here.”
▯Annex 70 Annex 70
-XHYHV▯▯▯▯▯GH▯6HSWLHPEUH▯GH▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
/$▯+25$▯
18(9$▯/2-$▯
+DFH▯DSUR[LPDGDPHQWH▯XQD▯VHPDQD▯VHLV▯DYLRQHWDV▯IXPLJDGRUDV▯▯URFLDURQ▯ODV▯ULEHUDV▯GHO▯5tR▯6DQ▯
0LJXHO▯▯SHUR▯HVWD▯YH]▯OR▯KLFLHURQ▯HQ▯WHUULWRULR▯HFXDWRULDQR▯▯▯
$Vt▯OR▯DILUPD▯9LFWRULDQR▯%UDYR▯&DLFHGR▯▯3UHVLGHQWH▯GH▯OD▯$VRFLDFLyQ▯GH▯&DPSHVLQRV▯3DOPHUDV▯
)URQWHUL]DV▯▯XELFDGD▯HQ▯OD▯SURYLQFLD▯GH▯6XFXPEtRV▯▯FDQWyQ▯/DJR▯$JULR▯▯RUJDQL]DFLyQ▯TXH▯FXEUH▯D▯
WUDEDMDGRUHV▯UXUDOHV▯GH▯OD▯SDUURTXLD▯*HQHUDO▯)DUIiQ▯▯UHFLQWRV▯6DQWD▯0DULDQLWD▯▯0RQWHUUH\▯\▯RWUDV▯
SREODFLRQHV▯FRPR▯3XHUWR▯0HVWDQ]D▯\▯3XHUWR▯1XHYR▯▯
(VWH▯KXPLOGH▯WUDEDMDGRU▯▯PDFKHWH▯HQ▯PDQR▯▯DVHJXUD▯TXH▯KD▯HPSUHQGLGR▯OD▯OXFKD▯PiV▯JUDQGH▯GH▯VX▯
YLGD▯DO▯GHQXQFLDU▯D▯ODV▯DXWRULGDGHV▯\▯D▯OD▯RSLQLyQ▯S~EOLFD▯▯OD▯IRUPD▯FRPR▯VXV▯FXOWLYRV▯\▯DQLPDOHV▯
SHUHFHQ▯HQ▯VX▯ILQFD▯SURGXFWR▯GH▯ODV▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯GHO▯3ODQ▯&RORPELD▯▯
▯
(O▯KRPEUH▯HODERUy▯XQ▯PDQLILHVWR▯\▯VH▯GHGLFy▯D▯UHFRJHU▯PiV▯GH▯WUHV▯PLO▯ILUPDV▯GH▯UHVSDOGR▯▯SDUD▯GDU▯
D▯FRQRFHU▯HO▯SUREOHPD▯▯(O▯GRFXPHQWR▯IXH▯UHPLWLGR▯DO▯SUHVLGHQWH▯GH▯OD▯5HS~EOLFD▯▯0LQLVWURV▯GH▯
*RELHUQR▯▯5HODFLRQHV▯([WHULRUHV▯▯\▯'HIHQVD▯▯DVt▯FRPR▯D▯ORV▯FDQGLGDWRV▯D▯OD▯3UHVLGHQFLD▯GH▯OD▯
5HS~EOLFD▯▯
▯
9LRODQGR▯OD▯VREHUDQtD▯
▯
6HJ~Q▯OD▯GHQXQFLD▯▯KDFH▯DSUR[LPDGDPHQWH▯XQD▯VHPDQD▯VH▯QRWy▯OD▯SUHVHQFLD▯HQ▯HO▯HVSDFLR▯DpUHR▯
HFXDWRULDQR▯GH▯XQD▯DYLRQHWD▯IXPLJDGRUD▯▯SURFHGHQWH▯GH▯&RORPELD▯▯▯TXH▯D▯YLVWD▯\▯SDFLHQFLD▯GH▯
QXHVWUDV▯)XHU]DV▯$UPDGDV▯YLRODURQ▯QXHVWUD▯VREHUDQtD▯\▯IXPLJDURQ▯QXHVWURV▯FXOWLYRV▯▯FDXVDQGR▯KDVWD▯
HO▯PRPHQWR▯FXDQWLRVDV▯SpUGLGDV▯▯▯
%UDYR▯DJUHJD▯TXH▯DFRPSDxDGR▯SRU▯XQ▯JUXSR▯GH▯FDPSHVLQRV▯\▯UHSUHVHQWDQWHV▯GH▯YDULRV▯PHGLRV▯GH▯
FRPXQLFDFLyQ▯▯HQWUH▯HOORV▯DOJXQRV▯FRUUHVSRQVDOHV▯H[WUDQMHURV▯▯▯FRQVWDWDPRV▯GLUHFWDPHQWH▯HO▯GDxR▯
FDXVDGR▯D▯ORV▯FXOWLYRV▯▯DQLPDOHV▯\▯VHUHV▯KXPDQRV▯▯TXH▯KDELWDPRV▯HQ▯HVWD▯UHJLyQ▯▯SRU▯SDUWH▯GHO▯
JRELHUQR▯FRORPELDQR▯▯TXH▯KD▯IXPLJDGR▯HQ▯WHUULWRULR▯HFXDWRULDQR▯▯▯
▯
6LQ▯FRVHFKDV▯
▯
&RPHQWD▯▯DVt▯PLVPR▯▯TXH▯DO▯LQLFLDUVH▯ODV▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯KDFH▯XQ▯DxR▯▯OD▯FDtGD▯GHO▯FDIp▯IXH▯HYLGHQWH▯\▯
OD▯EDMD▯GHO▯SUHFLR▯HQ▯OD▯FRPHUFLDOL]DFLyQ▯GHO▯JUDQR▯REOLJy▯D▯ORV▯FDPSHVLQRV▯D▯RSWDU▯SRU▯FDPELDU▯GH▯
FXOWLYR▯▯\▯GHGLFDUVH▯D▯OD▯VLHPEUD▯GHO▯PDt]▯FRPR▯QXHYD▯IXHQWH▯GH▯LQJUHVRV▯▯SHUR▯pVWH▯SURGXFWR▯
WDPELpQ▯VH▯KD▯YLVWR▯KR\▯GHYDVWDGR▯HQ▯VX▯WRWDOLGDG▯▯
$XQTXH▯\D▯VH▯KD▯LQGLFDGR▯UHSHWLGDPHQWH▯▯%UDYR▯LQVLVWH▯HQ▯TXH▯▯HO▯WLSR▯GH▯IXPLJDQWH▯HPSOHDGR▯KD▯
FDXVDGR▯GDxRV▯HQ▯WRGD▯OD▯YHJHWDFLyQ▯▯HVSHFLDOPHQWH▯HQ▯SDVWL]DOHV▯▯DUUR]▯▯FDFDR▯▯SOiWDQR▯▯FDIp▯\▯FDxD▯
GH▯D]~FDU▯FUHDQGR▯XQ▯YHUGDGHUR▯GHVLHUWR▯HQ▯SOHQD▯VHOYD▯▯▯
(O▯iUHD▯DIHFWDGD▯HV▯GH▯DSUR[LPDGDPHQWH▯▯▯PLO▯KHFWiUHDV▯▯OR▯TXH▯FDXVD▯SpUGLGDV▯LQFDOFXODEOHV▯D▯
WRGRV▯ORV▯FDPSHVLQRV▯GH▯OD▯]RQD▯TXH▯VH▯TXHGDURQ▯VLQ▯FRVHFKD▯\▯WUDEDMR▯PLHQWUDV▯HVWiQ▯▯KDFLHQGR▯
SDWULD▯HQ▯OD▯IURQWHUD▯FRORPER▯HFXDWRULDQD▯▯▯▯
▯
,QVHJXULGDG▯\▯GHPDQGD▯
▯
(O▯GRFXPHQWR▯VHxDOD▯▯DGHPiV▯▯TXH▯▯ORV▯KDELWDQWHV▯GHO▯VHFWRU▯QRV▯HQFRQWUDPRV▯DWHUURUL]DGRV▯DQWH▯OD▯
SUHVHQFLD▯GH▯JUXSRV▯DUPDGRV▯FRORPELDQRV▯TXH▯FLUFXODQ▯SRU▯OD▯]RQD▯▯OR▯TXH▯GHQRWD▯OD▯IDOWD▯GH▯
VHJXULGDG▯\▯YLJLODQFLD▯HQ▯OD▯IURQWHUD▯▯SRU▯SDUWH▯GH▯ODV▯)XHU]DV▯$UPDGDV▯\▯OD▯3ROLFtD▯1DFLRQDO▯▯▯
▯(VWD▯VLWXDFLyQ▯PH▯KD▯REOLJDGR▯D▯VROLFLWDUOHV▯HQFDUHFLGDPHQWH▯▯HO▯DSR\R▯GH▯DXWRULGDGHV▯\▯)XHU]D▯
3~EOLFD▯▯SDUD▯LQLFLDU▯XQD▯GHPDQGD▯S~EOLFD▯LQWHUQDFLRQDO▯DO▯JRELHUQR▯FRORPELDQR▯D▯ILQ▯GH▯SHGLU▯OD▯
UHVSHFWLYD▯LQGHPQL]DFLyQ▯▯SRU▯ORV▯GDxRV▯FDXVDGRV▯HQ▯QXHVWUDV▯ILQFDV▯\▯OD▯SHUGLGD▯GH▯VHPEUtRV▯▯Annex 70
HQIHUPHGDGHV▯GH▯QLxRV▯\▯DGXOWRV▯\▯SRU▯OD▯PXHUWH▯GH▯ORV▯DQLPDOHV▯SRU▯LQWR[LFDFLyQ▯▯▯VRVWLHQH▯▯
▯
)XPLJDQWH▯Wy[LFR▯
▯
$O▯PLVPR▯WLHPSR▯▯1HOO\▯*DLERU▯▯XQD▯PDGUH▯GH▯IDPLOLD▯UDGLFDGD▯HQ▯HVWH▯VHFWRU▯IURQWHUL]R▯▯GHFODUy▯
KDEHU▯LQJHULGR▯DJXD▯GH▯XQD▯YHUWLHQWH▯\▯SRVWHULRUPHQWH▯VXIULU▯FRPSOLFDFLRQHV▯GLJHVWLYDV▯▯<▯HV▯TXH▯HQ▯
OD▯]RQD▯▯HO▯DJXD▯GH▯OD▯PD\RUtD▯GH▯ORV▯UtRV▯▯\▯HVSHFLDOPHQWH▯OD▯GHO▯6DQ▯0LJXHO▯▯▯HV▯XWLOL]DGD▯SDUD▯OD▯
HODERUDFLyQ▯GH▯ORV▯DOLPHQWRV▯▯DVHR▯H▯KLJLHQH▯SHUVRQDO▯▯SRU▯ORV▯PLOHV▯GH▯FDPSHVLQRV▯TXH▯KDELWDQ▯HQ▯
HVWD▯FXHQFD▯IOXYLDO▯▯
*DLERU▯UHFDOFy▯TXH▯H[LVWHQ▯YDULRV▯QLxRV▯▯HQWUH▯HOORV▯VXV▯KLMRV▯▯TXH▯KDQ▯VXIULGR▯HUXSFLRQHV▯HQ▯OD▯SLHO▯
\▯XQD▯HVSHFLH▯GH▯DOHUJLD▯LQFRQWURODEOH▯▯SRU▯OR▯TXH▯OD▯JHQWH▯KD▯RSWDGR▯SRU▯SHGLU▯DWHQFLyQ▯PHGLFD▯
LQPHGLDWD▯▯
&RQ▯UHODFLyQ▯D▯ORV▯DQLPDOHV▯▯ORV▯PiV▯DIHFWDGRV▯VRQ▯ODV▯DYHV▯GH▯FRUUDO▯▯TXH▯HQ▯VX▯PD\RUtD▯▯WUDV▯EHEHU▯
HO▯DJXD▯▯KDQ▯PXHUWR▯▯
6HJ~Q▯HVWD▯FLXGDGDQD▯▯H[LVWHQ▯FDVRV▯GH▯DERUWRV▯▯DO▯LJXDO▯TXH▯HO▯GH▯XQ▯QLxR▯TXH▯QDFLy▯HQ▯HO▯+RVSLWDO▯
GH▯/DJR▯$JULR▯▯\▯SUHVHQWDED▯PDOIRUPDFLRQHV▯yVHDV▯▯VLWXDFLyQ▯DWULEXLGD▯D▯ODV▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯▯
▯(V▯HVWD▯OD▯PiV▯SURIXQGD▯SREUH]D▯\▯GHVHVSHUDFLyQ▯GH▯QXHVWURV▯FRQFLXGDGDQRV▯▯TXH▯OR▯GLHURQ▯WRGR▯\▯
VH▯HQGHXGDURQ▯SDUD▯FXOWLYDU▯\▯KR\▯QR▯WLHQHQ▯QDGD▯▯QL▯VLTXLHUD▯VX▯WLHUUD▯FXOWLYDEOH▯▯▯▯VRVWLHQH▯%UDYR▯
HQ▯VX▯FDUWD▯▯
▯
1HJOLJHQFLD▯HQ▯DXWRULGDGHV▯
▯
3DUD▯%UDYR▯▯H[LVWH▯▯DEVROXWD▯LQHILFLHQFLD▯\▯QHJOLJHQFLD▯GH▯ODV▯DXWRULGDGHV▯SURYLQFLDOHV▯▯HPSH]DQGR▯
SRU▯HO▯*REHUQDGRU▯GH▯OD▯3URYLQFLD▯GH▯6XFXPEtRV▯9tFWRU▯9HODVFR▯▯TXH▯QR▯OLGHUD▯XQD▯DFFLyQ▯
FRQFHUWDGD▯GH▯OD▯VRFLHGDG▯FLYLO▯IURQWHUL]D▯▯D▯ILQ▯GH▯FRRUGLQDU▯ODV▯DFFLRQHV▯GH▯VHJXULGDG▯GH▯QXHVWUR▯
WHUULWRULR▯FRQ▯ODV▯)XHU]DV▯$UPDGDV▯▯▯
(Q▯WDOHV▯FLUFXQVWDQFLDV▯▯OD▯$VRFLDFLyQ▯GH▯&DPSHVLQRV▯3DOPHUDV▯)URQWHUL]DV▯▯VROLFLWDURQ▯OD▯GLUHFWD▯
LQWHUYHQFLyQ▯JXEHUQDPHQWDO▯FRQ▯HO▯REMHWLYR▯GH▯TXH▯VH▯DGRSWHQ▯FXDQWR▯DQWHV▯ODV▯PHGLGDV▯FRUUHFWLYDV▯
▯
/RV▯FDPSHVLQRV▯DJUHPLDGRV▯GHVDItDQ▯D▯ORV▯FDQGLGDWRV▯SUHVLGHQFLDOHV▯D▯YLVLWDU▯HO▯FRUGyQ▯IURQWHUL]R▯▯
▯SDUD▯TXH▯REVHUYHQ▯GH▯PDQHUD▯GLUHFWD▯ORV▯GDxRV▯FDXVDGRV▯SRU▯HO▯3ODQ▯&RORPELD▯▯XQ▯SODQ▯GH▯
H[WHUPLQLR▯\▯JXHUUD▯TXH▯FRPSURPHWH▯D▯ORV▯HFXDWRULDQRV▯GH▯PDQHUD▯GLUHFWD▯▯DXQTXH▯ODV▯DXWRULGDGHV▯
GLJDQ▯TXH▯DFi▯QR▯SDVD▯QDGD▯▯▯
▯7RGRV▯ORV▯'HUHFKRV▯5HVHUYDGRV▯ ▯▯▯▯▯ Annex 71
“GlyphosateAffects Crops in Sucumbíos”, EL COMERCIO (Quito, 8 Oct. 2002) Annex 71
▯
EL COMERCIO
8 October 2002
GLYPHOSATE AFFECTS CROPS IN SUCUMBÍOS
ENVIRONMENT. A pending complaint exists. Farmers settled near the border with Colombia
claim that their plantations are destroyed by fumigations aimed towards eradicating coca.
The aftermath of Plan Colombia is strongly felt in the Ecuadorian settlements of General Farfán,
5 de Agosto, Chone 2 and Santa Marianita.
Plantations of plantains, yucca and corn were damaged by fumigations with glyphosate, a
herbicide that destroys all types of plants. Fifteen communities in Lago Agrio have founded a
committee in defense.
Only two kilometers from the San Miguel River, the natural border between Ecuador and
Colombia, the landscape is desolate. The fields appear to be devoid of people, animals and life.
Dozens of JXDUXPRV, native trees in the areas fumigated, are barely able to support their
enormous leaves. Others, with completely barren branches, look like enormous candlesticks.
The banana trees are almost falling and their stalks barely support them. The impact of
fumigations is so strong that even the grass has been completely destroyed.
Dozens of completely dried out lots can be observed down the secondary road that connects the
town of Tetey with the settlement of El Porvenir. Not all are coca; some are banana, yucca or
corn.
“Three weeks ago, they fumigated my entire land. They destroyed 20 blocks of plantain, corn
and yucca and I only had but three blocks of coca which I was about to manually eradicate,”
Graciela Maya, a Colombian farmer, explained.
THE CORE
Glyphosate, a herbicide, is used in the fumigations. However,
it is used in a mixture that elevates its level of toxicity by 100
times. Its commercial name is “Round up”.
“They burnt the little plants. They continue to fumigate each time that the weather clears up.
Today, we have nothing to eat. The people are leaving to wherever they can go,” noted Elvira
Herrera, a resident of El Porvenir.
However, this is not the largest impact of the fumigations. Herrera describes how her children
fell ill after the airplane passed over “ejecting a white liquid.”
▯Annex 71
▯
This situation is not exclusive to the Colombian side. There are frequent complaints from
farmers in Ecuadorian territory regarding fumigation in settlements near the border.
“Last Thursday, an airplane escorted by two helicopters fumigated on the San Miguel River.
They told us that we would not be affected by the fumigations,” said José Reyes, president of
Puerto Nuevo, an Ecuadorian border settlement.
The very governor of Sucumbíos, Víctor Velasco, confirmed that the fumigating airplanes enter
Ecuadorian territory, “they do this in order to complete their turns,” he said on the radio.
While the airplanes tour Ecuadorian settlements near the border, complaints regarding
affectations increase.
Plantain plants starting to show dry leaves can be seen from the road. Walking along the parcels,
you can see how the yucca leaves are wilted, how the corn leaves look yellowed and wrinkled….
“Fifteen days ago, an airplane circled above. Subsequently, my children started to fall ill with
headaches, nausea, stomach aches, and boils on their skin. They had never fallen ill like this.
Since the Plan Colombia fumigations have started, everything has been damage,” noted Andrade.
In the populated centers of General Farfán, Santa Marianita, Chone 2, 5 de Agosto, the panorama
is similar and farmers’ claims multiply each day.
“The yucca dries up down to its root, in the same manner as plantain which ends up on the
ground; the hands that carry them never get to fatten,” noted Ángel Ortiz, a farmer who arrived
in Loja 20 years ago.
The other complaint is the death of animals. “The chicks lose their feathers and later die as if
they had been drowned. The cows and horses whittle down to their bones in a matter of days,”
said Ortiz.
Farmers on both sides of the border do not have anything to eat. “We do not even have money to
pay the matriculation in schools. No one has bought a single notebook because we do not have
the money,” assured Ortiz.
For Lourdes Luque, Ecuadorian Minister of Environment, measures have been taken. “If we are
able to prove that the fumigations are causing damage, the Chancellor’s commitment exists to
submit an international complaint as a result of the fumigations.”
The Minister added that a network for environmental monitoring would be implemented in the
border areas in two weeks. The aim is to prove whether the fumigations are affecting
Ecuadorian territory, through measurements using instruments.
While this situation is being clarified, both countries’ farmers are bewildered. They do not know
when they will be able to plant in their lands again. “Some say that we must wait a year, others
say that we must wait four years until the land recovers,” stated Segundo Andrade.
▯ Annex 71
▯
On Thursday, Acción Ecológica will present a study that will show the impacts of fumigation.
It is known that fumigations use 55% of water, 44% of glyphosate and one percent of Cosmo-
Flux 411F, a chemical used so that the pesticide can better penetrate the coca leaves.
MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THE DAMAGE
The organization- The Committee for Defense for the Border Corridor was formed on 27
September against the fumigations. It is comprised of representatives from 15
communities that live in the border area.
The displaced people – Approximately 200 farming families and seven indigenous
communities that implemented illicit crop eradication projects in Orito, San Miguel and
Puerto Caicedo (Putumayo-Colombia) were affected by glyphosate fumigations,
according to many NGO’s.
The support— U.S.A. annually provides financing for the fumigation program with 17
million dollars and provides over 1,300 dollars in economic and military aid to finance
Plan Colombia for the “fight against drugs”.
▯Annex 71Annex 71Annex 71Annex 71Annex 71 Annex 72
“Requesting an End to Fumigations”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 10 Oct. 2002) Annex 72
▯
EL TIEMPO
10 October 2002
REQUESTING AN END TO FUMIGATIONS
The debate over spraying glyphosate on illegal crops in Colombia has begun to heat up. One
week after scientists, U.S. NGOs, and environmental experts criticized the certification by the
State Department of aerial eradication in Colombia, the Ombudsman yesterday reported that
spraying with herbicide is violating International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Colombian
legal system.
The Ombudsman, Luis Eduardo Cifuentes, who until yesterday had received 6,553 complaints
from farmers, recommended suspending the spraying in Putumayo while performing a thorough
evaluation of the implementation of the commitments undertaken by the government, and over
thirty thousand signed pacts to voluntarily eradicate 30 thousand hectares of illicit crops in nine
municipalities in the department.
He asserted that the Aerial Eradication Program for Illicit Crops, which involved foreign and
Colombian staff hired by the U.S. firm DynCorp, is not aware of the environmental management
plan of the Ministry of Environment to prohibit the forced eradication in static water bodies and
streams in areas of human settlement within Indian reservations and areas of production projects
and agreements (see box).
The farmers say they have lost their subsistence crops because of the spraying carried out in late
2001as far as this year is concerned.
Only in the municipalities of Puerto Asís, Orito and Guamuez Valley, said the Ombudsman, 318
complaints have been known to be filed for causing harm to 6,076 families and 5,034 hectares.
The reported damages were caused to properties in which supposedly 100 percent of the coca or
at least 70 percent had already been eliminated and where cassava, banana, corn, fruit trees and
grass had been planted, he said.
Cifuentes, who denounced a notorious paramilitary presence in the urban areas of middle and
lower Putumayo and guerrilla in rural areas, asked the military to ensure public order and respect
for human rights and IHL. He said that despite the increased military presence, the conflict
continues to increase, adding that in the first seven months of this year there had been 307
homicides, an increase of almost 50 percent over the previous year.
The data is contained in a 42-page ombudsman resolution presented to reporters yesterday at a
press conference which made officials of government entities related to the Plan Colombia move
to action. When reporters attempted to question them, the program’s press office said that none
of the firms involved in the Plan knew of the document and a statement would only be released
once it had been studied.
Last night, a spokesman for Plan Colombia said that each entity (Plante, Putumayo Plan and the
▯Annex 72
▯
National Narcotics Council, including others), considered the points separately and would be
issuing a joint response today.
The document, which contains a detailed and thorough investigation, questioning the
government's compliance with agreements signed with the farmers. It notes that, to date, some 15
months after social pacts were signed, there had been a failure to deliver 26 percent of resources
allocated to food security.
These deliveries, which are also severely challenged by farmers and local authorities of
Putumayo, were to be met in the first twelve months. Spokesmen for Plan Colombia have agreed,
in other , that delivery schedules were delayed due to transportation difficulties in the area,
scepticism on the part of farmers and public order problems (several NGO staff who coordinate
the projects have been threatened, detained and one was even killed last year in Villa Garzón).
Some of the allegations contained in the document were made during an Ombudsman hearing
two weeks ago in Bogotá, and in which the governor of Putumayo, Ivan Gerardo Guerrero, and
other local leaders criticized the fumigation and asked for the policy of voluntary eradication
pacts to be continued.
The chief executive of the department has stated on numerous occasions that the farmers of
Putumayo have proven their willingness to change their illegal crops for legal products and proof
of this, explained the official, are the five thousand hectares of coca eradicated by farmers and
indigenous people pursuant to the agreements signed with the government.
On September 5 , the spraying had received the approval of the Department of State of the
United States as it considered the effect on the population not to be significant. This certification,
which was met with severe criticism from scientists and environmentalists, was required by
Congress to disburse new resources for the purchase of chemicals used in fumigation.
This year, according to the Plan Colombia, 41 000 hectares have been treated in the
municipalities of the middle and lower Putumayo. The mayor of Puerto Asis said that the
spraying in areas of legal crops can affect the credibility of the farmers in agreements with
government and local administrations.
The Ombudsman said yesterday that the spraying in areas where money has been invested in
Plan Colombia may be causing a detriment to public monies. It is not conceivable that on one
hand resources are given to provide alternative programs and the other, they are being sprayed. It
is a waste of resources, he said.
THE PUTUMAYO PLAN.
In this department of 325 thousand inhabitants, the Colombian government, with U.S. backing,
has been developing an offensive for the past two years to end the spraying of illicit crops,
interdiction, and social and infrastructure projects.
▯ Annex 72
▯
The Putumayo Plan includes investments of close to 300 billion pesos, in addition to the
international resources that are to be used in agreement with some 32 thousand families of
farmers and indigenous people.
At the end of 2001, Putumayo had 47 thousand hectares of coca, 19 thousand less than in 2000.
Of the complaints reaching the Ombudsman, the most unusual is that of the 34 growers of palm,
who reported the destruction of 51 hectares of the plant, planted with resources from
international cooperation. This is considered the most successful alternative development policy
industrial project.
PHOTO / Milton Diaz EL TIEMPO
This year we have treated 41,000 hectares of coca in nine municipalities in Putumayo, from
airplanes that are supplied with glyphosate in Villa Garzón.
Publication
eltiempo.com
Section
Overview
Date of Publication
10 October 2002
Author
NullValue
▯Annex 72 Annex 72
Martes 19 de octubre de 2010 | Actualizado hace 6 minutos
Pico y placa BogotáNo Aplica Hoy MITIEMPOIngreso | Registro
Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo Sub
inicio debes saber debes hacer debes lee r secciones clasificados archivo ayudas
Temas del día Álvaro Uribe Alcaldía de Bogotá Partido de la U Juan Manuel Santos Paraguay Fútbol Internacionalanos en:
eltiempo.com / archivo
PIDEN PARAR FUMIGACIONES
El debate por las fumigaciones con glifosato contra cultivos ilícitos en Colombia empieza a caldearse. Una semana después de que
científicos y ONG de Estados Unidos, expertos en medio ambiente, criticaron duramente la certificación otorgada por el
departamento de Estado a la erradicación aérea en Colombia, la Defensoría de Pueblo denunció ayer que las aspersiones con el
herbicida están violando el Derecho Internacional Humanitario (DIH) y el ordenamiento jurídico Colombiano.
El debate por las fumigaciones con glifosato contra cultivos ilícitos en Colombia empieza a caldearse. Una semana después de que
científicos y ONG de Estados Unidos, expertos en medio ambiente, criticaron duramente la certificación otorgada por el
departamento de Estado a la erradicación aérea en Colombia, la Defensoría de Pueblo denunció ayer que las aspersiones con el
herbicida están violando el Derecho Internacional Humanitario (DIH) y el ordenamiento jurídico Colombiano.
El defensor del pueblo, Luis Eduardo Cifuentes, quien había recibido hasta ayer 6.553 quejas de campesinos, recomendó que se
suspendan las fumigaciones en el Putumayo mientras se realiza una evaluación rigurosa del cumplimiento de los compromisos
asumidos por el gobierno, y por más de treinta mil firmantes de los pactos para erradicar voluntariamente unas 30 mil hectáreas de
cultivos ilícitos en nueve municipios de ese departamento.
Adujo que el Programa de Erradicación Aérea de Cultivos Ilícitos, en el cual participa personal extranjero y colombiano contratado
por la firma estadounidense DynCorp, desconoce el plan de manejo ambiental del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente que prohibe la
erradicación forzosa en cuerpos de agua estáticos y corrientes, en zonas de asentamientos humanos, dentro de resguardos indígenas
y en áreas de proyectos productivos y de pactos (Ver recuadro).
Los campesinos aseguran haber perdido sus cultivos de pan coger debido a las fumigaciones realizadas a finales del 2001 y en lo que
va de este año.
Sólo en los municipios de Puerto Asís, Orito y Valle del Guamuez, dice la Defensoría del Pueblo, se han conocido 318 quejas por la
afectación de 6.076 familias y 5.034 hectáreas. Los daños reportados fueron causados en predios en los cuales supuestamente ya se
había erradicado el 100 por ciento de la coca o, al menos, el 70 por ciento y donde se habían sembrado cultivos de yuca, plátano,
maíz, árboles frutales y pastos, agregó.
Cifuentes, quien denunció una notoria presencia de paramilitares en los cascos urbanos del medio y bajo Putumayo y de la guerrilla
en las zonas rurales, pidió a las fuerzas armadas garantizar el orden público y el respeto a los derechos humanos y al DIH. Dijo que a
pesar la creciente presencia militar, el conflicto sigue en aumento y añadió que en los primeros siete meses de este año se
presentaron 307 homicidios, lo que representa un incremento casi del 50 por ciento con respecto al año anterior.
Los datos están contenidos en una resolución defensorial de 42 páginas entregada ayer a los periodistas en rueda de prensa y que
puso a correr a los funcionarios de las entidades oficiales relacionadas con el Plan Colombia. Cuando los reporteros intentaron
interrogarlos, la oficina de prensa de ese programa señaló que ninguno de los despachos involucrados en el Plan conocía el
documento y que solo habría un pronunciamiento una vez fuera estudiado.
Anoche, un vocero del Plan Colombia dijo que cada entidad (Plante, Plan Putumayo y Consejo Nacional de Estupefacientes, entre
otros), estudia por separado los puntos y hoy se emitirá una respuesta conjunta.
El documento, que contiene un detallada y minuciosa investigación, cuestiona el cumplimiento por parte del gobierno en los
convenios suscritos con los campesinos. Señala que, a la fecha, unos 15 meses después de haber sido firmados los pactos sociales,
falta por entregar el 26 por ciento de los recursos destinados para seguridad alimentaria.
Estas entregas, que también son cuestionadas severamente por los campesinos y autoridades locales del Putumayo, debían cumplirse
en los primeros doce meses. Voceros del Plan Colombia han aceptado en otras oportunidades que los cronogramas de entrega
sufrieron un retraso debido a dificultades de transporte en la zona, escepticismo por parte de los campesinos y problemas de or den
público (varios funcionarios de las ONG que coordinan los proyectos han sido amenazados, retenidos y uno de ellos asesinado el año
pasado en Villa Garzón).
Algunas de las denuncias incluidas en el documento, fueron hechas durante una audiencia defensorial realizada hace dos semanas en
Bogotá, y en la cual el gobernador del Putumayo, Ivan Gerardo Guerrero, y otros mandatarios locales criticaron la fumigación y
pidieron continuar con la política de pactos de erradicación voluntaria.
El primer mandatario del departamento ha señalado en diversas oportunidades que los campesinos del Putumayo han demostrado su
voluntad de cambiar sus cultivos ilícitos por productos lícitos y una prueba de ello, ha precisado el funcionario, son las cinco mil
hectáreas de coca erradicadas por los campesinos e indígenas dentro de los pactos suscritos con el gobierno.
La fumigación había recibido, el pasado 5 de septiembre, el visto bueno del departamento de Estado de Estados Unidos por
considerar que no afecta de manera considerable a la población. Esta certificación, que recibió duras críticas de científicos y
ambientalistas, era exigida por el Congreso estadounidense para desembolsar nuevos recursos para la compra de químicos usados en
la fumigación.Annex 72
Este año, según datos del Plan Colombia, se han fumigado 41 mil hectáreas en los municipios del medio y bajo Putumayo. El alcalde
de Puerto Asís ha dicho que las fumigaciones en zonas de cultivos lícitos pueden afectar la credibilidad de los campesinos en los
acuerdos con el gobierno y en las administraciones locales.
El Defensor opinó ayer que las fumigaciones en zonas donde se ha invertido dinero del Plan Colombia pueden estar causando un
detrimento en los dineros públicos. No se entiende como, con una mano se les entrega recursos para facilitar programas alternativos
y con la otra se los fumiga. Es un desperdicio de recursosi , concluyó.
PLAN PUTUMAYO.
En este departamento de 325 mil habitantes, el gobierno colombiano, con respaldo de Estados Unidos, desarrolla desde hace dos
años una ofensiva para acabar con los cultivos ilícitos mediante la fumigación, interdicción y proyectos sociales y de infraestructura.
El Plan Putumayo contempla inversiones cercanas a los 300 mil millones de pesos, además de la ejecución de recursos
internacionales en pactos con unas 32 mil familias de campesinos e indígenas.
Al finalizar el 2001 el Putumayo tenía 47 mil hectáreas de coca, 19 mil menos que en el 2000.
De las denuncias llegadas a la Defensoría, la más insólita es la de 34 cultivadores de palmito, quienes reportaron la destrucción de
51 hectáreas de esa planta, sembradas con recursos de cooperación internacional. Este es considerado el proyecto industrial más
exitoso de la política de desarrollo alternativo.
FOTO/Milton Díaz EL TIEMPO.
Este año se han fumigado 41 mil hectáreas de coca en nueve municipios del Putumayo, desde avionetas que se abastecen de
glifosato en la base de Villa Garzón.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Información general
Fecha de publicación
10 de octubre de 2002
Autor
NULLVALUE
PUBLICIDAD
Volver arriba
Recibe las noticias de eltiempo.com en formato RSS
Empresas-portafolio.com.co
Debes saber Debes hacer Debes leer Secciones Clasificados Archivo Guía de Bogotávive.in
Colombia Política Justicia Mundo Deportes Economía Opinión Tecnología Entretenimiento Gente Vida de hoy Publirreportaje Videos Blogs
Clasificados de trabajompleo.com
Todo sobre fútbolútbolred.com
Videos de noticiastytv.com.co
Aló Mujeres Revista Carrusel Elenco Tecnología Credencial Lecturas Motor
Motos y carros en ventaroya.com
Fotos y modelosrevistadonjuan.com
Clasificados de inmueblesrocuadrado.com
Mapa del sitio Ayuda Registro Contacto Kindle Navegador IE8 Suscripciones Terminos y condiciones
Paute con nosotros Club de suscriptores Casa Editorial El Tiempo Trabaje con nosotros Centros de ventas Colecciones El Tiempo Publicidad Política en Colo-bcambio.com.co
Todo sobre niñosbcdelbebé.com
Carros y Motosotor.com.co
Noticias de interneter.co
COPYRIGHT © 2010 CEET. Prohibida su reproducción total o parcial, así como su traducción a cualquier idioma sin autorización escrita de sTrabajos técnicos en Colombiarabajo.com
ELTIEMPO.com todas las noticias principales de Colombia y el Mundo
Noticias regionalesarioadn.com.co
Miembro de GDA. Miembro de IAB. Educación en Colombiauíaacadémica.com
Grupo de Diarios de América Interactive Advertising Bureau Head hunterse-hunters.com
cargando Publicidad onl-audienciadigital.com
cargando Annex 73
“Fumigations Cause Concern in Putumayo”, EL COMERCIO (Quito, 10 Nov. 2002) Annex 73
▯
EL COMERCIO
10 November 2002
FUMIGATIONS CAUSE CONCERN IN PUTUMAYO
Bogotá
Authorities in the southern Colombian department of Putumayo, where there is a confluence of
poverty, violence, the fight against and U.S. oil interests, worriedly received President Alvaro
Uribe’s decision to continue the spraying of herbicide on illicit crops.
The provincial governor, Ivan Guerrero, told AFP that the president's statement was met with
concern “because it means that the health of our farmers and legal crops will be affected by
fumigations.“
He added that the people of the Putumayo department bordering Ecuador and Peru, “are
completely in agreement with the national government on the need to eradicate illicit crops and
to defeat the drug, but do not believe that spraying of herbicides is the most appropriate method.”
“Historically, the fumigation has failed to eliminate coca plantations and has only caused people
disease, the displacement of settlers and damage to the ecosystem,” said Guerrero.
On his part, the lead farmer, Arturo Zuluaga said via telephone from the town of “La Hormiga“
(800 km south of Bogota) in the municipality of Putumayo that farmers in the region fear a new
round of indiscriminate spraying, such as that which took place two months ago.
“We do not like that Uribe has only one way to combat drug trafficking and that this method is
precisely the method that is most detrimental to farming”, said Zuluaga, who clamoured for the
implementation of a comprehensive and long-term plan for alternative development in the coca
zones as a mechanism to defeat the first link of the scourge of drugs.
Farmers in several villages located on the border of Ecuador have also reported that spraying
Colombian coca and poppy crops (raw materials for cocaine and heroin) have caused damage to
their health and their fields of corn, banana and cassava (manioc).
On Thursday, Uribe, a close U.S. ally in the war on drugs, ruled out the possibility of suspending
the fumigation of coca and poppy crops (raw materials for cocaine and heroin) in Putumayo, as
requested by the Ombudsman of Colombia, Eduardo Cifuentes, who said that the spraying is
affecting human health.
Putumayo, a jungle department of about 325,000 inhabitants, mostly farmers, settlers and
indigenous people has also become a scene of guerrilla and paramilitary violence as well as a
shelter of a growing poor army, after the fever of coca and oil that attracted thousands of
unemployed Colombians a decade ago.
▯Annex 73
▯
“Here, we witness the spectacle of the rebels and paramilitaries who amidst shootings, fight over
several territories and the many farmers and immigrants unable to achieve prosperity in the
mirage of coca and oil,“ said the Ombudsman of “La Hormiga“, Leandro Romo.
“FARC“ insurgents (17,000 troops throughout the country) operate in this region as well as the
“ELN“ (4,000), and the paramilitary group “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia“ (AUC, 10,000),
sworn enemies of the guerrillas. All these groups are considered drug traffickers and terrorists by
the U.S.
Putumayo is also the scene of the implementation of Plan Colombia, to fight drugs and the
insurgency, for which Washington provides more than 1,300 million dollars in economic and
military aid for the framework in which the spraying of coca and poppy areas occurs.
It is estimated that half the department encompasses the more than 160,000 hectares of coca in
Colombia, considered by the White House as the largest producer of cocaine and a major
supplier of heroin to the United States, the biggest consumer of drugs in the world which also has
strong oil interests in the Andean country.
The state-owned company “Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos (Ecopetrol)“ and the U.S. private
company Argosy Energy operate wells in the town of Orito, Putumayo, near La Hormiga and the
border with Ecuador where they are extracting more than 10,000 barrels of oil daily.
Much of the oil extracted in Orito is transported by pipeline to the port of Tumaco (Southwest,
on the Pacific Ocean). AFP
&RS\ULJKW▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯*5832▯(/▯&20(5&,2▯&▯$▯▯
7KH▯UHSURGXFWLRQ▯LQ▯ZKROH▯RU▯SDUW▯RI▯WKLV▯FRQWHQW▯ZLWKRXW▯WKH▯SHUPLVVLRQ▯RI▯*UXSR▯HO▯&RPHUFLR▯LV▯
IRUELGGHQ▯
▯ Annex 73
Fumigaciones preocupan en el Putumayo
10/11/2002
Bogotá.
Las autoridades del sureño departamento colombiano de Putumayo - donde confluyen la pobreza, la violencia, la lucha
antidrogas y los intereses petroleros de Estados Unidos- recibieron preocupadas la decisión del presidente Alvaro
Uribe de mantener la fumigación con herbicidas de los cultivos ilícitos.
El gobernador provincial, Iván Guerrero, dijo a la AFP que la aseveración del presidente fue recibida con preocupación,
"porque ello significa que la salud de nuestros campesinos y los cultivos lícitos seguirán siendo afectados por las
aspersiones".
Añadió que los habitantes de Putumayo -departamento fronterizo con Ecuador y Perú- " están completamente de
acuerdo con el gobierno nacional en que es necesario erradicar las plantaciones ilícitas y derrotar la droga, pero no
creen que las fumigaciones con herbicidas sean el camino más adecuado".
"Históricamente la aspersión ha sido un fracaso para eliminar las plantaciones de coca y sólo ha causado enfermedades
a las personas, desplazamientos de los colonos y daños al ecosistema", insistió Guerrero.
Por su parte, el dirigente campesino Arturo Zuluaga señaló telefónicamente desde el municipio putumayense de La
Hormiga (800 km al sur de Bogotá) que los agricultores de la región temen por una nueva campaña de fumigaciones
indiscriminadas, tal como la que se llevó a cabo hace dos meses.
"No nos gusta que Uribe vea una sola forma de combatir el narcotráfico y que esa forma sea precisamente la más
nociva para el campesinado", dijo Zuluaga, quien reclamó la ejecución de un plan integral y a largo plazo de desarrollo
alternativo en las zonas cocaleras, como mecanismo por derrotar el primer eslabón del flagelo de las drogas.
Los campesinos de varias localidades ecuatorianas localizadas en la frontera también han denunciado que la fumigación
de los cultivos colombianos de coca y amapola (materias primas de la cocaína y la heroína) les han causado daños en
la salud y en sus plantaciones de maíz, plátano y yuca (mandioca).
Uribe, un estrecho aliado de Estados Unidos en la lucha antidrogas, descartó el jueves la posibilidad de suspender la
fumigación de cultivos de coca y amapola (materias primas de la cocaína y la heroína) en Putumayo, tal como lo
solicitó el Defensor del Pueblo de Colombia, Eduardo Cifuentes, quien afirmó que las aspersiones están afectando la
salud humana.
Putumayo -un departamento selvático de unos 325.000 habitantes, la mayoría campesinos, colonos e indígenas-
también se ha convertido en escenario de la violencia guerrillera y paramilitar y en albergue de un creciente ejército de
pobres, tras la fiebre de la coca y el petróleo que hace una década atrajo a miles de colombianos desempleados.
"Acá asistimos al espectáculo de los rebeldes y paramilitares que se disputan a tiros varios territorios y de los muchos
campesinos e inmigrantes que no pudieron alcanzar la prosperidad en el espejismo de la coca y el petróleo", dijo el
Defensor del Pueblo de La Hormiga, Leandro Romo.
En esa región operan los insurgentes de las FARC (17.000 efectivos en todo el país) y el ELN (4.000), así como los
paramilitares de las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC, 10.000), enemigos acérrimos de la guerrilla. Todos esos
grupos son considerados por Estados Unidos como narcotraficantes y terroristas.
Putumayo es también escenario de la aplicación del Plan Colombia de lucha contra las drogas y la insurgencia, al que
Washington aporta más de 1.300 millones de dólares en ayuda económica y militar y en el marco del cual se fumigan
las zonas cocaleras y amapoleras.
Se estima que ese departamento concentra la mitad de las más de 160.000 hectáreas de coca existentes en Colombia,
considerado por la Casa Blanca como el primer productor mundial de cocaína y un importante proveedor de heroína a
Estados Unidos, el mayor consumidor de drogas del planeta y con fuertes intereses petroleros en el país andino.
La estatal Empresa Colombiana de Petróleos (Ecopetrol) y la privada estadounidense Argosy Energy operan los pozos
de la localidad putumayense de Orito, cercana a La Hormiga y a la frontera con Ecuador y de donde se extraen a diario
más de 10.000 barriles de crudo.
Gran parte del petróleo extraído en Orito es transportado por una tubería hasta el puerto de Tumaco (suroeste, sobre el
océano Pacífico). AFP
Derechos reservados ® 2001-2008 GRUPO EL COMERCIO C.A.
Prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de este contenido sin autorización de Diario El ComercioAnnex 73 Annex 74
“Glyphosate Rain”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 25 Feb. 2003) Annex 74
▯
EL TIEMPO
25 February 2003
GLYPHOSATE RAIN
Five hundred “motilón-barí” Indians are hungry and have health problems as a result of the
glyphosate spraying that is being carried out by the Narcotics Police in an attempt to
eradicate the coca leaf plantations in Catatumbo. In addition, rogue groups operating in the
region are constantly entering their territories and abusing them.
The fumigation of about 11 thousand hectares of coca leaf in process since mid-January in
Catatumbo has generated protests from these communities, whose leaders claimed that
glyphosate affected their guards and reached the Catatumbo Bari National Park, located in
five municipalities in northern Santander and considered a nature reserve in the region. But
the drama experienced by motilones not resounded with the national government.
A commission formed by the Parks Unit of the Ministry of Environment, the Ombudsman
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Interior, heard and verified the situation they are
facing. “We are very concerned, they always perform the spraying in the same direction and
it is affecting plantain, cassava and maize, and our community has skin problems, ”Ashcayra
Arabadora said, representing the Autonomous Council of Bari Chiefs, in Tibú.
The indigenous leader, a spokesman for the 23 communities in the area, said that at this stage
of spraying, the planes flew over the area at least three times, the last of which was January
20 - and although the goal is to eliminate illicit crops that settlers have in their lands, it ends
up harming the ethnic group.
For his part, Juan Titira, a “motilon” representative, blamed the birth of three children with
cleft lip and cleft palate in addition to the increasing cases of tuberculosis on the spraying that
took place in 2002. “We need to think twice to hunt tapirs, capybaras and deer or fish,
because these animals could have consumed glyphosate and we do not want to continue being
sick,” he said.
