Farid De La Ossa Arrieta, "PASTORAL ACTION STEPS FROM THE COLOMBIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAINST THEFUMIGATIONS OF “PLAN COLOMBIA”

MARCH 2007

ISSUE 9 - ISSN 1448 - 6326

Pastoral Action Steps from the Columbian Catholic Church Against the Fumigations of "Plan Columbia"

Farid De La Ossa Arrieta, CMF

For many years, since the last half of last century, Colombia has been one of the most important centers of production of drugs in the world. Maybe because of its topography or the fertility of its mountains, Colombia became the focus of many international drug traffickers from all over. In this respect, on one hand, many poor Colombian farmers, after not having any other kind of resources to survive, accepted to sow the plants that are the source of cocaine and of heroine or to work in trafficking drugs in order to better their lives. On the other hand, drug traffic has brought a bad fame to Colombia before other countries and the initiative from these countries to reduce the production of these drugs in Colombia through several strategies. The most recent strategy, financed by the most powerful countries of the world including the US , in order to fight drug traffic has been called Plan Colombia . Among its steps, this plan has brought certain advantages to the social structures of the country, while investing on education and providing funds for the poorest people of the country. However, there has a been a big emphasis on the eradication of drug traffic, more precisely on the eradication of the coca and heroine crops by fumigation, which has brought a lot of damages to the environment and to the people that live in the area in which there are the coca and heroine crops. This fact has called the attention of many institutions, including the Catholic Church. Following the methodology proposed by Joe Holland and Peter Henriot in their book “Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice” [1], I will analyze the steps that the Colombian Church has made in terms of the degradation caused by the Plan Colombian and who have been affected by it. In their book Holland and Henriot show a special method to analyze any kind of special social event or situation from a religious perspective leading to a pastoral action. Also called “pastoral circle” and this method consists in four steps, which are interrelated with each other as it can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Steps of Method of Social Analysis proposed by Joe Holland and Peter Henriot

Taking into account the content of the pastoral letters that the Colombian Bishops have delivered last years about their concerns in terms of the bad effects that Plan Colombia is having on the Colombian people and environment, I found that Holland’s and Henriot’s method can describe perfectly the steps that the Colombian Catholic Church has followed in this regard. The actual application of this method to this specific situation can be seen as follows.

a. INSERTION

Day-by day the issue about the so-called 'Plan Colombia ' has become more and more a part of the Colombian national picture. It is a fact that most Colombians are almost completely unaware of the content of this plan. The people who live in the regions, which will be directly affected by it, have heard little or nothing about its existence. Outside Colombia , attitudes to that Plan are both expectant and reserved. The emphasis on the various strategies in it has varied depending on whom in the International Community it is aimed at and what is being expected of them.

But, what is Plan Colombia ? The term 'Plan Colombia ' is intimately linked to the peace discourse of the former President of the Republic of Colombia, Andres Pastrana Arango. It is defined as a strategy to bring prosperity and peace to Colombia and its institutions by rescuing the basic norms of living in society, and the promotion of democracy, justice, territorial integrity, better conditions of employment, respect to the human rights and the preservation of public order. [2] The ways in which this plan has worked are:

Ÿ       Social and Economic recovering

Ÿ       Overcoming the Conflict with the guerrilla and paramilitary groups

Ÿ       Anti-narcotics Strategy

Ÿ       Strengthening Social and Institutional development

Ÿ       Tools to reach Peace

Pastrana included in the anti-narcotics strategy the fumigation solution to eradicate the coca and poppy cultivations, which clearly would bring with it harmful effects, both for the environment and human beings. However, he did his best in order to get the funds and international support to achieve such plan. This fumigation has been achieved in the regions of Putumayo and southern Bolivar in Colombia , but mostly in the region of Putumayo. This is a region renowned for its rich biodiversity. Indeed, it is one of the richest areas in the world in its biodiversity. However, it has been impoverished by decades of government neglect becoming one of the most violent provinces in Colombia .

