Drug Control
Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Colombia Are Being Addressed, but State's Planning and Budgeting Process Can Be Improved
Gao ID: GAO-04-918 July 29, 2004
The Department of State supports foreign governments' efforts to eradicate illicit drug crops. In recent years, State's Office of Aviation has maintained aircraft and provided support for the aerial eradication program of the Colombian National Police. However, eradication aircraft are often shot at from the ground requiring helicopter gunships and a search and rescue helicopter to accompany each mission. In 2003, the Office of Aviation fumigated more than 132,000 hectares of coca, a record amount. GAO examined (1) how the threat to the spray planes has changed since 2001, (2) what actions State has taken to address any operational safety concerns, and (3) what resources State provided for the expanding program during fiscal years 2001-04 and how it planned and budgeted for the program's growth.
In 2001 and most of 2002, the number of ground-fire hits on spray aircraft averaged fewer than 10 per month. But in late 2002 and during 2003, the number of hits increased--peaking at 73 in January 2003 and averaging more than 26 per month--and, in 2003, two spray aircraft crashed and two were forced to land because of ground fire. Moreover, the number of flying hours for spray aircraft more than doubled--from about 5,450 hours in 2001 to over 11,300 hours in 2003. In general, this meant the aircraft were exposed more frequently to the threat of ground fire, although other factors came into play. In response to the increased number of ground-fire hits, the Colombian National Police began providing two or three helicopter gunships for each eradication mission; this was in addition to the two Office of Aviation gunships that already accompanied every mission. Also, since January 2003, State has taken several actions to help reduce exposure to the threat of ground fire by making greater use of information about armed insurgents' proximity to spray targets. Since fiscal year 2001, State has significantly increased resources for the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Funding for the program doubled from about $49 million in fiscal year 2001 to $100 million for fiscal year 2003. In addition, from fiscal year 2001 to May 2004, personnel in Colombia who were directly involved with the program increased from 179 to 298, and the number of aerial eradication aircraft increased from 22 to 35. However, State does not prepare budgets that address all of the Office of Aviation's program requirements. Consequently, State often moves funds from one program to another, which may adversely affect those programs. In addition, State does not plan for the longterm costs of the aerial eradication program, such as aircraft replacement. As a result, State has postponed requesting funds for new aircraft.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-04-918, Drug Control: Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Colombia Are Being Addressed, but State's Planning and Budgeting Process Can Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-918
entitled 'Drug Control: Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Colombia
Are Being Addressed, but State's Planning and Budgeting Process Can Be
Improved' which was released on August 03, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2004:
DRUG CONTROL:
Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Colombia Are Being Addressed, but
State's Planning and Budgeting Process Can Be Improved
GAO-04-918:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-918, a report to the Honorable Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control, U.S.
Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of State supports foreign governments‘ efforts to
eradicate illicit drug crops. In recent years, State‘s Office of
Aviation has maintained aircraft and provided support for the aerial
eradication program of the Colombian National Police. However,
eradication aircraft are often shot at from the ground requiring
helicopter gunships and a search and rescue helicopter to accompany
each mission. In 2003, the Office of Aviation fumigated more than
132,000 hectares of coca, a record amount. GAO examined (1) how the
threat to the spray planes has changed since 2001, (2) what actions
State has taken to address any operational safety concerns, and (3)
what resources State provided for the expanding program during fiscal
years 2001-04 and how it planned and budgeted for the program‘s growth.
What GAO Found:
In 2001 and most of 2002, the number of ground-fire hits on spray
aircraft averaged fewer than 10 per month. But in late 2002 and during
2003, the number of hits increased”peaking at 73 in January 2003 and
averaging more than 26 per month”and, in 2003, two spray aircraft
crashed and two were forced to land because of ground fire. Moreover,
the number of flying hours for spray aircraft more than doubled”from
about 5,450 hours in 2001 to over 11,300 hours in 2003. In general,
this meant the aircraft were exposed more frequently to the threat of
ground fire, although other factors came into play.
In response to the increased number of ground-fire hits, the Colombian
National Police began providing two or three helicopter gunships for
each eradication mission; this was in addition to the two Office of
Aviation gunships that already accompanied every mission. Also, since
January 2003, State has taken several actions to help reduce exposure
to the threat of ground fire by making greater use of information about
armed insurgents‘ proximity to spray targets.
Since fiscal year 2001, State has significantly increased resources for
the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Funding for the program
doubled from about $49 million in fiscal year 2001 to $100 million for
fiscal year 2003. In addition, from fiscal year 2001 to May 2004,
personnel in Colombia who were directly involved with the program
increased from 179 to 298, and the number of aerial eradication
aircraft increased from 22 to 35. However, State does not prepare
budgets that address all of the Office of Aviation‘s program
requirements. Consequently, State often moves funds from one program
to another, which may adversely affect those programs. In addition,
State does not plan for the long-term costs of the aerial eradication
program, such as aircraft replacement. As a result, State has
postponed requesting funds for new aircraft.
Number of Ground-Fire Hits Incurred by Spray Aircraft per Month,
January 2001 through May 2004:
[See PDF for figure]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To help ensure that the aerial eradication program in Colombia and
other State aviation programs have the resources needed, GAO is
recommending that the Secretary of State develop a strategic planning
and budgeting process that accounts for all of the Office of Aviation‘s
program requirements. In commenting on a draft of this report, State
agreed that a more comprehensive long-term planning and budgeting
process is needed and has taken some initial steps to this end.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-918.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Jess Ford at 202-512-4268
or FordJ@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Ground-Fire Hits on Spray Aircraft Increased Significantly in 2003:
State Has Taken Several Actions to Address Operational Safety Concerns:
Resources for Aerial Eradication Increased, but State's Planning and
Budgeting Process Does Not Provide for All Needs:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
Tables:
Table 1: U.S. Support for the Aerial Eradication Program in Colombia,
Fiscal Years 2001-05:
Table 2: Office of Aviation Staffing by Location, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Table 3: DynCorp Personnel in Colombia Who Support the Aerial
Eradication Program, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Table 4: Total Aircraft Supporting Office of Aviation Aerial
Eradication Program, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Figures:
Figure 1: Coca-and Poppy-Growing Areas in Colombia, 2003:
Figure 2: Number of Ground-Fire Hits Incurred by Spray Aircraft per
Month, January 2001 through May 2004:
Figure 3: Number of Flying Hours by Spray Aircraft Per Month, January
2001 through May 2004:
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
July 29, 2004:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Since the early 1970s, the United States has supported Colombia's
efforts to reduce drug trafficking activities and stem the flow of
illegal drugs, principally cocaine and heroin, entering the United
States. Recognizing the severity of illicit drug activities and the
links between drug trafficking, the cultivation of coca and opium
poppy,[Footnote 1] and the violence affecting Colombia, the Colombian
government announced a $7.5 billion plan in October 1999, known as Plan
Colombia. This plan proposed, among other things, to reduce the
cultivation, processing, and distribution of illegal narcotics by
50 percent over 6 years.[Footnote 2] To assist Colombia's efforts, the
United States has substantially increased funding and material support
to Colombia since 2000, providing more than $3.3 billion through fiscal
year 2004.[Footnote 3]
The Department of State supports foreign governments' efforts to locate
and eradicate illicit drug crops through its Bureau for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State/INL); its Narcotics
Affairs Sections (NAS) in particular countries; and the Office of
Aviation, which oversees a contract with DynCorp Aerospace Technology.
