docResults-Orientated Monitoring System for CORMS
download 
Report Transcription
Results-Orientated Monitoring System for CORMS
Setup of a Results-Oriented Monitoring system for the Cocaine Route Monitoring and Support project Date of the report 16 May 2014 REPORT COVER PAGE Project Title: Cocaine Route Monitoring and Support (CORMS) Project Number: IfS/2011/260-644 Country(-ies): Selected countries in Latin America and West Africa Management Authority: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Directorate General for Development and Cooperation Address: Piazzale della Farnesina,1 00135 Roma - Italy Tel. number: +39 06 3691 3932 Contact Person: Marco Alma, Team Leader CORMS ([email protected]) Maria Luisa Fichera, Project Manager CORMS ([email protected]) Signature: Contracting parties: Approved non-key experts for ROM CORMS Report date: 16 May 2014 Address: KOMIS Rue d’Egmont 15, B4 1000 Brussels, BELGIUM Reporting period: 13 April 2014 – 16 May 2014 Tel. number: + 32 2 513 61 13 Report authors: Fax Number: + 32 2 513 06 39 Justyna BIELAT Eugenia KARVOUNI Konstantinos MISSIRLIS (KOMIS) e-mail: [email protected] ROM CORMS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. RESULTS-ORIENTED MONITORING ........................................................................................ 1 1.2. COCAINE ROUTE PROGRAMME............................................................................................. 2 ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH.................................................................................. 5 2.1. ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 5 2.2. QUALITY MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................... 6 2.3. RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 9 PROGRESS OF ROM CORMS .................................................................................... 10 3.1. ROM METHODOLOGY ADJUSTMENTS ...................................................................................10 3.2. DATAFILES ........................................................................................................................10 3.3. MISSIONS PLANNING ..........................................................................................................10 3.4. LOGISTIC ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................................................10 3.5. COOPERATION – COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................10 3.6. REPORTING .......................................................................................................................11 3.7. BUDGET ............................................................................................................................11 CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 12 4.1. GENERAL ..........................................................................................................................12 4.2. PROJECT-SPECIFIC ............................................................................................................14 ANNEXES ANNEX I: ROM CORMS WORKPLAN ANNEX II: MISSION ORGANISATION TOOL ANNEX III: PROGRAMME SYNOPSIS ANNEX IV: BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONS SHEET (BCS) ANNEX V: ROM CORMS REPORT TEMPLATE ANNEX VI: APPROVED NON-KEY EXPERTS ANNEX VII: CRP STAKEHOLDERS FIGURES Figure 1: Quality assurance across the DEVCO’s Project Cycle ..........................................................2 Figure 2: ROM CORMS Cycle.............................................................................................................6 Figure 3: Project Documentation .........................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Required Inputs per Category of Expenses...........................................................................9 Figure 5: Resources used during the reporting period........................................................................11 ROM CORMS GLOSSARY OF TERMS Use of terms may differ from those used internally by the European Commission. Abbreviation Description DEVCO Development and Cooperation - EuropeAid AIRCOP Airport Communication Project AMERIPOL La Comunidad de Policías de América (The American Police Community) AML Anti-Money Laundering BCS Background Conclusion Sheet CENcomm WCO communication system (tool which facilitates the exchange and use data) CFT Combating the Financing of Terrorism COCAIR The joint EU-WCO operation under the Cocaine Route programme CORMS Cocaine Route Monitoring and Support project CR Country Report CRP Cocaine Route Programme DAC Development Assistance Committee DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DG Directorate General EC European Commission EU European Union EDF European Development Fund ELARG Enlargement ER Expected Result EU European Union EUD European Union Delegation FATF Financial Action Task Force GAFISUD Grupo de Accion Financiera de Sudamerica (South American Financial Action Task Force) HR Horizontal Report IfS Instrument for Stability IMPACS Integrated Monetary Processing and Control System (by FIS) JAITF Joint Airport Interdiction Task Forces LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LEA Law Enforcement Agencies MoU Memorandum of Understanding MS Member States NKE Non-Key Expert ROM CORMS p.1 Abbreviation Description OO Overall Objective OVIs Objectively Verified Indicators PCM Project Cycle Management PP Project Purpose PS Project Synopsis QSG Quality Support Group ROM Results-Oriented Monitoring RSS Sistema de Seguridad Regiona (used by AMERIPOL) SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound SO Specific Objective UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime WA West Africa WCO World Customs Organization ROM CORMS p.2 DISCLAIMER This report has been produced in the