The application of Plan Colombia has involved some social factors like the guerrillas and paramilitaries fighting for the control of that region's resources, the Colombian government (with U.S. government funds and support) employing a military and aerial fumigation campaign to eradicate coca, the plant from which cocaine can be produced, and also the poor people who live in that area who may or may not grow the coca plant in order to survive.

Unfortunately, as negative impacts of the strategy become apparent, the government's effort to end drug production in this region has included only minimal safeguards to protect its people and environment.

The people of Putumayo and southern Bolivar, alongside churches and independent experts have expressed several concerns over the government's policy. Chemical herbicides used in fumigation threaten the delicate ecology of the Amazon basin. Military accompaniment of fumigation heightens the conflict between the government and guerrillas and threatens the human rights of the people caught in the middle, adding thousands to Colombia 's already swelling displaced population. Additionally, in spite of increasing amounts of resources spent on overseas drug interdiction efforts, such as aerial fumigation, drug consumption in the U.S. has continued to increase. Overall, fumigation has been ineffective in reducing drug consumption and threatens the people and the environment in its wake.[3]

b. SOCIAL ANALYSIS

The unique topography and climate of Putumayo ( Colombia ) are home to over 40,000 natural species. This topography is also very appropriate to drug trafficking and the cultivation of coca because of its many mountains that adequately hide illicit crops, its close location to the Amazon jungle, its great environmental fragility, its proximity to the neighboring coca producing countries (Bolivia and Peru), and being forgotten by the Colombian Government.

Drug trafficking in Colombia has become one of the main causes of social destruction and of shame before the international community. In the 1970s, a boom in marijuana cultivation along Colombia ’s Atlantic Coast created a class of newly rich traffickers supplying the US market. In the late 1970’s Colombia ’s new cartels, first in Medellin and then in Cali, expanded from marijuana to the processing and export of cocaine. The power and violence of the drug industry came to permeate all facets of Colombian society. Drug lords achieved unprecedented political influence through threats, bribery, and political contributions. Drug violence also undermined Colombia ’s longstanding democracy, particularly during the 1980’s, when the Medellin Cartel waged war on the Colombian government, killing hundreds of judges, police investigators, journalists, and public figures. Nowadays, guerrilla groups in areas of increasing coca cultivation, primarily the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), have particularly financed their activities by taxing coca crops and by protecting drug processing labs and other illicit installations. Therefore, drug trafficking in Colombia has gotten involved with the conflict between the guerrilla and the government, which has been the source of “an everlasting civil war” in Colombia , which has brought a lot of people that have been killed or displaced.

Because of that, many Colombian organisms reject emphatically drug trafficking in all its phases: production, marketing and consumption.

The Plan Colombia with its fumigations has not had good results in terms of the Environment and the eradication of the coca crops. Massive, indiscriminate and military-led aerial fumigation using Monsanto-developed herbicide glyphosate has been going on in Putumayo and southern Bolivar in Colombia since 22 December 2000. More than 70,000 acres of cultivated land had been doused with over 85,000 gallons of the chemical spray by the middle of February by 2001 and United States officials in the military have been loudly congratulating themselves on the relative success of the mission so far.

Weeks after the start of the current fumigation campaign (let’s not forget, this is just the latest in a continuous forced fumigation program which has been ongoing since the 1970s) complaints started flooding in from poor peasant farmers that had coca crops that had been hit, but that also had food crops, which had been hit by the fumigations. Catholic Relief Services gathered the testimony of many people that were affected by those fumigations, such as a teacher at a local school, Miriam Teresa Rodriguez, who said: “The effects of the fumigation here have been catastrophic. The spraying killed the coca, but it killed the food crops too. Some children would eat mangos and bananas from the trees around the schoolyard for their lunch, but now those tress are dead.” [4]

In the busy commercial enclave of La Hormiga, in the Guamaz River Valley, near La Concordia (Putumayo-Colombia), there have been near to 1,000 complaints from peasants who, forced to grow coca because it is the only viable means of survival, and whose small coca plantations often grow alongside family food crops, have been left destitute, with nothing to eat, and have not yet seen any of the government’s promised post-fumigation support and emergency aid. “Everything was killed,” said one peasant. “My bananas, sugar cane, corn.”