Damage to food is further complicated by the lack of food reaching the shelters. “It is a
violation of human rights that the law has repeatedly deprived us of food supply”, 40
“motilon” leaders denounced in a letter to the Ombudsman's Office and the National
indigenous Organization of Colombia (NIOC).
When referring to his relationship with guerrillas and paramilitary groups operating in its area
of influence, the “motilones” added: “We are being abused physically and psychologically,
and therefore we request mediation by human rights organizations to dialogue with these
groups, so that a solution may be reached to the problem.”
In addition to the complaints of the Indians, over 15 Catatumbo farmers have submitted
complaints to the Tibu Ombudsman, due to the effect on cassava crops, corn, banana and
papaya, and the presence of skin diseases and dead fish in ponds and the Catatumbo River.
EL TIEMPO searched for General Jaime Augusto Vera Garavito, director of the Narcotics
Police, to know the position of the institution over complaints it had received, but there has
not been any response to this newspaper’s calls.
DAMAGES NOT RECOGNIZED
▯Annex 74
▯
The personality of the Tibu said the Narcotics Police had never sent the contingency plan to
be submitted to the authorities before each stage of fumigation. It added that those affected
people would not be recognized for the losses caused to crops by the previous lawful spray as
they do not meet the requirements of Resolution 0017 of 2001 as salutatorian from DNE.
“The fundamental requirement is the copy of ownership of the property and many people do
not have it because the country is still managed on the principle of good faith and people's
word. In addition, the complaint must make it only to the personality, and due to economic
situations, there are people who cannot make it to Tibú, ”said the official.
The Tibú Mayor, Taiz Ortega, warned that of the more than 200 complaints that were
introduced in the previous stage of spraying, in 2002, none were taken into account by the
Government. “One drawback is that the resolution warns that another form should be
completed by the ICA or Umata and that neither of these organizations exists here. The
company Estam Limited, which was created by former officials of the Umata, could check
the damages, but they will not visit the area due to the public order situation that has been
recorded there, ”said the president.
Publication:
eltiempo.com
Section: Nation
Date: 25th February 2003
Author: NULLVALUE
▯ Annex 74
eltiempo.com / archivo
LLUVIA DE GLIFOSATO
Medio millar de indígenas motilón-barí tienen hambre y problemas de salud, como consecuencia de las aspersiones con glifosato que adelanta la Policía Antinarcóticos para
erradicar las plantaciones de hoja de coca en el Catatumbo. Además, los grupos al margen de la ley que operan en la región ingresan constantemente a sus territorios y los
maltratan.
Medio millar de indígenas motilón-barí tienen hambre y problemas de salud, como consecuencia de las aspersiones con glifosato que adelanta la Policía Antinarcóticos para
erradicar las plantaciones de hoja de coca en el Catatumbo. Además, los grupos al margen de la ley que operan en la región ingresan constantemente a sus territorios y los
maltratan.
La fumigación de unas 11 mil hectáreas de hoja de coca que se adelanta desde mediados de enero en la zona del Catatumbo ha generado protestas por parte de estas
comunidades, cuyos líderes denunciaron que el glifosato afectó sus resguardos y alcanzó el Parque Nacional Catatumbo Barí, ubicado en cinco municipios de Norte de Santander
y considerado una reserva natural en la región. Pero el drama que sufren los motilones no ha tenido eco en el Gobierno Nacional.
Una comisión conformada por la Unidad de Parques del Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, la Defensoría del Pueblo y la Oficina de Asuntos Indígenas de la Gobernación, los escuchó
y verificó la situación que enfrentan. "Estamos muy preocupados, siempre realizan la aspersión en la misma dirección y nos afectan cultivos de plátano, yuca y maíz, y nuestra
comunidad tiene problemas en la piel", aseguró Ashcayra Arabadora, delegado del Consejo Autónomo de Caciques Barí, en Tibú.
El líder indígena, vocero de las 23 comunidades asentadas en la zona, sostuvo que en esta etapa de las fumigaciones las avionetas sobrevolaron el área por lo menos tres veces -
la última de las cuales fue el 20 de enero-- y aunque el objetivo es acabar con los cultivos ilícitos que los colonos poseen alrededor de sus tierras, la etnia termina por
perjudicarse.
Por su parte, Juan Titira, representante de los motilones, responsabilizó a las fumigaciones que se realizaron en el 2002, del nacimiento de tres niños con labio leporino y
paladar hendido, además del incremento de casos de tuberculosis. "Ya lo pensamos dos veces para cazar las dantas, venados o chiguiros y también pescar, porque estos animales
podrían haber consumido el glifosato y no queremos seguir enfermos", advirtió.
Los daños a los alimentos se complican aún más por la falta de comida que debe llegar a los resguardos. "Es una violación de derechos humanos cuando los grupos al margen de
la ley en repetidas ocasiones nos han privado del suministro de víveres", denunciaron 40 líderes motilones en una carta enviada a la Defensoría del Pueblo y a la Organización
Nacional de Indígenas de Colombia (Onic).
Al referirse a su relación con guerrilleros y paramilitares que operan en su zona de influencia, los motilones agregaron: "Estamos siendo maltratados física y sicológicamente, por
lo cual solicitamos mediación de los organismos de derechos humanos para que dialoguen con estos grupos, y se le pueda dar solución a esta problemática".
Las denuncias de los indígenas se suman a las más de 15 que han presentado campesinos del Catatumbo ante la Personería de Tibú, debido a la afectación de sus cultivos de
yuca, maíz, plátano y lechoza, además de la presencia de enfermedades en la piel y la muerte de peces en estanques y en el río Catatumbo.
EL TIEMPO buscó al general Jaime Augusto Vera Garavito, director de la Policía Antinarcóticos, para conocer la posición de la institución sobre las denuncias, pero no respondió
a los llamados de este periódico.
NO RECONOCEN LOS DAÑOS.
La Personera de Tibú señaló que la Policía Antinarcóticos nunca envió el plan de contingencia que debe presentarse a las autoridades antes de cada etapa de fumigación. Agregó
que a las personas afectadas no les reconocieron las pérdidas causadas a los cultivos lícitos por la anterior aspersión porque no cumplen lo exigido en la Resolución 0017 del 2001
de la Dirección Nacional de Estupefacientes.
"El requisito fundamental es la copia de la propiedad del bien y mucha gente no lo tiene porque en el campo todavía se maneja el principio de la buena fe y la palabra. Además,
la denuncia deben hacerla sólo ante la personería y por la situación económica hay personas que no pueden venir a Tibú", expresó la funcionaria.
La alcaldesa de Tibú, Taíz Ortega, advirtió que de las más de 200 denuncias que fueron instauradas en la anterior etapa de fumigación, en el 2002, ninguna fue tenida en cuenta
por el Gobierno Nacional. "Un inconveniente más es que la Resolución advierte que otro formulario debe ser diligenciado por el ICA o la Umata y aquí no existe ninguna de esas
entidades. La empresa Estam Limitada, que fue creada por antiguos funcionarios de la Umata, nos podría hacer esa verificación de los daños, pero ellos no van a la zona por la
situación de orden público que allí se registra", indicó la mandataria.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Nación
Fecha de publicación
25 de febrero de 2003
Autor
NULLVALUEAnnex 74 Annex 75
“Spray Program on Indigenous Territories Is Struggling”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 28Apr. 2003) Annex 75
▯
EL TIEMPO
28 April 2003
SPRAY PROGRAM ON INDIGENOUS TERRITORIES IS STRUGGLING
The Constitutional Court’s review of a tutelage has president Uribe’s administration in suspense,
because if the court decides that the plaintiff is right, the Government would be unable to
fumigate illegal crops in the 597 Indian reservations in the country, which span over 30 million
hectares, almost 28 percent of the national territory.
Although until October of last year it was estimated that there were 11,790 hectares of coca
plantations in 105 shelters, and a good part of it was eradicated by spraying during the offensive
initiated by the Government in the past four months, the outcome of what is being heard in the
Court caused the Minister of Interior, Fernando Londoño Hoyos, to start playing both sides to
prevent a decision against the spraying.
On the one hand, and in quite unusual fashion for the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the
Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), on Tuesday, the Minister of Interior invited the leaders of that
body to a meeting in his office. The meeting lasted two hours and the head of that organization
was conciliatory and willing to meet the Indian’s proposals for greater autonomy, generating
alternative projects in their territories and revising the programs of Plan Colombia.
The reason?
OPIAC, an organization representing some 300,000 people from 56 indigenous groups of this
forgotten region is the author of the Tutelage, filed in July 2001 and on that occasion the court
ruled against the Indians, which gave the green light to eradication by aerial spraying in shelter
areas.
Fumigation, however, was halted for a fortnight, while the judge of the fifteenth civil circuit
court of Bogota made a decision.
The spraying could now be suspended permanently if the Court were to accept the arguments of
the OPIAC and Ombudsman, an agency which requested the review of the decision in November
last year.
The Government’s eagerness regarding the issue seems to be motivated by the proximity of a
decision by the Constitutional Court. This Tutelage, which was selected along with others for
review from more than two thousand weekly applications has been on thH▯IXOO▯FKDPEHUµV▯DJHQGD▯
three times, but had to be postponed due to lack of time.
A Constitutional Court judge who asked to remain anonymous explained that, initially, this issue
would be addressed by one of the judges, but due to its importance for the country, it was
decided that a full chamber, the highest ruling body of that court, would be charged with
addressing the arguments.
But the minister did not limit himself to trying to soften the position of indigenous people
regarding the spraying. Nearly 24 hours after the appointment with Amazon leaders on
▯Annex 75
▯
Wednesday at 5:30 pm, Minister Londoño Hoyos sent a letter to each of the nine Constitutional
Court judges, noting the inconvenience of suspending fumigation.
Certain terms used by the Minister, however, caused friction between the judges. A judge
labelled it as undutiful to Canal Caracol last Friday. Another member of that High Court told EL
TIEMPO yesterday that there is disagreement, distress and outrage among the judges as the letter
leaves the court in a dilemma: it is good if it rules in favor of fumigation and is bad if it rules
against it.
One paragraph that caused more anger among the judges stated the following: With such
protection, mafias in Colombia and United States, the FARC, the ELN and the illegal self-
defense, will hold great festivities, the nation would be plunged into perplexity and doomed to be
destroyed by terrorist groups.
We will not answer the letter. The important thing now is that we decide calmly and when it
comes time to decide, that we decide, added the judge.
In his letter, the minister described the fact that the process remains in effect after two years as
startling, and argues that the Tutelage is completely devoid of meaning as this is a mechanism
designed to achieve immediate protection over fundamental rights that are threatened.
In the request for review, the Ombudsman said that the spraying has affected the Guaviare,
Putumayo, Caquetá, Vaupés, Guainía and Amazon indigenous territories.
He adds that the spraying threatens the right of communities to enjoy a healthy environment. The
agency cites as example, four cases of indigenous villages of Putumayo, where, he says, the
aircraft spraying killed all traditional crops, medicinal gardens, orchards, fish ponds and pastures.
eltiempo.com / file
Publication
Eltiempo.com
Section
General Information
Date of Publication
28 April 2003
Author
José Navia Reporting Editor
▯ Annex 75
Martes 19 de octubre de 2010 | Actualizado hace 10 minutos
Pico y placa BogotáNo Aplica Hoy MITIEMPOIngreso | Registro
Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo Sub
inicio debes saber debes hacer debes lee r secciones clasificados archivo ayudas
Temas del día Álvaro Uribe Alcaldía de Bogotá Partido de la U Juan Manuel Santos Paraguay Fútbol Internacionalanos en:
eltiempo.com / archivo
TAMBALEA FUMIGACIÓN EN TERRITORIOS INDÍGENAS
La revisión de una tutela por parte de la Corte Constitucional tiene en ascuas a la administración del presidente Uribe, pues en caso
de que esa corporación le conceda la razón al demandante, el Gobierno quedaría impedido para fumigar cultivos ilícitos en los 597
resguardos indígenas del país, que tienen una extensión superior a los 30 millones de hectáreas, casi el 28 por ciento del territorio
nacional.
La revisión de una tutela por parte de la Corte Constitucional tiene en ascuas a la administración del presidente Uribe, pues en caso
de que esa corporación le conceda la razón al demandante, el Gobierno quedaría impedido para fumigar cultivos ilícitos en los 597
resguardos indígenas del país, que tienen una extensión superior a los 30 millones de hectáreas, casi el 28 por ciento del territorio
nacional.
A pesar de que hasta octubre del año pasado se estimaba en 11.790 las hectáreas de coca sembradas en 105 resguardos, y buena
parte de ella fue erradicada mediante aspersión aérea durante la ofensiva que desató el Gobierno en los últimos cuatro meses, la
posibilidad que se ventila en la Corte puso al ministro del Interior, Fernando Londoño Hoyos, a jugar a dos bandas con el fin de
impedir una decisión en contra de la fumigación.
Por un lado, en un hecho poco usual para la Organización de Pueblos Indígenas de la Amazonía Colombiana (Opiac), el ministro de
Interior invitó el martes pasado a los líderes de este organismo a una reunión en su despacho. Dos horas demoró el encuentro en el
que el jefe de esa cartera se mostró conciliador y dispuesto a atender las propuestas indígenas para tener mayor autonomía, generar
proyectos alternativos en sus territorios y revisar los programas del Plan Colombia.
La razón? La Opiac, una organización que representa a unas 300 mil personas de 56 pueblos indígenas de esa olvidada región, es la
autora de la Tutela, interpuesta en julio del 2001, y que en esa oportunidad la justicia fallo en contra de los indígenas, al tiempo
que dio luz verde a la erradicación mediante aspersión aérea en zonas de resguardo.
Las fumigaciones, sin embargo, estuvieron paralizadas durante quince días, mientras el juez quince civil del circuito de Bogotá
tomaba una decisión.
Ahora las fumigaciones podrían suspenderse en forma definitiva en caso de que la Corte acepte los argumentos de la Opiac y de la
Defensoría del Pueblo, organismo que solicitó la revisión del fallo en noviembre del año pasado.
El afán del Gobierno por el tema parece estar motivado por la proximidad de una decisión en la Corte Constitucional. La Tutela, que
fue seleccionada junto con otras para su revisión, entre más de dos mil solicitudes que llegan a la semana, ya ha estado tres veces
en el orden del día de la sala plena, pero ha debido ser aplazada por falta de tiempo.
Un magistrado de la Corte Constitucional que pidió reserva de su nombre explicó que inicialmente este tema iba a ser tratado por
uno de los magistrados, pero que, debido a la trascendencia para el país, se decidió que fuera la sala plena, máximo organismo de
ese tribunal, la encargada de asumirlo.
Pero el ministro no solo intentó suavizar la posición de los indígenas respecto a la fumigación. Casi 24 horas después de la cita con
los líderes del Amazonas, el miércoles a las 5:30 de la tarde, el ministro Londoño Hoyos envió una carta a cada uno de los nueve
magistrados de la Corte Constitucional, señalando la inconveniencia de suspender la fumigación.
Algunos términos usados por el Ministro, sin embargo, causaron escozor entre los magistrados. Es desobligante le dijo un magist rado
al Canal Caracol el viernes pasado. Otro miembro de ese alto tribunal le manifestó ayer a EL TIEMPO que existe inconformidad,
malestar e indignación entre los magistrados pues la carta trata de poner a la corte en un dilema: es buena si falla en favor de la
fumigación y es mala si falla en contra.
Uno de los párrafos que causó mayor molestia entre los magistrados dice: Con una tutela semejante, las mafias de Colombia y de los
Estados Unidos, las Farc, el Eln y las autodefensas ilegales, celebrarían grandes festejos; la nación quedaría sumida en la perplejidad
y condenada a verse destruida por los grupos terroristas .
No vamos a contestar la carta. Ahora lo importante es que se falle en forma serena y cuando llegue el momento de fallarla, pues la
fallamos , agregó el magistrado.
En su carta, el ministro califica de sorprendente el hecho de que el proceso siga vigente después de dos años, y argumenta que
carece por completo de sentido que pueda tener lugar la Tutela ya que este es un mecanismo diseñado para conseguir la protección
inmediata de derechos fundamentales amenazados.
En la solicitud de revisión, la Defensoría del Pueblo afirma que la fumigación ha afectado territorios de pueblos indígenas del
Guaviare, Putumayo, Caquetá, Vaupés, Guainía y Amazonas.
Agrega que las fumigaciones amenazan el derecho de las comunidades de gozar de un ambiente sano. El organismo cita como
ejemplo cuatro casos de caseríos indígenas del Putumayo donde, dice, las avionetas fumigadoras acabaron con la totalidad de
cultivos tradicionales, jardines medicinales, frutales, estanques piscícolas y potreros.Annex 75
Así mismo, afirma que las aspersiones aéreas con glifosato amenazan el derecho a la salud, en conexión con el derecho a la vida.
Añade que falta implementar medidas preventivas para evitar el daño al medio ambiente y que existe incumplimiento de la
normatividad relativa a la prevención, control y vigilancia de factores de riesgo para la salud.
En diversas oportunidades, este diario ha publicado quejas de comunidades indígenas de distintas regiones del país por los daños
causados por las fumigaciones a sus cultivos. Esto, según las denuncias, ha ocasionado hambre y desplazamiento.
Ese fue uno de los puntos que los indígenas de la Opiac discutieron con el ministro del Interior en la reunión del martes pasado.
Un directivo de la Opiac precisó que como resultado de esa cita y de otra realizada con la Dirección de Etnias de esa cartera, se creo
una mesa regional para debatir los temas relacionados con las comunidades indígenas de la Amazonía y de la Orinoquía, donde hay
unos 25 millones de hectáreas de resguardos.
Los indígenas han formulado duras críticas a los programas de erradicación creados dentro del Plan Colombia. Dicen que la mitad del
dinero se queda en las ONG que administran esos programas, y por lo tanto deben revisarse.
Un vocero de la Opiac señaló que en la mesa regional se discutirá con el Gobierno el tema de las entidades territoriales indígenas,
con cuya creación se le entregaría a las comunidades autonomía para ejercer control en su territorio y administrar la educación, la
salud y los recursos naturales, de acuerdo con sus usos y costumbres.
El Congreso lleva diez años discutiendo sobre este tema y no ha podido revolverlo , dice el dirigente de la Opiac, quien prefiere
omitir su nombre debido a que, según dice, esa organización solo se pronunciará en forma oficial después de que se conozca el fallo
de la Corte Constitucional.
Añade que aunque los ofrecimientos del ministro hacen prever que Gobierno e indígenas podrán trabajará unidos en la erradicación
de los cultivos ilícitos, no retirarán la solicitud de la Corte pues eso sería ir en contra sus comunidades.
FOTO/AP.
Los guambianos del Cauca (foto) han desarrollado programas de erradicación manual de cultivos ilícitos.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Información general
Fecha de publicación
28 de abril de 2003
Autor
José Navia Editor de Reportajes
PUBLICIDAD
Volver arriba
Recibe las noticias de eltiempo.com en formato RSS
Empresas-portafolio.com.co
Debes saber Debes hacer Debes leer Secciones Clasificados Archivo Guía de Bogotávive.in
Colombia Política Justicia Mundo Deportes Economía Opinión Tecnología Entretenimiento Gente Vida de hoy Publirreportaje Videos Blogs
Clasificados de trabajompleo.com
Todo sobre fútbolútbolred.com
Aló Mujeres Revista Carrusel Elenco Tecnología Credencial Lecturas Motor Videos de noti-icitytv.com.co
Motos y carros en ventaroya.com
Fotos y modelosevistadonjuan.com
Mapa del sitio Ayuda Registro Contacto Kindle Navegador IE8 Suscripciones Terminos y condiciones Clasificados de inmueblesrocuadrado.com
Paute con nosotros Club de suscriptores Casa Editorial El Tiempo Trabaje con nosotros Centros de ventas Colecciones El Tiempo Publicidad Política en Colombiambio.com.co
Todo sobre niñosbcdelbebé.com
Carros y Motosotor.com.co
Noticias de interneter.co
COPYRIGHT © 2010 CEET. Prohibida su reproducción total o parcial, así como su traducción a cualquier idioma sin autorización escrita de suTrabajos técnicos en Col-metrabajo.com
ELTIEMPO.com todas las noticias principales de Colombia y el Mundo
Noticias regionalesrioadn.com.co
Miembro de GDA. Miembro de IAB. Educación en Colombiauíaacadémica.com
Head hunterse-hunters.com
Grupo de Diarios de América Interactive Advertising Bureau
cargando Publicidad onlinedienciadigital.com
cargando Annex 76
“We Will Continue To Fumigate While IAm President”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 30 June 2003) Annex 76
▯
EL TIEMPO
30 June 2003
WE WILL CONTINUE TO FUMIGATE WHILE I AM PRESIDENT
“I am very sorry/ashamed, but while I am president, we will not suspend the fumigation”. This
is how Alvaro Uribe responded to a peasant from Orito (Putumatyo) in reference to the decision
of the Tribunal of Cundinamarca to order the temporary suspension of the fumigations of narco-
plantations with glyphosate, while the effects on the human health and the environment are being
studied.
[…]
The chief of state was in Putumayo to launch his safety plan and make the first payments to
families that have abandoned coca in order to become forest rangers.
Publication
el tiempo.com
Section
General Information
Date of Publication
June 30, 2003
Author
NULLVALUE
▯Annex 76 Annex 76
eltiempo.com / archivo
FUMIGAREMOS MIENTRAS YO SEA PRESIDENTE
Me da mucha pena, pero mientras yo sea presidente, no vamos a suspender la fumigación .
Así le contestó ayer Alvaro Uribe a un campesino de Orito (Putumayo), en alusión a la
decisión del Tribunal de Cundinamarca de ordenar la suspensión temporal de las
fumigaciones con glifosato de narcocultivos, mientras se estudian sus efectos sobre la salud
humana y el medio ambiente.
Me da mucha pena, pero mientras yo sea presidente, no vamos a suspender la fumigación .
Así le contestó ayer Alvaro Uribe a un campesino de Orito (Putumayo), en alusión a la
decisión del Tribunal de Cundinamarca de ordenar la suspensión temporal de las
fumigaciones con glifosato de narcocultivos, mientras se estudian sus efectos sobre la salud
humana y el medio ambiente.
El mandatario estuvo en Putumayo para lanzar su cartilla de seguridad y hacer los primeros
pagos a las familias que abandonaron la coca para convertirse en guardabosques.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Información general
Fecha de publicación
30 de junio de 2003
Autor
NULLVALUEAnnex 76 Annex 77
“Anti-drug plane shot down, U.S. says”, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (Chicago, 23 Sept. 2003) Annex 77
Databases selected: ProQuest Newspapers
Anti-drug plane shot down, U.S. says; [Chicago Final Edition]
Items compiled from Tribune news services. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Sep 23, 2003. pg. 6
Abstract (Summary)
A U.S. government plane apparently was shot down, resulting a crash over the weekend that killed the pilot who was on an
anti- drug mission, a spokesman for a U.S. company confirmed Monday.
Full Text (139 words)
(Copyright 2003 by the Chicago Tribune)
A U.S. government plane apparently was shot down, resulting a crash over the weekend that killed the pilot who was on an
anti- drug mission, a spokesman for a U.S. company confirmed Monday.
The State Department sent a statement to DynCorp., a federal contractor, saying "preliminary information indicates the
aircraft was struck by hostile ground fire," company spokesman Chuck Wilkins said.
Mario Alvarado, a Costa Rican, was killed in Sunday's crash of the OV-10 plane about 280 miles northeast of Bogota,
Wilkins said.
DynCorp of Reston, Va., is contracted by the State Department to fumigate coca crops, used to produce cocaine, in
Colombia.
Alvarado worked for a second U.S. company subcontracted by DynCorp in the anti-narcotic effort but which asked not to be
named, Wilkins said.
Alvarado was the sixth U.S. government contract employee killed in Colombia this year.
Indexing (document details)
Author(s): Items compiled from Tribune news services
Dateline: BOGOTA, COLOMBIA
Column Name: AROUND THE WORLD
Section: News
Publication title: Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Sep 23, 2003. pg. 6
Source type: Newspaper
ISSN: 10856706
ProQuest document ID: 410224161
Text Word Count 139
Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=410224161&sid=1&Fmt=3&cli
entId=7344&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Copyright © 2010 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Access to this database has been provided by the Brown University Library.Annex 77 Annex 78
“Billard Shot on Three Fronts”, ELTIEMPO (Bogotá, 13 Nov. 2003) Annex 78
▯
EL TIEMPO
13 November 2003
BILLIARD SHOT ON THREE FRONTS
With the ingredients of a billiard shot on three fronts, although lacking the precision of the
great billiards masters, the replacement of the minister of Environment, Housing and
Development, Cecilia Rodriguez, who had a mediocre performance, by the Plan Colombia
director, Sandra Suárez, the departure of Germán Bula of the Colombian Agency for
International Cooperation (ACCI), and the fusion of this body with the Plan Colombia in a
High Council for Social Action, are three measures that have awakened a number of
questions.
The challenge that Minister Suárez is facing is great, with only 15 months of experience in
public service and specialized in marketing, she is now heading this triple charge. As if the
duties in connection with Housing and Development Ministries were not enough, the
charge also includes the vast subject of the environment, which has been key and
ultimately, controversial, and which requires urgent attention and deep knowledge. In
addition, for environmentalists, it does not seem to be the best sign to send someone of Plan
Colombia (whose aerial spraying has been the subject of controversy) to take charge of this
area. The country is awaiting a change in direction with respect to environmental matters
and it is not clear whether the new minister has the capacity and experience to implement
such change.
If national doubt exists about this new appointment, the merger of the ACCI with Plan
Colombia, despite the social labels given to the new unit, can produce serious concern
among international parties. It is doubtful that Europe will view favorably the union under
one roof of all American aid, part of the war plan against drug trafficking and the guerrilla,
with the funding that the donors and other foreign financiers have put forth for peace,
human rights and development, through the ACCI. Has the Government thought through
the cannon/billiard shot effect of its decision? Yes, in addition, the new Council includes,
as has been mentioned, the Network of Social Solidarity, in charge of providing attention to
those displaced and the victims of violence, there is a risk of creating one of those white
elephants that create more problems than they resolve. This is a risk that the Minister
Suarez must also deal with in her new charge. By trying to cram into a single Ministry,
hopefully we will not end up with the environmental, housing and development policies in
limbo.
Publication
el tiempo.com
Section
Editorial-opinion
Date of Publication: November 13, 2003
Author: NULLVALUE
▯Annex 78 Annex 78
eltiempo.com / archivo
CARAMBOLA A TRES BANDAS
Con los ingredientes de una carambola a tres bandas, aunque sin la precisión de los grandes
maestros del billar, el reemplazo de la ministra de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo,
Cecilia Rodríguez, de gris desempeño, por la directora del Plan Colombia, Sandra Suárez; la
salida de Germán Bula de la Agencia Colombiana de Cooperación Internacional (ACCI), y la
fusión de este organismo con el Plan Colombia en una Alta Consejería para la Acción Social,
son tres medidas que despiertan no pocos interrogantes.
Es grande el desafío que tiene la ministra Suárez, con apenas 15 meses de experiencia
pública y especializada en mercadeo, al frente de esa triple cartera. La cual, como si vivienda
y desarrollo no bastaran, incluye el vasto tema del medio ambiente, clave y últimamente de
capa caída, que requiere urgente atención y serios conocimientos. Para los ambientalistas,
además, no parece la mejor de las señales enviar a alguien del Plan Colombia (cuyas
fumigaciones han sido motivo de polémica) a ocuparse de esta área. El país está en mora de
un timonazo en materia ambiental y no está claro si la nueva Ministra tenga las capacidades
y la experiencia.
Si a nivel nacional hay duda ante este nuevo nombramiento, la fusión de la ACCI con el Plan
Colombia, por más etiquetas sociales que se le pongan a la nueva dependencia, puede
producir serias inquietudes a nivel internacional. Es dudoso que en Europa sea visto con
buenos ojos reunir bajo un solo techo la ayuda norteamericana, parte del plan de guerra
contra el narcotráfico y la guerrilla, con los fondos que las mesas de aportantes y otros
financiadores extranjeros, a través de la ACCI, ponían para paz, derechos humanos y
desarrollo. Habrá pensado el Gobierno en este efecto de carambola de su decisión? Si,
además, la nueva Consejería incluye, como se ha mencionado, a la Red de Solidaridad
Social, encargada de la atención a los desplazados y las víctimas de la violencia, se corre el
riesgo de crear uno de esos elefantes blancos que generan más problemas que los que
resuelven. Este es un riesgo con el que también deberá lidiar la ministra Suárez en su nuevo
cargo. Por tratar de abarcarlas en un solo Ministerio, ojalá no terminemos con las políticas de
medio ambiente, vivienda y desarrollo sumidas en la horfandad.
Publicación
eltiempo.com
Sección
Editorial - opinión
Fecha de publicación
13 de noviembre de 2003
Autor
NULLVALUEAnnex 78 Annex 79
“Suarez new Environment Minister as Rodriguez Quits”, BUSINESS NEWSAMERICAS
(14 Nov. 2003) Annex 79
¬▯3ULQWHU▯IULHQGO\▯YHUVLRQ▯▯
6XDUH]▯QHZ▯(QYLURQPHQW▯PLQLVWHU▯DV▯5RGULJXH]▯TXLWV▯▯▯&RORPELD▯
Friday, November 14, 2003
Colombia has a new minister of environment, housing and territorial development following the resignation
Tuesday of Cecilia Rodriguez Gonzalez-Rubio after 15 months in the post.
Sandra Suarez, 34, her replacement, is the director of Plan Colombia, a former director of marketing at
cellular telephone firm Occel, and was part of president Uribe's campaign team.
In her first comments about her new job, Suarez highlighted bringing potable water to millions of Colombians
and the intensification of housing programs as priorities, El Tiempo reported.
Rodriguez' resignation follows those of the interior and justice minister Fernando Londono and defence
minister Marta Lucia Ramirez in what has been labeled a ministerial crises, according to the newspaper.
The ministry of environment, housing and territorial development was created in February this year by the
fusion of the environment and economic development ministries.
Business News Americas
Print this
article
BNamericas Customer Service Center
LQIR#%1DPHULFDV▯FRP
Tel: +56 (2) 232 0302
Fax: +56 (2) 232 9376
Voice/Fax: +1 (305) 513 5782 (USA)Annex 79 Annex 80
“EU criticises Colombia on rights”, BBC (London, 22 Jan. 2004) Annex 80
EU criticises Colombia on rights
The EU has indirectly rebuked the Colombian Government over radical anti-terror laws, asking
it to respect the rule of law in its grinding civil war.
But Chris Patten, EU commissioner currently on a South America tour, said he was supportive of the fight
against terror "in principle".
He also criticised the US-backed drive to eradicate coca production, Plan Colombia, saying it was
ineffective.
Human rights groups have welcomed Mr Patten's comments.
Emergency powers
"The best way to fight terrorism and the best way of achieving long-term stability is always to operate
within the rule of law," Mr Patten told a news conference in the capital Bogota.
But he acknowledged that few European countries had had to fight problems as "substantial" as those
faced by the Colombian authorities.
The government is trying to quash a decades-long insurgency by leftist guerrillas, violently opposed by
right-wing paramilitaries.
Colombia's congress approved emergency powers for the military, including the right to make arrests
without warrants, tap phones and collect evidence in war zones.
Critics say these powers are often abused, and that the new laws are used as cover to commit human
rights abuses.
Mr Patten was more directly critical of Plan Colombia - a drug eradication plan backed by military
hardware and $3bn from the United States since its launch in 2000.
He said aerial spraying of the coca plant - the raw ingredient of cocaine - with herbicides was "not
effective".
The spraying, he said, "affects other crops, and harms health and the environment".
Coca resistance
The EU has refused to join Plan Colombia, choosing instead to promote social programmes. During his
visit Mr Patten has announced $54m in aid.
Andy Higgenbottom, of the UK-based group Colombia Solidarity, said he applauded Mr Patten's
comments.
Coca leaves - evolved to withstand the harsh Andean climate - were often more resistant to spraying
than other crops, he told BBC News Online.
By destroying food crops, he said, the spraying programme often ended up displacing peasant farmers.Annex 80
"If the US was seriously interested in stopping the cocaine supply," said Mr Higgenbottom, "they would
attack the cocaine supply chain at higher levels - such as the laboratories where the plant is refined".
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3420053.stm
Published: 2004/01/22 14:57:51 GMT
© BBC MMX Annex 81
“More RefugeesAs a Result of FumigationsAlong the Border”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 8 Feb. 2007) Annex 81
EL UNIVERSO
8 February 2007
MORE REFUGEES AS A RESULT OF FUMIGATIONS ALONG THE BORDER
Confirmation. The fumigations were conducted between 3 and 5 kilometers from Ecuador.
Captain Eduardo Vega, chief of the Naval Operations Command, North of Esmeraldas, Coopno,
confirmed yesterday that six Colombian aircraft, escorted by an equal number of armed
helicopters, carried out aerial spraying of coca plantations on Colombian soil, at a distance of
between 3 and 5 kilometers from the border with Ecuador, near the Ecuadorian town of Mataje,
in the San Lorenzo district.
Mataje villagers complained that the fumigations began last Friday and armed Colombian
helicopters had previously conducted low flights in the area. “There were many helicopters
flying at low altitudes, and then the planes came and started spraying very close to the Mataje
River,” said Julio Tenorio, who resides in the area.
The people of Mataje denounced this to the Infantry Battalion No. 11 based in San Lorenzo and a
military deployment for security was ordered in the village.
Captain Eduardo Vega notified his superiors, while in Mataje, fears of poisoning increased much
more when a dozen children displayed rashes.
Villagers say that all this is the result of spraying carried out on Colombian soil.
And one effect of these [fumigations] is the displacement of Colombians to San Lorenzo. They
claim they come to Ecuador because all their crops have been destroyed by the use of glyphosate
in aerial spraying.
Last Tuesday, Colombian Marcelo Diaz, with his wife, three sons and one of his brothers, came
to the village of Mataje and sought refuge from the inhabitants of that place.
Diaz said that living on Colombian soil has become dangerous and he has been left in ruin
because his cocoa crops have been completely destroyed by aerial spraying conducted by the
Army.
AGREEMENT: Main points
Suspension
In December 2005 Colombia agreed to the temporary discontinuation of spraying and it was
approved this activity being carried out 10 kilometres into Colombian territory from the border.
▯Annex 81
Breach
In November 2006, spraying resumed with a predetermined schedule without any
communication to Ecuador, who heralded international demands to pressure Colombia to
discontinue immediately.
© Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
▯
▯ Annex 81
El Universo http://www.eluniverso.com/Imprimir.htm
Jueves 08 de febrerodell2007
Má ás s r reef fug giiaad do os s p po or r llaas s a assp pe er rssiioon ne es s e enn
laa f fro on nt teer raa
Connfrmaación..Las fumiigacionees se efectuaron a 33 y 5 kiiómeetros dellEcuaddor..
Seisaeeonnaves coombbianas,escolladas por guallnúmeerode hellópperos arttadoss,realzaron
fumigaciones de pantaciones de coca en ueeo colombbano,,a una dstancia deennre 3 y 5kiómmetros
de a lnea de frontea con Ecuadoor,rente alpoblado ecuatoranno deMaataje,en elcantón San Lorenzo,,
confrmóó ayerellcapián EduaadooVeega,,efedeelComaando de OpperaconessNaavaes Norre de
Esmeeradass,Coopnno..
Pobladores de Matajedeenunciaron que as aspersoneesemppezaron ellpasado vernessy que
previamenne hellópperosscolombbanoosarttaddosrealzaron vueeos rasantespoor azonaa.“Huboomuuchoss
helcópteros volando abaaa alura,,ueego vnieron as avionetasy emppezaron a fumigar muyycerca dell
ro Maaaje”,diioJulo Tenorio,quien resde en lazonaa..
Los habiantes de Maaaje denunccaron elhechooallBatalón de nfanteríanúúmeeo 11 con sede en San
Lorenzo y seordenóóelldesplazamiento miilardeeseguurdad en elpoblado..
Elcapiián Eduardo Vega notticó asus superiores,mientras que en Mataje os temooessde un
enveneenamiento se ncremeentaron,muuchoomáás cuando unaadecenna deniños presentaron erupconnes
en a piell..
Los habiantes delpoobaddoasseguran que oddoelloes producto de as aspersiones que serealzan en
suelocolombbiano..
Y un eecco de elas eselldesplazamiento de coombbianos a San Lorenzo.Ellosasegguraonnquuevienen
alEcuaadordebbdo a que todos sussemmbríos han sdo arrasados porelluso degllosato en ass
aspersiones aéreas..
Elpasaddo martes elcolombiano Maarceo Díaz,,unto asu espossa,sus res hios y uno de sus hermanoos,,
legó alpobbado de Maaaje y pdió reuggo a os pobladores de ese ugar..
Díaz contóquueviviren suelo olombbiano sehaavueelo pelgroso y que seha queedado en a ruina,yay
que sus cullvosdeecacao hannsido comppetameente destrudos por as fumigaciones que realza ell
Ejércio..o
ACUUERDDO::Puuntos prrncipales
Susspenssónó
En dicembbre del20055se acordó con Colombba lasusspensónn empporalde las umiigaconeesy se atticófiic
que esta actvdaad serealce a 10 kiómeetosshacia errioriocolombbiano desde a fonntea comúún..
Violación
En noviembbredeel2006 se reanudaron lasaspeersones con un cronogramaa preesabbecido sn que se
haya comuunicado alEcuadoor,que anunciódeemaandas nternacionalespara presionara Colombbiaa laa
suspensión nmmediata..
1 of 2 11/24/10 9:17 PMAnnex 81
El Universo http://www.eluniverso.com/Imprimir.htm
© Coopyrghtt20088.Todos ossderechoss eservados..
2 of 2 11/24/10 9:17 PM Annex 82
“ColombiaAnnounces Ceasing of Fumigations to Ease Relations with Quito”,
EL UNIVERSAL.COM (Caracas, 9 Feb. 2007) Annex 82
EL UNIVERSO.COM
9 February 2007
COLOMBIA ANNOUNCES CEASING OF FUMIGATIONS TO EASE
RELATIONS WITH QUITO
Bogota. - On Friday, Colombia announced the discontinuation of spraying with the herbicide
glyphosate on the border with Ecuador, a decision that aims to ease bilateral relations marked by
surprises, which has been welcomed by the government of Rafael Correa, AFP reported.
On Friday evening, the Colombian President Álvaro Uribe announced that “the Foreign Minister
(María Consuelo Araújo) has informed the Ecuadorian government of the discontinuation of
spraying in the border. We hope that this is well received in Ecuador”.
Hours earlier, Araújo had issued the decision: “Yesterday (Thursday) we ceased spraying
activities (on coca and poppy crops) and on 12 February we will start manual eradication
together with 1,200 farmers who, of course, we must care for”, she said.
Relations between Ecuador and Colombia were affected after Bogotá resumed fumigations in the
border area, which, according to Quito, violated an agreement by which President Álvaro Uribe
pledged to inform his counterpart, Rafael Correa, in advance of these operations.
“The agreement of the Presidents Uribe and Correa is clear in that once Colombia requires
beginning fumigation work in this area (border), inspectors determined by those countries will be
used”, concluded the Foreign Minister of Colombia.
Minister Araújo stated that manual eradication will take place in the southern departments of
Nariño and Putumayo. “This is included as part of the manual eradication task of 45,000 hectares
that Uribe’s government has set as this year’s goal,” she said.
The announcement was well received in Ecuador, whose foreign minister, María Fernanda
Espinosa, emphasized Colombia’s “change of attitude”. “Now Colombia has really changed its
attitude, having said it will suspend the fumigations. I have asked them to send this notification
in writing,” she said.
“I understand that aerial spraying has been suspended as of today," added the Ecuadorian
minister.
Ecuador rejects border spraying with the herbicide glyphosate since it harmful to both human
health and the ecosystem, while Colombia defends it on the grounds that [coca] is the main
source of funding for leftist guerrillas, while at the same time assuring that the chemical is
harmless.
Quito had announced a diplomatic offensive to build solidarity in Latin America in its claim to
Colombia to cease aerial spraying of drug crops in the common border and a lawsuit againstAnnex 82
Bogotá before the tribunal in The Hague and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Since 15 December, Ecuador has called its ambassador in Bogota to hold discussions and, on
Wednesday, it lodged a protest note with respect to continuation of the fumigations.
Colombia alleges that the discontinuation of spraying with glyphosate on the border had allowed
drug traffickers to intensify their crops in the area and even its police stated that there are now
plantations of coca in Ecuadorian territory.
▯ Annex 82
Caracas, viernes 09 de febrero, 2007
Internacional
Colombia anuncia cese de fumigaciones para distender
relación con Quito
Bogotá.- Colombia anunció el viernes la suspensión de las fumigaciones con el
herbicida glifosato en la frontera con Ecuador, decisión recibida con beneplácito por el
gobierno de Rafael Correa y que apunta a distender las relaciones bilaterales
marcadas con sobresaltos, informó AFP.
"La señora canciller (María Consuelo Araújo) ha informado al gobierno ecuatoriano
sobre el cese de las fumigaciones en la frontera. Esperamos que Ecuador reciba esto
bien", anunció la tarde del viernes el presidente colombiano, Álvaro Uribe.
Horas antes, Araújo había hecho pública la decisión: "el día de ayer (jueves) cesamos
las actividades de fumigación (de cultivos de coca y amapola) y el 12 de febrero
comenzamos la erradicación manual con 1.200 campesinos a quienes, por supuesto,
debemos cuidar", dijo.
Las relaciones entre Ecuador y Colombia se vieron afectadas luego de que Bogotá
reanudó las aspersiones en la zona limítrofe, según Quito violando un acuerdo por el
cual el presidente Alvaro Uribe se comprometió con su homólogo Rafael Correa a
informarlo previamente de esos operativos.
"El acuerdo de los presidentes Uribe y Correa es claro en que una vez Colombia
requiera iniciar trabajos de fumigación en esa zona (frontera) se utilizarán los
inspectores que esos países determinen", concluyó la canciller colombiana.
La ministra Araújo comentó que la erradicación manual se llevará a cabo en los
sureños departamentos de Nariño y Putumayo. "Eso se enmarca dentro de la tarea
de 45.000 hectáreas de erradicación manual que tiene como meta el gobierno de
Uribe para este año", dijo.
El anuncio tuvo buen recibo en Ecuador cuya canciller, María Fernanda Espinosa,
destacó el "cambio de actitud" de Colombia. "Ahora realmente Colombia ha
cambiado de actitud, ha dicho que va a suspender las fumigaciones, yo le he pedido
que nos haga esa notificación por escrito", dijo.
"Entiendo que las aspersiones aéreas están suspendidas desde hoy", agregó la
funcionaria ecuatoriana.
Ecuador rechaza las aspersiones en la frontera con el herbicida glifosato por
considerarlo nocivo para la salud y el ecosistema, mientras que Colombia las
defiende por considerar que son la principal fuente de financiación de las guerrillas
izquierdistas, al tiempo que asegura que el químico es inocuo.
Quito había anunciado una ofensiva diplomática para lograr la solidaridad de América
Latina en su reclamo a Colombia para que cesara las fumigaciones aéreas de
narcocultivos en la frontera común y una demanda contra Bogotá ante el Tribunal de
La Haya y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Desde el 15 de diciembre, Ecuador llamó a consultas a su embajador en Bogotá y el
pasado miércoles presentó una nota de protesta por la continuación de las
fumigaciones.
Colombia alega que la suspensión de la fumigación con glifosato en la frontera había
permitido a los narcotraficantes intensificar sus cultivos en la zona e incluso su policía
señala que ahora existen sembradíos de hoja de coca en territorio ecuatoriano.Annex 82 Annex 83
“Colombia Sprayed Within 1 km of the Border”, EL UNIVERSO (Guayaquil, 10 Feb. 2007) Annex 83
EL UNIVERSO
10 February 2007
COLOMBIA SPRAYED WITHIN 1 KM OF THE BORDER
Four Colombian planes sprayed yesterday at 1 km from the Mataje river.
The recording of new fumigations one kilometer from the Ecuadorian border contradicts the
announcement made yesterday by the Colombian government which reported that spraying had
ended on Thursday.
While the Ecuadorian Foreign Minister, María Fernanda Espinoza, affirmed in Tena that thanks
to the regime’s “strong and intolerant” stance, Colombia decided to suspend fumigations, Navy
personnel yesterday observed that four planes, escorted by five helicopters, sprayed the area of
Mataje (Esmeraldas).
The action took place less than one kilometer from the border, near the Mataje River, at 10:00. A
similar event occurred last Thursday.
“Yesterday (Thursday) we ceased spraying activities and on 12 February we will start manual
eradication together with 1,200 farmers who, of course, we must care for”, the Colombian
Foreign Minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, announced to the press, according to AFP news.
Captain Eduardo Vega, head of Northern Command Operations (Coopno), said Navy personnel
witnessed the spraying and that he had informed the High Command yesterday regarding the
matter.
On Thursday, five helicopters escorting the same number of planes sprayed glyphosate in
Colombia, on coca plantations located 3 kilometers from the boundary line. The process began at
14:00 and lasted until 15:30.
