prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: In the United States, both FRA and FTA regulate rail transportation safety  FRA oversees safety of railroads operating on what is known as the general system, a network of standard gage track over which goods may be transported and passengers may travel  This system includes freight railroads, which typically own their own tracks and locomotives, transporting products among states and regions  FRA also oversees safety of intercity passenger and commuter railroads that operate over tracks owned by freight railroads and other entities  FTA oversees safety of rail transit systems that typically serve individual metropolitan areas, using track not shared with freight and other passenger trains  Rail transit includes a variety of modes, such as heavy and light rail, streetcars, automated guideways, cable cars, and others  Rail transit is an important component of the nation’s transportation network, particularly in large metropolitan areas  Rail transit systems provided over 4 4 billion passenger trips in 2016  “Heavy rail” systems in large cities account for much of the total rail transit activity, including 88 percent of passenger trips in 2016  According to FTA, 61 rail transit systems within 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are subject to safety oversight by one of the 31 agencies in FTA’s state safety oversight program (see fig  1)  The states have long played a central role in conducting safety oversight of rail transit systems  The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 required, among other things, that states with rail transit operators designate an agency to oversee the safety of those systems, known as a state safety oversight agency  In overseeing state safety agencies, FTA designed the program as one in which FTA, states, and rail transit operators collaborate to ensure the safety and security of rail transit systems  However, limitations have been identified in the state safety oversight program  In 2006, we reported on some state safety agency challenges in overseeing rail transit safety  Specifically, we found many of the state safety agencies lacked enough qualified staff and adequate levels of training to meet their responsibilities  In a 2009 hearing before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, then Secretary Ray LaHood of the Department of Transportation discussed some of the weaknesses under the current state safety oversight program and introduced a public transportation safety legislative proposal  In 2010, various bills were introduced in both houses of Congress that would have provided FTA with various enforcement mechanisms and with the authority to issue safety regulations  Additionally, the bills would have required the Secretary to establish a federal certification program for employees and contractors who carry out a state public transportation safety program  In the 112th Congress, the Senate amended a House bill to include a public transportation safety provision, which eventually became section 20021 of MAP-21, the federal public transportation safety program  MAP-21 enhanced FTA’s authority to oversee the safety of rail transit, potentially addressing some of the weaknesses identified by various stakeholders  Specifically, MAP-21 established a comprehensive Public Transportation Safety Program, which continues to rely on state safety agencies to monitor rail transit systems’ safety operations  MAP-21 required that, within 3 years of the effective date of a final state safety oversight program rule, each eligible state have in place a state safety oversight program certified by FTA  An eligible state must, among other things, establish a state safety agency and determine, in consultation with FTA, an appropriate staffing level for this state agency that is commensurate with the number, size, and complexity of the rail transit systems within the state  Additionally, a state safety agency must be financially and legally independent from any rail transit system it oversees and have investigative and enforcement authority with respect to the safety for its rail transit systems, among other things  Each eligible state has until April 15, 2019, to receive FTA approval of its state safety oversight program, or else FTA will be prohibited from obligating certain federal financial assistance to any entity in the state that is otherwise eligible to receive that federal financial assistance  After that approval, state safety agencies will be evaluated for continued compliance with FTA regulations a minimum of once every 3 years through a triennial review process  According to FTA, these requirements represent a dramatic increase in federal expectations for state safety oversight and for the rail transit industry  MAP-21 also established a state safety oversight grant program, offering federal funding to states for their state safety activities  FTA’s Office of Transit Safety and Oversight administers the state safety oversight program  Freight and passenger railroads have played a transformational role in the development of America and continue to be an important part of the economy  The general railroad system consists of a vast network of operations (see fig  2)  The $60 billion freight rail industry is operated by seven Class I, and hundreds of smaller, railroads  In addition, about 40 railroads move passengers, which carry greater than 670 million passengers per year  The federal government has long provided regulatory oversight of railroad safety, both passenger and freight, that operate on the general system  The Interstate Commerce Commission, the first federal regulatory commission in U S  history, was established in 1887 to regulate interstate commerce by rail  The Commission’s safety functions were transferred to FRA, which was created by the Department of Transportation Act in 1966  In its role as federal regulator and overseer of railroad safety, FRA prescribes and enforces railroad safety regulations and conducts research and development in support of improved railroad safety and rail transportation policy  FRA utilizes safety inspectors and specialists, primarily covering five safety disciplines, to review and enforce compliance with these regulations  FRA’s safety disciplines are track, signal, and train control; motive power and equipment; operating practices; and hazardous materials  Following several fatal rail accidents between 2002 and 2008, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 was enacted, the first authorization of FRA’s safety programs since 1994  This act directed FRA to, among other things, issue new safety regulations for different aspects of railroad safety, such as hours of service requirements for passenger railroad workers, positive train control implementation, track inspection rules, and safety at highway-rail grade crossings  FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety administers the agency’s safety program  Rail transportation is a relatively safe way to transport people and products though serious incidents continue to occur on railroads and rail transit  According to an analysis of DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics data by the American Public Transportation Association, travel by rail transit is far safer than automobile travel  From 2000-2014, for instance, there were 6 53 and 0 33 fatalities per billion passenger-miles traveled in cars or light trucks and rail transit, respectively  Within rail travel, the fatality rates on both railroads and rail transit operators have remained similar in recent years  Further, the rate of accidents and incidents—including collisions and derailments—also do not appear to differ substantially between railroads and rail transit in recent years  Nevertheless, serious incidents continue to occur on railroads and rail transit, posing safety risks to passengers, railroad employees, and the public  For example, in June 2009, two WMATA trains collided, resulting in 52 injuries and 9 deaths  A smoke incident on WMATA’s Metrorail system in January 2015 also resulted in the death of 1 person and injured over 90  In a 10-month period from May 2013 to March 2014, the Metro- North commuter railroad, which serves New York and Connecticut, was involved in five accidents that resulted in the death of 6 people and 126 injured  In June 2016, two BNSF Railway freight trains collided near Panhandle, Texas, resulting in the death of three crew members  Incidents such as these have prompted investigations into both the causes and contributing factors of the specific accidents as well as broader rail safety oversight  FRA has a more centralized safety oversight program for railroads, while FTA is implementing changes to the rail transit oversight program, established in federal statute, which relies on states to monitor and enforce safety  Key characteristics of both programs include: (1) the establishment of safety regulations, (2) inspections and other oversight activities, such as audits and investigations, based on those regulations, and (3) enforcement mechanisms to ensure that safety deficiencies are addressed (see fig  3)  FRA has developed extensive railroad safety regulations over decades  FRA’s railroad safety regulations include requirements governing track design and inspection, grade crossings, signal and train control, mechanical equipment including locomotives, and railroad-operating practices including worker protection rules  For example, FRA’s regulations for track and equipment include detailed, prescriptive minimum requirements, such as formulas that determine the maximum allowable speeds on curved track  Many of FRA’s rail safety regulations establish minimum safety requirements, though railroads can apply for waivers  As FRA updates its safety regulations, it has proposed more performance-based regulations in recent years  Many of FRA’s current safety regulations specify the behavior or manner of compliance that railroads must adopt, such as inspecting each locomotive at least every 92 days  Performance-based regulations, however, specify a desired outcome rather than a behavior or manner of compliance  For example, FRA’s recent rulemaking to amend its passenger equipment safety regulations proposes performance-based crashworthiness and occupant protection requirements, rather than explicit targets or tolerances  According to FRA, establishing performance requirements in these areas would allow a more open rail market that incorporates recent technologies  FTA is currently assessing the need for rail transit safety regulations, having been provided the authority to issue safety regulations in 2012  Since MAP-21 was enacted, FTA has finalized regulations implementing the public transportation safety program authorized by statute  These include regulations that establish rules for FTA’s administration of a comprehensive safety program to improve rail transit safety as well as updated regulations governing state safety oversight of rail transit  In addition to its public transportation safety program regulations, FTA also has regulations governing its drug and alcohol testing program  MAP-21 also authorized FTA, for the first time, to issue rail transit safety regulations, which would establish minimum safety performance requirements for rail transit operators, as part of its requirement to develop a National Public Transportation Safety Plan  FTA initiated a regulatory development effort after the passage of MAP-21, which included a compilation and evaluation of existing transit safety standards, guidance, and best practices from the federal government, states, industry, and other sources  After the evaluation, FTA issued a report that concluded there was limited documentation or evidence of the effectiveness of these existing rail transit safety standards  The report included recommendations that are intended to enable FTA to undertake further data-driven, risk-based analysis of rail transit safety performance and the applicability and effectiveness of the identified safety standards  FTA is also currently analyzing specific focus areas to determine any areas that should be addressed by federal safety regulations  For example, FTA is studying the need for regulations related to rail transit vehicle crashworthiness  Since no federal rail transit safety regulations that establish minimum safety performance requirements for rail transit operators currently exist, rail transit operators are subject to different safety standards, depending largely on what voluntary standards they have chosen to adopt, according to American Public Transportation Association officials we spoke with  The American Public Transportation Association, for instance, has issued a variety of rail transit safety standards, addressing various aspects of the industry including operations, training, and inspections  In addition, states vary in the extent to which they have regulations for rail transit operators  For example, officials from the California Public Utilities Commission noted that it has issued a variety of safety regulations applicable to rail transit operators within the state of California to improve safety of rail operations  Both FRA and FTA have mechanisms to gather the input of stakeholders—including rail operators, labor unions, industry associations, and others—when considering development of safety regulations  In developing most of its safety regulations, FRA seeks input from stakeholders through its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee  In 1996, FRA established this committee to develop new regulations through a collaborative process, with the rail community working together to create mutually satisfactory solutions to safety issues  FTA is collaborating with stakeholders as it assesses the need for rail transit safety regulations  More specifically, FTA’s research partner, the Center for Urban Transportation Research, established a working group to collaborate with industry stakeholders to inform the safety regulations development process  FTA also solicited comments from industry stakeholders on its compilation of existing rail transit safety standards  More broadly, FTA also has a Transit Advisory Committee for Safety, which provides information, advice, and recommendations to FTA on safety matters  FRA fulfills its mission, in part, through safety compliance audits and inspections, and investigations  FRA ensures compliance with its safety regulations through inspections, using a staff of railroad safety experts, inspectors, and other professionals assigned to eight regional offices across the nation  For example, to determine a railroad’s compliance with FRA safety regulations, inspectors examine track, equipment, signal devices, employee actions, and procedures and review maintenance and accident records  Additionally, 31 states have rail safety programs that partner with FRA  Under this approach, FRA enters into agreements with states to allow state inspectors to participate in investigative and surveillance activities concerning federal railroad safety laws  State inspectors who participate in this program submit inspection reports to FRA  More broadly, FRA’s inspections are guided by a risk-based model  Under this approach, FRA focuses its inspections on locations that, according to the data-driven model, are likely to have safety problems  Like other operating administrations within DOT, FRA has relatively few resources for overseeing railroads, compared with the size of the general system  The risk-based model is designed to help FRA target the greatest safety risks  FRA has begun utilizing automated inspections as well  In particular, according to FRA, new imaging technologies have the potential to better inspect track for cracks in the rail that could lead to breakage as well as measure the track’s geometry to ensure that rails are positioned to meet standards  To further promote safety in railroad operations, FRA conducts accident investigations  Separate from investigations conducted by NTSB, FRA investigates select railroad accidents to determine root causation, and any contributing factors, so that railroad properties can implement corrective actions to prevent similar incidents in the future  Resources for railroad safety oversight activities have increased in recent years  FRA was appropriated about $218 million in fiscal year 2017, an increase over the approximately $187 million it received in fiscal year 2015, for safety and operations, which funds FRA’s personnel, including inspectors, and safety programs  According to FRA, Congress provided FRA with increased funding in recent years for the purpose of increasing staffing related to specific safety issues, such as trespasser prevention and passenger rail safety  As part of this effort, FRA has hired additional inspectors, going from 347 inspectors in fiscal year 2013 to over 360 currently, out of the nearly 930 total full-time equivalent staff  FRA officials told us, as we have reported in the past, that it can be difficult to recruit, train, and certify qualified inspectors in a timely manner, especially in certain areas of expertise  Further, according to FRA, its inspectors have the ability to inspect less than 1 percent of the general system annually  Though FTA now has more robust inspection authorities, states will continue to conduct front-line rail transit safety oversight activities  MAP- 21 provided FTA with new authorities to inspect, audit, and investigate practices at rail transit agencies, including safety practices, while also preserving the role of state safety agencies to monitor rail transit systems’ safety operations  According to FTA officials, any federal inspections of rail transit operators are intended to supplement a state safety agency’s oversight activities, except where FTA assumes temporary, direct oversight of a rail transit system from an inadequate state safety agency  FTA officials told us that establishing a nationwide safety inspection program at the federal level is inconsistent with the statutory framework of the state safety oversight program and with congressional intent, which contemplates preserving the primary role of state safety agencies in providing direct safety oversight of rail transit systems  The officials also noted that the state-based approach to rail transit safety oversight is valuable because states are generally closer to, and more familiar with, rail transit operators  To date, FTA has utilized its new inspection authorities only on WMATA’s rail system  As part of oversight activities, some state safety agencies have conducted inspections of the rail transit systems they oversee, though they were not required to do so, according to FTA officials we spoke with  To strengthen states’ abilities to conduct oversight activities, FTA has recommended that state safety agencies develop risk-based inspection programs  Further, to ensure the independence of state safety agencies, these agencies cannot receive funding from the rail transit entities they oversee  Resources for FTA’s rail transit safety oversight administrative expenses have remained relatively stable in recent years, though more are needed, according to FTA  Since fiscal year 2012, FTA’s appropriations for administrative expenses, which funds FTA personnel and support activities including the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight, has increased $14 million, to about $113 million in fiscal year 2017, according to FTA  However, for several years, FTA has averaged about 508 total full-time equivalent staff agency-wide, and a little over 30 safety staff in the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight  According to FTA, the Office of Transit Safety and Oversight has been under-resourced since it was established in response to new safety authority provided in MAP-21  For fiscal year 2018, FTA requested in their submission for the President’s Budget proposal funding to hire up to an additional 20 positions for various lines of safety work  FRA’s and FTA’s oversight activities also include regular audits of, and communication with, the rail operators under their oversight  Given finite resources and large rail networks, FRA and FTA audit rail operators’ own inspections rather than conducting comprehensive federal inspections  More specifically, FRA inspectors, and state safety agencies in FTA’s oversight program, regularly examine records of rail operators’ internal inspections to identify safety deficiencies  Officials from FRA, FTA, and five rail stakeholders we spoke with told us that FRA and FTA rail safety oversight programs also rely on collaboration and communication between rail operators and regulators to ensure safety  For example, regular meetings between FRA and railroad staff to discuss safety trends and industry developments are important to ensuring safety, according to officials we spoke with from FRA and the railroads  FRA specialists and inspectors participate, with representatives of railroad labor and management, in the implementation of voluntary safety programs  For example, FRA sponsors the Confidential Close Call Reporting System, a voluntary, confidential program allowing railroads and their employees to report accident and incident “close calls ” According to FRA officials, voluntary programs such as this increase industry awareness of railroad safety and engagement with it  FTA also collaborates with state safety agencies as rail transit safety issues arise, according to FTA officials, using federal oversight and enforcement authorities as a “back-stop” against the oversight of state safety agencies  Additionally, according to officials we spoke with from FTA and two rail transit operators, state safety agency staff meet with rail transit operators regularly, using knowledge of local operating conditions to help ensure safety  FRA uses a variety of tools, including civil penalties, to resolve safety issues  While some safety issues are resolved informally through discussion and collaboration between FRA and railroads, as noted above, some defects identified during inspections are classified as violations and subject to financial penalties  More specifically, when railroads do not resolve issues in a timely manner or identified defects are serious, FRA has the authority to cite violations and assess civil penalties, against either railroads or individuals  Further, as authorized by law, FRA negotiates settlements with railroads and other entities subject to its safety jurisdiction to resolve claims for civil penalties  In fiscal year 2016, FRA assessed over $11 8 million in civil penalties against railroads  According to FRA, fiscal year 2016 was the second year in a row that it took steps to increase penalty amounts paid by railroads, as part of a continued effort to increase consequences for violations that negatively affect safety  To ensure the safety of rail transit systems, states will continue to be the primary enforcers of safety requirements, according to FTA officials, though FTA now has more enforcement tools  MAP-21 preserved the role of state safety agencies as the primary enforcement body for rail transit  FTA has now required that state safety agencies have enforcement authorities sufficient to compel action from rail transit entities to address safety deficiencies  Though no specific authorities are required, FTA has suggested that a variety of mechanisms could be appropriate, such as the ability to remove deficient equipment from service or assess fines  According to FTA, this requirement is designed to overcome a long- standing vulnerability in state safety oversight, which allowed safety deficiencies to remain for long periods of time  MAP-21 and the FAST Act also provided FTA with more options for enforcement when rail transit operators are found to be out of compliance with safety requirements  In particular, FTA can withhold federal funding for rail transit operators or direct a rail transit operator to use federal funding for a specific purpose  Additionally, after FTA assumes temporary direct oversight of an inadequate state safety agency, FTA can withhold federal funds from the state until the state safety oversight program has been certified  To date, FTA has utilized this authority only with the states responsible for safety oversight of WMATA’s rail system  In February 2017, FTA announced that it would withhold 5 percent of fiscal year 2017 urbanized area formula funds from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia until a new state safety oversight program is certified for WMATA’s rail system  This action built upon FTA’s determination that WMATA’s state safety agency was ineffective at “providing adequate oversight consistent with prevention of substantial risk of death or personal injury ” FRA and FTA also have the authority to directly intervene in rail operations  In particular, both FRA and FTA can suspend the service of rail operators in response to certain safety concerns  Additionally, FTA can assume direct safety oversight of a rail transit operator if FTA determines the state safety oversight program is not adequate, among other things  In response to safety incidents on WMATA’s rail system, FTA assumed temporary and direct safety oversight of WMATA in October 2015, as previously noted


