Drug Control: Air Bridge Denial Program in Colombia Has Implemented New Safeguards, but Its Effect on Drug Trafficking Is Not Clear
Released: 2005-10-06T00:00:00

Letter

Background

After the Peru accident, a joint investigation by the United States and Peru reviewed the circumstances of the accident and made several conclusions. The investigation team was comprised of U.S. representatives from the Departments of State and Defense, as well as Peruvian officials from its Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defense.

According to U.S. officials, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe requested the restart of the ABD program to help combat drug trafficking. After initial discussions, the United States decided to assist Colombia in restarting a revised ABD program that would be managed by the Colombian Air Force and overseen by State/INL. In addition, U.S. officials said that Colombia had existing infrastructure that facilitated the program’s restart, such as air bases and a national air command center.

Prior to the restart of Colombia’s ABD program, a committee of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, as well as the Colombian government developed a Letter of Agreement outlining the program’s goal, safety requirements, operational procedures, and each country’s responsibilities. The Letter of Agreement, which was signed in April 2003, states that the program’s goal is to increase the Colombian government’s ability to stop aerial drug trafficking over Colombia. Colombia is required to provide personnel and interceptor aircraft, designate the areas where the program can operate in Colombia’s airspace, and manage the daily operations. The United States is primarily responsible for providing the program with surveillance aircraft, personnel, training, and funds to maintain and operate the equipment, while ensuring that the program is regularly reviewed. Finally, a U.S. Presidential determination was necessary to restart the program, and is required annually to allow U.S. employees and its agents to assist Colombia in the use of force against civilian aircraft reasonably suspected to be primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking.

Since 2002, the United States has provided $68.4 million and surveillance aircraft for the ABD program (see table 1) and plans to provide an additional $25.9 million in fiscal year 2006. State/INL provided $57.2 million to support ARINC operations, including the U.S. personnel involved in the program and maintenance of the surveillance aircraft. State’s Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) in the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá provided $11.2 million for training, aircraft operations, logistics support, and construction at ABD air bases. At no cost to State, the department also transferred five U.S.- owned Cessna Citation surveillance aircraft used in the prior ABD programs, which are equipped with tracking systems. Also, Defense gave Colombia two additional surveillance aircraft, which have yet to be used for surveillance. The fiscal year 2006 request for approximately $26 million for the program is planned to continue existing operations and construct additional infrastructure. U.S. and Colombian officials said they do not intend for Colombia to fully finance the program in the near future.

United States and Colombia Implemented New Safety Requirements

In response to the findings of the Peru investigation and other determinations, the United States and Colombia developed new safeguards for the renewed ABD program which were implemented consistently in the interdiction missions we observed. The program also undergoes multiple evaluations to ensure that all elements of the Letter of Agreement are followed.

New Safety Requirements Developed for ABD Program

The renewed ABD program has new safeguards in place, which were prompted by the review of the Peru accident. The investigation of the Peru incident found that crewmembers did not fully perform some procedures, neglected the safety of the mission, had limited foreign language skills, and were talking on a congested communication system. In response, safeguards were developed to reinforce and clarify procedures, bolster safety monitoring, enhance language skills of ABD personnel, and improve communication channels. Another factor of the accident—the civilian pilot’s unawareness of the ABD program’s procedures—was addressed by teaching civilian pilots about the program.

In the Letter of Agreement for the renewed program, U.S. and Colombian officials require ABD personnel to follow specific procedures summarized in a safety checklist to ensure safe operations and clarify the roles of the United States and Colombia (see app. I). According to the Peru investigative report, the aircrews involved in the accident did not fully execute the program’s procedures, particularly aircraft identification. Also, the documentation of ABD procedures had become less specific over time. The procedural checklist for the renewed program lists the specific steps that must be taken to execute an ABD mission, including visually identifying the suspicious aircraft; calling to the aircraft over the radio; and, if necessary, requesting permission from the Commander of the Colombian Air Force to fire at the aircraft. In particular, the list provides the exact wording for crewmembers to use when confirming the completion of checklist steps to avoid confusion among the participants. While at the Colombian Air Force’s ABD command center in Bogotá, we observed ABD personnel following the checklist during the start of an ABD mission.