In recent years, the Office of Aviation, with DynCorp's assistance, has
maintained and operated aircraft and provided logistical and training
support for the aerial eradication program of the Colombian National
Police.[Footnote 4]
In 2003, the Office of Aviation fumigated more than 132,000 hectares of
coca, a record amount, and 2,987 hectares of opium poppy. Largely as
the result of these efforts, the estimated number of hectares under
coca or opium poppy cultivation in Colombia has declined by about one-
third over the past 2 years. However, the program operates in a hostile
environment--eradication aircraft are often shot at from the ground--
that requires helicopter gunships and a search and rescue helicopter to
accompany each eradication mission. In August 2003, the Director of the
Office of Aviation expressed his concern that the increased operational
tempo had strained the resources and staffing available and he could
not continue to ensure the operational safety of the aerial eradication
program.[Footnote 5]
You requested that we determine (1) how the threat to the aerial
eradication spray planes has changed since 2001, (2) what actions State
has taken to address any operational safety concerns, and (3) what
resources State provided for the expanding program during fiscal years
2001-04 (through May 2004) and how it planned and budgeted for the
program's growth. To address these objectives, we reviewed overall
program and budgeting documents and interviewed cognizant officials at
State/INL in Washington, D.C. We also interviewed Office of Aviation
and DynCorp officials about operational procedures and reviewed
relevant documents, including site inspections and accident reports, at
the Office of Aviation's main operating base, Patrick Air Force Base,
Florida; the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, Colombia; and the Office of
Aviation and DynCorp office at El Dorado Airport in Bogotá. We also
discussed operational procedures with NAS, Office of Aviation, and
DynCorp personnel in Bogotá and met with managers, pilots, and
mechanics and observed eradication operations at three sites in
Colombia. We also reviewed how the data provided to us by State and
DynCorp were compiled and determined that they were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our review from
November 2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government accounting standards. (See app. I for a more complete
discussion of our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief:
In 2001 and most of 2002, the number of ground-fire hits on spray
aircraft averaged fewer than 10 per month.[Footnote 6] But in late 2002
and during 2003, the number of ground-fire hits reported increased
significantly--averaging more than 26 per month--and in 2003, for the
first time, two spray aircraft crashed and two were forced to land
because of ground fire. Moreover, the operational tempo more than
doubled--from about 5,450 flying hours for spray aircraft in 2001 to
over 11,300 hours in 2003. In general, this meant the spray aircraft
and accompanying helicopters were exposed more frequently to the threat
of ground fire; although other factors also came into play, such as the
proximity of eradication target areas to insurgent locations. According
to U.S. Embassy/Bogotá officials, the increased number of ground-fire
hits occurred, at least in part, because the illicit drug producers
were responding more vigorously to the success of the increased aerial
eradication program.
In response to the increased number of ground-fire hits, the Colombian
National Police began providing two or three helicopter gunships for
each eradication mission, which were in addition to the two Office of
Aviation gunships that already accompanied every mission. In addition,
since January 2003, State/INL and NAS have taken several actions to
help reduce eradication aircraft exposure to the threat of ground fire
by making greater use of information regarding insurgent locations and
their proximity to spray targets. These actions have included the
following:
* In January 2003, State/INL approved two additional personnel
positions for NAS to collect and share intelligence information with
NAS, Office of Aviation, DynCorp, and appropriate Colombian military
and police officials to plan aerial eradication operations. They began
work in August 2003.
* In early 2003, the U.S. Embassy began reviewing its protocol for
sharing intelligence information to help ensure that aerial eradication
mission planners have the best available. The revised protocol was
approved in June 2003.
* In September 2003, in accordance with the revised intelligence
protocol, the NAS Director began requiring that all eradication
missions have her prior approval.
In addition, the eradication aircraft have always had armor to help
protect the pilots and vulnerable fuel and oil lines from ground fire.
Some of the newer spray planes are undergoing additional modifications
to further protect the pilot.
During fiscal years 2001-03, State/INL significantly increased
resources for the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Funding more
than doubled from $49.1 million in fiscal year 2001 to $100.4 million
for fiscal year 2003; funding estimated and proposed for fiscal years
2004 and 2005, respectively, continue this upward trend. In addition,
from the end of fiscal year 2001 through May 2004, Office of Aviation
and DynCorp personnel in Colombia who were directly involved with
aerial eradication increased from 179 to 298, and the number of aerial
eradication aircraft increased from 22 to 35. However, State/INL and
the Office of Aviation do not plan for or prepare budgets that address
all of the Office of Aviation's program requirements. Consequently,
State/INL often moves funds from one program to another to support the
aerial eradication program, which may adversely affect those programs.
In fiscal year 2003, for example, State/INL reprogrammed more than
$5 million from counternarcotics programs in Bolivia, Peru, and
Pakistan for Office of Aviation activities in Colombia. In addition,
State/INL does not plan for the long-term costs of maintaining the
aerial eradication program, such as preparing an aircraft replacement
and acquisition plan. As a result, State/INL has delayed requesting
funding for additional spray aircraft until it develops the supporting
documentation. State/INL acknowledges the weaknesses in its planning
and budgeting process and recently initiated an internal study to
address the problems.
To help ensure that the Office of Aviation has the resources needed to
carry out its programs, including the aerial eradication program in
Colombia, we are recommending that the Secretary of State direct the
Assistant Secretary for State/INL to develop a strategic planning and
budgeting process that accounts for all of the Office of Aviation's
program requirements. In commenting on a draft of this report, State
noted that a more comprehensive long-term planning and budgeting
process for the Office of Aviation is needed and has taken some initial
steps to this end.
Background:
Colombia is the source of 90 percent of the cocaine and 40 percent of
the heroin entering the United States. To assist the Colombian
government in its efforts to implement Plan Colombia and reduce the
cultivation and trafficking of illegal drugs, the United States has
pursued a strategy emphasizing interdiction, aerial eradication, and
alternative development. The strategy has resulted in a 33 percent
reduction in the amount of coca cultivated in Colombia over the last
2 years--from 169,800 hectares in 2001 to 113,850 hectares in 2003;
similarly, opium poppy cultivated also declined by 33 percent--from
6,540 hectares in 2001 to 4,400 hectares in 2003.[Footnote 7]
Nevertheless, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, cocaine
prices nationwide have remained relatively stable--indicating that
cocaine is still readily available--and Colombia dominates the market
for heroin in the northeastern United States.