The head of a tribe of Cofan natives who live near La Concordia (Putumayo – Colombia), Luis Carlos Gonzales, watched in disbelief as four aircraft sprayed the community’s homes and gardens, destroying traditional medicinal plants, fruit and vegetable crops, fish hatcheries and livestock. Cofan resistance to the fumigation campaign has resulted in several Cofan leaders being assassinated by paramilitaries since December last year, including Pablo Emilio Diaz Queta, vice president of the Cofan Traditional Authorities and the Valle del Guamez and San Miguel. Also killed was the wife of one leader who was four months pregnant.

As well as complaints of the indiscriminate destruction of legitimate crops, there have been equally widespread claims of adverse effects on people’s health, children in particular. Residents of various departments are complaining of “intoxications, diarrhea, vomiting, skin rashes, red eyes, headaches”, with children presenting marked ill effects on their skin. One peasant complained: “My son has been ill with asthma and skin rashes. I have spent all the money I saved for a new house on his medical treatment. I’ve been trying to raise other crops and I would have signed up to cut down my coca, but they never gave me the chance.”

Because of this, many people have been displaced by coca crop fumigation, although they remain unrecognized. An estimated 39,397 people were displaced in 2002 as a result of the fumigations. While the Plan estimated that 15,000 people could be displaced by fumigations, 35 thousand families have already been uprooted since 1999.[5] On the other hand, all the procedures to combat the narcotics industry are part of Plan Colombia , launched in 2000 with $1.3 billion dollars that mostly come from the United States and includes a bilateral and mainly military assistance to that plan. Other countries that are also contributing economically to Plan Colombia are: Spain , Finland , Germany , Sweden , Finland , Japan , Brasil and Mexico . [6]

However, according to the Colombian federal human rights office, there is plenty of evidence that even those farmers who signed up to voluntarily eradicate their coca crops by hand, have had them fumigated anyway. In spite of not being heard by the governments of Colombia and the US, which insist on continuing fumigation, environmentalists are warning of the big damage that has been achieved to the delicate ecology of the Amazon jungle that is in the area of Putumayo. “The situation is truly alarming,” said Ricardo Vargas, an environmentalist and author of a book on coca eradication. “Forests have been destroyed ... birds sprayed as well as the food eaten by monkeys, in a region with great biodiversity.”

Vargas is highly critical of the use of untested chemicals in the glyphosate mixture. Yet the United Nations and Colombian officials are determined to deny the harm glyphosate is having on human health or the ecosystem, automatically repeating the claim that the glyphosate weed-killer marketed as Roundup is “no more harmful than aspirin, table salt or caffeine”. One official called it “the most studied herbicide in the world” that was proven to be harmless to human and animal life and called the accounts of peasants “scientifically impossible ... Being sprayed on certainly does not make people sick, because it is not toxic to human beings.”

This is a dangerous situation in which independent oversight of the fumigation program and its effects has been rendered effectively impossible, and the Colombian people who live in the area seem to be simply expected to accept the claims of those in charge of the spraying. According to leading environmental experts, there has been no known serious testing in target areas of Colombia to determine the safety of the formulations being applied. Much of the testing has been done in Hawaii in areas that are ecologically very distinct from those found in the Colombian jungle that empties into the Amazon. Little research has been done into the long-term effects of the chemical compounds on microorganisms.

Although the United Nations and the Colombian government claim that glyphosate has no noticeable ill effects on human health, all the evidence disputes this. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved glyphosate for most commercial uses but by its own reckoning ranked the chemical third out of 25 pesticides, which lead to illness and injury, primarily causing eye and skin irritation. No one knows in what concentrations glyphosate is being used in Colombia , but it is thought, judging from the destructive capacity of the chemical, the concentration is quite high. Directions on the use of glyphosate prescribe the use of protective clothing, warn against “direct application to any body of water”, and state quite clearly that the product should not be applied in a way “that will contact workers or other persons”. Monsanto itself advised against the use of glyphosate in the type of aerial fumigation being applied to Colombia because of the likelihood of winds causing extensive drift to non-targeted and perhaps densely populated areas. Glyphosate users in the United States are specifically warned not to spray by air “when winds are gusty or under any other conditions that favor drift.” In the regions of Colombia being fumigated normal weather and environmental conditions permanently favor drift. Nurses and doctors in the areas of fumigation have also reportedly been warned “from above, from higher authorities” not to talk about the impact of spraying on the health of local residents.