Meanwhile, yesterday, four fumigation planes, escorted by five helicopters, returned to fumigate
near Mataje and according to witnesses, the aircraft dropped their load at a distance no greater
than 1 km from the Mataje River, the natural border that divides the two countries.
“First, the helicopters came, flying at low altitudes and then, the planes came, coming within 500
meters of the river in the Colombian territory,” said one witness who managed to record the
fumigations.
Last week, half a dozen planes conducted fumigations 5 kilometers from the town of Mataje,
which were repeated during Thursday and Friday.
Alejandro Villa, a fisherman of that village stated that children already have skin problems and
there is a conjunctivitis epidemic.
María Consuelo Araújo:Annex 83
Colombia's Foreign Minister
”Yesterday (Thursday) we ceased spraying activities.”
María Fernanda Espinosa:
Foreign Minister of Ecuador
”Colombia has changed its attitude, having said they will stop spraying."
© Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. Annex 83
El Universo http://www.eluniverso.com/Imprimir.htm
Sábadoo100dee ebrero del20007
Co ol lom mb bi ia f fuum mi iggó ó a a 1 1 kkm m d de e l laa f frroon nt teer raa
Cuuatro avioneetas colombbianaas ummigaaron ayerra 1 kmm deelrío Mattaje..
Ellegistrodeenuuevas ummigaciones a un kiómeeto de la rontera ecuatoranaadessvrtuó ayerellanuncioo
dellgobierno coombbiano que inormóó que lasaspeersonessculminaron elluevvespaasado..
Mientras a canciier ecuatorana,,Marra Fernanda Espinoza afrmóó en Tena que gracassa a possción
“frmee e ntoerante””dellégimeen,,Colombba decidó suspeender as aspersiones,en Maatajee
(Esmeeraldas),personallde a Armaada observó ayer a cuato avionetas que,,escoladassporr
cinco helcópteros,,umiigaban a zonaa..
La acción serealzó a meenos de un kiómeetrodee a rontera,,erca dellro Mataje,a las100:00.Unn
evento simiiarocurrióelluevvespaasado..
“Eldía de ayer (uevess)cesamoos assacttvdadeesdee umiigacón y el122dee ebrero comeenzamoos ala
erradicacón maanuaalcon 1.2000 campeesnossa quienes,,porsuppuesto,debeemooscuidar”,anunncó a ala
prensa la anncier colombiana Maara ConnsueloAraujo,,según laaggenca de nottcas AFP..
Ellcapián EduaadooVeega,,efe delCommanddo de Operaciones Norte (Coopno)),dio que personallde ala
Armaada fue testgo de as fumigaccones y que ayer mismoo se nformóóallAlo Maando sobre ellemaa..
Elluevees,cnccoheelcópteros que escolabanna igualnúúmeeo de avionetas esparcieonnennCooommbiaa
gllosato,ennplantaciones de coca ubicadas a3 kiómmetros de a lnea de frontera.Elprocessose inció a
las144:00 yse prolnggó hasta as 15:30..
Mientras que ayer,cuatro avionetas umiigadoras,essolladas por cnco helcóppeross,volveron a
fumigaar rentea Maatae y según los esttgos,,asaeeonnaves dejaron caersu carga a una disancca no
maayor a 1kmm delrío Mataje,,miie naturalquue dvide a os dos países..
“Prmeero aparecieron os helcópteros que volaban a baja alura y uegoovinieron as avionetas,paasaron
a meenos de 500 meetrosdellro,,enell eriorro coommbiano”,maaniiestóunno de os testgos que logró
ffmaar as aspersonees..
La semaana anterorr,media docenassde avionetas realzaron fumigaciones a 5 kiómeeros dellpoblado de
Maatae,,as que se repiieron durante ellueves y vernes..
Alejandro Viia,un pescadoorde esa localdad aseguró que los nñossya teneen probemaas en lapiely y
hay unaaeppdemiia de conjuntviis..is
Maaría Conssuelo Araúújo:
Caanciier de Cooommbbiaa
“Eldía de ayer (uevess)cesamoos assacttvdadeesdee umiigacón””..
Maaría Fernannda Esppinosa::
Caanciier de Ecuuadorr
“Colombba cambbiódeeaccttud,hanndicho que van a suspendder as umiigaciones”..
© Copyrrght2008..Todos osderechos eservados..
1 of 1 11/26/10 12:47 PMAnnex 83 Annex 84
“Fishermen in Esmeraldas Fear Spraying with GlyphosateAffects Mangroves”, EL UNIVERSO
(Guayaquil, 20 Feb. 2007) Annex 84
EL UNIVERSO
20 February 2007
FISHERMEN IN ESMERALDAS FEAR SPRAYING WITH GLYPHOSATE AFFECTS
MANGROVES
The artisanal fishermen of the province are concerned about the effects that may be caused by
sprayings with glyphosate conducted near the Ecuadorian village of Mataje, on the border with
Colombia, and announced that they will ask the National Federation of Artisanal Fishermen of
Ecuador to start legal proceedings against that country.
According to the Colombian government, the spraying ended this past February 8th.
Ovidio Quiñónez, president of the "Unión de Cooperativas Pesqueras de Esmeraldas"
(&RRSHUDWLYH▯)LVKHULHV▯8QLRQ▯RI▯(VPHUDOGDV) (Uprocoopes), said they fear that the mangrove
reserves in the north of Esmeraldas are affected by the herbicide, since it is raining heavily in the
area; "the soil is washed away, carrying the remnants of the poison into the river that leads to the
sea," he said.
"The only natural laboratory we have in Esmeraldas, which is the northern mangroves, and
which is key to breeding and maintaining the ecosystem, is being seriously affected and
consequently fishing will decrease in a very short time," warns Quiñónez.
He said that fishermen in Esmeraldas will present this study during the national meeting of
artisanal fishermen to be held on 27 and 28 February in the city of Guayaquil.
"In Esmeraldas, we have already begun to feel the effects of spraying, since the Mataje river
flows directly into the sea in the northern zone and we are in the season for red snapper catch, the
poison just alienates all coastal species and kills the larvae, as it is in this area that females lay
their eggs", he noted.
© Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
▯Annex 84 Annex 84
El Universo http://www.eluniverso.com/Imprimir.htm
Marts 20de ebreo del2007
Pe essccaaddo orrees s ttem me enn e enn E Es smme erraal lda ass qqu uee
la a assppe errssiión n cco onn g glliifoossaattoo a affeecctte
ma anng gllaarreess
Lospeescadoresartesanales de a provncca semuuestran preocupados por os efecoss
que podrannocassonar as fumigaciones con glossao realzadas cerca delpoblado
ecuatorano de Maaaje, en a rontera con Coommbia,y anunncaron que pedirán a ala
Federacón Naaconallde Pescadores Aresanaaes delEcuaador nciaracccones eggaese
conta ese país.
Según elGoobienoocolombbanno, asaspeesiones concluyeron elpasado 8 de ebrero.
Ovido Quuñónnez,presidentedee a UnióndeeCoooperatvas Pesqueras de Esmeealdas
(Uprocoopes),dijoquue emeen que lasreservas de manggar delnorte de Esmeraldas
sean aectadasspor elherbicda, ya que en a zona esá loviendo muucho; “elsueo se
ava, arastrando losrestos delvenenooallro que os leva almaar, expresó.
“Elúnico aboratoro naturalque tenemoos en Esmeealdas,quue onn os manggares dell
nore,,caveepara a reproducción ymaanteneerelecosistema,,estásiendo gravemeente
aeccado y consecuentemeente disminuiá lapeescaen muuy coro temmpo”, advrtóió
Quiñónez.
Aseguró que osspescadores de Esmeeradasspresentarán estapoonenciaen eldeesarolollo
delencuennro nacionalde pescadooes artesanalesqueese realzará os dass27 y 28 de
ebrero en a ciudad de Guayaquui.ll.
“En Esmeraldas ya empeezamossa sentr os efectosde lasfumigaacones, puesto que ell
ro Mataje desembboca drectameenteallmarren a zona norte yestamoos en a época de
a captura delpargo roo, esteveneeno aeja atodas lasespecces de as costasy maataaa
as arvas, ya que esen este secor donde desovaan as hembbras, señaó.ó
© Copyrgh2008.Tods osdeechosrserados..
1 of 1 11/26/10 12:46 PMAnnex 84 Annex 85
“Putumayo: Governor Denounces Fumigations”, HOY (Quito, 29 July 2007) Annex 85
▯
HOY
29 July 2007
PUTUMAYO: GOVERNOR DENOUNCES FUMIGATIONS
In Puerto Leguízamo (Putumayo) next to Sucumbíos, the governor of Putumayo, Jesús Fernando
Checa Mora, complained to the Foreign Minister of Colombia, Fernando Araujo, that the army
has made mistakes in the fumigation of illicit crops in that region of Colombia.
Aircrafts fumigated in areas where manual eradications had been planned. The damages caused
to legal crops were causing economic crisis and displacement of the population, he said.
Checa further notes that he received information from Orito, Valle del Guamuez and San Miguel,
that fumigations are being carried out on 4,500 hectares of already eradicated crops. (VM)
GMT Time : / / - 19:00
Source: Journal HOY
City Quito
Updated by: Hoy Online
▯Annex 85 Annex 85
▯▯
$UFKLYDGR▯HQ▯_▯3RO¯WLFDb▯▯
7DJV▯▯▯▯
3XWXPD\R▯▯JREHUQDGRU▯GHQXQFLD▯IXPLJDFLRQHV▯
3XEOLFDGR▯HO▯▯▯▯-XOLR▯▯▯▯▯▯_▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
(Q▯3XHUWR▯/HJXt]DPR▯▯3XWXPD\R▯▯IUHQWH▯D▯6XFXPEtRV▯▯HO▯JREHUQDGRU▯GHO▯3XWXPD\R▯▯
-HV~V▯)HUQDQGR▯&KHFD▯0RUD▯▯GHQXQFLy▯DQWH▯HO▯FDQFLOOHU▯GH▯&RORPELD▯▯)HUQDQGR▯
$UD~MR▯TXH▯HO▯HMpUFLWR▯KD▯FRPHWLGR▯HUURUHV▯HQ▯OD▯IXPLJDFLyQ▯GH▯FXOWLYRV▯LOtFLWRV▯HQ▯HVD▯
UHJLyQ▯FRORPELDQD▯▯▯
▯
▯ 6H▯IXPLJD▯FRQ▯DYLRQHWD▯HQ▯]RQDV▯HQ▯ODV▯TXH▯VH▯KDEtD▯SUHYLVWR▯OD▯HUUDGLFDFLyQ▯
PDQXDO▯▯/RV▯GDxRV▯FDXVDGRV▯D▯ORV▯FXOWLYRV▯OHJDOHV▯FDXVDURQ▯FULVLV▯HFRQyPLFD▯\▯
GHVSOD]DPLHQWR▯GH▯OD▯SREODFLyQ ▯▯GLMR▯▯
▯
&KHFD▯VHxDOD▯▯DGHPiV▯▯TXH▯UHFLELy▯LQIRUPDFLyQ▯GHVGH▯2ULWR▯▯9DOOH▯GHO▯*XDPXH]▯\▯
6DQ▯0LJXHO▯▯GH▯TXH▯VH▯UHDOL]DQ▯DVSHUVLRQHV▯HQ▯▯▯PLO▯▯▯▯▯KHFWiUHDV▯GH▯FXOWLYRV▯\D▯
HUUDGLFDGRV▯▯▯90▯▯
+RUD▯*07▯▯▯▯▯-XOLR▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
)XHQWH▯▯'LDULR▯+2<▯▯
&LXGDG▯4XLWR▯▯
$FWXDOL]DGR▯SRU▯▯7HFQRORJ▯D▯
'LDULR▯+2<▯▯$Y▯▯0DULVFDO▯6XFUH▯2H▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯7HOpIRQR▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯$SDUWDGR▯3RVWDO▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
+2<▯2Q/LQH▯1RWLFLDV▯GHO▯(FXDGRU▯\▯GHO▯PXQGR▯▯(▯PDLO▯▯KR\#KR\▯FRP▯HF▯&RS\ULJKW▯▯▯▯▯▯▯
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯'LDULR▯+2< ▯
▯Annex 85 Annex 86
“AConstitutionAppeal Is Ordered In San Jorge:AJudge Recognizes the Risk of Glyphosate
Fumigations”, ENTRE RIOS ENTRE TODOS (Entre Rios, 13Apr. 2009) Annex 86
▯
ENTRE RÍOS ENTRE TODOS
13 April 2009
A CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL IS ORDERED IN SAN JORGE (SANTA FE):
A JUDGE RECOGNIZES THE RISK OF GLYPHOSATE FUMIGATIONS
Judge Tristan Martínez sustained a constitutional appeal brought by neighbors of the Santa Fe
area of San Jorge, prohibiting aircraft from spraying fields at less than 1,500 meters from
urban housing. If fumigation is conducted by land, the distance cannot be less than 800
meters. The judge considered these practices to “have severe consequences for the health of
the children” of those who filed the constitutional appeal.
Several rural villages, in which rare diseases and more cases of cancer and miscarriages than
usual had appeared in the last decade, had tried to do this. After ten years of silent expansion,
the darkest side of the soy boom is becoming visible. The crop, which enabled Argentina to
deal with the most serious economic crisis of the last fifty years, has a dreadful side effect
that scientists and officials no longer deny: the agrochemicals used to obtain higher yields in
soybean plantations cause diseases, birth defects and spontaneous miscarriages among
populations subject to fumigation. Six hundred people in the country’s most fertile areas have
been sprayed with pesticides since 1995. And its inhabitants suffer the consequences. The
evidence of its impact is so strong that even the National Government-promoter of the
soybean agro-export model-was forced to create a commission in the Ministry of Health to
assess the environmental and health impact caused by the indiscriminate use of these poisons.
Thanks to soy, the use of agrochemicals has grown exponentially in the Argentine territory.
The most common agrochemical is glyphosate, which represents 37% of the total herbicide
used in agricultural production. The first visible victims were rural laborers. Tomasi Fabián is
one of them. He is 43 but looks much older. He has lived in the town of Basavilbaso in the
Entre Ríos province since birth. In 1994, he decided, as many other rural laborers in his
village, to engage in one of the best paid jobs in the area: manage glyphosate to ensure the
best performance of soy plantations. Nine years ago, he left doctors speechless when, in
medical visits, he appeared with a strong burning sensation in his fingertips, accompanied by
calcium secretions in his hands and all his joints. “We were paid by the hour and we earned
very well, we reached four dollars per hour and accumulated 12 hours a day, seven days a
week in order to obtain a good wage,” he says. During labor season, from November until
March, all the laborers work as many hours as possible to add up extra pesos. “Not everyone
can be next to an airplane; one must know how to fuel, clean first, change equipment and
load the poison. Each thing takes its time, and so I spent six years of my life,” recalls Tomasi
bitterly. There are two routes in fumigation: a land route and an aerial route. Fabian’s
specialty was the aerial route. “I am crazy about airplanes; I always loved them and was
never consciously aware that I was working with a lethal poison. On top of that, I never
worked with any type of protection.” But the consequences appeared in 2000.” First I started
feeling a lot of pain in my fingertips and then I started to get a type of grittiness on my skin.
The doctor confirmed that it was calcium, a reaction caused by the toxicity that I have in my
body,” he notes. As a result of the pain, Fabian could not work any longer. “First they
thought that it was all caused by diabetes complications, until one day, the doctor asked me to
remove my T-shirt and he saw that I was skin and bone,” he says.
The physician's order sought to refer Fabian to the main Argentine Poison Control Center,
Hospital Alejandro Posadas de Haedo. “But since I was not at the appropriate weight, I ended
▯Annex 86
▯
up in the Sanatorio Adventista del Plata. Here, they found that I had decreased lung capacity
and even found calcium deposits in my esophagus. I have hypercalcemia, presumably
because my body reacts this way to the poison. Boils appear all over my body that later burst,
and calcium emanates from every one of my joints. It also emanates from my elbows, knees
and toes,” he says as if his body was a map of devastation. It was the first time that doctors
ventured to diagnose “possible agrochemical poisoning.”
Last Christmas, after eight years of uncertainty, the so called organization Rural Reflection
Group (“Grupo de Reflexión Rural”) donated him a detoxification treatment for active
biological agents. For researchers, Tomasi’s ailment has an explanation: The poison acts in
man as it does in insects. “It removes the ability to walk and eat, but since we are warm-
blooded, the atrophy is even worse. I no longer control my throat, and sometimes my food
comes out of my nose, I do not know what I would do if it were not for my mother. This is
clearer than water and it does not need to be turned over much, I have the face of a mask, my
face muscles have atrophied and, since I am diabetic, I take much longer to heal.”
Basavilbaso has nine thousand inhabitants, but few believe him despite his tragedy.
”Nonetheless, nothing changes here, my friends assume that they will solve the problem
because they wear long-sleeved shirts when everyone who works with chemicals should be
protected by suits with boots, gloves and masks, and assisted with oxygen. But no one
demands this and these suits do not exist anywhere in the country.”
“We never protected ourselves, we used only shorts and shirts, and did everything: we
replaced the injection spouts to the bars through which the poison is spread from airplanes
and we opened up to 200 canisters a day to make the broth, the mixture of water and
chemical oils so that the drop sprayed reaches the soybean plant,” he adds. “I am no
Nostradamus,” he warns, “but this will end badly,” predicts this laborer, recognizing that he
is living thanks to treatment donated by the Rural Reflection Group. “This poison is lethal
and is killing us,” he concludes. The therapy that Tomasi is receiving is similar to that given
to the victims of the nuclear tragedy of Chernobyl, the Siberian city razed by leakage from a
reactor in 1985.
“It was only until 2008 that the World Health Organization (WHO) labeled glyphosate as
extremely toxic. This occurred because a number of studies revealed toxicity in all categories:
subacute, chronic, genetic damage, reproductive disorders and carcinogenesis. For the same
reason, the European Environmental Agency (EPA) reclassified glyphosate as Class II,
highly toxic,” says Dr. Jorge Kaczewer, specialist in neural therapy at the National University
of Buenos Aires. But rural workers are not the only ones affected.
Marcela Tornelli and Roque Santana have been married since 1994. Both are teachers and
live in a neighborhood of the city of Paraná. They have three children: Jeremiah who is 12
years old, 10-year-old Facundo and 5-year-old Pilar. “When I was pregnant with Facu,”
recalls Marcela, “I obtained a few hours in the school 136 of Colonia Avellaneda- a small
farming town located 15 kilometers from the capital of Entre Ríos, where aircraft fumigated
rich soybean fields abound. It is there that I met Gabriela, a history teacher who was also
pregnant. Since the school had no building of its own, it was held in a municipal warehouse
where glyphosate drums were stored,” explains Tornelli.” Some time after Facundo was born,
we began to notice that he had problems because he did not fix his gaze and he did not walk,
he spent his time sitting around with a toy in his hand. The doctors conducted various studies
and he was diagnosed with a neurological disorder called Pervasive Developmental Disorder
(PDD). My surprise was great when I found Gabriela, together with her son in the specialist’s
▯ Annex 86
▯
waiting room, he is two months younger than my Facu, and had received the same diagnosis.
We began to organize and seek more information about our children’s disease and its possible
causes. Until a neurologist told us that these conditions were related to contact with
chemicals during pregnancy,” says the teacher. A revelation would eventually convince her:
“In 2003, I returned to school 136 and found that the first grade had to be turned into a slow
grade because 20 children had speech and learning problems.” According to the teacher, 92
percent of males born in that time have similar problems to those of our children.”
During this period Marcela had four miscarriages. Given its small budget and in order to
obtain resources, the Entre Ríos province granted rural schools the authority to lease the land
adjoining the building to farmers.” In those fields, farmers planted soybean which was
sprayed with glyphosate, therefore, the Entre Ríos teachers' union filed a complaint with
educational authorities, since the situation threatens the whole educational community’s
health,” adds Roque Santana, who also serves as Secretary General of the provincial teachers'
union.
“We feel alone and unprotected as citizens and parents who already have someone in our
family with some of these consequences. We must do something for this to end; my son will
be autistic his whole life, but this is preventable and many mothers can keep their children
from having a pathology. We have to do something to persuade those who have to decide and
take political decisions to take steps now,” implores Santana, Facundo’s father.
Increasing
Argentina is the second largest soy exporter worldwide and there are already 16.6 million
hectares planted with “Soja RR” in ten of its provinces. “RR” stands for “Roundup Ready,”
i.e. “Resistant to Roundup”, the commercial name given to glyphosate, an herbicide that is
applied in liquid form on weeds. The weeds absorb the poison and die in few days. As a
result, the only thing that grows on the fumigated land is the transgenic soy, the demand for
which is increasing in Asian markets. The legume is expanding progressively more on fertile
Argentine lands, at the expense of other crops as well as cattle and forest. In fact, its yield is
so high that it now occupies what once use to be a green buffer zone surrounding villages
made up by family farms, dairy and small animal farms as well as fruit orchards.
The entire population there was exposed to the damage of aerial fumigation.
Given this growth, soy planting heads the demand for pesticides. Farmers use 46% for this
plant, 10% for corn, another 10% for sunflower and 7% for cotton. However, crops do not
grow on their own; they all need rural labor workers who are increasingly exposed to
sprayings. According to a World Health Organization report on labor accidents, “worldwide,
there are 335,000 labor related accidents every year, of which 170,000 occurred in the
agricultural sector. The majority are workers who have handled herbicide. They must be
protected, instead of having companies continuing to set forth the low-toxicity argument,”
asserts researcher Kaczewer. However, everything is heading in the opposite direction. Until
the appearance of transgenic crops tolerant to the herbicide, the maximum residual
glyphosate permitted in the United States and Europe was 0.1 milligrams per kilogram.
However, beginning in 1996, this was increased to 20 milligrams per kilogram, i.e. 200 times
more. This is because producing companies of [genetically modified to resist Roundup]. Last
year, Argentine fields were sprayed with 165 million liters of the herbicide, a volume
comparable to 330 thousand household water tanks. The owner of this product is Monsanto,
▯Annex 86
▯
the largest multinational company in the world dealing with agribusiness and biotechnology,
whose sales reached 4,476 million dollars in 2006. Present in the country since 1956,
Monsanto currently controls 20 percent of the seed market. With Roundup, it possesses 95
percent of the soy market. Half of the Argentine agricultural area is occupied by soy. After 15
years of record seasons, Argentina produces approximately 48 million tons which are
exported to China and India. 200 million liters of glyphosate are required each year in order
to achieve this, a number that will increase in the future, given the increase in demand from
the Asian markets. The legume increasingly expands on fertile Argentine lands, at the
expense of other crops, livestock and forests. In fact, its yield is so high that it now occupies
what once were green buffer zones surrounding villages formed by family farms, dairy and
small animal farms and fruit orchards. This entire village was exposed to the harms of aerial
fumigation. With this growth, the planting of soy heads demand for pesticides.
Farmers use 46% for this plant, 10% for corn, another 10% for sunflower and 7% for cotton.
However, crops do not grow on their own; they all need rural labor workers who are
increasingly exposed to sprayings. According to a World Health Organization report on labor
accidents, “Worldwide, there are 335,000 labor related accidents every year, of which
170,000 occurred in the agricultural sector. The majority are workers who have handled
herbicide. They must be protected, instead of having companies continuing to set forth the
low-toxicity argument,” asserts researcher Kaczewer. However, everything is heading in the
opposite direction. Until the appearance of transgenic crops tolerant to the herbicide, the
maximum residual glyphosate permitted in the United States and Europe was 0.1 milligrams
per kilogram. However, beginning in 1996, this was increased to 20 milligrams per kilogram,
i.e. 200 times more. “This is in reaction to the fact that producing companies are requesting
permits to approve the presence of greater concentrations in food derived from transgenic
crops. Monsanto, for example, was authorized to perform a triple increase in transgenic soy
in Europe and the United States (from 6 ppm to 20 ppm),” the researcher reveals.
Village by village
The Rural Reflection Group (GRR) surveyed over 600 villages in its report regarding the use
of plaguicide in Argentina’s primary soy-producing provinces. Its conclusions raise fear:
Córdoba: The sample case was Ituzaingó, in the outskirts of the Cordoban capital. Five
thousand people inhabit said town, 200 of them suffer from cancer. The neighborhood,
humble, with low houses, is surrounded by monoculture. To the east, north and south are
fields of soybeans, separated from the inhabitants by only a street. GRR’s survey confirmed
respiratory and skin allergies, neurological diseases, malformation cases of infants born with
spinal bifida, kidney malformations in fetuses and pregnant women.
In March 2006, the Municipal Environmental Directorate did blood analysis on thirty
children: pesticides were present in 23 of them. Malathion, Chlopyrifos, Alpha-Endosulfan,
an isomer of DDT, Beta Endosulfan, and HCB were found in the soils of Ituzaingó, all used
for spraying soybean fields. Other locations affected are Pueblo Italiano, Río Ceballos,
Saldán, Alto Alberdi, Jesús María, Colonia Caroya and San Francisco, where spraying is
being conducted in fields surrounding the households or containers of pesticides are thrown
on roads and canals. Monte Cristo holds a grim record, where, solely between 2003 and
▯ Annex 86
▯
2004, among a population of 5,000 people, there were 37 cases of cancer and 29 congenital
malformations, as well as countless sprayings.
Buenos Aires: We have verified cases of cancer and malformations in Lobería, Saladillo and
Chacabuco. “The spraying planes emptied their tanks on lakes and streams nearby these
cities, causing mortality among fish and another large number with deformities and illnesses
that preclude their consumption. Given this situation, Saladillo residents staged a march
against cancer in April 2007 and in Chacabuco, a neighborhood association was constituted
to investigate the reasons why the village has seen increased cancer cases, leukemia and
malformations,” the research affirms.
Santa Fe: A study conducted by the Centre for Research in Biodiversity and Environment
(Ecosur), Italian Hospital Garibaldi of Rosario (“Hospital Italiano Garibaldi de Rosario”), the
National University of Rosario (“Universidad Nacional de Rosario”), INTA, the College of
Agricultural Engineers (“Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos”) and the Argentine Agrarian
Federation (“Federación Agraria Argentina”), found a strong correlation between cancer
cases, leukemia, lupus and other serious illnesses in six small towns in the south central area
of Santa Fe, and the location of spray machines, pesticide storage, pesticide drums silos,
electric transformers with PCBs and places subject to frequent aerial spraying, as well as
aircraft tank spillage from aircraft spray tanks. For example, 800 inhabitants live in Las
Petacas, 200 kilometers southwest of Rosario. In the last ten years there were 42 cases of
cancer and 400 people with allergies. Only in October 2005, five people died of cancer and
two of leukemia. There are five grain stockpiles within the urban area on the northern side.
The grain dust coexists with the villagers, given that the northern wind prevails in most of the
year. Alcorta’s neighbors claimed that Round-Up is being used to fumigate entire tracts of
lands sited in urban neighborhoods, where there is also a silo plant that discharges dust in
times of grain loading and unloading that causes air to become impossible to breathe several
blocks around.
San Cristobal: is a town of fifteen thousand inhabitants in the north of Santa Fe. In August
2005, Mayor Edgardo Martino claimed that eleven babies had been born with congenital
malformations, and three had died in a few days in the first semester of the year. He also
warned about the existence of three other cases in neighboring towns. He did not venture to
propose possible causes, but acknowledged that all the accusations pointed to soy plantations,
and the pesticides used, which had grown exponentially over the last decade.
Rodolfo Páramo, medic at the Hospital de Malabrigo, reported malformations in children
born nine months after spraying on the outskirts of the town. Páramo stated that “normal
values for these cases are one of every 8,500 to 10,000 births, while in Malabrigo,
malformations reached a rate of 12 cases out of 200 births in the year.”
Misiones: There are reports of spraying in some localities nearby fields, in the province.
Since 2004, in the town of San Ignacio, peasant and neighborhood organizations have
denounced spraying with pesticides in soybean crops near the villages.
▯Annex 86
▯
Formosa: At least 23 small farmer families in the town of Colonia Loma Senés, Pirané
Department, west of the province, saw their health, as well as their crops and farms affected
by the habitual glyphosate and 2.4 D spraying conducted by “Mosquito” machines on areas
leased by the soybean company (Agricultural Formosan Project PAF) (“Proyecto Agrícola
Formoseño”), adjoining the family farms. This is not the only case in the province. In the
town of Belgrano, aircraft flights spray soybean fields adjacent to more the fields of the most
humble farmers, using pesticides. In light of this situation, farmers belonging to Mocafor
(Peasant Movement of Formosa) organized in order to prevent such flights.
Santiago del Estero: The Castillo family lives in Quimilí, they have cultivated a field for five
decades. All of its members have suffered various types of respiratory and skin illnesses of
varying severity. When searching for the causes, they look to the neighboring field, where
thousands of hectares of soy exist, and point to a twin-engine plane which sprays with poison.
Entre Ríos: In February 2004, fifteen people were poisoned with an agrochemical in the
department of Gualeguaychú. The symptoms reported were headaches, vomiting and
dizziness, which appeared the day after spraying. In the rural area of the Paraná department,
an increase in prenatal mortality and a high anembryonic pregnancy rate correlate with an
increase in soy planted surfaces and its consequent pesticide use.
Pablo Basso, director of Epidemiology of the provincial Ministry of Health admits the
following, “Various studies correlate indiscriminate use of pesticides with the appearance of
various pathologies.” The official adds, “The supposed innocuousness of glyphosate is false,
if there is something that we have clear is that glyphosate is not holy water.” In Entre Ríos, a
pesticide law exists that fixes a minimum distance of 50 meters between the limit of the
planted terrain and the households in cases of land fumigations, and 200 meters for aerial
sprayings. However, there is no compliance with this regulation.
▯ Annex 86
Dictan amparo en San Jorge (Santa Fe)
Un juez reconoció los riesgos de las fumigaciones con glifosato
.
Contenido
Home
Actualidad
Gobierno
Derechos Humanos
Legislativas Solicitar más información por ma|l Recomendar esta noticia
Fecha:13/04/2009 7:40:00
Opinión Texto completo de la noticia
Informe Inventario22
Internacionales
Homenajes El juez Tristán Martínez, hizo lugar a un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos de la
Historias localidad santafesina de San Jorge, prohibiendo que aviones fumigaran los campos a
Conmemoraciones menos de 1.500 metros de las viviendas del casco urbano. Si la fumigación es por tierra, la
Agenda distancia no puede ser menor a los 800 metros. El magistrado consideró que estas
prácticas "tienen consecuencias severas para la salud de los hijos" de quienes presentaron
Arte y Cultura el amparo.
Música
Entrevistas Varios pueblos rurales, en los que en la última década aparecieron enfermedades raras y
Literarias más casos de cáncer y abortos que lo habitual, lo habían intentado. Tras diez años de
expansión silenciosa, el lado más oscuro del boom sojero se está haciendo visible.
Charlas y jornadas
Cursos y seminarios El cultivo, que permitió a la Argentina enfrentar la crisis económica más grave de los
últimos cincuenta años, tiene un costado atroz que científicos y funcionarios ya no niegan:
Talleres los agroquímicos utilizados para obtener mayor rendimiento de las plantaciones de soja
Pueblos originarios provocan enfermedades, malformaciones congénitas y abortos espontáneos en las
Universitarias poblaciones que quedan bajo las fumigaciones. Seiscientos pueblos de las zonas
más fértiles del país son rociados con pesticidas desde 1995. Y sus habitantes sufren las
consecuencias. Las pruebas de su impacto son tan contundentes que hasta el Gobierno
nacional
-impulsor del modelo agroexportador sojero- se vio obligado a crear una comisión en el
Ministerio de Salud que deberá evaluar el impacto ambiental y sanitario generado por el
uso indiscriminado de estos venenos.
Gracias a la soja, la utilización de agroquímicos creció exponencialmente en territorio
argentino. El más común es el glifosato, que representa el 37% del total de herbicidas
utilizados en la producción agrícola. Las primeras víctimas visibles fueron los peones
rurales. Fabián Tomasi es uno de ellos. Tiene 43 años pero aparenta muchos más. Vive en
Referecia la localidad entrerriana de Basavilbaso desde que nació y en 1994 optó, como muchos
Titulares
peones rurales de su pueblo, por dedicarse a uno de los oficios mejor pagos de la zona:
Contáctenos manejar glifosatos que garanticen el mejor rendimiento de las plantaciones de soja.
Hace nueve años dejó sin palabras a los médicos cuando apareció en las consultas con un
fuerte ardor en las yemas de los dedos, acompañado por secreciones de calcio en las
manos y en todas sus articulaciones. "Nos pagaban por hora y ganábamos muy bien,
llegábamos a los cuatro dólares por hora y acumulábamos 12 horas diarias los siete días
de la semana para poder hacer un buen número", cuenta. Durante la campaña, desde
noviembre hasta marzo, todos los peones trabajan la mayor cantidad de horas posible para
sumar pesos extra. "No cualquiera puede estar al lado de un avión, hay que saber cómo
cargar combustible, limpiar primero, cambiar los equipos y cargar el veneno.
Cada cosa llevaba su tiempo, y así pasé seis años de mi vida", rememora Tomasi con
amargura. Para las fumigaciones hay dos vías: una terrestre y otra aérea. La especialidad
de Fabián era el aire. "Soy un loco de los aviones, siempre me encantaron y nunca tomé
conciencia de que estaba trabajando con un veneno letal. Encima, nunca trabajé con algún
tipo de protección". Pero las secuelas aparecieron a partir de 2000. "Primero empecé a
sentir mucho dolor en la punta de los dedos y luego me empezó a salir como una arenilla.
El médico comprobó que era calcio, una reacción por la toxicidad que tengo en el cuerpo",
cuenta. Por el dolor, Fabián no pudo trabajar más. "Primero pensaron que todo era por las
complicaciones de la diabetes, hasta que un día el médico me pide que me saque la
remera y ve que era piel y hueso", cuenta.
La orden médica procuró derivarlo al principal centro toxicológico argentino, el Hospital
Alejandro Posadas de Haedo. "Pero como no tenía un peso terminé en el Sanatorio
Adventista del Plata. Ahí descubrieron que tengo menor capacidad pulmonar y hasta me
encontraron incrustaciones de calcio en el esófago. Tengo hipercalcemia, supuestamente
porque mi organismo reacciona de esta forma con el veneno. Me aparecen granos por todo
el cuerpo que se revientan y en cada una de mis articulaciones me sale calcio. Ahora
también me sale de los codos, de las rodillas y de los pies", dice como si su cuerpo fuera
un mapa de la devastación. Fue la primera vez que los médicos se animaron a
diagnosticarle "posible intoxicación con agroquímicos".
En la última Navidad, tras ocho años de incertidumbre, la organización llamada Grupo de
Reflexión Rural le donó un tratamiento desintoxicante de activos biológicos. Para los
investigadores, el cuadro de Tomasi tiene una explicación: el veneno actúa en el hombre
igual que sobre los insectos. "Quita la posibilidad de caminar y de comer, pero como
tenemos sangre caliente eso atrofia aun más. Ya no domino la garganta, y a veces me sale
la comida por la nariz, si no fuera por mi madre, no se qué haría. Esto es más claro que el
agua y no
hay que darle mucha vuelta, tengo cara de máscara, los músculos de mi cara están
atrofiados y, como soy diabético, tardo mucho más en cicatrizar". Basavilbaso tiene nueveAnnex 86
mil habitantes y, a pesar de su tragedia, son pocos los que le creen. "Pero acá todavía no
cambió nada, mis amigos suponen que porque usan camisas de mangas largas van a
solucionar el problema, cuando para trabajar con agroquímicos hay que aislarse con trajes
con botas, guantes y máscaras con oxígeno asistido. Pero nadie lo exige y no hay de esos
trajes en ninguna parte del país".
"Nunca nos protegimos, sólo usábamos short y remeras, y hacíamos de todo: le
cambiábamos los picos a las barras por donde se esparce el veneno desde los aviones y
abríamos hasta 200 latas diarias para hacer el caldo, la mezcla del químico con agua y
aceites para que la gota fumigada llegue mejor a la planta de soja", agrega. "Yo no soy
Nostradamus -advierte- pero esto termina mal", vaticina este peón que reconoce que vive
gracias al tratamiento que le donó el Grupo de Reflexión Rural. "Este veneno es letal y nos
está matando", concluye. La terapia que está recibiendo Tomasi es similar a la que se
practicó con las víctimas de la tragedia nuclear de Chernobyl, la ciudad siberiana arrasada
por la fuga de un reactor en 1985.
"Recién en 2008 la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) catalogó el glifosato como
extremadamente tóxico. Esto ocurrió porque una serie de estudios revelaron toxicidad en
todas las categorías: subaguda, crónica, daños genéticos, trastornos reproductivos y
carcinogénesis. Por la misma razón la agencia ambiental europea (EPA) lo reclasificó como
clase II, es decir altamente tóxico", informa el doctor Jorge Kaczewer, especialista en
terapias neurales de la Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires. Pero los peones rurales no
son los únicos afectados.
Marcela Tornelli y Roque Santana están casados desde 1994. Los dos son docentes y
viven en un barrio de la ciudad de Paraná. Tienen tres hijos: Jeremías de 12 años, Facundo
de 10 y Pilar de cinco. "Cuando estaba embarazada de Facu –recuerda Marcela- conseguí
unas horas en la escuela 136 de Colonia Avellaneda -un pequeño poblado agrícola ubicado
a 15 kilómetros de la capital entrerriana, donde abundan los campos sembrados de soja
fumigados con avionetas-. Allí conocí a Gabriela, una profesora de Historia que también
estaba embarazada. Como la escuela no tenía edificio propio, funcionaba en un galpón
municipal donde se almacenaban tambores de glifosato", explica Tornelli. "Tiempo después
del nacimiento de Facundo, comenzamos a notar que tenía problemas, porque no fijaba la
mirada y no caminaba, se la pasaba todo el tiempo sentado con un juguete en la mano. Los
médicos le efectuaron distintos estudios neurológicos y le diagnosticaron trastorno
generalizado del desarrollo (DGD). Mi sorpresa fue mayúscula cuando en la sala de espera
del especialista me la encontré a Gabriela, que estaba con su hijito dos meses más
pequeño que mi Facu, con el mismo diagnóstico. Nos empezamos a organizar para buscar
más información sobre la enfermedad de nuestros hijos y sobre los posibles causantes.
Hasta que una neuróloga nos dijo que estas afecciones estaban relacionadas con el
contacto que tuvimos durante al embarazo con los agroquímicos", añade la docente.
Una revelación terminaría por convencerla: "En 2003 volví a la escuela 136 y me encontré
con que el primer grado tuvo que transformarse en un grado lento porque los 20 chicos
tenían trastornos en el lenguaje y en el aprendizaje". Según la maestra: "El 92 por ciento de
los varones que nacieron en esa época tienen problemas similares a los de nuestros
chicos".
En ese período Marcela perdió cuatro embarazos. Ante la falta de presupuesto, la provincia
de Entre Ríos les otorga a las escuelas rurales la potestad de arrendar a los agricultores los
terrenos lindantes al edificio para obtener recursos. "En esos campos se siembra soja que
se fumiga con glifosato, por lo que el gremio docente entrerriano elevó una queja a las
autoridades educativas, ya que la situación pone en peligro la salud de toda la comunidad
educativa", aporta Roque Santana, quien además se desempeña como secretario General
del gremio docente provincial.
"Qué solos y desprotegidos nos sentimos como ciudadanos y padres quienes ya tenemos
en nuestra familia alguien con alguna de estas consecuencias. Tenemos que hacer algo
para que esto se termine mi hijo será autista toda su vida, pero esto se puede prevenir y
muchas madres pueden evitar que sus hijos tengan alguna patología. Tenemos que hacer
algo para que los que tienen que decidir y tomar las decisiones políticas lo hagan ahora",
pide Santana, el papá de Facundo.
En aumento
Argentina es el segundo exportador mundial sojero y en diez de sus provincias ya hay 16,6
millones de hectáreas sembradas con "Soja RR". "RR" significa "Roundup Ready", es decir
"Resistente al Roundup", nombre comercial del glifosato, un herbicida que se aplica en
forma líquida sobre las malezas, que absorben el veneno y mueren en pocos días. Gracias
a eso, lo único que crece en la tierra rociada es soja transgénica, esal aumento de la
demanda en los mercados asiáticos. La leguminosa se extiende cada vez más sobre las
tierras fértiles argentinas a expensas de otros cultivos, de la ganadería y de los bosques.
De hecho, es tanto su rendimiento que ahora ocupa lo que antes fueron corredores verdes
de protección que bordeaban poblados formados por huertas familiares, granjas lecheras y
de pequeños animales y plantaciones de frutales.
Toda esa población quedó expuesta a los daños de la fumigación aérea.
Con ese crecimiento, la siembra de soja encabeza la demanda de pesticidas. Los
agricultores utilizan el 46% para esa planta, el 10% para el maíz, otro 10% para el girasol y
un 7% para el algodón. Pero ningún cultivo crece solo, todos necesitan de peones rurales
que están cada vez más expuestos a la fumigación. Según un informe sobre accidentes
laborales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud: "De los 335.000 producidos por año en el
mundo, 170.000 ocurrieron en el sector agrícola. La mayoría son trabajadores que han
manipulado herbicidas, por lo que habría que protegerlos en vez de seguir con el
argumento de la baja toxicidad por parte de las empresas productoras", dispara el
investigador Kaczewer. Pero todo va en la dirección opuesta. Hasta que aparecieron los
cultivos transgénicos tolerantes al herbicida, el máximo de glifosato residual en alimentos
permitido en Estados Unidos y Europa era de 0,1 miligramo por kilo. Sin embargo, a partir Annex 86
de 1996 se incrementó a 20 miligramos por kilo, es decir 200 veces más. "Esto responde a
que las empresas productoras del decir modificada genéticamente para resistir el Roundup.
Los campos argentinos fueron rociados el último año con 165 millones de litros del
herbicida. Un volumen similar al que suman 330 mil tanques de agua hogareños. La
propietaria de este producto es Monsanto, la multinacional de agronegocios y biotecnología
más grande del mundo, cuyas ventas en 2006 alcanzaron los 4.476 millones de dólares.
Con presencia en el país desde 1956, Monsanto actualmente controla el 20 por ciento del
mercado de semillas. Con el Roundup, posee el 95 por ciento del mercado sojero.
La mitad del área agrícola argentina está ocupada por soja. Luego de 15 años de
campañas récord, Argentina produce unos 48 millones de toneladas que exporta a China e
India. Para lograrlo se requieren unos 200 millones de litros de glifosato por año, una cifra
que aumentará en el futuro, debido al aumento de la demanda en los mercados asiáticos.
La leguminosa se extiende cada vez más sobre las tierras fértiles argentinas a expensas de
otros cultivos, de la ganadería y de los bosques. De hecho, es tanto su rendimiento que
ahora ocupa lo que antes fueron corredores verdes de protección que bordeaban poblados
formados por huertas familiares, granjas lecheras y de pequeños animales y plantaciones
de frutales. Toda esa población quedó expuesta a los daños de la fumigación aérea.
Con ese crecimiento, la siembra de soja encabeza la demanda de pesticidas. Los
agricultores utilizan el 46% para esa planta, el 10% para el maíz, otro 10% para el girasol y
un 7% para el algodón. Pero ningún cultivo crece solo, todos necesitan de peones rurales
que están cada vez más expuestos a la fumigación. Según un informe sobre accidentes
laborales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud: "De los 335.000 producidos por año en el
mundo, 170.000 ocurrieron en el sector agrícola. La mayoría son trabajadores que han
manipulado herbicidas, por lo que habría que protegerlos en vez de seguir con el
argumento de la baja toxicidad por parte de las empresas productoras", dispara el
investigador Kaczewer.
Pero todo va en la dirección opuesta. Hasta que aparecieron los cultivos transgénicos
tolerantes al herbicida, el máximo de glifosato residual en alimentos permitido en Estados
Unidos y Europa era de 0,1 miligramo por kilo. Sin embargo, a partir de 1996 se incrementó
a 20 miligramos por kilo, es decir 200 veces más. "Esto responde a que las empresas
productoras del agroquímico están solicitando permisos para que se apruebe la presencia
de mayores concentraciones en alimentos derivados de cultivos transgénicos. Monsanto,
por ejemplo, fue autorizado para un triple incremento en soja transgénica en Europa y
Estados Unidos (de 6 ppm a 20 ppm)", revela el investigador.
Pueblo por pueblo
En su informe sobre el uso de plaguicidas en las principales provincias sojeras de la
Argentina, el Grupo de Reflexión Rural (GRR) censó más de seiscientos pueblos. Las
conclusiones dan miedo:
Córdoba: El caso testigo fue Ituzaingo, en las afueras de la capital cordobesa. Allí viven
cinco mil personas, 200 de ellas padecen cáncer. El barrio, humilde, de casas bajas, está
rodeado demonocultivo. Al este, norte y sur hay campos con soja, sólo separados de la
población por una calle. El relevamiento del GRR confirmó alergias respiratorias y de piel,
enfermedades neurológicas, casos de malformaciones, de bebés nacidos con espina bífida,
malformaciones de riñón en fetos y embarazadas.