Despite improvements in Colombia's security situation in 2003--for
example, according to statistics compiled by the Colombian government,
the murder rate declined 20 percent that year--insurgent and
paramilitary groups still control large parts of the countryside.
According to State, the insurgents exercise some degree of control over
40 percent of Colombia's territory east and south of the Andes. As
illustrated in figure 1, this area includes the primary coca-growing
regions of Colombia. These groups--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia, the National Liberation Army, and paramilitary forces such as
the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia--are involved in every facet
of narcotics trafficking and are on State's list of terrorist
organizations.
Figure 1: Coca-and Poppy-Growing Areas in Colombia, 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
State has supported foreign governments throughout the world to locate
and eradicate illicit drug crops. In recent years, State's efforts have
focused on the aerial eradication program of the Colombian National
Police, although it provides logistical support to Bolivia and Peru and
may be called upon to support drug eradication efforts in Afghanistan.
NAS at the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá oversees and manages the Colombian
program. The Office of Aviation, which has a main operating base at
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, implements the program with contractor
assistance from DynCorp. DynCorp personnel at Patrick provide
administrative support, perform major maintenance on aircraft, and give
initial pilot training. In Colombia, the Office of Aviation and DynCorp
maintain a headquarters office at El Dorado International Airport in
Bogotá and up to three operational sites at various Colombian police or
military bases around the country. From these sites, three types of
spray aircraft--the OV-10, the T-65, and the AT-802--fly missions to
fumigate the coca and poppy fields in Colombia. DynCorp provides
pilots, mechanics, and other operations and maintenance personnel.
The aerial eradication program operates in an often-hostile environment
that requires helicopter gunships and a search and rescue helicopter to
accompany each aerial eradication mission. Eradication spray planes and
the supporting helicopters are often shot at from the ground. Missions
have been canceled or redirected because NAS, Office of Aviation, or
government of Colombia officials considered the targeted locations too
dangerous.
U.S. officials have had long-standing concerns about the threat posed
to aerial eradication activities and, in particular, the safety of
operations in Colombia. In August 2000, the Office of Aviation
requested an independent evaluation of its aviation operations and
safety by the Inter-Agency Committee for Aviation Policy.[Footnote 8]
Based on its review of operations at two forward operating locations in
Colombia and the offices in Bogotá and at Patrick Air Force Base, the
committee concluded that the Office of Aviation program was safe but
made numerous suggestions and recommendations to enhance safety and
security. In September 2001, we reported that the Office of Aviation
had taken action on or implemented most of the committee's suggestions
and recommendations.[Footnote 9] We also made recommendations for
improvement, which State acted on.
Nevertheless, in March 2002, the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá reported that in
spite of all of the embassy's precautions, a contractor, possibly an
American, will inevitably be hurt or killed.[Footnote 10] In June 2003,
the Director of the Office of Aviation noted that the Office of
Aviation was performing a very difficult mission in an increasingly
hostile environment. In September 2003, a spray aircraft crashed
because of ground fire and, for the first time, the pilot was killed.
In total during 2003, one helicopter and four spray aircraft either
crashed or were severely damaged because of ground fire. In an October
2003 report, DynCorp noted that the threat to the program's aircraft
and pilots was causing increasing concern about pilot safety and
personnel morale.
Another key component of the Colombian-U.S. counternarcotics strategy
was forming a Colombian Army Counternarcotics Brigade. Although the
brigade's primary mission is to plan and conduct interdiction
operations against cocaine producers and traffickers, the brigade also
is supposed to provide security for the eradication program in some of
the insurgent-controlled areas of the country. As part of its contract,
DynCorp trains pilots and mechanics and helps maintain and operate the
U.S.-provided helicopters for the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade,
which supplies the airlift capability for the counternarcotics brigade.
Ground-Fire Hits on Spray Aircraft Increased Significantly in 2003:
Although the Office of Aviation has reported ground fire on its aerial
eradication aircraft for years, the number of ground-fire hits began to
increase in late 2002. In 2001 and most of 2002, the number of ground-
fire hits on spray aircraft averaged fewer than 10 per month. But the
number of ground-fire hits reported from October 2002 through 2003
increased significantly to an average of more than 26 per month. The
number of hits peaked at 73 in January 2003, and 46 hits were reported
in March 2003. Although the number of monthly ground-fire hits
generally declined after March 2003, the total number for 2003 was more
than the previous 2 years combined--313 versus 288 in 2001 and 2002.
During the first 5 months of 2004, the total number of hits declined
considerably to 48 compared with 168 during the same period in 2003.
Figure 2 shows the number of ground-fire hits on spray aircraft from
January 2001 through May 2004.
Figure 2: Number of Ground-Fire Hits Incurred by Spray Aircraft per
Month, January 2001 through May 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition, during the period 2001-03, the operational tempo of the
aerial eradication program more than doubled in terms of flying hours
for the spray aircraft. In general, this meant the spray aircraft and
accompanying helicopters were exposed more frequently to the threat of
ground fire; although other factors also came into play, such as the
proximity of eradication areas to insurgent locations. According to the
Office of Aviation, spray aircraft flew about 5,450 hours in 2001,
nearly 9,400 hours in 2002, and more than 11,300 in 2003. The increase
in flying hours in 2002 and 2003 largely occurred as the Colombian
government, headed by President Uribe, took a more aggressive approach
to aerial eradication. In the 19 months prior to President Uribe's
inauguration in August 2002, spray aircraft flew about 9,700 hours or
510 hours per month. From August 2002 through May 2004, the eradication
program's spray aircraft flew more than 18,450 hours, or about
839 hours a month--during 2003 alone, the program averaged more than
940 flying hours a month. During the first 5 months of 2004, the pace
slowed--spray aircraft flew about 2,000 hours compared with about 4,900
hours during the same period in 2003. Nevertheless, Office of Aviation
officials report that the number of hectares of coca sprayed in 2004
remains high--62,000 through mid-June--because the spray aircraft are
based close to large coca fields and the AT-802 spray planes, which are
capable of carrying more herbicide than the OV-10,[Footnote 11] have
flown more frequently than during the first 5 months of 2003. Figure 3
illustrates the spray aircraft's monthly flying hours for January 2001
through May 2004.
Figure 3: Number of Flying Hours by Spray Aircraft Per Month, January
2001 through May 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
According to U.S. Embassy/Bogotá and Colombian officials, the primary
reason for the increase in ground-fire hits in late 2002 was the aerial
eradication program's success in reducing the illicit drug producers'
ability to cultivate coca and opium poppy. To combat this success, U.S.
