|TRRK0LAB| Petition to the United Nations Calling for a Moratorium on Aerial Spraying in Colombia in Compliance with International Law and Conventions

[Paula Vélez]

Me parece importante este mensaje que les reenvío aquí. Es para mandar
una petición a las Naciones Unidas en la que se exija detener las
fumigaciones aéreas en Colombia. Es un tema urgente para protejer la
biodiversidad en las selvas del tropico de cancer y tropico de
capricornio en territorio colombiano, américa del sur. Está muy bien
escrito y argumentado. Esperando que sirva para algo, convencida que
la voz de mucha gente todavía puede representar el cambio,
distribuyanlo!

Me envió Johnatan Echeverri Zuluaga. Phd, profesor de antropología de
la Universidad de Antioquia.


Paula



To sign the petition please go to:
http://www.wola.org/highlight/petition_to_the_un_for_a_moratorium_on_aerial_spraying_in_colombia



Petition to the United Nations Calling for a Moratorium on Aerial
Spraying in Colombia in Compliance with International Law and
Conventions



Bogotá, December 4th 2012



His Excellency Ban Ki-moon

Secretary-General of the United Nations

New York





REF.: Aerial spraying to eradicate crops used for illicit purposes in
Colombia. In view of the Colombian government’s failure to comply with
the International Conventions and Treaties subscribed and, considering
the health hazards, IHL and Human Rights violations as well as the
environmental risks resulting from the aerial spraying of defoliants
and intensive and indiscriminate use of agroprecursors,  we the
undersigned citizens and Social, Peace, Environmental, Human Rights,
Harm Reduction and Drug-Policy Reform Movements and Organizations here
request that the United Nations mediate on our behalf in Colombia in
order to ensure that:



1.       The attention of the Santos Government be called to its
obligation to declare an immediate moratorium on fumigation until the
pertinent and autonomous humanitarian, epidemiological, environmental,
social and economic studies addressing the impacts of aerial spraying
itself are carried out and reveal their findings.



2.      The highly-questionable aerial spraying eradication measure be
removed from the 2012 Drug Bill to be debated by the Colombian
Congress in March 2013 since this measure contravenes existing
legislation.



3.      The Santos government apply stricter controls to the
production, importation and sale of agrochemical products since these
are used as agroprecursors to expand and increase the productivity of
drug crops.

Attached letter documenting the reasons for this petition:



Dear Mr. Secretary-General:



We are writing you out of humanitarian considerations and in the face
of the numerous complaints regarding the health hazards,
environmental-impact, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
violations and the Colombian State’s failure to comply with the
Nation’s 1991 Political Constitution and its reservations [1] with
regard to the 1988 Vienna Convention against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. We therefore appeal to
you, and through your good offices to the International Community and
international bodies in charge of protecting Human Rights, and dealing
with the causes of internal refugees, displaced populations,
environmental protection and limitations to the use of chemical
weapons, to intervene before the governments of Colombia and the
United States requesting, demanding, that they comply with the
Treaties, Conventions and Protocols to which their States are parties.



One of Colombia’s reservations to the Vienna Convention is expressed
by the Constitutional Court Ruling No. C-176/94 as follows: “...the
Colombian State should reserve itself the right to assess the
ecological impact of drug control policies since persecuting the
narcotics traffic cannot be translated into a disregard of the
Colombian State’s obligation to protect the environment, not only for
present generations but for future generations as well.” [2] This
ruling clearly orders the Colombian governments to assess the
repercussions of hazardous antinarcotics measures. It also reaffirms
the Constitutional Principle according to which duly ratified
Environmental, Human Rights, IHL, ENMOD and CWC international treaties
prevail over domestic policies and measures.



The United Nations, the European Union as well as the Colombian[3] and
United States Congresses[4] have on various occasions expressed their
apprehension regarding the negative effects of the Aerial Eradication
Program with defoliants. Nevertheless, the Colombian governments,
under the insistence of the United States and with its endorsement,
have persisted in applying a policy which is clearly hazardous and
shown to be ineffective for the eradication purposes proposed.[5]On
his Mission to Ecuador in May 2007, Paul Hunt, the UN Special
Rapporteur on the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health
found and informed that: "There is credible, reliable evidence that
the aerial spraying of glyphosate along the Colombia-Ecuador border
damages the physical health of people living in Ecuador. There is also
credible, reliable evidence that the aerial spraying damages their
mental health. Military helicopters sometimes accompany the aerial
spraying and the entire experience can be terrifying, especially for
children.”[6] The UNODC itself clearly states that: “UNODC neither
participates nor supervises aerial spraying activities”.[7] The
European Union has been warning Colombia for years: “..the European
Union has had the opportunity to express its position to Colombian
authorities, and in particular to express doubts about the
effectiveness of the measure. ... The EU has also pointed out to
Colombian authorities the danger of a negative impact of the aerial
spraying on past and future EU cooperation projects.”[8] It has also
recently reaffirmed the need to carry out independent —of US and
Colombian authorities— monitoring of fumigation under UN and PAHO
supervision.