frame of a contract with the EC funded project CORMS. The content of the report is the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of CORMS or the European Union. The report has been structured in a way to recapitulate the work implemented in the period from 13 April 2014 to 16 May 2014 aiming to setup a ROM system for CORMS (ROM CORMS). In this respect, necessary adjustments to the EC ROM methodology have been done; the system is also customised in order to take into account the needs and available resources of CORMS. Following the collection of the documentation for the three projects to be visited (AIRCOP, AMERIPOL-EU, and GAFISUD-EU) some preliminary conclusions were drafted aiming at crosschecking their validity during the ROM visits. Given that the ROM visits were not finally implemented, these conclusions remain indicative only, but they are included in the current report as part of the work which is already done. It is recalled that the ROM system focuses on individual projects and is designed to measure their performance, within the overall context of the Project Cycle Management (PCM). Its methodology and criteria have not been thought for, nor tailored to allow drawing more general findings, conclusions and recommendations on any higher or wider level, such as sectors, countries or regions. For this reason, attention is drawn to the fact that the general findings and conclusions, formulated in this report, should be considered as indicative only. ROM CORMS Executive Summary On the basis of the experience developed from the implementation of the EC ROM system since its official launching (2002) a customised ROM CORMS system was set up for three specific projects (AMERIPOL-EU, GAFISUD-EU, AIRCOP) Cocaine Route Programme (CRP) following coordination with the Cocaine Route Monitoring and Support project (CORMS). ROM CORMS aims at informing CORMS on the performance of the three selected projects. ROM CORMS is planned to be implemented through country visits which will be conducted by independent experts (ROM experts) who will interview the key stakeholders by applying a consistent and highly structured methodology. The projects will be scored against the DAC assessment criteria and country reports for each country component visited, as well horizontal reports referring to the whole project, will be produced. Under the coordination of the CORMS Management (CORMS Team Leader and Project Manager), the ROM CORMS sub-tem comprises a Quality Manager, a Quality Control Expert, a Logistics Expert, and 5 ROM experts. Strict quality principles are applied during the identified five stages of the ROM CORMS cycle: 1) Selection of operations for ROM CORMS, 2) Missions Planning and Organisation, 3) Execution of Missions, 4) Writing of Reports, and 5) Quality Control and submission of Reports Following decision of the CORMS management, the implementation of ROM CORMS is currently postponed. However, in case the green light for ROM CORMS is given at a later stage (e.g. by ROM CORMS II), it is useful to mention that a series of actions have been already undertaken. In particular, the ROM CORMS methodology has been fully set up, the documentation of the three projects has been collected, a detailed workplan has been set which details the visits, an overall planning for every project has been elaborated, and an individual template for every ROM expert has been prepared. The communication with the projects’ implementing authorities as well as the ROM experts has been launched (but now is postponed) and the travel arrangements have been also set. All actions accomplished to date correspond to the equivalent of 15 workdays. The work so far includes also some preliminary conclusions and recommendations, following the study of all available documentation for the proper setup of the ROM CORMS system. In this context some general conclusions are formulated, but also some project-specific ones. Given that the ROM visits were not finally implemented these conclusions are indicative only. The general conclusions from the ROM CORMS exercise underline the: 1) Active role of the EC in financing a series of project for fighting illicit trafficking and trans-national organised crime; 2) Potential of such regional and trans-regional initiatives to become important intermediaries in the governance dialogue; 3) Opportunity for strengthening partnerships between Law Enforcement Agencies of the addressed regions; 4) Need for preconditions in order to reinforce the institutional and organisational capacity of the participating governments, institutions and organisations. The aforementioned conclusions have to be taken into account together with some aspects which have been identified as key for the performance of the CRP projects as the: appropriate involved people and partners, need for participatory and holistic approach, importance of cross-cutting issues, setup of self-monitoring, level of involvement of state authorities, adaptation capacity, strengthening of synergies, proper Logframe (including appropriate project indicators and risk analysis), different cultures and administrative traditions, number of involved countries. In the conclusions, special attention is paid for contracts like CORMS (usually known as Supporting Units - SU) which should be launched early in the implementation of a Programme (like the CRP) in order to establish the necessary activity-oriented monitoring tools (guidelines, reporting templates, web-based repository document system etc.). Furthermore, the SU will ensure higher EU visibility, by creating common logos and brochures for all projects under the Programme. The SU could organise the kick-off meetings of all projects under the Programme, bringing together the EC services and the projects in order to ROM CORMS p.1 decide on the requirements, strategy and expectations. The commitment of the projects to cooperate with the SU could be ensured through the appropriate provisions in their contracts (i.e. in the special conditions). The SU can also pay more attention to wider programme objectives (e.g. the transregional cooperation in CRP). The project-specific conclusions/recommendations from the ROM CORMS exercise are: 1) AMERIPOL-EU should focus more on its trans-regional character, work on the legal and political constraints which hamper the cooperation among the member states, and involve more the civil society vis-à-vis the strengthening of law enforcement agencies. 