Report 2:  FRA and FTA’s approaches to their rail safety oversight missions each have strengths and limitations, including how the agencies develop safety regulations, conduct inspections, and carry out enforcement  Compared to FRA’s long-standing role in providing safety oversight over railroads, FTA is in the process of implementing significant changes to its program for rail transit safety oversight after being granted new authorities in MAP- 21 and the FAST Act  With respect to regulations, FRA’s extensive and well-established safety regulations are a strength  FTA has made some progress toward developing appropriate safety regulations, such as identifying subjects for potential regulatory action  With respect to inspections, FRA’s use of a risk-based approach to distributing inspection resources is a strength  FTA has sought to address previously identified deficiencies in state safety oversight by recommending that state safety agencies develop risk-based inspection programs  FTA, though, has not provided states guidance for these efforts  With respect to enforcement, FRA’s use of its enforcement authorities is a strength  FTA is also implementing new statutory requirements that state safety agencies have enforcement authorities but does not have a process or methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of these enforcement practices  Extensive and well-established safety regulations are a strength of FRA’s safety oversight program based on studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators and stakeholder organizations  According to NTSB, FRA’s railroad safety regulations are an important and effective part of its oversight program  Our previous work reported that according to stakeholders, the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee provides a collaborative environment where stakeholders in the rail community work with FRA to identify issues and proposals for safety standards and regulations that improved the quality of railroads’ safety initiatives and fostered a greater level of compliance with safety regulations  This is consistent with views of stakeholders we spoke with, who characterized FRA’s safety regulations as a strength  An industry association told us that FRA’s regulations promote safety by helping to ensure that no operator falls below a minimum threshold for safe operations, while a rail operator told us that federal regulations help to standardize the operating environment and prevent a patchwork of various state regulations  Four stakeholders also characterized the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, which plays a large role in crafting FRA’s railroad safety regulations, as effective and inclusive  However, based on studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators’ and stakeholders’ organizations, FRA faces limitations in its efforts to regulate safety across railroad systems that differ from one another and sometimes change more quickly than the federal regulatory process  Five railroad operators and an industry association told us that some of FRA’s safety regulations do not account for differences in railroads or innovation in safety practices, with three railroad operators stating that this approach requires the extensive use of waivers for particular regulations  Further, two railroad operators and a rail transit operator we spoke with stated that additional federal regulations are needed to provide minimum baseline requirements in specific areas of railroad safety such as medical fitness for duty  In 2014, NTSB also found that FRA needs to do more to regulate particular safety issues including medical fitness for duty and signal protection  FRA officials acknowledged that time and resources are two of the primary challenges that the agency faces when developing safety regulations but also noted additional ways in which the agency can require railroads to adopt safety practices  FRA officials described the process of creating or significantly amending a regulation as involving years of work, even before the agency commences with the process of drafting a rule  The officials also noted that the agency has additional tools to compel railroads to adopt safety practices  For example, FRA officials discussed the use of compliance agreements, in which railroads can have fines reduced in exchange for adopting safety measures that go beyond what FRA regulations require  FRA officials are considering the use of performance-based regulations as they update their safety regulations  As noted above, FRA’s proposed regulations regarding passenger equipment safety incorporates performance -based safety requirements, rather than explicit safety targets or tolerances  FRA has promulgated performance-based regulations about the implementation of positive train control, a communications-based system designed to prevent certain types of train accidents, as well as system safety programs that set general safety parameters and thresholds by which successful performance is governed  FRA’s consideration of performance-based regulations is in line with federal guidance  OMB’s Circular A-4 states that performance standards “are generally superior to engineering or design standards because performance standards give the regulated parties the flexibility to achieve regulatory objectives in the most cost-effective way ” Additionally, under Executive Order 12866, agencies should (to the extent permitted by law and where applicable) identify and assess alternative forms of regulation and specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt  However, as the language of OMB’s Circular A-4 and Executive Order 12866 suggest that performance-based regulations are not always feasible, studies of performance-based regulations find that as with any other form of regulation, performance-based standards have trade-offs  FRA officials told us that under certain circumstances, performance- based regulations are appropriate for issues regarding design, maintenance, operation, and technology-driven safety requirements  FRA officials we spoke with did not think performance-based standards are appropriate for areas that require standardization  One example is track safety standards, where the need for different operators to use the same equipment precludes a performance-based approach that allows railroads to meet requirements through different means  FRA officials added that a key aspect of the success of performance-based regulations concerns how railroads demonstrate compliance  This concern is consistent with other studies of performance-based regulations, which find that these regulations are most appropriate when regulators have capacity to measure and monitor performance  Though FTA has made progress assessing the state of rail transit safety standards, a limitation of FTA’s rail transit safety oversight program is the lack of federal rail transit safety regulations, which may contribute to inconsistent safety practices across the rail transit industry, according to studies we reviewed and discussions with rail operators and stakeholder organizations  NTSB reported that the structure of FTA’s oversight process leads to inconsistent practices, inadequate standards, and marginal effectiveness  In addition, a 2016 DOT OIG report found that because FTA’s safety standards are voluntary, they are unenforceable  In 2012, FTA gained the authority to issue safety regulations, though it has not done so yet, and NTSB and other stakeholders we spoke with indicated that the lack of such federal safety regulations is a weakness in federal rail transit safety oversight  Despite differences across rail transit systems, there is value in establishing federal rail transit safety regulations, according to stakeholders from all categories of those we interviewed, including a state safety agency, three rail transit operators, a railroad operator, and two industry associations  Some stakeholders identified specific areas that would benefit from federal rail transit regulations  For example, two rail transit agencies called for federal regulations to address operator fatigue  Some of these officials stated that federal rail transit safety regulations could help ensure safety by establishing clear and consistent minimum standards  Officials from a rail transit entity and an industry association stated that voluntary standards are not enough to ensure that transit entities will adopt appropriate safety measures  According to our analysis, a past study, and stakeholders we spoke with, FTA’s ability to develop and implement performance-based regulations is limited by its lack of capacity to collect and analyze rail safety performance data  In 2017, DOT OIG found that data limitations of FTA’s National Transit Database results in limited safety performance criteria in FTA’s National Public Transportation Safety Plan  Further, two rail transit entities as well as a state safety agency we spoke with stated that they face challenges in analyzing data due to either the size of their systems or their capacity  FTA officials told us that they need more data to inform their decisions regarding whether to establish rail transit safety regulations, and also added that a limitation to their ongoing assessment of potential areas for rail transit safety regulation is the concern about public disclosure of safety data provided to FTA and its potential use in private litigation  According to FTA officials, they need more information to do a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of current safety standards and practices  As required by the FAST Act, FTA has entered into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, to conduct a study to evaluate whether it is in the public interest to withhold from federal or state court proceedings any information collected by DOT through its public transportation safety program oversight activities  The National Academies of Sciences is expected to complete this study in 2018  FTA is taking positive steps toward developing safety regulations that may address inconsistent safety practices across rail transit operators  FTA officials stated that the agency is considering issuing rail transit safety regulations and also employs additional tools to compel rail transit entities to adopt safety measures  As noted above, FTA is currently studying whether federal regulations are appropriate for specific areas of rail transit safety  Executive Order 12866 and OMB’s Circular A-4 direct federal agencies to consider performance-based regulations when developing regulations  Further, as the Transportation Research Board recently reported, any decision to use performance-based regulations “must take into account the regulator’s own ability to enforce and motivate compliance (through methods such as auditing and field inspections) as well as the capacity of regulated entities to meet their obligations ” FTA officials noted that they are actively engaged with members of the Transportation Research Board in reviewing and discussing these recent findings related to safety regulations for high-hazards industries  In January 2017, FTA issued its National Public Transportation Safety Plan, which FTA officials noted is one component of their transit safety standard development program  According to FTA officials, the plan identifies a list of issue areas that the agency is currently studying to determine whether national regulations are needed  FTA officials also stated that the plan includes “voluntary standards,” which are intended to put the industry “on notice” that federal safety regulations may be proposed in those areas  FTA officials stated that they view the National Public Transportation Safety Plan as iterative and more easily updated compared with official regulations  Additional tools that FTA officials stated the agency employs in its approach to safety oversight include general directives as well as the requirements associated with FTA grants  Based on our assessment and studies we reviewed, a strength of FRA’s safety oversight program is its risk-based approach to distributing inspection resources, which may serve as an example for FTA and state safety agencies  According to NTSB, FRA’s qualified inspectors are a strength of its oversight program  To help target these inspectors to the areas of highest risk, FRA developed the National Inspection Plan, which includes a quantitative model for allocating inspection resources in a way that tries to minimize railroad accidents  This model utilizes data including: (1) accident and incident data that railroads are required to report, (2) data from FRA inspection activity, and (3) information on railroad activities such as train miles and other data  Based on our assessment of FRA’s model, we believe that it can be an appropriate and useful tool for directing its inspection resources based on risk because it relies on statistical methods commonly used to predict the risk of a violation for regulated entities  While we did not review FRA’s entire modeling process, nor did we validate the results it generates, we do believe that FRA’s approach to using these statistical models as a key part of its inspection program is appropriate  However, a potential limitation of FRA’s inspection program is the flexibility granted to individual inspectors and whether the manner and extent to which inspectors implement this discretion may be inconsistent with the risk-based National Inspection Plan  FRA’s National Inspection Plan provides guidance for inspectors about how much time they should spend inspecting individual railroads  According to FRA officials, FRA inspectors have considerable flexibility to deviate from the National Inspection Plan based on their judgment regarding where to more effectively use their resources  FRA officials stated that situations arise that call for deviations in planned inspections  For example, a particular railroad may experience a serious accident and therefore require more oversight from FRA  According to FRA officials, regional offices make these decisions based on their understanding of emerging issues  Inspectors are expected to know their region and decide which locations to go to, and are in part evaluated based on these decisions  When a region’s record of total inspection time spent on a particular railroad differs from the National Inspection Plan by more than 5 percent, the region’s leadership submits an explanation to FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety  This practice, if not monitored, could allow inspectors to deviate from the data-driven model results in ways that undermine the goal of the National Inspection Plan to deploy FRA’s limited resources efficiently and based on risk  However, FRA officials told us that flexibility for individual inspectors is important, and that FRA is continuously monitoring the model’s performance and making changes as appropriate  Further, OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy note that it is important to ensure “that sufficient flexibility is left to enforcement and inspection officials to adapt their response in proportion to the facts on the ground ” A strength of FTA’s approach to rail transit safety oversight is that it is working to overcome weaknesses in state oversight of rail transit identified in our prior work and stakeholders we spoke with  For example, FTA has noted that in the past some state safety agencies lacked sufficient oversight authorities  To now be certified by FTA, state safety agencies must demonstrate that they have authority to review, approve and oversee the implementation of rail transit operator’s safety plans  Additionally, we have found, and FTA has also noted, that some state safety agencies would benefit from more training and additional staff  To now be certified by FTA, state safety agencies must be capable of directly hiring and developing staff and contract support, as well as have a training plan for certain staff  Though FTA is seeking to implement stronger safety oversight activities, a limitation of its program is that state safety agencies have not received the guidance and support necessary to develop effective inspection programs  FTA does not currently plan to conduct widespread inspections itself and recommends that state safety agencies develop risk-based inspection programs  According to FTA, states have discretion to establish their inspection programs in accordance with their program standards, and are not required to actually conduct inspections as the method of verifying rail transit operators’ compliance with safety rules  However, direct observation, audits, and performance indicator tracking are useful methods for an oversight agency in assessing a regulated entity’s safety culture  Officials we spoke with from selected state safety agencies say that they have received little guidance from FTA on what their risk-based inspection programs should look like  In the materials FTA provided to states, it said that it intends to provide guidance to states on risk-based inspections but did not provide us with a plan or timeline for doing so  Without guidance from FTA, state safety agencies may not develop effective risk-based inspection programs and thus not use their resources efficiently  Effective risk-based inspection programs are particularly important given state safety agencies’ limited resources  We have reported in the past that some state safety agencies lack sufficient resources, including training and staff  Officials from two rail transit operators and all four industry associations we spoke with stated that state safety agencies continue to have limited resources and capacity  Several state safety agencies we spoke with rely on contractors or employees with other responsibilities besides oversight of rail transit to meet their increased oversight responsibilities and achieve certification from FTA  Federal standards for internal control as well as leading practices for regulatory inspections state that agency objectives, including those related to inspections and enforcement, should be clearly communicated  Specifically, federal standards for internal control require that management communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the agency’s objectives  Additionally, the OECD’s Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy recommends that governments ensure clarity of rules and processes for enforcement and inspections and clearly articulate rights and obligations of officials  According to OECD, the frequency of inspections and the resources employed should be proportional to the level of risk  A strength of FRA’s safety oversight program is that the agency has and utilizes clear enforcement authority, according to NTSB and stakeholders we spoke with  As previously discussed, FRA has several enforcement tools available when inspectors find that railroads are noncompliant with applicable regulations, including civil penalties, individual liability, compliance orders, and emergency orders  According to NTSB, this array of specific enforcement tools helps ensure safety deficiencies are addressed by railroads  FRA officials also told us that the process of adjudicating civil penalties provides a forum for FRA and railroad officials to meet to discuss safety issues  Four rail operators also told us that FRA’s authority to issue civil penalties is necessary to ensure railroads’ compliance with regulations  However, a potential limitation of FRA’s approach to enforcement is that it is difficult to quantify the effectiveness of FRA’s civil penalties  FRA has reported that it cannot determine whether observable safety improvements are directly attributable to discrete civil penalties or whether the amount of civil penalties has any effect on safety  We have reported in the past about the challenges of determining the effect of penalties on compliance in tax policy, though we also noted that, despite these challenges, some analyses likely would be useful for better understanding the effect of penalties on compliance  FRA also reported, though, that according to the judgments of its inspectors, issuing civil penalties yields observable improvements in safety practices and compliance with the law  Further, according to FRA, though it does not quantify the impact of civil penalties, FRA monitors railroad responses to its enforcement activity and adjusts its oversight as necessary  More broadly, civil penalties are not meant, by themselves, to ensure railroad safety  Instead, FRA reported that it uses its entire regulatory regime as a whole to try and ensure safety  FRA officials also noted that the agency has additional tools, apart from civil penalties, to compel railroads to adopt safety practices  A strength of FTA’s rail transit safety oversight is that it seeks to improve historically weak state safety agency enforcement authorities, as described in our previous report as well stakeholders we spoke with  FTA requires state safety agencies to adopt enforcement authorities that are sufficient to enable states to compel action from rail transit agencies to address identified deficiencies  FTA has also communicated to states that it is focusing its evaluation of each state’s enforcement authorities in two major areas: ensuring that the state can carry out its primary responsibility for rail transit safety in response to (1) an imminent threat to public safety on the rail transit system and (2) a lack of action or non- compliance from the rail transit operator in carrying out certain safety plans  FTA has provided states with examples of the enforcement authorities and policies state safety agencies could establish to address these specific concerns  Authorities to address imminent safety threats may include the authority to suspend rail transit agencies’ operations, inspect and remove deficient equipment or system infrastructure from service, or issue an order requiring the rail transit agency to correct an unsafe condition prior to placing equipment or infrastructure back into passenger service  FTA has also provided state safety agencies with examples of authorities to address a lack of action or cooperation by the rail transit operator, including the authority to withhold or redirect funds, levy civil or criminal fines or penalties, and a formal citation or ticketing program  Though federal law requires that state safety agencies have enforcement authorities over the safety of the rail transit entities they oversee, a limitation of FTA’s approach is that FTA has not developed a method to evaluate the effectiveness of states’ enforcement practices  Certified state safety agencies will be evaluated for continued compliance with FTA regulations every 3 years  This triennial review process (for rail transit safety) seeks to ensure that states are effectively carrying out their responsibilities  While FTA officials told us that they will evaluate state safety agencies’ enforcement during the triennial reviews, FTA has not developed a process or methodology to evaluate whether state enforcement authorities and practices as a whole are effective  Without a method for determining the effectiveness of state safety agencies’ enforcement, FTA may not have the information needed to identify ineffective safety enforcement  As a result, deficiencies may remain for long periods of time, potentially contributing to safety incidents  Federal standards for internal control maintain that agency managers should perform a range of practices that would facilitate the establishment of a system to monitor the effectiveness of agency activities, which in the context of FTA’s mission includes the effectiveness of its rail transit safety oversight  Agency managers should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks, establish activities to monitor performance measures and indicators, and externally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives  Internal control standards further stipulate that agency managers should perform monitoring activities regarding their internal control system and evaluate the results  To do so, federal standards for internal control state that agency managers should monitor ongoing operations and effectiveness, evaluate the results of this monitoring, and identify any changes that need to be made to achieve improvement in agency operations  The effectiveness of state safety agency enforcement is especially important because questions have been raised about the efficacy of FTA’s own enforcement mechanisms, including its ability to withhold funds from and assume direct control over safety oversight for a rail transit entity  Rail transit operators and industry association representatives we spoke with stated that FTA’s authority to withhold funding from states is overly punitive, and two stakeholders said the FTA needs more precise tools  Officials from an industry association added that withholding funds can be counterproductive, as most state safety agencies are already underfunded and understaffed  FTA officials pointed to examples in which the agency successfully supported state safety agencies in compelling action from rail transit agencies as evidence that the state safety oversight model, in which FTA backs up state safety agencies, is effective  Additionally, officials from numerous state safety agencies and others questioned whether FTA has the capacity to effectively assume direct safety oversight of rail transit operators  FTA has not assumed direct safety oversight of any rail transit operators outside of WMATA, and FTA officials noted that they intend to continue supporting state safety agencies in their oversight wherever possible  The approaches to rail safety oversight utilized by FRA and FTA each have strengths and limitations  However, FTA’s program is currently in transition as the agency implements new authorities and responsibilities provided in federal law  Though FTA has made progress by evaluating existing rail transit safety standards and providing some guidance to states as part of the certification process, limitations in FTA’s approach may still hinder the success of the state-based rail transit safety oversight program  Given the looming 2019 deadline for state safety oversight programs to achieve FTA certification, FTA can improve its efforts to implement its new rail transit safety oversight program  In particular, without guidance from FTA on how to develop and carry out risk-based inspection programs, state safety agencies may not use limited resources efficiently, risking that important safety issues will go undetected  Further, without a method for how it will monitor the effectiveness of states safety agencies’ enforcement, FTA will lack the information needed to identify ineffective state enforcement, which risks allowing safety deficiencies to remain for long periods of time  By providing this additional guidance and direction to the state safety agencies, FTA would help ensure that states are able to effectively identify and resolve rail transit safety issues  We are making the following two recommendations to FTA: The Office of Transit Safety and Oversight should create a plan, with a timeline, for developing guidance for state safety agencies about how to develop and implement a risk-based inspection program  (Recommendation 1) The Office of Transit Safety and Oversight should develop and communicate a method for how it will monitor the effectiveness of the enforcement authorities and practices of state safety agencies  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft copy of this report to DOT, NTSB, and WMATA for review and comment  In written comments, reproduced in appendix I, DOT agreed with both our recommendations  DOT also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In e-mails, NTSB and WMATA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  NTSB noted that we do not discuss the role of system safety initiatives, such as safety management systems, in the FRA and FTA rail safety oversight programs  We agree with NTSB that system safety concepts are increasingly influencing the FRA and FTA approaches to rail safety oversight but, as NTSB also noted, both FRA and FTA lack finalized regulations codifying their approaches to system safety initiatives  Because the extent of rail entities’ implementation of these initiatives varies and is not complete we did not include an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those initiatives in our scope  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Transportation, Chairman of NTSB, General Manager of WMATA, and the appropriate congressional committees  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Individuals who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen (Assistant Director); Kyle Browning (Analyst in Charge); Melissa Bodeau; Lacey Coppage; Serena Lo; Sean Miskell; and Josh Ormond made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: A key U.S. ally in the Latin American region, Colombia endured an internal armed conflict for half a century. Drug trafficking fueled the violence by funding both left-wing and right-wing armed groups. Some analysts feared Colombia would become a failed state in the late 1990s, but the Colombian government devised a new security strategy, known as Plan Colombia, to counter the insurgencies. Originally designed as a 6-year program, Plan Colombia ultimately became a 17-year U.S.-Colombian bilateral effort. The partnership focused initially on counternarcotics and later on counterterrorism; it then broadened to include sustainable development, human rights, trade, regional security, and many other areas of cooperation. Between FY2000 and FY2016, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $10 billion to help fund Plan Colombia and its follow-on programs. For FY2018, Congress appropriated $391.3 million in foreign aid for Colombia, including assistance to promote peace and end the conflict. President Juan Manuel Santos (2010-2018) made concluding a peace accord with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)—the country's largest leftist guerrilla organization—his government's primary focus. Following four years of formal peace negotiations, Colombia's Congress ratified the FARC-government peace accord in November 2016. During a U.N.-monitored demobilization effort in 2017, approximately 11,000 FARC disarmed and demobilized. This figure included FARC who had been held in prison for crimes of rebellion and those making up FARC militias, who were accredited by the Colombian government as eligible to demobilize. On August 7, 2018, Iván Duque, a senator from the conservative Democratic Center party, was inaugurated to a four-year presidential term. Duque, who also worked at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, DC, and is Colombia's youngest president in a century, campaigned as a critic of the peace accord with the FARC. His party objected to specific measures concerning justice and political representation. Some observers maintain that his election has generated uncertainty for implementation of the accord. Shortly after taking office, Duque suspended peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), the country's second-largest rebel group, which had begun under President Santos. Since the ratification of the peace accord, Colombia's long-term strategy has evolved from defeating insurgents to post-conflict stabilization. Many considered Plan Colombia and its successor strategies a remarkable advance, given the country's improvements in security and economic stability. Nevertheless, recent developments have called into question Colombia's progress. The FARC's demobilization has triggered open conflict among armed actors (including FARC dissidents and transnational criminal groups), which seek to control drug cultivation and trafficking, illegal mining, and other illicit businesses that the demobilized FARC abandoned. The ongoing lack of governance in remote rural areas recalls the conditions that originally gave rise to the FARC and other armed groups. Many observers continue to raise concerns about the country's human-rights conditions, sharp increases in coca cultivation and cocaine production, and problems stemming from the failing authoritarian government of neighboring Venezuela, which shares a nearly 1,400-mile border with Colombia. Venezuela's humanitarian crisis has set in motion an exodus of migrants, many of whom have sought temporary residence (or extended stays) in Colombia. Political upheaval has added yet more uncertainty after the United States and many other Western Hemisphere and European nations, including Colombia, called for a democratic transition in Venezuela and recognized the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as the country's interim president in January 2019. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement went into force in May 2012. The United States remains Colombia's top trade partner. After several years of annual growth exceeding 4%, one of the steadiest expansion rates in the region, Colombia grew by an estimated 2.7% in 2018. The FARC-government peace accord is projected to cost more than $40 billion to implement over 15 years, adding to the polarization over the controversial peace process. For additional background, see CRS In Focus IF10817, Colombia's 2018 Elections, CRS Report R44779, Colombia's Changing Approach to Drug Policy, CRS Report R42982, Colombia's Peace Process Through 2016, and CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Colombia, one of the oldest democracies in the Western Hemisphere and the third most populous Latin American country, has endured a multisided civil conflict for more than five decades until President Juan Ma nuel Santos declared the conflict over in August 2017 at the end of a U N -monitored disarmament  According to the National Center for Historical Memory 2013 report, presented to the Colombian government as part of the peace process to end the fighting, some 220,000 Colombians died in the armed conflict through 2012, 81% of them civilians  The report also provided statistics quantifying the scale of the conflict, which has taken a huge toll on Colombian society: more than 23,000 selective assassinations between 1981 and 2012; internal displacement of more than 5 million Colombians due to land seizure and violence; 27,000 kidnappings between 1970 and 2010; and 11,000 deaths or amputees from anti-personnel land mines laid primarily by Colombia's main insurgent guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)  To date, more than 8 million Colombians, or roughly 15% of the population, have registered as conflict victims  Although the violence has scarred Colombia, the country has achieved a significant turnaround  Once considered a likely candidate to become a failed state, Colombia, over the past two decades, has overcome much of the violence that had clouded its future  For example, between 2000 and 2016, Colombia saw a 94% decrease in kidnappings and a 53% reduction in homicides (below 25 per 100,000 in 2016)  Coupled with success in lowering violence, Colombia has opened its economy and promoted trade, investment, and growth  Colombia has become one of Latin America's most attractive locations for foreign direct investment  Yet, after steady growth over several years, Colombia's economy slowed to 3 1% growth in 2015 and declined to 1 7% in 2017  Many analysts identified Colombia's dependence on oil and other commodity exports as the primary cause  Between 2012 and 2016, the Colombian government held formal peace talks with the FARC, Colombia's largest guerrilla organization  Upon taking office for a second term in August 2014, President Santos declared peace, equality, and education as his top priorities, although achieving the peace agreement remained his major focus  In August 2016, the government and FARC negotiators announced they had concluded their talks and achieved a 300-page peace agreement  The accord was subsequently narrowly defeated in a popular referendum held in early October 2016, but was revised by the Santos government and agreed to by the FARC and then ratified by the Colombian Congress at the end of November 2016  The Colombian conflict predates the formal founding of the FARC in 1964, as the FARC had its beginnings in the peasant self-defense groups of the 1940s and 1950s  Colombian political life has long suffered from polarization and violence based on the significant disparities and inequalities suffered by landless peasants in the country's peripheral regions  In the late 19 th century and a large part of the 20 th century, the elite Liberal and Conservative parties dominated Colombian political life  Violence and competition between the parties erupted in a period of extreme violence in Colombia, known as La Violencia , set off in 1948 by the assassination of Liberal presidential candidate Jorge Gaitán  The violence continued for the next decade  After a brief military rule (1953-1958), the Liberal and Conservative parties agreed to a form of coalition governance, known as the National Front  Under the arrangement, the presidency of the country alternated between Conservatives and Liberals, each holding office in turn for four-year intervals  This form of government continued for 16 years (1958-1974)  The power-sharing formula did not resolve the tension between the two historic parties, and many leftist, Marxist-inspired insurgencies took root in Colombia, including the FARC, launched in 1964, and the smaller National Liberation Army (ELN), which formed the following year  The FARC and ELN conducted kidnappings, committed serious human rights violations, and carried out a campaign of terrorist activities to pursue their goal of unseating the central government in Bogotá  Rightist paramilitary groups formed in the 1980s when wealthy ranchers and farmers, including drug traffickers, hired armed groups to protect them from the kidnapping and extortion plots of the FARC and ELN  In the 1990s, most of the paramilitary groups formed an umbrella organization, the United-Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)  The AUC massacred and assassinated suspected supporters of the insurgents and directly engaged the FARC and ELN in military battles  The Colombian military has long been accused of close collaboration with the AUC, accusations ranging from ignoring their activities to actively supporting them  Over time, the AUC became increasingly engaged in drug trafficking, and other illicit businesses  In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the U S  government designated the FARC, ELN, and AUC as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs)  The AUC was formally dissolved in a collective demobilization between 2003 and 2006 after many of its leaders stepped down  However, former paramilitaries joined armed groups (called criminal bands, or Bacrim, by the Colombian government) who continued to participate in the lucrative drug trade and commit other crimes and human rights abuses  When the FARC demobilized in 2017, other illegally armed groups began aggressive efforts to take control of former FARC territory and its criminal enterprises as FARC forces withdrew  (For more, see " The Current Security Environment ," below ) The inability of Colombia's two dominant parties to address the root causes of violence in the country led to the election of an independent, Álvaro Uribe, in the presidential contest of 2002  Uribe, who served two terms, came to office with promises to take on the violent leftist guerrillas, address the paramilitary problem, and combat illegal drug trafficking  During the 1990s, Colombia had become the region's—and the world's—largest producer of cocaine  Peace negotiations with the FARC under the prior administration of President Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002) had ended in failure; the FARC used a large demilitarized zone located in the central Meta department (see map, Figure 1 ) to regroup and strengthen itself  The central Colombian government granted the FARC this demilitarized zone, a traditional practice in Colombian peace negotiations, but the FARC used it to launch terror attacks, conduct operations, and increase the cultivation of coca and its processing, while failing to negotiate seriously  Many analysts, noting the FARC's strength throughout the country, feared that the Colombian state might fail and some Colombian citizens thought the FARC might at some point successfully take power  The FARC was then reportedly at the apogee of its strength, numbering an estimated 16,000 to 20,000 fighters under arms  This turmoil opened the way for the aggressive strategy advocated by Uribe  At President Uribe's August 2002 inauguration, the FARC showered the event with mortar fire, signaling the group's displeasure at the election of a hardliner, who believed a military victory over the Marxist rebels was possible  In his first term (2002-2006), President Uribe sought to shore up and expand the country's military, seeking to reverse the armed forces' losses by aggressively combating the FARC  He entered into peace negotiations with the AUC  President Pastrana had refused to negotiate with the rightist AUC, but Uribe promoted the process and urged the country to back a controversial Justice and Peace Law that went into effect in July 2005 and provided a framework for the AUC demobilization  By mid-2006, some 31,000 AUC paramilitary forces had demobilized  The AUC demobilization, combined with the stepped-up counternarcotics efforts of the Uribe administration and increased military victories against the FARC's irregular forces, helped to bring down violence, although a high level of human rights violations still plagued the country  Uribe became widely popular for the effectiveness of his security policies, a strategy he called "Democratic Security " Uribe's popular support was evident when Colombian voters approved a referendum to amend their constitution in 2005 to permit Uribe to run for a second term  Following his reelection in 2006, President Uribe continued to aggressively combat the FARC  For Uribe, 2008 was a critical year  In March 2008, the Colombian military bombed the camp of FARC's second-in-command, Raul Reyes (located inside Ecuador a short distance from the border), killing him and 25 others  Also in March, another of FARC's ruling seven-member secretariat was murdered by his security guard  In May, the FARC announced that their supreme leader and founder, Manuel Marulanda, had died of a heart attack  The near-simultaneous deaths of three of the seven most important FARC leaders were a significant blow to the organization  In July 2008, the Colombian government dramatically rescued 15 long-time FARC hostages, including three U S  defense contractors who had been held captive since 2003 and Colombian senator and former presidential candidate Ingrid Bentancourt  The widely acclaimed, bloodless rescue further undermined FARC morale  Uribe's success and reputation, however, were marred by several scandals  They included the "parapolitics" scandal in 2006 that exposed links between illegal paramilitaries and politicians, especially prominent members of the national legislature  Subsequent scandals that came to light during Uribe's tenure included the "false positive" murders allegedly carried out by the military (primarily the Colombian Army) in which innocent civilians were executed and then dressed to look like guerilla fighters to increase the military's rebel body count  In 2009, the media revealed another scandal of illegal wiretapping and other surveillance by the government intelligence agency, the Department of Administrative Security (DAS), to discredit journalists, members of the judiciary, and political opponents of the Uribe government  (In early 2012, the tarnished national intelligence agency was replaced by Uribe's successor, Juan Manuel Santos ) Despite the controversies, President Uribe remained popular and his supporters urged him to run for a third term in 2010  Another referendum was proposed to alter the constitution to allow a third term; however, it was turned down by Colombia's Constitutional Court  Once it became clear that President Uribe was constitutionally ineligible to run again, Juan Manuel Santos of the pro-Uribe National Unity party (or Party of the U) quickly consolidated his preeminence in the 2010 presidential campaign  Santos, a centrist, who came from an elite family that once owned the country's largest newspaper, had served as Uribe's defense minister through 2009  In 2010, Santos campaigned on a continuation of the Uribe government's approach to security and its role encouraging free markets and economic opening, calling his reform policy "Democratic Prosperity " In the May 2010 presidential race, Santos took almost twice as many votes as his nearest competitor, Antanas Mockus of the centrist Green Party, but he did not win a majority  Santos won the June runoff with 69% of the vote  Santos's "national unity" ruling coalition formed during his campaign included the center-right National Unity and Conservative parties, the centrist Radical Change Party, and the center-left Liberal party  On August 7, 2010, President Santos said in his first inauguration speech that he planned to follow in the path of President Uribe, but that "the door to [peace] talks [with armed rebels] is not locked " The Santos government was determined to improve relations with Ecuador and Venezuela, which had become strained under Uribe  Santos sought to increase cooperation on cross-border coordination and counternarcotics  He attempted to reduce tensions with Venezuela that had become fraught under Uribe, who claimed that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez had long harbored FARC and ELN forces  During his first two years in office, President Santos reorganized the executive branch and built on the market opening strategies of the Uribe administration and secured a free-trade agreement with the United States, Colombia's largest trade partner, which went into effect in May 2012  To address U S  congressional concerns about labor relations in Colombia, including the issue of violence against labor union members, the United States and Colombia agreed to an "Action Plan Related to Labor Rights" (Labor Action Plan) in April 2011  Many of the steps prescribed by the plan were completed in 2011 while the U S  Congress was considering the free trade agreement  Significantly, the Santos government maintained a vigorous security strategy and struck hard at the FARC's top leadership  In September 2010, the Colombian military killed the FARC's top military commander, Victor Julio Suárez (known as "Mono Jojoy"), in a bombing raid  In November 2011, the FARC's supreme leader, Guillermo Leon Saenz (aka "Alfonso Cano") was assassinated  He was replaced by Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri (known as "Timoleón Jiménez" or "Timochenko"), the group's current leader  While continuing the security strategy, the Santos administration began to re-orient the Colombian government's stance toward the internal armed conflict through a series of reforms  The first legislative reform that moved this new vision along, signed by President Santos in June 2011, was the Victims' and Land Restitution Law (Victims' Law), to provide comprehensive reparations to an estimated (at the time) 4 million to 5 million victims of the conflict  Reparations under the Victims' Law included monetary compensation, psycho-social support and other aid for victims, and the return of millions of hectares of stolen land to those displaced  The law was intended to process an estimated 360,000 land restitution cases  The government's implementation of this complex law began in early 2012  Between 2011 and 2016, there were more than 100,000 applications for restitution and 5,000 properties, or about 5%, were resolved by judges  The Victims' Law, while not a land reform measure, tackled issues of land distribution including the restitution of stolen property to displaced victims  Given the centrality of land issues to the rural peasant-based FARC, passage of the Victims' Law was a strong indicator that the Santos government shared its interest in addressing land and agrarian concerns  In June 2012, another government initiative—the Peace Framework Law, also known as the Legal Framework for Peace—was approved by the Colombian Congress, which signaled that congressional support for a peace process was growing  In August 2012, President Santos announced he had opened exploratory peace talks with the FARC and was ready to launch formal talks  The countries of Norway, Cuba, Venezuela, and Chile each held an international support role, with Norway and Cuba serving as peace talk hosts and "guarantors " Following the formal start in Norway, the actual negotiations began a month later in mid-November 2012 in Cuba, where the FARC-government talks continued until their conclusion in August 2016  In the midst of extended peace negotiations, Colombia's 2014 national elections presented a unique juncture for the country  During the elections, the opposition Centro Democrático (CD) party gained 20 seats in the Senate and 19 in the less powerful Chamber of Representatives, and its leader, former President Uribe, became a popular senator  His presence in the Senate challenged the new ruling coalition that backed President Santos  During his second-term inaugural address in August 2014, President Santos declared three pillars—peace, equality, and education—as his focus, yet his top priority was to conclude the peace negotiations with the FARC  In February 2015, the Obama Administration provided support to the peace talks by naming Bernard Aronson, a former U S  assistant secretary of state for Inter-American Affairs, as the U S  Special Envoy to the Colombian peace talks  Talks with the FARC concluded in August 2016  In early October, to the surprise of many, approval of the accord was narrowly defeated in a national plebiscite by less than a half percentage point of the votes cast, indicating a polarized electorate  Regardless, President Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2016, in part demonstrating strong international support for the peace agreement  In response to the voters' criticisms, the Santos government and the FARC crafted a modified agreement, which they signed on November 24, 2016  Rather than presenting this agreement to a plebiscite, President Santos sent it directly to the Colombian Congress, where it was ratified on November 30, 2016  Although both chambers of Colombia's Congress approved the agreement unanimously, members of the opposition CD party criticized various provisions in the accord that they deemed inadequate and boycotted the vote  The peace process was recognized as the most significant achievement of the Santos presidency and lauded outside of Colombia and throughout the region  Over the course of two terms, the President's approval ratings rose and fell rather significantly  His crowning achievement, the accord negotiated over 50 rounds of talks, covered five substantive topics: rural development and agricultural reform; political participation by the FARC; an end to the conflict, including demobilization, disarmament and reintegration; a solution to illegal drug trafficking; and justice for victims  A sixth topic provided for mechanisms to implement and monitor the peace agreement  Colombians elected a new congress in March 2018 and a new president in June 2018  Because no presidential candidate won more than 50% of the vote on May 27, 2018, as required for a victory in the first round, a second-round runoff was held June 17 between the rightist candidate Iván Duque and the leftist candidate Gustavo Petro (see results for presidential contest, Figure 3 )  Duque was carried to victory with almost 54% of the vote  Runner-up Petro, a former mayor of Bogotá, a former Colombian Senator, and once a member of the M-19 guerilla insurgency, nevertheless did better than any leftist candidate in a presidential race in the past century; he won 8 million votes and nearly 42% of the votes cast  Around 4 2% were protest votes, signifying Colombian voters who cast blank ballots  Through alliance building, Duque achieved a functional majority or a "unity" government, which involved the Conservative Party, Santos's prior National Unity or Party of the U, joining the CD, although compromise was required to keep the two centrist parties in sync with the more conservative CD  In the new Congress, two extra seats, for the presidential and vice presidential runners up, became automatic seats in the Colombian Senate and House, due to a constitutional change in 2015, allowing presidential runner up Gustavo Petro to return to the Senate  The CD party, which gained seats in both houses in the March vote, won the majority in the Colombian Senate (see Figure 2 for seat breakouts by party)  Duque, who was inaugurated on August 7, 2018, at the age of 42, was the youngest Colombian president elected in a century  He possessed limited experience in Colombian politics  Duque was partially educated in the United States and worked for at decade at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, DC  He was the handpicked candidate of former president Uribe, who vocally opposed many of Santos's policies  Disgruntled Colombians perceived Santos as an aloof president whose energy and political capital were expended accommodating an often-despised criminal group, the FARC  President Duque appeared to be technically oriented and interested in economic reform, presenting himself as a modernizer  During his campaign, Duque called for economic renewal and lower taxes, fighting crime, and building renewed confidence in the country's institutions through some reforms  On September 26, 2018, in a speech before the U N  General Assembly, the new president outlined his policy objectives   Duque called for increasing legality, entrepreneurship, and fairness by (1) promoting peace; (2) combating drug trafficking and recognizing it as a global menace, and (3) fighting corruption, which he characterized as a threat to democracy  He also maintained that the humanitarian crisis in neighboring Venezuela, resulting in more than 1 million migrants fleeing to Colombia, was an emergency that threatened to destabilize the region  Duque proposed a leadership role for Colombia in denouncing the authoritarian government of President Nicolás Maduro and containing his government's damage  By late November 2018, 1 2 million Venezuelans already present in Colombia were putting increasing pressure on the government's finances, generating a burden estimated at nearly 0 5% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP)  President Duque, along with his vice president, Marta Lucía Ramírez, who initially ran as the Conservative Party candidate in the first round, recommended that drug policy shift back to a stricter counterdrug approach rather than a model endorsed in the peace accord, which focuses on voluntary eradication and economic support to peasant farmers to transition away from illicit drug crops  Duque campaigned on returning to spraying coca crops with the herbicide glyphosate  This would reverse Colombia's decision in mid-2015 to end aerial spraying, which had been a central—albeit controversial—feature of U S -Colombian counter-drug cooperation for two decades  Colombians' concerns with corruption became particularly acute during the 2018 elections, as major scandals were revealed  Similar to many countries in the region, government officials, including Santos during his 2014 campaign for reelection and the opposition candidate during that campaign were accused of taking payoffs (bribes) from the Odebrecht firm, the Brazilian construction company that became embroiled in a region-wide corruption scandal  In December 2018, presidential runner up Gustavo Petro was accused of taking political contributions from Odebrecht in a video released by a CD senator, indicating that both the left and the right of the Colombian political spectrum has been tainted by corruption allegations  In June 2017, the U S  Drug Enforcement Administration arrested Colombia's top anti-corruption official, Gustavo Moreno  In mid-September 2017, the former chief justice of Colombia's Supreme Court was arrested for his alleged role in a corruption scandal that involved other justices accused of taking bribes from Colombian congressmen, some with ties to illegal paramilitary groups  The series of corruption charges made against members of Colombia's judicial branch, politicians, and other officials made the issue a prominent one in Colombian politics and was the focus of a left-centrist candidate's campaign in the presidential contest  In late August 2018, an anti-corruption referendum was defeated by narrowly missing a high vote threshold by less than a half percentage point, although the actual vote favored all seven proposed changes on the ballot  President Duque endorsed the referendum and maintains he will seek to curb many of the abuses identified in the referendum through legislation that his administration will propose  The Duque Administration's first budget for 2019 presented in late October 2018 was linked to an unpopular tax reform that would expand a value-added tax to cover basic food and agricultural commodities (some 36 items in the basic basket of goods, such as eggs and rice, previously exempted)  The 2019 budget totals $89 7 billion, providing the education, military and police, and health sectors with the biggest increases, and reducing funding for peace accord implementation  Duque's own Democratic Center party split with him on the value-added tax, which quickly sank his approval ratings from 53% in early September 2018 to a low of 27% in November 2018, among the lowest levels in the early part of a presidential mandate in recent Colombian history  Colombia's economy is the fourth largest in Latin America after Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina  The World Bank characterizes Colombia as an upper middle-income country, although its commodities-dependent economy has been hit by oil price declines and peso devaluation related to the erosion of fiscal revenue  Between 2010 and 2014, Colombia's economy grew at an average of more than 4%, but slowed to 3 1% GDP growth in 2015  In 2017, Colombia's GDP growth slowed further to 1 7%  Despite its relative economic stability, high poverty rates and inequality have contributed to social upheaval in Colombia for decades  The poverty rate in 2005 was slightly above 45%, but declined to below 27% in 2016  The issues of limited land ownership and high rural poverty rates remain a problem  According to a United Nations study published in 2011, 1 2% of the population owned 52% of the land, and data revealed in 2016 that about 49% of Colombians continued to work in the informal economy  Colombia is often described as a country bifurcated between metropolitan areas with a developed, middle-income economy, and some rural areas that are poor, conflict-ridden, and weakly governed  The fruits of the growing economy have not been shared equally with this ungoverned, largely rural periphery  Frequently these more remote areas are inhabited by ethnic minorities or other disadvantaged groups, such as Afro-Colombians, indigenous populations, or landless peasants and subsistence farmers, who are vulnerable to illicit economies due to few connections to the formal economy  The United States is Colombia's leading trade partner  Colombia accounts for a small percentage of U S  trade (approximately 1%), ranking 22 nd among U S  export markets and 27 th among foreign exporters to the United States in 2017  Colombia has secured free trade agreements with the European Union, Canada, and the United States, and with most nations in Latin America  Colombian officials have worked over the past decade to increase the attractiveness of investing in Colombia, and foreign direct investment (FDI) grew by 16% between 2015 and 2016  This investment increase came not only from the extractive industries, such as petroleum and mining, but also from such areas as agricultural products, transportation, and financial services  Promoting more equitable growth and ending the internal conflict were twin goals of the two-term Santos administration  Unemployment, which historically has been high at over 10%, fell below that double-digit mark during Santos's first term and remained at 9 2% in 2016 but rose slightly to an estimated 9 6% in 2018  Although Colombia is ranked highly for business-friendly practices and has a favorable regulatory environment