In all, the latest fumigation offensive has decimated the region’s rural economy, and the long-promised emergency aid and money for alternative development programs has not arrived.

Liz Atherton gathered some testimonies of people that were affected by this.[7] One of these was Alfonso Martinez, former mayor of La Hormiga in Putumayo ( Colombia ). He said: “Two months after the fumigation, the national government has done nothing to help the peasants.” He also affirmed: “The peasants grow coca because there is no other way to make a living. Now they have nothing to eat because the spraying has destroyed their food crops as well as their coca.” Moreover, while much of the military component of Plan Colombia, which constitutes at least three-quarters of the “assistance”, has been prioritized and pushed through in order to speed up the forced fumigation offensive, the social development side of the plan which aims purportedly to cushion the blow for rural farmers left without sustenance by fumigation and fund alternative development programs is in fact still in its infancy. The European Union has been reluctant to become involved in the Plan because of its emphasis on military aid to an army with the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere. Their role was to fund this soft side of the plan and stitch up to some extent the damage caused by US military aggression. In the event they have only agreed to make a token contribution and while their position is justified, it is the poor rural community of southern Putumayo who will be left to pick up the pieces of their destroyed lives themselves and who will suffer the most from shortfall in the social development fund.

Local governors representing the communities in Putumayo have spoken out against Plan Colombia ’s forced fumigation program because of the predicted traumatic impact on people already struggling to survive. But local initiatives for manual eradication along with sustainable and viable ways of helping peasants find other ways of making a living have not received more than cursory attention. People living in these regions know very well that military solutions have never worked. Atherton also reports an interview made with Parmenio Cuellar, a former justice minister and new governor of Nariño province in Colombia who said in it: “We all want this plague to be eradicated. But in 20 years, Colombia ’s anti-narcotics policies have not reduced, much less eliminated, drug production. We have to recognize that the problem of drugs in Colombia is tied to the poverty of the peasants”. The country’s main guerrilla movement, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), so often misrepresented in the media as fighting to defend coca cultivations to protect their own financial interests, on the contrary fight to protect the livelihoods of poor peasants forced to grow coca because there is no feasible alternative. The FARC have long said they are in favor of carefully orchestrated manual eradication and crop substitution based on sustainable and just alternative development programs, which ensure that peasants are not left without any source of income and take their views into account.

Destitute, sickened by chemicals raining down from military gun-ships in the sky, their land, rivers and animals contaminated, promised help that never materializes, and paramilitary targets if they put up a resistance, the residents in this decimated region of the southern Andes in a manner is summed up by Luis Carlos Gonzales, a Cofan leader. He invites the Colombian government to come to Putumayo “so that they can tell them they are not cockroaches to be fumigated”.

c. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION

Analyzing this situation from the perspective of the Catholic Church, we could say that the application of the Plan Colombia is a clear case of the negative effect that the decisions of the government of a country can have upon the environment and its people in order to solve a problem.

First of all we have to take into account what the biblical and Catholic Church teachings say about stewardship[8]; the need to respect nature; and the need to recognize and promote the common good. These themes are consistent with a Christian belief that the earth is a creation of God intended to serve the needs of all creation. As persons created in the image of God and as stewards of creation (Genesis 1-2), we are challenged to both use and respect created things. But also people are created in the image and likeness of God and are called to be neighbors to one another. We are created as social beings that must exercise a certain responsibility toward our neighbors. The common good demands a proper respect for the land, the air and the water to assure that when we have passed through this land it remains habitable and productive for those who come after us. The recognition of the presence and plan of God challenges us to work to understand better the ecosystems of our region, or country, and to seek to utilize its goods justly while respecting the value of all its creatures.

