WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/03 by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission. Census of coca producers in Peru and reclassification of coca leaf.
Date: 2003-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Commission, Peru, UN technical commission, alternative agricultural production, development aid, interinstitutional relations, narcotic, statistical nomenclature

C 33 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

(2004/C 33 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0710/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject: Census of coca producers in Peru and reclassification of coca leaf

The first (and so far only) census of legal and authorised coca-leaf producers in Peru dates back to 1978
and the purchase of coca leaf (exclusively by the state-run ENACO) is now based perforce on arbitrary
criteria employed for the purpose of selecting the producers from whom coca leaf is bought for legal use.
Furthermore, the figures relating to the increase in the size of the areas set aside for coca-leaf cultivation
are contradictory.

The UN classifies coca leaf in the same category as cocaine and heroin, despite the fact that independent
studies and ones carried out by the World Health Organisation itself have demonstrated the medical and
nutritional properties of the product which, in the Andes, has an essential role to play in local culture,
tradition and religion.

In view of the above facts and the passage of 25 years, does the Commission not think that it should call
for and assist the drawing up of a new register of authorised producers on the basis of public, transparent
and non-discriminatory criteria, not least for the benefit of the alternative-development projects to be
implemented in the areas concerned?

Does the Commission not consider that, at the Ministerial-level segment of the UN Commission on
Narcotic Drugs which is to be held in Vienna on 16 and 17 April 2003, it should propose the deletion of
coca leaf from Table I in order to enable a legal coca-leaf market to emerge and thus a sustainable
agricultural economy to develop in the Andean countries?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

the principle of co-responsibility,

the Commission is supporting an alternative
On the basis of
development programme in Peru,
in the region of Pozuzo Palcazu (Community contribution of
EUR 28 million). For the Commission, the objective of alternative development is to encourage economies
that are based on the illicit cultivation of coca to move to a system based on licit activities, which is
for democratic principles.
established through a dialogue with local communities and the respect
Consequently, the scope of alternative development is broad-based and does not merely consist of crop
substitution.

Therefore, this programme only refers to illegal coca, which explains why the Community is not involved
in ENACO activities. The Pozuzo Palcazu Programme includes different
feasibility studies (such as
environmental impact), support to transport and electricity infrastructures, productive activities (namely in
agriculture, breeding and forest management), and the strengthening of representative structures among
the beneficiaries involved in the project.

As regard the discrepancy in the figures about areas of coca cultivation, statistics from different sources
give different figures for methodological and technical reasons.

The Commission is an active Permanent Observer of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs
(CND), where it has been defending a balanced approach between prevention and treatment and the fight
against production and trafficking. Alternative development projects are an illustration of the latter since,
by providing alternative livelihoods, they seek to decrease the dependence of farmers on drug cultivation.

There are no plans for the next session of the CND to engage in a process of revising the three United
Nations Conventions. Moreover, this matter has not been raised by Member States or by the Commission
in the periodic discussions of Union drug policy.