While, at the time of the accident, the program did not have U.S. personnel dedicated to monitoring safety, three U.S. personnel are now responsible for safety and implementation of safeguards for each mission. The Peru investigation concluded that the interceptor crewmembers were focused on forcing aircraft to land and not on the overall safety of the mission. Under the renewed program, the three U.S. safety monitors are located at the Colombian Air Force’s command center in Bogotá; at JIATF-South in Key West, Florida; and onboard the surveillance aircraft. The safety monitor onboard the aircraft observes the completion of checklist procedures and alerts the U.S. monitors on the ground when each procedure is accomplished. If any of the three monitors objects to an action taken during the mission, the monitor immediately stops the mission. For example, if a monitor objects to the firing of warning shots because he is not confident that the suspicious aircraft is involved in drug trafficking, he will immediately pull all U.S. resources out of the mission, including the surveillance aircraft and U.S. personnel. However, if the problem is resolved, the mission can resume. As of June 2005, the U.S. monitors had objected to actions in ten missions, two of which were due to incorrect implementation of the checklist.

The Letter of Agreement with Colombia requires all U.S. safety monitors to be fluent in Spanish and the Colombian crewmembers, besides the weapons controllers, to be proficient in English because language barriers among the aircrew members contributed to the Peru accident. The aircrews involved in the Peru accident had flown on previous operational missions together and had some foreign language skills; however, they were not proficient enough to communicate clearly during the high stress of an interception. For example, one of the crewmembers in the Peru incident obtained the suspicious aircraft’s tail number so that ground personnel could determine the owners of the aircraft. However, other participants in the mission did not understand the message, and never learned that the plane was a legitimate civilian aircraft. Under the renewed program, the U.S. safety monitors are native Spanish speakers or were formerly trained as linguists with the U.S. military. Annually, ARINC tests the U.S. monitors fluency in Spanish and the NAS tests the Colombians’ proficiency in English.

Additionally, the renewed ABD program has incorporated improved communications systems and procedures to ensure the communications mishaps that contributed to the Peru accident do not reoccur. An ABD interception requires the coordination of many individuals, including ground personnel in the ABD command center in Bogotá and JIATF-South in Key West, Florida, and aircrews in the surveillance and interceptor aircraft. During the Peru accident, the aircrews were talking simultaneously over the same radio channels and were not able to hear each other clearly. For example, the crew of the suspicious aircraft called the closest air control tower when they saw the interceptor aircraft following them, but the control tower did not receive the call because it was too far away. Although the ABD aircrews were monitoring the tower’s radio frequency, they did not hear the call because other communication was occurring at the same time. For the new program, a satellite radio channel is dedicated to the U.S. monitors, and the Colombian crewmembers communicate on various radio channels. A satellite phone is also available if radio communication is impaired. The U.S. monitors must suspend the mission if communication among them is lost, which has happened three times.

Although not a finding of the Peru investigation, the Letter of Agreement with Colombia recognizes that a community of civilian pilots unaware of the ABD program can threaten the safety of the program’s operations. Pilots who do not know how to respond to an ABD interception may put themselves and the ABD aircrews at undue risk. The pilot of the suspicious aircraft in Peru was unaware that he was being called over the radio by the ABD aircrew. The Letter of Agreement with Colombia requires the Colombian government to inform the public of the program’s operating procedures, which the government does through publicly posted notices and required training courses for pilots and air traffic controllers. The government also teaches the civilian pilots how to respond to an ABD interception, as well as the consequences of not complying with the Colombian Air Force’s commands.

Program Regularly Reviewed

The program managers that we interviewed said that the program’s operations are reviewed and evaluated regularly by the program managers and cognizant U.S. agency officials. For example: The United States recertifies the program once a year, a process that serves as the basis for the President’s annual decision on whether to continue supporting the program. The program was first certified in May 2003 before it could restart and again in July 2004 by a team of representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, and Transportation. The 2004 certification team ensured that the major components of the Letter of Agreement— operational procedures, training requirements, logistics support, and information to civilian pilots—were in place by reviewing official documents, performing interviews, and observing training and operational exercises.

The crew of the surveillance aircraft records a video of each ABD mission once the suspicious aircraft is located. Both Colombian and U.S. program managers review the video to determine if the checklist was followed. We reviewed recordings of some ABD missions and observed the implementation of the safety procedures.

U.S. and Colombian managers of the program meet every six months to plan for the future and discuss Colombia’s needs for the program. After the U.S. managers consider Colombia’s needs, they determine whether to fund the requests for such items as repaving runways at ABD operating locations.