2) AIRCOP has to surpass the problems encountered in delivering the expected outcomes and have more country-customised approach with an updated and realistic work plan which reinforces its trans-regional character, ensuring that the final set of countries to be involved are willing to contribute. 3) GAFISUD-EU seems to have success at national level, but the trans-regional cooperation has been neglected. In particular, the project has focused exclusively on Latin and Central America and no activities have been undertaken for promoting cooperation with authorities in the Caribbean or West Africa. ROM CORMS p.2 1. METHODOLOGY The Methodology for a Results-Oriented Monitoring (ROM) system for the Cocaine Route Monitoring and Support project (ROM CORMS) is built around two pillars: i) The methodology of the ROM of the European Commission (EC), as described in the latest version of the ROM Handbook (Apr/2012)1 and ii) the Intervention Logic of the Cocaine Route Programme (CRP). 1.1. Results-Oriented Monitoring ROM is a regular, independent, reporting mechanism providing the EC and more specifically the Directorate General for Development and Cooperation – Europeaid (DG DEVCO) and the Directorate General for Enlargement (DG ELARG) with a range of quantitative and qualitative data on the performance of external assistance projects which receive EC financial support. ROM was launched in 2000 in response to the recommendation of the Council of the European Union (EU), which aimed at strengthening monitoring, evaluation and transparency of the EC development aid. ROM Objectives ROM has evolved through the years and currently (16/May/2014) provides independent advice which is useful at three levels: The micro level of the project: ROM informs the project stakeholders about the project performance and motivates project managers "to think in results-oriented terms". It provides direct feedback on success and problems during implementation and gives recommendations on how to improve operations. It enables project managers to take informed and timely decisions. The macro level of EU development portfolio performance: ROM provides statistical data across regions and over time on overall EU external assistance portfolio performance in respect to the criteria of relevance and quality of design, efficiency to date, effectiveness to date, impact prospects, and potential sustainability. The statistical information can support key management and strategic decisions in DG DEVCO and DG ELARG. The level of the learning and programming cycle: Lessons learnt and experiences collected in ROM, and extracted from ROM through studies, can feed into strategic planning and the exante assessments of projects through the Quality Support Groups (QSG). ROM therefore contributes directly to the learning cycle. For the purposes of ROM CORMS, the methodology will focus on the first level, aiming to provide CORMS with individual reports per project and project country component with brief performance assessment, conclusions and recommendations. ROM Main Features The system is rooted in the EC’s Project Cycle Management (PCM) and as a regular "snapshot review" of a project’s or programme’s performance, is part of the Quality Assurance System of DG DEVCO for the fourth and fifth phase of the project cycle (Figure 1). The on site ROM visits are conducted by independent experts (ROM experts). A consistent and highly structured methodology is applied commonly to all visits which ensure the quality and the comparability of the collected data. Projects and programmes are given scores (A="very good", B="Good", C="Has Problems", and D="Serious Deficiencies") against the DAC assessment criteria (relevance and quality of design, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability) substantiated by concise explanatory texts. Based on the ROM observations, ROM experts give recommendations on how to improve the performance of the visited project or the programme. A customised ROM system (i.e. the ROM CORMS) is to be applied for three selected projects of the CRP taking into account the provisions of the financing instrument (Instrument for Stability – IfS), but also the Intervention Logic of the CRP. 1 A copy of the ROM Handbook can be found in: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/ensure-aid-effectiveness/documents/rom_handbook2011_en.pdf ROM CORMS p.1 Figure 1: Quality assurance across the DEVCO’s Project Cycle ROM CORMS Approach The ROM methodology is adjusted to the needs of CORMS taking into account the available resources and the design of the three selected CRP projects. In particular, ROM CORMS will be implemented through two-day visits to selected country components of the three projects by non-key experts of CORMS (i.e. the ROM experts). Prior to the ROM visits and during so-called “desk phase”, the ROM experts who will implement the visits consult all available relevant documentation, including: contracts, logframes, financial information, Identification and Formulation documents (if available), Progress Reports, Evaluation Reports, previous ROM Reports, project deliverables, etc. During the visits, the ROM experts interview project management and all relevant stakeholders including final