Embassy/Bogotá officials reported that the insurgents began:
* organizing and massing ground fire in front of the spray aircraft's
flight path to force the planes to fly though a barrage of bullets and:
* using a greater variety of weapons against aerial eradication
aircraft, including some larger caliber weapons capable of penetrating
armor and hitting the aircraft at higher altitudes.[Footnote 12]
State Has Taken Several Actions to Address Operational Safety Concerns:
State/INL and NAS have taken several actions to reduce the risk to the
aircraft on aerial eradication missions. Since January 2003, these
actions have primarily focused on improving the processes and
procedures for collecting and analyzing intelligence information that
the U.S. Embassy collects on insurgent locations and capabilities.
Other actions include coordinating spray operations more closely with
the Colombian Army and the Colombian National Police and ensuring that
eradication aircraft are protected to the extent possible from ground
fire.
In response to the increased number of ground-fire hits on aerial
eradication aircraft in late 2002 and early 2003, the Colombian
National Police began providing two or three helicopter gunships for
each eradication mission; this was in addition to the two Office of
Aviation gunships that already accompanied every mission,[Footnote 13]
and the NAS Director directed spray operations away from areas where
the hits were occurring. In addition, throughout 2003 and early 2004,
State/INL and NAS took several actions to make greater use of
intelligence information regarding the ground threats to the
eradication aircraft.
* In January 2003, State/INL approved a NAS request to hire two
personnel as intelligence/security advisors. Their duties include
collecting and sharing threat information with U.S. Embassy, DynCorp,
and appropriate Colombian National Police and military officials to
plan aerial eradication operations. These two individuals began work in
August 2003. However, they did not have all the necessary security
clearances to handle certain U.S. Embassy intelligence information.
Nevertheless, they collected information from a variety of Colombian
military and police sources that was used in planning operations. To
address their lack of security clearances, in September 2003, the NAS
Director tasked another NAS employee to coordinate intelligence within
the U.S. Embassy until the two individuals receive their security
clearances.
* In early 2003, the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá began reviewing its protocol
for gathering, utilizing, and sharing intelligence information to help
ensure that aerial eradication mission planners have the best available
threat assessment information. A revised protocol was approved in June
2003. It defines intelligence requirements and sources, frequency of
intelligence updates, intelligence dissemination, and the use of
intelligence in planning missions at forward operating locations.
According to NAS and other U.S. Embassy personnel, the revised protocol
improved information sharing within the embassy and among the embassy,
DynCorp, and the Colombian military and police.
* In September 2003, in accordance with the revised intelligence
protocol, the NAS Director began approving the areas where eradication
missions are planned. She reviews the intelligence information
available and will not allow missions in areas where insurgents are
thought to be or where large caliber weapons have been reported.
Missions are not flown in those areas until intelligence information
reports that the areas are relatively safe.
* In October 2003, the Office of Aviation authorized DynCorp to hire
six personnel to gather and analyze intelligence for use in planning
eradication missions. According to DynCorp officials, they experienced
delays in filling these positions because of uncertainties regarding
its contract with State/INL.[Footnote 14] The first position was filled
in March 2004, and, as of June 2004, all six positions had been filled.
* In November 2003, Colombian military and police at one operational
site instituted daily threat briefings before the next day's aerial
eradication missions. According to U.S. Embassy and DynCorp officials,
DynCorp obtained the briefings primarily because the eradication unit
was collocated with the Colombian military. At the time of our visit in
January 2004, the DynCorp site manager said that eradication aircraft
flying missions from this site had not incurred any ground-fire hits
for 2 months.
In addition, in late 2003, the NAS Director also approved an annual
eradication program plan showing when and where eradication missions
will occur throughout 2004 and what aircraft will be used on each of
the missions. For each target area, the plan details when intelligence
on the threat posed by insurgents and others should be collected, and
when the Colombian Army Counternarcotics Brigade may be needed to
conduct ground operations in support of eradication missions. According
to NAS and other U.S. Embassy officials, the plan was coordinated with
the Colombian military to complement its planned military actions for
2004 and, as a result, has strengthened the Colombian Army's commitment
to support the aerial eradication program.[Footnote 15]
Moreover, to enhance the spray airplanes' ability to withstand ground
fire, the Office of Aviation has ensured that the aircraft are
protected to the extent possible. All the spray aircraft have always
had protective armor around the cockpit and covering vulnerable fuel
and oil lines. In addition, State activated the ejection seats in the
OV-10 when it acquired the aircraft from the Department of
Defense.[Footnote 16] The AT-802 spray planes are undergoing additional
modifications to further protect the pilot. Finally, the helicopters
also have added armaments to better protect them from ground fire.
To further reduce risks, NAS, Office of Aviation, and DynCorp officials
told us that eradication mission planners, site managers, or individual
pilots can cancel flights at any time without fear of reprisal if they
feel the particular mission may not be safe because of possible ground
fire, maintenance problems, or other safety concerns. During our visits
to three operational sites, we attended meetings with DynCorp pilots
and mechanics where NAS and Office of Aviation officials emphasized
this point. Further, in separate discussions with some of the pilots
and mechanics, they confirmed to us that they could opt out of a flight
at any time without fear of reprisal.[Footnote 17]
Resources for Aerial Eradication Increased, but State's Planning and
Budgeting Process Does Not Provide for All Needs:
As the aerial eradication program in Colombia grew, State/INL
substantially increased the resources it provided. Funding for the
aerial eradication program in Colombia increased from about $49 million
in fiscal year 2001 to over $100 million in fiscal year 2003. Estimated
funding for fiscal year 2004 and proposed funding for fiscal year 2005
continue this upward trend. In addition, the number of personnel
directly associated with the program, particularly in Colombia,
increased; and the number of available spray aircraft and helicopters
also increased. However, State/INL does not plan for the long-term
costs of maintaining the aerial eradication program and does not
prepare a specific budget for the Office of Aviation that accounts for
all of its program needs. Nevertheless, Office of Aviation and DynCorp
managers said that the resources for day-to-day operations provided
during the period were sufficient, and that safety was never
compromised.
Program Funding Increased:
Funding provided through the Office of Aviation and NAS for the aerial
eradication program in Colombia has risen every year since 2001. As
shown in table 1, funding provided through the Office of Aviation
increased 10 percent from 2001 to 2003, from $38 million to $41.8
million, and is planned to increase an additional 20 percent for fiscal
year 2005. Overall, the Office of Aviation funds are used for the
direct costs of DynCorp, which provides aircraft maintenance and
logistical support and many of the pilots for the eradication program.