Colombia is currently the only country in the world that sprays from
the air potent chemical mixtures as State policy and as a war measure.
Fumigation measures were first applied in Colombia in 1978 in
accordance with US persuasion that the Drug War could be waged by
attacking crops through the use of chemicals outside of the US. The
US’s proactive role in fumigation in Colombia has been thoroughly
acknowledged by, among others, its own official documents.[9] The
first fumigations in Colombia were carried out by experimenting with
highly dangerous chemicals, among others, Paraquat. Despite the fact
that information according to which “the spraying of marijuana with
paraquat is likely to cause serious harm to the health of persons who
may consume the sprayed marijuana” [10]conveyed in 1979 by Health
Education and Welfare (HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, led to
abandonment of US aerial spraying in Mexico, this did not stop the US
from making aerial spraying of Parquat in Colombia a Drug War
condition. The aerial use of the pulmonary toxin Paraquat is currently
banned world-wide. Colombia and the US have experimented with a series
of chemicals. According to a 1996 Commission on Narcotics Drugs (CND)
report: “Glyphosate has been applied to all three plants, and 2,4-D
[component of Agent Orange, out of text] to opium poppy, both in the
form of liquid sprays. For coca bush, tebuthiuron and hexazinone,
which are granular and applied by aerial distribution, have been used,
and for cannabis plant, the liquid spray 2 ,4 ,5 ,7 -
tetrabromofluorescein, known as Eosine Yellowish, although the latter
can cause some browning of leaves of adjacent vegetation.”[11]



According to the scarce public-official information available, the
chemical used since 1984 is Glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup Ultra) the
toxic surfactant POEA compounded by the coadjuvants Cosmo-Flux 411F
and CosmoInD used to render four times more potent the corrosive
effect of Roundup. Yet there persists a reasonable doubt as to what we
are being fumigated with. In 1988, Eli Lilly refused to let its
herbicide, tebuthiuron be used for coca spraying stating that it had
not been tested in tropical environments and it feared all sorts of
law suits. Nevertheless, there are references to the fact that the
highly dangerous tebuthiuron has been used on Colombians. A FOIA of a
July 1997 CIA document reveals that, as per USDA experimentation in
Peru and Panamá, Colombia had acquiesced to the “pilot program for the
use of the granular herbicide tebuthiuron in the eradication of coca”.
[12]



Apparently, another chemical experimented with is Imazapyr, which
poses high risks to rare and endangered plants.[13] Proof of the total
lack of transparency regarding the chemicals themselves and the fact
that, despite their denial, the chemicals fumigated by the United
States and Colombian government affect the nation’s water sources and
food crops, is a recent State Council ruling. In January 2012 the
Colombian State Council condemned the Nation, the Defense Ministry and
National Police for damages to staple food crops and water sources and
farm animals fumigated with Gramaxone (Paraquat) in 1997.[14] In the
transboundary pollution and human-harm claim Ecuador vs. Colombia at
the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Colombian government
refused to disclose the exact chemical makeup of its fumigation
mixture. According to studies carried out in 2001 by the agronomist,
biologist and chemical expert Elsa Nivia, the glyphosate concentration
in the formula being used in Colombia is 26 times more potent than
that allowed and used anywhere else. [15]



At present, December 2012, public controversy between the US and
Colombian Police brings to light the fact that what counts —that which
is certified by the US— is that the Glyphosate fumigated on Colombians
should be Monsanto at 12 liters/ha and not a generic Chinese brand.
[16] The US defends the use of their brand of Glyphosate and sustains
that their product is "less toxic than table salt and aspirin”[17]
and, the US government’s private Dyncorp aerial spraying contractors,
certify that fields are not sprayed when people are present, Pictures
taken during fumigation operations show this to be false.
International organizations reveal that local communities are not
forewarned and much less consulted, in clear violation of the ILO
Convention No. 169 as substantiated by several Constitutional Court
Rulings.[18] Scientists warn the use of any agrochemical will make
farmers more dependent on this particular agrotoxin. In soils
saturated with this particular pesticide, there will most probably be
a need to cultivate crops resistant to this product which in this case
are Glyphosate-incorporated GMOs, for which the 108,000 hectares
already planted in Colombia are clearing the way. Studies also
indicate the risk of transgene flow to other plants, thus endangering
Colombia’s biodiversity.