In addition, the Congress requires an annual report from the President on the program’s resources and procedures used to intercept drug trafficking aircraft. The report certifies that the procedures agreed to in the Letter of Agreement were followed in the interception of aircraft engaged in illegal drug trafficking during the preceding year.

Available ABD Program Data Shows Mixed Results, but the Program Lacks Well- Defined Performance Measures

Our analysis of available data—the number of suspicious tracks and law enforcement activities—indicates that the ABD program’s progress to date is mixed. The Colombian Air Force surveillance aircraft pursued less than half of the almost 900 suspicious tracks identified since October 2003 and few were located. But the number of suspicious tracks appears to have declined, although the consistency of the suspicious track data is unknown. The program’s primary objective—to safely force suspicious aircraft to land so law enforcement authorities can gain control of it—has not happened very often. In addition, the location of most suspicious tracks has changed, making them more difficult to locate and intercept.

State/INL does not have clear performance measures that can be used to help assess the ABD program’s progress toward eliminating aerial drug trafficking in Colombia. State/INL officials told us that they began developing measures in early 2005, but they do not contain benchmarks or timeframes. These same officials said they will meet with Defense shortly to review data related to these measures for the first time.

ABD Program Located Few Aircraft

Since October 2003, the Colombians pursued about 390 out of approximately 880 suspicious tracks, and located 48 of them (see fig. 1). Tracks are often difficult to locate because the relocatable over-the-horizon radar does not provide the suspicious aircraft track’s altitude or the exact location. Furthermore, according to Colombian Air Force officials, drug traffickers use hundreds of clandestine airstrips in Colombia. Often the airstrips are camouflaged and suspicious aircraft are hidden from view. Therefore, when surveillance aircraft do not interdict suspicious aircraft in the air, they are unlikely to find them once they land and disappear from radar.

Recently, the Colombian Air Force asked the United States to permanently increase the number of flight hours (from 180 to 300 per month) for the surveillance aircraft to spend more time training and locating clandestine airstrips. According to U.S. and Colombian officials, once these airstrips are located, the ABD aircrews can focus on them when searching for a suspicious aircraft in the area. To date, based on our review of ABD documents, identification of clandestine airstrips has not assisted in locating any suspicious aircraft. Some State/INL officials are skeptical that more flying time, which would increase maintenance and fuel costs, would produce greater results for the program.

Suspicious Tracks Reduced, but Accuracy of Count Unknown

The number of suspicious aircraft tracks over Colombia has apparently declined from approximately 49 to 30 a month, a decrease of about 40 percent, between the first 11 months of the program and the last 11 months (see fig. 1). According to U.S. and Colombian officials, the reduction in tracks indicates that the program is deterring drug traffickers from transporting drugs by air, and is allowing the Colombian government to meet its goal of regaining control of its airspace, but performance measures with benchmarks and timeframes linking the reduction of suspicious tracks to the overall goal have not been developed. Moreover, the accuracy of the suspicious track data over time is suspect due to the nature of the process, which relies on some subjective criteria. The process for determining whether a track is suspicious or legitimate is partly based on the judgment of JIATF-South and Colombian Air Force personnel, who screen thousands of tracks every month looking for suspicious movements. For example, personnel consider whether the aircraft has inexplicably deviated from its planned flight path or the aircraft’s altitude is unusually low. However, no definitive criteria exist for such factors, which can therefore be interpreted differently among operators.

ABD Missions Lack Involvement of Law Enforcement Personnel

The National Police seldom take control of suspicious aircraft, arrest individuals suspected of drug trafficking, or seize drugs. Since October 2003, law enforcement was involved in 14 instances (see fig. 2), arresting four suspects and impounding several aircraft. However, in four of these instances, the aircraft was already on the ground. Only one ABD mission resulted in a drug seizure—0.6 metric tons (about 1,300 pounds) of cocaine. Because State/INL has not established performance measures regarding law enforcement activities, determining whether the objectives of the ABD program are being met is difficult. However, State/INL officials said they would like law enforcement authorities to more often take control of suspicious aircraft, which may contain drugs, weapons, or cash that goes unaccounted for if the military or police do not arrive.