that encourages trade across borders, it is still plagued by persistent corruption and an inability to effectively implement institutional reforms it has undertaken, particularly in regions where government presence is weak  According to the U S  State Department in its analysis of national investment climates, Colombia has demonstrated a political commitment to create jobs, develop sound capital markets, and achieve a legal and regulatory system that meets international norms for transparency and consistency  Despite its macroeconomic stability, several issues remain, such as a still-complicated tax system, a high corporate tax burden, and continuing piracy and counterfeiting issues  Colombia's rural-sector protestors formed strikes and blockades beginning in 2013 with demands for long-term and integrated-agricultural reform in a country with one of the most unequal patterns of land ownership  In October and November 2018, Colombian secondary and university students protested in high numbers during six large mobilizations, taking place over 60 days, to demand more funding for education  The four-year peace talks between the FARC and the Santos administration started in Norway and moved to Cuba where negotiators worked through a six-point agenda during more than 50 rounds of talks that produced agreements on six major topics  The final topic—verification to enact the programs outlined in the final accord—all parties knew would be the most challenging, especially with a polarized public and many Colombians skeptical of whether the FARC would be held accountable for its violence and crimes during the years of conflict  Some analysts have estimated that to implement the programs required by the commitments in the accord to ensure stable post-conflict development may require 15 years and cost from $30 billion to $45 billion  The country faces steep challenges to underwrite the post-accord peace programs in an era of declining revenues  While progress has been uneven, some programs (those related to drug trafficking) had external pressure to move forward quickly and some considered urgent received "fast track" treatment to expedite their regulation by Congress  The revised peace accord that was approved by the Colombian Congress in late 2016 was granted fast track implementation by the Colombian Constitutional Court in a ruling on December 13, 2016, particularly applied to the FARC's disarmament and demobilization  However, in May 2017, a new ruling by the high court determined that all legislation related to the implementation of the accord needed to be fully debated rather than passed in an expedited fashion, which some analysts maintain started to slow the process of implementing the accord significantly  The Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame is responsible for monitoring and implementing the agreement  It issued two interim reports in November 2017 and August 2018  At the end of the last reporting period (June 2018), the Kroc Institute estimated that 63% of the 578 peace accord commitments have begun implementation  In relation to other peace accords it had studied, the Kroc Institute found that the implementation of Colombia's accord was on course as about average, although that progress took place prior to President Duque's election  The first provision undertaken was the demobilization of the FARC, monitored by a U N  mission that was approved by the U N  Security Council to verify implementation of the accords  U N  monitors also emptied large arm caches identified by FARC leaders, seizing the contents of more than 750 of the reported nearly 1,000 caches by the middle of 2017  With the final disarmament, President Santos declared the conflict over in mid-August 2017  The U S  State Department reported in its Country Reports on Terrorism 201 , that by September 25, 2017, the United Nations had verified the collection of 8,994 arms, 1 7 million rounds, and more than 40 tons of explosives  The report states that the Colombian government had accredited "roughly 11,000 ex-combatants for transition to civilian life " The FARC also revealed its hidden assets in September 2017, listing more than $330 million in mostly real estate investments  This announcement drew criticism from several analysts who note that the FARC assets are likely much greater  In July 2017, the U N  Security Council voted to expand its mandate and launch a second mission for three years to verify the reintegration of FARC guerrillas into civil society beginning September 20, 2017  One of Colombia's greatest challenges continues to be ensuring security for ex-combatants and demobilized FARC  The FARC's reintegration into civil society is a charged topic because the FARC's efforts in the 1980s to start a political party, known as the Patriotic Union, or the UP by its Spanish acronym, resulted in more than 3,000 party members being killed by rightwing paramilitaries and others  As of the end of 2018, reportedly 85 FARC members and their close relatives had been killed  In addition to unmet government guarantees of security, the FARC also has criticized the government for not adequately preparing for the group's demobilization  According to observers, the government failed to provide basic resources to FARC gathered throughout the country in specially designated zones for disarmament and demobilization (later renamed reintegration zones)  The demobilization areas or cantonments had been so little prepared in early 2017 that the FARC had in many cases to construct their own housing and locate food and other provisions  Reintegration of former combatants has proceeded slowly  The Constitutional Court's May 2017 ruling to restrict fast track, and controversy about the new court to try war crimes and other serious violations, the "Special Jurisdiction of Peace" led to further delays  Peace process advocates have cited limited attention to include ethnic Colombians, such as Afro-Colombian leaders and indigenous communities, into the accord's implementation, as required by the "ethnic chapter" of the peace accord  A U N  deputy human rights official warned in October 2017 that after a successful demobilization it would be dangerous not to reintegrate FARC former combatants by providing them realistic options for income and delaying effective reintegration could undermine peace going forward  Under the peace accord, Territorially Focused Development Programs (PDETs in Spanish) are a tool for planning and managing a broad rural development process, with the aim of transforming170 municipalities (covering 16 subregions) most affected by the armed conflict  PDETs target those municipalities in Colombia with the highest number of displacements and those that have experienced the most killings, massacres, and forced disappearances  These marginal areas generally have experienced chronic poverty, high inequality, the presence of illicit crops such as coca, and low levels of local government institutional performance  Violence and forced displacements in some of the PDET municipalities increased in the last half of 2018  Colombia's Constitutional Court determined in October 2017 that over the next three presidential terms (until 2030), Colombia must follow the peace accord commitments negotiated by the Santos administration and approved by the Colombian Congress in 2016  The Special Jurisdiction of Peace, set up to adjudicate the most heinous crimes of Colombia's decades-long armed conflict, began to hear cases in July 2018  However, Colombians remain skeptical of its capacity  A key challenge is the case of a FARC leader and lead negotiator in the peace process, Jesús Santrich, alleged to have committed drug trafficking crimes in 2017 after the accord was ratified, who has been jailed  Colombia has confronted a complex security environment of armed groups: two violent leftist insurgencies, the FARC and the ELN, and groups that succeeded the AUC following its demobilization during the Uribe administration  The FARC, whittled down by the government's military campaign against it, continued to conduct a campaign of terrorist activities during peace negotiations with the government through mid-2015, but it imposed successive temporary unilateral cease-fires that significantly reduced violence levels  In August 2016, the FARC and the government concluded negotiations on a peace accord that was subsequently approved by Congress with modifications in November 2016  Authorities and some analysts maintain that since the peace accord was ratified, 5% to 10% of the FARC have become dissidents who reject the peace settlement, although other estimates suggest a higher percentage  These armed individuals remain a threat  As agreed in the peace accord, the demobilized rebels transitioned to a political party that became known as the Common Alternative Revolutionary Force (retaining the acronym FARC) in September 2017  On November 1, 2017, the FARC announced their party's presidential ticket: current FARC leader Rodrigo Londoño (aka Timochenko) for president and Imelda Daza for vice president  The FARC Party ran several candidates in congressional races but failed to win any additional congressional race for which it competed in the March 2018 legislative elections, so the automatic seats in Congress were the only ones that it filled  The ELN, like the FARC, became deeply involved in the drug trade and used extortion, kidnapping, and other criminal activities to fund itself  The ELN, with diminished resources and reduced offensive capability, according to government estimates, declined to fewer than 2,000 fighters, although some analysts maintain in 2018 the forces grew as high as 3,400, including former FARC who were recruited to join the ELN as the larger rebel group demobilized  In 2015, ELN leadership began exploratory peace talks with the Santos government in Ecuador, although the ELN continued to attack oil and transportation infrastructures and conduct kidnappings and extortions, at least periodically  Formal talks with the ELN finally opened in February 2017 in Quito, Ecuador  After the talks moved to Cuba in May 2018, at the request of Ecuador's President Lenín Moreno, several negotiating sessions took place  The ELN's central leadership, including Nicolás Rodríguez Bautista (aka "Gabino"), arrived in Cuba to continue the talks  However, President Duque in September 2018 suspended the talks and recalled the government negotiating team  The ELN is far more regionally oriented, decentralized, and nonhierarchical in its decisionmaking than the FARC  Late in 2018, a Colombian political online magazine claimed a meeting had been held two months earlier between FARC dissident groups and the ELN in Venezuela in which the parties discussed how to increase their coordination  On January 17, 2019, a car bomb attack at a National Police academy in southern Bogotá shattered illusions that Colombia's long internal conflict with insurgents was coming to an end  The bombing, allegedly carried out by an experienced ELN bomb maker, killed 20 police cadets and the bomber and injured more than 65 others  The ELN took responsibility for the attack in a statement published on January 21  Large demonstrations took place in Bogotá protesting the return of violence to Colombia's capital city  The Duque government ended peace talks with the ELN, which had been ongoing sporadically since 2017  The Duque government then requested extradition of the ELN's delegation of negotiators to the peace talks in Cuba on terrorism charges  The Cuban government, which condemned the bombing, responded that the protocols for the peace talks required that the negotiators be returned to Colombia without arrest  The Duque government has persisted in requesting the negotiators to be extradited  The AUC, the loosely affiliated national umbrella organization of paramilitaries, officially disbanded a decade ago  The organization was removed from the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations list in July 2014  More than 31,000 AUC members demobilized between 2003 and 2006, and many AUC leaders stepped down  However, as noted, many former AUC paramilitaries continued their illicit activities or re-armed and joined criminal groups—known as Bacrim   Many observers view the Bacrim as successors to the paramilitaries, and the Colombian government has characterized these groups as the biggest threat to Colombia's security since 2011  The Bacrim do not appear to be motivated by the dream of defeating the national government, but they seek territorial control and appear to provide rudimentary justice in ungoverned parts of the country  In 2013, the criminal group Los Urabeños, launched in 2006, emerged as the dominant Bacrim  Over its lifetime, the group has been referred to as the Gaitanistas, the Clan Úsuga, and most recently El Clan del Golfo, growing to about 3,000 members by 2015  The Urabeños organization is heavily involved in cocaine trafficking as well as arms trafficking, money laundering, extortion, gold mining, human trafficking, and prostitution  Early leaders of the group, such as founder Daniel Rendón Herrera (alias "Don Mario") and his brother Feddy Rendón Herrera were designated drug kingpins under the U S  Kingpin Act in 2009 and 2010, respectively  However, because these men had been part of the AUC peace process, they could not be extradited to the United States until they had served time and paid reparations  In June 2015, the Justice Department unsealed indictments against 17 alleged Urabeños members  The Colombian government's efforts to dismantle the Urabeños and interrupt its operations began to result in the capture of top leaders and gradually to disrupt its illicit activities  The Urabeños faced an intense enforcement campaign by the Colombian police and military, especially after the Urabeños reportedly advertised and paid rewards to its subcontracted assassins to murder Colombian police  In September 2017, the Urabeños top leader, Dairo Antonio Úsuga (alias "Otoniel"), requested terms of surrender from the Santos government after the arrest of his wife and the killing or arrest of siblings and co-leaders, but this offer was never formalized  Colombia captured a vast amount of cocaine, approximately 12 metric tons, linked to the the Urabeños in November 2017  Splinter groups of the large Colombian drug cartels of the 1980s and 1990s, such as the Medellin Cartel and Cali Cartel, have come and gone in Colombia, including the powerful transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) the Norte del Valle Cartel and Los Rastrajos  The U S  Drug Enforcement Administration's 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment maintains "large-scale Colombian TCOs" work closely with Mexican and Central American TCOs to export large quantities of cocaine out of Colombia every year  Traditionally, the FARC and ELN had cooperated with Bacrim and other Colombian crime groups in defense of drug trafficking and other illicit activities despite the groups' ideological differences  Venezuela is a major transit corridor for Colombian cocaine  According to the State Department's 2018 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report , Venezuela's porous western border with Colombia, current economic crisis, weak judicial system, sporadic international drug control cooperation, and a permissive and corrupt environment make it a preferred trafficking route for illicit drugs  A May 2018 report by Insight Crime identified more than 120 high-level Venezuelan officials who have engaged in criminal activity  The report analyzes how the Venezuelan military, particularly the National Guard, has been involved in the drug trade since 2002 and colluded with other illegally armed groups  Another Bacrim, Los Rastrojos, reportedly controls important gasoline smuggling routes between Venezuela and Colombia in 2018  Similarly, in the past year, ELN guerrillas reportedly have moved from seeking safe haven in Venezuela to taking control of illicit gold mining areas near Venezuela's border with Guyana  Both the ELN, which is still engaged in armed conflict with the Colombian government, and its rival, the Popular Liberation Army (EPL), reportedly recruit Venezuelans to cultivate coca in Colombia  Human trafficking and sexual exploitation of Venezuelan migrants throughout Colombia is prevalent  Dissident FARC guerrillas are using border areas and other remote areas in the countryside to regroup and could eventually seek to consolidate into a more unified organization or coordinate with other criminal groups sheltering in Venezuela  The State Department's 2017 terrorism report published in April 2018 maintained that the number of terrorist incidents in Colombia—carried out by the FARC and ELN—decreased significantly, by 40%, over the already much-diminished level of 2016  ELN aggression included high-impact attacks, such as launching mortars at police stations and bombing pipelines, although the report also states that ELN demobilizations and surrenders have increased  The humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has set in motion a mass exodus of desperate migrants, who have come temporarily (or for extended stays) to Colombia  Although Venezuela has experienced hyperinflation (the highest in the world), a rapid contraction of its economy, and severe shortages of food and medicine, as of November 2018 Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has refused most international humanitarian assistance  Based on estimates from the U N  High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of November 2018, more than 3 million Venezuelans were living outside Venezuela; of these, an estimated 2 3 million left after 2015  As conditions in Venezuela have continued to deteriorate, increasing numbers of Venezuelans have left the country  Neighboring countries, particularly Colombia, are straining to absorb a migrant population that is often malnourished and in poor health  The spread of previously eradicated diseases, such as measles, is also a major regional concern  In January 2019, the Trump Administration announced backing for the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as interim president of Venezuela  The Trump Administration has called for Maduro's departure, and Colombia joined many other countries in Latin America and Europe to recognize Guaidó  U S  Secretary of State Michael Pompeo announced that the United States was prepared to provide $20 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Venezuela  Colombia joined 11 countries in the Lima Group that declared on February 4, 2019, their desire to hasten a return to democracy in Venezuela by working with Guaidó for a peaceful transition without the use of force  Colombia's multisided internal conflict over the last half century generated a lengthy record of human rights abuses  Although it is widely recognized that Colombia's efforts to reduce violence, combat drug trafficking and terrorism, and strengthen the economy have met with success, many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and human rights groups continue to report significant human rights violations, including violence targeting noncombatants, that involves killings, torture, kidnappings, disappearances, forced displacements, forced recruitments, massacres, and sexual attacks  The Center for Historical Memory report issued to the Colombian government in July 2013 traces those responsible for human rights violations to the guerrillas (the FARC and ELN), the AUC paramilitaries and successor paramilitary groups, and the Colombian security forces  In analyzing nearly 2,000 massacres between 1980 and 2012 documented in the center's database, the report maintains that 58 9% were committed by paramilitaries, 17 3% by guerrillas, and 7 9% by public security forces  According to the U S  State Department's annual report on human rights covering 2017, Colombia's most serious human rights abuses centered on extrajudicial and unlawful killings; torture and detentions; rape and sexual crimes  In addition to the State Department, numerous sources report regularly on human rights conditions in Colombia  (See Appendix  ) Colombia continues to experience murders and threats of violence against journalists, human rights defenders, labor union members, social activists such as land rights leaders, and others  Crimes of violence against women, children, Afro-Colombian and indigenous leaders, and other vulnerable groups continue at high rates  In December 2018, the U N  special rapporteur on human rights defenders came out with strong criticism of heightened murders of human rights defenders, which he maintained were committed by hitmen paid no more than $100 per murder, according to reports he heard from activists and other community members whom he met with during a trip to Colombia  These ongoing issues reflect constraints of the Colombian judicial system to effectively prosecute crimes and overcome impunity  For many years, human rights organizations have raised concerns about extrajudicial executions committed by Colombian security forces, particularly the military  In 2008, it was revealed that several young men from the impoverished community of Soacha—who had been lured allegedly by military personnel from their homes to another part of the country with the promise of employment—had been executed  When discovered, the Soacha murder victims had been disguised as guerrilla fighters to inflate military claims of enemy body counts, resulting in the term false positives   Following an investigation into the Soacha murders, the military quickly fired 27 soldiers and officers, including three generals, and the army's commander resigned  The Colombian prosecutor general's criminal investigations of soldiers and officers who allegedly participated in the Soacha executions have proceeded quite slowly  Some 48 of the military members eventually charged with involvement in the Soacha cases were released due to the expiration of the statute of limitations  Whereas some soldiers have received long sentences, few sergeants or colonels have been successfully prosecuted  In 2009, the false positive phenomenon was investigated by the U N 's Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, who issued a report that concluded with no finding that such killings were a result of an official government policy  However, the Special Rapporteur did find, "the sheer number of cases, their geographic spread, and the diversity of military units implicated, indicate that these killings were carried out in a more or less systematic fashion by significant elements within the military " The majority of the cases took place between 2004 and 2008, when U S  assistance to Colombia peaked  In recent years, the number of new alleged false positive cases declined steeply, but human rights NGOs still reported a few cases in 2012 through 2015  To address the military's human rights violations, the Santos administration proposed a change to policy that did not prevail  This reform was a constitutional change to expand the jurisdiction of military courts and, it was approved by the Colombian Congress in late December 2012 by a wide margin despite controversy  Human rights groups criticized the legislation's shift in the jurisdiction over serious human rights crimes allegedly committed by Colombia's public security forces from the civilian to the military justice system  In its review of the constitutional amendment, the Colombian Constitutional Court struck down the law over procedural issues in October 2013  Human Rights Watch in a 2015 report on the false positive cases noted that prosecutors in the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General's Office conducted investigations into more than 3,000 false positive homicide cases allegedly committed by army personnel that resulted in about 800 convictions, mostly of lower-ranking soldiers  Only a few of those convictions involved former commanders of battalions or other tactical units, and none of the investigations of 16 active and retired army generals had produced charges  In 2016, the prosecutions against generals accused of responsibility for false positives continued, although a few were closed and 12 remained under investigation at year's end  Additionally, in October 2016, the Colombian prosecutor general indicted Santiago Uribe, the brother of former President Uribe, on charges of murder and association to commit crimes for his alleged role in the paramilitary group "The 12 Apostols" in the 1990s  The State Department human rights report covering 2017, maintains that during the year through July, four new cases involving "aggravated homicide" committed by security forces and 11 new convictions were reached for "simple homicide" by security force members  Although estimates diverge, the number of human rights defenders murdered in 2016 totaled 80 and another 51 in the first half of 2017, according to Somos Defensores ("We are Defenders"), a Colombian NGO that tracks violence against defenders and is cited by the State Department  Some groups, such as the Colombian think tank, Indepaz, say the numbers are higher, up to 117 murders in 2016  In the two years since the approval of the 2016 peace accord, social leaders, ethnic community leaders, and human rights defenders have suffered from continued high levels of violence  Human rights organizations cite the murders of more than 100 activists in 2017 and in 2018  Of the 109 human rights and civil society activists killed in 2018 through November, some were leaders of efforts to implement the 2016 peace accord  For instance, 13 social leaders were assassinated in the southwest department of Cauca in the first six months of the year, a department in Colombia with the fourth largest area devoted to coca cultivation in the country and host to several peace accord programs associated with rural development, including voluntary eradication of drug crops  Few, if any, of those accused of making threats and ordering or carrying out assassinations have been prosecuted  According to these activists, perpetrators still have little to fear of legal consequences  Since early 2012, violence against land rights activists has risen sharply with the start of implementation of the Victims' Law that authorized the return of stolen land  A September 2013 report by Human Rights Watch pointing to the rise in violence against land activists and claimants maintained that the environment had turned so threatening that claimants who had received land judgments were too frightened to return, and the government had received more than 500 serious threats against claimants in less than 18 months  According to Human Rights Watch, many of the threats and killings have been conducted by paramilitary-influenced Bacrim, although they may be operating at the behest of third-party "landowners," who are trying to protect their land from seizure  For more than a decade, the Colombian government tried to suppress violence against groups facing extraordinary risk through the National Protection Unit (UPN) programs  Colombia's UPN provides protection measures, such as body guards and protective gear, to individuals in at-risk groups, including human rights defenders, journalists, trade unionists, and others  However, according to international and Colombian human rights groups, the UPN has been plagued by corruption issues and has inadequately supported the prosecution of those responsible for attacks  According to the State Department's Report on Human Rights Practices covering 2017, the UPN protected roughly 6,067 at-risk individuals, including 575 human rights activists, with a budget of $150 million  Journalists, a group that has traditionally received protection measures from the UPN, continue to operate in a dangerous environment in Colombia  According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 47 journalists have been killed in work-related circumstances since 1992  Three Ecuadorian journalists were killed by a FARC dissident group close to the border of Ecuador in 2018, leading to the end of the Colombian government's peace talks with the ELN in Ecuador and their subsequent move to Cuba  To help monitor and verify that human rights were respected throughout implementation of the peace accord, the government formally renewed the mandate of the U N 's High Commissioner of Human Rights in 2016 for three years  The issue of violence against the labor movement in Colombia has sparked controversy and debate for years  Many human rights groups and labor advocates have maintained that Colombia's poor record on protecting its trade union members and leaders from violence is one reason to