En marzo de 2006, la Dirección de Ambiente municipal analizó la sangre de treinta chicos:
en 23 había presencia de pesticidas. En los suelos de Ituzaingó se encontró Malatión,
Clopirifós, Alfa-Endosulfán, isómero de DDT, Beta Endosulfán y HCB utilizados para
fumigación en campos de soja. Otras localidades afectadas son Pueblo Italiano, Río
Ceballos, Saldán, Alto Alberdi, Jesús María, Colonia Caroya y San Francisco, donde
también se realizan pulverizaciones en campos aledañosa las viviendas o se arrojan
envases de agrotóxicos en caminos y canales. Un récord nefasto ostenta Monte Cristo,
donde sobre una población de 5000 personas, solo entre 2003 y
2004, se registraron 37 casos oncológicos, 29 malformaciones congénitas e innumerables
fumigaciones.
Buenos Aires: Se han verificado casos de cáncer y malformaciones en Lobería, Saladillo y
Chacabuco. "Los aviones fumigadores vacían sus tanques sobre lagunas y arroyos
cercanos a estas ciudades, provocando mortandad de peces y otro gran número con
malformaciones y enfermedades que imposibilitan su consumo. Ante esta situación, los
vecinos de Saladillo realizaron una marcha contra el cáncer en abril de 2007 y en
Chacabuco surgió una asociación vecinal para investigar las razones por las que han
aumentado los casos de cáncer, leucemia y malformaciones en el pueblo", sostiene la
investigación.
Santa Fe: Un informe llevado adelante por el Centro de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y
Ambiente (Ecosur), el Hospital Italiano Garibaldi de Rosario, la UniversidadNacional de
Rosario, el INTA, el Colegio de Ingenieros Agrónomos y la Federación Agraria Argentina,
comprobó la fuerte correlación entre los casos de cáncer, leucemia, lupus y otras graves
afecciones -halladas en seis pequeños pueblos del área sur y central sojera de Santa Fe-
con la localización de las máquinas de fumigación, depósitos de agrotóxicos, silos de
bidones de plaguicidas, transformadores eléctricos con PCB y lugares de frecuentes
fumigaciones aéreas y chorreado de los tanques de los aviones aspersores. Por ejemplo,
en Las Petacas, 200 kilómetros al sudoeste de Rosario, viven 800 habitantes y en los
últimos diez años hubo 42 casos de cáncer y 400 personas con alergias. Sólo en octubre
de 2005 murieron cinco personas de cáncer y dos de leucemia. Allí existen cinco acopios
de cereales dentro del área urbana, del lado norte. A raíz de que en la mayor parte del año
predomina el viento norte, el polvillo del cereal convive con los pobladores. Los vecinos de
Alcorta denunciaron que se fumiga con Round-Up terrenos enteros emplazados en barriosAnnex 86
populares, donde además hay una planta de silos donde el polvillo en épocas de carga y
descarga de granos torna irrespirable el aire a varias cuadras alrededor.
San Cristóbal: es un poblado de quince mil habitantes en el norte de Santa Fe. En agosto
de 2005, el intendente Edgardo Martino denunció que en el primer semestre del año habían
nacido once bebés con malformaciones congénitas, y tres habían fallecido a los pocos
días. También advirtió la existencia de otros tres casos en localidades vecinas. No
aventuraba causas posibles, pero reconocía que todas las acusaciones apuntaban a las
plantaciones de soja -y los agrotóxicos utilizados-, que habían crecido de forma
exponencial en la última década.
Rodolfo Páramo, médico del Hospital de Malabrigo, efectuó reportes de malformaciones en
niños nacidos nueve meses después de las fumigaciones en los alrededores del pueblo.
Páramo asegura que "los valores normales de estos casos son de uno cada 8.500 a 10.000
nacimientos, mientras que en Malabrigo las malformaciones alcanzaron una tasa de 12
casos para unos 200 nacimientos en el año".
Misiones: Existen denuncias sobre fumigaciones y pulverizaciones en los campos aledaños
a algunas localidades de la provincia. Desde 2004, en la localidad de San Ignacio
organizaciones campesinas y vecinales denuncian las pulverizaciones con agrotóxicos en
los cultivos de soja cercanos a las poblaciones.
Formosa: Al menos 23 familias de pequeños productores de la localidad de Colonia Loma
Senés, departamento Pirané, al oeste de la provincia, vieron su salud -y también sus
cultivos y haciendas- afectados por las habituales fumigaciones realizadas desde máquinas
"mosquito", con glifosato y 2,4 D, en los campos rentados por una empresa sojera
(Proyecto Agrícola Formoseño PAF), linderos a las chacras familiares.
No es el único caso en la provincia: en la localidad de Belgrano, también se suceden los
vuelos de avioneta que fumigan con agrotóxicos los campos de soja contiguos a las
parcelas de los campesinos más humildes. Ante esta situación agricultores del Mocafor
(Movimiento Campesino de Formosa) se movilizaron para impedir estos vuelos.
Santiago del Estero: La familia Castillo vive en Quimilí, trabajauna chacra desde hace cinco
décadas. Todos sus integrantes sufrieron distintos tipos de enfermedades respiratorias y
cutáneas de diversa gravedad. A la hora de buscar las causas, miran al campo vecino,
millares de hectáreas con soja, y señalan una avioneta bimotor que fumiga con veneno.
Entre Ríos: En febrero de 2004 quince personas resultaron intoxicadas en el departamento
Gualeguaychú, por causa de un agrotóxico. Los síntomas registrados fueron dolor de
cabeza, vómitos y mareos al día siguiente de producida una fumigación. En la zona rural
del departamento Paraná se observó un aumento de la mortalidad perinatal y una alta
incidencia de embarazos anembrionados correlacionados con el incremento en la superficie
sembrada con soja y el consecuente uso de agroquímicos.
Desde el hospital de la localidad de Cerrito, el médico Darío Gianfelici comprobó que las
enfermedades de las vías respiratorias se duplicaron, mientras que las afecciones de piel
se cuadruplicaron en los últimos diez años.
Pablo Basso, director de Epidemiología del Ministerio de Salud provincial admite: "Hay
varios estudios que relacionan el uso indiscriminado de agroquímicos con la aparición de
diversas patologías". El funcionario agrega: "La supuesta inocuidad de glifosato es falsa, si
hay algo que todos tenemos claro es que el glifosato no es agua bendita". En Entre Ríos
existe una ley de plaguicidas que fija una distancia mínima de 50 metros entre el límite del
terreno sembrado y el caserío para los casos de fumigaciones terrestres y de 200 metros
para las fumigaciones aéreas. Pero esta normativa no se cumple.
Home
Cura Álvarez 764
Tel: 0343 4219074
(3100) Paraná - Entre Ríos - Argentina Annex 87
&U\WVWDO▯*DPPRQ▯▯³:HHG▯.LOOHU▯.LOOV▯+XPDQ▯&HOOV▯▯6WXG\▯,QWHQVL¿HV▯'HEDWH▯RYHU▯µ,QHUW¶
Ingredients”, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NEWS (22 June 2009) Annex 87
Weed killer kills human cells. Study
intensifies debate over 'inert' ingredients.
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling
weed killer. But now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill
human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. The new findings
intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and other
substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved
for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
By Crystal Gammon
Environmental Health News
June 22, 2009
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But
now researchers have found that one of Roundup’s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly
embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.
The new findings intensify a debate about so-called “inerts” — the solvents, preservatives, surfactants and
other substances that manufacturers add to pesticides. Nearly 4,000 inert ingredients are approved for use by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100
million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.
Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients
found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic
effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic,
placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
“This clearly confirms that the [inert ingredients] in Roundup formulations are not inert,” wrote the study
authors from France’s University of Caen. “Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could
cause cell damage and even death [at the] residual levels” found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans,
alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.
The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone
production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.
Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, contends that the methods used in the study don’t reflect realistic
conditions and that their product, which has been sold since the 1970s, is safe when used as directed.
Hundreds of studies over the past 35 years have addressed the safety of glyphosate.
“Roundup has one of the most extensive human health safety and environmental data packages of any
pesticide that's out there,” said Monsanto spokesman John Combest. “It's used in public parks, it's used to
protect schools. There's been a great deal of study on Roundup, and we're very proud of its performance.”
The EPA considers glyphosate to have low toxicity when used at the recommended doses.Annex 87
“Risk estimates for glyphosate were well below the level of concern,” said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery. The
EPA classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means there is strong evidence that it does not cause
cancer in humans.
In addition, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recognize POEA as an inert ingredient.
Derived from animal fat, POEA is allowed in products certified organic by the USDA. The EPA has concluded
that it is not dangerous to public health or the environment.
The French team, led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a University of Caen molecular biologist, said its results highlight
the need for health agencies to reconsider the safety of Roundup.
“The authorizations for using these Roundup herbicides must now clearly be revised since their toxic effects
depend on, and are multiplied by, other compounds used in the mixtures,” Seralini’s team wrote.
Controversy about the safety of the weed killer recently erupted in Argentina, one of the world’s largest
exporters of soy.
Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on
glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and
cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in
amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk
factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Inert ingredients are often less scrutinized than active pest-killing ingredients. Since specific herbicide
formulations are protected as trade secrets, manufacturers aren’t required to publicly disclose them. Although
Monsanto is the largest manufacturer of glyphosate-based herbicides, several other manufacturers sell similar
herbicides with different inert ingredients.
The term “inert ingredient” is often misleading, according to Caroline Cox, research director of the Center for
Environmental Health, an Oakland-based environmental organization. Federal law classifies all pesticide
ingredients that don’t harm pests as “inert,” she said. Inert compounds, therefore, aren’t necessarily
biologically or toxicologically harmless – they simply don’t kill insects or weeds.
Kemery said the EPA takes into account the inert ingredients and how the product is used, whenever a
pesticide is approved for use. The aim, he said, is to ensure that “if the product is used according to labeled
directions, both people’s health and the environment will not be harmed.” One label requirement for Roundup
is that it should not be used in or near freshwater to protect amphibians and other wildlife.
But some inert ingredients have been found to potentially affect human health. Many amplify the effects of
active ingredients by helping them penetrate clothing, protective equipment and cell membranes, or by
increasing their toxicity. For example, a Croatian team recently found that an herbicide formulation
containing atrazine caused DNA damage, which can lead to cancer, while atrazine alone did not.
POEA was recognized as a common inert ingredient in herbicides in the 1980s, when researchers linked it to a
group of poisonings in Japan. Doctors there examined patients who drank Roundup, either intentionally or
accidentally, and determined that their sicknesses and deaths were due to POEA, not glyphosate.
POEA is a surfactant, or detergent, derived from animal fat. It is added to Roundup and other herbicides to
help them penetrate plants' surfaces, making the weed killer more effective.
"POEA helps glyphosate interact with the surfaces of plant cells," explained Negin Martin, a scientist at the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, who was not involved in the study.
POEA lowers water's surface tension--the property that makes water form droplets on most surfaces--which
helps glyphosate disperse and penetrate the waxy surface of a plant. Annex 87
In the French study, researchers tested four different Roundup formulations, all containing POEA and
glyphosate at concentrations below the recommended lawn and agricultural dose. They also tested POEA and
glyphosate separately to determine which caused more damage to embryonic, placental and umbilical cord
cells.
Glyphosate, POEA and all four Roundup formulations damaged all three cell types. Umbilical cord cells were
especially sensitive to POEA. Glyphosate became more harmful when combined with POEA, and POEA alone
was more deadly to cells than glyphosate. The research appears in the January issue of the journal Chemical
Research in Toxicology.
By using embryonic and placental cell lines, which multiply and respond to chemicals rapidly, and fresh
umbilical cord cells, Seralini’s team was able to determine how the chemicals combine to damage cells.
The two ingredients work together to “limit breathing of the cells, stress them and drive them towards a
suicide,” Seralini said.
The research was funded in part by France’s Committee for Research and Independent Information on
Genetic Engineering, a scientific committee that investigates risks associated with genetically modified
organisms. One of Roundup’s primary uses is on crops that are genetically engineered to be resistant to
glyphosate.
Monsanto scientists argue that cells in Seralini’s study were exposed to unnaturally high levels of the
chemicals. “It's very unlike anything you'd see in real-world exposure. People's cells are not bathed in these
things,” said Donna Farmer, another toxicologist at Monsanto.
Seralini’s team, however, did study multiple concentrations of Roundup. These ranged from the typical
agricultural or lawn dose down to concentrations 100,000 times more dilute than the products sold on
shelves. The researchers saw cell damage at all concentrations.
Monsanto scientists also question the French team’s use of laboratory cell lines.
“These are just not very good models of a whole organism, like a human being,” said Dan Goldstein, a
toxicologist with Monsanto.
Goldstein said humans have protective mechanisms that resist substances in the environment, such as skin
and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract, which constantly renew themselves. “Those phenomena just don't
happen with isolated cells in a Petri dish.”
But Cox, who studies pesticides and their inert ingredients at the Oakland environmental group, says lab
experiments like these are important in determining whether a chemical is safe.
“We would never consider it ethical to test these products on people, so we're obliged to look at their effects on
other species and in other systems,” she said. “There's really no way around that.”
Seralini said the cells used in the study are widely accepted in toxicology as good models for studying the
toxicity of chemicals.
“The fact is that 90 percent of labs studying mechanisms of toxicity or physiology use cell lines,” he said.
Most research has examined glyphosate alone, rather than combined with Roundup’s inert ingredients.
Researchers who have studied Roundup formulations have drawn conclusions similar to the Seralini group’s.
For example, in 2005, University of Pittsburg ecologists added Roundup at the manufacturer’s recommended
dose to ponds filled with frog and toad tadpoles. When they returned two weeks later, they found that 50 to
100 percent of the populations of several species of tadpoles had been killed.Annex 87
A group of over 250 environmental, health and labor organizations has petitioned the EPA to change
requirements for identifying pesticides’ inert ingredients. The agency’s decision is due this fall.
“It would be a big step for the agency to take,” said Cox. “But it’s one they definitely should.”
The groups claim that the laws allowing manufacturers to keep inert ingredients secret from competitors are
essentially unnecessary. Companies can determine a competitor’s inert ingredients through routine lab
analyses, said Cox.
“The proprietary protection laws really only keep information from the public,” she said. Annex 88
“Santa Fe:ARuling In Favor of Life”, RENACE (4 Jan. 2010) Annex 88
▯
RENACE
4 January 2010
SANTA FE: A RULING IN FAVOR OF LIFE
The Second Chamber of the Court of Civil and Commercial Appeals of Santa Fe, by a
unanimous decision of the members of its bench, upheld a ban on fumigating in the city of
San Jorge and rejected the appeal filed by the Municipality of San Jorge and the province
Santa Fe.
In March of this year, Judge Tristán Martínez of the Civil and Commercial Court of San
Jorge sustained the appeal filed by residents of the Urquiza neighborhood with respect to the
fumigations carried out practically in their houses, which had serious impacts on the
environment and the health of its residents. In this appeal, brought forth by Dr. Gabriela
Ferrer together with the Center for the Protection of Nature ▯▯&HQWUR▯GH▯3URWHFFLyQ▯D▯OD▯
1DWXUDOH]D▯▯▯ as legal representatives, land fumigations had been prohibited within 800
meters, and air fumigations within 1,500 meters. The decision - which was appealed by the
local municipality, agricultural producers and the province of Santa Fe - reached its appellate
level, and the appellate court now upholds the trial court’s ruling.
The members of the bench, Drago, Müller and de Césaris, consider the trial court ruling to be
valid, supporting their position with a numerous bibliography as well as case law citations
focused on, in particular, the precautionary principle enshrined in Argentine legislation.
"Faced with the existence of a relevant doubt, the application of the PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE becomes unavoidable, due to the existence of the affected children alone."
Furthermore, in an extensive and well-founded opinion, the court states that "the preeminence
is not in anyone’s special interest, the preeminence is on the side of public health and the
environment."
In the ruling, the trial level decision is upheld and fumigating is prohibited for a six-month
period. During this time, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Industry and Commerce, in
conjunction with the Universidad Nacional del Litoral, shall submit a study to the Judge
regarding the toxicity of the identified products and whether continuing fumigation is
appropriate. Similarly, the Ministry of Health must conduct a neighborhood study to discern
whether the reported affectations decreased or not during this prohibition period.
The Center for the Protection of Nature (“Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza”), together
with the Residents
[PAGE 2]
Residents of San Jorge who came forward of their own volition congratulate the high court
and express their pleasure at such an important decision, and welcome a decision which is
undoubtedly pro LIFE.
Santa Fe, 15 December 2009.
Campaign "Stop Fumigating Us"
▯Annex 88
▯
Self-organized Neighbours Against Fumigation in San Jorge.
Center for the Protection of Nature
Judgment of the Appeals Chamber
In Santa Fe, the Second Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Appeals Court, composed by
doctors ARMANDO L. DRAGO, ENRIQUE C. MÜLLER and MARÍA CRISTINA DE
CÉSARIS de DOS SANTOS FREIRE met by ordinary resolution on 9 December 2009, to
settle the appeals filed against the ruling of the District Court in Civil, Commercial and Labor
Matters of the city of San Jorge, in the case "PERALTA, VIVIANA vs. MUNICIPALIDAD
DE SAN JORGE AND OTHERS. s/ WRIT OF AMPARO" (Record No. 198 - Year 2009).
Thereupon, the Court established the order of voting in accordance with the review by the
referenced bench: Müller, De Césaris and Drago, and proposed to resolve the following
issues:
First: Are the appeals appropriate?
Second: What is the appropriate ruling?
Regarding the first question, Dr. Müller said:
l. - According to what is documented in the briefs, as of 16 March 2009, Viviana Peralta de
Cavigliasso - see p. 36 - and others with legal representation, filed the writ for review of
fundamental rights (“ZULW▯ RI DPSDUR”) against the Municipality of San Jorge, "Darío
Bergamasco y hermano Soc. de Hecho", Gustavo N. Gaillard, Víctor Hugo Villarnovo, heirs
of Darío Durando - see p. 36 - and the Province of Santa Fe (Ministry of Production - Law
enforcement agency of the Provincial Crop Protection ▯▯ÏUJDQR▯GH▯DSOLFDFLyQ▯GH▯ /H\▯GH▯
3URYLQFLDO▯GH▯)LWRVDQLWDULRV▯) with the aim of banning new fumigation of fields owned by
Gustavo N. Gaillard and Durando Facino, in the present crop season as well as in the future,
at less than 800 meters for ground spraying, and 1,500 for aerial spraying at a minimum, to be
measured starting from the boundary of the urban area (Barrio Urquiza). Fumigation was
banned with any type of chemicals taking into account the Provincial Plant Protection Act
11,273, its regulatory decree 552/97, the specific conditions of the place, the toxic properties
and pernicious effects of the products used for fumigation
[PAGE 3]
(Roundup and / or other) to the detriment of the environment, the health of humans and
animals. They claimed that "Barrio Urquiza" is located at the boundary between the urban
and rural areas of the city of San Jorge, which, for the past five years, has been severely
punished by repeated aerial and ground fumigation conducted by the owners or lessees of the
surrounding countryside, who indiscriminately use pesticides such as glyphosate, among
others, and apply them in violation of legal norms. This has meant that, as of today, severe
damage to the environment and, consequently, the quality of life and health of residents has
started to manifest itself. They reported that fumigation aircraft leave the San Jorge airfield
and cross over the city, splashing with their poisoned nozzles as they go through the city both
on their way to the fields and on their return; similarly, those "mosquitoes" freely roam the
city streets leaving a trail of poison behind, and are housed and washed down within the
▯ Annex 88
▯
urban area, contrary to all norms of prevention and risking polluting everything with which
they come into contact, with no municipal authority to prevent it. They described the health
problems of the following children, Ailén Magali Cavigliasso and Alexis Jesús Cabral and of
neighborhood inhabitants. They protested that due to inevitable risks of seriously damaging
their health, local people have moved, denouncing the fumigations to both the city police as
well as the Administration, and requesting a ban for individuals fumigating in areas located
within 200 meters from the urban area boundary defined in Art. l of the Municipal Ordinance
No. 1202/00; however, not having obtained a satisfactory reply, they reported the situation to
the Provincial Secretary of the Environment and to the current Ministry of Production (Plant
Health Department - ex MAGIC) exercising Art. 36 of the Provincial Plant Protection Act,
although in both cases, the answer has been that the police power as well as the capacity to
regulate and enforce provincial law and decree corresponds to the municipality
[PAGE 33]
In regards to the second question, Dr. Müller said:
Taking into account the results obtained through consideration of the above issues, the appeal
filed by Víctor Hugo Villarnovo, María Dora A. W. Durando and Gustavo Gaillard, is
denied.
Sustain the appeal filed by the Municipality of San Jorge, thereby rejecting, as a result, the
complaint against said Municipality with costs at both levels. The appeal articulated by the
Province of Santa Fe is rejected, confirming the decision that was filed for review, subject to
the scope indicated. Expenses to be paid by the co-defendant. Such is my vote.
Drs. De Césaris and Drago both supported this decision.
In merits of the above agreement, the SECOND CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL AND
COMMERCIAL APPEALS COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DIVISION, RESOLVES, denies
the appeals filed by Víctor Hugo Villarnovo, Maria Dora A. W. Durando and Gustavo
Gaillard. Sustain the appeal filed by the Municipality of San Jorge, therefore, rejecting, as a
result, the claim against said Municipality, with costs from both levels. Reject the appeal filed
by the Province of Santa Fe, confirming the decision under review, subject to the scope
indicated. Expenses to be paid by the co-defendant.
I conclude this agreement via the signature of the honorable members of the court, which I
certify.
Registration, notification and adjournment are hereby ordered.
MÜLLER DE CESARIS DRAGO De Angelis de Regali ▯
▯
▯Annex 88 Annex 88
Santa Fe: un fallo a favor de la vida
Lunes 4 de enero de 2010, por (actualizado el 4 d¬¬¬nero de 2010)
La Sala Segunda de la Cámara de Apelaciones en lo Civil y Comercial de Santa Fe, con
el dictamen unánime de sus miembros, ratifica la prohibición de fumigaciones en la
ciudad de San Jorge y rechaza la apelación presentada por la Municipalidad de San
Jorge y la provincia de Santa Fe.
En marzo de este año, el Juez Tristán Martínez del Juzgado Civil y Comercial de San
Jorge dió lugar al recurso de amparo presentado por los vecinos del barrio Urquiza
ante las fumigaciones realizadas prácticamente en sus viviendas, con serios impactos
en el ambiente y en la salud de los vecinos. En ese recurso, patrocinado por la Dra.
Gabriela Ferrer y con el acompañamiento del Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza, se
prohibían las fumigaciones terrestres a 800 metros y las aéreas a 1500 metros. El
recurso -que fuera apelado por el municipio local, productores agropecuarios y la
provincia de Santa Fe- llegó a la segunda instancia, quien ahora se expide en forma
positiva sobre el dictamen del juez.
Los vocales Drago, Müller y de Césaris consideran que es válida la sentencia en
primera instancia , sustentando su posición en numerosa bibliografía y citas de
jurisprudencia orientadas, en especial, por el Principio de Precaución consagrado por la
legislación argentina. “Frente a la existencia de la duda relevante la aplicación del
PRINCIPIO PRECAUTORIO deviene ineludible por la sola existencia de los niños
afectados”.
Además, en un dictamen extenso y muy fundamentado, dice que “la preminencia no la
tienen los intereses sectoriales de nadie, la preminencia esta del lado de la salud
pública y el ambiente”.
En el dictamen, se ratifica la sentencia de primera instancia y se prohíben las
fumigaciones por un período de seis meses, lapso en el cual el Ministerio de
Agricultura, Ganadería, Industria y Comercio, en conjunto con la Universidad Nacional
del Litoral, deberá presentar al Juez un estudio acerca del grado de toxicidad de los
productos identificados y si es conveniente continuar con las fumigaciones. De igual
forma, el Ministerio de Salud deberá efectuar un estudio en los barrios comprometidos
que permita discernir si durante este período de prohibición, las posibles afecciones
que se denunciaran disminuyeron o no.
El Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza, conjuntamente con los Vecinos
1Annex 88
Autoconvocados de San Jorge felicitan al alto tribunal y expresan su beneplácito por
tan importante decisión y saludan un dictamen que, indudablemente, está con la VIDA.
Santa Fe, 15 de diciembre del 2009.
Campaña "Paren de Fumigarnos"
Vecinos Autoconvocados Contra las Fumigaciones de San Jorge.
Centro de Protección a la Naturaleza.
Fallo de la Cámara de Apelaciones
En Santa Fe, el 09 de diciembre del año dos mil nueve, se reunió en acuerdo ordinario
la Sala Segunda de la Cámara de Apelación en lo Civil y Comercial, integrada por los
doctores ARMANDO L. DRAGO, ENRIQUE C. MÜLLER y MARÍA CRISTINA DE CÉSARIS de
DOS SANTOS FREIRE para resolver los recursos deducidos contra la sentencia dictada
por el Juez de Primera Instancia de Distrito en lo Civil, Comercial y Laboral de la ciudad
de San Jorge, en los caratulados “PERALTA, VIVIANA c/ MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN JORGE
Y OTS. s/ AMPARO” (Expte. N° 198 - Año 2009). Acto seguido el Tribunal estableció el
orden de votación conforme con el estudio de los autos doctores: Müller, De Césaris y
Drago, y se planteó para resolver las siguientes cuestiones:
Primera: ¿Son procedentes los recursos de apelación?
Segunda: ¿Qué pronunciamiento corresponde?
A la primera cuestión, el Dr. Müller dijo:
I.- Que según surge de lo documentado en autos, en fecha 16 de marzo de 2009
Viviana Peralta de Cavigliasso -ver fs. 36- y otros, con patrocinio letrado, promovieron
demanda de amparo contra la Municipalidad de San Jorge, “Darío Bergamasco y
hermano Soc. de Hecho”, Gustavo N. Gaillard, Víctor Hugo Villarnovo, herederos de
Dario Durando -ver fs. 36- y la Provincia de Santa Fe (Ministerio de Producción –
Órgano de aplicación de Ley de Provincial de Fitosanitarios) a los fines de que se
prohíba volver a fumigar en los campos de propiedad de Gustavo N. Gaillard y Durando
Facino, en esa campaña agrícola y para el futuro, a menos de 800 metros, para
fumigaciones terrestres y 1.500 metros, para fumigaciones aéreas ambos como
mínimo, a contar del límite del ejido urbano (Barrio Urquiza) con ningún tipo de
agroquímicos, teniendo en cuenta la Ley Provincial de Fitosanitarios 11.273, su decreto
reglamentario 552/97, las condiciones particulares del lugar, las características tóxicas
y los efectos nocivos que generan los productos utilizados para las fumigaciones
2 Annex 88
(Roundup y/u otros) en perjuicio del medio ambiente, la salud de los seres humanos y
los animales. Afirmaron que el “Barrio Urquiza” está ubicado al límite entre la zona
urbana y rural de la ciudad de San Jorge; que durante los últimos cinco años ha sido
duramente castigado con reiteradas fumigaciones tanto aéreas como terrestres
realizadas por los propietarios y/o arrendatarios de los campos linderos, quienes
vienen haciendo uso indiscriminado de agrotóxicos como el glifosato, entre otros,
aplicados en abierta violación de las normas legales vigentes, lo que ha generado que
al día de la fecha hayan comenzado a manifestarse severos daños ocasionados al
medio ambiente y en consecuencia a la calidad de vida y a la salud de los vecinos.
Señalaron que los aerofumigadores salen del aeroclub San Jorge y cruzan la ciudad
salpicando con sus picos el veneno tanto cuando se dirigen al campo como cuando
retornan; que asimismo los “mosquitos” deambulan por las calles de la ciudad
libremente dejando la estela de veneno detrás de ellos y se guardan y lavan dentro de
la zona urbana, contraviniendo toda norma de prevención y poniendo en riesgo de
contaminación todo aquello con lo que toman contacto a su paso, sin que la autoridad
municipal lo impida. Describieron los problemas de salud de los niños Ailén Magali
Cavigliasso y Alexis Jesús Cabral y de vecinos del lugar. Manifestaron que frente a
riesgos ciertos de severos daños para la salud, la gente del barrio se movilizó
denunciando la fumigación ante la Policía de la ciudad y ante la Intendencia,
solicitando la prohibición a los particulares de fumigar en esos campos, ubicados a
menos de 200 metros del límite con zona urbana delimitada en el art. 1 de la
Ordenanza Municipal N° 1202/00; que sin obtener respuesta satisfactoria denunciaron
la situación ante la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente de la Provincia y ante el actual
Ministerio de la Producción (Secretaría de Sanidad Vegetal - ex MAGIC) en ejercicio del
art. 36 de la Ley Provincial de Fitosanitarios, donde la respuesta en ambos casos fue
que el poder de policía y la facultad de reglamentar y aplicar efectivamente la ley
provincial y su decreto reglamentario, corresponde al Municipio. Expresaron que en
todos los pueblos de la región se registra un notable aumento de enfermedades
cancerígenas, malformaciones congénitas, lupus, artritis, púrpura, asma y otras gripes
o alergias varias, citando expresamente a las poblaciones de Las Petacas, Maria Juana,
Landeta, Ester, Malabrigo y poblaciones de las provincias de Formosa, Entre Ríos,
Córdoba y Buenos Aires. Expusieron que si bien la provincia cuenta con la Ley de
Fitosanitarios N° 11.273 esta norma tiene interpretaciones dispares: hay quienes
sostienen que prohíbe el uso de glifosato dentro del radio de 500 metros de la zona
urbana y otros que interpretan que puede aplicarse aún dentro de ese radio por su
baja toxicidad. Señalaron que si bien el glifosato (no de sus formulaciones
comerciales) está clasificado como un herbicida de baja toxicidad, dicha clasificación
fue puesta en cuestión por especialistas e investigadores nacionales como
internacionales y que han probado su alto grado de toxicidad y sus nefastas
consecuencias sobre la salud del hombre, los animales y vegetales, citando: un estudio
del Ministerio de Salud de la Nación; una investigación de la Universidad Nacional del
3Annex 88
Municipalidad de San Jorge, se imponen en ambas instancias por su orden, por haber
tenido los actores razón plausible para litigar (art. 17 Ley 10.460). Mientras que en lo
que hace a la Provincia de Santa Fe, corresponde confirmar la imposición efectuada por
el Inferior y cargar las de esta instancia a la misma por aplicación del principio objetivo
del vencimiento. Voto por la afirmativa con el alcance indicado.
Los Dres. De Césaris y Drago fundaron sus votos en las mismas razones expuestas por
el Vocal preopinante y en su mérito votaron también por la afirmativa y con igual
alcance.
A la segunda cuestión, el Dr. Müller dijo:
Atento al resultado obtenido al tratar las cuestiones anteriores, corresponde declarar
desiertos los recursos de apelación interpuestos por Víctor Hugo Villarnovo, Maria
Dora A. W. Durando y Gustavo Gaillard.
Hacer lugar al recurso de apelación interpuesto por la Municipalidad de San Jorge,
rechazado en su consecuencia la demanda contra la misma con costas en ambas
instancias por su orden. Rechazar el recurso de apelación articulado por la Provincia de
Santa Fe, confirmando el pronunciamiento venido en revisión con los alcances
expuestos. Costas a la codemandada vencida. Así voto.
Los Dres. De Césaris y Drago votaron por igual pronunciamiento.
En mérito al acuerdo que antecede, la SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CÁMARA DE APELACIÓN
EN LO CIVIL Y COMERCIAL DE LA CIRCUNSCRIPCIÓN JUDICIAL NÚMERO UNO, RESUELVE:
Declarar desiertos los recursos de apelación interpuestos por Víctor Hugo Villarnovo,
Maria Dora A. W. Durando y Gustavo Gaillard. Hacer lugar al recurso de apelación
interpuesto por la Municipalidad de San Jorge, rechazado en su consecuencia la
demanda contra la misma con costas en ambas instancias por su orden. Rechazar el
recurso de apelación articulado por la Provincia de Santa Fe, confirmando el
pronunciamiento venido en revisión con los alcances expuestos, con costas a la
codemandada vencida.
Con lo que concluyó el acuerdo firmando los señores jueces, por ante mi que certifico.
Regístrese, notifíquese y bajen.
MÜLLER DE CESARIS DRAGO De Angelis de Regali
33 Annex 89
“It Is Warned that FumigationsAre Being Carried Out in Paraná Despite Them Being Prohibited”,
LAVOZ (9 Jan. 2010) Annex 89
▯
RADIO LA VOZ
9 January 2010
IT IS WARNED THAT FUMIGATIONS ARE BEING CARRIED OUT IN PARANÁ,
DESPITE BEING PROHIBITED
This takes place in the area bounded by the streets Churruarín, Maya, Borges, Almirante Brown
and Londero. The crop fumigations in the city “are absolutely prohibited,” said Marcelo Álvarez,
Environmental Director of the Commune
Fumigation tasks were being conducted by the riding of a tractor pulling a spreading system on
the grounds of the area bounded by the streets Churruarín, Maya, Borges, Almirante Brown and
Londero. This was reported by Ricardo Galiussi, owner of a nursery located in Almirante Brown,
among Londero and Borges. For this neighbor, these tasks are being conducted to prepare land
for planting soybean.
Worried and not knowing who else to turn to, the neighbor asked if the activity is still prohibited
in the city commons and, if so, what is the authority permitting the application doing. A few
weeks ago, he said, documentation including plans of the lots where soybeans are usually planted
was filed with the department of Environment of the Municipality of Paraná and the
Ombudsman. Meanwhile, yesterday afternoon, Galiussi called the municipal department but "no
one answered the phone," he affirmed. He then filed a report at the 7th Police Precinct.
“I do not know what else to do,” complained the neighbor, to overcome the vicissitudes that I
have been suffering for some time, when the soy started its almighty advance reaching urban
areas. As background, he recalled that a few years ago glyphosate, a non-selective herbicide
included in substances, caused him to lose thousands of kilograms of tomatoes and peppers.
Precisely, the possible presence of this chemical in fumigations renewed the neighborhood’s
concern, stated Galiussi. The producer even approached Justice for his case of lost production,
but clarified that what concerns him most is the probable affectation of health of people in the
area. “There is a settlement of poor families on Paraná, and fumigations were being carried out
on the street that runs through it," he said yesterday.
The crop fumigations in the city "are absolutely prohibited," said Marcelo Alvarez,
Environmental Director of the Commune. Subsequently, he announced that he would appear in
the area at issue and that he had files in his area with proceedings that account for fumigations in
other areas of Paraná. He informed that the prohibition was enshrined in a resolution, a measure
that he related to complaints from the city, as a result of dog and bird mortality that occurred last
October.
th
On the 29 of this month, the municipal Executive issued resolution 474, prohibiting the use of
pesticides within the urban center of the city. Outside this limit, a buffer strip of 50 meters is
established around schools, clubs, housing and recreational areas that must be free from
spraying. For those who have fruit and vegetable crops in the commons, "forbidden area", the
resolution provides for a request for an exception by holders of said enterprises, subject to certain
conditions. For example, a list of crops to be planted and a fumigation plan, documentation
▯Annex 89
▯
regarding pesticide use, agricultural recipe and any other information related to national,
provincial and local laws in force.
The permits expire every six months and the Commune may terminate them if it finds that the
requirements have been breached. The norm provides that applications must be supervised by a
technician or registered professional, and adds that, “the only application method that can be
authorized is manual by backpack or other similar, at a distance of application of 20 centimeters
from the soil,” it specifies.
Simultaneous to the emission of Resolution 474, Decree 662 of July 2009 was in force, which
suspended the prohibition for applying pesticides with land spraying in the Paraná commons
until 31 December of last year.
The preamble to the measure registered, according to the official portion, that “the National
Scientific and Technical Research Council-CONICET- has released a study that conclusively
proves the malformations caused by contact with glyphosate, the main component of chemicals
commonly used to control pests in soybean."
▯ Annex 89
. : Actualidad | 09/01/2010 12:00 imprimir
Alertan que se fumiga en Paraná para sembrar soja a pesar de que está prohibido.
|| Fuente: Radio La Voz
- Es en la zona comprendida por las calles Churruarín, Maya, Borges, Almirante Brown y Londero; “Están
absolutamente prohibidas” las fumigaciones agrícolas en la ciudad, dijo Marcelo Álvarez, director de Medio
Ambiente de la Comuna.
En predios de la zona comprendida por las calles Churruarín, Maya, Borges, Almirante Brown y Londero se realizaban
ayer tareas de fumigación mediante el andar de un tractor que tiraba de un sistema de esparcimiento. Así lo informó
Ricardo Galiussi, propietario de un vivero, ubicado en Almirante Brown, entre Londero y Borges. Para el vecino, los
trabajos se tratan de la preparación de la tierra para la siembra de soja.
Preocupado y sin saber a quién más recurrir, el vecino se preguntó si la actividad sigue estando prohibida en el ejido de
la ciudad y, si es así, qué hace la autoridad de aplicación. Es que, comentó, que hace unas semanas presentó
documentación –con planos incluidos–, sobre los lotes donde se suele plantar soja, ante el área de Medio Ambiente de la
Municipalidad de Paraná y la Defensoría del Pueblo. En tanto, ayer por la tarde, Galiussi llamó a la repartición
municipal pero “nadie respondió el teléfono”, aseguró. Luego, hizo una exposición en la Comisaría 7ma.
“Ya no sé qué más hacer”, afirmó, quejoso, el vecino, para desgranar luego las peripecias que viene sufriendo desde
hace tiempo, cuando la soja empezó con su avance estrepitoso hasta llegar a sectores urbanos. Como antecedente,
recordó que hace un par de años sufrió la pérdida de miles de kilos de tomates y morrones a causa del glifosato,
sustancia incluida como herbicida no selectivo. Justamente, la posible presencia de ese producto en las fumigaciones,
renovó ayer la inquietud del vecindario, contó Galiussi. El productor fue hasta la Justicia por el caso de la producción
perdida, aunque aclaró que lo que más desvela es la probable afección a la salud de la gente de la zona. “Hay un
asentamiento de familias humildes sobre Parera y estaban fumigando calle de por medio”, relató ayer.
“Están absolutamente prohibidas” las fumigaciones agrícolas en la ciudad, dijo Marcelo Álvarez, director de Medio
Ambiente de la Comuna. Seguidamente, anunció que se iba a constituir en la zona en cuestión y que su área tiene
expedientes con tramitaciones que dan cuenta de fumigaciones en otros sectores de Paraná. Informó que la prohibición
está plasmada en una resolución, medida que relacionó a denuncias provenientes del sur de la ciudad, por la mortandad
de perros y pájaros ocurrida en octubre último.
El 29 de ese mes, el Ejecutivo municipal emitió la resolución 474 mediante la que prohibió la aplicación de plaguicidas
agrícolas dentro del casco urbano de la ciudad. Fuera de ese límite, establece una franja de 50 metros en torno de
escuelas, clubes, viviendas y áreas recreativas que deberán quedar libres de las pulverizaciones. Para quienes tengan
producciones frutihortícolas dentro del ejido –zona prohibida–, la resolución prevé el pedido de una excepción por parte
de los titulares de los emprendimientos, bajo una serie de condiciones. Por ejemplo, nómina de cultivos a implantar y
plan de fumigaciones, documentación referida a los plaguicidas a utilizar, receta agronómica y toda otra información
relacionada a las normas nacionales, provinciales y municipales vigentes.
Las autorizaciones vencerán cada seis meses y la Comuna podrá darlas por caída si comprueba algún incumplimiento a
los requisitos. Las aplicaciones deberán ser supervisadas por un técnico o profesional matriculado, consigna la
resolución, y añade que “el único método de aplicación que podrá ser autorizado será el manual a mochila u otro similar,
a una distancia de aplicación de 20 centímetros del suelo”, se especifica.
Paralelamente a la emisión de la resolución 474 estaba vigente el decreto 662 de julio de 2009, que prorrogó la
prohibición de aplicar plaguicidas agrícolas con pulverizaciones terrestres en el ejido de Paraná hasta el 31 de diciembre
del año pasado.
En los considerandos de la medida se recordaba –según el parte oficial- que “el Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas –Conicet– ha difundido un estudio mediante el cual prueba fehacientemente las malformaciones
producidas por el contacto con el glifosato, principal componente de los agroquímicos de uso corriente para controlar
plagas en cultivos de soja”.Annex 89 Annex 90
“Fumigations with Glyphosate Is Not Permitted on the the Peninsula”, BARILOCHE2000
(Bariloche, 10 Feb. 2010) Annex 90
▯
BARILOCHE2000
4 February 2010
FUMIGATIONS WITH GLYPHOSATE ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THE PENINSULA
The Assistant Secretary of the Environment, Paul De Brito, disclosed its ruling today regarding
the situation raised in the San Pedro Peninsula where they were fumigating with glyphosate,
causing concern among its neighbours. As a precautionary measure, he banned its use and noted
that work would be carried out on an ordinance to regulate the use of herbicides throughout the
municipal area. He considered that there would be no fine “because what had been done was not
against the law.”
The Assistant Secretary of the Environment, Paul De Brito, banned the use of glyphosate in
ruling adversely on the case involving lots in the San Pedro Peninsula that had generated
complaints from neighbors and even an intervention by the Ombudsman. He announced the
result of the ruling to Rafael Boné and Jorge González Galé at 10 o’clock, who were carrying out
fumigations in the land in question. De Brito said that "although the opinion is not favourable to
them, they showed a good attitude."
The Secretary based his decision on the note sent by the Ombudsman, the National Constitution,
the Organic Charter, environmental laws and ordinances to protect cypress and the forests, as
well as a presidential decree of 19 January 2009 which set up a commission to investigate the
reasonable use of chemicals and agrochemicals in the wake of what happened in a town of
Córdoba.
He said he had taken into account the need to protect human and environmental health when
applying the precautionary principle in his decision because “no one knows with certainty
what the consequences of its application might be.”
However, he said that after touring the area, it could be seen that wooded area had not been
compromised due to the careful application of the product. He stressed that the concern is that
the product’s potential hazards have yet to be determined.
De Brito held that “no fine would be imposed since what had been done was not against the
law. They applied a product that is approved by the nation’s Ministry of Health” and also
requested authorization from Bosques. “They did not carry this out clandestinely,” he said, so he
insisted that it is a “precautionary measure”.
He explained that the ruling only prohibits the application of glyphosate in the reported sector
but that proper measures would be put in place to work on an ordinance regulating the use of
herbicides throughout the area. He said it was not easy “to rule on something without having an
ordinance to support it.” He noted that there is an inspector that works in the Environment
department who will verify compliance with this measure.
▯Annex 90
▯
Finally, Silvia Perea, environmental inspector, said that glyphosate is authorized for use in
agricultural areas and not in urban areas and was manufactured as an herbicide for use in
soybean fields.
▯ Annex 90
No se puede fumigar con glifosato en la Península
JUEVES 04 DE FEBRERO DE 2010 00:00
El
subsecretario de Medio Ambiente, Pablo De Brito, dio a conocer hoy el dictamen sobre la situación planteada en
Península San Pedro donde se estaba fumigando con glifosato, despertando la preocupación de los vecinos. Como
medida precautoria prohibió su uso y señaló que se trabajará en una ordenanza para regular el uso de herbicidas
en todo el ejido municipal. Consideró que no se le aplicaría multa "porque no está prohibido lo que hicieron".Foto
de Alejandra Bartoliche.
El subsecretario de Medio Ambiente Pablo De Brito prohibió el uso de glifosato al dictaminar negativamente en el
caso vinculado a los lotes de Península San Pedro que había generado la denuncia de los vecinos y hasta una
intervención del Defensor del Pueblo. A las 10 dio a conocer el resultado del dictamen a Rafael Boné y Jorge
González Galé, quienes estaban llevando a cabo la fumigación en los predios en cuestión. De Brito manifestó que
"si bien el dictamen no es favorable a su pedido, mostraron buena predisposición".
El subsecretario fundamentó su decisión en la nota enviada por el defensor del Pueblo, la Constitución Nacional, La
Carta Orgánica, leyes ambientales y ordenanzas de protección del ciprés y los bosques, además de un decreto
presidencial del 19 de enero de 2009 que dio origen a una comisión para investigar el uso racional de químicos y
agroquímicos a raíz de lo ocurrido en un pueblo de Córdoba.
Afirmó que se tuvieron en cuenta para dictaminar la necesidad de protección de la salud humana y ambiental y se
aplicó el principio precautorio ya que "no se sabe a ciencia cierta cuáles pueden ser las consecuencias
de su aplicación".
Sin embargo, sostuvo que tras el recorrido por la zona se observó que no había compromiso de la masa arbórea ya
que se había realizado una aplicación prolija del producto. Insistió en que la preocupación es que aún no está
determinada la peligrosidad del producto.
De Brito estimó que "no implicaría una multa porque no está prohibido lo que hicieron. Aplicaron un producto
aprobado por el ministerio de Salud de la Nación" y también pidieron la autorización a Bosques. "No lo hicieron en
secreto", aclaró, por lo que insistió que se trata de una "medida precautoria".
Explicó que el dictamen sólo prohibe la aplicación del glifosato en el sector denunciado pero se instrumentaran las
medidas necesarias para trabajar en una ordenanza que regule el uso de herbicidas en todo el ejido. Manifestó que
no fue fácil "resolver algo sin tener una ordenanza que nos amparara". Para verificar el cumplimiento de esta
medida, señaló que hay una inspectora que se desarrolla en el área de Medio Ambiente.
