The Impact of the Andean Trade Preference Act Twelfth ... - USITC

enforcement and alternative development programs that offer suitable tropical crops as legalsubstitutes to illegal coca. 303 In the mountainous Yungas region of Bolivia, where certainindigenous coca cultivation is part of a centuries-old tradition, direct substitution of legalalternative crops for illegal coca cultivation is proving more difficult in isolated,mountainous terrain. Moreover, coca growers from the Chapare region are establishing newfields in the Yungas region, hoping to take advantage of indigenous peoples’ demands tolegalize more coca cultivation than presently is permitted. 304 In Colombia, employmentopportunities in the flower and textile industries, both of which are supported by ATPA tradepreferences, are not located in rebel-controlled territories where coca eradication campaignsby law enforcement forces are under way. In Peru, employment opportunities generated bythe asparagus sector and by other agricultural export industries stimulated by ATPApreferences are located largely on the southern coast of Peru, far from the central mountainswhere much of Peru’s coca is grown. Nonetheless, the opportunity for legal employment insuch instances has drawn workers away from illegal drug-crop production, processing, andtransportation, particularly laborers from impoverished regions. 305The Commission recognizes that ATPA is but a single element of the multifaceted U.S.counternarcotics effort. As a result, it is difficult to isolate the impact of ATPA on drugrelatedcrop eradication and crop substitution or alternative development. Nonetheless, usingan analysis of trade and drug-crop trends and a review of relevant literature, unclassifiedU.S. embassy reports, and publications from relevant U.S. Government agencies, theCommission estimates that in 2005 ATPA continued to have a small yet positive impact instemming further growth of the drug trade in the Andean region.Regional Cultivation and Eradication Trends during 2005In 2005, Bolivia and Peru faced increasingly active groups of coca farmers challenging thesuccessful coca reduction campaigns mounted previously in those countries. Colombiacontinued to contain its coca cultivation in 2004-2005, after its success in 2002-2003 inreducing its coca crop for the first time in a decade. Ecuador remained largely atransshipment point for drugs rather than a significant coca leaf producer.In 2005, the U.S. Government estimated net coca cultivation in the ATPA region at 169,900hectares, only slightly higher than the 166,200 hectares in 2004 (2-percent increase) butrepresenting a nearly 25-percent decrease from peak production of 221,800 hectares in 2001303U.S. Department of State telegram, “Bolivia’s Eradication Efforts: ‘Best Efforts’ May Not Be Enoughin the Future,” message reference No. 241, prepared by U.S. Embassy, La Paz, Jan. 25, 2005.304 Both Bolivia and Peru permit some legal coca cultivation for traditional and commercial use, butillegal coca cultivation is far in excess of legal production. In Bolivia, up to 12,000 hectares of cocacultivation is permitted under Bolivian National Law No. 1008 of 1988, largely in traditional areas of theNorth and South Yungas. In Peru, to produce coca leaf legally, farmers must register with and sell their cropto the national government coca monopoly—the National Coca Agency (ENACO, Empresa Nacional deCoca). Legal coca cultivation is located largely in the traditional areas east of the city of Cuzco.305Carlos Mateo Paz-Soldan, and John B. Totaro, Jr., attorneys, Schmeltzer, Aptaker & Shepard, onbehalf of the Peruvian Asparagus and Vegetables Institute, written submission to the Commission concerninginv. No. 332-352, Andean Trade Preference Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on DrugCrop Eradication and Crop Substitution, June 8, 2006.4-3