avoid closer trade relations with Colombia  The U S -Colombia Free Trade Agreement (also known as the U S -Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement) could not be enacted without addressing the deep concern of many Members of Congress that Colombia must enforce basic labor standards and especially measures to mitigate the alleged violence against trade union members and bring perpetrators of such violence to justice  In April 2011, the United States and Colombia agreed to an "Action Plan Related to Labor Rights" (the Labor Action Plan, LAP), which contained 37 measures that Colombia would implement to address violence, impunity, and workers' rights protection  Before the U S -Colombia Free Trade Agreement entered into force in April 2012, the U S  Trade Representative determined that Colombia had met all the important milestones in the LAP to date  Despite the programs launched and measures taken to implement the LAP, human rights and labor organizations claim that violence targeting labor union members continues  (Some analysts continue to debate whether labor activists are being targeted because of their union activities or for other reasons ) The Colombian government has acknowledged that violence and threats continue, but points to success in reducing violence generally and the number of homicides of labor unionists specifically  Violence levels in general are high in Colombia, but have steadily been decreasing  According to the data reported by the U N  Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in its annual homicide report, rates have decreased dramatically since 2002, when the homicide rate was at 68 9 per 100,000  The Colombian Ministry of Defense reported in 2016 that the homicide rate had declined to 24 4 per 100,000  In this context of an overall steady decline in homicides, the number of labor union killings has also declined  For many years, the government and the leading NGO source that tabulates these crimes did not agree on the number of labor union murders because they used different methodologies  Both sources recorded a decline, but the government generally saw a steeper decline  According to the Colombian labor rights NGO and think tank, the National Labor School ( Escuela Nacional Sindical , ENS), there has been a significant decline from 191 labor union murders in 2001 to 20 reported in 2012  In 2017, through the month of August the ENS reported 14 labor murders  Of the cases covering homicides between January 2011 and August 2017, 162 homicide cases in which victims were labor union members, were 409 convictions, 31 for cases after 2011 and 378 for cases before 2011  In addition, labor advocates note that tracking homicides does not capture the climate of intimidation that Colombian labor unions face  In addition to lethal attacks, trade union members encounter increased death threats, arbitrary detention, and other types of harassment  Measures to strengthen the judicial system to combat impunity for such crimes are also part of the Labor Action Plan  Nevertheless, many analysts maintain there remains a large backlog of cases yet to be investigated involving violent crimes against union members  The internal conflict has been the major cause of a massive displacement of the civilian population that has many societal consequences, including implications for Colombia's poverty levels and stability  Colombia has one of the largest populations of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the world  Most estimates place the total at more than 7 million IDPs, or more than 10% of Colombia's estimated population of 49 million  This number of Colombians, forcibly displaced and impoverished as a result of the armed conflict, continues to grow and has been described by many observers as a humanitarian crisis  Indigenous and Afro-Colombian people make up an estimated 15%-22% of the Colombian population  They are, however, disproportionately represented among those displaced  The leading Colombian NGO that monitors displacement, Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES), reports that 36% of the victims of forced displacement nationwide in 2012 came from the country's Pacific region where Afro-Colombian and indigenous people predominate  The Pacific region has marginal economic development as a result of weak central government presence and societal discrimination  (Some 84% of the land in the Pacific region is subject to collective-title rights granted to Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities  ) Illegal armed groups are active in usurping land in this region, which is valued for its proximity to a major port and drug trafficking routes, and the Afro- and indigenous communities are also caught in the middle of skirmishes between illegal groups and Colombian security forces  IDPs suffer stigma and poverty and are often subject to abuse and exploitation  In addition to the disproportionate representation of Colombia's ethnic communities among the displaced, other vulnerable populations, including women and children, have been disproportionally affected  Women, who make up more than half of the displaced population in Colombia, can become targets for sexual harassment, violence, and human trafficking  Displacement is driven by a number of factors, most frequently in more remote regions of the country where armed groups compete and seek to control territory or where they confront Colombian security forces  Violence that uproots people includes threatened or actual child recruitment or other forced recruitment by illegal armed groups, as well as physical, psychological, and sexual violence  Other contributing factors reported by NGOs include counternarcotics measures such as aerial spraying, illegal mining, and large-scale economic projects in rural areas  Inter-urban displacement is a growing phenomenon in cities such as Buenaventura and Medellin, which often results from violence and threats by organized crime groups  The Victims' Law of 2011, which began to be implemented in 2012, is the major piece of legislation to redress Colombian displacement victims with the return of their stolen land  The historic law provides restitution of land to those IDPs who were displaced since January 1, 1991  The law aims to return land to as many as 360,000 families (impacting up to 1 5 million people) who had their land stolen  The government notes that some 50% of the land to be restituted has the presence of land mines and that the presence of illegally armed groups in areas where victims have presented their applications for land restitution has slowed implementation of the law  Between 2011 and 2016, 100,000 applications for land restitution were filed and approximately 5,000 properties (roughly 5% of applications) were successfully returned following judgements on the cases  With the international support from U S  Agency for International Development (USAID) and other donors, a Victims Unit was established to coordinate the range of services for victims, including financial compensation and psychosocial services, provided by a host of government agencies  The 2011 Victims' Law is considered a model and particularly the implementation of a Victims' registry, which was supported by USAID  Through its Victims Unit, the Colombian government had provided financial reparations to over 800,000 victims and psychosocial support to 700,000 as of October 2018  The Global Report on Internal Displacement from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) reported, however, displacement inside Colombia continued with more than 171,000 internally displaced in 2016  As the political crisis in Venezuela has grown, a wave of refugees and migrants have come across the border into Colombia reversing an earlier trend  Venezuelans were fleeing political instability and economic turmoil in Colombia's once-wealthy neighboring nation  Venezuela's economic crisis worsened throughout 2018, prompting a sharp increase in migrants seeking to escape into Colombia  In response to the growing flood of Venezuelans, former President Santos initially announced that he would impose stricter migratory controls and deploy thousands of new security personnel along the frontier  Nevertheless, he acknowledged that Venezuela had once served as a vital escape valve for Colombian refugees fleeing their half century internal conflict, for which he was grateful  Colombia shares long borders with neighboring countries, and some of these border areas have been described as porous to illegal armed groups that threaten regional security  Colombia has a 1,370-mile border with Venezuela, approximately 1,000-mile borders with both Peru and Brazil, and shorter borders with Ecuador and Panama  Much of the territory is remote and rugged and suffers from inconsistent state presence  Although all of Colombia's borders have been problematic and subject to spillover effects from Colombia's armed conflict, the most affected are Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama  Over the years, Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador have been strained by Colombia's counterinsurgency operations, including cross-border military activity  The FARC and ELN insurgents have been present in shared-border regions and in some cases the insurgent groups used the neighboring countries to rest, resupply, and shelter  Former President Uribe accused the former Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez of harboring the FARC and ELN and maintained that he had evidence of FARC financing the 2006 political campaign of Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa  Relations between Ecuador and Colombia remained tense following the Colombian military bombardment of a FARC camp inside Ecuador in March 2008  Ecuador severed diplomatic relations with Colombia for 33 months  Also in 2008, Ecuador filed a suit against Colombia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), claiming damages to Ecuadorian residents affected by spray drift from Colombia's aerial eradication of drug crops  In September 2013, Colombia reached an out-of-court settlement awarding Ecuador $15 million  Once in office, President Santos reestablished diplomatic ties with both countries and in his first term (2010-2014) cooperation greatly increased between Colombia and Venezuela on border and security issues and with Ecuador's Correa  However, concerns about Venezuelan links to the FARC and the continued use of Venezuela by the FARC and ELN as a safe haven to make incursions into Colombia remained an irritant in Colombian-Venezuelan relations  Nevertheless, the Venezuelan and Colombian governments committed to jointly combat narcotics trafficking and illegal armed group activities along the porous Venezuelan-Colombian border and Venezuela remained a supporting government of the FARC-government peace talks (along with Chile, Norway, and Cuba) through 2016, even after former President Chávez died in office in March 2013  Ecuador's government hosted exploratory talks between the ELN and the Santos government beginning in 2015, which became formal talks hosted in Quito in February 2017, although Ecuador's president requested that the talks move to Cuba in May 2018, due to a spate of border violence that could have been related to the ELN  For many years, the region in Panama that borders Colombia, the Darien, was host to a permanent presence of FARC soldiers who used the remote area for rest and resupply as well to transit drugs north  By 2015, according to the State Department, the FARC was no longer maintaining a permanent militarized presence in Panamanian territory, in part due to effective approaches taken by Panama's National Border Service in coordination with Colombia  Nevertheless, the remote Darien region still faces challenges from smaller drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups such as Bacrim and experiences problems with human smuggling with counterterrorism implications  When Colombia hosted the Sixth Summit of the Americas in April 2012, President Obama and President Santos announced a new joint endeavor, the Action Plan on Regional Security Cooperation  This joint effort, built on ongoing security cooperation, addresses hemispheric challenges, such as combating transnational organized crime, bolstering counternarcotics, strengthening institutions, and fostering resilient communities  The Action Plan focuses on capacity building for security personnel in Central America and the Caribbean by Colombian security forces (both Colombian military and police)  To implement the plan, Colombia undertook several hundred activities in cooperation with Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, and between 2013 and 2017 trained almost 17,000 individuals (see Figure 4 )  The Colombian government notes that this program grew dramatically from 34 executed activities in 2013 to 441 activities planned for 2018  Colombia has increasingly trained military and police from other countries both under this partnership and other arrangements, including countries across the globe  According to the Colombian Ministry of Defense, around 80% of those trained were from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean  U S  and Colombian officials maintain that the broader effort is designed to export Colombian expertise in combating crime and terrorism while promoting the rule of law and greater bilateral and multilateral law enforcement cooperation  Critics of the effort to "export Colombian security successes" maintain that human rights concerns have not been adequately addressed  Some observers question the portion of these activities that are funded by the U S  government and want to see more transparency  In one analysis of the training, a majority of the training was provided by Colombian National Police rather than the Colombian Army, in such areas as ground, air, maritime, and river interdiction; police testimony; explosives; intelligence operations; psychological operations; and Comando JUNGLA, Colombia's elite counternarcotics police program  Other analysts praise the Colombian training and maintain that U S  assistance provided in this way has helped to improve, professionalize, and expand the Colombian military, making it the region's second largest  As that highly trained military shifts from combating the insurgency and the Colombian National Police take the dominant role in guaranteeing domestic security, Colombia may play a greater role in regional security and even in coalition efforts internationally  In September 2017, President Trump announced that he had considered designating Colombia in noncompliance with U S  counternarcotics requirements, but noted that he had not proceeded with the step in part because of Colombian training efforts to assist others in the region with combating narcotics and related crime  Colombia is a key U S  ally in the region  With diplomatic relations that began in the 19 th century following Colombia's independence from Spain, the countries have enjoyed close and strong ties  Because of Colombia's prominence in the production of illegal drugs, the United States and Colombia forged a close partnership over the past 16 years  Focused initially on counternarcotics, and later counterterrorism, a program called Plan Colombia laid the foundation for a strategic partnership that has broadened to include sustainable development, human rights, trade, regional security, and many other areas of cooperation  Between FY2000 and FY2016, the U S  Congress appropriated more than $10 billion in assistance from U S  State Department and Department of Defense (DOD) accounts to carry out Plan Colombia and its follow-on strategies  During this time, Colombia made notable progress combating drug trafficking and terrorist activities and reestablishing government control over much of its territory  Its economic and social policies have reduced the poverty rate and its security policies have lowered the homicide rate  Counternarcotics policy has been the defining issue in U S -Colombian relations since the 1980s because of Colombia's preeminence as a source country for illicit drugs  Peru and Bolivia were the main global producers of cocaine in the 1980s and early 1990s  However, successful efforts there in reducing supply pushed cocaine production from those countries to Colombia, which soon surpassed both its Andean neighbors  The FARC and other armed groups in the country financed themselves primarily through narcotics trafficking, and that lucrative illicit trade provided the gasoline for the decades-long internal armed conflict at least since the 1990s  Colombia emerged to dominate the cocaine trade by the late 1990s  National concern about the crack cocaine epidemic and extensive drug use in the United States led to greater concern with Colombia as a source  As Colombia became the largest producer of coca leaf and the largest exporter of finished cocaine, heroin produced from Colombian-grown poppies was supplying a growing proportion of the U S  market  Alarm over the volumes of heroin and cocaine being exported to the United States was a driving force behind U S  support for Plan Colombia at its inception  The evolution of Plan Colombia took place under changing leadership and changing conditions in both the United States and Colombia  Plan Colombia was followed by successor strategies such as the National Consolidation Plan, described below, and U S -Colombia policy has reached a new phase anticipating post-conflict Colombia  Announced in 1999, Plan Colombia originally was a six-year strategy to end the country's decades-long armed conflict, eliminate drug trafficking, and promote development  The counternarcotics and security strategy was developed by the government of President Andrés Pastrana in consultation with U S  officials  Colombia and its allies in the United States realized that for the nation to gain control of drug trafficking required a stronger security presence, the rebuilding of institutions, and extending state presence where it was weak or nonexistent  Initially, the U S  policy focus was on programs to reduce the production of illicit drugs  U S  support to Plan Colombia consisted of training and equipping counternarcotics battalions in the Colombian Army and specialized units of the Colombian National Police, drug eradication programs, alternative development, and other supply reduction programs  The original 1999 plan had a goal to reduce "the cultivation, processing, and distribution of narcotics by 50%" over the plan's six-year timeframe  The means to achieve this ambitious goal were a special focus on eradication and alternative development; strengthening, equipping, and professionalizing the Colombian Armed Forces and the police; strengthening the judiciary; and fighting corruption  Other objectives were to protect citizens from violence, promote human rights, bolster the economy, and improve governance  U S  officials expressed their support for the program by emphasizing its counterdrug elements (including interdiction)  The focus on counternarcotics was the basis for building bipartisan support to fund the program in the U S  Congress because some Members of Congress were leery of involvement in fighting a counterinsurgency, which they likened to the "slippery slope" of the war in Vietnam  President George W  Bush came to office in 2001 and oversaw some changes to Plan Colombia  The primary vehicle for providing U S  support to Plan Colombia was the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, which was included in foreign operations appropriations  The Bush Administration requested new flexibility so that U S -provided assistance would back a "unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats to [Colombia's] national security" due to the breakdown of peace talks between the FARC and the Pastrana government in February 2002  Congress granted this request for a unified campaign to fight drug trafficking and terrorist organizations as Members of Congress came to realize how deeply intertwined the activities of Colombia's terrorist groups were with the illicit drug trade that funded them  However, Congress prohibited U S  personnel from directly participating in combat missions  Congress placed a legislative cap on the number of U S  military and civilian contractor personnel who could be stationed in Colombia, although the cap was adjusted to meet needs over time  The current limit (first specified in the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act, as amended) caps total military personnel at 800 and civilian contractors at 600, although numbers deployed have been far below the 1,400-person cap for years and now total fewer than 200  President Uribe (2002-2010) embraced Plan Colombia with an aggressive strategy toward the insurgent forces that prioritized citizen security  His Democratic Security Policy, implemented first in a military campaign called Plan Patriota, relied on the military to push FARC forces away from the major cities to remote rural areas and the borderlands  Like his predecessor, President Pastrana, Uribe continued to expand the Colombian military and police  He enhanced the intelligence capacity, professionalization, and coordination of the forces, in part with training provided by U S  forces  His strategy resulted in expanded state control over national territory and a significant reduction in kidnappings, terrorist attacks, and homicides  In 2007, the Uribe administration announced a shift to a "Policy of Consolidation of Democratic Security " The new doctrine was based on a "whole-of-government" approach to consolidate state presence in marginal areas that were historically neglected—vulnerable to drug crop cultivation, violence, and control by illegal armed groups  Called a strategic leap forward by then-Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, in 2009 the new strategy came to be called the National Consolidation Plan (see below)  Colombian support for Plan Colombia and for the nation's security program grew under Uribe's leadership  President Uribe levied a "wealth tax" to fund Colombia's security efforts, taxing the wealthiest taxpayers to fund growing defense and security expenditures  Overall U S  expenditures on Plan Colombia were only a modest portion of what Colombians spent on their own security  By one 2009 estimate, U S  expenditures were not more than 10% of what Colombians invested in their total security costs  In 2000, Colombia devoted less than 2% of its GDP to military and police expenditures and in 2010 that investment had grown to more than 4% of GDP  One assessment notes "in the end there is no substitute for host country dedication and funding" to turn around a security crisis such as Colombia faced at the beginning of the millennium  In 2008, congressional support for Plan Colombia and its successor programs also shifted  Some Members of Congress believed that the balance of programming was too heavily weighted toward security  Prior to 2008, the emphasis had been on "hard side" security assistance (to the military and police) compared with "soft side" traditional development and rule of law programs  Members debated if the roughly 75%/25% mix should be realigned  Since FY2008, Congress has reduced the proportion of assistance for security-related programs and increased the proportion for economic and social aid  As Colombia's security situation improved and Colombia's economy recovered, the United States also began turning over to Colombians operational and financial responsibility for efforts formerly funded by the U S  government  The Colombian government "nationalized" the training, equipping, and support for Colombian military programs, such as the counterdrug brigade, Colombian Army aviation, and the air bridge denial program  U S  funding overall began to decline  The nationalization efforts were not intended to end U S  assistance, but rather to gradually reduce it to pre-Plan Colombia levels, adjusted for inflation  A key goal of Plan Colombia was to reduce the supply of illegal drugs produced and exported by Colombia but the goals became broader over time  Bipartisan support for the policy existed through three U S  Administrations—President Bill Clinton, President George W  Bush, and President Barack Obama  Plan Colombia came to be viewed by some analysts as one of the most enduring and effective U S  policy initiatives in the Western Hemisphere  Some have lauded the strategy as a model  In 2009, William Brownfield, then-U S  Ambassador to Colombia, described Plan Colombia as "the most successful nation-building exercise that the United States has associated itself with perhaps in the last 25-30 years " Other observers, however, were critical of the policy as it unfolded  Many in the NGO and human rights community maintained the strategy, with its emphasis on militarization and security, was inadequate for solving Colombia's persistent, underlying problems of rural violence, poverty, neglect and institutional weakness  Nevertheless, it appears that improvements in security conditions have been accompanied by substantial economic growth and a reduction in poverty levels over time  The National Consolidation Plan first launched during the Uribe Administration, (renamed the National Plan for Consolidation and Territorial Reconstruction), was designed to coordinate government efforts in regions where marginalization, drug trafficking, and violence converge  The whole-of-government consolidation was to integrate security, development, and counternarcotics to achieve a permanent state presence in vulnerable areas  Once security forces took control of a contested area, government agencies in housing, education, and development would regularize the presence of the state and reintegrate the municipalities of these marginalized zones into Colombia  The plan had been restructured several times by the Santos government  The United States supported the Colombian government's consolidation strategy through an inter-agency program called the Colombia Strategic Development Initiative (CSDI)  CSDI provided U S  assistance to "fill gaps" in Colombian government programming  At the U S  Embassy in Colombia, CSDI coordinated efforts of the U S  Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department's Narcotics Affairs Section, the U S  Military Group, and the Department of Justice to assist Colombia in carrying out the consolidation plan by expanding state presence and promoting economic opportunities in priority zones  It combined traditional counternarcotics assistance for eradication, interdiction, alternative development, and capacity building for the police, military, and justice sector institutions with other economic and social development initiatives  As the peace agreement between the FARC and the government moved forward into implementation, the focus of U S  assistance to Colombia has shifted again  With a foundation of the work done to advance consolidation, U S  assistance has begun to aid in post-conflict planning and support Colombia's transition to peace by building up democratic institutions, protecting human rights and racial and ethnic minorities, and promoting economic opportunity  USAID's country cooperation strategy for 2014-2018 anticipated the Colombian government reaching a negotiated agreement with the FARC, but remained flexible if an agreement was not signed  It recognized early implementation efforts, especially in the first 24 months after signature, would be critical to demonstrate or model effective practices  In the next five years, it envisioned Colombia evolving from aid recipient to provider of technical assistance to neighbors in the region  Consolidating state authority and presence in the rural areas with weak institutions remains a significant challenge following the FARC's disarmament in the summer of 2017  Reintegration of the FARC and possibly other insurgent forces, such as the ELN, will be expensive and delicate  In particular, critics of the consolidation efforts of the Colombian government maintain that the Santos administration often lacked the commitment to hand off targeted areas from the military to civilian-led development and achieve locally led democratic governance  Consolidation efforts suffered from low political support, disorganization at the top levels of government, and failure to administer national budgets effectively in more remote areas, among other challenges  In August 2018, shortly after President Duque took office, USAID announced a framework of priorities for U S  economic development assistance to Colombia  Some of these priorities include promoting and supporting a whole-of-government