Finalmente, Silvia Perea, inspectora ambiental, explicó que el glifosato está autorizado para zonas
agrícolas y no en zonas urbanas y fue fabricado como herbicida para utilizar en campos de soja.Annex 90 Annex 91
Shane Romig, “Argentina Court Blocks Glyphosate Spraying Near Rural Town”,
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES (21 Mar. 2010) Annex 91
Axis of Logic
Finding Clarity in the 21st Century Mediaplex
World News
Argentina Court Blocks Glyphosate Spraying Near Rural Town
Dow Jones Newswires
Sunday, Mar 21, 2010
BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- In a ruling bearing potentially far-reaching implications, an appellate court
in Argentina's Santa Fe province this week upheld a decision blocking farmers from spraying
agrochemicals near populated areas.
The ruling blocks the use of chemicals such as the widely used herbicide glyphosate within 800 meters of
the town of San Jorge, and aerial spraying within 1,500 meters of the town.
While the decision is limited to the area around San Jorge, other courts in the farming province are likely
to follow suit if residents seek similar court action.
The court found that farmers "have been indiscriminately using agrochemicals such as glyphosate, applied
in open violation of existing laws [causing] severe damage to the environment and to the health and
quality of life of the residents."
A backlash is building in the country against the increasing reliance on transgenic soybeans and the
herbicide widely used in their cultivation. Soybeans dominate the country's farm output, but growing
concern over the environmental impact of soybean-cultivation practices has spurred a legal and legislative
assault.
Last year, the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a case at the Supreme Court to halt
the use of glyphosate, which virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina have been genetically
modified to resist. Up to 200 million liters of the herbicide are sprayed across the farm belt each season.
The court has yet to decide on whether to hear the case.
Genetically modified soybeans resistant to glyphosate were introduced to Argentina in 1996 by St. Louis-
based biotech giant Monsanto Co. Now, with over half of all cultivated land going to soy in the last season,
virtually all of the soybeans grown in Argentina uses Monsanto's technology. Monsanto didn't return a call
seeking comment.
The spread of the transgenic beans has led to an unprecedented boom in farm wealth but also brought a
host of ills, including soil deterioration and wide- scale deforestation to open up new fields.
While environmentalists have long decried the shift to soy monoculture, opposition heated up last year
when an unpublished study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires Institute of Cellular Biology and
Neuroscience Molecular Embryology Lab found that very low doses of glyphosate caused mutations in
amphibian embryos.
While glyphosate has been used for 30 years and is approved in more than 100 countries, the defense
minister prohibited growing transgenic soybeans on army farms with residential compounds, in the wake
of the report. In addition, a number of local districts have banned or limited the use of glyphosate around
populated areas, and some provinces also are debating legislation to prohibit or limit its use.
Argentina is the world's leading exporter of soymeal and oil and the third- largest exporter of soybeans.
The legume is the country's largest export product and a key source of export-tax revenue.
Despite criticism of the excessive reliance on soybeans from President Cristina Fernandez, the government
has encouraged the continued shift toward soy by imposing export limits and price controls on other goods
such as wheat, corn and beef to keep local food prices down. With virtually no domestic demand for
soybeans, their pricing and exports have been left untouched, prompting farmers to plant more beans.
Dow Jones NewswireAnnex 91 Annex 92
“Colombian Government Violates Pact and Fumigates with Glyphosate”, VOCES.ORG
(10 Nov. 2010) Annex 92
VOCES DIARIO DIGITAL
10 November 2010
COLOMBIAN GOVERNMENT VIOLATES PACT AND FUMIGATES WITH
GLYPHOSATE
The Colombian government was denounced today of violating an international pact signed with
Ecuador, by indiscriminately fumigating with glyphosate an extensive border area, where various
indigenous communities are settled.
Bogota, 10 November (PL).- In a press release, made to Prensa Latina in Bogotá, the Permanent
Assembly of Indigenous and Farming Communities and the Afro-Colombians who inhabit the
border corridor in the department of Putumayo call on the international community to confirm
the complaint.
According to the text, among the government’s oppressive actions against the Putumayan
people in the Plan Colombia framework, yesterday, various indigenous communities settled
in the border corridor were fumigated with glyphosate.
The area — always in accordance with the source — comprises part of the 10 kilometers agreed
by both Colombia and Ecuador to be excluded from indiscriminate aerial fumigations that have
affected the border population of the neighboring country.
The plaintiffs recall that they have attempted to obtain their food sovereignty, despite great
difficulty and risks due to the systematic violation of their rights, dating back to implementation
of the American policy of Plan Colombia and militarization of their territories.
Recovery of the community production of rice crops and others crops for strengthening of
food sovereignty has today been destroyed by indiscriminate fumigation with glyphosate,
they add.
The text also notes that last 8 September, the reinitiation of Plan Colombia Phase III activities
was denounced, these activities have been imposed since 2000 by the United States southern
command.
All this, “under the excuse of destroying the planting of coca crops which, in our reality,
has only served to completely militarize our territories, generating state terror through
systematic violations and crimes against humanity such as forced displacement,” he adds.
The Assembly holds that the objective of this policy is to broaden oil drilling and mining, where
the only entities that derive a benefit are multinational companies and corrupt persons in
government, who complacently turn over our national sovereignty.
“Our organization is very indignant because there were no illegal crops in the areas
fumigated and we therefore consider that (…) they were a direct attack by the national
government against our organization,” he highlights.Annex 92
On its part, the Assembly assures that it will not silence itself out of fear and it will continue to
demand, in a transparent and dignified fashion, the respect for the rights of its peoples.
We demand respect towards our way of life from the government of the United States and
Colombia, he expresses.
“The war could destroy our food, but they will not destroy our dignity and our dreams for
social equality, liberty and justice,” he notes.
[…]
Edificio Profesional Pipil, Local No.20, 3er Nivel
Autopista Norte y 21 Avenida Norte, No.1207
San Salvador, El Salvador, Centroamérica.
Telephone: (503) 2504 9044 / Fax: (503) 2235 1245
All Rights Reserved - Copyright © 2010 Annex 92
Medio ambiente
Colombia- Derechos
Gobierno colombiano viola pacto y fumiga con glifosato
Miércoles 10 de noviembre de 2010 Ӧ Comentar este artículo
Share |
El gobierno colombiano fue denunciado hoy de violar un pacto internacional suscrito con Ecuador, al fumigar
de manera indiscriminada con glisofato una extensa área fronteriza, donde se asientan varias comunidades
indígenas.
Bogotá, 10 nov (PL).- En un comunicado, entregado a Prensa Latina en Bogotá, la Asamblea Permanente de las
Comunidades Indígenas y Campesinas y la población afrocolombianas que habitan un corredor fronterizo en el
departamento de Putumayo llaman a la comunidad internacional verificar la denuncia.
Según el texto, dentro de las acciones represivas del gobierno en contra del pueblo putumayense en el
marco del Plan Colombia, ayer fueron fumigadas con glifosato, varias comunidades indígenas asentadas
en un corregimiento fronterizo.
El área -siempre acorde con la fuente- hace parte de los 10 kilómetros convenidos entre Colombia y Ecuador
para ser exceptuados de las fumigaciones aéreas indiscriminada que han afectado a la población fronteriza del
vecino país.
Los demandantes recuerdan que con grandes dificultades y riesgos por la violación sistemática de sus derechos
originada desde la ejecución de la política estadounidense del Plan Colombia y la militarización de sus
territorios, intentan obtener su soberanía alimentaria.
La recuperación de la producción comunitaria del cultivo de arroz y otros cultivos para el
fortalecimiento de la soberanía alimentaria hoy acaban de ser destruidos con la fumigación
indiscriminada con glifosato, agregan.
El texto también recoge que el pasado 8 de septiembre fue denunciado el reinicio de las actividades del Plan
Colombia Fase III, que desde el año 2000 ha impuesto el comando sur de Estados Unidos.
Ello "bajo la excusa de acabar con la siembra del cultivo de coca y que en nuestra realidad solo ha
servido para militarizar totalmente nuestros territorios, generar el terror estatal a través de las
violaciones sistemáticas y de lesa humanidad como el desplazamiento forzado", añade.
La Asamblea sostiene que el objetivo de esa política es ampliar la explotación petrolera y minera, donde los
únicos beneficiados han sido las multinacionales y los corruptos del gobierno que complacientes entregan la
soberanía nacional.Annex 92
"Nuestra organización está muy indignada porque no había cultivos de uso ilícito en el área fumigada y
consideramos entonces que (...) fueron un ataque directo por parte del gobierno nacional contra nuestra
organización", subraya.
A su vez, la Asamblea asegura que no se silenciará por miedo y seguirá exigiendo de manera transparente y
digna el respeto por los derechos de su pueblo.
Al gobierno de Estados Unidos y Colombia les exigimos respeto con nuestra forma de vida, expresa.
"La guerra podrá acabar con nuestra comida, pero no acabaran con nuestra dignidad y nuestros sueños
de igualdad social, de libertad y de justicia", acota.
Comentar este artículo
Comentarios
Decepcionadas comunidades indígenas con cumbre de Cancún
Viernes 10 de diciembre de 2010 Ӧ 0 comentario
Preparan nueva manifestación para hoy en Cancún movimientos sociales
Jueves 9 de diciembre de 2010 Ӧ 0 comentario
Colombia decretará estado de calamidad nacional por invierno
Martes 7 de diciembre de 2010 Ӧ 0 comentario
Impulsa México compromisos en reducción de gases contaminantes
Jueves 2 de diciembre de 2010 Ӧ 0 comentario
Inician foro del Agua en Cumbre Cambio Climático en Cancún
Jueves 2 de diciembre de 2010 Ӧ 0 comentario
Página siguiente
Conectarse | Mapa del sitio | esqueleto
Voces Diario Digital
Edificio Profesional Pipil, Local No.20, 3er Nivel
Autopista Norte y 21 Avenida Norte, No.1207
San Salvador, El Salvador, Centroamérica.
Conmutador: (503) 2504 9044 / Fax: (503) 2235 1245
Todos los Derechos Reservados - Copyright © 2010 Annex 93
“Colombia FumigatesAgain”, LAHORA(Quito, 11 Nov. 2010). Annex 93
▯
LA HORA
11 November 2010
COLOMBIA FUMIGATES AGAIN
Agencies
The Colombian government was denounced yesterday for violating an agreement subscribed
with Ecuador, by indiscriminately fumigating an extensive border area with glyphosate, where a
series of indigenous communities are settled.
The delicate situation is occurring in the departamento de Putumayo, which borders the province
of Sucumbíos, according to the Permanent Assembly of Indigenous and Farming Communities
and the Afro-Colombian population that inhabit the boundary area.
The affected population called on various international organizations to verify the complaint.
According to a press release disseminated in Bogotá and which is known by this newspaper, a
series of aerial glyphosate aspersions were carried out last Tuesday in the area.
Caption: In Ecuador, sickness has caused the renewal of these activities in the northern border.
Against coca
The area comprises a portion of the 10 kilometers that Colombia and Ecuador have agreed to
exclude from fumigations that have affected the border population, disclosed the agency Prensa
Latina.
The text also notes that recommencement of Plan Colombia Phase III activities was denounced
on 8 September, “under the excuse of destroying coca crop planting and which, in our reality,
has only served to completely militarize our territories, generating state terror through systematic
violations and crimes against humanity such as forced displacement,” he adds.
Indignation
The Assembly held that “this policy’s objective is to broaden oil drilling and mining, where the
only beneficiaries have been multinational companies and corrupt government members who
complacently hand over our national sovereignty.”
“Our organization is indignant because the areas fumigated did not have any illicit crops and we
consider that (…) this was a direct attack by the national Government against our organization,”
he highlights.
Background
▯Annex 93
▯
Three years ago, the Ecuadorian Government had denounced to the U.N. Human Rights Council
headquartered in Geneva, the affectations suffered by the border population as a result of
fumigations.
This chemical, which enters Ecuadorian territory swept by the air, additionally destroys legal
crops and pollutes waters in the national territory.
The aerial spraying caused aggravation of bilateral links, which have only been reestablished a
few months ago.
Displacement
We consider that, in addition to causing members of the Ecuadorian border populations to fall ill,
the aspersions have indirectly aggravated a displacement phenomenon of Colombians towards
national territory. Annex 93
PAIS
Colombia fumiga de nuevo
Jueves, 11 de Noviembre de 2010
AGENCIAS
El gobierno colombiano fue denunciado a yer de violar un pacto
suscrito con Ecuador, al fumigar de manera indiscriminada con
glisofato una extensa área fronteriza, donde se asientan varias
comunidades indígenas.
La delicada situación se registra en el dertamento de Putumayo,
fronterizo con la provincia de Sucumbíos, de acuerdo con la Asamblea
Permanente de las Comunidades Indígenas y Campesinas y la
población afrocolombiana que habitan en la zona limítrofe.
La población afectada hizo un llamado a diversas organizaciones
internacionales para que verifiquen la denuncia.
Según un comunicado divulgado en Bogotá y conocido por este diario,
Posición. Malestar ha causado en Ecuador la el martes pasado se realizaron en la zona varias asrsiones aéreas
reanudación de estas actividades en la frontera con glifosato.
norte.
Contra la coca
El área forma parte de los 10 kilómetros convenidos entre Colombiacuador para ser exceptuados de las fumigaciones que
han afectado a la población fronteriza, divulgó a su vez la agencia Prensa Latina.
El texto también recoge que el pasado 8 de septiembre fue denunciado el reinicio de las actividades del Plan Colombia Fase
III, “bajo la excusa de acabar con la siembra del cultivo de coca y que en nuestra realidad solo ha servido para militariza
totalmente nuestros territorios, generar el terror estatal a través de las violaciones sistemáticas y de lesa humanidad como el
desplazamiento forzado”, añade.
Indignación
La Asamblea sostuvo que “el objetivo de esa política es ampliar la explotación petrolera y minera, donde los únicos
beneficiados han sido las multinacionales y los corruptos del gobierno que complacientes entregan la soberanía nacional”.
“Nuestra organización está muy indignada porque no había cultivos de uso ilícito en el área fumiada y consideramos
entonces que (...) fueron un ataque directo por parte del Gobierno nacional contra nuestra organización”, subraya.
Hechos anteriores
Hace tres años, el Gobierno de Ecuador había denunciado ante el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, con sede en
Ginebra, las afectaciones sufridas por la población fronteriza a causa de las fumigaciones.
Ese químico, que ingresa a territorio de Ecuador arrastradoel aire, destruye además cultivos lícitos y contamina las aguas
del territorio nacional
El riego aéreo motivó entonces un agravamiento de los vínculos bilaterales, que se restablecieron hace un par de meses.
Desplazamiento
Se considera que, además de causar enfermedades en las poblaciones fronterizas de Ecuador, las aspersiones han aado
de manera indirecta el fenómeno del desplazamiento de colombianos hacia suelo nacional.
Ingresa aquí para comentarAnnex 93 Annex 94
&RPPHQWDU\▯RQ▯WKH▯8QLWHG▯1DWLRQV▯&RQYHQWLRQ▯$JDLQVW▯,OOLFLW▯7UDI¿F▯LQ▯1DUFRWLF▯'UXJV▯DQG▯
3\VFKRWURSLF▯6XEVWDQFHV▯▯▯▯▯, U.N. Doc E/CN.7/590 (20 Dec. 1988)Annex 94Annex 94Annex 94Annex 94 Annex 95
European Union, &RXQFLO▯'LUHFWLYH▯&RQFHUQLQJ▯WKH▯3ODFLQJ▯RI▯3ODQW▯3URWHFWLRQ▯3URGXFWV▯RQ▯WKH▯
0DUNHW, 91/414/EEC (15 July 1991) Annex 95
1991L0414 — EN — 01.02.2007 — 016.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
(91/414/EEC)
(OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
► M1 Commission Directive 93/71/EEC of 27 July 1993 L 221 27 31.8.1993
► M2 Commission Directive 94/37/EC of 22 July 1994 L 194 65 29.7.1994
►M3 Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994 L 227 31 1.9.1994
► M4 Commission Directive 94/79/EC of 21 December 1994 L 354 16 31.12.1994
►M5 Commission Directive 95/35/EC of 14 July 1995 L 172 6 22.7.1995
► M6 Commission Directive 95/36/EC of 14 July 1995 L 172 8 22.7.1995
► M7 Commission Directive 96/12/EC of 8 March 1996 L 65 20 15.3.1996
►M8 Commission Directive 96/46/EC of 16 July 1996 L 214 18 23.8.1996
► M9 Commission Directive 96/68/EC of 21 October 1996 L 277 25 30.10.1996
►M10 Council Directive 97/57/EC of 22 September 1997 L 265 87 27.9.1997
► M11 Commission Directive 97/73/EC of 15 December 1997 L 353 26 24.12.1997
►M12 Commission Directive 98/47/EC of 25 June 1998 L 191 50 7.7.1998
► M13 Commission Directive 1999/1/EC of 21 January 1999 L 21 21 28.1.1999
►M14 Commission Directive 1999/73/EC of 19 July 1999 L 206 16 5.8.1999
► M15 Commission Directive 1999/80/EC of 28 July 1999 L 210 13 10.8.1999
►M16 Commission Directive 2000/10/EC of 1 March 2000 L 57 28 2.3.2000
► M17 Commission Directive 2000/49/EC of 26 July 2000 L 197 32 3.8.2000
►M18 Commission Directive 2000/50/EC of 26 July 2000 L 198 39 4.8.2000
► M19 Commission Directive 2000/66/EC of 23 October 2000 L 276 35 28.10.2000
►M20 Commission Directive 2000/67/EC of 23 October 2000 L 276 38 28.10.2000
► M21 Commission Directive 2000/68/EC of 23 October 2000 L 276 41 28.10.2000
►M22 Commission Directive 2000/80/EC of 4 December 2000 L 309 14 9.12.2000
► M23 Commission Directive 2001/21/EC of 5 March 2001 L 69 17 10.3.2001
►M24 Commission Directive 2001/28/EC of 20 April 2001 L 113 5 24.4.2001
► M25 Commission Directive 2001/36/EC of 16 May 2001 L 164 1 20.6.2001
►M26 Commission Directive 2001/47/EC of 25 June 2001 L 175 21 28.6.2001
► M27 Commission Directive 2001/49/EC of 28 June 2001 L 176 61 29.6.2001
►M28 Commission Directive 2001/87/EC of 12 October 2001 L 276 17 19.10.2001
► M29 Commission Directive 2001/99/EC of 20 November 2001 L 304 14 21.11.2001
►M30
Commission Directive 2001/103/EC of 28 November 2001 L 313 37 30.11.2001
► M31 Commission Directive 2002/18/EC of 22 February 2002 L 55 29 26.2.2002
► M32 Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 L 117 10 4.5.2002Annex 95
1991L0414 — EN — 01.02.2007 — 016.001 — 4
▼ B
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
(91/414/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic
Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ( ),
2
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament ( ),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee ( ),
Whereas plant production has a very important place in the Community;
Whereas plant production yields are continually affected by harmful
organisms including weeds; whereas it is absolutely essential to
protect plants against these risks to prevent a decline in yields and to
help to ensure security of supplies;
Whereas one of the most important ways of protecting plants and plant
products and of improving agricultural production is to use plant
protection products;
Whereas these plant protection products can have non-beneficial effects
upon plant production; whereas their use may involve risks and hazards
for humans, animals and the environment, especially if placed on the
market without having been officially tested and authorized and if
incorrectly used;
Whereas, in view of the hazards, there are rules in most Member States
governing the authorization of plant health products; whereas these rules
present differences which constitute barriers not only to trade in plant
protection products but also to trade in plant products, and thereby
directly affect the establishment and operation of the internal market;
Whereas it is therefore desirable to eliminate such barriers by harmo-
nizing the provisions laid down in the Member States;
Whereas uniform rules on the conditions and procedures for the author-
ization of plant protection products must be applied by the Member
States;
Whereas such rules should provide that plant protection products should
not be put on the market or used unless they habe been officially
authorized and should be used properly having regard to the principles
of good plant protection practice and of integrated pest control;
Whereas the provisions governing authorization must ensure a high
standard of protection, which, in particular, must prevent the authori-
zation of plant protection products whose risks to health, groundwater
and the environment and human and animal health should take priority
over the objective of improving plant production;
Whereas it is necessary, at the time when plant protection products are
authorized, to make sure that, when properly applied for the purpose
intended, they are sufficiently effective and have no unacceptable effect
on plants or plant products, no unacceptable influence on the envir-
( ) OJ No C 89, 10. 4. 1989, p. 22.
( ) OJ No C 72, 18. 3. 1991, p. 33.
( ) OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 3. Annex 95
1991L0414 — EN — 01.02.2007 — 016.001 — 8
▼ B
mixtures or solutions composed of two or more substances of
which at least one is an active substance, intended for use as
plant protection products;
6. ‘plants’
live plants and live parts of plants, including fresh fruit and seeds;
7. ‘plant products’
products in the unprocessed state or having undergone only simple
preparation such as milling, drying or pressing, derived from
plants, but excluding plants themselves as defined in point 6;
8. ‘harmful organisms’
pests of plants or plant products belonging to the animal or plant
kingdom, and also viruses, bacteria and mycoplasmas and other
pathogens;
9. ‘animals’
animals belonging to species normally fed and kept or consumed
by man;
10. ‘placing on the market’
any supply, whether in return for payment or free of charge, other
than for storage followed by consignment from the territory of the
Community or disposal. Importation of a plant protection product
into the territory of the Community shall be deemed to constitute
placing on the market for the purposes of this Directive;
11. ‘authorization of a plant protection product’
administrative act by which the competent authority of a Member
State authorizes, following an application submitted by an
applicant, the placing on the market of a plant protection product
in its territory or in a part thereof;
12. ‘environment’
water, air, land, wild species of fauna and flora, and any interre-
lationship between them, as well as any relationship with living
organisms;
13. ‘integrated control’
the rational application of a combination of biological, biotechno-
logical, chemical, cultural or plant-breeding measures whereby the
use of chemical plant protection products is limited to the strict
minimum necessary to maintain the pest population at levels below
those causing economically unacceptable damage or loss.
General provisions
Article 3
1. Member States shall prescribe that plant protection products may
not be placed on the market and used in their territory unless they have
authorized the product in accordance with this Directive, except where
the intended use is covered by Article 22.
2. Member States shall not, on the grounds that a plant protection
product is not authorized for use in their territory, impede the
production, storage or movement of such products intended for use in
another Member State, provided that:
— the product is authorized in another Member State, and
— the inspection requirements laid down by the Member States in
order to ensure compliance with paragraph 1 are satisfied.Annex 95
1991L0414 — EN — 01.02.2007 — 016.001 — 9
▼ B
3. Member States shall prescribe that plant protection products must
be used properly. Proper use shall include compliance with the
conditions established in accordance with Article 4 and specified on
the labelling, and the application of the principles of good plant
protection practice as well as, whenever possible, the principles of
integrated control.
4. Member States shall prescribe that active substances may not be
placed on the market unless:
— they are classified, packaged and labelled in accordance with
Directive 67/548/EEC, and
— where the active substance was not on the market two years after
notification of this Directive, a dossier has been forwarded to the
Member States and to the Commission, in accordance with Article
6, with the declaration that the active substance is intended for a use
specified in Article 2 (1). This condition shall not apply to active
substances intended for a use under Article 22.
Granting, review and withdrawal of authorizations of plant
protection products
Article 4
1. Member States shall ensure that a plant protection product is not
authorized unless:
(a) its active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled,
and, with regard to the following points (b), (c), (d) and (e),
pursuant to the uniform principles provided for in Annex VI, unless:
(b) it is established, in the light of current scientific and technical
kowledge and shown from appraisal of the dossier provided for in
Annex III, that when used in accordance with Article 3 (3), and
having regard to all normal conditions under which it may be used,
and to the consequences of its use:
(i) it is sufficiently effective;
(ii) it has no unacceptable effect on plants or plant products;
(iii) it does not cause unnecessary suffering and pain to vertebrates
to be controlled;
(iv) it has no harmful effect on human or animal health, directly or
indirectly (e.g. through drinking water, food or feed) or on
groundwater;
(v) it has no unacceptable influence on the environment, having
particular regard to the following considerations:
— its fate and distribution in the environment, particularly
contamination of water including drinking water and
groundwater,
— its impact on non-target species;
(c) the nature and quantity of its active substances and, where appro-
priate, any toxicologically or ecotoxicologically significant impu-
rities and co-formulants can be determined by appropriate
methods, harmonized according to the procedure provided in
Article 21, or, if not, agreed by the authorities responsible for the
authorization;
(d) its residues, resulting from authorized uses, and which are of toxi-
cological or environmental significance, can be determined by
appropriate methods in general use; Annex 96
United Nations, &RQIHUHQFH▯IRU▯WKH▯$GRSWLRQ▯RI▯D▯&RQYHQWLRQ▯DJDLQVW▯,OOLFLW▯7UDI¿F▯LQ▯1DUFRWLF▯
'UXJV▯▯2I¿FLDO▯5HFRUGV (1994)Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96Annex 96 Annex 97
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), $FWLYLWLHV▯WR▯5HGXFH▯
3HVWLFLGH▯5LVNV▯LQ▯2(&'▯DQG▯6HOHFWHG▯)$2▯&RXQWULHV▯▯3DUW▯,▯▯6XPPDU\▯5HSRUW,
OCDE/GD(96)121 (1996) Annex 97
General Distribution OCDE/GD(96)121
Activities to Reduce Pesticide Risks
in OECD and Selected FAO Countries
Part I: Summary Report
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Paris 1996
41090
Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine
Complete document available on OLIS in its original formatAnnex 97
OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications
Series on Pesticides No. 4
Activities to Reduce Pesticide Risks
in OECD and Selected FAO Countries
Part I: Summary Report
Environment Directorate
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Paris 1996
3 Annex 97
Protecting Sensitive Species and Habitats
By comparison with the increased attention to water resources, activities to protect
vulnerable species and habitats seem less common among OECD countries. Several activities
were reported, however, including the following:
• Several countries have placed tighter restrictions on pesticides that are toxic to
honey bees, and/or to fish or other aquatic organisms. Japan restricts chemicals
that are toxic to silkworms.
• Several countries have restricted or banned aerial spraying. For example: Denmark
and Switzerland have placed such severe restrictions on aerial spraying, including
the need to obtain a special authorisation, that it seldom occurs (in Switzerland only
about 2,000 hectares of vineyards are aerially sprayed every year). Finland allows
aerial spraying in forests only in very exceptional cases, and aerial spraying in
general seldom occurs. Sweden has banned aerial spraying altogether.
• Japan prohibits aerial spraying for pine bark beetles in pine forests that are habitats
for endangered plants and animals.
• The United Kingdom has begun funding farmers to practice traditional farming
techniques for the benefit of the environment, under its Environmentally Sensitive
Area Scheme. This programme started in 1987, following political concern over
agricultural intensification leading to environmental damage. It focuses on
preserving vulnerable wildlife habitats and environmentally sensitive areas and
moorlands. The programme includes restrictions on pesticides, but has no specific
goals for reduced use.
The UK is also researching the effects of pesticides on non-target species, and is
modelling the risks associated with pesticide application to agricultural land,
including effects on microbial biomass and leaching to surface waters.
• The United States is gradually implementing a programme to protect endangered
and threatened species from pesticides. Developed in 1989, the programme is run
at a county level, and is based on maps and bulletins that outline the species'
habitats and specify limits on pesticide use. Compliance with the bulletins is legally
enforceable.
The US is also conducting research aimed at recommending ways to change land
use and farming practices so as to reduce environmental impacts. One project is
looking at how improved farm management (in terms of pesticide and nutrient
applications and animal husbandry) reduces non-point source pollution. A second
project is studying rates and pathways of chemical movement, exposure of
biological systems to agrochemicals, and effects of exposure.
44Annex 97 Annex 98
Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, *XLGHOLQHV▯RQ▯*RRG▯3UDFWLFH▯IRU▯$HULDO▯
$SSOLFDWLRQ▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV (2001) Annex 98
Guidelines on Good Practice for
Aerial Application of Pesticides
Food andAgriculture Organization
of the United Nations
Rome,2001Annex 98
8 Agricultural Pesticide Application Equipment: Good Practice for Aerial Application
2.3 Product selection
The decision to select a given pesticide product must be based on an
assessment of the risks and benefits and the hazard potential to both man
and the environment.
Inmany,butnotall,countrieslegislationisinplacetocontrolandregulate
the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of pesticides. Products
areregisteredforusefollowinglocalfieldevaluationforsafetyandefficiency
and only approved and recommended products can be used.
Where there is a choice of product, the material offering the least hazard
should always be selected. Where local pesticide regulations are not in
place the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of
Pesticides (Amended version) FAO, offers guidance.
2.4 Label information
Themanufacturer’sproductlabelisthemainsourceofinformationforthe
end user. It should be read and understood by anyone using the product.
Theusermustalsomakesurethatthelabelterminologyisfullyunderstood.
The label is attached to the product container and usually reproduced on
theoutercontainerorwrapperofthetransportcontainerorcarton.Inmost
countries, adhering to the label recommendations is a legal obligation.
DONOTUSEANUNAPPROVEDORNON-LABELLEDPRODUCT
Theproductlabelcarriesstatutoryinstructionsfortheuser,andmustcover
thecropsforwhichitisregistered,therecommendeddoserate,thenumber
of treatments permitted during the growing season and how many days
beforeharvestthelasttreatmentmaybeapplied.Additionally,thelabelwill
inform the user of the correct PPE to be used when handling and applying
theproductandadviseonenvironmentalprotectionmeasurestobecarried
out. Such measures may refer to a “non-spray” barrier (buffer zone). Annex 98
Agricultural Pesticide Application Equipment: Good Practice for Aerial Application 21
break type and large enough to facilitate rapid filling. The valve must be
positiveinactiontoeliminatespillage.
Thetankfillingproceduremustfollowlabelrecommendationsforproduct
introduction into the hopper, however, as agitation of the spray solution is
limited during filling and “ferrying”, the use of a pre-mix facility is
recommended.
The above point becomes more important in the case of a helicopter fitted
with pannier tanks and an intermittent electric drive pump, which is only
used when actually spraying.
Aircraft payload may need to be reduced to compensate for airstrip
conditions or the effect of atmospheric conditions on engine performance,
whichinturnwilldeterminehowmuchsprayliquid,canbeloaded.
4.1.7 Priorwarnings
Membersofthepublic,notdirectlyinvolvedwiththesprayoperation,may
also be affected by an aerial pesticide application so the contractor/farmer
may have a mandatory obligation to issue “prior warnings” to any person
or organisation that might be affected or concerned.
Warnings must be given in ample time to beekeepers, owners of adjacent
crops, livestock owners and those responsible for nearby environmentally
sensitive sites. Where particularly toxic materials are to be used, it may be
necessary to warn the emergency services, and the local environment and
water authorities. The product label should give precise advice on prior
warning and who to contact.
4.2 Field application
Adequatepre-preparationwillmakesurethattheactualsprayingiscarried
out under the safest conditions and accurate spray timing will help ensure
that the product is used to optimum effect. Employers and operators mustAnnex 98
Agricultural Pesticide Application Equipment: Good Practice for Aerial Application
Wind
Aircraft spraying is normally carried out when the surface wind speed is
less than 6-7m/s, which is a safe speed for aircraft handling and safety.
However,inareasofexceptionalturbulencetheabovefiguresmayhaveto
be reduced. Reference to local rules and guidelines may indicate the cut-
offwindspeedforaerialspraying,however,itisinadvisabletospraywhen
wind speeds exceed 8m/s under most circumstances. Wind speed and
direction will also influence flying height. When the wind speed is less
than 3m/s, a boom height of between 3 and 4 m above the crop will ensure
goodlateralmovementofthespraybutflyingheightmustbereducedifthe
wind speed exceeds 3m/s.
Spraying must be carried out taking into account the crosswind to ensure
that the flying speed and the application rate remain the same for both
flight directions. The distance that the spray moves will vary according to
wind strength and aircraft altitude.
Temperature
In conventional (water-based) spraying, high temperature, combined with
low relative humidity will reduce droplet size through evaporation, which
will increase the risk of drift. As temperature increases so atmospheric
turbulence rises. Spraying must not be carried out where there is upward
air movement or where a temperature inversion prevents the spray cloud
settling within the treated area.
For ULV spraying, conditions of mild turbulence, similar to those
recommendedforconventionalspraying,arepreferable.
The relative humidity can be calculated from tables, by determining the
differencebetweenthewetanddrybulbthermometers(hygrometer).When
the difference between the wet and dry bulbs exceeds 8°, aqueous spray
suspensions should not be sprayed. Annex 99
European Parliament, 5HVROXWLRQ▯RQ▯3ODQ▯&RORPELD▯DQG▯6XSSRUW▯IRU▯WKH▯3HDFH▯3URFHVV▯LQ▯
&RORPELD, EUR. PARL. DOC. B5-0087 (1 Feb. 2001Annex 99Annex 99Annex 99Annex 99 Annex 100
$QGHDQ▯&RPPXQLW\▯▯'HFLVLRQ▯▯▯▯▯%RUGHU▯,QWHJUDWLRQ▯=RQH▯LQ▯WKH▯$QGHDQ▯&RPPXQLW\▯▯2I¿FLDO▯
Gazette ofAgreements of Cartagena, No. 680 (28 June 2001) Annex 100
▯
Official Gazette of the Cartagena Agreement
Year XVII – Number 680
Lima, 28 June 2001
SUMMARY
Andean Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
[…]
Decision 501. - Border Integration Zones (BIA) in the Andean Community…….. 24
[…]
[PAGE 24]
DECISION 501
%RUGHU▯,QWHJUDWLRQ▯=RQHV▯▯%,=▯▯LQ▯WKH▯$QGHDQ▯&RPPXQLW\▯
THE ANDEAN COUNCIL OF comprehensive programs must be
MINISTERS OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. implemented for the development of Border
Integration Zones and that, in the framework
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT: Articles 3, 16, of an action plan for establishment of a
144 and 155 and Chapter XI of the common market, the approval of a
Cartagena Agreement, the Minutes of Community Standard regarding Border
Cartagena, the Minutes of Lima, Decision Integration Zones is determined covering
459 and Proposal 49 of the Secretary Border Integration Zones.
General.
The Lima Minutes note that the Bank
WHEREAS: The Cartagena Agreement of Border Development projects shall be
determines that the Member Countries will established in the Office of the Secretary
undertake actions to boost the General, with the support of IDB and CAF.
comprehensive development of border
regions and effectively incorporate them into The referenced Community Policy
national and Andean economies; adopted by Decision 459 determines that,
Members Countries shall define and
In the Cartagena Agreement of the XI demarcate Border Integration Zones (BIZ)
Meeting of the Andean Presidential Council, for development of their respective
it was determined that, the establishment of guidelines and objectives.
a Common Market and implementation of a
Community Policy for Integration and Sustainable development in bi-
Border Development are among the priority national border contexts and particularly for
tasks for deepening integration. border integration Zones implies joint
responsibility of Member Countries to
In the Minutes of Lima of the XII Meeting assure the conservation and sustainable use
of the Andean Presidential Council it was of the ecosystems and natural resources of
determined that, based on guidelines as well common interest, as well as the harmonious
as the framework established by the Andean wellbeing of their populations; leading to
Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, strengthening of a culture of peace in said
To us, America is our Nation
▯Annex 100
▯
environments; it demands putting into $UWLFOH▯▯▯▯ The Member Countries of
practice the most progressive mechanisms of the Andean Community can establish,
the Andean integration process and requires through appropriate bilateral mechanisms,
transforming border spaces into Zones that Border Integration Zones (BIZ) among
boost joint development. themselves and, if they deem convenient,
mechanisms with third parties.
The improvement and deepening of
bilateral action and community support must $UWLFOH▯▯▯▯▯ The Border Integration
allow border zones to constitute themselves Zones, the Border Integration Regions and
into territorial portions that promote Andean the already existing Special Zones can tailor
Community interaction with third parties, in their provisions to the provisions set forth in
order to achieve a greater and improved the present decision.
insertion into the international economy,
$UWLFOH▯▯▯ – The Border Integration
Bilateral action and community Zones (BIZ) are designated with the goal of
support in border Zones must enable and creating optimal conditions for sustainable
encourage the respect and preservation of boundary development and for the border
the ethnic and cultural identity of the integration among Member Countries of the
inhabitants of those territorial Zones and Andean Community, in accordance with the
promote their economic and social following criteria:
development;
a) ,Q▯WKH▯DVSHFW▯RI▯VRFLDO▯
The High Level Working Group for GHYHORSPHQW▯ stimulate and promote
Border Integration and Development, actions aiming to satisfy basic needs of
created by Decision 459, revised the the inhabitants of border Zones;
corresponding Decision Project in its Fourth
meeting and recommended its approval, b) ,Q▯WKH▯DVSHFW▯RI▯HFRQRPLF▯
given the importance of BIZ for border GHYHORSPHQW: encourage growth,
development and integration. modernization and diversification of the
production base of the border Zones,
'(&,'(6▯ taking advantage of the possibilities that
enable integration mechanisms and
$UWLFOH▯▯▯ For the purposes of this advantages regarding the location of said
Decision, the term “Border Integration Zone Zones with respect to subregional,
(BIA)” is understood as the territorial border regional and international markets;
contexts adjacent to Member Countries of
the Andean Communities for which policies, c) ,Q▯WKH▯DV SHFW▯RI▯HQYLURQPHQWDO▯
plans, programs, and projects will be VXVWDLQDELOLW\▯ procure that the social
adopted to boost sustainable development and economic development improves the
and joint, shared, coordinated border population’s quality of life, taking into
integration as well as border integration account the environmental limitations and
directed towards obtaining mutual benefits, maximizing their respective advantages;
commensurate with each of their
characteristics. d) ,Q▯WKH▯LQVWLWXWLRQDO▯DVSHFW▯ promote
the active participation of public and
private institutions of the BIZ in
To us, America is our Nation
▯ Annex 100
▯
planning, monitoring and assessment e) Favor the local communities,
processes regarding plans, programs and eliminating obstacles that impede
projects that allow consolidation of the maximization of their production,
development of these contexts, commercial, and cultural capabilities, as
attempting to share obligations and well as their capacity to peacefully
responsibilities; and, coexist;
e) ,Q▯WKH▯DVSHFW▯RI▯LQWHJUDWLRQ▯ f) Contribute towards the extension of
promote free transit of peoples, vehicles, the national administrative and economic
merchandise and services, in the BIZs as decentralization processes.
well as harmonize and simplify
migratory, customs and plant and animal g) Formalize and stimulate processes
procedures. and social, economic, cultural and ethnic
relationships that historically exist in said
$UWLFOH▯▯▯▯▯ The following are objectives of Zones.
the BIZ:
h) Give adequate treatment to
a) Contribute to the diversification, economic, social, and cultural demands
strengthening, and establishment of that arise from the communities in the
economic, social, cultural, institutional BIZs;
and political connections among Member
Countries; i) Increase and strengthen the demand
and supply of basic and/or social services
b) Contribute to the creation and entry of common use, such as aqueducts,
into force, through appropriate national electrification, communication, road
and bilateral bodies, of economic and infrastructure, health, education, sporting
institutional mechanisms that impart and tourism.
greater commercial fluidity to their
territorial contexts and interconnect these j) Research and sustainably use
with the rest of the Andean communities contiguous renewable natural resources
and the global market; and promote mechanisms for their
adequate conservation;
c) Increase flexibility and dynamism in
the economic and commercial exchange k) Contribute to the preservation and
as well as the transit of peoples, sustainable use of natural resources,
merchandise, services and vehicles in paying particular interest to biological
said contexts and among these with third diversity;
party markets;
l) Develop horizontal cooperation
d) Establish effective mechanisms to programs that promote the transfer of
jointly create and manage border labor technical knowledge among Member
markets and to administer the migratory, Countries or border regions, geared
bilateral and international flows that towards adoption of joint technological
develop in the BIZs; packages and the development of
productive activities that conjugate or
complement efforts; and,
To us, America is our Nation
▯Annex 100
▯
m) Other factors that are bilaterally $UWLFOH▯▯▯ – For the establishment of the
agreed. BIA’s, to which article 2 refers, the
participating countries will agree on the
$UWLFOH▯▯▯▯▯ In the identification and appropriate bilateral methods and can
demarcation of BIAs, the Members request the technical support from the
Countries shall take the following criteria Secretary General. The resultant
into account: Agreements will be communicated by the
Member Countries to the Secretary General
a) That the BIZs should be border of the Andean Community that have struck
Zones where legal, administrative and them for respective publication in the
official functions that are encouraged Official Gazette of the Cartagena
serve to make flexible, liberal, and Agreement.
dynamic, as well as maximize and
formalize the productive and commercial $UWLFOH▯▯▯ – The participating countries
capacity: creativity and the cultural will jointly elaborate the Border
richness of the population in the borders Development plans, programs and projects
among the Member Countries. to be implemented within the BIZ’s, taking
into account sustainability criteria, reason
b) That both countries comprise cities why they can solicit technical support from
which can currently or potentially the Secretary General of the Andean
promote development aiming to Community.
constitute themselves to support
integration as well as gears for existent $UWLFOH▯▯▯ – In the BIZs that are
road development, or where construction established, the Member Countries will
of roads is contemplated in the short ensure to take on, among others, the
term. following actions:
c) That both countries incorporate a) Commit the participation of social
economic and socially depressed Zones actors, entrepreneurs, workers, private
requiring implementation of efforts in foundations and civil associations to the
order to reverse the situation of Andean integration project as well as
backwardness and prepare them to play with the strengthening of neighbor
an active role in the integration processes; relationships, stimulating their respective
efforts in the promotion of development
d) That they propitiate the demarcation of the BIZs;
of border Zones with high resource
potential, which currently do not b) Stimulate private local, national, bi-
comprise part of the active border; national, and foreign investment, taking
into account the particular vocation of
e) That they contribute to the each BIZ, guiding it towards new
development of hydrographic watersheds activities of a regional character, in order
where projects and activities of common to open spaces or broaden existent spaces
interest are located, and that they for the systematic growth of the local and
propitiate the coordinated effort in bi-national business sector with close
protected natural Zones.
To us, America is our Nation
▯ Annex 100
▯
links to the economies of the rest of the
Member Countries; k) Implement joint or complementary
projects for basic, road,
c) Promote initiatives directed towards telecommunications and energy
the creation of strategic business alliances infrastructure, as well as productive
in the BIAs and the creation of Andean development, among others; and,
Multinational Enterprises (AMEs);
l) Promote the configuration of an
d) Establish or perfect, where urban – regional structure that favors the
appropriate, transit regimes for people, growth and diversification of roles and
vehicles and merchandise in order to functions of border cities, providing
boost the border integration processes adequate support for consolidation of
and contribute to creating border markets; development in border integration
initiatives.
e) Promote the development of
participatory processes for ecological, $UWLFOH▯▯▯ . – The Bank of Border
economic, social and cultural Integration and Border Development is
zonification; established within the Secretary General of
the Andean Community, which will rely,
f) Boost the coordinated among others, on the support of the Inter-
comprehensive management of common American Development Bank (BID) and the
ecosystems; Corporación Andina de Fomento, “Andean
3URJUHVV´▯&RUSRUDWLRQ” (CAF).
g) Develop joint tourism programs that
lead to achieving the best use of border $UWLFOH▯▯▯▯▯±▯ In order to finance
resources and stimulating the economic plans, programs and projects in the BIZ’s,
activities linked with tourism circles that the Member Countries shall,:
may arise;
a) Deploy bi-national efforts in a and, if
h) Initiate joint programs for valuation deemed appropriate, with participation
and strengthening of common cultural of the Secretary General of the Andean
identity; Community, in light of sub-regional,
regional, and multilateral financial
i) Strengthen the national and bilateral bodies, promote the establishment of
court system regarding border issues, in funds destined towards implementation
order to allow Member Countries to of BIA plans, programs and projects; and
establish a fluid exchange of information
and make compatible objectives of b) Study and agree on financial bilateral
mutual interest; and / or community schemes that enable
the financial, administrative and
j) Promote meetings and the exchange technological recovery of investments
of points of view and initiatives among for regional, public and / or private
local authorities, regional development development that are currently paralyzed
bodies and legislative representatives of and / or in a state of deterioration.
Member Countries, taking care not to
undermine the existent national policies;
To us, America is our Nation
▯Annex 100
▯
$UWLFOH▯▯▯ . – Member Countries will
adopt the necessary provisions to 6HFRQG▯– Member Countries can
incorporate the development plans, implement border development or border
programs and projects that are agreed on by integration programs or projects on the
the BIZ’s in their respective National approval date of the present Decision, they
Development Plans, Investment Budgets, may tailor them, if deemed appropriate, to
and as part of their National Border Policies. the schematic of Border Integration Zones
contained by this Decision.
$UWLFOH▯▯▯ . – In the BIZ’s bilateral
establishment agreements to which article 2 Issued in the city of Valencia, Venezuela on
refers, competencies will be established for the twenty-second day of the month of June
the administration and implementation of of the year two thousand and one.
plans, programs and projects, identified or
agreed upon.
