Colombia announced plans to resume aerial spraying of coca crops for the first time in more than a decade, prompting a local court to temporarily suspend the program amid concerns over potential health and environmental risks. The government intends to carry out a limited pilot using a different herbicide in Putumayo, a southern province heavily affected by coca cultivation.
The decision follows recent discussions between Colombia’s President Abelardo De La Espriella and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who met to coordinate efforts to combat narcotrafficking. The program aims to curb the production of coca, the plant used to make cocaine, which has expanded significantly, with the United Nations estimating a record 261,000 hectares under cultivation in 2024—nearly triple the area recorded when aerial spraying was halted in 2015.
Authorities said the pilot will employ glufosinate-ammonium, an herbicide widely used in agriculture but different from glyphosate, which was suspended amid health concerns in 2015 after being classified by the World Health Organization as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Colombia’s Constitutional Court then placed strict conditions on any attempt to resume airborne spraying.
Glufosinate-ammonium carries its own risks; the WHO classifies it as a Class II moderately hazardous pesticide, a higher risk category than glyphosate’s Class III rating. The herbicide has been linked to neurological effects such as seizures and memory impairment in cases of high exposure, though the impact of lower exposure levels remains uncertain. The European Union does not approve glufosinate, citing its toxicity to reproduction.
The program has sparked immediate legal challenges. A Putumayo court issued a provisional suspension on Friday, contending that the government had not provided sufficient information on the potential dangers. The ruling is temporary and pending further judicial review.
Environmental experts and community representatives have voiced strong opposition. Carlos Lozano, an environmental specialist, questioned the government’s decision to switch to a compound potentially more hazardous than glyphosate without adequate transparency. Diana Buitrago, an activist from Putumayo, highlighted local residents’ fears that aerial spraying indiscriminately destroys not only coca but also food crops and native plants, stressing the absence of consultation with affected communities.
Academic studies have produced conflicting assessments of aerial eradication’s effects on health. A 2009 investigation by Colombia’s National Health Institute found no clear link between spraying and human health impacts. In contrast, a 2015 study by economists Adriana Camacho and Daniel Mejía indicated associations with skin and respiratory conditions, as well as miscarriages in exposed populations, findings that influenced the court’s earlier ban on fumigation.
Despite these concerns, Mejía acknowledged the challenges posed by escalating coca cultivation and expressed cautious support for the pilot, emphasizing the importance of rigorous evaluation and independent oversight.
Colombia’s authorities have pledged to exclude environmentally protected areas, water sources, and indigenous and Afro-Colombian territories from spraying operations. The government has not yet provided further comment on the suspension or future steps. The case underscores the ongoing tension between drug control efforts and the protection of vulnerable communities and ecosystems in Colombia’s rural regions.