• Español
  • English
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • rss
  • Español
  • English
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • rss
TNI D&D
  • Home
  • About us
    • About us
    • People
    • Partners
    • Researchers
    • Contact us
    • In the media
    • Newsletter
  • Newsroom
    • Press contacts
    • Press releases
    • Resources
    • Drugs in the news
  • Issues
    • Drug policy debate in the Americas
    • Decriminalization
    • Proportionality of sentences
    • Harm reduction
    • Reclassification of substances
    • Safer crack use
    • Human rights
    • Regulation
    • Unscheduling the coca leaf
    • Ending the war on drugs
    • Alternative development
    • Cannabis
    • Producers of Crops
    • Law enforcement
    • ATS, Mild stimulants & NPS
    • European Drug Policy
    • Money Laundering
  • UN Drug
    Control
    • Conventions
    • UNODC
    • CND
    • INCB
    • UNGASS
  • Country
    information
    • Drug Law Reform on the Map
    • Central America
      • El Salvador
      • Guatemala
      • Honduras
      • Costa Rica
    • Latin America
      • Argentina
      • Bolivia
      • Paraguay
      • Brazil
      • Chile
      • Colombia
      • Ecuador
      • Peru
      • Uruguay
      • Venezuela
    • Mexico
    • Caribbean
      • Jamaica
      • Belize
    • Afghanistan
  • Events
    • Expert Seminars
    • Informal Policy Dialogues
    • Public Events
    • Judges for Law Reform
  • Publications
    • Drug Policy Briefings
    • Drug Law Reform
    • Legislative Reform Series
    • The Human Face
    • Drugs & conflict
    • Drugs and the Law (CEDD)
      • Systems overload
    • Drug Markets and Violence
  • Weblog

 

The resolution of ambiguities regarding coca

cocaleafThe international legal status of the coca leaf and of its traditional uses in the Andes has long been ambiguous and contested. While the International Narcotics Control Board in 1994 stated its intention to remove those ambiguities, it has instead moved towards a more intolerant criticism of policies carried out by countries like Bolivia in their renewed promotion of coca.

The tensions surrounding around the coca leaf and the current operation of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or Board) are explored in this paper. These tensions are analysed in light of the INCB’s interpretation of the UN drug control conventions andits mandate as laid out within them.

The international legal status of the coca leaf and of its traditional uses in the Andes has long been ambiguous and contested. Consequently, in an attempt to obtain legal recognition for traditional uses, Peru and Bolivia negotiated paragraph 2 of Article 14 into the 1988 Convention, stipulating that measures to eradicate illicit cultivation and to eliminate illicit demand “should take due account of traditional licit use, where there is historic evidence of such use.” Bolivia also made a formal reservation to the 1988 Convention stressing that its “legal system recognizes the ancestral nature of the licit use of the coca leaf which, for much of Bolivia’s population, dates back over centuries.”

However, Article 25 of the 1988 Convention guaranteed that its provisions should not derogate from any obligations under the previous drug control treaties. Furthermore, as the International Narcotics Control Board  (INCB) pointed out in its 1994 supplement on the Effectiveness of the International Drug Control Treaties, “the drafters of the 1988 Convention enhanced the non-derogatory clause by including in paragraph 1 of article 14 a provision stipulating that any measures taken pursuant to that Convention should not be less stringent than the provisions applicable to eradication of illicit cultivation of plants containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the provisions of the previous international drug control conventions.” (1)

Other ambiguities

In its 1994 supplement, the INCB mentioned other ambiguities surrounding the coca issue, such as the fact that drinking of coca tea “which is considered harmless and legal in several countries in South America, is an illegal activity under the provisions of both the 1961 Convention and the 1988 Convention, though that was not the intention of the plenipotentiary conferences that adopted those conventions” (emphasis added). At that point there was discussion of coca as an area “where clarifications are needed” with the Board “confident that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, on the basis of scientific evaluation, will resolve such long-standing ambiguities, which have been undermining the conventions.”

