Talk:Estudios ambientales en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (1986)
Discussion page of Estudios ambientales en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (1986)
More actions
Talk
Discussion for: Estudios ambientales en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (1986) • View • Links • Related changes
Use this page for verification notes, disputes, and action items. Keep narrative content on the article.
Page scope
Estudios ambientales en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (1986) covers the INDERENA field report of 1986 on the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta: why it was written, its authors and commission, what it says of marijuana growing and of glyphosate spraying, and its recommendations. The spraying campaign as a whole is on Herbicide spraying in Colombia; the history of the crop in the mountains is on Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and History of cannabis in Colombia.
Data verification
Record source conflicts, dating problems and sources not used here. Keep narrative content on the article.
Discussion
Sources
- The report. The text is known from a web copy on Mama Coca, which names the documentation centre of the Fundación Pro-Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and calls itself a reconstitución. After the report it prints the terms of reference of 31 July 1986, a laboratory list and cost tables. It does not include the maps and photographs that the report mentions.
- INDERENA's earlier letters. María Mercedes Moreno's history of the spraying (MamaCoca and Indepaz, 2015) quotes INDERENA's letters of 19 June 1978 and of August 1984.
Where the sources disagree
- The dates of the commission. The web copy dates the commission 12 to 16 December 1986 but the report's signature 6 October 1986. The terms of reference printed after it are dated 31 July 1986, and the report says INDERENA's proposal went to the National Narcotics Council by a letter "del 31 de 1986", with no month. Either the December date or the October signature is a transcription error; the copy does not show which.
- The letter of August 1984. The report cites INDERENA's letter "No.08885 del 3 de agosto de 1984" to the director of the National Police; Moreno quotes "oficio-c3885 del 8 de agosto 1984". These may be one letter.
- The hemp-then-cabuya statement. The report says that marijuana was brought to the Sierra Nevada early in the 17th century for hemp and soon displaced by cabuya, citing Patiño 1967. Patiño's volume III on miscellaneous plants (dated 1967 in the report's bibliography, 1968 in Patiño's own) records, on separate pages, cabuya cords made by the Arhuacos of the Sierra Nevada in the mid-19th century (citing Reclus, 1881) and the failure of hemp across the New World, where cabuya served for ships' rigging. His volume IV (1969) says that hemp "no tuvo predicamento" in equatorial America, with negative reports for Panama (1607), Tunja (1610) and Pamplona (about 1622), and trials only at Palmira (1929) and Buga (1937). Neither volume puts hemp in the Sierra Nevada in any century.
- 1927 and 1945. The report's "desde 1927 … por braceros y marineros del Litoral Caribe" matches no passage in Patiño's volume IV, where 1927 is the year marijuana first appears in Costa Rican law (p. 405, citing Regallo Pereira 1945). The words braceros and marineros do not occur in that volume. For 1945 Patiño writes that in the years after it the Colombian press reported small clandestine plots on the Atlantic coast, in northern Antioquia and in the Valle del Cauca (p. 405): a date for press reports in three regions, not for the first fields on the coast.
- Vietnam veterans. The report's statement that growing increased after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, "fomentado por veteranos", carries no citation in the report.
Open points
- Whether the environmental impact study that the report asked for was ever made, and what became of the proposal to extend the national park, is not established.