$UWLFOH▯▯▯.- Member Countries shall
agree, within the BIZ’s, on the more
favorable treatments as compared to those
established in the various Andean legal
frameworks for the rest of the subregional
territory, as long as said treatments do not
violate that framework.
$UWLFOH▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ The Secretary General
of the Andean Community will annually
convoke the existing BIZ bilateral
mechanisms to a BIZ Assessment and
Coordination Meeting, in which the
functioning of the same will be analyzed,
information regarding plans, program, and
projects tailored and / or in a stage of
implementation will be exchanged, and the
existing achievements and difficulties will
be verified. Member Countries and
subregional competent bodies will be
notified of the conclusions and
recommendations of these Meetings.
7(0325$5<▯3529,6,216▯
▯
)LUVW▯▯▯ Member Countries shall
implement or will tailor themselves to the
terms of the present Decision, at least one
BIZ in each one of their common borders,
within one year following the entry into
effect of the present Decision.
To us, America is our Nation
▯ Annex 100
Año XVII - Número 680
Lima, 28 de junio del 2001
SUMARIO
Consejo Andino de Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores
Pág.
Decisión 499.- Actualización de la Directiva Nº 1 sobre formulación y ejecución de la Política
Exterior Común ...................................................................1.............................
Decisión 500.- Estatuto del Tribunal de Justicia de la Comunidad Andina .................................
Decisión 501.- Zonas de Integración Fronteriza (ZIF) en la Comunidad Andina .........................
Decisión 502.- Centros Binacionales de Atención en Frontera (CEBAF) en la Comunidad An-
dina...................................................................................................................
Decisión 503.- Reconocimiento de documentos nacionales de identificación ............................
Decisión 504.- Creación del Pasaporte Andino ....................................................35...................
Decisión 505.- Plan Andino de Cooperación para la Lucha contra las Drogas Ilícitas y Delitos
Conexos ...........................................................................................................
DECISION 499
Actualización de la Directiva No. 1 sobre formulación
y ejecución de la Política Exterior Común
EL CONSEJO ANDINO DE MINISTROS DE - Reemplazar, en el Capítulo II, el acápite 9
RELACIONES EXTERIORES, por el siguiente:
VISTAS: Las Decisiones 458 “Lineamientos “9. La agenda de la Política Exterior Co-
de la Política Exterior Común”, 475 “Directiva mún será aprobada anualmente por el
No. 1 de la Política Exterior Común” y 476 Consejo Andino de Ministros de Rela-
“Seguimiento de la Política Exterior Común”; y ciones Exteriores. Dicha agenda será
actualizada trimestralmente en reunio-
CONSIDERANDO: La necesidad de actuali- nes de Funcionarios de Alto Nivel de
zar, a la luz de la experiencia, los criterios y los Ministerios de Relaciones Exterio-
pautas para la ejecución de la Política Exterior res, o en reuniones extraordinarias cuan-
Común establecidos en la Directiva No. 1 apro- do las circunstancias así lo demanden,
bada mediante la Decisión 475, así como de dando cuenta al Consejo.”
disponer de un texto unificado al respecto;
- Incluir en el Capítulo II el siguiente nuevo
DECIDE: acápite 10:
Artículo 1.- Aprobar las siguientes modifica- “10. La Secretaría Pro Témpore desarrolla-
ciones e inclusiones a la Directiva No. 1 esta- rá conjuntamente con los funcionarios
blecida mediante la Decisión 475: responsables de la coordinación y se-
ParanosotroslaPatriaesAméricaAnnex 100
GACETA OFICIAL 28/06/2001 24.44
mero de éstos serán determinados conforme al DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS
artículo 6 del Tratado.
Primera.- Para efectos del ejercicio de las ac-
La referida provisión deberá necesariamente ciones laborales, los órganos e instituciones
estar considerada en el respectivo presupues- del Sistema Andino de Integración que no cuen-
to que la Comisión apruebe para el Tribunal ten con un Reglamento o Estatuto de perso-
conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 16 del nal, lo emitirán dentro del año siguiente a la
Tratado. entrada en vigor de la presente Decisión.
Artículo 143.- Utilización de medios tecnoló- Segunda.- El Consejo de Ministros de Relacio-
gicos en los procedimientos ante el Tribu-
nes Exteriores, a propuesta de la Comisión y
nal en consulta con el Tribunal, adoptará la Deci-
En tanto sea posible, el Tribunal implementará sión referente a la función arbitral prevista en la
los medios tecnológicos que haga confiable, Sección V del Capítulo III del Tratado, la que se
rápido, eficaz y económico el trámite de los
incorporará al presente Estatuto en lo perti-
procesos que sean sometidos a su conocimiento. nente.
Artículo 144.- Modificaciones al Estatuto
Los Países Miembros, el Tribunal y la Secreta- Tercera.- Dentro de los tres meses siguientes
a la entrada en vigencia del presente Estatuto,
ría General podrán presentar iniciativas de mo- el Tribunal adecuará su estructura orgánica, su
dificación al presente Estatuto con sujeción a planta de personal y su Reglamento Interno.
lo dispuesto en el artículo 13 del Tratado.
Mientras ello ocurre, se aplicarán las disposi-
Artículo 145.- Vigencia ciones reglamentarias y orgánicas vigentes en
La presente Decisión entrará en vigencia 30
días después de su publicación en la Gaceta cuanto no se opongan al Tratado y a este Es-
Oficial del Acuerdo de Cartagena. tatuto.
Artículo 146.- Derogatorias Dada en la ciudad de Valencia, Venezuela,
Quedan derogadas las Decisiones 184 y 394 a los veintidós días del mes de junio del año
de la Comisión. dos mil uno.
DECISIÓN 501
Zonas de Integración Fronteriza (ZIF) en la Comunidad Andina
EL CONSEJO ANDINO DE MINISTROS DE Que, en el Acta de Cartagena de la XI Re-
RELACIONES EXTERIORES, unión del Consejo Presidencial Andino se de-
terminó que, entre las tareas prioritarias para
VISTOS: Los Artículos 3, 16, 144 y 155 y el profundizar la integración se encuentra el esta-
Capítulo XI del Acuerdo de Cartagena, el Acta blecimiento del Mercado Común y la ejecución
de Cartagena, el Acta de Lima, la Decisión 459 de una Política Comunitaria de Integración y
y la Propuesta 49 de la Secretaría General; Desarrollo Fronterizo;
CONSIDERANDO: Que el Acuerdo de Carta- Que, en el Acta de Lima de la XII Reunión
gena establece que los Países Miembros em- del Consejo Presidencial Andino se establece
prenderán acciones para impulsar el desarrollo que, con base en los lineamientos y en la nor-
integral de las regiones de frontera e incorpo- mativa establecidos por el Consejo Andino de
rarlas efectivamente a las economías naciona- Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores, deben eje-
les y andina; cutarse programas integrales para el desarrollo Annex 100
GACETA OFICIAL 28/06/2001 25.44
de las Zonas de Integración Fronteriza, y que DECIDE:
en el marco del programa de acción para el
establecimiento del mercado común, en el tema Artículo 1.- A los efectos de esta Decisión,
de Integración y Desarrollo Fronterizo se deter- se entiende por “Zona de Integración Fronteri-
mina la aprobación de una Norma Comunitaria za” (ZIF) los ámbitos territoriales fronterizos
sobre Zonas de Integración Fronteriza; adyacentes de Países Miembros de la Comu-
nidad Andina para los que se adoptarán políti-
Que, en el Acta de Lima se señala que se cas y ejecutarán planes, programas y proyec-
establecerá, en la Secretaria General, el Banco tos para impulsar el desarrollo sostenible y la
de Proyectos de Desarrollo Fronterizo con el integración fronteriza de manera conjunta, com-
apoyo del BID y la CAF; partida, coordinada y orientada a obtener be-
neficios mutuos, en correspondencia con las
Que, la mencionada Política Comunitaria adop- características de cada uno de ellos.
tada mediante Decisión 459 establece que, para
el desarrollo de sus lineamientos y objetivos Artículo 2.- Los Países Miembros de la Co-
generales, los Países Miembros definirán y de- munidad Andina podrán establecer, mediante
limitarán Zonas de Integración Fronteriza (ZIF);
los mecanismos bilaterales que convengan, Zonas
de Integración Fronteriza (ZIF) entre sí y, de
Que el desarrollo sostenible para ámbitos considerarlo conveniente, con terceros países.
fronterizos binacionales y particularmente para
las zonas de integración fronteriza implica la
responsabilidad compartida de los Países Miem- Artículo 3.- Las Zonas de Integración Fron-
teriza, las Regiones Fronterizas de Integración
bros para asegurar la conservación y uso sos- y las Zonas Especiales ya existentes podrán
tenible de sus ecosistemas y recursos natura-
les de interés común, así como el bienestar adecuar sus disposiciones a lo establecido en
armónico de sus poblaciones; conlleva el forta- la presente Decisión.
lecimiento de una cultura de paz en dichos
ámbitos; demanda poner en práctica los meca- Artículo 4.- Las Zonas de Integración Fron-
nismos más avanzados del proceso de integra- teriza (ZIF) se establecen con la finalidad de
generar condiciones óptimas para el desarrollo
ción andino; y, requiere transformar los espa- fronterizo sostenible y para la integración fron-
cios fronterizos en áreas dinamizadoras del de-
sarrollo compartido; teriza entre los Países Miembros de la Comu-
nidad Andina, conforme a los siguientes cri-
terios:
Que el perfeccionamiento y profundización
de la acción bilateral y del apoyo comunitario
debe propiciar que las áreas fronterizas se cons- a) En la dimensión del desarrollo social: es-
tituyan en porciones territoriales que potencien timular y promover acciones orientadas a la
satisfacción de las necesidades básicas de
la interacción de la Comunidad Andina con ter- los pobladores de las zonas fronterizas;
ceros países, para lograr una mayor y mejor
inserción en la economía internacional;
b) En la dimensión del desarrollo económi-
co: fomentar el crecimiento, modernización
Que la acción bilateral y el apoyo comunita-
rio en las zonas de frontera debe propiciar e y diversificación de la base productiva de las
incentivar el respeto y la preservación de la zonas fronterizas, aprovechando las posibili-
identidad étnica y cultural de los habitantes de dades que habilitan los mecanismos de la
integración y las ventajas de la ubicación de
esas porciones territoriales y promover su de-
sarrollo económico y social; dichas zonas respecto de los mercados
subregional, regional e internacional;
Que el Grupo de Trabajo de Alto Nivel para
c) En la dimensión de la sostenibilidad am-
la Integración y Desarrollo Fronterizo, creado
por Decisión 459, en su Cuarta Reunión revisó biental: procurar que el desarrollo social y
el correspondiente Proyecto de Decisión y re- económico mejore la calidad de vida de la
comendó su aprobación dada la importancia de población, considerando las limitaciones del
medio ambiente y potenciando sus venta-
las ZIF para el desarrollo e integración fronte-
rizo; jas;Annex 100
GACETA OFICIAL 28/06/2001 26.44
d) En la dimensión institucional: promover la cas históricamente existentes en dichas zo-
participación activa de las instituciones pú- nas;
blicas y privadas de las ZIF en los procesos
de planificación, seguimiento y evaluación h) Atender adecuadamente las demandas eco-
de los planes, programas y proyectos que nómicas, sociales y culturales de los pue-
permitan consolidar el desarrollo de esos blos en las ZIF;
ámbitos, buscando compartir obligaciones y
responsabilidades; y, i) Incrementar y fortalecer la oferta y el abaste-
cimiento de servicios básicos y/o sociales de
e) En la dimensión de la integración: promo- utilidad común, tales como acueductos, elec-
ver en las ZIF el libre tránsito de personas, trificación, comunicaciones, infraestructura
vehículos, mercancías y servicios, así como vial, salud, educación y recreación deporti-
armonizar y simplificar los procedimientos va y turística;
migratorios, aduaneros y fito/zoosanitarios.
j) Investigar y usar sosteniblemente los recur-
Artículo 5.- Son objetivos de las ZIF: sos naturales renovables contiguos y pro-
mover mecanismos para su adecuada con-
a) Contribuir a diversificar, fortalecer y estabi- servación;
lizar los vínculos económicos, sociales, cul-
turales, institucionales y políticos entre los k) Contribuir a la conservación y utilización sos-
Países Miembros; tenible de los recursos naturales, prestando
particular interés a la diversidad biológica;
b) Contribuir a la creación y la puesta en vigen-
cia, a través de las instancias nacionales o l) Desarrollar programas de cooperación hori-
bilaterales pertinentes, de los mecanismos zontal que promuevan la transferencia de
económicos e institucionales que doten a conocimientos técnicos entre Países Miem-
sus ámbitos territoriales de mayor fluidez co- bros o regiones fronterizas, encaminados a
mercial y la interconecten con el resto de las la adopción de paquetes tecnológicos con-
economías andinas y con el mercado mun- juntos y al desarrollo de actividades produc-
dial; tivas que conjuguen o complementen esfuer-
zos; y,
c) Flexibilizar y dinamizar el intercambio eco-
nómico y comercial, así como la circulación m)Otros que se acuerden bilateralmente.
de personas, mercancías, servicios y vehícu-
los en dichos ámbitos y entre éstos con ter- Artículo 6.- En la identificación y delimita-
ceros mercados; ción de las ZIF, los Países Miembros tendrán
en cuenta los siguientes criterios:
d) Establecer mecanismos eficaces para crear
y manejar conjuntamente los mercados fron- a) Que sean áreas de frontera donde las condi-
terizos de trabajo y para administrar los flu- ciones jurídicas, administrativas y funciona-
jos migratorios, bilaterales e internaciona- les que se promuevan sirvan para flexibilizar,
les, que se desarrollen en las ZIF; liberalizar, dinamizar, potenciar y formalizar
la capacidad productiva y comercial; la crea-
e) Favorecer a las colectividades locales, elimi- tividad y la riqueza cultural de la población
nando los obstáculos que dificultan una en las fronteras entre los Países Miembros;
potenciación de sus capacidades producti-
vas, comerciales, culturales y de coexisten- b) Que comprendan, en ambos países, ciuda-
cia pacífica; des actualmente o potencialmente dinami-
zadoras del desarrollo con miras a consti-
f) Contribuir a profundizar los procesos nacio- tuirse en soporte de la integración, así como
nales de descentralización administrativa y ejes de articulación vial existentes o cuya
económica; construcción esté prevista en el corto plazo;
g) Formalizar y estimular procesos y relacio- c) Que incorporen, en ambos países, áreas eco-
nes sociales, económicas, culturales y étni- nómica y socialmente deprimidas, que re- Annex 100
GACETA OFICIAL 28/06/2001 27.44
quieran de la conjugación de esfuerzos a fin c) Promover iniciativas dirigidas a la genera-
de revertir la situación de atraso y preparar- ción en las ZIF de alianzas estratégicas em-
las para desempeñar un papel activo en los presariales y a la creación de Empresas Mul-
procesos de integración; tinacionales Andinas (EMAs);
d) Que propicien la articulación de zonas fron- d) Establecer o perfeccionar, según sea el ca-
terizas con alto potencial de recursos, que so, regímenes de tránsito de personas, ve-
en la actualidad no formen parte de la fron- hículos y mercancías a fin de dinamizar los
tera activa; procesos de integración fronteriza y contri-
buir a generar mercados fronterizos;
e) Que coadyuven al desarrollo de cuencas
hidrográficas binacionales en las que se lo- e) Promover el desarrollo de procesos partici-
pativos de zonificación ecológica, económi-
calicen proyectos y actividades de interés
compartido, y que propicien la gestión coor- ca, social y cultural;
dinada de áreas naturales protegidas.
f) Impulsar el manejo integral coordinado de
ecosistemas compartidos;
Artículo 7.- Para el establecimiento de las
ZIF, a que se refiere el artículo 2, los países g) Desarrollar programas turísticos conjuntos,
participantes acordarán los mecanismos bila- que conduzcan a lograr el mejor aprovecha-
terales apropiados, y podrán solicitar el apoyo miento de los recursos fronterizos y estimu-
técnico de la Secretaría General. Los Acuerdos lar las actividades económicas vinculadas a
resultantes serán comunicados por los Países los circuitos turísticos que se propicien;
Miembros que los acuerden a la Secretaría Ge-
neral de la Comunidad Andina para su respec- h) Emprender programas conjuntos de valora-
ción y fortalecimiento de la identidad cultu-
tiva publicación en la Gaceta Oficial del Acuer-
do de Cartagena. ral común;
Artículo 8.- Los Países participantes elabo- i) Fortalecer las instancias nacionales y bila-
terales sobre temas fronterizos de tal mane-
rarán en forma conjunta los planes, programas ra que permitan a los Países Miembros esta-
y proyectos de Desarrollo Fronterizo a ser eje-
cutados dentro de las ZIF, bajo criterios de blecer un fluido intercambio de información
sostenibilidad, para lo cual podrán solicitar apo- y compatibilizar objetivos de interés mutuo;
yo técnico a la Secretaría General de la Co- j) Promover el encuentro e intercambio de pun-
munidad Andina. tos de vista e iniciativas entre autoridades
locales, organismos de desarrollo regional y
Artículo 9.- En las ZIF que se establezcan,
representantes legislativos de los Países Miem-
los Países Miembros procurarán emprender, bros, sin menoscabo de las políticas nacio-
entre otras, las siguientes acciones: nales existentes;
a) Comprometer la participación de los acto- k) Ejecutar proyectos compartidos o comple-
res sociales, empresarios, trabajadores, fun-
mentarios de infraestructura básica, vial, te-
daciones privadas y asociaciones civiles, con lecomunicaciones y energía, así como de
el proyecto integracionista andino, y con el desarrollo productivo, entre otros; y,
fortalecimiento de las relaciones vecinales,
estimulando su esfuerzo en la promoción del l) Promover la configuración de una estructura
desarrollo de las ZIF; urbano - regional que favorezca el crecimien-
to y la diversificación de los roles y funciones
b) Estimular la inversión privada local, nacio- de las ciudades fronterizas, ofreciendo un
nal, binacional y extranjera, teniendo en cuen- adecuado soporte a la consolidación de las
ta la vocación propia de cada ZIF, orientán-
iniciativas de desarrollo e integración fronte-
dola hacia nuevas actividades de carácter riza.
regional, a fin de abrir espacios o ampliar los
existentes para el crecimiento sistemático Artículo 10.- Se establece en la Secretaría
del sector empresarial local y binacional, con General de la Comunidad Andina el Banco de
estrechos vínculos con las economías de los Proyectos de Integración y Desarrollo Fronteri-
demás Países Miembros; zo, el cual contará, entre otros, con el apoyoAnnex 100
GACETA OFICIAL 28/06/2001 28.44
del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) y bles que los establecidos en los distintos me-
de la Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF). canismos del ordenamiento jurídico andino para
el resto del territorio subregional, siempre que
Artículo 11.- Para la financiación de planes, dichos tratamientos no vulneren tal ordenamien-
programas y proyectos en las ZIF, los Países to.
Miembros:
Artículo 15.- La Secretaría General de la
a) Gestionarán en forma binacional y, de con- Comunidad Andina convocará anualmente a los
siderarlo conveniente, con la participación mecanismos bilaterales de las ZIF existentes,
de la Secretaría General de la Comunidad a una Reunión de Evaluación y Coordinación
Andina, ante organismos financieros subre-
de las ZIF, en la cual se analizará el funcio-
gionales, regionales y multilaterales, el esta- namiento de las mismas, se intercambiará in-
blecimiento de fondos destinados a la eje- formación sobre los planes, programas y pro-
cución de los planes, programas y proyec- yectos diseñados y/o en ejecución, y se veri-
tos para las ZIF; y
ficará los logros y dificultades existentes. Las
conclusiones y recomendaciones de estas Re-
b) Estudiarán y acordarán esquemas financie- uniones serán comunicadas a los Países Miem-
ros bilaterales y/o comunitarios que permi- bros y a los órganos subregionales competen-
tan la recuperación financiera, administrati-
va y tecnológica de aquellas inversiones de tes.
desarrollo regional, públicas y/o privadas, DISPOSICIONES TRANSITORIAS
que se encuentren paralizadas y/o en pro-
ceso de deterioro.
Primera.- Los Países Miembros establece-
Artículo 12.- Los Países Miembros adopta- rán o adecuarán a los términos de la presente
Decisión, por lo menos una ZIF en cada una de
rán las previsiones necesarias para incorporar sus fronteras comunes, dentro del año siguien-
en sus respectivos Planes Nacionales de De-
sarrollo, Presupuestos de Inversión, y como te al de la entrada en vigencia de la presente
parte de sus Políticas Nacionales de Fronteras, Decisión.
los planes, programas y proyectos de desarro-
llo que acuerden para las ZIF. Segunda.- Los Países Miembros que a la
fecha de la aprobación de la presente Decisión
Artículo 13.- En los acuerdos bilaterales de ejecuten planes, programas o proyectos de de-
sarrollo e integración fronterizo, podrán ade-
establecimiento de las ZIF a que se refiere el
artículo 2, se establecerán las competencias cuarlos, de considerarlo conveniente, al esque-
para la administración y ejecución de los pla- ma de las Zonas de Integración Fronteriza con-
nes, programas y proyectos identificados o tenida en esta Decisión.
convenidos.
Dada en la ciudad de Valencia, Venezuela,
Artículo 14.- Los Países Miembros acorda- a los veintidós días del mes de junio del año
rán dentro de las ZIF tratamientos más favora- dos mil uno.
DECISIÓN 502
Centros Binacionales de Atención en Frontera (CEBAF)
en la Comunidad Andina
EL CONSEJO ANDINO DE MINISTROS DE XIV de la Decisión 399, la Decisión 459 y la
RELACIONES EXTERIORES, Propuesta 50 de la Secretaría General;
VISTOS: El Capítulo XI del Acuerdo de CONSIDERANDO: Que el Acuerdo de Car-
Cartagena, el Acta de Cartagena, el Acta de tagena establece que los Países Miembros de-
Lima, la Decisión 271 y sus modificatorias, el sarrollarán una acción conjunta para lograr un
Capítulo XIII de la Decisión 398 y el Capítulo mejor aprovechamiento de su espacio físico, Annex 101
Andean Community, Border Integration Zone Colombia-Ecuador, Diplomatic Notes DM/DDF
▯▯▯▯▯▯ ▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯*0▯'*$)▯▯2I¿FLDO▯*D]HWWH▯RI▯$JUHHPHQWV▯RI▯&DUWDJHQD▯▯1R▯▯▯▯▯▯
(21 Jan. 2003) Annex 101
Year XIX- Number 888
-------------------------------------
Lima, 21 January 2003
▯
SUMMARY
Secretary General of the Andean Community
Exchange of Notes
Page
Colombia-Ecuador. - Border Integration Zones.- Reversal Note DM/DDF 44552 and Reversal
Note 5487902 GMI / DGAF……………………………………………….. 1
[…]
Colombia-Ecuador Border Integration Zone
Reversal Note DM/DDF 44552 of the Colombian Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs
REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA To your Excellency
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Mr. HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
Minister of Foreign Affairs
DM/DDF 44552 Quito - Ecuador
Bogotá D.C., 28 November 2002 Mr. Minister:
▯Annex 101
OFFICIAL GAZETTE 21/01/2003 2.8
▯
I have the honor of addressing your In Colombia, the Municipalities of
Excellency with occasion to make reference Orito, Valle del Guamuez, San Miguel,
to Decision 501 of the Andean Community, Puerto Asís, Puerto Guzmán, Puerto
related to the Border Integration Zones Caicedo, Villagarzón, Mocoa, Santiago, San
(BIZ); to the Convention on the Treatment Francisco, Colón, Sibundoy and Puerto
of Persons, Vehicles, River and Sea Vessels, Leguízano, in the department of Putumayo.
and Aircraft, dated 18 April 1990 which
demarcated the Colombian-Ecuadorian Strategic Zone for Development Pacific
Border Integration Zones and the Region:
Agreements reached via the Colombian-
Ecuadorian Meetings regarding Border In Colombia: The Municipalities of
Integration Zones, formalized in the cities of Barbacoas, Ricaurte and Tumaco, in the
Quito and Bogotá on February and April department of Nariño.
2002, respectively.
The other commitments established for the
With regards to this matter, on behalf Border Integration Zones agreed in Title
of the Colombian Government, I allow One, Chapter I of the Convention among the
myself to propose to Your Excellency, the Republics of Ecuador and Colombia
establishment, within the Border Integration regarding the Transit of Peoples, Vehicles,
Zone, of three Strategic Development Zones, River and Sea Vessels and Aircraft, signed
defined in the Andean, Amazon and Pacific in Esmeraldas on 18 April 1990 will
Regions, in order to generate joint action continue in force, as well as the exchange of
geared towards promoting economic, social, the Chancellor’s Notes dated 23 August
environment and institutional development 1993 and 24 August 2000.
of the Border Integration Zone.
In the case of relying on the consent of the
In this sense, I allow myself to Illustrious Government of the Republic of
express to you that the Border Integration Ecuador, the present note as well as its
Zones, with respect to the Colombian sector, response, in which Ecuador specifies the
will be comprised by the following Strategic Development Zones, the Parties
territories: will reach an agreement, within the
framework of Decision 501 of the Andean
Strategic Zone for Andean Regional Community and the convention of
Development: Esmeraldas of 1990.
In Colombia: The Municipalities of With the conviction that development of the
Ipiales, Cumbal, Cuaspud, Aldana, Border Integration Zone will contribute to
Contadero, Córdoba, Funes, Guachucal, strengthening the friendship and cooperation
Guaitarilla, Gualmatán, Iles, Imués, ties between our two countries, I
Mallama, Ospina, Pasto, Potosí, opportunely take advantage of this occasion
Providencia, Puerres, Pupiales, Santa Cruz, to reiterate to Your Excellency the certainty
Sapuyes, Tangua and Túquerres, in the of my highest and most distinguished
department of Nariño. regards.
Strategic Zone for Development of the CAROLINA BARCO
Amazon Region Minister of Foreign Affairs
▯ Annex 101
OFFICIAL GAZETTE 21/01/2003 3.8
▯
Reversal Note 54679/02 GM/DGAF issued by Ecuador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR Ecuadorian Sector, will be comprised of the
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFIARS following territories:
Note No. 54679/02 GM/DGAF Strategic Development Zone- Andean
Region
Quito, 28 November 2002
In Ecuador: The Counties of Tulcán, Espejo,
To Your Excellency Montúfar, Mira, Bolivar, and San Pedro de
Ms. CAROLINA BARCO Huaca in the Province of Carchi.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Bogotá, D.C. – Colombia Strategic Development Zone – Amazon
Region
Ms. Minister:
In Ecuador: The Counties of Lago Agrio,
I have the honor of addressing Your Shushufundi, Cascales, Gonzalo Pizarro,
Excellency in order to make reference to Putumayo, Sucumbíos and Cuyabena, in the
your attentive note No. DM/DDF 44552; Province of Sucumbíos.
about Decision 501 of the Andean
Community, regarding the Border Strategic Development Zone – Pacific
Integration Zones (BI); to the Convention on Region
the Transit of Peoples, Vehicles, River and
Sea Vessels and Aircraft of 18 April 1990, In Ecuador: The Counties of Atacames, San
which established the Colombian- Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, Río Verde, Eloy
Ecuadorian Border Integration Zone and the Alfaro, Muisne and Quinindé, in the
Agreements achieved in the Colombian – province of Esmeraldas.
Ecuadorian Meetings regarding Border
Integration Zones, signed in the cities of The other commitments established for the
Quito and Bogotá on February and April Border Integration Zones agreed in Title
2002, respectively, One, Chapter I of the Convention among the
Republics of Ecuador and Colombia
In this regard, on behalf of the Government regarding the Transit of Peoples, Vehicles,
of Ecuador, I allow myself to propose to River and Sea Vessels and Aircraft, signed
your Excellency the establishment, within in Esmeraldas on 18 April 1990 will
the Border Integration Zone, of three continue in force, as well as the exchange of
Strategic Development Zones, defined in the the Chancellor’s Notes dated 23 August
Andean, Amazon and Pacific regions, for 1993 and 24 August 2000.
purposes of creating joint actions to promote
economic, social environmental and In the case of relying on the consent of the
institutional development of the BIA. Illustrious Government of the Republic of
Colombia, the present note as well as its
In this sense, I allow myself to express to response, in which Colombia specifies the
Your Excellency that the Strategic Strategic Development Zones, the Parties
Development Zones, with regards to the will reach an agreement, within the
framework of Decision 501 of the Andean
▯Annex 101
OFFICIAL GAZETTE 21/01/2003 3.8
▯
Community and the convention of
Esmeraldas of 1990.
With the conviction that the development of
the Border Integration Zone will contribute
to strengthening the friendship and
cooperation ties between our two countries, I
take advantage of this occasion to reiterate
to Your Excellency the certainty of my
highest and most distinguished regard.
HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
Minister of Foreign Affairs
▯Annex 101Annex 101Annex 101Annex 101 Annex 102
5HSRUW▯RI▯WKH▯6SHFLDO▯5DSSRUWHXU▯RQ▯WKH▯6LWXDWLRQ▯RI▯+XPDQ▯5LJKWV▯DQG▯)XQGDPHQWDO▯)UHHGRPV▯RI▯
,QGLJHQRXV▯3HRSOH▯▯0U▯▯5RGROIR▯6WDYHQKDJHQ▯▯Mission to Colombia,
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2 (10 Nov. 2004) Annex 102
UNITED
E
NATIONS
Economic and Social Distr.
GENERAL
Council
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
10 November 2004
ENGLISH
Original: SPANISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sixty-first session
Item 15 of the provisional agenda
INDIGENOUS ISSUES
Human rights and indigenous issues
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people,
Mr. Rodolfo Stavenhagen
Addendum
MISSION TO COLOMBIA*
* The executive 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.04-16515 (E)040205 110205Annex 102
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
page 6
7. This report contains the Special Rapporteur’s assessment of the human rights situation of
indigenous people in Colombia and is based on information obtained from various sources and
an exchange of views with State, judicial, military, departmental and municipal authorities,
leaders and representatives of indigenous communities and representatives of human rights and
non-governmental organizations.
I. SCHEDULE FOR THE VISIT
8. The Special Rapporteur visited Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, in the department of
César, the departments of Cauca and Putumayo, and the capital, Bogotá, where he held
consultations with government authorities at the national and departmental levels. In
Bogotá, the Special Rapporteur met senior government officials, including the President,
Mr. Álvaro Uribe; the Vice-President, Mr. Francisco Santos; the Minister of the Interior and
Justice, Mr. Sabas Petrelt; the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Carolina Barco; the Director
of the Presidential Programme for Human Rights, Mr. Carlos Franco; the Director of the
Human Rights Department of the Ministry of the Interior, Mr. Rafael Bustamante; the Director
of the Office of Ethnic Affairs of the Ministry of the Interior, Mr. Jesús Ramírez; and the
Director of the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Defence, Colonel Castillo. The
Special Rapporteur also met representatives of the Social Solidarity Network, the Family
Welfare Institute, the Colombian Rural Development Institute (INCODER), the Ministry of
Education and the Ministry of Health.
9. In the course of his tour of the various regions, the Special Rapporteur met departmental
and local officials, members of civil-society and grass-roots associations, and representatives of
more than 30 indigenous communities, including the Inga, the Wayuu, the Quichua, the Pasto,
the Paez, the Embera, the Yanakona, the Kankuamo, the Arhuaco, the Yuko and the Wiwa.
10. The Special Rapporteur had meetings with legislators, Constitutional Court judges,
representatives of the Office of the Procurator-General, and the Ombudsman, Mr. Volmar
Pérez Ortiz. He also had discussions with representatives of United Nations agencies, human
rights NGOs and academic institutions.
II. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
11. The institutional framework for the protection and promotion of the rights of Colombia’s
indigenous peoples is based primarily on the 1991 Constitution, which recognizes the
multicultural and multi-ethnic make-up of the country.
12. The principal gain for indigenous people in this Constitution was the recognition of their
traditional reserves and respect for their cultures, languages and traditions, which were
long-standing claims. In order to implement these provisions, land was granted to indigenous
communities under Act No. 160 of 1994, through the establishment, extension, rehabilitation and
restructuring of reserves. The number of recognized indigenous reserves now stands at 647;
these cover a total of 31,066,430 hectares, hold 85,818 families or 441,550 people, and comprise
some 30 per cent of the national territory. Annex 102
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
page 14
47. After a brief boom in marijuana cultivation in the 1970s (the “bonanza marimbera”), the
drug economy now centres on coca, although it must be said that, as in other Andean countries,
traditional coca farming for local use has always been widely practised among Colombia’s
indigenous communities. It is highly unlikely that there will be any decline in the commercial
trade in psychotropic drugs as long as international demand continues to rise.
48. There is ample evidence that the paramilitary and guerrilla groups fund their activities
with the income from drug trafficking; it is for this reason that the battle for control of these
territories, and of strategic corridors such as Putumayo, which happen to be where the
indigenous peoples live, is becoming increasingly violent, exacting an enormous human, social
and cultural toll on these communities and indeed on the country as a whole. FARC moved into
the Amazon region during the 1970s and the cultivation of illicit crops intensified in the 1980s,
which in turn enabled the guerrillas to step up their action: between 1983 and 1990 the number
of fronts increased from 27 to 60. In the late 1980s, the paramilitary self-defence groups arrived
on the scene and challenged the guerrilla forces for control of coca production. AUC became
increasingly active and was responsible for the Mapiripán massacre in 1997, in which members
of the armed forces were also involved.
49. In the Government’s military policy, the fight against drug trafficking and the war on the
guerrilla groups have gradually fused into a single strategy. This has led, in recent years, to a
redrawing of the parameters of the internal armed conflict, which is no longer seen as a political
and military conflict but is now considered a fight against “terrorism”. This has also affected the
treatment of the indigenous peoples in conflict zones; their increasing opposition to
militarization is sometimes seen by the military and political authorities as support for
“terrorism”. According to the Latin American Human Rights Association (ALDHU), the
pressure on the indigenous peoples is mounting, and the withdrawal of FARC, the spread of drug
crops to their territories and the presence of paramilitaries and of large numbers of police have
increased the threats and danger they face.
50. Several means are employed to eradicate illicit crops, but the Government concentrates
mainly on spraying, which it considers to be the most efficient method. Colombia’s Minister for
Foreign Affairs told the Special Rapporteur that, despite the criticism levelled at the Government
over spraying, it still considers this method of combating the growing of illicit crops to be a
“lesser evil” which must be accepted.
Indigenous organizations described to the Special Rapporteur the adverse effects of
indiscriminate spraying, including environmental damage to the topsoil, fauna, flora and
water, the destruction of subsistence crops and direct damage to human health, including
birth defects. The Special Rapporteur was also told that there are technical and scientific
studies to substantiate these assertions. The indigenous peoples see the aerial spraying of
coca plantations as yet another violation of their human rights and, save for a few occasions
when they have given their consent, actively oppose the practice; this position again brands
them as guerrilla sympathizers, as happened after the rights marches organized by certain
indigenous communities to protest against the spraying. The Office of the Ombudsman has
received 318 complaints concerning spraying operations in three municipalities in
Putumayo in July 2002 and their effect on 6,070 families and 5,034 hectares of land.Annex 102
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
page 15
51. The Awa community in Nariño has informed the Special Rapporteur of various kinds of
damage caused over the last three years to large tracts of rainforest in several areas of the
municipalities of Tumaco and Barbacoas, as a result of spraying with glyphosate. The greatest
damage was done, they say, to sources of fresh water, killing native fish and affecting human
health, causing aching bones, vomiting, dizziness, fever and other ailments, particularly among
children.
52. The Motilon-Bari community of Norte de Santander reports, among other violations,
indiscriminate bombings by the security forces in 2003 - an operation known, significantly, as
Operation Holocaust - and damage from aerial spraying with glyphosate in the course of the
same year. The Organization of Indigenous Communities of Puerto Asís, Putumayo, has also
reported the damaging effects of spraying. The Latin American Institute for Alternative Legal
Services (ILSA) considers that the Programme for Aerial Eradication of Illicit Coca violates the
rights to food security, health and a clean environment. In the Amazon region, the Government
has signed an agreement with the indigenous organizations for the eradication of illicit coca
crops.
C. The environment, land and human rights
53. Apart from the environmental and cultural impact of illicit crops, spraying and the armed
conflict, one of the most sensitive subjects in the area of indigenous people’s human rights is the
threat hanging over the biodiversity of the Amazon tropical forest, a region which, despite being
sparsely populated, has a high degree of indigenous cultural diversity and is now at serious risk.
54. Indigenous people’s natural environment is currently under great pressure as a result of
intensive economic activities such as logging, oil drilling, a range of mining operations
(including mining for gold, coal, minerals and saltpetre) and the construction of hydroelectric
megaprojects such as the Urrá dam, or of highways connecting the countries and regions of the
Amazon.
55. The need for prior, informed consultation with indigenous communities, in accordance
with ILO Convention No. 169, has become one of the major issues in the human rights arena.
The communities maintain that the mechanism does not operate in the same way in all parts of
the country. In the indigenous territories of Antioquia, the Special Rapporteur was told that
mining and other projects were launched without prior consultation or the consent of the
indigenous communities. On the other hand, the indigenous peoples of the Sierra Nevada, the
Wayuu people in Guajira and the Awa in Nariño report that they have made some headway with
consultation processes.
56. In Putumayo, the Special Rapporteur was told of the large, uncontrolled waves of
migrants prompted by the oil boom, which have pushed ethnic groups back into minimal
territorial holdings where their very survival as communities is at risk. The U’wa
indigenous people, who live in the departments of Casanare, Arauca, Boyacá, Santander and
Norte de Santander, told the Special Rapporteur that they are heading for sociocultural extinction
as a result of the policies of colonization, deterritorialization and intimidation applied in State
operations to exploit natural resources on their lands, particularly in oil prospecting and drilling. Annex 102
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
page 20
This is a major challenge, with many obstacles to overcome. The human, economic and social
development indicators for the indigenous population show levels below the national
average, particularly in respect of indigenous women and girls. According to a study by the
Cauca Indigenous Regional Council, only 50 per cent of school-age children are actually in
school, and in Antioquia the figure is less than 40 per cent.
77. For bilingual education to become a reality for all indigenous school-age children in
Colombia, a sustained effort will be required, along with extensive resources for, inter alia,
teacher training, school construction, production of educational materials, evaluation of results
and continuity of teaching methods, all of which are at present compromised by the constraints
on the public purse and the various national priorities in resource allocation.
78. The same applies to health services, particularly in the areas of mother-and-childcare,
reproductive health for indigenous women, child nutrition (including among the displaced
population) and cultural determinants of health among indigenous peoples. In this context, it is
worrying to note that the armed conflict has claimed the lives of large numbers of traditional
doctors from indigenous communities and that the violence has hampered communities’ ability
to collect traditional plants and products in the natural environment for use in health care in
accordance with indigenous cultural practice. The violence has also frightened off doctors and
health workers and affected vaccination campaigns.
79. The Embera Katio people of Alto Sinú informed the Special Rapporteur of their high
mortality rate - more than twice the national rate; what is more, their infant mortality rate
is 3.2 times the national rate. They are demanding better health care from the State and allege
that there is no effective protection for their cultural integrity.
80. Act No. 691 of 2001 guarantees indigenous people’s right to health services. To date,
according to the Government, more than half a million indigenous people are covered by the
subsidized health scheme, and President Uribe has indicated that by the end of his term of office
all indigenous people in the country will be covered. Seven health-service providers operate in
indigenous areas, but this is not enough and they alone cannot guarantee the realization of
indigenous peoples’ right to health.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
81. The precarious human rights situation of Colombia’s indigenous peoples reflects the
gap between progressive domestic legislation and the ineffectiveness of the institutions
responsible for protecting these peoples, against a background of internal armed conflict
involving numerous warring parties whose actions directly affect indigenous communities’
chances of survival.
82. The spread of narcotics cultivation and trafficking, and efforts to combat that
spread, notably by spraying fields from the air, have had an adverse effect on indigenous
peoples’ environment, economy, social life, health and culture.
83. Certain small indigenous communities in the Amazon region are especially
vulnerable, and indeed are in real danger of extinction as peoples.Annex 102
E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2
page 23
103. The relevant State bodies should apply, with immediate effect and without
exception, the precautionary measures established by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights for various indigenous peoples.
104. The Anti-Terrorist Statute should under no circumstances be invoked against any
indigenous people charged with an offence as a result of involvement in legitimate action to
resist, oppose or protest against violations committed against them by any armed group.
105. No indigenous people should be detained by the armed forces unless a warrant for
their arrest has been issued by a competent judicial authority. The duties of the military
and the judiciary should be kept strictly separate, including in conflict zones.
The environment and spraying
106. Except where expressly requested by an indigenous community which has been fully
apprised of the implications, no aerial spraying of illicit crops should take place near
indigenous settlements or sources of provisions.
Sustainable development and basic social services
107. The State should promote and extend the coverage of alternative sustainable
development projects, under development plans drawn up by the indigenous communities,
and to that end should request the fullest possible international cooperation.
108. No investment or infrastructure projects, harvesting or mining of natural resources
or new production projects should be encouraged without full and legitimate prior
consultation and the involvement of the indigenous peoples. An agreed approach to the
consultation process should be worked out.
109. As part of the plans for free education for all - which the State is under an
obligation to provide - the bilingual and intercultural education programme should be
reinforced in indigenous areas, and the role of private educational establishments should
always be limited to supplementing the work of the State.
110. The Government’s plans to provide health service coverage to the entire indigenous
population should embrace and protect traditional medicine and its practitioners within
the indigenous communities.
111. State entities working with indigenous populations should produce and make use of
statistics disaggregated by ethnic group, so that they can focus their work more effectively.
It is recommended that they should work out a suitable methodology in cooperation with
academic and research institutions.
B. Recommendations to the armed groups
112. The armed groups should refrain from recruiting minors, and those already
recruited should be returned to their families immediately and given appropriate care by
specialist State institutions. Annex 103
Commission of European Communities, 7KH▯,PSDFW▯$VVHVVPHQW▯RI▯WKH▯7KHPDWLF▯6WUDWHJ\▯RQ▯WKH▯
6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV, SEC(2006) 894 (12 July 2006) Annex 103
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 12.7.2006
SEC(2006) 894
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
Accompanying the
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of
pesticides
{COM(2006) 373 final}
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE THEMATIC STRATEGY ON THE
SUSTAINABLE USE OF PESTICIDES
EN ENAnnex 103
CEN/ISO
producer of spraying
equipment EU/Intern
e.g. standards
Minimum requirements
certificate for certification of new European
equipment
manual Commission
user
Member States
e.g.
test protocol Minimum requirements
for inspection of
sticker equipment in use
Regional authorities
control institution certificate
Figure 6-8: Information flow – testing of spraying equipment
6.1.3. General prohibition of aerial spraying
/HJDO▯VLWXDWLRQ▯
There is no harmonised European wide regulation with respect to aerial spraying and the present
situation in the Member States varies between a total ban (e.g. in Estonia) and no restriction at all
in Malta. In most Member States aerial spraying of pesticides is allowed but different restrictions
are in place. Aerial spraying can be performed with airplanes or with helicopters.
Table 6-9 gives an overview of the current situation in Member States based on the evaluation of
the answers received to the questionnaires and personal interviews with national experts.
,QYROYHG▯VWDNHKROGHUV▯
A change of the EU-policy related to the application of pesticides by aerial spraying will cause
effects in various fields and affect several groups either directly or indirectly. The most important
actors concerned are:
– $HULDO▯VSUD\LQJ▯VHUYLFH▯FRPSDQLHV▯ ▯
In most countries specialised service companies carry out aerial spraying of pesticides.
The companies provide for the relevant equipment (planes, helicopters), in most cases
trained and certificated pilots, as well as the specific know how.
– Users (farmers)
The user decides for his plants whether aerial spraying or ground spraying is the most
effective way to apply pesticides.
EN 97 EN Annex 103
– $HULDO▯VSUD\LQJ▯HTXLSPHQW▯SURGXFHUV
Producers of the necessary special equipment for the aerial spraying of pesticides
(helicopters, special sprayers) will also be concerned by any new measures.
– *URXQG▯VSUD\LQJ▯VHUYLFH▯FRPSDQLHV▯
In most cases ground spraying is done by the farmer or his employees. But sometimes
external service companies are involved.
– *URXQG▯VSUD\HU▯SURGXFHUV▯
Ground sprayer producers are also involved as a ban or severe reduction of aerial
spraying results in an increased need for ground sprayers.
– $XWKRULWLHV
Mainly local authorities are concerned.
– %\VWDQGHUV▯▯RSHUDWRUV▯▯KHDOWK▯HIIHFWV▯▯▯HQYLURQPHQW▯
With respect to health effects, the direct exposure of the operators during the application process
and the handling of pesticides are of special interest. The health of bystanders can be affected by
spray drift or direct contact with the pesticides (e.g. if a person stays in an area which is treated
with pesticides by plane or helicopter).
With regard to the environment, the effects on plants, soil and water as well as the unintended
treatment of non-target plants and wild life have to be taken into consideration.
EN 98 ENAnnex 103
UK z z z
EN
SK
SI
SE X X
PT z z z
X X X
PL
NL z z z
MT X
LV z z
X X
LU
uidelines) are detailed.
