Alternative development. State and USAID provide this  assistance to Colombia through several accounts. Agencies Conducted Performance Monitoring of Counternarcotics Activities in Colombia, but Have Not Evaluated the Effectiveness of Eradication and Interdiction Efforts

U.S. agencies have conducted ongoing performance monitoring of  various counternarcotics activities in Colombia, but State, DOD, DHS,  and DOJ have not conducted evaluations of U.S. eradication and  interdiction programs. These reports, however, generally  provide some limited performance information related to Colombia. Evaluations

USAID has completed independent evaluations of several of its  alternative development programs. Without evaluations of U.S.-supported eradication and  interdiction efforts in Colombia, U.S. agencies do not have complete  information regarding the long-term effectiveness of these efforts in  reducing coca cultivation and the cocaine supply. State Has Not Conducted a Comprehensive Review of the Overall U.S. Counternarcotics Approach in Colombia to Determine the Most Effective Combination of Activities

The U.S. counternarcotics approach in Colombia has historically entailed  a combination of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development  programs. Although U.S. officials noted the importance of finding an appropriate  combination of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development  assistance, they acknowledged that they have not undertaken a  comprehensive review of their counternarcotics approach in Colombia  that considers the benefits and limitations of these efforts to determine  whether the U.S government’s current combination of activities is the  most effective approach to achieve U.S. counternarcotics goals. In addition, coca cultivation in areas off-limits to aerial  spraying, such as national parks, border areas, and indigenous and  Afro-Colombian areas, has increased substantially. Third-Party Research Suggests that Eradication Efforts Do Not Have a Substantial Long-Term Effect on Reducing Coca Cultivation and Cocaine Supply and Are Potentially Costly

Third-party research we reviewed suggests that eradication efforts do not  have a substantial long-term effect on coca cultivation and cocaine supply  and are potentially costly. Several factors may explain these increases in the amount of cocaine  seized. Two studies  indicated that interdiction policies had a greater impact on the cocaine  supply than eradication policies. Ten studies in our literature review discussed alternative development. Conclusions

Since the launch of Plan Colombia almost 20 years ago, the U.S. and  Colombian governments have partnered closely to combat drug trafficking  through a mix of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development  efforts. (Recommendation 1)
The Secretary of State should, in consultation with other U.S. agencies  involved in counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, undertake a  comprehensive review of the U.S. counternarcotics approach in Colombia  and identify what changes, if any, should be made to the types and  combination of U.S. activities, taking into consideration how the relative  benefits and limitations between eradication, interdiction, and alternative  development may impact the effectiveness of these efforts. GAO staff who made contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) to what extent the U.S. government has  assessed the effectiveness of its counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, (2)  what is known about the effectiveness of U.S. government-supported  eradication programs in Colombia over the last 10 years, (3) what is  known about the effectiveness of U.S. government-supported interdiction  programs in Colombia over the last 10 years, and (4) what is known about  the effectiveness of U.S. government-supported alternative development  programs in Colombia over the last 10 years. To assess to what extent the U.S. government has assessed the  effectiveness of its counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, we analyzed  Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD),  Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of State (State), and U.S.  Agency for International Development (USAID) data and documentation  that describe U.S-supported counternarcotics efforts since 2008,  including available performance monitoring data and evaluations that the  agencies use to assess the effectiveness of their counternarcotics  activities in Colombia.
Why GAO Did This Study

Colombia is the world's leading producer of cocaine, with production levels more than tripling from 2013 through 2017 (see figure). The U.S. and Colombian governments have been longstanding partners in the fight against drug trafficking. Since the launch of Plan Colombia in 1999, the U.S. government has invested over $10 billion in counternarcotics efforts in Colombia. This assistance has supported a range of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development programs.
GAO was asked to review U.S. counternarcotics assistance to Colombia. This report examines (1) to what extent the U.S. government has assessed the effectiveness of its counternarcotics efforts in Colombia and (2) what is known about the effectiveness of U.S.-supported eradication, interdiction, and alternative development programs in Colombia. GAO reviewed data and documentation from U.S. agencies, performed a literature review of relevant research on counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, conducted fieldwork in Colombia, and interviewed U.S. and Colombian officials.

What GAO Found

U.S. agencies that provide counternarcotics assistance to Colombia conduct performance monitoring of their activities, such as by tracking the hectares of coca fields eradicated and the amount of cocaine seized, but have not consistently evaluated the effectiveness of their activities in reducing the cocaine supply. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has evaluated some of its alternative development programs, but the Department of State (State), which has lead responsibility for U.S. counternarcotics efforts, has not evaluated the effectiveness of its eradication and interdiction activities, as called for by its evaluation policies. Additionally, State has not conducted a comprehensive review of the U.S. counternarcotics approach, which relies on a combination of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development. Without information about the relative benefits and limitations of these activities, the U.S. government lacks key information to determine the most effective combination of counternarcotics activities.
GAO's review of U.S. agency performance monitoring data and third-party research offers some information about the relative effectiveness of eradication, interdiction, and alternative development activities. For example, available evidence indicates that U.S.-supported eradication efforts in Colombia may not be an effective long-term approach to reduce the cocaine supply, due in part to coca growers responding to eradication by moving coca crops to national parks and other areas off limits to eradication. Agency data show that U.S.-supported interdiction efforts in Colombia seized hundreds of tons of cocaine and arrested thousands of drug traffickers, yet the net cocaine supply has increased and third-party studies have mixed findings on the long-term effectiveness of interdiction efforts. USAID evaluations indicate that alternative development programs in Colombia have provided legal economic opportunities to some rural populations previously involved in illicit crop production. However, USAID as well as third-party research suggests that alternative development requires significant and sustained investment and some programs have had design and sustainability challenges.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State, in consultation with relevant agencies, (1) evaluate the effectiveness of eradication and interdiction in reducing the cocaine supply in Colombia and (2) undertake a comprehensive review of the U.S. counternarcotics approach in Colombia that considers the relative benefits and limitations between eradication, interdiction, and alternative development efforts. State generally concurred with the recommendations.