The Colombian and US governments justify fumigation in Colombia with
the argument that the narcotics traffic uses polluting precursors and
growers use fertilizers and herbicides; suggesting that two wrongs
make a right.[19] There is literature to suggest that (any brand)
glyphosate used for agricultural purposes can cause chronic health
effects and birth defects when administered at high doses over
prolonged periods.[20] In Colombia, where the same field may be
sprayed up to four or more times and millions of hectares have been
sprayed for over three decades this risk seems extremely high.
Glyphosate is sprayed indiscriminately over vast areas all over the
country and has been proven to have killed non-targeted vegetation. It
has inevitably thus destroyed endangered species, and fish and aquatic
invertebrates are highly sensitive to glyphosate and its formulations.
Findings by Danish researchers on the fact that Glyphosate is washed
down into the upper ground water and not, as previously believed, that
bacteria in the soil broke down the glyphosate before it reached the
ground water, led the Danish government to ban the use of glyphosate
in 2003[21]. In Germany, a 2012 university study found significant
concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers
with concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20 times the limit for
drinking water.[22] Health reports in eastern Venezuela in 2009
indicate that the higher incidence of birth defects in this region,
comparable only to those in Colombia, might be due to the toxic
chemicals coming in rivers that pass through Colombia.[23]



Although Colombian peasants and indigenous peoples consistently
complain[24] not only of water pollution, cattle poisoning, the loss
of food crops, abortions and birth defects in both humans and animals
after fumigation operations, but also of skin rashes, respiratory
problems, diarrhea, decreased weight gain in infants, nasal discharge
and digestive disorders, among others, the fact is that, after
34-years of non-stop aerial spraying, no one really knows the
mixtures, formulas, concentration, and volumes of the chemicals
sprayed on our peoples, territories and water sources. As concerns the
period from 1978 to 1995, apart from the prior and latter warnings
issued by the National Health Institute[25], the National Resources
Institute[26], the Office of the Ombudsman[27] and numerous social and
environmental organizations, there is practically no available
official information on where and what we were sprayed with. As to the
extension of fumigation, UNODC figures reveal that only during the
last sixteen years, between 1995 and 2011, the United States and
Colombia sprayed more than 1,652,840 hectares[28] out of the 114
million hectares that make up the territory of a total of 48 million
Colombians.



In spite of unceasing scientific warnings, the Colombian government
persists in this failed measure despite the fact that the only studies
that support fumigation were carried out in 2005 and 2009[29], (only
27 and 31 years after the first sprayings) and were done by the
Inter-American Drug Abuse Commission (CICAD, Spanish acronym) whose
sole role is to counter, by any and all means, the abuse of drugs by
15 to 39 million individuals out of the 230 million voluntary drug
users world-wide. CICAD researcher Keith Salomon’s statement in 2005
that the situation, the exposure, is “considerably below thresholds of
concern”[30] added to his 2009 assertion, as informed by the US
Embassy, that “Glyphosate spraying for coca control in Colombia poses
negligible risk to humans and the environment”, [31] is far from
consistent with what Colombians live and suffer on a daily basis.
What’s even more horrifying is Solomon’s announcement of the
possibility of further human experimentation: “Should the glyphosate
product require changing, Roundup Biactive may be considered. Should
the adjuvant require changing, then on the basis of this research,
Silwet L-77 and Mixture B would be good candidates for further
evaluation”.[32] This, added to the United States Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Research Service 2009-2014 study at DNA
Fingerprinting of Coca Leaves to Establish Coca Genotypes in Colombia,
is a justified source of concern for Colombia.[33]