LT X z z z
IT X z z
X
IE X z z
z z X z z
HU
GR X X X z z
99
FR X z z X z z
FI X z z X z z
ES z z z
95 X X
EE
DK X z z X z
X z z X z z
DE
CZ X z z X z
CY X z z X z z
z z z z
BE
AT X X
Authdrsnsiiittisiiehstitttdrlitieorbest Source: questionnaires and interviews.
Table 6-9: Aerial spraying – current legal situation in MSiunsntryXan provide both 's5d 'Xsevere restrictXor eh kind, the most used ones (e.g. authorisation in a
EN Annex 103
0DWHULDO▯IORZV▯DQG▯NH\▯ILJXUHV▯
The following figures give an overview on the use of pesticides applied by aerial spraying in the
different Member States.
use of PPP for aerial spraying
~3,200 t active substance (AS)
? 0 t 1,000 500 500 100 170
MT BE PT
EE ES FR DE NL
IE LT
LU AT
SK LV
SI
PL SE
DK
IT
FI
use of PPP for aerial spraying
~ 3200
t active substance (AS)
250 20 22 500 100
CZ GR UK HU CY
96
Figure 6-10: Amount of PPP used for aerial spraying in the European Community
Taking into consideration – as far as available – the reported data from authorities / stakeholders
and additional data from Eurostat, a total amount of about 3,200 t (AS) is applied by aerial
spraying per year. The most important countries with respect to aerial application are Spain,
France, Germany and Hungary. Ten Member States reported that no aerial spraying takes place
either because it is banned or because there was no need for it. Regarding the plant-specific use,
arable crops are by far the most important application field with more than 62% (see Figure 6-11).
Application is relatively stable from year to year.
96 Source: Eurostat, ECPA, questionnaires, interviews.
EN 100 ENAnnex 103
use of PPP for aerial spraying
~ 3,2000
t active substance (AS)
5000 50 4000 2,0000 < 50 200
vineyards forests olive trees crop rice other
and citrus
trees
15.6% 1.6% 12.5% 62.5% 1.6 6.25
Figure 6-11: Fields of application for aerial spraying
Contrary to the treatment of arable crops or vineyards, the aerial application of pesticides for
forests is subject to considerable annual fluctuations as the treatment normally only takes place in
case of acute pest affection.
(FRQRPLF▯IORZV▯DQG▯NH\▯ILJXUHV▯
The economic situation of aerial spraying of pesticides is illustrated in the following table.
Table 6-12: Economic data aerial spraying – total figures
Total expenses for aerial spraying ~ € 60 million
Total number of companies involved ~ 120
Total number of aircrafts > 300
Total number of jobs directly ~ 800
correlated with aerial spraying
About 120 companies, more than 300 aircrafts and around 800 jobs are directly correlated with
the application of PPPs by the means of aircrafts. The total expenses for aerial spraying in the
European Community can be estimated to € 60 million per year (without the costs of pesticides).
The importance of aerial spraying with respect to various crops is shown in the following table.
Table 6-13: Economic data aerial spraying –rop specific estimation
vineyards olive, Rice Other
citrus crops
Total expenses for aerial 10 7 1 38
spraying (M€)
Monetary value of the crop 20,000 11,000 800 136,000
in EU (M€)
% aerial / monetary value 0.05 0.06 0.1 0.03
EN 101 EN Annex 103
,QIRUPDWLRQ▯IORZV▯DQG▯NH\▯ILJXUHV▯
Figure 6-14 illustrates the potential relations with respect to the information flow between the
involved stakeholders.
European Commission
suppliers of pesticide
application equipment producers
Member States
nfomaatonio
nfomaatonio exchange
exchange applcaton,,
announcemeentt Local Authorities
service companies for users
(control authorities)
authorisation,
restrictions applcaton,,
announcemeentt
Users
nfomaaton,, nfomaaton,, inormaton,,
waaning waaning warnngn
Public
Figure 6-14: Information flow – aerial spraying (source: questionnaires, interviews)
To what extent the above shown relations are put into practice depends on the legal requirements
in the countries. In some countries the user/service company has to apply for an authorisation in
advance which normally defines a higher administrative effort than only an announcement in
advance (application announcement). Also the post-application communication between service
companies and relevant authorities is regulated differently. For example in France the service
company has to report to the authorities within 5 days after aerial treatment.
There are also differences between the Member States as far as the information or warning of the
public is concerned. In some countries the local authorities are responsible for warning of the
public, in other countries the user/service company has the obligation to warn the public in
advance with adequate means e.g. with posted signs.
The information flow between equipment suppliers and pesticides producers is of informal
character and serves mainly as an information exchange to improve the effectiveness of pesticides
and equipment.
6.1.4. Enhanced protection of the aquatic environment
/HJDO▯VLWXDWLRQ▯
The feedback from the different countries on the VWDWXV▯TXR concerning the size of the area which
is relevant for surface water and ground water protection within the individual Member States was
relatively inhomogeneous and shows different situations:
– In Cyprus special areas for the protection of surface water are established around
existing dams for the collection of water and cover approximately 3000 ha;
EN 102 ENAnnex 103 Annex 104
Commission of European Communities, $▯7KHPDWLF▯6WUDWHJ\▯RQ▯WKH▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV▯▯
7HFKQLFDO▯$QQH[, SEC(2006) 895 Final (12 July 2006) Annex 104
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 12.7.2006
SEC(2006) 895
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
A Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
TECHNICAL ANNEX
{COM(2006) 372 final}
EN ENAnnex 104
2. M EASURES CONSTITUTING THE THEMATIC S TRATEGY
The Communication from the Commission on the Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use
of Pesticidesprovides for the general framework, the necessary background information and
the content of the Strategy.
Thematic Strategies are new tools, which follow a holistic concept in addressing a specific
topic. A lot of emphasis has therefore been put on integration of the measures of the Strategy
in existing policies and legislation. Only when integration into other instruments or policies is
not possible, new legislation – in particular a Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides – or other appropriate instruments are proposed.
In accordance with this concept, this Technical Annex will describe in more detail, following
the outline given in the Communication, the measures that will be part of the Thematic
Strategy – either proposed as part of a new instrument or integrated into existing instruments
– and those measures that were evaluated, but are eventually not proposed as part of the
Thematic Strategy.
As for the new instruments, the Communication is accompanied by a proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and the Council (hereinafter referred to as the draft Directive)
setting out a framework of legal requirements to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides. In
parallel, the Commission proposes a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and the
Council with regard to the collection of statistical information on sales and use of plant
protection products. Obviously, measures that are best integrated into existing instruments
have to respect the timetables and procedures for adoption foreseen in these instruments.
2.1. New measures that cannot be integrated into existing instruments
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ (VWDEOLVKPHQW▯ RI▯ 1DWLRQDO▯ 3ODQV▯ WR▯ UHGXFH▯ KD]DUGV▯▯ ULVNV▯ DQG▯ GHSHQGHQFH▯ RQ▯
FKHPLFDO▯FRQWURO▯IRU▯SODQW▯SURWHFWLRQ▯▯1DWLRQDO▯$FWLRQ▯3ODQV▯▯▯1$3V▯▯▯
The setting up and implementation of national action plans in the Member States will be a
cornerstone of the Thematic Strategy. Experience in several Member States has shown that
such national action plans have been highly successful to achieve a more sustainable use of
pesticides.
In the draft Directive, Member States will be obliged to set up NAPs that will set individual
objectives to reduce hazards, risks and dependence on chemical control for plant protection,
and group together all objectives to be achieved under Community legislation related to
pesticides (including the Framework Directive). In setting up their NAPs, Member States
have to pay attention to good co-ordination and integration avoiding overlaps with the river
basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive, the management plans under
the Habitats Directive, and national/regional rural development plans. Member States will
have two years to establish their plans and start implementing the required measures.
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ ,QYROYHPHQW▯RI▯VWDNHKROGHUV▯▯
In the spirit of what is foreseen in Directive 2003/35/EC providing for public participation in
respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment,
5 COM(2006) 372.
6 OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17
EN 4 EN Annex 104
involving all stakeholders is essential for the success of the Thematic Strategy. Therefore,
when setting up, implementing, and revising their NAPs, Member States should ensure
appropriate participation of all relevant stakeholders. Member States should ensure sufficient
co-operation with other relevant stakeholder groups such as those established under the Water
Framework Directive for the river basin management plans, those established under the
Habitats Directive for the Natura 2000 management plans, and those for the elaboration of
rural development plans.
The draft Directive contains provisions that Member States shall ensure that the core
provisions on participation foreseen in Directive 2003/35/EC are also applied in the
development of the NAPs. The detailed arrangements for public participation and the level at
which this will be organised should be determined by the Member States so as to give the
public early and effective opportunities to participate in the process.
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ &UHDWLRQ▯RI▯D▯V\VWHP▯RI▯DZDUHQHVV▯UDLVLQJ▯DQG▯WUDLQLQJ▯RI▯DOO▯SURIHVVLRQDO▯XVHUV▯DQG▯
GLVWULEXWRUV▯RI▯SHVWLFLGHV▯
In order to ensure that those who use pesticides (in particular professional users) are fully
aware of the risks linked to this use, Member States will have to set up systems of training
and official recognition of training attendance (via certificates) for professional users and
distributors. The programme of the training shall include inter alia notions on legislation,
risks from pesticide use, safe practices for storing, handling and disposing of pesticides and
their packaging, notions on Integrated Pest Management and low-pesticide input cultivation
techniques, maintenance of application equipment. Moreover, the general public should be
better informed through awareness raising campaigns, information passed on through
retailers/distributors, and other appropriate measures.
In the draft Directive, Member States are obliged to ensure that all professional distributors
and users of pesticides have access to appropriate training. Distributors selling pesticides
classified as toxic or very toxic shall have at least one person in their employment who has
attended a whole training session and who has to be present and available at the place of sales
to provide information to customers regarding pesticide use. Distributors selling pesticides to
non-professional users will have to provide general information regarding the risks on
pesticide use. The organisational aspects (like the training institutions/organisms involved,
certification of training bodies, financing aspects, licensing bodies, training frequency, etc.)
remain at the discretion of the Member States.
7
Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 already offers some possibilities for providing financial
incentives for the training of farmers and agricultural workers (in particular in Article 20).
Member States will report on the measures they have set up and the Commission, in co-
operation with the Thematic Strategy Expert Group (see Chapter 2.1.11), will develop
guidelines for training and education of farmers, professional users and distributors, taking
into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community, which would
address:
– a minimal list of elements to be included in the training courses, like legislation,
toxicology, ecotoxicology, low-pesticide pest-control systems, non-chemical alternatives,
7 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 17 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).
EN 5 ENAnnex 104
comparative assessment, environmental management, pest forecasting, good practice
integrating IPM concepts, compliance with measures adopted in the context of the Water
Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, etc.;
– the minimal compulsory training frequency - possibly as a function of the category of
users;
– special training and licensing requirements for users entitled to apply more hazardous
pesticides;
– guidelines for mandatory training and certification / licensing of distributors / retailers;
– duration of validity and required qualification for certificates/licences delivered to the
distributors and professional users;
– legal obligations that those certificates / licences shall imply for the stakeholders
concerned: for instance, any intentional misuse or misinformation would lead
automatically to the withdrawal of certificates/licences;
– obligation for distributors / retailers of informing non-professional users and alternative
information campaigns for the non-professional users.
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯&RPSXOVRU\▯LQVSHFWLRQ▯RI▯DSSOLFDWLRQ▯HTXLSPHQW▯
Well designed and maintained application equipment is key to reduce adverse impacts of
pesticides on human health (in particular the operators) and the environment, and to guarantee
the most efficient and economic use by ensuring compliance of the actual quantities applied
with the authorised dosages. Following the examples already set in some Member States, the
draft Directive requires Member States to set up regular control and maintenance verifications
of application equipment in use. This would thus also apply to equipment already in use in
those Member States where an equivalent measure was not implemented before. The legal
obligations should establish:
– the objectives of the control (regular and reproducible spraying pattern, identification of
unsuitable apparatus, etc.) and the conditions of validity of the certificate delivered by the
control body;
– the listing of essential requirements which have to be fulfilled, for instance by adhering to
existing or newly developed CEN standards for the control methodologies.
Essential environmental protection requirements for the placing on the market of new
pesticide application equipment should be ensured as well. A legislative proposal to this end
should be adopted at the latest by 2008, possibly within the framework of Directive
2006/42/EC on Machinery. For new equipment or parts thereof, e.g. nozzles, specific
standards should be developed in support of those requirements. This would allow requiring
use of such material as a risk mitigation method in certain vulnerable situations (e.g.
particular nozzle-types which decrease spray-drift for the protection of surface water).
The organisational aspects (like public or private inspection systems, quality control of
inspection bodies involved, financing, fees to be paid by owners, etc.) will remain at the
discretion of the Member States, who will have to report to the Commission. Through co-
operation between the Member States and stakeholders in the Thematic Strategy Expert
Group, guidance and best practices should be developed. Possibilities to support farmers
EN 6 EN Annex 104
under Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 in order to upgrade or replace their spraying equipment
could be examined, where necessary.
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ 3URKLELWLRQ▯RI▯DHULDO▯VSUD\LQJ▯
Aerial spraying of pesticides has the potential of causing significant adverse impacts on
human health and the environment, in particular from spray drift. Therefore, it should only be
used by way of derogation where it represents clear advantages and also environmental
benefits compared to other spraying methods, or where there are no viable alternatives.
The draft Directive therefore requires Member States to ban aerial spraying, allowing
derogation for crops and areas where aerial spraying can have advantages or environmental /
health benefits (e.g. treatment of larger surfaces in shorter time which allows quicker response
to pest forecasting and weather conditions, less refilling / washing and tank residues, reduced
operator exposure, etc.) or where there are no viable alternatives (e.g. on specific crops such
as rice, forests, etc.). Member States will have to report on these derogations, which will be
discussed in the Thematic Strategy Expert Group in order to define guidelines and criteria.
Among the conditions for derogation, the following seem indispensable:
x pilots have to be well trained and certified / licensed for pesticide spraying;
x the equipment used has to be specifically designed, certified, and maintained;
x modern technologies (model calculations, specific nozzles, reduced boom width,
etc.) need to be fully exploited to further reduce risks;
x detailed log-books about substances used and use conditions have to be
maintained.
▯▯▯▯▯▯▯ (QKDQFHG▯SURWHFWLRQ▯RI▯WKH▯DTXDWLF▯HQYLURQPHQW▯
Specific measures to protect surface and groundwater are required to reduce the risks from
pesticides to the aquatic environment. A number of pesticides are identified as priority
hazardous substances or hazardous substances in the Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC) and therefore specific measures will be taken with regard to them. Overall,
coherence between the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Directives 91/414/EEC
and 98/8/EC needs to be strengthened in order to better enforce risk mitigation measures
concerning the aquatic environment decided within the product authorisation by adequate
provisions in the WFD.
The draft Directive will require Member States to establish pollution reduction programmes
addressing pesticides in the framework of the River Basin Management Plans, which must
include, among others, measures such as mandatory buffer strips or the use of particular
technical equipment reducing spray drift. Strongly reduced or zero use of pesticides shall be
ensured by Member States in the specific safeguard zones according to Article 7(3) of
Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive). Member States will also have to ensure
that application of pesticides is reduced as far as possible on or along infrastructure close to
water bodies (like railway lines or roads), on sealed surfaces with high risk of run-off into
surface water or sewage systems, or on very permeable surfaces.
EN 7 ENAnnex 104 Annex 105
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Joint Meeting of the
Chemicals Committee and The Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, 5HSRUW▯
RI▯WKH▯2(&'▯3HVWLFLGH▯5LVN▯5HGXFWLRQ▯6WHHULQJ▯*URXS▯▯7KH▯6HFRQG▯5LVN▯5HGXFWLRQ▯6XUYH\,
ENV/JM/MONO (2006)14 (19 July 2006) Annex 105
Unclassified ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 19-Jul-2006
___________________________________________________________________________________________
English - Or. English
ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE
UnEclaVsJied/MONO(2006)14G OF THE CHEMICALS COMMITTEE AND
THE WORKING PARTY ON CHEMICALS, PESTICIDES AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
OECD SERIES ON PESTICIDES
Number 30
Report of the OECD Pesticide Risk Reduction Steering Group: The Second Risk Reduction Survey
English - Or. English
JT03212123
Complete document available on OLIS in its original formatgineAnnex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
Report of the OECD Pesticide
Risk Reduction Steering Group
The Second Risk Reduction Survey
11 April 2006
2 Annex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
PART C - MISCELLANEOUS AND OPTIONAL QUESTIONS
59. During the development of the survey questionnaire in early 2004 with the participation of
member countries, it was agreed to include a section on miscellaneous and/or specific questions that some
countries wanted to ask other countries. The following sections summarise the results based on the
eighteen responses.
a) Is aerial spraying authorised? If so, under what conditions?
60. Eleven respondents (Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Netherlands, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, UK) indicated that aerial spraying is authorised in their
countries, but subject to special provisions (only for products registered for aerial spraying; with special
authorisation; only by licensed operators; according to exposure limits or spray drift guidelines).
61. Three respondents (Ireland, Norway, Sweden) indicated that aerial spraying is not permitted in
their countries, but in rare cases, derogations are possible. In Slovenia, it is not allowed.
b) How are the problems of private/amateur use being addressed?
62. Five countries (Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Switzerland) indicated that home and
garden use products are subject to the same risk assessment framework as agricultural pesticides, but
generally only low toxicity pesticides with packaging size restriction are allowed. Japan and New Zealand
added that guidance on pesticide use for private/amateur users has been established and distributed through
local governments and retailers, but more work is still needed. Canada and the UK have legal registration
regimes for such use, but stress the importance of education, communications and advice/guidance.
63. Six countries (Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, UK) indicated that only a
few substances and certain products with low toxicity or diluted and ready-to–use products are authorised
for amateur use, and are listed in a certain category for such use, sold only in small packages, labelled for
home and garden use, and in Norway with a high environmental tax. Hungary reported problems with low
user awareness and knowledge on proper handling.
64. Ireland responded that no problems with amateur use have been encountered.
c) How is the effectiveness of communication and information provision ensured?
65. Eleven countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Hungary, Ireland, New Zealand,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) responded to this question, and all of them indicated that changes in
legislation including those related to authorisations are documented in official gazettes and directly
communicated to stakeholders. Such information is also disseminated through web-sites, extension
services, state/prefecture/local governments and farmers’ cooperatives/associations, seminars and
workshops.
66. Japan and New Zealand indicated that no evidence or evaluation of the effectiveness of present
communication methods exists, while Ireland indicated that effectiveness needs to be improved. Canada
has carried out public surveys to assess the impact and success of communications and information
25Annex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
SWEDEN
Part A: Evaluation of Pesticide Risk Reduction Efforts since 1994/5
1. Introduction of the policy framework/context for pesticide risk reduction
National risk reduction programmes on pesticides have been in force since 1987 in Sweden. Up to
now, three stages covering 5 years each have been completed and a new 5 year long programme has
recently been proposed to the Government. Responsible agencies are the Swedish Board of Agriculture and
the National Chemicals Inspectorate. The programmes have been performed in consultation with the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the National Food Administration and the Swedish Work
Environment Authority.
Targets and results
Period Targets Results
(compared to the base period 1981-85)
1987-1990 Target: 50 % use reduction 49 % use reduction achieved.
1991-1996 Target: 75 % use reduction 64 % use reduction achieved.
1997-2001 No use target, but further reduction in Based on environmental and human health
risks expressed by indicators risk indicators the reduction was 63% and
77% respectively (year 2000).
2002-2006 No use target, but further reduction in Mid-term results at www.kemi.se
risks expressed by new indicators
In the first two stages of the Swedish risk reduction programme on agricultural pesticides, the
following measures where included:
x▯ changeover to pesticides and authorisation provisions which implies less risks,
x▯ safer handling of pesticides, improvement of regulation, training and information activities,
x▯ reduced use of pesticides.
The latter was expressed in each stage; as to reduce by half the quantity of active substances used over
the period covered, 1986-1990 and 1991-1996 respectively. Accordingly, the two-fold halving added up in
a goal of 75 percent reduction in 1996 compared with the average use during 1981-85. However, this goal
was not possible to achieve. In 1996 the reduction in sold quantities was 64 percent.
Risk indicators
The national Pesticide Risk Indicators (PRI) used during the period 1997-2001 has been refined to
better reflect risk trends.
100 Annex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
Old PRI New PRI
Based on (for each active substance): Based on (for each active substance):
x▯ sold quantity x▯ the theoretically maximum number of
x▯ current hazard classification (including hectare doses
also persistence, bioaccumulation and x▯ current hazard classification (including
mobility properties) also persistence, bioaccumulation and
mobility properties)
x▯ exposure related factors such as
formulation type, application method
and treatment frequency
Two types of indicators; one related to Two types of indicators; one related to
environmental risks and one to human health environmental risks and one to human health
risks. risks.
Has been in use since 1997 Will replace the old PRI from 2003 and
onwards.
Methodology and annual results of the new PRI can be found at www.kemi.se.
Another indicator to be used at farm level has also been developed. The aim is to use a more realistic
approach by defining local exposure conditions. Another important aspect is that by using these tools,
farmers can check their own progress in relation to risk reduction. On a long term, the intention is to
aggregate results from the farm level so it also can be used to express risk trends at the national level.
No economic analyses have so far been conducted for any of the measures in the programme.
2. Modifications, new policies, strategies, goals or targets introduced since the first survey in 1994/5
In the third stage of the programme, no quantitative goal targeting on further use reductions was
proposed. Instead, risk indicators were used to follow up progress. These indicators have recently been
refined to measure progress of the ongoing fourth stage of the programme, see section above.
The programme objective has been to reduce pesticide risk resulting from professional use in
agriculture and horticulture. Forestry, home garden, industrial and amenity uses have not been included in
the programme.
3. Major risk reduction achievements over the last 10 years
a) Examples of key elements
Pesticide regulation
x▯ Extensive review of all existing pesticides between 1990 and 1994.
101Annex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
x▯ The use of comparative assessments, the precautionary principle and decision-making criteria to 2
facilitate prompt and easy authorisation procedures. About 80 out of 180 existing active substances
were removed from the market during the national review period.
x▯ Phase-out activities on certain unacceptable pesticides considered to be indispensable.
x▯ A new regulation on the handling of pesticides came into force in 1997.
Additional instruments and activities
x▯ Mandatory training. A four-day long training course is required for all farmers using pesticides
professionally.
x▯ Advisory service focusing on integrated and need-based crop protection. Examples of areas
covered are:
R▯ pest forecasting and warning services
R▯ demonstration trials (for example on unsprayed edge zones) and field courses
R▯ information on possibilities to reduce the dose rates.
x▯ Research and development on need based crop protection, organic farming, spraying techniques
etc.
x▯ Programme for voluntary testing of spraying equipment.
x▯ Voluntary information campaign “Safe Pesticide Use” launched by the Federation of Swedish
Farmers in a jointly collaboration with the Crop Protection Industry, the Board of Agriculture, the
Chemicals Inspectorate, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
x▯ Monitoring programmes on pesticide residues in food and water.
x▯ Environmental levy (30 SEK per kg active substance).
b) Experiences reached
Important factors that have contributed to the success of the Swedish risk reduction programme on
pesticides are;
x▯ Integration of and balance between mandatory and voluntary elements,
x▯ A variety of additional activities performed at different levels (local to national) and driven by
different stakeholders (farmers, authorities, research institutions),
x▯ Full support on the programme from the Federation of Swedish Farmers (80 % of the farmers are
members of FSF),
x▯ A close and encouraging contact between authorities under the Ministry of Agriculture and the
Ministry of Environment. The mission to develop the programme was given as a shared task to the
Swedish Board of Agriculture and the National Chemicals Inspectorate.
2
Andersson L et al. (1992), “Principles for Identifying Unacceptable Pesticides”, The Swedish National Chemicals
Inspectorate, KEMI Report No 4/92.
102 Annex 105
ENV/JM/MONO(2006)14
4. Least successful strategies which faced difficulties
Circumstances interfering with the programme objectives
x▯ A high dependency on pesticides still remains in food production.
x▯ The fully harmonised EU legislation on pesticides (Directive 91/414/EEC) is setting barriers for
individual member state programmes aiming at a reduction in chemical dependency by regulatory
means.
x▯ It is not possible to involve all farmers. Some farmers are not open for information on risk
reduction possibilities and they are not prepared to change their manner.
Part B: The Next Ten Years
5. Future Work
The ongoing fourth stage of the programme
The overall aim with the proposed fourth stage of the programme (2002-2006) is to continue the
successful activities already implemented. More focus will be given to a number of selected use areas,
which require particular attention. Several of these concern the contamination of surface water and
groundwater.
x▯ Mixing, loading and cleaning of the spraying equipment.
x▯ Spraying in vulnerable areas.
x▯ Weed control in sandy soils and in row sown crops.
x▯ Late autumn and early spring (spring crop) applications.
More attention will also be given to pesticide risks in the horticultural sector compared to the earlier
stages.
x▯ Frequent applications in strawberries, apples and potatoes.
x▯ Air blast spraying technique in fruit orchards.
x▯ Direct or indirect exposure to (re-entry) workers from treated plants in glasshouse production.
Grower associations are prepared to take a more active part in the programme, for instance by
defining a national standard for Good Plant Protection Practice. A programme for mandatory testing of
spraying equipment will also be proposed.
Part C: Optional
6. Miscellaneous/specific questions some countries/organizations wanted to ask other countries in the
questionnaire
Aerial spraying
Aerial spraying is generally forbidden but derogations are possible. Two derogations have been
granted for plant protection purposes (application in forests) during the latest 20 years.
103Annex 105 Annex 106
European Commission, (8▯3ROLF\▯IRU▯D▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV▯▯7KH▯6WRU\▯
%HKLQG▯WKH▯6WUDWHJ\ (2007) Annex 106
EU Policy for a sustainable use of pesticides
The story behind the Strategy
European CommissionAnnex 106
Photos credits :
Cover page : From left to right EC DG COMM Photodisc; background: Digital Vision
page 8 : EC DG COMM
page 14 : EC DG COMM
page 19 : Photodisc
page 21 : Luciano Fella
page 22 : Digital Vision
page 23 : EC DG RTD
page 24 : Photodisc
page 25 : EC DG COMM
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
New freephone number:
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow
access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://ec.europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007
ISBN 92-79-03221-6
© European Communities, 2007
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
PrintedinBelgium
Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU eco-label for graphic paper
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel) Annex 106
1. INTRODUCTION
European environment policy has evolved impactsontheenvironment,whichoftencutacross
significantly since the 1970s. It has given the EU these themes. They examine the links between
cleaner air and water and a better understanding environmental impacts and sectoral policies. They
of our dependence on a healthy environment. look at a broad range of options and a varied policy
It is one of the policy areas most supported by mix,includingtheuseofmarket-basedinstruments,
EU citizens, who recognise that environmental technology and innovation to deal with the
problems go beyond national and regional borders problems identified in a strategic and effective
and can only be resolved through concerted action manner. They take a longer-term perspective,
at EU and international level. From an initial focus setting the framework for Community and Member
on single pollutants and impacts it has moved State action for the next two decades, i.e. they
into an integration phase, with the emphasis on propose strategic objectives and explore short- and
understanding and addressing the pressures on the medium-term measures where appropriate, thus
environment and examining the effects of different helping to meet the EU’s global commitments.
policies and behaviour patterns.
Eachstrategytakestheformofapackagecomprised
Seven thematic strategies were adopted by the of:
Commissionin2005and2006.Theyaddressvarious
environmental areas and form part of this new N an overall approach towards the thematic
issue, presented in a Communication that
approach to environmental policy-making. They
are based on a deep review of existing policy, and highlights issues and proposes solutions,
required several years of scientific and economic
N legislative proposals (for some of the
analysis together with extensive consultation. strategies),
They exemplify the better regulation approach
of the Commission and will make an important
N an impact assessment.
contribution to sustainable development and
the agenda set in Lisbon to make EU the most Each strategy is the result of a thorough
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based development process. There is first a preliminary
communication – a kind of Green Paper – that
economy in the world.
sets out issues and possible approaches to dealing
Moreover, the strategies are key mechanisms with them. These documents are then subject to
for delivering the objectives set out in the Sixth extensive consultation in expert working groups, in
Environmental Action Programme (6th EAP)1
the impact assessment process and on the internet.
adopted by the Council and Parliament for the A broad range of stakeholders are consulted:
period 2002-2012. The strategies are specified in Member States, academics, business and trade
the 6th EAP and fall under its four main priorities:
associations, individual companies, NGOs and
climate change, biodiversity, health and resource other representatives of civil society. This process
use. The seven strategies cover: culminates in policy proposals that are knowledge-
N Air quality based and practical.
The thematic strategy on the sustainable use of
N The marine environment pesticides (“the Strategy”) was adopted by the
European Commission on 12 July 2006 . Its roots
N The sustainable use of resources th
are in the 6 EAP (see page 8). It is accompanied
N Waste prevention and recycling by a detailed impact assessment and a legislative
proposaltocreateanoverallcoherentandconsistent
N The sustainable use of pesticides 4
policy framework for pesticide use .
N Soil quality Thepurposeofthissummarybrochureistodescribe
the process leading to the adoption of this Strategy
N The urban environment
and to summarise its content.
The thematic strategies provide broad analyses
of issues by theme. They look at pressures and
(1) Decision 1600/2002/EC laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme; OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1
(2) COM(2006) 372 final
(3) SEC(2006) 894 final
(4) COM(2006) 373 finalAnnex 106
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGY
3.1. Historical background the Communication, although institutions and
some stakeholders did differ on the details, e.g.
Since 1992, in co-operation with the Dutch on whether a measure should be implemented
authorities, the European Commission has been
conducting a project on the sustainable use of at Community level or Member State level, or
whether it should be legally binding or voluntary.
plant protection products. The first phase ended in The most controversial issues were aerial spraying,
June 1994 with a workshop called “Framework for
the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products quantitative use reduction targets, and taxation.
in the European Union”, where recommendations 3.2.2. ConsultationontheImpactAssessment
were made for further studies. These studies were
completed and discussed at a workshop held in As required under the Better Regulation initiative,
the Commission was then invited to assess the
Brussels from 12 - 14 May 1998.
economic, social and environmental impacts of
the future Strategy proposal. To that end, an Inter-
3.2. Consultation process Service Group (ISG) was set up in order to receive
AbroadapproachwaschosentodefinetheStrategy, feedback from other Directorates-General of the
involving all stakeholders in a fully transparent two-mmission on the measures proposed.
stage process (see Figure 3).
A study was carried out by an independent
consultant, BiPRO GmbH. As required by the
3.2.1. Consultation on the preliminary
communication Commission’s methodology, BiPRO developed a
‘Policy Option Paper’, outlining several options for
The first step was the presentation of a potentialmeasures,beforeestimatingtheirimpacts
Communication, which was submitted for public on the current legal situation in the Member
consultation. States. For each of the measures proposed in the
draft Directive, three to five options, ranging from
On the basis of preliminary studies, the
Communication 20 recounted the shortcomings voluntary to highly prescriptive, were examined
with regard to their economic, social, health and
of the current situation with regard to the use- environmental impacts on the various stakeholders
phase in the life-cycle of plant protection products.
It provided extensive background information and authorities. A “no-option scenario” was used
as the reference against which to appraise the
on the benefits and risks of using pesticides, and anticipated costs and benefits of the measures
presented a list of essential points to be addressed.
It envisaged the kind of measures which could be proposed. BiPRO delivered a report which was
based on a survey of competent authorities and
taken to address the use-phase more specifically stakeholders. It contained recommendations on
and to reverse negative trends. However, it did not which stakeholders were invited to comment . 23
go as far as prioritising such measures.
Numerous conferences were organised by various
The Commission consulted the general public stakeholders on specific issues (e.g. comparative
and all stakeholders and institutions on this assessment/substitution, application equipment,
Communication, including the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic IPM/ICM concepts, and others). The Commission
itself organised meetings on issues such as aerial
and Social Committee. It received more than spraying. In addition, the Commission launched
150 contributions from various stakeholders . In
addition, on 4 November 2002 the Commission an open Internet consultation from March to May
2005, which gave rise to almost 1 800 responses .
organised a conference with more than 190
participants representing all stakeholder groups . The Commission used the report of the external
consultant and the contributions of stakeholders to
Overall, there was a lot of support from all
develop the proposal for the Thematic Strategy on
stakeholders for most of the measures listed in the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.
(20) ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the sustainable Use of Pesticides’ COM(2002) 349 final
(21) Opinions submitted available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/1st_step_consul.htm
(22) Conference documents and proceedings available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/1st_step_conf.htm
(23) Reactions to consultant’s study available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/2nd_step_react.htm
(24) Results available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/stats_consult.pdf Annex 107
Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to the HighestAttainable Standard of Health,
Closing Remarks to the Press, Quito, Ecuador (18 May 2007)Annex 107Annex 107Annex 107Annex 107 Annex 108
8QLWHG▯1DWLRQV▯2I¿FH▯RQ▯'UXJV▯DQG▯&ULPH▯▯&RFD▯&XOWLYDWLRQ▯LQ▯WKH▯$QGHDQ▯5HJLRQ▯▯$▯6XUYH\▯RI▯
%ROLYLD▯▯&RORPELD▯▯(FXDGRU▯DQG▯3HUX (June 2007) Annex 108
Gof Bolivia of Colombia of Ecuador Gof Perunt
COCA CULTIVATION IN THE ANDEAN REGION
A survey of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru
June 2007Annex 108
UNODC's Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) promotes the development and
maintenance of a global network of illicit crop monitoring systems in the context of the illicit crop
elimination objective set by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs. It
provides overall coordination and direct technical support and supervision to UNODC supported
annual illicit crop surveys at the country level.
This reports presents the results of the annual coca cultivation surveys in Bolivia, Colombia, and
Peru, which were conducted jointly by UNODC (ICMP) and the respective Governments with a
regional perspective.
The implementation of UNODC's Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme in the Andean region was
made possible thanks to financial contributions from the Governments of Austria, Colombia,
France, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and from the
European Commission.
This report and other ICMP survey reports can be downloaded from:
www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crop_monitoring.html
The boundaries, names and designations used in all maps in this document do not imply official
endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
This document has not been formally edited. Annex 108
Regional Overview
Map 1: Coca cultivation density in the Andean Region, 2006
80°W 70°W 60°W
Colombia
Caribbean Sea Peru
10°N Bolivia 10°N
Catatumbo
N A M A
PA
South America
Norte de VENEZUELA
Antioquia
Atrato
GUYANA
COLOMBIA
Meta
^ Vichada
Magdalena
Guaviare
Meta -
Guaviare
Nariño
Putumayo -
0° Caqueta 0°
Caqueta
ECUADOR tay o
Amazonas
BRAZIL
Marañon
Ucayali
Alto
Huallaga
Huallaga
10°S Purus 10°S
PERU
Ene
Urubamba
La Convencion
Lima ^ Apurimac and Lares Madre de Dios Mamore
Guapare
Ene
Pacific
Apurimac Beni
Ocean
Yungas
Titicaca
Lake
^ Chapare
La Paz
BOLIVIA
Cultivation density
(ha/km )2
20°S 0.1 - 1.0 20°S
1.1 - 4.0
> 4.0 Pilcomayo
PARAGUAY
International 0 250 500
boundaries km
Geographic coordinates WGS CHILE
Department
boundaries
ARGENTINA
80°W 70°W 60°W
Sources: National monitoring systems supported by UNODC - Governments of Bolivia, Colombia and Perú
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations
2Annex 108 Annex 109
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 'LUHFWLYH▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯▯(&▯▯(VWDEOLVKLQJ▯
D▯)UDPHZRUN▯IRU▯&RPPXQLW\▯$FWLRQ▯WR▯$FKLHYH▯WKH▯6XVWDLQDEOH▯8VH▯RI▯3HVWLFLGHV (21 Oct. 2009) Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/71
DIRECTIVES
DIRECTIVE 2009/128/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 21 October 2009
establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE other related Community legislation, in particular
EUROPEAN UNION, 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 6
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( ),
Community, and in particular Article 175(1) thereof, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framewor7 for Community action in the field of water
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, policy ( ), Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on
maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and
feed of plant and animal origin ( ) and Regulation (EC)
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and
1 No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Social Committee ( ), Council of 21 October 2009 on the placing of plant
protection products on the market ( 9). These measures
should also not prejudice voluntary measures in the
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the context of Regulations for Structural Funds or of
Regions ( ), Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of
20 September 2005 on support for rural development
by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Devel ä
opment (EAFRD) ( ).10
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 251 of the Treaty ( ),
Whereas:
(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 approä
(1) In line with Articles 2 and 7 of Decision No priate level should therefore be encouraged while
1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the
stressing that individual Member States can decide on
Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth their use without prejudice to the applicability of the
Community Environment Action Programme ( 4), a State aid rules.
common legal framework for achieving a sustainable
use of pesticides should be established, taking account
of precautionary and preventive approaches.
(5) National Action Plans aimed at setting quantitative
(2) At present, this Directive should apply to pesticides objectives, targets, measures, timetables and indicators
which are plant protection products. However, it is to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human
anticipated that the scope of this Directive will be health and the environment and at encouraging the
extended to cover biocidal products. development and introduction of integrated pest
management and of alternative approaches or techniques
in order to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides
(3) The measures provided for in this Directive should be should be used by Member States in order to facilitate
complementary to, and not affect, measures laid down in the implementation of this Directive. Member States
should monitor the use of plant protection products
() OJ C 161, 13.7.2007, p. 48. containing active substances of particular concern and
( ) OJ C 146, 30.6.2007, p. 48.
( ) Opinion of the European Parliament of 23 October 2007 (OJ C 263 (5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
E, 16.10.2008, p. 158), Council Common Position of 19 May 2008 ( ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(OJ C 254 E, 7.10.2008, p. 1) and Position of the European ( ) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Parliament of 13 January 2009 (not yet published in the Official ( ) OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1.
Journal). Council Decision of 24 September 2009. ( ) See page 1 of this Official Journal.
() OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1. (10) OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1.Annex 109
EN
L 309/72 Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
establish timetables and targets for the reduction of their (11) Research programmes aimed at determining the impacts
use, in particular when it is an appropriate means to of pesticide use on human health and the environment,
achieve risk reduction targets. National Action Plans including studies on high-risk groups, should be
should be coordinated with implementation plans promoted at European and national level.
under other relevant Community legislation and could
be used for grouping together objectives to be achieved
under other Community legislation related to pesticides.
(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
(6) The exchange of information on the objectives and arising from exposure of workers to such products, as
actions Member States lay down in their National well as general and specific preventive measures to
Action Plans is a very important element for achieving reduce those risks, those measures are covered by
the objectives of this Directive. Therefore, it is approä
Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the
priate to request Member States to report regularly to protection of the health and safety of workers from the
the Commission and to the other Member States, in risks related to chemical agents at work (2) and Directive
particular on the implementation and results of their 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the
National Action Plans and on their experiences. On the Council of 29 April 2004 on the protection of
basis of information transmitted by the Member States, workers from the risks related to their exposure to
the Commission should submit relevant reports to the 3
carcinogens or mutagens at work ( ).
European Parliament and to the Council, accompanied, if
necessary, by appropriate legislative proposals.
(13) Since Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery ( ) will
(7) For the preparation and modification of National Action provide for rules on the placing on the market of
Plans, it is appropriate to provide for the application of
pesticide application equipment ensuring that environä
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of mental requirements are met, it is appropriate, in order
the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public particiä to minimise the adverse impacts of pesticides on human
pation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and health and the environment caused by such equipment,
programmes relating to the environment ( ).1 to provide for systems for regular technical inspection of
pesticide application equipment already in use. Member
States should describe in their National Action Plans how
they will ensure the implementation of those
(8) It is essential that Member States set up systems of both requirements.
initial and additional training for distributors, advisors
and professional users of pesticides and certification
systems to record such training so that those who use
or will use pesticides are fully aware of the potential risks (14) Aerial spraying of pesticides has the potential to cause
to human health and the environment and of the appro ä
significant adverse impacts on human health and the
priate measures to reduce those risks as much as environment, in particular from spray drift. Therefore,
possible. Training activities for professional users may aerial spraying should generally be prohibited with dero ä
be coordinated with those organised in the framework gations possible where it represents clear advantages in
of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. 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
(9) Sales of pesticides, including Internet sales, are an drift is used.
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
(15) The aquatic environment is especially sensitive to
non-professional users who in general do not have the pesticides. It is therefore necessary for particular
same level of education and training, recommendations attention to be paid to avoiding pollution of surface
should be given, in particular on safe handling and water and groundwater by taking appropriate measures,
storage of pesticides as well as on disposal of the such as the establishment of buffer and safeguard zones
packaging. 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 and pesticide
(10) Considering the possible risks from the use of pesticides, properties, as well as agricultural characteristics of the
the general public should be better informed of the areas concerned. Use of pesticides in areas for the
overall impacts of the use of pesticides through abstraction of drinking water, on or along transport
awareness-raising campaigns, information passed on
through retailers and other appropriate measures.
() OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.
( ) OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 50.
(1) OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 17. () OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 24. Annex 109
EN
24.11.2009 Official Journal of the European Union L 309/73
routes, such as railway lines, or on sealed or very (20) It is necessary to measure the progress achieved in the
permeable surfaces can lead to higher risks of pollution reduction of risks and adverse impacts from pesticide use
of the aquatic environment. In such areas the pesticide for human health and the environment. Appropriate
use should, therefore, be reduced as far as possible, or means are harmonised risk indicators that will be estabä
eliminated, if appropriate. lished at Community level. Member States should use
those indicators for risk management at national level
and for reporting purposes, while the Commission
(16) Use of pesticides can be particularly dangerous in very should calculate indicators to evaluate progress at
Community level. Statistical data collected in accordance
sensitive areas, such as Natura 2000 sites protected in with the Community legislation concerning statistics on
accordance with Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. plant protection products should be used. Member States
In other places such as public parks and gardens, sports should be entitled to use, in addition to harmonised
and recreation grounds, school grounds and children’s common indicators, their national indicators.
playgrounds, and in the close 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 (21) Member States should determine penalties applicable to
management measures should be established and low- infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to
risk pesticides as well as biological control measures this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. The
should be considered in the first place. penalties should be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive.
(17) Handling of pesticides, including storage, diluting and
mixing the pesticides and cleaning of pesticide appliä (22) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to protect
cation equipment after use, and recovery and disposal human health and the environment from possible risks
of tank mixtures, empty packaging and remnants of associated with the use of pesticides, cannot be
pesticides are particularly prone to unwanted exposure
of humans and the environment. Therefore, it is approä sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can
priate to provide for specific measures addressing those therefore be better achieved at Community level, the
Community may adopt measures, in accordance with
activities as a complement to the measures provided for the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of
under Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of propor ä
and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste ( ), and tionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
hazardous waste ( 2). Measures should also encompass go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that
non-professional users, since inappropriate handling is objective.
very likely to occur in this group of users due to their
lack of knowledge.
(23) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and
observes the principles recognised notably by the
(18) The application of general principles and crop and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
sector-specific guidelines with respect to integrated pest In particular, this Directive seeks to promote the inteä
management by all farmers would result in a better gration into Community policies of a high level of enviä
targeted use of all available pest control measures, ronmental protection in accordance with the principle of
sustainable development as laid down in Article 37 of
including pesticides. Therefore, it would contribute to a that Charter.
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 (24) The measures necessary for the implementation of this
Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council
and measures for its implementation. Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the
procedures for the exercise of i3plementing powers
conferred on the Commission ( ).
(19) On the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and of
this Directive, implementation of the principles of inteä
grated pest management is obligatory and the subsidiarity
principle applies to the way the principles for integrated (25) In particular, the Commission should be empowered to
establish and update the Annexes to this Directive. Since
pest management are implemented. Member States
should describe in their National Action Plan how they those measures are of general scope and are designed to
ensure the implementation of the principles of integrated amend non-essential elements of this Directive, inter alia,
pest management, with priority given wherever possible by supplementing it with new non-essential elements,
to non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory
and crop management. procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of
Decision 1999/468/EC.
() OJ L 114, 27.4.2006, p. 9.
( ) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20. (3) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.Annex 109
L 309/74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
(26) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional 3. ‘advisor’ means any person who has acquired adequate
agreement on better law-making ( ), Member States are knowledge and advises on pest management and the safe
encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the use of pesticides, in the context of a professional capacity
interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, or commercial service, including private self-employed and
as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive public advisory services, commercial agents, food producers
and the transposition measures, and to make them and retailers where applicable;
public,
4. ‘pesticide application equipment’ means any apparatus
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: specifically intended for the application of pesticides,
including accessories that are essential for the effective
operation of such equipment, such as nozzles, manometers,
CHAPTER I filters, strainers and cleaning devices for tanks;
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1 5. ‘aerial spraying’ means application of pesticides from an
aircraft (plane or helicopter);
Subject matter
This Directive establishes a framework to achieve a sustainable
use of pesticides by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide 6. ‘integrated pest management’ means careful consideration
use on human health and the environment and promoting the of all available plant protection methods and subsequent
use of integrated pest management and of alternative
integration of appropriate measures that discourage the
approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to development of populations of harmful organisms and
pesticides. keep the use of plant protection products and other
forms of intervention to levels that are economically and
ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to
human health and the environment. ‘Integrated pest
Article 2
management’ emphasises the growth of a healthy crop
Scope with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and
1. This Directive shall apply to pesticides that are plant encourages natural pest control mechanisms;
protection products as defined in point 10(a) of Article 3.
