Beyond critical review… What do we do with the coca leaf in Colombia?

Reality moves ahead of the law, at least that is something you learn to live with when working on drug policy. Whether it is the regulation of cannabis for adult use, drug use in public spaces, cannabis clubs, or harm reduction, changes operate in the gray areas or cracks of prohibition. Prohibition imposes restrictions that are so disproportionate, and sometimes ridiculous, that people choose to ignore them and move on. Many people end up preferring action to legal debate and assume the risks.  

The same is true of the coca leaf. There is a debate about the relationship the state should have with the plant, while for a couple of decades there have been products derived from the coca leaf on the market that explore uses of the plant beyond what is considered “traditional.” The coexistence of prohibition and the market creates tensions within the legal field that urgently need to be resolved. This raises the question of how the critical review process and the possible conclusions of the World Health Organization (WHO) on the safety of coca leaf use can and should impact national regulations in order to remove ambiguity and allow for a market for coca leaf products in which the populations that have lost the most from prohibition can participate. 

Controlled and protected at the same time? 

The ambiguity arises because in Colombia the coca leaf has a dual legal status: as a controlled substance under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and as a protected cultural asset. When we talk about the coca leaf being a controlled substance, we are referring to a regulatory framework that includes the constitutional prohibition in Article 49, which prohibits the recreational use of products chemically extracted from the plant, but not the plant itself. When coca is considered a protected cultural asset, the aim is to safeguard its cultural value and protect the products derived from it, as well as allowing its commercialization. 

The control system is a trickle of regulations that flows from conventions, passes through Law 30, and ends with administrative acts that aim to restrict the uses of a list of substances (including the coca leaf) for scientific and medicinal purposes. Unlike the conventions, the national control system has three lists: a list of controlled substances, a list of substances monopolized by the state, and a list of specially controlled medicines.  

In order to use the coca leaf for research or medicinal purposes, it is necessary to have a cultivation permit, an extraction and processing permit, and to be registered with the National Narcotics Fund (FNE), so that it is “difficult” for coca to be used to produce cocaine and diverted to the illegal market. However, the health regulations for products for human use/consumption must also be taken into account.  

On the other hand, there is protection for the traditional uses of coca and its cultural value for indigenous peoples, as well as the commercialization of products. Today, roasted leaves can be found in marketplaces; ointments, oils, and salves in health food stores; cookies, flour, mambe, even liquors and restaurants or bakeries. All this without any regulations for the issuance of health registrations or regulations authorizing the cultivation of coca leaves outside indigenous territories.  

In 2018, the Constitutional Court ruled that the health registrations held by some products of the indigenous company Coca Nasa, which derive from a traditional authority, did not authorize the commercialization of those products outside the reserves. However, the products continue to be sold, and the “penalty” for their commercialization is subject to the discretion of local health authorities, including the police. The issue of alternative uses for the coca leaf goes beyond its ancestral uses. Today, there are organizations marketing coca-based products that are not linked to a reserve or recognized as indigenous populations.

It is clear that these statuses raise regulatory tensions. Although traditional use is recognized by law, the national legal framework still does not provide for effective coordination between the powers of indigenous authorities and state institutions, creating legal uncertainty and barriers to access even for lawful purposes such as medicinal and scientific use. Solutions for rural communities that make alternative use of the coca leaf are even further off.  

Beyond the critical review

At the national level, the most desirable outcome of a critical review of the coca leaf would be information leading to complete declassification, with perhaps only its conversion into cocaine base or cocaine being prohibited, rather than its cultivation or transformation into food products, cosmetics, agricultural inputs, or phytotherapeutic products. In other words, providing scientific input to overcome this duality of status, which would fuel regulatory reforms. Of course, the political and technical feasibility of such reforms is not assured; it requires not only discursive momentum, but also a health technocracy willing to fight the battle to declassify the plant.  

However, there are things that can be done in the meantime, such as including the coca plant in the Ministry of Health’s vademecum of medicinal plants or in the list of medicinal plants of the National Institute for Food and Drug Surveillance. The evidence is provided in the critical review report that is about to be approved by the WHO, and what is needed is someone willing to submit the paperwork and move it forward within the competent entities.  

Regulations from the indigenous jurisdiction can also be explored to negotiate the health regime with the National Institute for Food and Drug Surveillance (INVIMA). Today, a working group is already in place, with the participation of several ministries and enterprises, which could be further strengthened to seek regulatory routes for the coca leaf and its alternative uses, based on the harmonization between “health regulations and the country’s ethnic cultural recognition, always guaranteeing the protection of consumer health.” 

Any of the scenarios that arise at the international level raise internal questions for us. The first is how willing the country is to promote the regulatory changes necessary to advance other possible worlds for coca. The regulation of alternative uses of coca is not a solution to drug trafficking, but it is a response to rural or indigenous populations who can obtain resources from the sale of products. This is not much for now, as we have not measured the economic potential, nor do we know what elements this market should have in order to respect the cultural identity of coca, traditional uses, and allow equitable access to economic and scientific benefits for rural and indigenous populations. However, it is worth opening a broader conversation about the coca leaf after the critical review process.