It consequently called on the WHO to undertake a scientific review. Outcomes of a WHO study on coca/cocaine in 1995, however, proved too controversial to be published. According to the briefing kit summarising the research results the “Use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.”(2)

Stalemate

Nothing has happened since to resolve the legal inconsistencies surrounding coca. Indeed, the Board has been reluctant to highlight the situation in its role as a watchdog of the conventions, deal with the nations concerned in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, and encourage the CND and WHO to move to resolve the matter. Rather the INCB has stepped up its condemnation of traditional use in the Andes and of industrialization of coca products.

As such the Board has been critical of policy positions on coca in a number of Andean states. In its 2005 Annual Report the INCB reminded the parties of the fact that “the transitional measures regarding the licit cultivation of coca bush and consumption of coca leaf under the 1961 Convention ended a long time ago”.(3) The following Annual Report emitted a clear warning to the governments of Bolivia, Peru and Argentina that growing and using coca leaf is in conflict with the 1961 Single Convention. Consequently, countries were asked to adapt their national legislation back in line with the conventions. (4) Bolivia was even the focus of a “Special Topics” section in the 2006 Annual Report:

“The situation in Bolivia, which for many years has not been in conformity with that State’s obligations under the international drug control treaties, continues to be a matter of particular concern to the Board. Bolivia is a major producer of coca leaf, and national legislation allows the cultivation of coca bush and the consumption of coca leaf for non-medical purposes, which are not in line with the provisions of the 1961 Convention.”(5)  

Recent developments

The Board has also expressed particular concern over Bolivia’s recent desire to withdraw the coca leaf from the 1961 narcotic drugs lists.(6) Bolivian policies and laws on coca leaf have been under review since the 2005 election of President Evo Morales, a coca farmers’ leader and himself a habitual coca chewer. The Bolivian government, hoping coca leaf could be ‘unscheduled’ in order to enable export of coca-based products, has announced its intention but not yet initiated the formal notification procedure. The strong criticism and the fact that the Board presented this as a ‘matter of particular concern’ in a ‘special topics’ section of its Report, which sounds very much like a ‘waiting room’ for the invocation of Article 14, raised the anger of the Bolivian government.

When INCB President Emafo presented the Annual Report at a press conference in Vienna in early 2007 he made it clear he was opposed to Bolivia’s intention to reassess the coca leaf and promote its industrial usage, a move which in his view would be in breach of the international drug control conventions. He also added his ‘personal view’ that coca chewing “is not good for working people” since taking away their hunger impedes “appropriate nutrition, part of human rights.”(7)

Concerned about human rights?

This was a rare INCB reference to the defence of human rights in drug control, but a selective one as Bolivia defends its new coca policy with reference to its inalienable cultural and indigenous rights, which are equally part of human rights.(8) After the press conference, the Bolivian ambassador in Vienna stated, “Bolivia had invited the Board for a visit in September. The radical position the president has taken toward Bolivia puts into jeopardy the good relations between La Paz and the Board. … I’m not sure under these circumstances a trip to Bolivia will be necessary. I would not be able to understand that this gentleman appears and tells our President: listen, you have to stop chewing.” (9)

Two INCB representatives did visit Bolivia in September 2007, perhaps showing a more positive stance towards Bolivia’s claims.   Nonetheless, ambiguities around coca continue and the INCB, instead of requesting the appropriate WHO and CND guidance to clarify the matter, looks set to continue to make harsh and narrow judgements that condemn countries that permit traditional coca use and the industrialization of coca.

Notes:

1. E/INCB/1994/Suppl.1, Effectiveness of the International Drug Control Treaties, Supplement to the Report of the International Narcotic Control Board for 1994.

2. Briefing Kit, WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, 3 March 1995. For more background see: Coca, Cocaine and the International Conventions, TNI Drug Policy Briefing, No. 5, April 2003.