Aerial spraying is one of the main causes of criminal forced internal
displacement in Colombia[34] and the ensuing dispossession of
small-peasant lands by the armed groups[35] serving large narco
landowners. It strengthens the drug traffic and the armed control it
exerts over small crop growers who have thus been abandoned and
persecuted by the State. Fumigation is a Drug War measure which, in
clear violation of IHL, is directed against unarmed peasants who are
in no way part of the hostilities. It aggravates the existing
vulnerabilities of the Colombian peasantry at large and fuels
Colombia’s internal strife. Small-crop growers are not a part of the
narcotics traffic. The peasants that cultivate these crops do so out
of need in a country where social injustice is comparable to that of
Haiti and Angola. According to the UNODC, the average size of coca
fields in 2011 is 0.67 has. The average net income per hectare of coca
for a grower is equivalent to US$294 per month.[36] Thus, a peasant
family of 4 lives on less than USD $200/month which is even less than
the legal minimum wage in Colombia. And yet they are persecuted as
part of the drug traffic.



UNODC surveys inform that cutbacks on the use of agrochemicals, those
same chemicals used by the government with the stated intention of
eradicating, contribute to reducing crop productivity. The
agroprecursors used by the Colombian government as well as those used
by crop growers are toxic, as proven by past and recent studies such
as those on GMOs and Glyphosate carried out by Caen University of
Professor Séralini [Tous Cobayes? 2012].[37] Not only have the US and
Colombian governments paid no heed to scientific and social warnings
but, in line with the illegitimacy of this measure, when local
communities protest, they are accused of being allied with the
guerilla forces and narcotics traffic[38] and, when they complain of
the health and environmental damages suffered, the entity who receives
and decides on the complaints (only receivable since 2001) is the same
entity that fumigates: “The National Drugs Directorate (DNE) and the
Anti-narcotics Department of the National Police are the authorities
in charge of receiving and processing the claims lodged” [Res. 017
2001][39]



Coca, marihuana and poppy do not just grow organically anywhere. They
thrive and expand with the use of fertilizers and herbicides. Totally
disregarding that the intensive and indiscriminate use of
agroprecursors is instrumental to the establishment and expansion of
these crops, the 2007 Agricultural Ministry’s “Basis for the Design of
an Agrochemical Price Policy”, limits itself to making sure that the
prices of the agroprecursor market are kept as competitive and low as
possible.[40] Juan Manuel Santos’s Government, instead of reducing to
a minimum the Value Added Taxes (VAT) on chemical fertilizers and
herbicides (as it recently did with the December 2012 Tax Reform),
should consider the increased-productivity and expanding effect that
these agroprecursors have had to the detriment of the fight against
drug trafficking. The first fumigations in Colombia were carried out
with the aim of chemically eradicating 19,000 has of marihuana[41] in
a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve [designated 1979] when coca in Colombia was
limited to Indigenous religious and eating habits and poppy was but a
flower. Today, after having spilled millions and millions of liters of
chemical mixtures the length and breadth of Colombia’s national
territory, there are 64,000 has de coca, 338 has of poppy and an
unestimated number of hectares of marijuana. Questions may reasonably
be raised on the role played by aerial spraying, as well as poverty
and the lack of voluntary eradication alternatives, in the expansion
of crops used for illicit purposes in Colombia.



As pointed out by Colombian Courts and social and local community
proposals, the Colombian government has the obligation to value its
legacy of one of the Planet’s most biodiverse and fragile ecosystems
by undertaking sustainable and productive voluntary eradication
strategies of crops used for illicit purposes. It should consider the
possibility of taking advantage of the medical, nutritional and
industrial uses of the Coca Leaf in compliance with the Constitutional
Court’s consideration that “the coca leaf could have legal alternative
commercial uses which could precisely serve to contain the expansion
of the narcotics traffic”. Attempts at limiting the sale of the coca
products produced by the Indigenous communities to their own
territories, as the 2012 Drug Bill[42] pretends to ordain and as the
National Drug Office (DNE)[43] , in response to foreign intervention,
has attempted to impose, is not only counterproductive and opposed to
common sense, but also clearly in violation of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which protects “their
right to development in accordance with their own needs and
interests”.



Throughout these 34 years, aerial spraying has been applied and
sanctioned by Administrative Regulations and environmental norms that
are basically passed after the fact. This year, however, the Colombian
government drafted the 2012 Drug Bill[44] which proposes making aerial
spraying for crop eradication a law. Juan Manuel Santos´s Government
should learn from past mistakes and abstain from incorporating aerial
spraying measures in the new Drug Bill. It should declare a moratorium
on fumigation until it has been thoroughly, legally and scientifically
proven that this measure is completely safe, effective and compliant
with international norms. Studies should be carried out on aerial
spraying itself, with social and economic drug-considerations, but not
to the exclusion of other important factors such as humanitarian,
health, environmental impacts, Human Rights and IHL, as well as the
impact of fumigation on Colombia’s future trade potential. Colombia
should safeguard its own national legitimate interests in an
environmentally-oriented world by promoting sustainable eradication
formulas within a framework of international co-responsibility and its
right to the nonintervention of other states in its sovereign right to
protect and make decent and sustainable use of its natural and human
resources for the benefit of all of Humanity.