beneficiaries. Based on the information available in documents and from the conducted interviews, the ROM experts produce outputs fully aligned with the general ROM methodology. The key output of ROM CORMS will be: Country ROM CORMS Report (CR): A 3-page document which presents key findings of the ROM country mission. It includes general and financial information on the project, grades for 5 ROM criteria and a brief conclusions and recommendations. Horizontal ROM CORMS Report (HR): A 4-page document which has the same format as the Country ROM CORMS Report, but refers to the whole project, i.e. consolidates all projectvisits implemented including that to the project coordinator. ROM CORMS Background Conclusions Sheet (BCS): An internal to the ROM CORMS team tool for the calculation of the grades of the aforementioned Reports. The BCS is customised to the intervention logic of the CRP. The assessment of the performance of the projects is based on the achievements of their objectives expressed by the targets set in the logframes. 1.2. Cocaine Route Programme Background The CRP was conceived in the context of the EU drugs strategy 2005-2012 which aimed at the achievement of a high level of protection, well-being and social cohesion by preventing and reducing drug use. In particular, the creation of CRP was decided in the framework of the EC Indicative Programme 2009-2011 for the IfS - priority 2 long-term component, Global and trans-regional threats. CRP focuses on enhancing the capacity for international cooperation of law enforcement and judicial services of the partner countries and regional organisations in order to contribute effectively to the fight against international criminal networks. The budget of CRP is €34,916,973.00 and has been allocated to eight projects, out of which three consist the focus of ROM CORMS: AMERIPOL-EU: The project "AMERIPOL: Enhance the capacity for international cooperation of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities" focuses on the capacity building of the Latin America’s organisation AMERIPOL to fight against drug trafficking and organised crime. The project aims at enhancing the capacity for international cooperation of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities of the partner countries to tackle ROM CORMS p.2 transnational organised crime through strengthening the exchange of information and intelligence at regional and trans-regional level, especially, with West Africa and the EU and through an improved prosecutors' and Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)' capability to carry out complex investigations at regional and trans-regional level. GAFISUD-EU: The project "Support to Anti-Money Laundering Efforts in Latin American and the Caribbean Countries" is a result of an agreement signed between the EU and GAFISUD (the inter-governmental organisation that gathers 12 countries from South America, Central America and North America in order to combat money laundering and terrorist financing). The project aims at the enhancement of international cooperation and strengthening GAFISUD Member States’ administrative, investigation and prosecution capacities to fight money laundering, especially in the non-banking financial sector and in the field of assets laundering. AIRCOP: The “Airport Communication Project – AIRCOP” is implemented jointly by UNODC, INTERPOL and WCO with the aim to build drug interdiction capacities (Joint Airport Interdiction Task Forces - JAITFs) at selected international airports in West Africa (WA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and connect these to international law enforcement databases. Intervention logic The intervention logic in terms of Overall Objective, Specific Objective(s), Expected Results, Planned Activities of the Cocaine Route Programme (on the basis of which the ROM CORMS methodology has been developed) together with the ones of the three projects selected for ROM CORMS (AIRCOP, AMERIPOL-EU, GAFISUD-EU) are consolidated as follows: Overall Objective: To fight illicit trafficking and trans-national organised crime, while fully respecting human rights, to improve human security and stability. Specific Objective: To enhance the regional and trans-regional cooperation capacities of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities in selected countries of LAC and WA which is further refined into the following Project Purposes: AIRCOP: To build drug-interdiction capacities at selected international airports in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. AMERIPOL-EU: To enhance the capacity for international cooperation of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities of the partner countries in tackling transnational organised crime networks. GAFISUD-EU: To support the fight against money laundering and financial crime in West Africa, Latin America and Caribbean countries Expected Results: At the level of CRP: 1) Enhanced joint interdiction capacities of LEAs, judicial, prosecuting and civil authorities in targeted countries to interrupt the flow of drugs (and illicit trafficking); 2) Strengthening of the information base - and information sharing at regional and transregional level - for LEAs, judicial and prosecuting authorities involved in the fight against organised crime in targeted countries; 3) Reinforcement of Anti Money Laundering and asset seizure capacities for concerned local authorities in targeted countries. The expected results at the level of the projects: AIRCOP: 1) Project implementation and review mechanisms established; 2) Effective operation of Joint Airport Interdiction Task Forces (JAITF) to combat drug related crime on airports ensured. AMERIPOL-EU: 1) Training curricula, exchange programmes and handbooks for coordinated and integrated capacity building programmes focused on inter-institutional and