NAS funds for the aerial eradication program increased more than
fivefold, from about $11 million in fiscal year 2001 to more than $58
million in fiscal year 2003. NAS provides funds to support DynCorp
operations and for aircraft fuel, herbicide, and related support. Most
of this increase occurred to support the increased flying hours,
additional eradication aircraft, and multiple operating sites. Such
increases are planned to continue in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, as
funding proposed for fiscal year 2005 rises to more than $70 million.
Table 1: U.S. Support for the Aerial Eradication Program in Colombia,
Fiscal Years 2001-05:
Department of State office: Office of Aviation;
Fiscal year: 2001: $38.0;
Fiscal year: 2002: $38.2;
Fiscal year: 2003: $41.8;
Fiscal year: 2004: (estimated): $48.0;
Fiscal year: 2005: (proposed): $50.4;
Total: $216.4.
Department of State office: NAS[A];
Fiscal year: 2001: $11.1;
Fiscal year: 2002: $17.6;
Fiscal year: 2003: $58.6;
Fiscal year: 2004: (estimated): $67.4;
Fiscal year: 2005: (proposed): $70.7;
Total: $225.4.
Total;
Fiscal year: 2001: $49.1;
Fiscal year: 2002: $55.8;
Fiscal year: 2003: $100.4;
Fiscal year: 2004: (estimated): $115.4;
Fiscal year: 2005: (proposed): $121.1;
Total: $441.8.
Source: State/INL.
[A] In 2003, NAS began paying a contractor $38.8 million a year to
support the Colombian National Police Aviation Service. NAS could not
readily identify the proportion of this contract that is related to
aerial eradication. NAS officials stated they expect this expenditure
to continue through fiscal year 2004 and possibly through fiscal year
2006.
[End of table]
Program Staffing Increased:
Office of Aviation and DynCorp staff in Colombia directly associated
with the aerial eradication program increased from 179 at the end of
fiscal year 2001 to 298 at the end of fiscal year 2003. The former NAS
Director told us that he supported increasing the number of Office of
Aviation staff in Colombia because doing so allowed more direct
oversight of the program as operations significantly expanded. The
Office of Aviation Director also stated that increasing the staff in
Colombia allowed the office to better ensure the safety and security of
program operations and enhanced its ability to oversee contractor
operations. Table 2 illustrates the number of staff assigned to the
Office of Aviation by location.
Table 2: Office of Aviation Staffing by Location, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Location: Patrick Air Force Base[A];
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 15;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 21;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 14;
Staffing as of May 31, 2004: 18.
Location: Colombia;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 3;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 5;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 10;
Staffing as of May 31, 2004: 11.
Location: Total;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 18;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 26;
Staffing by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 24;
Staffing as of May 31, 2004: 29.
Source: Office of Aviation.
[A] Includes staff at Patrick Air Force Base and two or three staff in
Washington, D.C., who provide administrative support. These staff
support aerial eradication and other programs in Colombia, as well as
other Office of Aviation programs in Bolivia, Peru, and Pakistan.
[End of table]
During fiscal years 2001-03, the number of DynCorp personnel supporting
the Office of Aviation at Patrick Air Force Base increased from 159 to
about 190. DynCorp officials were unable to provide exact numbers of
staff who were part of the eradication program versus those who
supported other Office of Aviation programs because many personnel are
involved in more than one program.
As illustrated in table 3, the number of DynCorp staff in Colombia
directly supporting the aerial eradication program increased from 176
in 2001 to 281 staff in 2003 and has further increased to 287 staff as
of May 31, 2004. These numbers include pilots and mechanics who rotate
in and out of Colombia. These personnel work 15 days in Colombia and
then are relieved for 13 days by another group of pilots[Footnote 18]
and mechanics who work 15 days. This rotation overlap allows time for
departing pilots and mechanics to brief the newly arrived personnel.
Table 3: DynCorp Personnel in Colombia Who Support the Aerial
Eradication Program, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Personnel assigned: Permanent;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 58;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 69;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 116;
Personnel as of May 31, 2004: 112.
Personnel assigned: Rotational;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 118;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 150;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 165;
Personnel as of May 31, 2004: 175.
Personnel assigned: Total;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 176;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 219;
Personnel by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 281;
Personnel as of May 31, 2004: 287.
Source: DynCorp.
[End of table]
Number of Aircraft Increased:
From the end of fiscal year 2001 through May 2004, the number of spray
aircraft and helicopters supporting aerial eradication in Colombia
increased from 22 to 35, with 12 additional spray aircraft and 1
additional helicopter assigned. The Office of Aviation uses three types
of aircraft to spray coca and poppy fields in Colombia--the OV-10, the
T-65, and the AT-802. The OV-10 is a Vietnam-era observation plane that
was retrofitted to carry herbicide and fly eradication
missions.[Footnote 19] The T-65 and AT-802 are newer aircraft designed
for crop dusting and are widely used in the United States. Although the
Office of Aviation has 24 spray aircraft for use in Colombia--11 OV-
10s, 5 T-65s, and 8 AT-802s, some are usually at Patrick Air Force Base
for scheduled maintenance or training and at Kirtland Air Force Base,
New Mexico, for mountain-flying training. The exact number of aircraft
in Colombia varies throughout the year depending on maintenance and
training requirements.
The Office of Aviation also uses helicopters to support eradication
missions. On any given mission, spray aircraft are accompanied by at
least 5 helicopters. Two Office of Aviation helicopter gunships and 2
or 3 Colombian National Police gunships provide protection from
insurgent fire, and 1 search and rescue helicopter is available to
rescue crewmembers in the event of an emergency. Table 4 illustrates
the number of Office of Aviation aircraft available for the aerial
eradication program.
Table 4: Total Aircraft Supporting Office of Aviation Aerial
Eradication Program, Fiscal Years 2001-04:
Aircraft type: Spray planes;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 12;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 17;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 20;
Aircraft as of May 31, 2004: 24.
Aircraft type: Helicopters;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 10;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 11;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 12;
Aircraft as of May 31, 2004: 11.
Aircraft type: Total;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2001: 22;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2002: 28;
Aircraft by fiscal year (as of September 30): 2003: 32;
Aircraft as of May 31, 2004: 35.
Source: Office of Aviation.
Note: In addition, the Office of Aviation operates three other fixed-
wing aircraft. Two are used for transportation support throughout the
Andean region, and the third is used to locate illicit drug crops.
[End of table]
State/INL's Planning and Budgeting Process Does Not Provide for All of
the Office of Aviation's Needs:
State/INL does not develop a specific budget for the Office of Aviation
addressing all of its programs and does not plan for the long-term
costs of the Office of Aviation's programs, such as providing for
replacement aircraft. As a result, State/INL sometimes uses funds from
other programs to pay for the aerial eradication program in Colombia.