strategy to include the dismantling of organized crime; increasing the effectiveness of Colombia's security and criminal justice institutions; promoting enhanced prosperity and job creation through trade; improving the investment climate for U S  companies; and advancing Colombia's capacity to strengthen governance and transition to sustainable peace, including reconciliation among victims, ex-combatants, and other citizens  The U S  Congress initially approved legislation in support of Plan Colombia in 2000, as part of the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2001 ( P L  106-246 )  Plan Colombia was never authorized by Congress, but it was funded annually through appropriations  From FY2000 through FY2016, U S  funding for Plan Colombia and its follow-on strategies exceeded $10 billion in State Department and Defense Department programs  From FY2000 to FY2009, the United States provided foreign operations assistance to Colombia through the Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP) account, formerly known as the Andean Counterdrug Initiative, and other aid accounts  In FY2008, Congress continued to fund eradication and interdiction programs through the ACP account, but funded alternative development and institution building programs through the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account  In the FY2010 request, the Obama Administration shifted ACP funds into the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account  Since FY2008, U S  assistance has gradually declined because of tighter foreign aid budgets and nationalized Plan Colombia-related programs  In FY2014, in line with other foreign assistance reductions, funds appropriated to Colombia from State Department accounts declined to slightly below $325 million  In FY2015, Congress appropriated $300 million for bilateral assistance to Colombia in foreign operation  The FY2016 Omnibus Appropriations bill ( P L  114-113 ) provided Colombia from U S  State Department and U S  Agency for International Development accounts, slightly under $300 million, nearly identical to that appropriated in FY2015 (without P L  480, the Food for Peace account, the total for FY2016 was $293 million as shown in Table 1 )  In FY2017, Congress funded a program the Obama Administration had proposed called "Peace Colombia" to re-balance U S  assistance to support the peace process and implementation of the accord  In May 2017, Congress approved a FY2017 omnibus appropriations measure, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P L  115-31 ), which funded the various programs of Peace Colombia at $391 3 million  In the FY2017 legislation, Congress appropriated the following: The ESF account increased to $187 million (from $134 million in FY2016) to build government presence, encourage crop substitution to replace drug crops, and provide other assistance to conflict victims, including Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities  However, only $180 million was subsequently allocated  INCLE funding increased to $143 million with a focus on manual eradication of coca crops, support for the Colombian National Police, and judicial reform efforts  INCLE funding also included $10 million for Colombian forces' training to counterparts in other countries  $38 5 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF); and $21 million in Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR), which was a relatively large increase from under $4 million in FY2016 to focus on the demining effort  How the Trump Administration will engage with the issues of supporting post-conflict stability in Colombia has not been clearly defined by either the State Department or other executive departments  For example, the Trump Administration's proposed foreign aid budget for FY2018 would have reduced assistance to Colombia to $251 million  However, the FY2018 omnibus appropriations measure, approved by Congress in March 2018 ( P L  115-114 ), again included $391 3 million to support Colombia's transition to peace  The Trump Administration's FY2019 budget request for Colombia is $265 million, approximately a 32% reduction from the $391 3 million appropriated by Congress in FY2018  However, the House and Senate appropriations bills, H R  6385 and S  3108 , again would support the funding level of $391 3 million  The FY2019 Administration request would reduce post-conflict recovery programs and place greater emphasis on counternarcotics and security  Below, Table 1 provides account data from the annual international affairs congressional budget justification documents  The information about DOD-funded programs was provided to the Congressional Research Service by DOD analysts in December 2015 and October 2017 (and has not been updated)  The breakout of DOD assistance to Colombia is shown in Table 2     Colombia also has received additional U S  humanitarian funding to help it cope with more than 1 million Venezuelan migrants  As of September 30, 2018, U S  government humanitarian funding for the Venezuela response totaled approximately $96 5 million for both FY2017 and FY2018 combined, of which $54 8 million was for Colombia  (Humanitarian funding is drawn primarily from the global humanitarian accounts in annual Department of State/Foreign Operations appropriations acts ) In addition, the U S  Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort is on an 11-week medical support mission deployed through the end of 2018 to work with government partners, in part to assist with arrivals from Venezuela  In Colombia, the U S  response aims to help the Venezuelan arrivals as well as the local Colombian communities that are hosting them  In addition to humanitarian assistance, the United States is providing $37 million in bilateral assistance to support medium- and longer-term efforts by Colombia  Some Members of Congress have been deeply concerned about human rights violations in Colombia—especially those perpetrated by any recipients or potential recipients of U S  assistance  In Colombia's multisided, 50-year conflict, the FARC and ELN, the paramilitaries and their successors, and Colombia's security forces have all committed serious violations  Colombians have endured generations of noncombatant killings, massacres, kidnappings, forced displacements, forced disappearances, land mine casualties, and acts of violence that violate international humanitarian law  The extent of the crimes and the backlog of human rights cases to be prosecuted have overwhelmed the Colombian judiciary, which some describe as "inefficient" and overburdened  The United Nations and many human rights groups maintain that although some prosecutions have gone forward, most remain unresolved and the backlog of cases has been reduced slowly  In addition to the problem of impunity for such serious crimes, continued violations remain an issue  Since 2002, Congress has required in the annual foreign operations appropriations legislation that the Secretary of State certify annually to Congress that the Colombian military is severing ties to paramilitaries and that the government is investigating complaints of human rights abuses and meeting other human rights statutory criteria  (The certification criteria have evolved over time  ) For several years, certification was required before 30% of funds to the Colombian military could be released  The FY2014 appropriations legislation requires that 25% of funding under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program be held back pending certification by the Secretary of State  Some human rights groups have criticized the regular certification of Colombia, maintaining that evidence they have presented to the State Department has contradicted U S  findings  However, even some critics have acknowledged the human rights conditions on military assistance to Colombia to be "a flawed but useful tool" because the certification process requires that the U S  government regularly consult with Colombian and international human rights groups  Critics acknowledge that over time, conditionality can improve human rights compliance  Additional tools for monitoring human rights compliance by Colombian security forces receiving U S  assistance are the so-called "Leahy Law" restrictions, which Congress first passed in the late 1990s prior to the outset of Plan Colombia  First introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, these provisions deny U S  assistance to a foreign country's security forces if the U S  Secretary of State has credible information that such units have committed "a gross violation of human rights " The provisions apply to security assistance provided by the State Department and DOD  The Leahy Law under the State Department is authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended, and is codified at 22 U S C  2378d (§520M of the FAA)  The DOD Leahy provisions, which for years applied just to DOD training, now include a broader range of assistance, as modified in the FY2014 appropriations legislation  The provision related to the Leahy Laws for DOD assistance is codified at 10 U S C  362, and prohibits "any training, equipment, or other assistance," to a foreign security force unit if there is credible information that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights  Both the State Department and DOD Leahy provisions require the State Department to review and clear—or vet—foreign security forces to determine if any individual or unit is credibly believed to be guilty of a gross human rights violation  Leahy vetting is typically conducted by U S  embassies and State Department headquarters  Reportedly on an annual basis about 1% of foreign security forces are disqualified from receiving assistance under the Leahy provisions, although many more are affected by administrative issues and are denied assistance until those conditions are resolved  Tainted security force units that are denied assistance may be remediated or cleared, but the procedures for remediation differ slightly between the DOD and State (or FAA) provisions  Because of the large amount of security assistance provided to Colombian forces (including the military and police), the State Department reportedly vets more candidates for assistance in Colombia than in any other country  In the late 1990s, poor human rights conditions in Colombia were a driving concern for developing the Leahy Law provisions  The U S  Embassy in Bogotá, with nearly two decades of experience in its vetting operations, has been cited as a source of best practices for other embassies seeking to bring their operations into compliance or enhance their performance  State Department officials have cited Colombia as a model operation that has helped Colombia to improve its human rights compliance  However, some human rights organizations are critical of the Leahy vetting process in Colombia, and cite the prevalence of extrajudicial executions allegedly committed by Colombian military units as evidence that these restrictions on U S  assistance have failed to remove human rights violators from the Colombian military  A human rights nongovernmental organization, Fellowship of Reconciliation, has published reports alleging an association between false positive killings and Colombian military units vetted by the State Department to receive U S  assistance  However, some have questioned the group's methodology  Some human rights organizations contend that the U S  government has tolerated abusive behavior by Colombian security forces without taking action or withholding assistance  Measured exclusively in counternarcotics terms, Plan Colombia has been a mixed success  Colombia remains the dominant producer of cocaine and in the DEA's National Drug Threat Assessment for 2017 continued to be the source for 95% of cocaine seized in the United States  Enforcement, eradication, and improved security squeezed production in Colombia, so that in 2012, Peru reemerged as the global leader in cocaine production, surpassing Colombia, for a year or so  In the early 2000s, given Colombia's predominance as the source of cocaine destined for U S  markets and its status as the second-largest producer of heroin consumed in the United States, eradication of coca bush and opium poppy (from which heroin is derived) was an urgent priority and became the preferred tool for controlling the production of these drugs  Another critical component of the drug supply reduction effort was alternative development programs funded by the U S  Agency for International Development (USAID) to assist illicit crop cultivators with transitioning to licit crop production and livelihoods  Analysts have long debated how effective Plan Colombia and its follow-on strategies were in combating illegal drugs  Although Plan Colombia failed to meet its goal of reducing the cultivation, processing, and distribution of illicit drugs by 50% in its original six-year time frame, Colombia has sustained significant reductions in coca cultivation in recent years  According to U S  estimates, cultivation of coca declined from 167,000 hectares in 2007 to 78,000 hectares in 2012  (Poppy cultivation declined by more than 90% between 2000 and 2009 ) According to U S  government estimates, Colombia's potential production of pure cocaine fell to 170 metric tons in 2012, the lowest level in two decades  However, it started to rise slightly in 2013, and more dramatically in 2014 through 2016  In those years, cultivation of coca and production of cocaine grew significantly in part due to ending the aerial eradication of coca crops  In 2015, following a U N  agency determination that the herbicide used to spray coca crops was probably carcinogenic, Colombia's minister of health determined that aerial eradication of coca was not consistent with requirements of Colombia's Constitutional Court  In 2016, as noted above, the U S  DEA reported that 95% of cocaine seized in the United States originated in Colombia  According to U S  Office of National Drug Control Policy, Colombia in 2017 cultivated an unprecedented 209,000 hectares of coca, from which cocaine is derived, capable of generating 921 metric tons of cocaine  The United Nations estimates for 2017, which typically differ in quantity but follow the same trends as U S  estimates, maintained that Colombia's potential production of cocaine reached nearly 1,370 metric tons, 31% above its 2016 estimate  Even with Colombia's economic stability and improving security, cocaine exports (primarily to the U S  market) remain a major concern for U S  lawmakers  However, in drug interdiction, Colombia has set records for many years and is considered a strong and reliable U S  partner  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ( Table 4 ), shows Colombia cultivating 146,000 hectares of coca in 2016, a 52% increase over 2015 and another increase to 171,000 hectares, a 17% increase, in 2017  Although cocaine seizures were quite high in both years, the interdiction of cocaine was insufficient to counter the large increases in production  Both manual eradication and aerial eradication were central components of Plan Colombia to reduce coca and poppy cultivation  Manual eradication is conducted by teams, usually security personnel, who uproot and kill the plant  Aerial eradication involves spraying the plants from aircraft with an herbicide mixture to destroy the drug crop, but it may not kill the plants  In the context of Colombia's continuing internal conflict, manual eradication was far more dangerous than aerial spraying  U S  and Colombian policymakers recognized the dangers of manual eradication and, therefore, employed large-scale aerial spray campaigns to reduce coca crop yields, especially from large coca plantations  Colombia is the only country globally that aerially sprayed its illicit crops, and the practice has been controversial for health and environmental reasons, resulting in a Colombian decision to end aerial eradication in 2015  Since 2002, as a condition of fully funding the spraying program, Congress has regularly directed the State Department, after study and consultation with the U S  Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant agencies, to certify that the spraying did not "pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the environment " This certification requirement was included most years in the annual foreign operations appropriations legislation  Some analysts have also raised questions about the monetary and collateral costs of aerial eradication compared with other drug supply control strategies, its effectiveness, and its limited effect on the U S  retail price of cocaine  U S  State Department officials attribute Colombia's decline in coca cultivation after 2007 and prior to 2013 to the persistent aerial eradication of drug crops in tandem with manual eradication where viable  Between 2009 and 2013, Colombia aerially sprayed roughly 100,000 hectares annually  In 2013, however, eradication efforts declined  Colombia aerially eradicated roughly 47,000 hectares  It manually eradicated 22,120 hectares, short of the goal of 38,500 hectares  This reduction had a number of causes: the U S -supported spray program was suspended in October 2013 after two U S  contract pilots were shot down, rural protests in Colombia hindered manual and aerial eradication efforts, and security challenges limited manual eradicators working in border areas  In late 2013, Ecuador won an out-of-court settlement in a case filed in 2008 before the International Court of Justice in The Hague for the negative effects of spray drift over its border with Colombia  In negotiations with the FARC, the government and the FARC provisionally agreed in May 2014 that voluntary manual eradication would be prioritized over forced eradication  Aerial eradication remained a viable tool in the government's drug control strategy, according to the agreement, but would be permitted only if voluntary and manual eradication could not be conducted safely  In April 2015, the Santos administration determined that glyphosate, a broad-spectrum, nonselective herbicide used commercially, but in Colombia sprayed on coca plants to eradicate them, was "probably carcinogenic" to humans in a review published by a World Health Organization (WHO) affiliate  In October 2015, the government ended spraying operations and began to implement a new public health approach toward illicit drugs, one that proponents suggested would reduce human rights violations  On the supply side, Colombia's new drug policy gives significant attention to expanding alternative development and licit crop substitution while intensifying interdiction efforts  The State Department in its 2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), however, warned that illicit cultivation was expanding in areas long off-limits to aerial spraying, including national parks, a buffer zone with Ecuador where aerial eradication has been restricted, and in indigenous or protected Afro-Colombian territories  Colombian interdiction practices are deemed some of the most effective in the world  The Colombian government reported seizing more than 207 metric tons (mt) of cocaine base in 2014 and that seizure total doubled by 2017 with capture of 442 mt of cocaine  According to the U S  State Department's 2018 INCSR , Colombia also seized 197 mt of marijuana, 348 kilograms of heroin, and destroyed more than 3,400 cocaine base and hydrochloride labs  USAID funds and runs alternative development programs in Colombia to assist communities with transitioning from a dependency on illicit crops to licit employment and livelihoods  Alternative development was once focused narrowly on crop substitution and assistance with infrastructure and marketing  Since the Colombian government's shift to a consolidation strategy, USAID has supported "consolidation and livelihoods" programming in 40 of the 58 strategically located, conflict-affected municipalities targeted by the government's National Consolidation Plan  To facilitate economic development, USAID funds initiatives that assist farmers and others with shifting from coca growing to licit economic opportunities  These programs are designed to strengthen small farmer producer organizations, improve their productivity, and connect them to markets  Some observers maintain that poor and unsustainable outcomes from alternative development programs while the Colombian conflict was still under way resulted from ongoing insecurity and lack of timeliness or sequencing of program elements  The renewed commitment to alternative development and crop substitution in the 2016 peace accord with the FARC may be similarly challenged  Formal implementation of the peace accord on drug eradication and crop substitution began in late May 2017 with collective agreements committing communities to replace their coca crops with licit crops  In some regions, the program is extended to families who cultivate coca and also to producers of legal crops and landless harvesters  The Colombian government also committed to a combined approach of both voluntary and forced manual eradication  The government's goal set for 2017 was eradicating 100,000 hectares of coca, 50,000 through forced manual eradication and 50,000 through "crop substitution" accords reached with coca farming households who would voluntary eradicate  At the U S -Colombia High Level Dialogue held in Bogotá in March 2018, a renewed commitment to the enduring partnership between the United States and Colombia was announced  A major outcome was a U S -Colombia pledge to reduce illegal narcotics trafficking through expanded counternarcotics cooperation  The new goal set was to reduce Colombia's estimated cocaine production and coca cultivation to 50% of current levels by 2023  In addition, a memorandum of understanding was signed to combat the illegal gold mining that funds transnational criminal organizations  Although President Duque appears determined to pursue a more aggressive approach to drug policy, he has not clearly stated how his approach to counternarcotics will differ from that of his predecessor  The government may restart aerial eradication, a strategy that ended in 2015 due to the Colombian Health Ministry's concerns over cancer-causing potential of the herbicide glyphosate, but no precise plans for restarting the program have been announced in the Duque Administration's first three months in office  Experimentation with delivering glyphosate by drones (rather than planes) began in June 2018 under the Santos Administration and is continuing under the Duque government  On October 1, 2018, President Duque authorized police to confiscate and destroy any quantity of drugs found on persons in possession of them, resulting in the seizure of more than 7 metric tons of drugs in less than two weeks  This enforcement measure may violate a 1994 Colombian Constitutional Court ruling, however, in which Colombians may carry small doses of drugs for personal use, including marijuana, hashish, and cocaine  Several court challenges have been filed that seek to nullify the Duque decree on constitutional grounds of protected personal use  Drug trafficking continues to trigger conflict over land in Colombia while affecting the most vulnerable groups, including Afro-Colombian, peasant, and indigenous populations  Some analysts warn that national and international pressure for drug eradication could also lead to increased human rights violations, including health consequences by reviving aerial spraying of drug crops and government actions to forcibly break up demonstrations by coca producers who resist eradication  Some analysts have advocated that investments to lower drug supply need to go beyond eradication, which has not been a lasting approach to reducing drug crop cultivation  For instance, the government could provide economic and education opportunities to at-risk youth to enhance their role in peace building and to prevent their recruitment into the drug trade and other illegal activity  Economic relations between Colombia and the United States have deepened  The U S -Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force in May 2012  By 2020, it will phase out all tariffs and other barriers to bilateral trade between Colombia and the United States, its largest trade partner  Since the U S -Colombia FTA went into force, the stock of U S  investment in Colombia surpassed $7 billion in 2014 but dropped to $6 2 billion in 2016 (on a historical cost basis), concentrated mostly in mining and manufacturing  According to the U S  Department of Commerce, U S  exports to Colombia exceeded $26 8 billion in 2016 and Colombia was the 22 nd -largest market for U S  exports; however, U S  imports from Colombia declined between 2015 and 2016  Major U S  exports to Colombia include oil (noncrude oil products including gasoline), machinery, cereals, organic chemicals, and plastic  Because 65% of U S  imports from Colombia are crude oil imports, much of the decline in value was caused by the sharp fall in oil prices that began in 2014  Major U S  imports beside crude oil, include gold, coffee, cut flowers, and fruits  Congressional interest in Colombia now extends far beyond security and counternarcotics and has grown in the area of bilateral trade following implementation of the U S -Colombia FTA, (also known at the U S -Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement)  Colombia is a founding member of the Pacific Alliance, along with Chile, Mexico, and Peru, and has sought to deepen trade integration and cross-border investment with its partners in the alliance while reducing trade barriers  The Pacific Alliance aims to go further by creating a common stock market, allowing for the eventual free movement of businesses and persons, and serving as an export platform to the Asia-Pacific region  Colombia's leadership role in the Pacific Alliance and Colombia's accession to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in May 2018, following a review of the country's macroeconomic policies and changes, are major new developments  The accession to the OECD was approved by Colombia's lower house in October 2018 and the Senate in November 2018, but it remained under final review by Colombia's Constitutional Court in early February 2019  The Santos administration pushed to meet the criteria required for OECD membership because it maintained that such recognition signified Colombia's attainment of world-class development standards and policies  Colombia has made progress on trade issues such as copyright, pharmaceuticals, fuel and trucking regulations, and labor concerns (including subcontracting methods and progress on resolving cases of violence against union activists)  Congress remains interested in Colombia's future because the country has become one of the United States' closest allies  With 17 years of investment in Colombia's security and stability, some maintain that there has already been a strong return on U S  investment  Plan Colombia and its successor strategies broadened from counternarcotics to include humanitarian concerns, efforts to bolster democratic development and human rights protections, and trade and investment to spark growth  The record expansion of Colombia's coca crop and increasing cocaine exports to the United States, however, may significantly hinder the effort to consolidate peace in Colombia and could potentially increase corruption and extortion  A significant portion of the Colombian public remains skeptical of the peace process and the FARC's role in Colombia's democracy  Other Colombians maintain that support for peace programs in Colombia is important not only to benefit former FARC or other demobilized combatants but also to fulfill promises the government made in the peace accords to the country's 8 6 million victims of the five-decade conflict  As President Duque concluded his first 100 days in office, his government faced overlapping challenges: (1) an upsurge in illicit drug crops, which had set records in 2016 and 2017; (2) implementation of provisions of the peace accord negotiated by former president Santos but marred by slow implementation, attacks on land and human rights activists, and projected budgetary shortfalls; (3) renewed violent competition among criminal groups in rural areas, some of which reportedly are sheltering in Venezuela; and (4) Venezuela's humanitarian crisis, which resulted in a surge of migrants fleeing to or through Colombia  The annual level of foreign assistance provided by the U S  Congress for Colombia began to decline in FY2008 and then gradually increased in FY2017 and FY2018 to support peace and implementation of the FARC-government peace accord  Some Members of Congress may want to build on cooperation with Colombian partners to continue to train Central Americans and other third-country nationals in counternarcotics and security, including programs in citizen security, crime prevention and monitoring, military and police capacity building, and hostage negotiation and cybersecurity  Congress may continue to closely monitor Colombia's domestic security situation  It also may continue to oversee issues such as drug trafficking; Colombia's effort to combat other illegal armed groups such as Bacrim; the status of human rights protections; and the expansion of health, economic, environmental, energy, and educational cooperation  Congress may seek to foster Colombian leadership in the region to counter growing political instability in Venezuela  The U S  Congress has been interested in expanding investment and trade opportunities both bilaterally with Colombia and within regional groupings, such as the Pacific Alliance  Some analysts contend that U S -Colombian trade improvements rest on the strength of the overall relationship between Colombia and the United States  