international investigations and judicial procedures are available; 2) Recommendations to relevant authorities to alleviate gaps and legal obstacles to inter-institutional and international criminal investigation and prosecution are disseminated; 3) Inter-institutional and international operating procedures, including feedback and reporting mechanisms are developed; 4) Improved platforms for exchange of information and best practices at prosecution level; 5) Improved exchange of information and intelligence is operational in a secure and effective way through information systems at regional and trans-regional level; 6) The capacity to carry out complex inter-institutional and international operations of investigation and prosecution is improved. GAFISUD-EU: 1) Assessing the current capacity to meet the investigation needs in the Member States (MS); 2) Improving and homogenizing the existing investigation capacitates in the MS; 3) Bring MS into line with the new international standards (proposed amendment to ROM CORMS p.3 FATF Recommendation 27) improving their capacity to develop investigation within framework of a national AML/CFT strategy; 4) Assessing and improving the regulations related to administrative cooperation to fight asset laundering among the national authorities of the MS (National Coordination, Financial Intelligence Units, Superintendence’s, Customs, etc); 5) Assessing and improving the national regulations and existing agreements in the field of international judicial cooperation to fight asset laundering; 6) Strengthening of police cooperation to fight asset laundering among the national authorities of MS (National and Specialized Police Forces, Ministries of Internal Affairs); 7) Improving and formalizing cooperation line in the administrative, police and judicial fields with selected countries and FSRB. Planned Activities: The planned Activities are the following ones: AIRCOP: 1.1) Identification of Latin America project coordinator & support staff; Letters of agreement for signature by Ministries and UNODC; Coordination missions to the beneficiary countries; Identification of National Focal Points for all JAITF to be created. 1.2) Formal semiannual technical meetings of Project Steering Committee. 2.1) Joint needs assessment missions to evaluate drug interdiction level at 5 selected airports and training needs; Support to national authorities in elaborating/ signing inter-agency cooperation agreement; Establishment of JAITF; Negotiation of shared or pooled facilities with airport authorities/airlines/ local agencies; Support JAITF to reach cooperation agreements with airline companies; Purchase of communication/ computer/ photographic equipment and inspection & testing tools. 2.2) Preparation of training programmes for all JAITF; Practical onsite training at airports; Translation of Checklist for airport interdiction into Spanish; On-site mentoring by airport interdiction specialists in support of newly-established JAITF; Monitoring of the extent of post-seizure investigations; Joint operation among JAITF; Evaluation of training & equipment components. 2.3) Two preparatory partners meetings; Training to participating airports; Implement the Operation’s preparatory phase; Implement COCAIR operational phase; Debriefing session; Press conference on results. 2.4) Further adaptation of WCO CENcomm communication system to JAITF needs and installation at selected airports; Creation of access to CENcomm and I-24/7 and training. AMERIPOL-EU: 1) Perform detailed and realistic gap analyses, assessing the capacity for response (prevention and repression), cooperation and coordination at inter-institutional and international level; 2) Provide assistance in the formulation of an operational cooperation policy and the establishment of agreed inter-agency and international standard operating procedures for information exchange in view of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of drug trafficking and money laundering and related financial offences as well as the tracing, recovery (seizure and confiscation); 3) Promote the most relevant EU-LAC good practices such as Joint Investigation Teams, Intelligence Working Files and others; 4) Design and setup a holistic capacity building programme: 5) Technical assistance and mentoring; 6) Establish a platform to foster the exchange of information and intelligence; 7) In the medium term, support trans-national joint operations in collaboration with AMERIPOL, IMPACS and RSS once the necessary administrative agreements and legal framework are in place. GAFISUD-EU: 1) Analyzing the units in charge of making the investigation and promoting regulation adjustment to correct the spotted shortages; 2) Creating exchange and training opportunities to develop investigation on money laundering and terrorist financing within the framework of national AML/CFT strategy; 3) Analyzing the investigation method and techniques being used and supporting the spread of best practices, particularly focusing on the way inter-institutional teams work, the use of special investigation techniques and the existence of procedural protocols; 4) Analyzing the legal authorities of each financial intelligence unit to comply with the FATF recommendations in the field of cooperation with its counterparts, and promoting the necessary national regulation reforms so as provide them with the required legal authority; 5) Creating exchange opportunities among police units, which may enable the improvement of the way relevant information is communicated, the use of controlled delivery operations and joint investigation among police units; 6) Analyzing regional regulations in the field of international legal cooperation, and fostering and supporting the required reforms for international conventions and FATF recommendations; 7) Creating coordination, exchange and training opportunities for the members of each of defined areas (administrative, police and judicial), as well as joint events among the three areas; 8) Fostering the creation of information bases, fed and shared by the Group countries. ROM CORMS p.4 2. ORGANISATIONAL APPROACH On the basis of the experience developed from the implementation of the ROM system since its official launching (2002) and in line with the provisions of the Terms of Reference for the CORMS non-key experts who will implement the ROM CORMS, a customised approach was developed with regard to the planning and organisation of ROM CORMS. 