Although Office of Aviation and DynCorp managers said that the
resources provided in fiscal years 2001-04 (through May) were
sufficient to carry out the increased eradication activities safely,
they noted that they did not always know how much funding would be
available or when, and that this has led to last-minute decisions and
informal workarounds to avoid suspending or curtailing eradication
operations.
This situation is not new. In 1998, we reported that State and the U.S.
Embassy/Bogotá were not adequately prepared to manage increases in
aerial eradication.[Footnote 20] Specifically, when U.S. support for
aerial eradication increased in 1997, the unanticipated costs
associated with the increase led to the reallocation of funds from
other NAS programs. At the time, NAS/Bogotá reported that it
reallocated $11 million from other activities, including interdiction,
demand reduction, and efforts designed to strengthen law enforcement
institutions in Colombia.
The situation continues. DynCorp officials told us that it nearly
suspended the eradication program because of a shortage of funds in
2002. But because of delays in training Colombian Army helicopter
mechanics and pilots, DynCorp used funds allocated for that program to
continue the aerial eradication program. Further, DynCorp officials
told us they also have had to delay ordering needed parts because of
the lack of funds. Some of these parts--especially those for the older
aircraft, such as the OV-10 spray planes and UH-1N helicopters that
accompany the spray planes--are in short supply and could be difficult
to acquire. If the parts are not available when needed, the aircraft
cannot operate.
Office of Aviation's funding comes from several State/INL sources,
including the Andean Counterdrug Initiative account, the International
Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account, and supplemental
appropriations. However, although some of the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative funds are designated for the Office of Aviation, the funds
are divided among multiple country budgets and managed by each
country's NAS. As a result, the Office of Aviation has to request those
funds from the respective NAS Director, which may adversely affect
those programs. In fiscal year 2003, State/INL reprogrammed more than
$5 million from programs in Bolivia, Peru, and Pakistan to fund the
Office of Aviation program in Colombia. In addition, the NAS Director
in Colombia told us that sometimes other funding priorities--such as
the narcotics interdiction program--conflicted with Office of Aviation
program needs and delayed funding for the aerial eradication program.
Furthermore, State/INL often does not receive funds for its programs,
including the aerial eradication program, until months after the start
of the fiscal year. For instance, fiscal year 2004 funds were not
available until mid-June 2004 because of the time needed to address
congressional inquiries about how State/INL proposed to use the
funding. State/INL officials said they have used prior year funds or
moved funds from one project to another to satisfy the most critical
needs until all funds are available. These officials stated that the
safety of their operations has not been compromised but added that the
uncertainty over funding availability has caused an administrative
burden.
In June 2004, our report on federal aircraft fleet management also
noted weaknesses in State/INL's planning process.[Footnote 21] We
reported that State/INL had not developed a long-term fleet acquisition
plan or performed a cost-benefit analysis that considered long-range
aircraft replacement, mission support, and other related costs. In
addition, INL had not performed a life-cycle cost analysis of its
aircraft, estimated future long-term mission requirements, or
identified the aircraft best-suited to meet those requirements. As a
result, according to State/INL officials, State has delayed requesting
funding for additional aircraft.
Finally, in October 2003, a State/INL internal review team began
examining the Office of Aviation's programs.[Footnote 22] The review
team has noted that the Office of Aviation has operated effectively in
five countries with high safety and operational success rates. Given
its aged aircraft, complex logistics requirements, and aggressive
flight schedule, the team commended Office of Aviation staff for their
professionalism and continued success under trying circumstances.
However, the team also has identified many of the same concerns that we
have raised--from generally poor strategic planning to inadequate
management and financial tools. The team has noted that State/INL
focuses on short-term planning to meet new missions and changing
requirements, with little input from the Office of Aviation.
State/INL officials have begun to address the shortcomings. For
example, State/INL and the Office of Aviation are preparing a strategic
plan to identify long-term mission costs for all of the Office of
Aviation programs. As part of this strategy, State/INL and the Office
of Aviation have developed a critical flight safety plan that includes
projected costs to maintain the Office of Aviation's current aircraft
and acquire additional aircraft to sustain the program. State/INL also
intends to enhance the Office of Aviation's contract oversight
capability through training and the hiring of additional contract
administrators and budget specialists.
Conclusions:
The aerial eradication program in Colombia is a difficult mission in a
hostile environment. Since 2001, the demands on the program have
increased significantly and the Office of Aviation's resources for the
program have more than doubled. However, State/INL's planning and
budgeting process for the Office of Aviation did not keep pace with the
growth of the Office of Aviation and the increasing complexity of its
mission. The current process does not fully serve State/INL's or the
Office of Aviation's present-day needs. As a result, the Office of
Aviation's short-and long-term funding requirements have often been
addressed through ad hoc decisions. In particular, not having a
strategic plan that identifies long-range needs, mission support, and
other costs has prevented State/INL from assessing future requirements
and planning and budgeting for them.
The Office of Aviation will likely continue its operations in Colombia
for the foreseeable future. Further, it may be called on to extend its
operations to other parts of the world as illicit drugs continue to
provide income to insurgents and terrorists who pose a security threat
to the United States and its allies. However, without a planning and
budgeting process that systematically addresses the short-and long-term
requirements of the Office of Aviation's programs, State/INL cannot
ensure that the Office of Aviation's requirements are appropriately
prioritized, long-term resource needs are addressed, and funding is
sufficient.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve State/INL's process for providing resources to the Office of
Aviation, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Assistant
Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs to develop and implement a strategic planning and budgeting
process that addresses all of the program requirements for the Office
of Aviation, including the aerial eradication program in Colombia. The
strategic plan and budget should address the day-to-day operational
needs of the Office of Aviation's programs, aircraft fleet
refurbishment and eventual replacement, and the resources needed to
meet these requirements. The plan should also be systematically updated
as part of State's annual budget cycle.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
State provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app.
II). It stated that the report provides a useful summary of the
technical, planning, and budgeting issues that may affect the Office of
Aviation's programs in Colombia. State also expressed concern that the
report suggests that State/INL does not manage and plan for its
aviation program requirements. However, it agreed that a more
comprehensive long-term planning and budgeting process is needed and
has taken some initial steps to this end.
We did not say that State/INL does not manage and plan for the Office
of Aviation's programs. Rather, we stated that State/INL does not
prepare a specific budget for the Office of Aviation that accounts for
all of its program needs. In fact, State notes that State/INL is
beginning to institutionalize a more formal planning and budgeting
process for the Office of Aviation to address this shortcoming.
According to State, State/INL completed an "initial cut" of an Office
of Aviation Strategic Plan in April 2004, and also recently prepared a
Critical Flight Safety Program to extend the life of its aircraft fleet
and an Office of Aviation Reorganization Plan to hire more staff for
strategic planning, budgeting, and financial analysis. State adds that
it has incorporated the safety program and reorganization plan in
State/INL's fiscal year 2006 performance plan and budget request.