As steps on the procedural checklist, ABD personnel contact the Colombian National Police in Bogotá at the start of an interdiction mission and prior to firing at the aircraft. But, besides these calls, the Colombian Air Force usually does not involve the police in ABD missions. Further, the police face various challenges in reaching the locations where suspicious aircraft land—often in remote areas of Colombia that are not accessible by road. The police cannot travel to some locations without additional resources, including security and transportation, according to INL officials. But, according to U.S. officials, greater planning and coordination between the Colombian Air Force and National Police could enable law enforcement to more frequently take control of suspicious aircraft. For example, in the February 2005 ABD mission that yielded 1,300 pounds of cocaine, one armed Colombian Navy helicopter provided cover for another Navy helicopter to land and seize as much cocaine from the aircraft as it could carry, while the Colombian Army and National Police arrived later and confiscated the remaining cocaine.

Changes in Suspicious Tracks Locations Limit Interdiction Capability

In recent months, the majority of suspicious tracks are concentrated along Colombia’s borders (see fig. 3), making it more difficult for surveillance and interceptor aircraft to reach the aircraft before it lands or leaves Colombian airspace. Once a suspicious aircraft lands, surveillance aircraft often have difficulty locating it.

From November 2003 to July 2005, 141 suspicious tracks were not pursued by surveillance aircraft because they were near borders or too far away. In particular, suspicious tracks along Colombia’s southeastern border with Brazil and Venezuela are at least an hour flight from the closest ABD air base in Apiay, leaving surveillance and interceptor aircraft little time to find and intercept a suspicious aircraft before having to refuel (see fig. 4). For example, one ABD interceptor aircraft, the A-37B Dragonfly, takes 50 minutes to fly to Caruru (about 250 miles) in southeastern Colombia, but it can remain in that area for only 10 minutes before leaving to refuel. ABD program managers and safety monitors said it usually takes about 25 minutes to complete an ABD mission when all resources are in place, from visually locating the aircraft to forcing it to land. However, some ABD missions have lasted as long as six or seven hours and utilized multiple surveillance and interceptor aircraft.

Conclusions

The United States agreed to help Colombia restart the ABD program at the request of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. U.S. funding provided for the program through fiscal year 2005 totals over $68 million; almost $26 million is proposed for 2006. We found the results of the ABD program mixed.

A primary U.S. concern regarding the program—the safety of the ABD aircrews and innocent civilians—is addressed in detail in the Letter of Agreement between the United States and Colombia. However, the agreement does not include performance measures with benchmarks and timeframes to help with assessing results. Although State has begun developing such measures, assessing the program’s effectiveness and determining whether additional resources might contribute to increased results is difficult.

Although the number of suspicious aircraft tracks has apparently declined—from about 49 to 30 per month, the Colombian Air Force seldom locates the suspicious aircraft. Moreover, drug traffickers do not face a great risk of being arrested even if they are detected. Out of about 390 suspicious tracks pursued since the start of the program, the Colombian Air Force located 48; law enforcement or military authorities went to the scene of 14, including four that were already on the ground. Besides calling the Colombian National Police during a mission, as required by the procedural checklist, the Colombian Air Force rarely involves the police. Without sufficient notice, the police cannot respond quickly and safely to suspicious aircraft on the ground because much of Colombia is not controlled by the government. Moreover, many of the suspicious aircraft tracks detected in recent months are along Colombia’s border regions with Brazil and Venezuela where ABD aircraft are often too far away to threaten the trafficking mission.

Recommendations for Executive Action

First, to help in assessing whether the ABD program is making progress toward meeting its overall goal of reducing illegal drug trafficking in Colombia’s airspace, we recommend that the Secretary of State work with Colombia to define performance measures with benchmarks and timeframes. These performance measures, as well as results, should be included in the annual report to the Congress regarding the ABD program. Second, because the police are seldom involved in ABD missions, we recommend that the Secretary of State encourage Colombia to seek ways to more actively involve the National Police. Finally, because many of the suspicious aircraft tracks are difficult for Colombia to locate and interdict given the current location of its ABD air bases, we recommend that the Secretary of State encourage Colombia to establish ABD air bases closer to the current activity of suspicious aircraft tracks.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

State provided written comments on a draft of this report (see appendix III). Overall, it found the report to be an accurate assessment of the intent and execution of the program and noted that it is developing benchmarks and timeframes for its performance measures. Defense did not provide written comments. However, neither department commented on our recommendations. In addition, State and Defense officials provided technical comments and updates that we incorporated throughout the report, as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretaries of State and Defense. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-4268 or FordJ@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Al Huntington, Hynek Kalkus, Summer Pachman, and Kerry Lipsitz. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.