In consideration of all of the above mentioned, and further
substantial arguments, we hereby request that the Honorable Secretary
Ban Ki-moon mediate with President Juan Manuel Santos so that the
Colombian government might respect existing legislation and, in
compliance with the Precautionary Principle, the Convention on
Biological Diversity, The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the 1972
Stockholm Declaration and 1992 Rio Declaration on Human and
Sustainable Development, refrain from continuing to fumigate the
Colombian people, until studies are carried out and alternative
measures are designed and developed so that eradication may be carried
out in a manner that respects their Human Rights. We the undersigned
expect that the national and international backing received and the
positioning of international bodies in favor of our plea may be given
the consideration they deserve on the part of those charged with
overseeing compliance to international norms and that they call the
Colombian government’s attention to repercussions for the Peace Tables
to End the Conflict and the humanitarian implications of spraying
defoliants on the defenseless civilian population which it has vowed
to protect.



Sincerely,



Copies to:



·         President Juan Manuel Santos



·         President Barack Obama



·         United Nations Environmental Programme / Law and Conventions -DELC



·         UN Refugee Agency (ACNUR) Colombia: Calle 113 #7-21 Torre A
of. 6001 Bta.



·         Haute Représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères
et la politique de sécurité/vice-présidente de la Commission /
Catherine Ashton



·         World Health Organization (WHO)



·         Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) Teofilo Monteiro Cra
7 #74-21 p.9



·         UNODC Representative for Colombia /Bo Mathiasen



·         International Court of Justice/ The Hague



·         Inter-American Court of Human Rights



·         Union of South American Nations (UNASUR)



·         UNESCO United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural
Organization



·         Human Rights –Ombudsman Colombia/Jorge Armando Otálora



·         First Commission of the Col0mbian Chamber of Representatives
/German Navas Talero



·         Congreso de Colombia / Juan Manuel Galán



·         Dialogue Tables to Promote a Peaceful End to the Conflict in Colombia



·         United States Congress /Congressman James McGovern (D –MA)



·         Ministry of Health and Social Protection /Alejandro Gaviria



·         Ministry of Justice and Law / Ruth Stella Correa



·         Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development /Juan Camilo Restrepo



·         Ministry of Foreign Affairs /María Ángela Holguín



·         Ministry of the Interior /Fernando Carrillo Flórez



·         Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Turism /Sergio Diazgranados



·         Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation (NORAD)



·         Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)/Daniel Brombacher



·         Comité international de la Croix- Rouge / Jordi Curó Raich



·         Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) / Javier Sagredo



·         Keith Solomon -University of Guelph Canada



[1] http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII~1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en



[2] http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/1994/C-176-94.htm



[3] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Actas_Congreso_de_la_Republica/Sesion_Cultivos_Ilicitos.htm



[4] Jeremy Bigwood: Toxic Drift,  Mosanto and the Drug War in
Colombia,  http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=669



[5] Alexander Rincón, Giorgos Kallis: The Distributive effects of
aerial spraying policy in Colombia: Reduction of coca crops and
socio-ecological impacts in vulnerable communities:
http://www.isee2012.org/anais/pdf/1133.pdf



[6] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2304&LangID=E



[7] http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Colombia_Coca_cultivation_survey_2011.pdf



[8] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2001:187E:0164:0165:EN:PDF



[9] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Documentacion_cronologica_de_las_fumigaciones_en_Colombia_1978-2012.html



[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1650884/pdf/amjph00642-0064.pdf



[11] http://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_1996-03-01_2.pdf



[12] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/CIA-FOIA_The%20Narcotics%20Monitor_15julio%201997.pdf



[13]“The latest decision of the Colombian government to adopt Imazapyr
as the only granular herbicide for testing was one more indication
that the Colombians did the minimum, often dragged their feet and
appeared, at least to the U.S.G., no to be cooperative.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col36.pdf



[14] 18001-23-31-000-1999-00397-01(22219)