These are critical components of a more systematic planning and
budgeting process. We believe that if State/INL follows through with
its approach that it will allow the Office of Aviation to prioritize
its programs and, when funding is limited or not readily available,
make systematic decisions about how to proceed.
In addition, State/INL and Office of Aviation officials provided
technical comments that we have incorporated into this report, as
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of
State. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4128 or FordJ@gao.gov, or contact Al Huntington, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-4140 or HuntingtonA@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this report
were Ron Hughes, Reid Lowe, and Jim Strus.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jess T. Ford:
Director International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine how the threat to the aerial eradication program changed
since 2001, we reviewed cables, memorandums, and reports prepared by
the Department of State/Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Affairs (State/INL), the Office of Aviation, and the U.S.
Embassy/Bogotá, Colombia. We also discussed the threat issue with
officials responsible for program oversight and implementation from
State/INL; State's Narcotics Affairs Sections (NAS), the Office of
Aviation, and other offices at the U.S. Embassy; and DynCorp Aerospace
Technology.
To determine what actions State had taken to address any operational
safety concerns, we examined cables; memorandums; and related
documents, including site inspections and accident reports, prepared by
State/INL, the Office of Aviation, and the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá. We also
interviewed officials from State/INL, the Office of Aviation, DynCorp,
and the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá (including the current NAS Director and her
predecessor) to obtain their views on the actions taken.
Similarly, to determine the resources provided by State/INL to support
the aerial eradication program in Colombia during fiscal years 2001-04
(through May 2004), we reviewed and analyzed various cables,
memorandums, and other relevant documents related to budget, staffing,
and aircraft prepared by State/INL in Washington, D.C; the Office of
Aviation and DynCorp at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; and the U.S.
Embassy/Bogotá. We interviewed cognizant U.S. officials in Washington,
D.C., and Colombia and at Patrick Air Force Base about the adequacy of
the resources provided to meet aerial eradication missions. We also
discussed resource availability with the DynCorp project manager at
Patrick Air Force Base.
We traveled to Colombia in January 2004. In Colombia, we met with NAS
and other cognizant U.S. Embassy officials and with Office of Aviation
and DynCorp managers at their offices at El Dorado International
Airport, Bogotá. We also visited three operational sites--Popayan, San
Jose del Guaviare, and Tumaco--where spray operations were occurring.
We interviewed DynCorp site managers, pilots, and mechanics at each
location. At Tumaco, we also interviewed Colombian Marine Corps
officers who coordinated eradication activities with U.S., DynCorp, and
Colombian police officials.
To determine the reliability of the data provided, we interviewed
officials at State/INL, the Office of Aviation, the U.S. Embassy/
Bogotá, and DynCorp to determine how they collected and verified the
data. To check the reliability of data on the number of ground-fire
hits and flying hours, we compared information from two different
sources at the U.S. Embassy and found it similar. Further, to determine
the reliability of the funding data used in this report, we examined
State financial management activity reports and compared some of these
data with similar information from our prior reports addressing Office
of Aviation activities. However, we did not audit the funding data and
are not expressing an opinion on them. Finally, to satisfy ourselves
that the numbers of personnel and aircraft were reliable, we examined
monthly reports prepared by the Office of Aviation and DynCorp. We
discussed how the reports were compiled and resolved a few
discrepancies concerning the numbers of personnel with cognizant
officials at Patrick Air Force Base and in Bogotá. Based on our
examination of the documents we received and our discussions with State
and DynCorp officials, we concluded that these data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C. 20520:
JUL 21, 2004:
Ms. Jacqueline Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director, International Affairs and Trade:
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "DRUG
SECURITY: Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Columbia Are Being
Addressed, but State's Budgeting Process Can Be Improved," GAO Job Code
320231.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Barry Friedman, Budget Officer, Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law, at (202) 776-8700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Christopher B. Burnham
cc: GAO - Al Huntington III
INL - Bill Todd
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report DRUG CONTROL: Aviation
Program Safety Concerns In Colombia Are Being Addressed, But State's
Budgeting Process Can Be Improved (GAO-04-918, GAO Job Code 320231):
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on GAO's draft report,
"Aviation Program Safety Concerns in Colombia are Being Addressed, But
State's Budgeting Process Can Be Improved." The report provides a
useful summary of technical, planning, and budgeting issues that
potentially impact INL's Office of Aviation programs in Colombia. The
bureau is keenly interested in anything that affects these programs,
and is interested in continuing to improve our management and planning
efforts in these areas.
The State Department has a few concerns concerning the report's
planning and budgeting conclusions. The State Department does not fully
agree with the report's statements (pages 14 and 18) that State/INL
does not plan for all aviation program requirements. Given INL's
existing budgeting and funding constraints, we believe the bureau
manages and plans for its aviation program requirements. The success of
these programs would seem to bear this out. Financial considerations
must play a significant role in INL's planning processes. For example,
INL receives much of its funding through the Foreign Assistance Act,
which historically allocates funding country by country. This means INL
funds and operates a centralized Air Wing using decentralized funding
from multiple sources. We also have no long-term aviation funding
assurances, which make expensive aircraft replacement strategies very
difficult to plan and manage financially. These fundamental financial
considerations have always been a basic tenet of INL aviation
operations. While they are mentioned in the report, the report does not
discuss the extent to which they affect INL's planning.
In the FY 06 BPP process, INL worked to address these needs by
requesting funding for a Critical Flight Safety Program (CFSP). The
CFSP would include a depot level maintenance program, an equipment
modernization and replacement program, a robust helicopter upgrade/
conversion program, and the acquisition of key aircraft. With these
actions, the bureau believes it has made substantial strides in this
area, but they are unfortunately not mentioned in the report.
The bureau feels the report does not sufficiently address the
challenging nature of long-term aviation operations planning in an
environment consistent with the scrutiny and control of multiple
Congressional committees, OMB, and other USG entities with oversight
over or interest in these Colombia aviation programs.
INL takes pains to be fully compliant with all Congressional and USG
oversight requests, regulations, and constraints. The bureau cooperates
fully and freely in all areas, but must take these factors into
consideration during its planning processes.
INL is also making significant strides in improving our long range
planning, financial transparency, and fiscal accountability. The bureau
self-identified problem areas and began to implement solutions before
the GAO report process started. The implementation of those
improvements continues as of this writing.
The report also notes that the State Department shifts funds between
aviation and country programs to meet the aerial eradication program
requirements. Almost all federal departments reprogram funds between
programs at one time or another, but usually in much more stable
operating environments where lives are not necessarily at stake. While
INL does not dispute GAO's conclusions in this area, the bureau does
request GAO include a more detailed description of the full impact of
consistent funding delays and/or uncertainties in a high risk, high
visibility operational planning environment such as INL's Office of
Aviation.