Report 2: The combination of growing supplies of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the international maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel  For decades, LNG tanker ships have been capable of burning boil-off gas from their LNG cargoes as a secondary fuel  However, using LNG as a primary fuel is a relatively new endeavor; the first LNG-powered vessel—a Norwegian ferry—began service in 2000  Several aspects of LNG use in shipping may be of congressional interest  LNG as an engine, or "bunker," fuel potentially could help the United States reduce harmful air emissions, it could create a new market for domestic natural gas, and it could create economic opportunities in domestic shipbuilding  However, U S  ports would need specialized vessels and land-based infrastructure for LNG "bunkering" (vessel refueling) as well as appropriate regulatory oversight of the associated shipping and fueling operations  The storage, delivery, and use of LNG in shipping also has safety implications  These and other aspects of LNG bunkering may become legislative or oversight issues for Congress  One bill in the 115 th Congress, the Waterway LNG Parity Act of 2017 ( S  505 ), would have imposed excise taxes on LNG used by marine vessels on inland waterways  This report discusses impending International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards limiting the maximum sulfur content in shipping fuels, the market conditions in which LNG may compete to become a common bunker fuel for vessel operators, and the current status of LNG bunkering globally and in the United States  A broader discussion of oil market implications is outside the scope of this report  The IMO is the United Nations organization that negotiates standards for international shipping  Its standards limiting sulfur emissions from ships, adopted in 2008, have led vessel operators to consider alternatives to petroleum-based fuels to power their ships  In 1973, the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)  Annex VI of the convention, which came into force in 2005, deals with air pollution from ships  The annex established limits on nitrogen oxide (NO x ) emissions and set a 4 5% limit on the allowable sulfur content in vessel fuels  In 2008, the IMO announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels from 4 5% to 0 5% by January 1, 2020  Annex VI requires vessel operators to either use fuels containing less than 0 5% sulfur or install exhaust gas-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's sulfur oxide (SO x ) emissions to a level equivalent to the required sulfur limit  MARPOL is implemented in the United States through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ()  The United States effectively ratified MARPOL Annex VI in 2008 when President Bush signed the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act ( P L  110-280 )  The act requires that the U S  Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly enforce the Annex VI emissions standards  MARPOL's Annex VI requirements are codified at 40 C F R  §1043  They apply to U S -flagged ships wherever located and to foreign-flagged ships operating in U S  waters  In addition to its global sulfur standards, MARPOL Annex VI provides for the establishment of Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), which are waters close to coastlines where more stringent emissions controls may be imposed  The North American ECA limits the sulfur content of bunker fuel to 0 1% of total fuel weight, an even lower bar than that set by the IMO 2020 standards  This standard is enforced by Coast Guard and EPA in waters up to 200 miles from shore  Currently, most ships operating in the North American ECA meet the emissions requirements by switching to low-sulfur fuels once they enter ECA waters  The European Union also has an ECA with a 0 1% limit on sulfur in bunker fuels, and the Chinese government is considering putting the same standard in place  The IMO 2020 emissions requirement applies to vessels of 400 gross tons and over, which is estimated to cover about 110,000 vessels worldwide  However, analysts indicate that many of the smaller vessels in this group already burn low-sulfur fuel  Accounting for these smaller vessels, one estimate is that about 55,000 vessels currently burn high-sulfur fuel  Ship owners have two main options for meeting the emission requirements with existing engines: burn low-sulfur conventional fuel (or biofuels) or install scrubbers to clean their exhaust gases  Alternatively, ship owners may opt to install new LNG-fueled engines to comply with the IMO standard  The simplest option for vessel owners to comply with the IMO sulfur standards, and the one that appears most popular, is switching to low-sulfur fuel oils or distillate fuels  Although switching to low-sulfur fuels would increase fuel costs compared to conventional, high-sulfur fuels, it would require little or no upfront capital cost and would allow ocean carriers to use existing infrastructure to bunker ships at ports  Anticipating widespread adoption of this approach, many analysts predict that the implementation of the IMO 2020 regulations will drive up demand for low-sulfur fuel and, therefore, significantly increase its price above current levels  Such a trend could also reduce demand for high-sulfur fuels, increasing the price spread between low- and high-sulfur bunkers fuels  Switching to lower-sulfur fuel could increase fuel cost across the industry by up to $60 billion in 2020 for full compliance with the IMO standards  Moreover, while it may allow vessels to meet the existing IMO sulfur standards, low-sulfur fuel does not necessarily support compliance with potential future IMO emissions standards, especially with respect to greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) discussed later in this report  Scrubbers are systems which remove sulfur from a vessel's engine exhaust emissions  A ship with a scrubber would be capable of meeting the IMO 2020 standard while using conventional high-sulfur fuel  Retrofitting a scrubber on an existing engine can cost several million dollars, however, before factoring in the lost revenue from taking the ship out of service for a month for the installation  Therefore, while using a scrubber will allow a ship to continue using (currently) cheaper high-sulfur fuel, it may take years to recover the initial investment  For example, one industry study estimates that, in the case of a typical tanker, a scrubber installation could cost $4 2 million with a payback time of approximately 4 8 years  Furthermore, scrubbers installed to capture sulfur emissions might have to be further refitted or replaced to comply with any future IMO standards for GHG emissions  The rate of scrubber adoption could affect the financial impacts of installing them in terms of fuel costs  Scrubbers ultimately offset some or all of their initial costs because they allow vessel operators to continue using relatively inexpensive high-sulfur fuel  However, the return on investment for scrubbers depends on the relative prices of high- and low-sulfur bunker fuels  The demand—and therefore, prices—for low-sulfur and high-sulfur fuels will be affected by how many vessels use the respective fuels under the IMO standards that take effect in 2020  For example, limited scrubber adoption could result in more vessels demanding more low-sulfur fuel oil, creating upward pressure on low-sulfur fuel prices  Under such a scenario, scrubbers would provide greater fuel cost savings for vessels that installed them  Alternatively, high-sulfur fuel could become more costly due to refinery production cutbacks (because shippers will not be allowed to burn it without scrubbers)  In this case, the economic benefits of scrubbers would be diminished  Given the uncertain fuel supply and demand dynamics, it is difficult for vessel operators to know how big the market distortions from scrubber installation could be or how many other operators may choose to install scrubbers  As of September 2018, there were approximately 660 ships retrofitted with scrubbers and over 600 ships under construction with plans to install scrubbers  By 2020, projecting additional construction orders, some analysts predict about 2,000 vessels could have scrubbers installed  However, even with higher demand for the technology, the ability of vessel owners to install scrubbers is constrained; analysts estimate that current maximum capacity for installing scrubbers is be between 300 to 500 ships per year  Another option for ship owners to comply with the IMO 2020 sulfur standards is to switch to engines that burn LNG as a bunker fuel  LNG-fueled vessels emit only trace amounts of sulfur oxides in their exhaust gases—well below even the 0 1% fuel-equivalent threshold in some of the ECA zones—so they would be fully compliant with the IMO standards  As a secondary benefit, using LNG as an engine fuel also would reduce particulate matter (PM) emissions relative to both high- and low-sulfur marine fuel oils  Furthermore, LNG vessels have the potential to emit less CO 2 than vessels running on conventional, petroleum-based fuels  However, LNG vessels would have the potential to result in more fugitive emissions of methane, another GHG, because methane is the primary component of natural gas, further discussed below  Installing an LNG-fueled engine can add around $5 million to the cost of a new ship  Retrofitting existing ships appears to be less desirable because of the extra space required for the larger fuel tanks (new ships can be designed with the larger fuel tanks)  The costs of retraining crews to work with LNG engines could also factor into a vessel operator's decision about switching to LNG  However, apart from their lower emissions, LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with fuel cost advantages over engines burning petroleum-derived fuels  These savings would depend on the price spread between natural gas and fuel oil—which has been volatile in recent years  The likelihood that switching to LNG will produce long-term fuel costs savings relative to conventional fuels is, therefore, a critical consideration for many vessel owners  The 1920 Merchant Marine Act (known colloquially as the Jones Act) requires that vessels engaged in U S  domestic transport be built domestically  Many newly built domestic ships receive a federal loan guarantee under the Maritime Administration's so-called "Title XI" program  In 2014, the program was modified to include the use of "alternative energy technologies" to power ships as part of the relevant criteria in evaluating a loan application  The Maritime Administration counts LNG-fueled engines as an "alternative energy technology" and may be more likely to approve loan applications for ships with LNG-capable engines  Since the North American ECA was established in 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG  The three Jones Act operators that ship dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U S  shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX  Harvey Gulf International has put into service five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels that service offshore oil rigs  Some Jones Act tanker operators that have recently built or ordered vessels have chosen to install LNG-ready engines while other operators have chosen to install scrubbers on their existing fleet  Ship engines and scrubbers for the Jones Act fleet do not have to be manufactured in the United States because they are not considered an integral part of the hull or superstructure of a ship  Seagoing barges, known as articulated tug barges, are also a significant portion of the domestic coastal fleet, especially for moving liquid cargoes  However, these vessels traditionally have burned lower-sulfur fuels and thus the ECA has not prompted fleet conversions  IMO fuel requirements do not apply to river barges operating on the nation's inland waterway system, although this fleet potentially could be a market for LNG as fuel  Bunkering vessels (small tankers with hoses for refueling ships) in U S  waters must also be Jones Act compliant  Barges are the predominant method for bunkering ships in U S  ports  An LNG bunkering vessel for the Port of Jacksonville—the first Jones Act-compliant LNG bunkering vessel to enter service in the United States—was built in 2017 by Conrad Shipyards in Orange, TX  Recent energy sector trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long-run than petroleum-based, low-sulfur fuels  However, these price movements are correlated to some extent  Many existing long-term LNG contracts link LNG prices to oil prices (although such contract terms are on the decline), even in the spot market  Starting in 2008, the advent of shale natural gas production dramatically decreased natural gas prices in the United States  Natural gas spot prices in the United States at the Henry Hub—the largest U S  trading hub for natural gas—averaged around $3/MMBtu (million British Thermal Units) in 2018, about a quarter of the peak in average price a decade before, just prior to the shale gas boom ( Figure 1 )  Liquefying natural gas into LNG adds around $2/MMBtu to the production cost  Including additional producer charges and service costs would bring the total cost of LNG available at a U S  port (based on the 2018 average price in Figure 1 ) to approximately $6/MMBtu  Shipping of LNG from the United States to Asia or Europe adds from $1 to $2/MMBtu, so, based on the 2018 average cost in Figure 1 , LNG delivered to a port overseas would cost on the order of $7 to $8/MMbtu under long-term contracts, depending upon timing and location  Higher or lower prices could occur for specific long-term contracts and in the LNG spot market (i e , for individual cargoes), based on the location and the supply and demand balance at the time  In general, the U S  market will have the lowest-priced LNG  Northern Asia will have the highest LNG prices due to the region's comparative lack of pipeline gas supplies and its distance from LNG suppliers  Figure 2 compares LNG spot market prices in the Japan LNG market—the highest-priced LNG market—to spot prices for two common petroleum-based bunker fuels, low-sulfur gas oil and high-sulfur fuel oil  As the figure shows, over the last five years, Japan LNG generally has been cheaper than low-sulfur fuel and more expensive than high-sulfur fuel on an energy-equivalent basis (i e , per MMbtu)  However, Japan LNG and high-sulfur fuel prices converged in 2018  As the figure shows, spot prices for LNG deliveries to the Japan market fell below $6/MMBtu in 2016 from a high above $16/MMBtu in 2013  Likewise, low-sulfur gas oil prices have doubled, and high-sulfur fuel oil prices have tripled, since 2016  The volatility of the bunker fuel markets and the global LNG market lead to considerable unpredictability about the relative prices among fuels going forward  LNG may become increasingly price-competitive versus low-sulfur fuel as the 2020 IMO sulfur standards take effect  As discussed above, many analysts predict prices for low-sulfur gas oil, which are already higher than those for high-sulfur fuel oil, to increase significantly after 2020 due to a standards-driven rise in demand  Although fuel prices as shown in Figure 2 indicate favorable economics for LNG versus low-sulfur fuel, if prices for high-sulfur fuel oils collapse as some expect after the 2020 IMO regulations enter into force, it is possible that LNG could lose its price advantage over residual fuel oils  Likewise, the price spread between low-sulfur gasoil and high-sulfur fuel oil would increase, incentivizing more carriers to install scrubbers to capitalize on the savings in fuel costs by continuing to burn high-sulfur fuel  An additional complication is the variability of LNG prices by region  Many shipping lines are global operators seeking low-priced fuel worldwide, but unlike the global oil market, natural gas markets are regional  Because the price of LNG can vary significantly by region, the relative economics of LNG versus other bunker fuels would also vary by region  Another uncertainty in the market for LNG bunkering is the discrepancy between the spot price for traded LNG and the price for LNG sold as bunker fuel in ports  Added costs associated with marketing, storing and transporting LNG in bunkering operations (discussed below) would likely require ports to charge a rate for LNG bunker fuel above spot market prices  These additional overhead costs are likely to vary among ports  Before factoring in any effect of IMO standards on fuel prices, and assuming a favorable LNG-fuel oil price spread, it still could take years for the savings generated by using LNG to pay back the capital costs of switching fuels  Through May 2018, there were 122 LNG-powered vessels in operation and another 135 ordered or under construction  Many of the first LNG vessels delivered and ordered were Norwegian-flagged vessels, as the Norwegian government has subsidized LNG-fueled vessels with a "NO x Fund " The fund provides LNG-operated ships with an exemption from the country's tax on NO x emissions  As an alternative to committing to LNG as a fuel, some vessel owners may hedge their bets by opting to install "LNG-ready" engines, which can burn low-sulfur fuel oil currently, but are designed to make future LNG conversion easier  The number of LNG ships that may be in operation by 2030 is difficult to predict  First, as noted above, growth in LNG powered vessels is likely to be driven primarily by new builds rather than retrofits  However, the shipping industry has experienced nearly a decade of vessel overcapacity and slow growth  Weak growth in the shipping industry could result in slower growth in vessel orders overall and, therefore, fewer orders for LNG-powered vessels  Of new vessels ordered, or set to be delivered, in 2018 or after, 13 5% (by tonnage) are LNG-fueled—up from 1 4% in 2010  If this trend continues, demand for LNG from the shipping industry could still be relatively high, even if overall growth in the shipping industry remains slow  Because LNG bunkering infrastructure among global ports is currently limited, vessels that use large amounts of fuel and travel predictable routes—along which LNG is available—are the most suitable for LNG fuel  For this reason, cruise ships, vehicle ferries, and container ships initially may be the most likely vessel types to adopt LNG as bunker fuel  Order books have reflected this assessment: one quarter of all cruise ships on order by tonnage at the end of 2017 were LNG-powered  Likewise, a major container ship line, CMA CGM, recently announced that it was ordering nine extra-large container ships powered by LNG  The carrier stated that the fuel tanks will displace space for "just a few containers" and said it intends to refuel these ships just once on their round trip voyages between Asia and Europe  Conversely, LNG fuel adoption may be less likely for oil tankers  Half the global oil tanker fleet operates on the shipping spot market (also known as the "tramp" market), meaning that ship owners enter into contracts with cargo owners only for a single voyage  In this kind of trade, many oil tankers lack a consistent route  Having to limit spot contracts only to ports that may bunker LNG could reduce the arbitrage opportunities of tankers  Dry bulk cargo vessels (carrying grain, coal, and other commodities) also typically operate in the tramp market  LNG-powered vessels have lower direct exhaust emissions than comparable vessels using petroleum-derived fuels  However, the lifecycle—or "well-to-wake"—GHG emissions (especially of methane) and of volatile organic compound emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction complicates the comparison  One study in 2015 concluded, "performing a ['well-to-wake'] GHG study on LNG used as a marine fuel is more complex than previously thought  Further studies are needed     to investigate this subject " A 2016 study found that the relative GHG emissions benefits of LNG versus conventional fuel oil on a "well-to-wake" basis was highly dependent upon fugitive methane emissions in the LNG supply chain  A 2017 study funded by NGVA Europe, an association which promotes the use of natural gas in vehicles and ships, concluded that LNG as a bunker fuel provides a 21% well-to-wake reduction in GHG emissions compared to convention fuel oil  Evaluating such studies is beyond the scope of this report, although they indicate uncertainty about environmental benefits of LNG fuel, which may require further examination  Despite concerns over lifecycle emissions from the natural gas supply chain, in the short term, ships that pair LNG engines with newer vessel designs could reduce onboard GHG emissions  However, whether these GHG emission reductions would be sufficient to meet the future standards could become another issue for ship owners  The IMO has set a provisional goal of reducing GHG emissions from ships by 50% by 2050  Depending upon the state of engine technology, LNG-fueled ships might become less viable if GHG limits were to be established well before 2050  Concerns about such GHG limits might lead to a decrease in orders of LNG-powered ships over time  Commercial vessels have a typical lifespan of over 20 years, so firms ordering new ships have to take into account compliance with potential standards issued decades in the future  If renewable fuels, such as biodiesel, become more available and cheaper in the coming decades, renewable fuel-powered ships may take over part of the market that LNG-powered ships could occupy  A key requirement for ocean carriers to adopt LNG as an engine fuel is the availability of LNG bunkering facilities  Because LNG is extremely cold (-260 °F) and volatile, LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and fuel delivery to vessels  Depending upon the specific circumstances, LNG bunkering could require transporting LNG to a port from an offsite liquefaction facility for temporary storage at the port, or building an LNG liquefaction terminal on site  Alternatively, LNG could be delivered from offsite facilities directly to vessels in port via truck or supply vessel ( Figure 3 )  Truck-to-vessel LNG bunkering, in particular, provides some fueling capabilities without large upfront capital investments  LNG tanker trucks could also bring LNG to a storage tank built on site at the port, which could then bunker the LNG to arriving ships via pipeline  Supplying LNG using tanker trucks in this way may face capacity limitations due to truck size, road limitations, or other logistical constraints, but it has been demonstrated as a viable approach to LNG bunkering at smaller scales  The predominant method of bunkering today with high-sulfur fuel is vessel to vessel, either by a tank barge or smaller tanker  The type of infrastructure needed to temporarily store (if needed) and deliver LNG within a given port would depend on the size and location of the port, as well as the types of vessels expected to bunker LNG  Truck to ship bunkering is best suited for supporting smaller and mid-sized vessels, such as ferries or offshore supply vessels (OSVs) that support offshore oil platforms  Liquefaction facilities built on site can provide the greatest capacity of any LNG bunkering option, for example, to provide fuel for large vessels in transoceanic trade  However, constructing small-scale liquefaction facilities to produce and deliver LNG on site requires considerable planning and significant capital investment, in one case on the order of $70 million for a mid-sized port  Each LNG bunkering option in Figure 3 may be a viable means to begin LNG bunkering service in a given port  However, ports may face practical constraints as bunkering increases in scale  For example, a container port of significant size typically has multiple terminals, so even with an on-site liquefaction facility, it may need additional infrastructure or supply vessels for moving LNG to other port locations where a cargo ship might be berthed  There may also be port capacity and timing constraints upon the movement of LNG bunkering barges trying to refuel multiple large vessels in various locations around a crowded port  To date, the LNG bunkering operations already in place or in development are comparatively small, but scale constraints could become a factor as LNG bunkering grows and might require additional bunkering-related port investments  Early adoption of LNG bunkering occurred in Europe, where the first sulfur ECAs were created in 2006 and 2007  Through Directive 2014/94/EU, the European Union requires that a core network of marine ports be able to provide LNG bunkering by December 2025 and that a core network of inland ports provide LNG bunkering by 2030  This mandate has been promoted, in part, with European Commission funds to support LNG bunkering infrastructure development  In addition, the European Maritime Safety Agency published regulatory guidance for LNG bunkering in 2018  Over 40 European coastal ports have LNG bunkering capability currently in operation—primarily at locations on the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and in Spain, France, and Turkey  These locations include major port cities such as Rotterdam, Barcelona, Marseilles, and London  Another 50 LNG bunkering facilities at European ports are in development  LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port  Singapore has agreed to provide $4 5 million to subsidize the construction of two LNG bunkering vessels  The Port of Singapore plans to source imported LNG at the adjacent Jurong Island LNG terminal, loading it into the bunkering vessels for ship-to-ship fueling of vessels in port  Singapore also has signed a memorandum of understanding with 10 other partners—including a Japanese Ministry and the Chinese Port of Ningbo-Zhoushan—to create a focus group aimed at promoting the adoption of LNG bunkering at ports around the world  In Japan, one consortium is implementing plans to begin vessel-to-vessel LNG bunkering at the Port of Keihin in Tokyo Bay by 2020  Japan's NYK line, a large ship owner, recently announced that it had reached an agreement with three Japanese utilities to add LNG bunkering to ports in Western Japan  Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, currently have around 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development  Some LNG bunkering operations in Europe and Asia are associated with existing LNG marine terminals, which already have LNG storage and port infrastructure in place  However, many smaller operations—including most of the projects in development—employ trucking, dedicated bunkering vessels, on-site liquefaction, and other means to extend LNG availability beyond the ports with major LNG terminals  LNG bunkering is not so advanced in South America, although with nine operating LNG marine terminals (one for export), and another six in development, South America also could support significant LNG bunkering operations in the near future  LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in two locations—Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third bunkering facility under development in Tacoma, WA  The LNG facilities in these ports serve the relatively small U S -flag domestic market  Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL  However, ports in North America have significant potential to expand the nation's LNG bunkering capability  Jacksonville is the largest