7. ‘risk indicator’ means the result of a method of calculation
that is used to evaluate risks of pesticides on human health
2. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to any other and/or the environment;
relevant Community legislation.
8. ‘non-chemical methods’ means alternative methods to
3. The provisions of this Directive shall not prevent Member
States from applying the precautionary principle in restricting or chemical pesticides for plant protection and pest
prohibiting the use of pesticides in specific circumstances or management, based on agronomic techniques such as
areas. those referred to in point 1 of Annex III, or physical,
mechanical or biological pest control methods;
Article 3 9. the terms ‘surface water’ and ‘groundwater’ have the same
Definitions meaning as in Directive 2000/60/EC;
For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall
apply:
10. ‘pesticide’ means:
1. ‘professional user’ means any person who uses pesticides in
the course of their professional activities, including (a) a plant protection product as defined in Regulation (EC)
operators, technicians, employers and self-employed No 1107/2009;
people, both in the farming and other sectors;
(b) a biocidal product as defined in Directive 98/8/EC of
2. ‘distributor’ means any natural or legal person who makes a the European Parliament and of the Council of
pesticide available on the market, including wholesalers, 16 February 1998 concerning the placing on the
retailers, vendors and suppliers; market of biocidal products (2).
(1) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1. Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/75
Article 4 National Action Plans shall be reviewed at least every five years
and any substantial changes to National Action Plans shall be
National Action Plans reported to the Commission without undue delay.
1. Member States shall adopt National Action Plans to set up
their quantitative objectives, targets, measures and timetables to
reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and
the environment and to encourage the development and introä 3. By 14 December 2014, the Commission shall submit to
duction of integrated pest management and of alternative the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the
information communicated by the Member States in relation to
approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on
the use of pesticides. These targets may cover different areas the National Action Plans. The report shall contain methods
of concern, for example worker protection, protection of the used and the implications concerning the establishment of
environment, residues, use of specific techniques or use in different types of targets to reduce the risks and use of
specific crops. pesticides.
The National Action Plans shall also include indicators to By 14 December 2018, the Commission shall submit to the
monitor the use of plant protection products containing European Parliament and to the Council a report on the
active substances of particular concern, especially if alternatives experience gained by Member States on the implementation
are available. Member States shall give particular attention to the of national targets established in accordance with paragraph 1
in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive. It may be
plant protection products containing active substances approved accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate legislative proposals.
in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July
1991 concerning the placing of plant products on the
market (1) which, when subject to renewal of approval under
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 will not fulfil the criteria
relevant for approval laid down in Annex II, points 3.6 to 4. The Commission shall make information communicated
3.8 of that Regulation. in accordance with paragraph 2 available to the public on a
website.
On the basis of such indicators and taking into account where
applicable the risk or use reduction targets achieved already 5. The provisions on public participation laid down in
Article 2 of Directive 2003/35/EC shall apply to the preparation
prior to the application of this Directive, timetables and and the modification of the National Action Plans.
targets for the reduction of use shall also be established, in
particular if the reduction of use constitutes an appropriate
means to achieve risk reduction with regard to priority items
identified under Article 15(2)(c). These targets may be interä
mediate or final. Member States shall use all necessary means CHAPTER II
designed to achieve these targets. TRAINING, SALES OF PESTICIDES, INFORMATION AND
AWARENESS-RAISING
Article 5
When drawing up and revising their National Action Plans, Training
Member States shall take account of the health, social,
economic and environmental impacts of the measures 1. Member States shall ensure that all professional users,
distributors and advisors have access to appropriate training
envisaged, of specific national, regional and local conditions by bodies designated by the competent authorities. This shall
and all relevant stakeholder groups. Member States shall consist of both initial and additional training to acquire and
describe in their National Action Plans how they will
implement measures pursuant to Articles 5 to 15 in order to update knowledge as appropriate.
achieve the objectives referred to in the first subparagraph of
this paragraph.
The training shall be designed to ensure that such users,
distributors and advisors acquire sufficient knowledge
regarding the subjects listed in Annex I, taking account of
The National Action Plans shall take into account plans under
other Community legislation on the use of pesticides, such as their different roles and responsibilities.
planned measures under Directive 2000/60/EC.
2. By 14 December 2013, Member States shall establish
certification systems and designate the competent authorities
2. By 14 December 2012, Member States shall communicate responsible for their implementation. These certificates shall,
their National Action Plans to the Commission and to other
as a minimum, provide evidence of sufficient knowledge of
Member States. the subjects listed in Annex I acquired by professional users,
distributors and advisors either by undergoing training or by
() OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. other means.Annex 109
L 309/76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
Certification systems shall include requirements and procedures organisms and the environment arising from their use, and
for the granting, renewal and withdrawal of certificates. the use of non-chemical alternatives.
2. Member States shall put in place systems for gathering
3. Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of information on pesticide acute poisoning incidents, as well as
this Directive relating to amending Annex I in order to take chronic poisoning developments where available, among groups
account of scientific and technical progress shall be adopted in that may be exposed regularly to pesticides such as operators,
accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred
to in Article 21(2). agricultural workers or persons living close to pesticide appliä
cation areas.
3. To enhance the comparability of information, the
Article 6
Requirements for sales of pesticides Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, shall
develop by 14 December 2012 a strategic guidance document
1. Member States shall ensure that distributors have sufficient on monitoring and surveying of impacts of pesticide use on
staff in their employment holding a certificate referred to in human health and the environment.
Article 5(2). Such persons shall be available at the time of
sale to provide adequate information to customers as regards
pesticide use, health and environmental risks and safety CHAPTER III
instructions to manage those risks for the products in
question. Micro distributors selling only products for non- PESTICIDE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
professional use may be exempted if they do not offer for Article 8
sale pesticide formulations classified as toxic, very toxic, carciä
Inspection of equipment in use
nogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction pursuant to
Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the 1. Member States shall ensure that pesticide application
Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the equipment in professional use shall be subject to inspections
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member at regular intervals. The interval between inspections shall not
States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of exceed five years until 2020 and shall not exceed three years
dangerous preparations ( ).
thereafter.
2. By 14 December 2016, Member States shall ensure that
2. Member States shall take necessary measures to restrict pesticide application equipment has been inspected at least
sales of pesticides authorised for professional use to persons
holding a certificate referred to in Article 5(2). once. After this date only pesticide application equipment
having successfully passed inspection shall be in professional
use.
3. Member States shall require distributors selling pesticides
to non-professional users to provide general information
New equipment shall be inspected at least once within a period
regarding the risks for human health and the environment of of five years after purchase.
pesticide use, in particular on hazards, exposure, proper storage,
handling, application and safe disposal in accordance with
Community legislation on waste, as well as regarding low-risk 3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 and,
alternatives. Member States may require pesticide producers to
provide such information. following a risk assessment for human health and the
environment including an assessment of the scale of the use
of the equipment, Member States may:
4. The measures provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be
established by 14 December 2015. (a) apply different timetables and inspection intervals to
pesticide application equipment not used for spraying
pesticides, to handheld pesticide application equipment or
knapsack sprayers and to additional pesticide application
Article 7 equipment that represent a very low scale of use, which
shall be listed in the National Action Plans provided for
Information and awareness-raising in Article 4.
1. Member States shall take measures to inform the general
public and to promote and facilitate information and awareness-
raising programmes and the availability of accurate and The following additional pesticide application equipment
balanced information relating to pesticides for the general shall never be considered as constituting a very low scale
public, in particular regarding the risks and the potential of use:
acute and chronic effects for human health, non-target
(1) OJ L 200, 30.7.1999, p. 1. (i) spraying equipment mounted on trains or aircraft; Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/77
(ii) boom sprayers larger than 3 m, including boom CHAPTER IV
sprayers that are mounted on sowing equipment;
SPECIFIC PRACTICES AND USES
Article 9
(b) exempt from inspection handheld pesticide application Aerial spraying
equipment or knapsack sprayers. In this case the Member 1. Member States shall ensure that aerial spraying is
States shall ensure that operators have been informed of the prohibited.
need to change regularly the accessories, of 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. 2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1 aerial spraying
may only be allowed in special cases provided the following
conditions are met:
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 (a) there must be no viable alternatives, or there must be clear
health and the environment. advantages in terms of reduced impacts on human health
and the environment as compared with land-based appliä
cation of pesticides;
Pesticide application equipment complying with harmonised
standards developed in accordance with Article 20(1) shall be (b) the pesticides used must be explicitly approved for aerial
presumed to comply with the essential health and safety and spraying by the Member State following a specific
environmental requirements. assessment addressing risks from aerial spraying;
5. Professional users shall conduct regular calibrations and (c) the operator carrying out the aerial spraying must hold a
technical checks of the pesticide application equipment in certificate as referred to in Article 5(2). During the transiä
accordance with the appropriate training received as provided tional period where certification systems are not yet in
for in Article 5. place, Member States may accept other evidence of sufficient
knowledge;
6. Member States shall designate bodies responsible for
implementing the inspection systems and inform the (d) the enterprise responsible for providing aerial spray appliä
cations shall be certified by a competent authority for authä
Commission thereof. orising equipment and aircraft for aerial application of
pesticides;
Each Member State shall establish certificate systems designed to
allow the verification of inspections and recognise the (e) if the area to be sprayed is in close proximity to areas open
certificates granted in other Member States following the to the public, specific risk management measures to ensure
requirements referred to in paragraph 4 and where the time that there are no adverse effects on the health of bystanders
period since the last inspection carried out in another shall be included in the approval. The area to be sprayed
Member State is equal to or shorter than the time period of shall not be in close proximity to residential areas;
the inspection interval applicable in its own territory.
(f) as from 2013, the aircraft shall be equipped with accessories
Member States shall endeavour to recognise the certificates that constitute the best available technology to reduce spray
issued in other Member States provided that the inspection drift.
intervals referred to in paragraph 1 are complied with.
3. Member States shall designate the authorities competent
for establishing the specific conditions by which aerial spraying
7. Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of may be carried out, for examining requests pursuant to
this Directive relating to amending Annex II in order to take paragraph 4 and for making public information on crops,
account of scientific and technical progress shall be adopted in areas, circumstances and particular requirements for application
accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred including weather conditions where aerial spraying may be
to in Article 21(2). allowed.Annex 109
L 309/78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
In the approval the competent authorities shall specify the shall support and be compatible with relevant provisions of
measures necessary for warning residents and bystanders in Directive 2000/60/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.
due time and to protect the environment in the vicinity of
the area sprayed.
2. The measures provided in paragraph 1 shall include:
4. A professional user wishing to apply pesticides by aerial
spraying shall submit a request for approval of an application (a) giving preference to pesticides that are not classified as
plan to the competent authority accompanied by evidence to
show that the conditions referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are dangerous for the aquatic environment pursuant to
fulfilled. The request for application of aerial spraying in Directive 1999/45/EC nor containing priority hazardous
accordance with the approved application plan shall be substances as set out in Article 16(3) of Directive
submitted in due time to the competent authority. It shall 2000/60/EC;
contain information about the provisional time of spraying
and the amounts and the type of pesticides applied.
(b) giving preference to the most efficient application techä
niques such as the use of low-drift pesticide application
equipment especially in vertical crops such as hops and
Member States may provide that requests for applications of
aerial spraying in accordance with an approved application those found in orchards and vineyards;
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.
(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
In particular circumstances such as emergency or specific organisms and safeguard zones for surface and groundwater
difficult situations, single requests for application of aerial used for the abstraction of drinking water, where pesticides
spraying may also be submitted for approval. Where justified, must not be used or stored;
competent authorities shall have a possibility to apply an accelä
erated procedure in order to verify that the conditions referred
to in paragraphs 2 and 3 are fulfilled before the application of
aerial spraying.
(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
5. Member States shall ensure that the conditions referred to or sewage systems.
in paragraphs 2 and 3 are met by conducting appropriate
monitoring.
Article 12
6. The competent authorities shall keep records of the Reduction of pesticide use or risks in specific areas
requests and approvals as referred to in paragraph 4 and shall
make available to the public the relevant information contained Member States shall, having due regard for the necessary
hygiene and public health requirements and biodiversity, or
therein such as the area to be sprayed, the provisional day and the results of relevant risk assessments, ensure that the use of
time of the spraying and the type of pesticide, in accordance pesticides is minimised or prohibited in certain specific areas.
with the applicable national or Community law. Appropriate risk management measures shall be taken and the
use of low-risk plant protection products as defined in Reguä
lation (EC) No 1107/2009 and biological control measures shall
Article 10 be considered in the first place. The specific areas in question
are:
Information to the public
Member States may include in their National Action Plans
provisions on informing persons who could be exposed to (a) areas used by the general public or by vulnerable groups as
the spray drift. defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, such
as public parks and gardens, sports and recreation grounds,
school grounds and children’s playgrounds and in the close
Article 11 vicinity of healthcare facilities;
Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment and
drinking water
(b) protected areas as defined in Directive 2000/60/EC or other
1. Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures to areas identified for the purposes of establishing the
protect the aquatic environment and drinking water supplies necessary conservation measures in accordance with the
from the impact of pesticides are adopted. Those measures provisions of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC; Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/79
(c) recently treated areas used by or accessible to agricultural 2. Member States shall establish or support the establishment
workers. of necessary conditions for the implementation of integrated
pest management. In particular, they shall ensure that profesä
sional users have at their disposal information and tools for pest
monitoring and decision making, as well as advisory services on
Article 13 integrated pest management.
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
3. By 30 June 2013, Member States shall report to the
where applicable by distributors do not endanger human health Commission on the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2
or the environment: and, in particular, whether the necessary conditions for impleä
mentation of integrated pest management are in place.
(a) storage, handling, dilution and mixing of pesticides before
application;
4. Member States shall describe in their National Action
Plans how they ensure that the general principles of integrated
(b) handling of packaging and remnants of pesticides; pest management as set out in Annex III are implemented by all
professional users by 1 January 2014.
(c) disposal of tank mixtures remaining after application;
Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this
Directive relating to amending Annex III in order to take
(d) cleaning of the equipment used after application; account of scientific and technical progress shall be adopted
in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny
referred to in Article 21(2).
(e) recovery or disposal of pesticide remnants and their
packaging in accordance with Community legislation on
waste.
5. Member States shall establish appropriate incentives to
encourage professional users to implement crop or sector-
2. Member States shall take all necessary measures regarding
pesticides authorised for non-professional users to avoid specific guidelines for integrated pest management on a
voluntary basis. Public authorities and/or organisations repreä
dangerous handling operations. These measures may include senting particular professional users may draw up such
use of pesticides of low toxicity, ready to use formulations guidelines. Member States shall refer to those guidelines that
and limits on sizes of containers or packaging. they consider relevant and appropriate in their National
Action Plans.
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. CHAPTER V
INDICATORS, REPORTING AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE
Article 15
Article 14 Indicators
Integrated pest management
1. Harmonised risk indicators as referred to in Annex IV
1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to shall be established. However, Member States may continue to
promote low pesticide-input pest management, giving
use existing national indicators or adopt other appropriate
wherever possible priority to non-chemical methods, so that indicators in addition to the harmonised ones.
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 inteä
grated pest management as well as organic farming according to Measures designed to amend non-essential elements of this
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on
1 Directive relating to amending Annex IV in order to take
organic production and labelling of organic products ( ). account of scientific and technical progress shall be adopted
in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny
() OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1. referred to in Article 21(2).Annex 109
L 309/80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
2. Member States shall: this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure
that they are implemented. The penalties provided for shall be
effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
(a) calculate harmonised risk indicators as referred to in
paragraph 1 by using statistical data collected in accordance
with the Community legislation concerning statistics on
plant protection products together with other relevant data;
Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission
by 14 December 2012 and shall notify it without delay of any
subsequent amendment.
(b) identify trends in the use of certain active substances;
(c) identify priority items, such as active substances, crops,
regions or practices, that require particular attention or Article 18
good practices that can be used as examples in order to
achieve the objectives of this Directive to reduce the risks Exchange of information and best practice
The Commission shall put forward as a priority for discussion
and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the
environment and to encourage the development and introä in the expert group on the thematic strategy on the sustainable
duction of integrated pest management and of alternative use of pesticides the exchange of information and best practice
approaches or techniques in order to reduce dependency on in the field of sustainable use of pesticides and integrated pest
the use of pesticides. management.
3. Member States shall communicate the results of the
evaluations carried out pursuant to paragraph 2 to the
Commission and to other Member States and shall make this Article 19
information available to the public. Fees and charges
1. Member States may recover the costs associated with any
work pursuant to obligations under this Directive by means of a
4. The Commission shall calculate risk indicators at fee or charge.
Community level by using statistical data collected in
accordance with the Community legislation concerning statistics
on plant protection products and other relevant data, in order
to estimate trends in risks from pesticide use.
2. Member States shall ensure that the fee or charge referred
to in paragraph 1 is established in a transparent manner and
corresponds to the actual cost of the work involved.
The Commission shall also use these data and this information
to assess progress in achieving the objectives of other
Community policies aimed at reducing the impact of pesticides
on human health and on the environment.
Article 20
The results shall be made available to the public on the website Standardisation
referred to in Article 4(4). 1. The standards referred to in Article 8(4) of this Directive
shall be established in accordance with the procedure provided
for in Article 6(3) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European
Article 16 Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down
a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
Reporting technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information
The Commission shall regularly submit to the European Society services ().
Parliament and to the Council a report on progress in the
implementation of this Directive, accompanied where approä
priate by proposals for amendments.
The request for developing these standards may be established
in consultation with the Committee referred to in Article 21(1).
CHAPTER VI
FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 17
2. The Commission shall publish the references of the
Penalties
standards in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Member States shall determine penalties applicable to
infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to () OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/81
3. When a Member State or the Commission considers that a (b) the performance of studies necessary for the preparation
harmonised standard does not entirely satisfy the requirements and development of legislation, including the adaptation
which it covers and which are set out in Annex II, the of the Annexes to this Directive to technical progress;
Commission or the Member State concerned shall bring the
matter before the Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive (c) the development of guidance and best practices to facilitate
98/34/EC, giving its arguments. The Committee shall, having the implementation of this Directive.
consulted the relevant European standardisation bodies, deliver
its opinion without delay.
Article 23
Transposition
In the light of the Committee’s opinion, the Commission shall
decide to publish, not to publish, to publish with restriction, to 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations
maintain, to maintain with restriction or to withdraw the and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
references to the harmonised standard concerned in or from
the Official Journal of the European Union. Directive by 14 December 2011.
The Commission shall inform the European standardisation When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a
reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a
body concerned and, if necessary, request the revision of the reference on the occasion of their official publication. The
harmonised standards concerned.
method of making such reference shall be laid down by
Article 21 Member States.
Committee procedure 2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Standing the field covered by this Directive.
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health established
by Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down Article 24
the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing
the European Food Safety Authority and laying down Entry into force
procedures in matters of food safety ( ).
This Directive shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a(1)
to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, Article 25
having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
Addressees
Article 22
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Expenditure
In order to support the establishment of a harmonised policy
and systems in the field of sustainable use of pesticides, the Done at Strasbourg, 21 October 2009.
Commission may finance:
(a) the development of a harmonised system including an
appropriate database to gather and store all information For the European Parliament For the Council
relating to pesticide risk indicators, and to make such The President The President
information available to the competent authorities, other
interested parties and the general public; J. BUZEK C. MALMSTRÖM
() OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.Annex 109
L 309/82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
ANNEX I
Training subjects referred to in Article 5
1. All relevant legislation regarding pesticides and their use.
2. The existence and risks of illegal (counterfeit) plant protection products, and the methods to identify such products.
3. The hazards and risks associated with pesticides, and how to identify and control them, in particular:
(a) risks to humans (operators, residents, bystanders, people entering treated areas and those handling or eating
treated items) and how factors such as smoking exacerbate these risks;
(b) symptoms of pesticide poisoning and first aid measures;
(c) risks to non-target plants, beneficial insects, wildlife, biodiversity and the environment in general.
4. Notions on integrated pest management strategies and techniques, integrated crop management strategies and techä
niques, organic farming principles, biological pest control methods, information on the general principles and crop or
sector-specific guidelines for integrated pest management.
5. Initiation to comparative assessment at user level to help professional users make the most appropriate choices on
pesticides with the least side effects on human health, non-target organisms and the environment among all authä
orised products for a given pest problem, in a given situation.
6. Measures to minimise risks to humans, non-target organisms and the environment: safe working practices for storing,
handling and mixing pesticides, and disposing of empty packaging, other contaminated materials and surplus
pesticides (including tank mixes), whether in concentrate or dilute form; recommended way to control operator
exposure (personal protection equipment).
7. Risk-based approaches which take into account the local water extraction variables such as climate, soil and crop
types, and relieves.
8. Procedures for preparing pesticide application equipment for work, including its calibration, and for its operation
with minimum risks to the user, other humans, non-target animal and plant species, biodiversity and the
environment, including water resources.
9. Use of pesticide application equipment and its maintenance, and specific spraying techniques (e.g. low-volume
spraying and low-drift nozzles), as well as the objectives of the technical check of sprayers in use and ways to
improve spray quality. Specific risks linked to use of handheld pesticide application equipment or knapsack sprayers
and the relevant risk management measures.
10. Emergency action to protect human health, the environment including water resources in case of accidental spillage
and contamination and extreme weather events that would result in pesticide leaching risks.
11. Special care in protection areas established under Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2000/60/EC.
12. Health monitoring and access facilities to report on any incidents or suspected incidents.
13. Record keeping of any use of pesticides, in accordance with the relevant legislation. Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/83
ANNEX II
Health and safety and environmental requirements relating to the inspection of pesticide application equipment
The inspection of pesticide application equipment shall cover all aspects important to achieve a high level of safety and
protection of human health and the environment. Full effectiveness of the application operation should be ensured by
proper performance of devices and functions of the equipment to guarantee the following objectives are met.
The pesticide application equipment must function reliably and be used properly for its intended purpose ensuring that
pesticides can be accurately dosed and distributed. The equipment must be in such a condition as to be filled and emptied
safely, easily and completely and prevent leakage of pesticides. It must permit easy and thorough cleaning. It must also
ensure safe operations, and be controlled and capable of being immediately stopped from the operator’s seat. Where
necessary, adjustments must be simple, accurate and capable of being reproduced.
Particular attention should be paid to:
1. Power transmission parts
The power take-off driveshaft guard and the guard of the power input connection shall be fitted and in good
condition and the protective devices and any moving or rotating power transmission parts shall not be affected in
their function so as to ensure protection of the operator.
2. Pump
The pump capacity shall be suited to the needs of the equipment and the pump must function properly in order to
ensure a stable and reliable application rate. There shall be no leakages from the pump.
3. Agitation
Agitation devices must ensure a proper recirculation in order to achieve an even concentration of the whole volume
of the liquid spray mixture in the tank.
4. Spray liquid tank
Spray tanks including indicator of tank content, filling devices, strainers and filters, emptying and rinsing systems,
and mixing devices shall operate in such a way as to minimise accidental spillage, uneven concentration distribution,
operator exposure and residual content.
5. Measuring systems, control and regulation systems
All devices for measuring, switching on and off and adjusting pressure and/or flow rate shall be properly calibrated
and work correctly and there shall be no leakages. Control of pressure and operation of pressure adjustment devices
shall be easily possible during application. Pressure adjustment devices shall maintain a constant working pressure at
constant revolutions of the pump, in order to ensure that a stable volume application rate is applied.
6. Pipes and hoses
Pipes and hoses shall be in proper condition to avoid disturbance of liquid flow or accidental spillage in case of
failure. There shall be no leakages from pipes or hoses when run with the maximum obtainable pressure for the
system.
7. Filtering
In order to avoid turbulence and heterogeneity in spray patterns, filters shall be in good condition and the mesh size
of the filters shall correspond to the size of nozzles fitted on the sprayer. Where applicable the filter blockage
indication system shall operate correctly.
8. Spray boom (for equipment spraying pesticides by means of a horizontally positioned boom, located close to the
crop or the material to be treated).
The spray boom must be in good condition and stable in all directions. The fixation and adjustment systems and the
devices for damping unintended movements and slope compensation must work correctly.
9. Nozzles
Nozzles must work properly to control dripping when spraying stops. To ensure homogeneity of the spray pattern,
the flow rate of each individual nozzle shall not deviate significantly from the data of the flow rate tables provided by
the manufacturer.Annex 109
L 309/84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
10. Distribution
The transverse and vertical (in case of applications in vertical crops) distribution of the spray mixture in the target
area must be even, where relevant.
11. Blower (for equipment distributing pesticides by air assistance)
The blower must be in good condition and must ensure a stable and reliable air stream. Annex 109
24.11.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 309/85
ANNEX III
General principles of integrated pest management
1. The prevention and/or suppression of harmful organisms should be achieved or supported among other options
especially by:
— crop rotation,
— use of adequate cultivation techniques (e.g. stale seedbed technique, sowing dates and densities, under-sowing,
conservation tillage, pruning and direct sowing),
— use, where appropriate, of resistant/tolerant cultivars and standard/certified seed and planting material,
— use of balanced fertilisation, liming and irrigation/drainage practices,
— preventing the spreading of harmful organisms by hygiene measures (e.g. by regular cleansing of machinery and
equipment),
— protection and enhancement of important beneficial organisms, e.g. by adequate plant protection measures or the
utilisation of ecological infrastructures inside and outside production sites.
2. Harmful organisms must be monitored by adequate methods and tools, where available. Such adequate tools should
include observations in the field as well as scientifically sound warning, forecasting and early diagnosis systems, where
feasible, as well as the use of advice from professionally qualified advisors.
3. Based on the results of the monitoring the professional user has to decide whether and when to apply plant protection
measures. Robust and scientifically sound threshold values are essential components for decision making. For harmful
organisms threshold levels defined for the region, specific areas, crops and particular climatic conditions must be taken
into account before treatments, where feasible.
4. Sustainable biological, physical and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical methods if they
provide satisfactory pest control.
5. The pesticides applied shall be as specific as possible for the target and shall have the least side effects on human
health, non-target organisms and the environment.
6. The professional user should keep the use of pesticides and other forms of intervention to levels that are necessary, e.g.
by reduced doses, reduced application frequency or partial applications, considering that the level of risk in vegetation
is acceptable and they do not increase the risk for development of resistance in populations of harmful organisms.
7. Where the risk of resistance against a plant protection measure is known and where the level of harmful organisms
requires repeated application of pesticides to the crops, available anti-resistance strategies should be applied to
maintain the effectiveness of the products. This may include the use of multiple pesticides with different modes of
action.
8. Based on the records on the use of pesticides and on the monitoring of harmful organisms the professional user
should check the success of the applied plant protection measures.Annex 109
L 309/86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.2009
ANNEX IV
Harmonised risk indicators Annex 110
8QLWHG▯1DWLRQV▯2I¿FH▯RQ▯'UXJV▯DQG▯&ULPH▯▯:RUOG▯'UXJ▯5HSRUW▯▯▯▯▯ (2010) Annex 110
WORLD
DRUG REPORT
2010Annex 110
2.3 Coca/cocaine
2.3.1 Production Coca cultivation in the Plurinational State of Bolivia in
2009 remained by and large at the 2008 level with only
a slight increase of 1% to €0,900 ha. The increase too‚
Cultivation
place in both large growing regions, the–ungas of Ža Pa’
The global area under coca cultivation decreased by 5% and Chapare.
from 167,600 ha in 2008 to 158,800 ha in 2009, mainly
Œradication reports from Œcuador indicated the e”ist-
due to a significant decrease in Colombia, which was ence of small-scale coca cultivation. ‹owever, surveys
not offset by increases in Peru and the Plurinational
State of Bolivia. This is about the same level of cultiva- implemented by —…˜™C in cooperation with the
šovernment of Œcuador in 2006 and 2008 confirmed
tion as during the period 200€ to 2006. Colombia that the level of coca cultivation was insignificant.
remained the country with the largest area under coca
cultivation but the distance to the second largest, Peru,
has shrun‚ due to two consecutive years of decreases in Fig. 132: Global coca bush cultivation (ha),
1995-2009
Colombia and increases in Peru over the same period.
production of coca leaf and cocaine, 1995-2009’f coca bush and
ƒn Colombia, the area under coca cultivation decreased
for a third year to 68,000 ha, a 16% decrease over 2008. 225,000
„ost of the reduction too‚ place in the departments of
Putumayo, …ari†o and ‡ntioˆu‰a. 200,000
ƒn 2009, coca cultivation in Peru increased by 7% from 175,000
150,000
2008 and reached 59,900 ha. Peru remained the second
largest coca cultivating country, after Colombia. This is 125,000
the countryŠs third consecutive increase in three years.
Hectares00
The cultivation level is 55% or 21,200 ha more than in 75,000
1999, when coca cultivation was at its lowest level in the
last two decades at €8,700 ha. The area under cultiva- 50,000
tion in the three main growing regions ‡lto ‹uallaga,
25,000
‡pur‰mac-Œne and Ža Convenci‘n-Žares, where large 0
parts are already covered with coca plantations, increased
only slightly. „ost of the increase in absolute and per- 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
centage terms too‚ place in smaller growing regions such Colombia Peru Bolivia
as ‡guayt‰a, ƒnambari-Tambopata and Palca’“-Pichis-
Pachitea, which have seen a considerable e”pansion of 1 The surveys covered provinces in the north of Œcuador bordering
the area under coca cultivation since 200•. Colombia.
161 Annex 111
Guillermo Fernández-Soto, /D▯,OXVLyQ▯3RVLEOH▯▯8Q▯7HVWLPRQLR▯6REUH▯/D▯3ROtWLFD▯([WHULRU▯
&RORPELDQD (Grupo Editorial Norma, 2004) Annex 111
Guillermo Fernández de Soto
THE POSSIBLE ILLUSION
TESTIMONY ON COLOMBIAN FOREIGN POLICY
[PAGE 99]
DIPLOMACY FOR PEACE
…For this reason, once discussions with the United States of America we had made progress
with dealings with the U.S.A., we convened a Support Group for the Peace Process in Colombia
thanks to the generosity of the Spanish Government -with the visible leadership of its President,
Jose Maria Aznar- and, the International Development Bank (IDB), entity which offered us the
office of Technical Secretary in this Process, with the active participation of its President,
Enrique Iglesias, and its representative for Colombia, Carlo Binetti, two sincere friends or our
country who fundamentally lent their support at the convening of the meeting, and at the
different sessions of the Table of Contributors. In addition, I must highlight the continued
cooperation provided by Enrique Garcia, President of the Andean Development Corporation
(CAF).
Also of great significance resulting from this process was the designation at the National
Government's request of Jan Egeland, as United Nations special advisor for International
Cooperation in Colombia, after the presentation on philosophy and strategy of the Colombia Plan
which we were able to carry out in September of 1999 at the United Nations -and, in particular,
before Kofi Annan.- His constant support both in the preparatory work as well as in the Support
Group sessions regarding the Colombia peace process were of transcendental importance to
mobilize solidarity from within the international community. I should also add the extraordinary
nature of this delegation on the part of the Secretary General of the United Nations in response to
the Colombian Government's request, and the immediate acceptance which this high ranking
official garnered at the table of negotiations after the guerrilla’s initial hesitation.
London: Table of Donors Preparatory Meeting 8
A preparatory meeting was held in London on June 19, 2000 with the countries in the
Support Group involving the Peace Process promising their commitment to attend the
Contributors' Table which would be held in Madrid on July 7, of that same
[PAGE 100]
year. This meeting was attended by delegates of the different countries in Europe, Canada,
Japan, and the United States of America. Moreover, delegates from the International
Development Bank were present, as well as representatives of a group of European non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) which were invited at the suggestion of their respective
countries to receive first-hand information concerning the true scope of the peace process, and
8
It was precisely in London where the support for the strategies contemplated in the Colombia Plan began to take
shape especially among the European countriesAnnex 111
the Colombian Plan which at first had been perceived as a “guerrerista”(war) plan in several
circles of the European Union. Mauricio Cardenas, director of the Department of National
Planning, Jaime Ruiz, a high-ranking presidential adviser, Luis Alberto Moreno, Ambassador of
Colombia to the U.S. and Victor G. Ricardo, Ambassador to Great Britain attended the meeting
representing our country.
I would like to emphasize the words spoken at this meeting by Jan Egeland, special
advisor to the United Nations for International Cooperation in Colombia, in view of their
significance:
“There are different viewpoints and approaches as to the best way to come to the
aid of Colombia. This was to be expected. But, what is unacceptable is to do
little or nothing when the country is making efforts to put an end to a war of
major proportions, and is trying to seek alternatives to a suffocating humanitarian,
economic, political and social crisis. Simple pessimism, criticism, or apathy will
do little to alleviate the suffering, or end the war in Colombia. Some donors have
stated that they would like a peace agreement signed prior to committing
providing funds and strengthening their commitment with the country. However,
I have the impression that this position contributes little to advancing a negotiated
solution for the conflict. I believe that international support to create conditions
that will render the peace process successful, and allow violence to diminish is
crucial now, not next year, nor five years from now.”
The invitation for the first meeting to be convened in Madrid for July 7, 2000 was not
without difficulties. Therefore, Jan Egeland's words were not unwarranted. In fact, at the
preliminary phase
[PAGE 101]
we were met with great skepticism as a result of great lobbying capacity and pressure exerted by
the non-governmental organizations which were at that point amenable to “guerrilla diplomacy”
being deployed by the FARC.
Diplomatic Success in Madrid
Rather than a threat preventing us from being able to promote the proposals outlined at
the time the Contributors’ table was convened, the positions eliciting skepticism by some
governments gave way to an opportunity to make the respective clarifications, eliminate
prejudices, and favor consensus which was finally achieved at the July 7, 2000 meeting in
Madrid. On this occasion, my most significant involvement in fulfilling the peace Diplomacy
agenda which pointed to the dynamic relationship existing between internal conflict, and drug
trafficking, and how this relationship had transformed and degenerated the nature of the conflict
in Colombia
“Drug trafficking is not an issue inherent in, nor exclusive to Colombia, While
there was great difficulty in trying to get this truth to be accepted, nobody today
can argue the fact that the problem of illegal drugs is an uninterrupted process
involving production, processing, shipping, the reception in overseas ports, and
- 2 - Annex 111
the commercialization in such markets, the consumption, the money laundering of
vast amounts of money in the international circuit, and that attached to this
criminal activity is the illegal shipment, and the employment of chemical
precursors, contraband, arms trafficking, and transnational crime.
All of this explains that confronted with a problem of such vast proportions, it is
undeniable to accept co-responsibility, of the shared responsibility which, in
practice, implies that each State has the obligation to combat the factors involved
in the problem, but, to the same degree, the need for accord as well as
international cooperation to confront these factors, compensating the States most
affected by violence and the most economically weak. As President Pastrana
expressed in his speech delivered in Strasbourg on October 26, 1999, before the
European Parliament:
[…]
[PAGE 105]
Bogota: A Moment of Hope
During the following meeting in the city of Bogota, on October 24, 2000, the members of
the Support Group reaffirmed with the Colombian Government their commitment involving the
peace process, in search of a negotiated solution, and expressed a firm resolve towards the steps
thus far taken regarding the program addressing institutional development, social development,
and the participation of civil society, which several member countries had demanded be fulfilled
in order have clearance for cooperation. This meeting was attended by 80 delegates representing
25 countries from Europe, Latin America, Canada, Japan, the United States of America, as well
as 18 representatives from international organizations and multilateral institutions, and civil
society organizations in Colombia, expressing their points of view regarding the peace process
and human rights.
At this meeting, my main involvement as a representative for the National Government
focused on expressing my concern for what was already a systematic breach of commitment on
the part of the FARC guerrilla; informing the international community convened a meeting in
Bogota, on their incoherent actions:
“The enemies of peace seem bent on trying to put an end to the Colombian
people's hope for reconciliation, and with each passing day, the latter are
frustrated by new acts of violence committed by the enemies of peace
Probably now more than at any other moment since these peace-making
efforts began; the firm and sensible voice of the international community should
be heard in order to implement a cease fire and, cease of hostilities. Trust in the
process must be restored, and to that end we wish to extend a call to all the voices
allowing us to make a qualitative leap to attain peace. The Government has
presented a proposal in this sense, and has insisted in the urgency of fully
applying International Humanitarian Law, excluding civilians from the conflict.
Every day the
[…]
[PAGE 107]
- 3 -Annex 111
peace, which would be the main accomplishment of these important work round
table sessions with the Support Group.
Brussels: Signing and Authorizing the Commitments
The third meeting of the Support Group took place in Brussels on April 30, 2001, under
the auspices of the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB), and the European Union (EU). At
this meeting, delegations from 15 European countries, Norway, and Switzerland -not part of the
European Union-; nine Latin American countries, Japan, Canada, the United States of America,
seven international organization delegations and six civilian representatives were accredited. In
addition, the Andean Development Corporation, the World Bank and the United Nations, also
participated in this meeting.
Since arriving in Brussels, I sensed a tense atmosphere, especially as a result of the
pressure that some European NGO's had mounted in response to a meeting being held. To my
surprise, and that of the Colombian delegation, we were informed at the beginning of the
meeting that there were groups of demonstrators waiting outside the building of the European
Union wanting to enter the room to sabotage the meeting. However, what I never imagined was
that this pressure was occurring with Ambassador Willy Steven’s—who had been Belgium's
representative in Colombia for five years, and was now acting as the Belgium Government’s
director for Latin America-being privy to this knowledge—as he later confirmed to me.
I now have information that this official knew in advance that the demonstrators had
come prepared with some pies which would be thrown in my face as they went inside the
European Union building. Fortunately, attendants working under Chris Patten, the Foreign
Relations commissioner of the European Commission were informed in time, and they led me
through a security hall. Upon finding out that I had eluded them, the demonstrators proceeded to
hurl pies at Colombian Embassy licensed vehicles, which in the end were a mess when they had
finished. Throughout the meeting, Mr. Stevens had a very unfortunate involvement against
Colombia but did not have the courage to remain in the room. On the contrary, once his
participation was over he got up from his seat, and left the premises. He knew
[PAGE 108]
that I was going to respond—which I did, vehemently—to a series of statements which he had
made at the European group meetings, of which we had received word from different
delegations, and by means of communications issued by our own ambassadors.
Subsequently, at the evening meeting held at the Colombian Embassy, Mr. Stevens
approached me evasively, he told me that he regretted what had occurred, and obviously, gave
me clear indication that he had been informed of what would had happened. In a reserved tone
of voice, I demanded to know why he had not informed me if he knew what would happen, as
was in line with his duty as a Government representative that had attended the meetings and as a
friend of peace for Colombia.
Months later, on the eve of the peace process breaking down in Colombia, Mr. Stevens
approached me in New York during the United Nations Assembly in November, 2001 to tell me
that they had changed their policy, and that his Government was weighing the possibility of
lending their support to include the FARC in the list of terrorists in Europe. Almost
immediately, he also informed me that he had been speaking with FARC guerrilla leader, Olga
- 4 - Annex 111
Marín, and that she was upset because Brussels had also made the decision to include them in the
list of terrorist groups. This was an event illustrating the diplomatic challenges which any
Colombian Government had to contend with in Europe where FARC members circulated
with enormous ease in some countries.
As for the pivotal part of the meeting, I would like to highlight the statements issued by
Chris Patten, the Foreign Relations commissioner of the European Community:
“I visited Colombia some weeks ago and saw with my own eyes the complexities,
and the fragility of building the peace process. There are multiple forces that are
at play that are conjured up to frustrate the efforts of those working for peace.
Very likely, all these obstacles might discourage even the most determined of
optimists. During my visit, however, I could appreciate the great reward that
could be attained if a lasting peace could be achieved: the enormous potential for
prosperity that would accompany its success.”
[PAGE 109]
He then added:
“Direct economic assistance should be accompanied by diplomatic and economic
aid, if our efforts are to be afforded the opportunity to produce a lasting impact.
This aid ought to address the fundamental causes and not just the symptoms, of
the years of conflict in Colombia.”
In accordance with Commissioner Patten's participation, European Union aid would
focus on four fundamental areas: 1) the establishment of Peace Laboratories, with an
initial cooperation to benefit the Middle Magdalena Peace Program; 2) resources to eliminate
structural weaknesses which had threatened peace (administration of justice, advancement of an
integrated agricultural reform, as well as planning and delivering sound environmental policies);
3) which combats constant violent uprisings, and the violation of human rights, by means of a
broader program between the European Union , and the Andean Community, with specific
support resources in place for local human rights organization activities; 4) diminishing social
impact and mandatory human displacement effects availing itself of support programs addressing
the displaced population, the rehabilitation of boys and girls involved in the conflict, and the
involvement in some critical areas of the country where concerted manual eradication would be
implemented.
In this occasion, the international community represented at the meeting reiterated its
support to the peace process in Colombia, and offered its support for the signed agreements
entered into between the Government and the Secretariat of the FARC at Los Pozos, on February
9 10
9, 2001, as well as the preliminary agreement with the ELN ; welcomed recent actions
9He is referring to the meeting held between President Andres Pastrana, and FARC leader, Manuel Marulanda
Velez, sic, “Tirofijo”, in the Los Pozos population (Department of Caqueta), within the so-called defusing zone,
with the purpose of renewing the peace process.
10The Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN) (National Liberation Army), the Colombian Government, and its
friendly countries of the peace process agreed that no removal would take place in the South of Bolivar (Northern
- 5 -Annex 111
[PAGE 110]
intensifying representation of facilitating groups, verifiers, and participants in the peace
process; it underscored the efforts of the region’s governments to bolster Latin America’s
support to the channel of political negotiation concerning the conflict; and insisted that the peace
process must be accompanied by a development strategy to aid in improving the Colombian
people's standard of living.
The commitments to support the peace process, and development in Colombia which
were forged in Madrid and Bogota, were supplemented in Brussels amounting to US$1,543
million. At the end of May, 2002, a follow-up made by the Peace Investment Fund -the
instrument created by the Government to manage the social development, institutional
strengthening and economic recovery components with domestic and foreign resources -showed
disbursement indicators for European countries, which, in principle, would seem low in
11
comparison with their original commitments .
The statement issued by the Secretary of State for Development, Migration and Asylum
Policy Cooperation, in the name of the European Union, Gun-Britt Andersson, translated into
great support for the position that we had maintained throughout all of the meetings:
“Internal armed conflict, as well as the production and trafficking of illegal drugs,
are intertwined. The European Union is determined to continue its condemnation
of, and its battle against the drug production and illegal trafficking on the basis of
the shared responsibility principle. It is necessary that all the parties be involved
in ongoing efforts to find different viable alternatives to the production of drugs.
Drug production and trade can never be justified with economic arguments nor
with allusions to poverty-related concerns.”
coast of Colombia), without first consulting civilians. The preaccord, to which this statement refers, had been
signed in Havana on December 15, 2000, and contemplates the possibility of establishing a meeting zone for the
beginning of the peace negotiations with this guerrilla group.
116HH▯,QYHVWPHQW▯)XQG▯IRU▯3HDFH. 3UHVLGHQF\▯RI▯WKH▯5HSXEOLF. Notes on international cooperation within the
framework of the Support Group concerning the Peace Process. May, 2002.
- 6 -Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111Annex 111 Annex 112
Freedom of InformationAct Correspondence With United States Environmental ProtectionAgency
Including Roundup Export Label (3 Mar. 2009)Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112Annex 112 Annex 113
Letter from Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador to United States Department
RI▯6WDWH▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯6HUYLFHV▯▯▯▯$SU▯▯▯▯▯▯▯Annex 113Annex 113 Annex 114
/HWWHU▯IURP▯0DUJDUHW▯3▯▯*UDIHOG▯▯'LUHFWRU▯▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯6HUYLFHV▯▯8QLWHG▯
States Department of State to Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador
(13 Nov. 2009)Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114Annex 114 Annex 115
Letter from Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador toA. Harold (Hal) Eisner,
8QLWHG▯6WDWHV▯'HSDUWPHQW▯RI▯6WDWH▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯6HUYLFHV▯▯▯▯▯)HE▯▯▯▯▯▯▯Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115Annex 115 Annex 116
)D[▯IURP▯$▯▯+DUROG▯(LVQHU▯▯2I¿FH▯RI▯,QIRUPDWLRQ▯3URJUDPV▯DQG▯6HUYLFHV▯▯8QLWHG▯6WDWHV▯
Department of State to Rebecca L. Puskas, Counsel to Government of Ecuador (12 Mar. 2010)Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116Annex 116 Annex 117
United States District Court of the District of Colombia, $ULDV▯▯HW▯DO▯▯Y▯▯'\QFRUS▯▯HW▯DO▯▯▯4XLQWHURV,
et al. v. Dyncorp, et al., Declaration of Redacted Witness (2 June 2010) Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 6Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 6 Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 3 of 6Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 4 of 6 Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 5 of 6Annex 117
Case 1:07-cv-01042-RWR -DAR Document 165-4 Filed 06/03/10 Page 6 of 6 Annex 118
Freedom of InformationAct Correspondence With United States Environmental ProtectionAgency
Including Email from Stephen J. Wratten, Monsanto Company, to Jay Ellenberger, United States
Environmental ProtectionAgency (30 Oct. 2010)Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118Annex 118
volume IV