In sum, shifting funds among programs is a necessity. Given the lag
time of up to two years between INL's budget requests and actual
receipt of those funds, delays in receiving the bureau's annual FY
funding that consistently stretch several financial quarters into each
fiscal year, program scope and mission increases to which INL
historically attempts to respond as quickly as possible, and frequently
delayed responses to INL's requests to Congress to move funds from one
program to another, INL must shift funds to achieve our mission goals.
The report also states that the State Department does not have a
strategic plan for the aviation program. In fact, the initial cut at
INL's new Air Wing Strategic Plan was completed in April 2004. The
process included several days of participation by all aviation
Functional Area Managers, Senior Aviation Advisors, and RM Strategic
Planning personnel. It included development of a mission statement,
values, and goal papers for each functional area (Admin/COR, IT,
Logistics, Maintenance, Operations and Safety.
Examples of the INL Aviation Program's Strategic Planning process
include the Critical Flight Safety Program (CFSP) and INL/A
Reorganization Plans, which as mentioned above were incorporated into
the INL FY 2006 BPP and FY 2006 Budget Request.
The Critical Flight Safety Program, as noted above, identifies an
immediate need to stop the degradation and extend the life of its
severely aged aircraft fleet to sustain counter-narcotics and counter-
terrorism missions. The declining condition of the fleet presents a
crippling reality of potential unsafe aircraft, increased costs for
maintenance, material requirements, and degraded performance. To stop
any further deterioration of the fleet, INL/A is embarking on a multi-
level / multi-year program that consists of near-term and long-term
initiatives.
The Re-organization Plan, for which funding was requested through the
FY 06 BPP process, identifies the need to increase the number of staff
personnel at Patrick AFB and Washington DC offices to support an
organization that has grown four fold since 1996. A critical need is
for personnel specializing in Strategic Planning, Budgeting, and
Financial / Cost / Analysis to continue to address the shortcomings
addressed in this report.
In conclusion, INL understands and agrees with GAO's conclusion that
more comprehensive long term planning and budgeting processes are
needed. INL is working towards this end as part of Assistant Secretary
Charles's management initiatives and improvements. The INL Executive
Director has initiated several actions to improve the bureau's
management and financial controls, improve planning and financial
transparency, and address the conclusions noted in this report. Actions
already underway include significant action to reconcile prior year
funds, establish processes to ensure current funds remain reconciled,
recurring program reviews by the Assistant Secretary before program
plan and funding final approval, and maximizing the use of de-obligated
prior year funds to address budget shortfalls. The bureau developed and
is implementing a strong strategic plan for the aviation support
program, as well as comprehensive long-term flight capitalization and
refurbishment programs.
[End of section]
(320231):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The leaves of the coca plant are the raw ingredient of cocaine, and
opium poppy is used to produce heroin.
[2] Although the government of Colombia announced Plan Colombia in
1999, U.S. funding for counternarcotics purposes was not approved until
July 2000, leading to some uncertainty about when the 6-year goal was
to be achieved. The current Colombian government has announced that it
intends to eliminate coca cultivation by August 2006.
[3] For a more complete explanation of U.S. assistance for Plan
Colombia, see our reports titled Drug Control: U.S. Assistance to
Colombia Will Take Years to Produce Results, GAO-01-26 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 17, 2000); Drug Control: Specific Performance Measures and
Long-Term Costs for U.S. Programs in Colombia Have Not Been Developed,
GAO-03-783 (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2003); and Drug Control: U.S.
Nonmilitary Assistance to Colombia Is Beginning to Show Intended
Results but Programs Are Not Readily Sustainable, GAO-04-726
(Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2004).
[4] The aerial eradication program involves spraying the coca and poppy
plants from low-flying airplanes with an herbicide that attacks the
root system and kills the plant.
[5] The Director has since retired from government service.
[6] The number of ground-fire hits is the total number of bullet holes
in an aircraft. For example, if an aircraft receives two or more bullet
holes on a mission, the Office of Aviation reports that the aircraft
received two or more ground-fire hits.
[7] In 2003, the Office of Aviation sprayed over 132,000 hectares of
coca--a record number.
[8] This committee is under the aegis of the General Services
Administration. The committee formulates aviation policies for the
various civilian federal departments and agencies that maintain
aircraft. The committee also helps to ensure that agency aircraft
fleets are maintained properly and are operationally safe through on-
site reviews. The committee appoints a team of aviation experts from
various federal agencies to perform these reviews.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: State Department
Provides Required Aviation Program Oversight, but Safety and Security
Should Be Enhanced, GAO-01-1021 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2001).
[10] Furthermore, in August of 2002, a DynCorp contract employee was
killed in an accident on the tarmac of an operational site. At the
time, based on on-site inspections by his staff, the Director of the
Office of Aviation reported that he had full confidence in the
contractor's ability to meet State/INL-mandated safety commitments.
[11] The AT-802 standard load is 300 to 400 gallons of herbicide versus
a maximum of 300 gallons for the OV-10.
[12] According to the U.S. Embassy/Bogotá, insurgents were using 7.62
automatic weapons and, for the first time, .50 caliber machine guns,
rocket propelled grenades, and aerial mines to fire on eradication
aircraft.
[13] Colombian National Police personnel man and control the guns.
[14] State/INL is in the process of awarding a new contract and does
not expect to make a decision until later this year.
[15] According to the current NAS Director and the most recent former
Director, the Colombian Army has never turned down a request to assist
with the eradication program. The assistance usually consists of
establishing a presence in a targeted eradication area to keep the
insurgents from operating freely and possibly targeting eradication
aircraft.
[16] The T-65 and AT-802 do not have ejection seats. Rather, the
cockpit is designed to protect the pilot in the event of a crash.
[17] In connection with our prior report regarding the Office of
Aviation (GAO-01-1021), pilots and mechanics told us the same thing in
April 2001.
[18] Fixed-wing aircraft pilots are provided by a subcontractor to
DynCorp.
[19] The OV-10 has two engines while the other spray aircraft have one.
Office of Aviation officials stated that the two engines give an extra
measure of safety. However, the OV-10 is old and increasingly expensive
to operate and maintain.
[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: U.S.
Counternarcotics Efforts in Colombia Face Continuing Challenges, GAO/
NSIAD-98-60 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 1998).
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Aircraft: Inaccurate Cost
Data and Weaknesses in Fleet Management Planning Hamper Cost Effective
Operations, GAO-04-645 (Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2004).
[22] This review is the first of a series of planned reviews of State/
INL programs. The reviews are intended to assess INL's strengths and
weaknesses to better prepare for future operations.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: