November 4, 2002

Will Drug Crop Eradication Spark Conflict in Peru?

by Cecilia Remón

Peru could lose its certification in the fight against drugs next year—and its eligibility for tariff exemptions under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA)—if it fails to meet a U.S. demand that between 3,500 and 7,000 hectares of coca crops be eradicated by the end of this year. While inclusion in ATPDEA also hinges on participation in negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and support for the U.S. fight against terrorism, Peru must specifically comply with a requirement for "successful eradication" of drug crops, especially coca, according to Nils Ericsson, head of the Peruvian government’s National Commission for Development and a Drug-Free Life (DEVIDA). "That is the factor that most concerns the United States," he said.

According to the U.S. government, there were 34,200 hectares of coca in Peru last year, although independent analysts have put the figure as high as 60,000 hectares. Ericsson said that without beefed-up interdiction and better alternative development programs, Peru could end up with as many as 120,000 hectares of coca. DEVIDA has launched a voluntary eradication scheme, designed in collaboration with campesinos, along with a rural development plan to create jobs and income for campesinos through emergency loans for products that have a sure market. This will be accompanied by police interdiction of drugs shipped along land, air, river and ocean routes.

Between June and August, coca-growing campesinos in the upper Huallaga, Monzón, Apurímac and Ene river valleys in the Amazon basin staged marches and protests demanding temporary suspension of forced eradication of coca crops and the withdrawal of international organizations, particularly the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

In response, Peruvian officials signed pacts with the coca growers, agreeing to a "joint, gradual, sustainable reduction of coca crops and a fight against drug trafficking and subversion." Officials also promised to investigate complaints about aid agencies and carry out public works projects. Under the new program, campesinos will be paid to voluntarily destroy their coca plants and will then be employed in public works projects for six to 12 months while agricultural alternatives are set up. Campesinos complain that past eradication efforts were not accompanied by effective alternative development plans and that funds have been misspent on activities that were not coordinated with local governments and campesino organizations.

U.S. officials were skeptical of the Peruvian government's plan. They expressed "concern" over the suspension of forced eradication, saying it could lead to an increase in coca crops. They also warned that Peru could lose its eligibility for tariff exoneration under ATPDEA if it fails to meet eradication targets.

Under former President Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000), Peru's coca crop decreased by 60 percent. There was a corresponding increase in Colombia, indicating that the overall drug crop was not reduced, but that the growing areas had shifted. Intensive eradication efforts in Colombia since 1998 have led drug producers to turn to Peru again for coca cultivation, and the price of coca has increased. Since 1991, the area planted in coca in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru—about 200,000 hectares—has not changed.

Coca is at least three times as profitable as any other crop. The price for an 11.5-kilogram sack of coca leaves is $30, compared to $13 four years ago. The state-run National Coca Company (ENACO), which purchases coca leaves for legal uses such as chewing or for sale as coca tea, flavoring or a pharmaceutical ingredient, pays only $17. In comparison, the price of coffee—long touted as an alternative to drug crops in coca producing valleys—stands at $8 per 11.5 kilograms, while cacao sells for $14, beans for $4, rice for $3.80 and corn for $2.60. "The alternative model has failed," said Roger Rumrrill, an expert on the Amazon area. "Commercial crops that could be of interest to campesinos are not profitable enough. In addition, there has never been a development policy for the Amazon."

Ericsson said the government aims to gradually reduce coca crops to the level needed for traditional consumption. He added that a study must be done to determine how many hectares are necessary to produce coca for legal uses. Peru and Bolivia are the only countries where coca leaf consumption is legal. "We're working gradually, using new approaches to avoid the social discontent caused by forced eradication," he said.

Whether eradication is forced or voluntary, however, there is still no integral development program for the Amazon basin. ATPDEA, the U.S. law that exonerates about 6,200 products from tariffs, is meant to stimulate other employment opportunities in coca-producing countries. In Peru, however, ATPDEA's most enthusiastic supporters are businesses on the Peruvian coast and in the highlands, where coca is not grown. While Ericsson said that ATPDEA would benefit the entire country, it is not clear whether any of the tariff-free products can be produced in the high jungle, where drug crops are cultivated. "What is clear is that eradication is not negotiable," Ericsson said. "We want to exhaust the possibilities of eradication with minimal social conflict, but if people don't eradicate their crops voluntarily, we'll have to do it by force."

Coca-growing campesinos fear that if eradication is a condition for ATPDEA benefits, businesspeople on the coast and in the highlands will pressure the government to return to forced eradication without a development plan. "ATPDEA is against us, not for us," said Nancy Obregón, a leader of coca producers in the upper Huallaga River valley. "They'll come and eradicate the coca at all costs, without ensuring that conditions exist for alternative products in the short term."

This article previously appeared in Latinamerica Press. It can also be found in Spanish at Noticias Aliadas.

Back to Top . Comments