3.  INCB Annual Report 2005, para 393. The transitional measures allowed countries to phase out coca chewing over 25 years, a period that expired in 1989, 25 years after the convention entered into force in December 1964.

4. “In Peru, coca bush growers are putting pressure on the new Government to stop manual eradication of coca bush and to remove coca leaf from international control. In Argentina, under current legislation, the possession of coca tea or coca leaf in a natural state for chewing purposes is not considered to be possession or personal use of a narcotic drug.” INCB Annual Report for 2006, para. 362. In 2006 the Board also criticized Colombia in a letter for allowing its indigenous peoples to produce and distribute domestically coca tea and a soft drink called ‘Coca Sek’. Since 1991 the Colombian Constitution recognizes indigenous territorial and cultural rights, and after several legal battles indigenous groups with a longstanding tradition of coca uses were allowed to also industrialize coca and to sell coca-based tea and soft drinks. In reaction to the INCB letter, Colombia prohibited sales of products made from the coca plant again in February 2007 and police raided several selling points to take coca products off the shelves. Sergio de Leon “Coca-Cola Vs Coca Sek in Colombia,” Washington Post, The Associated Press, May 10, 2007

5.  INCB Annual Report 2006, paragraph 171.

6.  See: Sending the wrong message, The INCB and the un-scheduling of the coca leaf, TNI Drug Policy Briefing No. 21, March 2007; and Coca Yes, Cocaine No? Legal Options for the Coca Leaf, TNI Drugs & Conflict Debate Paper 13, May 2006.

7. La coca genera tensión entre la ONU y el Gobierno boliviano, La Razón, La Paz, 1 March 2007.

8. This also leaves aside the fact that it is a strange idea that an individual’s human rights are deemed to be infringed by his or her government’s tolerance of the availability of a substance that he or she chooses to ingest.

9. La coca genera tensión entre la ONU y el Gobierno boliviano, La Razón, La Paz, 1 March 2007.

Adapted from: The International Narcotics Control Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform, IDPC Briefing Paper 7, February 2008

  • Labels
    coca | UN drug control | bolivia

Drugs in the News

  • Jamaican ganja farmers outraged after licence granted to import Canadian herb
    26.02.2023
  • Talks with bank to offer services to cannabis associations
    22.02.2023
  • America has lost the War on Drugs. Here’s what needs to happen next
    22.02.2023
  • Tilburg and Breda to kick off regulated marijuana experiment
    22.02.2023
  • Is legal cannabis available in Cape Town?
    19.02.2023
  • Cattle, not coca, drive deforestation of the Amazon in Colombia – report
    19.02.2023
More news

Weblog

    Germany: Flirting with Plan B?Germany: Flirting with Plan B?
    07.12.2022
More weblog

Hilites

Balancing Treaty Stability and Change

balancing hilite

Inter se modification of the UN drug control conventions to facilitate cannabis regulation


Connecting the dots...

connecting dots hilite

Human rights, illicit cultivation and alternative development


Morocco and Cannabis

morocco cannabis hilite

Reduction, containment or acceptance


The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition

rise decline hilite

The History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options For Reform


Tags

10-year Review  20 1998 UNGASS  26 2005 CND debate  8 2016 UNGASS  126 2019 HLM  5 activism  36 afghanistan  25 show all

