How do drug trafficking routes from Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia to the US differ?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Colombia, Peru and Bolivia all supply the coca leaf used to make cocaine, but traffickers route finished product toward the United States along distinct corridors shaped by geography, local state capacity, and criminal networks: Colombia’s routes are the most direct and maritime-focused through the Caribbean and Pacific into Mexico and U.S. coasts, while Peru and Bolivia mostly feed regional consolidation and longer maritime or transshipment pathways that often pass through Ecuador, Central America or Mexico before reaching the U.S. [1] [2] [3].
1. Colombia: coastal hubs, established maritime corridors and direct links to Mexico
Colombia remains the principal source of refined cocaine and has long-standing, vertically integrated trafficking networks that move product by sea and air from Atlantic and Pacific coastal points, using small boats, containerized shipping and aircraft to reach the Caribbean, Central America and Mexico — the last overland gateway into the U.S. — as well as direct U.S. coastal markets in Florida and California in some periods [4] [5] [6] [3]. UNODC seizure maps and reporting show Colombia as a primary origin for cocaine shipments detected en route to North America, and Colombian groups retain the logistics, coastal access and organizational reach to sustain relatively direct flows compared with its Andean neighbors [2] [3].
2. Peru: Pacific flows, Ecuador transits and growing maritime diversity
Peru’s coca production frequently moves westward to Pacific ports and through Ecuadorian hubs, with traffickers exploiting long maritime legs to Central America, the Caribbean and onward through Mexico; rising Peruvian production has pushed criminal networks to diversify routes, including longer sea voyages and transshipment via Central American and Caribbean intermediaries that complicate direct interdiction [4] [3] [7]. Analyses and UNODC mapping show Peru supplying a substantial share of cocaine destined for both North America and Europe, but the product often traverses intermediary countries and ports — notably Guayaquil and other Ecuadorian nodes — before hitting the U.S.-Mexico corridor [5] [7].
3. Bolivia: inland cultivation, overland connectors and less direct transits
Bolivia is concentrated on inland coca cultivation with significant processing capacity, yet its flows to the U.S. are often mediated through neighboring countries — notably transit through Peru, Brazil or up to Colombia — and then onto maritime or overland routes that ultimately funnel into Mexico or Central America; Bolivia generally accounts for a smaller proportion of direct shipments to the United States compared with Colombia and Peru [1] [4] [5]. UNODC and regional briefings indicate Bolivia’s role is more as a source region that feeds regional supply chains rather than as the primary origin of direct U.S.-bound maritime routes [2] [3].
4. The Mexico factor: a common chokepoint that masks origin differences
Across all three countries, a defining shared feature is that most cocaine detected entering the United States does so via Mexico and Central America, meaning origin-country differences are often obscured by Mexican cartel control of the final transborder leg; U.S. and UNODC reporting emphasize that maritime shipments from South America commonly reach Mexico, where overland smuggling into the U.S. accelerates [8] [2] [9]. This centrality of Mexico as a transshipment hub makes the distinction between origin routes operationally significant for interdiction upstream but functionally similar at the U.S. border.
5. Processing footprint and policy signals: why routes evolve
The number and location of processing facilities shape route choice: UNODC-documented dismantlings show far more illegal processing sites in Bolivia and Peru than in Venezuela, and Colombia’s coastal infrastructure and criminal groups historically concentrate refined cocaine flows toward maritime export points, driving distinct corridor reliance [1] [2]. Political and enforcement shifts — from crop eradication campaigns to peace negotiations in Colombia or state responses in Peru and Bolivia — repeatedly reconfigure which routes are safest and cheapest, a point underscored by recent U.S. policy documents that list all three as major drug-producing or transit states and use designations as leverage for bilateral action [10] [4].
6. Competing narratives and geopolitics behind the headlines
Public focus on particular countries often reflects political agendas as much as interdiction data: recent U.S. statements singling out regimes or targeting vessels can spotlight Venezuela or specific networks, but UNODC maps and independent analyses indicate broader, multi-country chains from Colombia, Peru and Bolivia feeding U.S. demand via Mexico and maritime routes — a nuance sometimes flattened in partisan or securitized narratives [1] [10] [2]. Where reporting or policy singles out one state, the data often shows a distributed, adaptive trafficking system that shifts routing in response to enforcement, market changes and the relative ease of transshipment points.