Regarding this, the Colombian Bishops Conference quoted the prophet Isaiah:

The spirit of the Lord God is upon me because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the humble, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and release to those in prison; to proclaim a year of the Lord's favor (Isa 61: 1-2).

The perspective that Jesus indicates in the Gospel, are parts of the conviction of the Colombian Bishops of having been chosen and sent to the poor, the hurt, the oppressed, the displaced, the victims of numerous injustices, exclusion and the violence that reigns in Colombia. [9]

With that frame, we can take the perspective of liberation ecotheology, which affirms that the ruination of ecosystems is linked with oligarchic and demagogic oppression. Eco-ethical remarks in this regard always express a concern for how enforced poverty and the subjugation of peoples are bound up with an assault on the natural environment. Leonardo Boff states in this regard that “rights” belong to nonhuman beings –to animals, to other living species, to landforms, to the air, to the sky, to “the environment” at large, and to the cosmos. He calls all of these beings “citizens, subject to rights” which demand respect and are due a future. He believes that the classic notion of the “common good of humanity” must be extended so that it “includes the welfare of nature”.[10]

The effects that the fumigation with glyphosate is doing upon the environment and the people of the south part of Colombia supported by the Plan Colombia is a typical case of war between the technosphere and the ecosphere[11] in which the rights of the human and nonhuman beings are not being respected.

What about the application of the concept of the common good in this particular case?

The Colombian government is not considering the Church’s teaching on the universal purpose of created things and the equitable use of the earth’s resources. It is not affected by an option for the poor that gives passion to the quest for an equitable and sustainable world. There is simply no equity between what the Colombian is seeking and the effects that the environment and the poor people of the area of Putumayo in Colombia are suffering.

When government interests marginalize the good of individuals and the environment, the words of Pope John Paul II are relevant:

The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. Often, the interests of production prevail over concern for the dignity of workers, while economic interests take priority over the good of individuals and even entire peoples. In these cases, pollution or environmental destruction is the result of an unnatural and reductionist vision which at times leads to a genuine contempt for humans.[12]

The Pope also says in this regard that the concepts of an ordered universe and a common heritage both point to the necessity of a more internationally coordinated approach to the management of the earth’s goods. In many cases the effects of ecological problems transcend the borders of individual States. The need for joint action on the international level does not lessen the responsibility of each individual State. Not only should each State join with others in implementing internationally accepted standards, but it should also make or facilitate necessary socio-economic adjustments within its own borders, giving special attention to the most vulnerable sectors of society. The State should also actively endeavor within its own territory to prevent destruction of the atmosphere and biosphere, by carefully monitoring among other things, the impact of new technological or scientific advances.

In regard to the use of dangerous pollutants from the State, the Pope is very clear:

The State also has the responsibility of ensuring that its citizens are not exposed to dangerous pollutants or toxic wastes. The right to a safe environment is ever more insistently presented today as a right that must be included in an updated Charter of Human Rights.[13]

The late Pope sees this as a sign of the ecological crisis that the Earth is suffering currently. It points to the urgent moral need for a new solidarity, especially in relations between the developing nations and those that are highly industrialized. States must increase the responsibility, in complementary ways, for the promotion of a natural and social environment that is both peaceful and healthy.[14]

The newly industrialized States cannot, for example, be asked to apply restrictive environmental standards to their emerging industries unless the industrialized States first apply them within their own boundaries. At the same time, countries in the process of industrialization are not morally free to repeat the errors made in the past by others, and recklessly continue to damage the environment through industrial pollutants. This need presents new opportunities for strengthening cooperative and peaceful relations among States.

The Pope also stresses on the fact that the proper ecological balance will not be found without directly addressing the structural forms of poverty that exist throughout the world. Once the land of the poor yields no more because it is not adequate to produce, they move on to clear new land, thus accelerating uncontrolled deforestation, or they settle in urban centers, which lack the infrastructure to receive them. The solutions to this kind of problems and all the environmental problems in general, according to the Pope, will have to be based on a morally coherent worldview.

d. PASTORAL PLANNING

The Church in the Americas and the Pope John Paul II recognize that the efforts to eradicate the drug trade must address fundamental questions of equity. This issue manifests itself in how both drug producing and consuming countries promote education and facilitate just social and economic development.