2.1. Organisational structure The objective is to set a flexible organisational structure with which the ROM CORMS team will ensure timely produced and high quality outputs, simple and effective liaison and cooperation with the involved actors and increased quality and cost-effectiveness of the operations. The structure of the ROM CORMS team together with the presentation of the roles of ROM CORMS sub-team members is presented further below: CORMS Management The CORMS Management is composed of the Team Leader and the Project Manager who are responsible for the overall implementation of the CORMS project. The CORMS Management ensures that all necessary information is provided to the ROM CORMS sub-team before the start of ROM CORMS missions and in particular: Team Leader: The Team Leader undertakes the approval of the key aspects of ROM CORMS which are related directly to the provisions of the CORMS contract. Project Manager: The project manager cooperates closely with the Team Leader and is involved in the day-to-day coordination with the ROM CORMS sub-team. The responsibility to examine (and approve or reject) requests of the ROM CORMS sub-team is sub-delegated to the Project Manager. ROM CORMS sub-team The ROM CORMS sub-team is composed of CORMS non-key experts who will organise, prepare and conduct ROM missions in countries agreed with the CORMS management, draft the ROM CORMS reports and assure their rigorous quality control and submission within a specific timeframe. Logistical aspects of the ROM missions should be settled by the non-key Experts keeping the CORMS management informed. The CVs of the non-key experts who are suggested to carry out the ROM CORMS missions are subject to CORMS management approval. The ROM CORMS sub-team comprises: Non-Key Expert 1 (NKE1), ROM CORMS Quality Manager: NKE1 is responsible for the elaboration of the workplan for ROM CORMS, the coordination of the ROM CORMS non-key Experts, the supervision of the missions, the quality control and the delivery of the ROM CORMS outputs. NKE1 will coordinate the ROM CORMS activities in accordance and close cooperation with the CORMS Management. NKE1 acting as leader of the ROM CORMS nonkey experts will also ensure that the ROM methodology will be applied all along the missions by all the ROM CORMS non-key experts. If required, NKE1 will participate in field missions, in agreement with the CORMS management. Non-Key expert 2 (NKE2), Quality Control Expert: The Quality Control Expert is responsible for ensuring that the outputs are written according to the ROM methodology and that the guidelines of the Quality Manager are correctly applied by the other ROM CORMS non-key experts. NKE2 will ensure that all reports reach the same high level of quality and uniformity. NKE2 will closely coordinate with the Quality Manager. NKE2 will also participate, if required, in field missions in agreement with the CORMS management. Non-key expert 3 (NKE3), Logistics Expert: NKE3 is responsible to carry out (or assist to carry out) the preparation and organisation of the missions to the selected countries. In line with the guidelines received by the Quality Manager and the CORMS management. NKE3 will contact all relevant stakeholders of the selected projects which will be subject to the ROM CORMS exercise. NKE3 will implement the ROM CORMS workplan in line with the established methodology. NKE3 will be expected to study the available project documentation in order to properly identify and contact the key stakeholders who will be met by the ROM experts. NKE3 will also contribute to the reporting of ROM CORMS (other than the ROM outputs). ROM CORMS p.5 Non-key experts 4-8 (NKE4, NKE5, NKE6, NKE7, NKE8), 5 ROM experts: NKE4-8 are responsible to carry out the missions to one or more of the selected countries. NKE4-8 will be mobilised on the dates agreed with the key stakeholders of the projects which will be subject to ROM. NKE4-8 will report on the results of the visited projects according to standardised procedures and assure the appropriate quality of the outputs in coordination with the Quality Manager and Quality Control Expert. NKE4-8 will be expected to fully study the documentation of the project(s) which they will receive before the implementation of the missions. NKE4-8 should have wide ROM knowledge and experience in the corresponding geographical area and sufficient linguistic, thematic and sectoral knowledge. 