LNG bunkering operation at a U S  port  One bunkering facility at the port, developed by JAX LNG, initially began truck-to-ship refueling operations in 2016 for two LNG-capable container ships  (The LNG is sourced from a liquefaction plant in Macon, GA  ) In August 2018, upon delivery of the Clean Jacksonville bunker barge, the facility began to replace truck-to-ship bunkering with ship-to-ship bunkering  In the future, the barge plans to source LNG from a new, small-scale liquefaction plant which JAX LNG is currently constructing at the port  A second facility at Jacksonville's port, operated by Eagle LNG, provides LNG bunkering sourced from a liquefaction plant in West Jacksonville  Eagle LNG also is constructing an on-site liquefaction and vessel bunkering facility in another part of the port, expected to begin service in 2019  Taken together, the JAX LNG and Eagle LNG facilities is expected to establish Jacksonville as a significant LNG-bunkering location with the capability to serve not only the domestic fleet but larger international vessels as well  In 2015, Harvey Gulf International Marine (Harvey) began LNG bunkering operations in the Gulf of Mexico to fuel its small fleet of LNG-powered offshore supply vessels serving offshore oil rigs  Harvey has since constructed a $25 million facility at its existing terminal in Port Fourchon to store and bunker LNG sourced from liquefaction plants in Alabama and Texas  The facility can provide truck-to-ship bunkering services for LNG-fueled offshore supply vessels, tank barges, and other vessels  A Harvey subsidiary has ordered two LNG bunkering barges to enable ship-to-ship fueling in the future  Puget Sound Energy has proposed an LNG liquefaction and bunkering facility at the Port of Tacoma, WA  Vessels traveling between Washington and Alaska typically spend the entire journey within the 200-mile North America ECA  Consequently, vessel owners operating along these routes have been interested in LNG as bunker fuel  TOTE Maritime, for example, a ship owner involved in trade between Alaska and the lower 48 states, has begun the process of retrofitting the engines of two of its container ships to be LNG-compatible  The proposed Tacoma LNG facility would be capable of producing up to 500,000 gallons of LNG per day and would include an 8 million gallon storage tank  The facility would serve the dual purposes of providing fuel for LNG-powered vessels and providing peak-period natural gas supplies for the local gas utility system  Its total construction cost reportedly is expected to be $310 million  Community and environmental concerns have slowed the progress of the proposal, which is still under regulatory review  Puget Sound Energy originally planned to put the LNG facility into service in late 2019; however, permitting issues appear likely to delay its opening until 2020 or later—if it is eventually approved  Q-LNG Transport, a company 30% owned by Harvey, has placed orders for two LNG bunkering barges to provide ship-to-ship LNG fueling as well as "ship-to-shore transfers to small scale marine distribution infrastructure in the U S  Gulf of Mexico and abroad " Q-LNG's first barge initially is expected to provide fuel to new LNG-fueled cruise ships based in Port Canaveral (and, potentially, Miami), while service from its second barge is still uncommitted  Initial plans are for the LNG to be sourced from the Elba Island LNG import/export terminal near Savannah, GA—approximately 230 nautical miles away—although the company may seek to develop an on-site LNG storage facility in the future  As noted above, U S  LNG bunkering activities thus far have been limited to a handful of vessels in domestic trade and tourism  LNG bunkering for the much larger fleet of foreign-flag ships carrying U S  imports and exports is still to be developed  As in Europe and Asia, domestic ports located near major LNG import or export terminals may serve as anchors for expanded LNG bunkering operations  Figure 4 shows existing LNG import and export terminals in North America  LNG can be liquefied from pipeline natural gas (or imported natural gas) and stored in large quantities at these facilities  The LNG can then be bunkered on site or transported to bunkering facilities elsewhere in the region by truck, rail, or barge  As discussed above, the distance between Port Canaveral and Elba Island in Q-LNG's bunker sourcing plan is 230 nautical miles  Taking this distance as a measure of how far away LNG can be sourced and barged economically, it is possible to extrapolate which U S  ports are within reach of a potential supply of LNG for vessel bunkering  Table 1 lists the top 20 U S  container shipment ports in the United States and their proximity to existing LNG import/export terminals  Of these top 20 ports, 12 are less than 230 nautical miles from an operating LNG terminal  Distances between LNG terminals and the other East Coast ports are not much greater, suggesting that LNG for vessel bunkering could be within reach of every U S  port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico  On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—the two largest U S  ports—are relatively close to the Costa Azul LNG import terminal in Ensenada, MX  Seattle and Tacoma are far from Ensenada, but would be served by the proposed Tacoma LNG bunkering project, if constructed  LNG bunkering for Seattle and Tacoma alternatively could be sourced from an existing LNG port facility around 100 nautical miles north in Vancouver, BC, which is expanding to provide LNG bunkering services to international carriers  Alaska's existing LNG export terminal currently is inactive, but potentially could supply LNG bunker fuel in the Pacific Northwest as well  Although existing LNG import or export terminals in North America could supply LNG for regional bunkering operations, such activities would require additional investment for infrastructure such as LNG transfer facilities and bunker barges  CRS is not aware of any public announcements among the LNG terminals above to develop bunkering operations  However, at least one LNG terminal owner, Cheniere Energy, which operates LNG terminals in Louisiana and Texas, identifies vessel bunkering as one source of future LNG demand growth worldwide  The IMO adopted safety standards for ships using natural gas as a bunker fuel in 2015  The standards, which took effect in 2017, apply to all new ships and conversions of ships (except LNG tankers, which have their own standards)  The IMO standards address engine design, LNG storage tanks, distribution systems, and electrical systems  They also establish new training requirements for crews handling LNG and other low flashpoint fuels  As is the case for the sulfur standards, the IMO LNG safety standards apply to all IMO member nations, including the United States  In addition, a number of U S  federal agencies, especially the Coast Guard and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, have jurisdiction over specific aspects of domestic LNG storage infrastructure and bunkering operations  The Coast Guard has the most prominent role in LNG bunkering, given its general authority over port operations and waterborne shipping  In 2015, the Coast Guard issued two guidelines for the handling of LNG fuel and for waterfront facilities conducting bunkering operations  In 2017, the Coast Guard issued additional guidelines to Captains of the Port, the local Coast Guard officials responsible for port areas, for conducting safe LNG bunkering simultaneously with other port operations  The guidelines advise on quantitative risk assessment of facilities bunkering LNG, which allows Captains of the Port to assess the risks posed to crews and facilities  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plays a role in LNG bunkering due to its jurisdiction over the siting of LNG import and export terminals under the Natural Gas Act of 1938  Specifically, FERC asserts approval authority over the place of entry and exit, siting, construction, and operation of new LNG terminals as well as modifications or extensions of existing LNG terminals  Notwithstanding this siting authority, FERC reportedly does not intend to assert jurisdiction over the permitting of LNG bunkering facilities, but it may require amendment of permits it has issued for LNG import or export terminals to account for bunkering operations added afterwards  In addition to the Coast Guard and FERC, other federal agencies may have jurisdiction over specific aspects of LNG bunkering operations in U S  ports under a range of statutory authorities  For example, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation regulates the safety of natural gas pipelines and certain associated LNG storage facilities (e g , peak-shaving plants)  LNG facilities also may need to comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations for Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals  Other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U S  Army Corps of Engineers, and the Transportation Security Administration, may regulate other aspects of LNG bunkering projects  CRS is not aware of new regulations to date among these agencies specifically addressing LNG bunkering  World production of LNG has been rising rapidly over the last few years, driven by growth in the natural gas sector in new regions—especially Australia and the United States  According to one industry analysis ( Figure 5 ), global LNG supply is expected to increase from 300 to 400 million metric tons per annum (MMtpa) from 2017 to 2021 based on new LNG liquefaction projects already operating or under development  An additional 150 MMtpa appears likely to come online after that  Collectively, LNG supply from these new liquefaction projects could exceed projections of demand, which would put downward pressure on LNG prices  While increases in the global supply of LNG do not necessarily translate directly into an increase in LNG available for bunkering, such increases could provide options for LNG bunkering in more ports  Estimating potential demand for LNG in the maritime sector is complicated and uncertain  One study of future LNG demand for bunkering, specifically, projects that LNG-powered vessels in operation and under construction as of June 2018 will require between 1 2 and 3 0 MMt of LNG per year  The study's review of several LNG consumption forecasts in the maritime sector shows a consensus projection between 20 to 30 MMt per year by 2030  This level of demand growth implies an increase in LNG-powered vessel construction from the current rate of around 120 ships per year to between 400 and 600 new builds per year  If these levels were reached, they could create a significant new market for LNG suppliers  Assuming a Henry Hub spot market price of $4/MMBtu in 2030, the annual market for LNG in shipping could be worth $2 9 billion to $5 8 billion, before accounting for liquefaction and transportation charges  Some studies have projected the LNG bunkering market to be even larger and to grow more quickly  However, key variables—such as the prices of Henry Hub natural gas and crude oil, the number of new vessel orders, and the future costs of emissions technology—are notoriously hard to predict with accuracy  Thus, it is not assured that natural gas consumption in the maritime sector will absorb more than a small amount of the global liquefaction capacity in development  The IMO sulfur standards apply to ship owners globally, as does the development of new LNG supply and bunkering infrastructure  In addition to these factors, domestic LNG bunkering also may be influenced by considerations more specific to the United States  These considerations include growth of the U S  natural gas supply, domestic shipbuilding opportunities, and LNG safety and security  Because of its leading role in global natural gas production, the United States has a particular interest in any new source of natural gas demand  According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States has been the world's top producer of natural gas since 2009, when it surpassed Russia  In 2017, increases in production outstripped increases in domestic gas consumption, leading to the United States becoming a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in nearly 60 years  As discussed above, North America (primarily the United States) is expected to add the most new LNG production capacity through 2030 when including projects that are operating, under construction, and likely (according to investment analysts)  Past increases in U S  LNG exports were driven by greater throughput at the Sabine Pass LNG export terminal—the only operating U S  LNG export terminal in 2017  In March 2018, the Cove Point terminal in Maryland became the second operating U S  LNG export terminal  Four additional projects under construction or commissioning are set to nearly triple U S  liquefaction by the end of 2019  This increase in liquefaction capacity likely will motivate LNG producers to secure new buyers  Figure 6 shows estimated LNG prices for various locations around the world as of October 2018  As the figure shows, LNG prices are substantially lower in North America than in Asia, Europe, and South America  Even after adding $1 00 to $2 00/MMBtu to transport the LNG to overseas ports, LNG produced in the United States is globally competitive at these prices  If LNG from the new liquefaction capacity coming online can be produced and delivered with similar economics, the cost advantage may create an opportunity for U S  LNG in bunker supply  There are over 400 petroleum fuel bunkering ports in the world, but 60% of bunkering in recent years has happened in six countries: Singapore, the United States, China, the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and the Netherlands  Of these countries, only the United States is a significant LNG producer  Therefore, the United States could be a favorable source of LNG for domestic bunkering and for bunkering at the other major ports  While the LNG industry historically has had a good safety record, there are unique safety risks associated with LNG in vessel operations  Leakage of LNG during LNG shipping or bunkering can pose several hazards  LNG is stored at temperatures below -162 °C (-260 °F), far below the -20°C at which the carbon steels typically used in shipbuilding become brittle  Consequently, extreme care must be taken to ensure that LNG does not drip or spill onto ship hulls or decking because it could lead to brittle fracture, seriously damaging a ship or bunkering barge  LNG spilled onto water can pose a more serious hazard as it will rapidly and continuously vaporize into natural gas, which could ignite  The resulting "pool fire" would spread as the LNG spill expands away from its source and continues evaporating  A pool fire is intense, far hotter and burning far more rapidly than oil or gasoline fires, and it cannot be extinguished; all the LNG must be consumed before it goes out  Because an LNG pool fire is so hot, its thermal radiation may injure people and damage vessels or property a considerable distance from the fire itself  Many experts agree that a large pool fire, especially on water, is the most serious LNG hazard  Leaks of boil-off gas (the small amount of LNG that vaporizes in storage) can also release natural gas into a port area and cause fires or explosions  Major releases of LNG from large LNG carriers would be most dangerous within 500 meters of the spill and would pose some risk at distances up to 1,600 meters from the spill  While a bunkering barge or a vessel using LNG for fuel contains far less LNG than large LNG carriers, LNG spills in bunkering operations could still be a significant concern  Risks associated with bunkering LNG are complicated in ports seeking to engage in "simultaneous operations" during the bunkering process  Simultaneous operations entail loading and unloading cargo and personnel from a ship, maintenance, and other logistical operations performed while a ship is bunkering  Accidents that occur during such operations (for example, the operation of heavy machinery near pipes transporting LNG) can result in a spill of LNG which can threaten workers positioned near the site of operations  LNG tankers, bunkering vessels, and land-based facilities could be vulnerable to terrorism  Bunkering tanks or vessels might be physically attacked to destroy the LNG they hold—and vessels might be commandeered for use as weapons against port or coastal targets  Potential terrorist attacks on LNG terminals or tankers in the United States have long been a key concern of the public and policymakers in the context of large scale LNG imports or exports because such attacks could cause catastrophic fires in ports and nearby populated areas  For example, a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office stated that, "the ship-based supply chain for energy commodities," specifically including LNG, "remains threatened and vulnerable, and appropriate security throughout the chain is essential to ensure safe and efficient delivery " Affected communities and federal officials continue to express concern about the security risks of LNG  The potential risks from terrorism to LNG bunkering infrastructure may be different than those of larger LNG import or export operations due to smaller quantities of LNG involved, but the risks may become more widespread if LNG bunkering operations are established in more locations  The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA, P L  107-295 ) and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code give the Coast Guard far-ranging authority over the security of hazardous materials in maritime shipping  The Coast Guard has developed port security plans addressing how to deploy federal, state, and local resources to prevent terrorist attacks  Under the MTSA, the Coast Guard has assessed the overall vulnerability of marine vessels, their potential to transport terrorists or terror materials, and their use as potential weapons  The Coast Guard has employed these assessments to augment port security as necessary and to develop maritime security standards for LNG port facilities  The IMO's overall framework for controlling vessels emissions (MARPOL Annex VI) has been in place since 2005  While the United States, as an IMO member, is subject to the IMO's 2020 sulfur standards, the international standards apply equally to all parties and all vessels  The impacts of sulfur standards on bunker fuel have been an important consideration, but IMO member nations have agreed to the standards independent of any particular energy policies  Moreover, MARPOL Annex VI preceded the U S  shale gas boom, so commitment to that initial IMO framework could not have anticipated United States' current role as a dominant energy producer  Any changes within the international shipping fleet to install sulfur scrubbers, fuel engines with LNG, or switch to other low sulfur fuels, are being driven primarily by market forces in fuel supply, shipbuilding, and shipping—not by any particular push to favor one fuel over another  Nonetheless, given its particular status, the question arises whether the standards may create an economic opportunity for the United States, in energy or otherwise  More specifically, could international adoption of LNG as a bunker fuel create an important new market for U S  natural gas producers, shipbuilders, or infrastructure developers? As discussed above, depending upon the adoption of LNG bunkering in the global fleet, the LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030  If U S  LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U S  natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction  Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most of this occurs overseas, with the exception of Jones Act vessels  In the latter case, demand for domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one significant area of economic growth  Engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop new port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer  While likely limited in number, such port facilities could be complex, high value projects costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to complete  Such projects could create jobs in engineering, construction, and operation, which could be important to local communities  Although LNG bunkering could present the United States with new economic opportunities, it may pose challenges as well  Rising demand for LNG in the maritime sector could increase natural gas prices for domestic consumers  In addition to being the world's largest natural gas producer, as of 2018, the United States is also the world's largest producer of crude oil and the second largest bunkering hub  Consequently, while vessel conversion to LNG bunkering may increase demand for U S -produced natural gas, it could be partially offset by reduced demand for U S -produced crude oil or refined products  Exactly how changing demand in one sector could affect the other is unclear  Furthermore, while LNG can reduce pollutant emissions from vessels, emissions and environmental impacts from increased natural gas production and transportation could increase overall emissions  Much of the net environmental impact depends upon practices in the natural gas industry, which are the subject of ongoing study and debate  Although new LNG bunkering infrastructure can create jobs, as the Tacoma LNG projects shows, the construction of such port facilities can be controversial for reasons of safety, security, and environmental impact  Overarching the considerations above is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time  This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy  LNG-fueled ships still account for only a fraction of the U S  and global fleets, and it may take several decades for significant benefits of LNG-powered vessels to be realized  It is also possible that alternative ship fuels, including biofuels, electric engines, and hybrid engines, will become more economically viable in coming years  Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of LNG as a ship fuel, it is hard to predict the potential benefits or costs that LNG bunkering may provide to the United States  Until now, the private sector has added LNG-fueled vessels to fleets in the United States in a piecemeal manner under existing federal statutes and regulation  Congress could encourage the growth of LNG bunkering by various means, such as providing tax incentives to support the construction of LNG bunkering facilities and vessels, addressing any statutory or regulatory barriers to bunkering facility siting or operations, and providing funding for technical support to domestic carriers seeking to adopt LNG technology  Alternatively, Congress could seek to encourage competing bunker fuel options, such as biofuels, by incentivizing them in similar ways  In addition, Congress could also affect growth in LNG bunkering through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole  Changes in federal regulation related to natural gas production, or changes to the Jones Act, for example, while not directed at LNG bunkering, could nonetheless affect its economics  Therefore, evaluating the potential implications on LNG bunkering of broader energy, environmental, or economic objectives may become an additional consideration in congressional oversight and legislative initiatives  If LNG bunkering expands significantly in U S  ports, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities 

ground_truth: The combination of growing liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies and new requirements for less polluting fuels in the maritime shipping industry has heightened interest in LNG as a maritime fuel. The use of LNG as an engine ("bunker") fuel in shipping is also drawing attention from federal agencies and is beginning to emerge as an issue of interest in Congress. In 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) announced a timeline to reduce the maximum sulfur content in vessel fuels to 0.5% by January 1, 2020. Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships requires vessels to either use fuels containing less than 0.5% sulfur or install exhaust-cleaning systems ("scrubbers") to limit a vessel's airborne emissions of sulfur oxides to an equivalent level. An option for vessel operators to meet the IMO 2020 standards is to install LNG-fueled engines, which emit only trace amounts of sulfur. Adopting LNG engines requires more investment than installing scrubbers, but LNG-fueled engines may offset their capital costs with operating cost advantages over conventional fuels. Savings would depend on the price spread between LNG and fuel oil. Recent trends suggest that LNG may be cheaper in the long run than conventional fuels. LNG bunkering requires specialized infrastructure for supply, storage, and delivery to vessels. To date, the number of ports worldwide that have developed such infrastructure is limited, although growth in this area has accelerated. Early adoption of LNG bunkering is occurring in Europe where the European Union requires a core network of ports to provide LNG bunkering by 2030. LNG bunkering is also advancing in Asia, led by Singapore, the world's largest bunkering port. Asian countries, together with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, have about 10 coastal ports offering LNG bunkering, with another 15 projects in development. LNG bunkering in the United States currently takes place in Jacksonville, FL, and Port Fourchon, LA—with a third facility under development in Tacoma, WA. Bunkering of LNG-fueled cruise ships using barges also is planned for Port Canaveral, FL. The relative locations of other U.S. ports and operating LNG terminals suggest that LNG bunkering could be within reach of every port along the Eastern Seaboard and in the Gulf of Mexico. On the West Coast, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, are near the Costa Azul LNG terminal in Ensenada, MX. Seattle and Tacoma are adjacent to the proposed Tacoma LNG project. Since 2015, Jones Act coastal ship operators have taken steps to transition their fleets to use cleaner burning fuels, including LNG. Shippers of dry goods to Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have taken delivery or have ordered LNG-fueled and LNG-capable vessels from U.S. shipyards in Philadelphia, PA, and Brownsville, TX. Another company operates five LNG-powered offshore supply vessels built in Gulfport, MS. Depending upon LNG conversions, the global LNG bunker fuel market could grow to several billion dollars by 2030. If U.S. LNG producers were to supply a significant share of this market—on the strength of comparatively low LNG production costs—LNG bunkering could increase demand for U.S. natural gas production, transportation, and liquefaction. Opportunities in LNG-related shipbuilding might be more limited, as most shipbuilding occurs overseas, although domestically-constructed LNG bunkering barges could be one area of economic growth. Finally, engineering and construction firms could benefit from new opportunities to develop port infrastructure for LNG storage and transfer. However, while vessel conversion to LNG fuel may increase demand for U.S.-produced natural gas, it partially could be offset by reduced demand for U.S.-produced crude oil or refined products. Furthermore, while LNG can reduce direct emissions from vessels, fugitive emissions and environmental impacts from natural gas production and transportation could reduce overall emissions benefits. While the LNG industry has experienced few accidents, the Coast Guard has been developing new standards to address unique safety and security risks associated with LNG in vessel operations. The overarching consideration about LNG bunkering in the United States is uncertainty about how the global shipping fleet will adapt to the IMO sulfur standards over time. This uncertainty complicates decisions related to both private investment and public policy. Although Congress has limited ability to influence global shipping, it could influence the growth of LNG bunkering through the tax code and regulation, or through policies affecting the LNG industry or domestic shipping industry as a whole. Evaluating the potential implications of LNG bunkering within the context of broader energy and environmental policies may become an additional consideration for Congress. If LNG bunkering expands significantly, Congress also may examine the adequacy of existing measures to ensure the safety and security of LNG vessels, storage, and related facilities.