In the “Declaration of the Permanent Committee Concerning the Reality of Plan Colombia” made on September 20^th of 2002, the Colombian Bishops recognized that in spite of the current situation lived in Colombia, there are many who, in virtue of their Christian commitment, have been created conditions of justice and equality. Their objective is to build a New Colombia supported by the strength given to them by Jesus Christ, Lord of history, and the goodwill of all those who feel Colombia 's pain. [15] With regards the fumigations against the coca crops, the actions steps that the Colombian Bishops Conference proposes are:

· To establish supportive structures

Drug trafficking in Colombia has become one of the main causes of social destruction, of the conflict's financing, and of shame before the international community. It is necessary to establish supportive structures so that those involved in illicit cultivation may be able to substitute those crops and have access to means of transportation and commercialization of alternative products. In this way, they may be able to lead dignified lives and become integral parts of the country's system of economic productivity. The solution to the eradication of coca and poppy cultivations is not fumigation, which clearly brings with it harmful effects, both for the environment and human beings. Without serious attempts to promote socioeconomic alternatives, fumigation may simply push illicit cultivation deeper into the rainforest and neighboring countries. The Colombian Bishops recommend, instead of eradication, the offer of new possibilities for work.

· To look for support from the International Community

There is a growing awareness within Colombia of the importance of support from the international community to the Colombian process. That help is positive and it would serve to ensure the development of initiatives that generate employment, health, and education and support the administration of justice. It is urgent that those international contributions provide real social investment, which would require the Colombian Government's honest presence in all of its services to the benefit of the farmers and the poor who live on the coca crops.

During April and May 2001, Catholic Relief Services' In Solidarity with Colombia program co-sponsored and organized an intensive two-week speaking tour in the United States for Colombian Church and indigenous leaders. The tour was designed to provide an opportunity for the agency's Colombian partners to share their testimonies and express their grave concern over the impact of the "Plan Colombia .” CRS organized the tour, in collaboration with the indigenous rights and environmental organization The Amazon Alliance, as part of its U.S. advocacy and awareness-raising efforts, and in response to the Colombian Episcopal Conference's concerns about this harmful U.S.-supported policy. The speakers presented at dozens of events across four states and reached 2,500 individuals, hundreds of local organizations, and diverse media. Presentations were given in community centers, parishes, universities, and schools, in addition to individual meetings between the speakers and parish/diocesan leaders, Congressional Representatives' staff, environmental and indigenous rights activists, and local community leaders. [16]

· To condition all aids with the respect for Human Rights

All the policies that have to do with international contributions to eradicate the coca and poppy crops should be applied by trying to maintain equilibrium between military aid, on the one hand, and humanitarian aid for development, on the other. Likewise, all those aids will be conditioned by the respect for Human Rights. Hopefully, in that way the application of the Plan Colombia may transform itself into a healthy initiative towards peace, reconciliation and a healthy coexistence between all Colombians.

REACTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Supporting Colombian Church concerns, 2000 United States Catholic Conference International Policy Committee statement recognized that the United States was the source of much of the demand for the illicit drugs grown and processed in Colombia . They also recognized that the crisis in Colombian civil society was, in good measure, due to illegal drug use in the United States ." Recognizing the impact of US policy on Colombia , Cardinal Law stated that the greatest contribution of the United States in that regard could be the reduction in the domestic demand for these drugs, the result of policies of drug education, treatment and rehabilitation.[17]

On the other hand, a powerful blow was dealt to the United States and the United Nations Drugs Program strategy of forcibly fumigating Colombian coca cultivations as part of the Plan Colombia when the European Parliament on February 1^st of 2001 voted unanimously against that method of solving the drugs problem in the United States . The Parliament voted 474 to 1 to reject Plan Colombia and its planned strategy of not only chemical fumigation, but also introducing biological agents into the Andes, and resolved to take all the necessary steps to secure an end to the large-scale use of chemical herbicides and prevent the introduction of biological agents such as Fusarium oxysporum and glyphosate, given the dangers to human health and the environment alike. They concluded that whereas one of the objectives of Plan Colombia lied on stamping out drug trafficking and the spread of illegal crops by means of a strategy which favored aerial crop-spraying and the use of biological agents, those methods were leading to the forced displacement of families and communities and were seriously affecting Colombia's rich biodiversity. The decision by the European Parliament has been welcomed by all those campaigning against Plan Colombia and is based on very clear insights into the appalling human rights abuses perpetrated by the Colombian military and their affiliated right-wing paramilitary groups.[18]

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From all the research I made about the environmental impact of “Plan Colombia ”, it is clear that fumigation with the large-scale use of chemical herbicides and the introduction of biological agents such as Fusarium oxysporum and glyphosate alone is not the solution to eradicate the coca crops. This is the view of the bishops of Colombia and it is also the opinion of everyone in the Putumayo zone, from the Governor to the most humble citizen. I reject the use of fumigations that “Plan Colombia ” is doing because of the following reasons:

Ÿ       It is a violent method and violence only creates more violence. As long as illicit cultivation remains in the minds and hearts of the cultivators, it will never end. This can only be achieved if the Colombian Government has a dominating presence in the coca producing areas and can offer real and effective production alternatives that are in agreement with the fragile Amazon environment, as well as technical assistance, credit lines that are accessible to the humble peasants, an assured market for their products, etc. There must also be an ethical-cultural base that may consolidate the community. In addition to this, the zone must be developed in the basic services areas: roads, healthcare, education, electrification, water ducts, etc. In this way, the eradication of illegal crops will be successful without the great ecological impact of fumigation by personal persuasion, human criteria, and Christian respect for life, personal dignity and human rights.

Ÿ       It is anti-ecological since it contaminates the water affecting children, elderly people and cattle. It also affects the area as a whole, pastures, other crops, etc., not just the coca plantations. In cases like this, I could say that the medicine is worse than the sickness. Definitely, this method becomes a chemical war on the poor and in that way it becomes a social sin.

Ÿ       It is also a very expensive method and completely inefficient because it only shifts cultivation further into the jungle and it is this area that will suffer the worse part of the coca phenomenon due to the cultivation itself or its fumigation.

Ÿ       It has become in an example of irrational destruction of the environment and at the same time in a social sin because it is a sign of a failure to listen and an attitude of conceding nothing, which block the building of consensus.

Ÿ       Aerial fumigation alone, without the participation of the people involved in the illegal cultivations and the other ingredients that are involved in that problem, will not halt the growing of coca.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atherton, Liz. “The Impact of Plan Colombia ’s Fumigation Offensive.” March 2001. <http://www.colombiapeace.org/documents_2001_8.html> ( 15 May 2003).

Blake, Deborah. Toward a Sustainable Ethic: Virtue and the Environment. In And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer, 197-208. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000.

Catholic Bishops of the United States . “The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good.” 12 May 1999. <http://www.columbiariver.org/main_pages/Watershed/WORD/english.doc> ( 19 May 2003).

Catholic Relief Services. “Plan Colombia : Human and Environmental Degradation Backgrounder.” 2001. <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/plan_colombia/human_and_environmental_degradatioon-backgrounder> ( 13 May 2003).

Catholic Relief Services. “Speaking Tour for Colombian Indigenous and Church Leaders.” April 2001. <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/speaking_tour.cfm> ( 26 May 2003).

Colombian Bishops Conference. “Declaration of the Permanent Committee Concerning the Reality of Plan Colombia .” ( 20 September 2002). <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/declaration.cfm> ( 19 May 2003).

Colombian Bishops Conference. “Our Contribution to a New Colombia .” ( 13 November 2002). <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/conference.cfm> ( 19 May 2003).

Colombian Republic Presidency , Plan Colombia esta en Accion, 2001, <http://www.plancolombia.gov.co/contenido/plan_Colombia>, 11 February 2004.

Consultoria para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES). “Plan Colombia: Contraproductos y Crisis Humanitaria. Fumigaciones y desplazamiento en la frontera con Ecuador.“ 29 October 2003. <http://www.db.Iproject.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/C20E76> ( 30 January 2005).

Christiansen, Drew. Ecology and the Common Good: Catholic Social Teaching and Environmental Responsibility. In And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000.

European Parliament. “European Parliament Resolution on Plan Colombia and Support for the Peace Process in Colombia ,” February 2001, <http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/europa/parlamento/PEcoleng01feb.html > ( 26 May 2003)

Henriot, Peter. Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice. Dove Communications and Orbis Books, 1986.

John Paul II. The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility. In And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer, 215-222. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000.

McHugh, James T. Stewards of Life, Stewards of Nature. In And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment, ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer, 321-326. Washington DC: Island Press, 2000.

Smith, Pamela. What are they saying about Environmental Ethics? New York: Paulist Press, 1997.

^[1] Peter Henriot and Joe Holland, Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice ( Dove Communications and Orbis Books, 1986), 1-29.

^[2] Colombian Republic Presidency , Plan Colombia esta en Accion, 2001, <http://www.plancolombia.gov.co/contenido/plan_Colombia>, 11 February 2004.

^[4] Liz Atherton, “The Impact of Plan Colombia ’s Fumigation Offensive, ” March 2001, <http://www.colombiapeace.org/documents_2001_8.html> ( 15 May 2003).

^[5] Consultoria para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES), “Plan Colombia: Contraproductos y Crisis Humanitaria. Fumigaciones y desplazamiento en la frontera con Ecuador,“ 29 October 2003,

<http://www.db.I project.org/Sites/IdpProjectDb/idpSurvey.nsf/wViewCountries/C20E76> (30 January 2005).

[6] Colombian Republic Presidency , Plan Colombia esta en Accion, 2001, <http://www.plancolombia.gov.co/contenido/plan_Colombia/recursos>, 11 February 2004.

[7] Liz Atherton, “The Impact of Plan Colombia ’s Fumigation Offensive, ” March 2001, <http://www.colombiapeace.org/documents_2001_8.html> ( 15 May 2003).

^[8] Catholic Bishops of North America, “The Columbia River Watershed: Caring for Creation and the Common Good,” 12 May 1999, < http://www.columbiariver.org/main_pages/Watershed/WORD/english.doc> ( 19 May 2003).

^[9] Colombian Bishops Conference, “Our Contribution to a New Colombia,” 13 November 2002, <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/conference.cfm> ( 19 May 2003).

^[10] Pamela Smith, What are they saying about Environmental Ethics? ( New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 57-66.

^[11] Debora Blake, Toward a Sustainable Ethic: Virtue and the Environment, in And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment., ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer,197-208 ( Washington DC: Island Press, 2000),200.

^[12] John Paul II, The Ecological Crisis: A Common Responsibility, in And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment., ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer, 215-22 ( Washington DC: Island Press, 2000),218.

^[14] James T. McHugh, Stewards of Life, Stewards of Nature, in And God Saw that It was Good: Catholic Theology and the Environment., ed. Drew Christiansen and Walter Glazer,321-326 (Washington DC: Island Press, 2000),323.

^[15] Colombian Bishops Conference, “Declaration of the Permanent Committee Concerning the Reality of Plan Colombia ,” 20 September 2002, <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/declaration.cfm > ( 26 May 2003).

^[16] Catholic Relief Services, “Speaking Tour for Colombian Indigenous and Church Leaders,” April 2001, <http://www.catholicrelief.org/where_we_work/latin_america_and_the_caribbean/colombia/speaking_tour.cfm> ( 26 May 2003).

^[18] European Parliament, “European Parliament Resolution on Plan Colombia and Support for the Peace Process in Colombia,” February 2001, <http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/europa/parlamento/PEcoleng01feb.html > ( 26 May 2003).

Farid De La Ossa is a Claretian Missionary studying at the Chicago Catholic Theological Union Chicago. This paper was originally presented to the American Academy of Religion.

Email: fariddelaossa@yahoo.com

© Copyright is retained by the author

This article has been peer reviewed, and is deemed to meet the criteria for original research as set out by the Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.