[15] “..with glyphosate concentrations 26 times higher than those
normally recommended is being applied through aerial spraying— acute
toxic effects of contact as well as glyphosate's penetration and
systemic action might be dramatically increased”.
http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_nivia_fumigaciones_si_son_peligrosas_en.html



[16] http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/temadeldia/articulo-370286-el-glifosato-chino-de-policia



[17] Audrey Liounis and Murray Cox : Silk for Cocaine and the Use of
Herbicides in Colombia
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Cifras_cuadro_mamacoca/Audrey_Liounis_and_Murray_Cox_Silk_for_cocaine_and_the_use_of_herbicides_in_Colombia_1992.html



US Department of Agriculture: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century
herbicide “Glyphosate is less acutely toxic than common chemicals such
as sodium chloride or aspirin...”
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17918/PDF 2007  Coincidentally,
aspirin is said to cause 4 times more overdoses than any other legal
or illegal drug on the market.



[18] Juan Carlos Rincón: Línea jurisprudencial sobre la consulta
previa a comunidades indígenas en Colombia
http://jkrincon.com/2010/09/02/linea-jurisprudencial-sobre-la-consula-previa-a-comunidades-indigenas-en-colombia/
SU-383 de 2003, Sentencia T-376/12 and other.



[19] “When these risks are compared to other risks associated with the
clearing of land, the uncontrolled and unmonitored risks of use of
other pesticides to protect the coca and poppy, and exposure to
substances used in the  refining of  the raw product into cocaine and
heroin, they are essentially negligible.”
http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosatefinalreport.pdf



[20] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2011/363%20-%20GlyphoReportDEF-LR.pdf



[21] http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jul/msg00072.html



[22] http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14040



[23] http://bibmed.ucla.edu.ve/DB/bmucla/edocs/textocompleto/TWL101DV4R46f2009.pdf



[24] http://www.nasaacin.org/attachments/article/5059/Acción%20Urgente_Fumigaciones_Comunidad_Novita_Chocó.pdf



[25] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Recomendaciones_Comite_de_Expertos_Herbicidas_1984_Lacera1995.pdf



[26] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Carta_al_cne_del_inderena_junio_18_1978.html



[27] http://www.mamacoca.org/junio2001/defensoria_al_dia.htm



/http://www.rds.org.co/aa/img_upload/4511420d3e057b82d476661a73bb159c/fumigacionesputu.doc



“La fumigación aérea presenta muchos riesgos para el ambiente y para
la salud humana »
http://defensoria.org.co/pdf/resoluciones/defensorial/defensorial11.pdf



http://www.mamacoca.org/junio2001/carta_defensoria_suspension_fumigaciones.htm



The Aerial Eradication Strategy form a Cnsitutional Perspective:
http://www.defensoria.org.co/pdf/informes/informe_92.pdf



[28] UNODC Colombia Coca Cultivation Surveys



[29] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767



[30] http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosatefinalreport.pdf



[31] http://bogota.usembassy.gov/pr_56_030909.html



[32] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672761



[33] http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=416471



[34] Betsy March Going to Extremes, LAWG:
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/C53E09CDB47BDF9BC12571480039EA14/$file/Going2ExtremesFinal.pdf



[35] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/03%20Drug%20Business%20and%20Society.pdf
Taken from: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/



[36] idem.



[37] All of Us Guinea-Pigs
Now?http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=372&Itemid=130



[38] ..”so as not to give the narcos and the guerrillas, who had
inspired the peasant demonstrations, the belief that by arranging
demonstrations they could stop or even slow down the drug eradication
program.” http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col36.pdf



[39] http://www.cicad.oas.org/Fortalecimiento_Institucional/ESP/Leyes%20para%20el%202007/COResolucion_017_01.pdf



[40] http://www.minagricultura.gov.co/archivos/informe_final_estudio.pdf



[41] http://www.mamacoca.org/Imagenes/ANIF_Cuadro_produccion_comercio_marihuana_Colombia_1980.bmp



[42] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Legislacion_tematica/Estatuto_de_Drogas-Pproyecto_de_ley_no_2012_.html



[43] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Consumo/Invima_ordena_recoger_coca_sana_2.doc



[44] http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Legislacion_tematica/Estatuto_de_Drogas-Proyecto_de_ley_no_2012_.html
/ Consulted in November 2012 at:
http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/ARCHIVO/ARCHIVO-12250125-0.pdf