Tags

10-year Review  20 1998 UNGASS  26 2005 CND debate  8 2016 UNGASS  126 2019 HLM  5 activism  36 afghanistan  25 hide
africa  12 albania  14 alternative development  120 alternatives to policing  2 amnesty  88 amsterdam  29 appellation of origin  3 argentina  32 asean  9 ATS  15 australia  103 austria  5 ayahuasca  6 bahamas  4 ballot 2012  155 banking  48 barbados  11 belgium  43 belize  10 bermuda  15 bolivia  117 brazil  93 brownfield doctrine  24 burma  45 california  213 cambodia  12 canada  529 cannabinoids  103 cannabis  3130 cannabis clubs  210 cannabis industry  402 caribbean  148 caricom  33 cbd oil  1 central america  5 chile  21 china  46 civil society  37 CND  129 coca  217 cocaine  87 coffee shop  226 cognitive decline  30 colombia  157 colorado  162 compulsary detention  19 conflict  4 conventions  267 corporate capture  54 corruption  4 costa rica  10 crack  54 craft cannabis  30 crime  84 czech republic  41 dark net  4 death penalty  2 decertification  1 decriminalization  910 deforestation  10 denmark  123 drug checking  41 drug consumption rooms  193 drug courts  22 drug markets  142 drug policy index  2 drug testing  7 drug trade  59 e-cigarettes  1 e-joint  2 ecstasy  68 ecuador  22 egypt  16 el salvador  2 environment  24 eradication  129 essential medicines  25 estonia  1 eswatini  7 european drug policy  95 expert advisory group  9 extrajudicial killings  95 fair trade  16 fentanyl  80 france  114 fumigation  27 gateway theory  29 georgia  3 germany  195 ghana  18 global commission  46 greece  19 guatemala  31 guatemala initiative  47 harm reduction  341 hemp  42 heroin  139 heroin assisted treatment  80 HIV/AIDS  61 home cultivation  108 honduras  3 human rights  254 ICC  1 illinois  10 incarceration  52 INCB  139 india  95 indigenous rights  1 indonesia  35 informal drug policy dialogues  22 inter se modification  15 iran  14 ireland  15 israel  63 italy  42 jamaica  173 japan  3 kava  3 kazakhstan  5 ketamine  27 khat  36 kratom  31 kyrgyzstan  1 laos  2 latin american debate  115 law enforcement  413 lebanon  43 legal highs  63 legalization  1622 lesotho  10 local customization  9 luxembourg  48 malaysia  7 malta  47 medical cannabis  654 mental health  44 methamphetamine  48 mexico  210 Mid-Term Review  1 mild stimulants  41 money laundering  54 morocco  123 naloxone  16 nepal  7 netherlands  326 new york  33 new zealand  67 NIDA  5 nitrous oxide  7 norway  18 NPS  10 opinion polls  130 opioids  150 opium  94 oregon  29 overdose kits  4 pakistan  9 panama  5 paraguay  4 pardon  2 patents  18 peace  24 peru  45 peyote  3 philippines  89 pilot project  119 pleasure  5 poland  2 police pacification  18 portugal  68 potency  2 precursors  7 prevention  3 prison situation  100 prohibition  149 proportionality  110 psychedelics  13 psychosis  55 puerto rico  3 racism  29 reclassification  118 recriminalisation  36 regulation  1360 russia  36 sacramental use  11 safe supply  32 safer crack  29 scheduling  27 scientific research  143 sdg  2 security  14 senegal  1 sentencing  67 singapore  6 social justice  78 south africa  78 spain  79 st lucia  9 st vincent and grenadines  31 substance-use disorder  18 substitution treatment  31 sweden  28 switzerland  147 synthetic cannabinoids  30 taxation  52 teen use  43 thailand  69 thresholds  57 tobacco industry  17 traditional growers  149 tramadol  17 treatment  28 trinidad & tobago  15 tunisia  14 UK  276 UN Common Position  1 UN drug control  438 UNGASS  58 UNODC  110 uruguay  145 US drug policy  1180 vaping  2 venezuela  5 vietnam  5 violence  132 WHO  62 world drug report  11

This website

UN Drug Control

In 2011 the 1961 UN Single Convention on drugs will be in place for 50 years. In 2012 the international drug control system will exist 100 years since the International Opium Convention was signed in 1912 in The Hague. Does it still serve its purpose or is a reform of the UN Drug Conventions needed? This site provides critical background.

Drug Law Reform on the map

dlronthemap_und

Copyright © 2016 Drug Law Reform in Latin America

Website by WebWolf