2.2. Quality Management The attainment of the desired quality of ROM CORMS operations is a composite and difficult issue, requiring specific and coordinated actions by the Quality Manager at many levels and uninterrupted focus during the implementation of the process. In this context, the tasks to be implemented under ROM CORMS are grouped under the "Quality Management" section aiming at the highest possible quality standards. The "Quality Management" tasks are implemented across all five stages of the ROM CORMS Cycle (Figure 2). Figure 2: ROM CORMS Cycle The actions undertaken at each stage of the Cycle together with the supportive tools are presented below: Stage 1: Selection of operations for ROM CORMS The three CRP projects have been already selected, as well as the countries to be visited, so the role of the ROM CORMS team is to setup the so-called “Datafiles” for each of the selected projects. The Datafiles contain the basic documentation about the projects and it is expected to be further enriched during the project-visits. The relevant project documentation which is necessary for the proper assessment of the projects can be extended in order to include the necessary policy and country context documents. The relevant documentation is presented in Figure 3. ROM CORMS p.6 Figure 3: Project Documentation Stage 2: Missions Planning and Organisation The tasks of the "Missions Planning and Organisation" are allocated to the ROM Experts and the Logistics Expert under the supervision of the Quality Manager. Special attention is paid to: The allocation of projects to be visited to the best-fit-profile of ROM Expert (NKE4-8); The timely finalisation of mission design in terms of the country(ies) to be visited, the involved stakeholders etc; The accessibility of the ROM Experts to all needed project documentation (i.e. the Datafiles) early before the implementation of each mission; The rigorous budgeting (and daily follow-up) of mission planning, travel and fieldwork. The timeline of each individual mission can be divided into 4 main time-periods (phases) in which specific sets of tasks should be accomplished by the ROM Experts, the Quality Manager, and the Logistics Expert: Phase 1: All actions related to the arrangements with the ROM experts are implemented; Phase 2: All arrangements with the projects to be visited are set; Phase 3: The full schedule of the ROM expert is elaborated; Phase 4: The provision with all necessary travel documents (visa, tickets etc.) to the ROM expert are included in order to properly conduct the mission. For the proper follow up of Stage 2, a detailed Workplan (part of which is shown in Annex I) of operations is elaborated which includes the timing, duration and content of each Mission. The Workplan is presented to the ROM CORMS Management in order to receive feedback for its finalisation. The Workplan is to be updated in line with the developments, needs and requests which will appear during the implementation of ROM CORMS, always through the cooperation with the concerned actors and the approval of the ROM CORMS Management. Together with the Workplan, an Overall Planning is elaborated for each of the projects to be visited and shared with the ROM experts involved in the mission. The Overall Planning contains information on the number of countries to be visited, ROM experts assigned to each visit and the timeline of the visits. The Overall Planning is accompanied by an individual ROM Expert Schedule. The Schedule is subject to consultation among the Quality Manager, the Logistic Expert, and the ROM Experts during the organisation of the mission and its final version is provided to the ROM expert prior to the start of the ROM visits. The ROM expert has to implement the visit according to the provisions of the schedule. ROM CORMS p.7 Any changes in the final schedule during the implementation of the visits have to be approved by the Quality Manager. A Mission Organisation Tool (Annex II) has been designed in order to ensure high quality and efficiency of ROM CORMS missions’ organisation. By providing a breakdown of tasks related to organisation of each visit into detailed steps to be completed within the defined period of time, the tool assists the Logistics Expert in timely implementation of project activities associated to the mission organisation and reduces the risk that some of the tasks could be overlooked. Moreover by defining common steps to be followed, the tool ensures the uniformity of approach with regard to the organisation of all ROM CORMS missions. Stage 3: Execution of Missions The missions are executed through visits to project coordinator and to selected countries targeted by the project. Special attention has to be paid at this stage in order to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are met and all the essential information is collected during the visits. In particular the following aspects need to be safeguarded: The visits are implemented on the base of the Schedules which are elaborated and agreed among the key actors (project stakeholders, ROM expert, Logistic Expert, Quality Manager) to ensure that all stakeholders, relevant for the assessment of the project, will be met during the visit. The experts involved in the ROM of the same project have the same understanding on the project intervention logic. In this context the Programme Synopsis has to be rigorously consulted (Annex III). Following the meeting with the project coordinator, the Mission Leader elaborates a note in which the information acquired during the visit is streamlined to the other ROM experts who are implementing the visits to the same project (but different country components). The ROM experts are supported, as necessary, on any project content/ sector/theme and organisation issue and on any other "technical" or "managerial" issues by the Quality Manager and Logistic Expert. For the proper preparation of the key ROM outputs, the BCS has to be properly filled in. For ROM CORMS, the BCS (Annex IV) serves as a Grading Calculator. The role of the BCS is to help the ROM experts to score in a consistent way all project components visited. The BCS contains a number of sub-questions for each of the ROM criteria. Each sub-question is to be scored by the ROM experts with grades from "A" to "D". On the basis of the grades for the sub-questions, the overall grade for the project (or project component) is automatically calculated at the end of the BCS. Stage 4: Writing of Reports The reports (both CR and HR) are the key output of the process and thus particular attention is paid to their quality. In this context, besides assignment of the visits to experienced