ABD Safety Checklist

ander) assumed suspect (UAS)

An ABD mission begins when relocatable over -the-horizon radar or other intelligence sources provide information about a suspicious flight to personnel at the ABD command center, who then consider various questions to determine whether the track is involved in illegal drug trafficking activities.

Once a track is determined to be suspicious (checklist step 1), a surveillance aircraft, with a crew of Colombian Air Force personnel and one U.S. government contractor, tries to visually locate it (step 5). The length of time it takes to find the suspicious aircraft can vary.

Once located, the ABD aircrews try to determine its identity and order it to land in English and Spanish over the radio or through the use of visual signals (step 7). If the suspicious aircraft continually fails to respond, an ABD aircrew member gives a verbal warning that deadly force will be used (step 9).

An interceptor aircraft called to the scene, with a Colombian Air Force crew, fires warning shots and direct shots if the suspect fails to follow orders (steps 10 and 14). ander)

All use of force by the interceptor is pre- approved by the Commander of the Colombian Air Force.

Abbreviations: ATOI-A track of interest COL-Colombia CNP-Colombian National Police I-Initiates action N-Noted, but no action required RR-Response required SAR-Search and rescue UAS-Unidentified assumed suspect USG-U.S. government records crash site.

Scope and Methodology

To review the changes made to the ABD program to address safety concerns and to determine whether these safeguards were followed, we reviewed ABD program documentation provided by the Department of State’s Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State/INL) and the Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) at the U.S. Embassy, Bogotá, and the Department of Defense’s Joint Interagency Task Force- South (JIATF-South). We also discussed the new safeguards with knowledgeable U.S. officials at State and Defense in Washington, D.C.; Bogotá, Colombia; and Key West, Florida; officials from the Colombian government and Colombian Air Force in Bogotá; and ARINC contractors located in Bogotá and an ABD air base in Apiay, Colombia. We also interviewed officials involved in the negotiation of the agreement between the United States and Colombia prior to restarting the program.

To evaluate the program’s progress in attaining U.S. and Colombian objectives, we examined data regarding law enforcement activities; suspicious tracks; aircraft pursued, located, and fired at. This data was documented by NAS in reports prepared monthly for State/INL containing the number of missions flown that month and their results. However, complete data for August and September 2003 was unavailable, and the data for October 2003 to March 2004 did not include the number of tracks pursued and identified. By using an event log prepared by NAS with narratives of ABD missions beginning in August 2003, we extrapolated some of the data and corroborated all law enforcement activities and aircraft fired on. We also compared the number of suspicious tracks recorded by NAS with JIATF-South’s count. The numbers reported were not the same for most months. We used the NAS count of suspicious tracks because it is more inclusive of tracks detected by Colombia and does not include tracks that were later determined to be friendly aircraft. We interviewed cognizant officials at State/INL, NAS, and JIATF-South about the data. Further, we discussed the numbers of suspicious tracks with the Colombian Air Force. Based on our ability to corroborate most of the data with multiple sources, we determined that it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

We traveled to Colombia in April 2005 and met with NAS officials and other cognizant U.S. Embassy, Bogotá, officials, and with ARINC managers at their offices at the Government of Colombia’s Ministry of Defense in Bogotá. We also visited an ABD air base in Apiay where we met with ARINC contractors serving as monitors onboard the surveillance aircraft. Additionally, we visited the Colombian Air Force’s ABD command center in Bogotá where we interviewed both ARINC contractors and Colombian Air Force officials. We witnessed the start of an ABD mission at the command center and reviewed video recordings of previous ABD missions at the U.S. Embassy.

Comments from the Department of State

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated August 23, 2005.

GAO Comments

1. State officials provided us draft performance measures for the ABD program that they told us were developed in April 2005 with representatives from Defense and the Colombian government. 2. We recognized the U.S. role of program oversight and the Colombian government’s role of operating and managing the program throughout the report. 3. We made no substantive changes. This section addressed only the initial identification of a suspect track. Our analysis found that three of the six criteria used to determine if a track is suspicious were subjective. The checklist and other steps taken to further identify suspect aircraft are discussed elsewhere in the report. 4. We gave examples of the criteria used to determine if an aircraft is suspected of drug trafficking. 5. A discussion of U.S. government intelligence support to the ABD program was not within the scope of our report.