ROM Experts, and the comprehensive Quality Control system, a number of additional conditions are to be applied: The experts start drafting the report during the visit in the country. This allows the ROM Experts to follow up on issues which come up only when you elaborate a report and (re-) contact (if necessary) the local actors in order to receive clarifications. The ROM experts are supported during the drafting if required by the Mission Leader (the ROM expert who visits the project coordinator) and the Quality Manager. The grades in the BCS (which are transferred to the ROM report) need to be supported by the conclusions in the report (score consistency). The report submitted by the ROM expert must meet basic criteria before submission to the Quality Control Expert: o All factual information must be filled in (first section of the report); o All sections of the report must be addressed; o All grades in the BCS have to be filled in; o The language of the reports must be clear, unambiguous, without unexplained terminology and acronyms, and spelling errors. The template of the report (Annex V) has been already prepared and consists of seven sections containing the project, sectoral, financial, geographical, managerial, and ROM data (including the ROM CORMS p.8 grades) and the summary of conclusion for the five ROM criteria, as well as key observations and lessons learned. During the elaboration of the ROM reports it is useful to take into account the provisions of the "English Style Guide: A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission" of the European Commission Directorate-General for Translation (DGT). The style guide is a document which aims to ensure uniformity throughout the reports which are addressed to the EC. Stage 5: Quality Control and submission of Reports The Quality Control is implemented in two sub-stages: first by the Quality Control Expert (who coordinates with the Mission Leaders) and then by the Quality Manager. The objective is that all reports reach the same high level of quality by verifying that: Grades in the report are fully supported by the BCS and the text in the report (i.e. the conclusions) justifies the grades ; Recommendations and observations are consistent (and deriving from) with the conclusions. The horizontal report is coherent with the country reports produced for the same project. Clarity of the text is necessary even for reader who is not familiar with the project. Any potentially sensitive information is appropriately worded, justified and recorded in the appropriate section of the report. Following the Quality Control process, the Quality Control Expert uses a special template to communicate the proposed adjustment of the ROM report. This document is part of the files exchanged between the Quality Control and the ROM experts. After the end of the Quality Control the ROM outputs are converted into "pdf" format and they are submitted to CORMS management who decide for further dissemination. With the submission of the ROM outputs, the assignment of ROM CORMS is concluded. 2.3. Resources The required resources for the implementation of ROM CORMS have been calculated on the basis of the proposed methodology and organisational approach following previous experience from the implementation of ROM contracts. The allocation of days to the non-key experts covers the full ROM cycle (i.e. all five stages mentioned earlier), therefore includes all necessary tasks to deliver a consolidated final product. The required related inputs are presented in Figure 4. # Categories of Expenses A Fees A.1 Non-key experts B Reimbursables B.1 TRAVEL B.2 PER DIEM B.3 EXTRA PER DIEM (VISA) Units Quantities Total in EURO 144.0 Work days Days 144.0 24,903.00 EUR 12,480.00 Days EUR 11,423.00 Issued visas EUR 1,000.00 Figure 4: Required Inputs per Category of Expenses ROM CORMS p.9 3. PROGRESS OF ROM CORMS Following decision of ROM CORMS management, the implementation of ROM CORMS is currently postponed. However, in case the green light for ROM CORMS is given at a later stage (e.g. by ROM CORMS II), the current study can very well serve as a basis to setup the system. So far, the progress concerning the setup of ROM CORMS is as follows: 3.1. ROM Methodology adjustments The EC ROM methodology has been adjusted to the needs of ROM CORMS in line with the provisions of Terms of Reference for non-key experts. ROM CORMS is to be based on short visits implemented by experienced ROM experts. The visits will result in elaboration of ROM CORMS country reports and one horizontal report per project. The assessment presented in the reports will be based on the grades calculated by the BCS In order to support the ROM Experts during the execution of the mission and in drafting the necessary outputs a Project Synopsis (please see Annex III) for the CRP and the BCS have been elaborated by ROM CORMS sub-team in line with the specificities of the CRP. Moreover to respond to the needs of ROM CORMS a template for the reports has been elaborated. 3.2. Datafiles The available project documentation was downloaded from the CORMS website in order to share it immediately with the allocated experts once the contract of the ROM CORMS project is signed. 3.3. Missions Planning A detailed workplan for the implementation of twenty one visits (to projects’ coordinators and projects’ countries) to three projects funded under the Cocaine Route Programme (AIRCOP, AMERIPOL-EU, GAFISUD) was elaborated in line with the available resources and timeline of the CORMS projects. In line with further instructions received from the CORMS management the number of visits was decreased to fourteen and the workplan was accordingly updated. The communication with the projects’ implementing authorities was launched and the workplan was further updated in line with the confirmed availabilities. As of 30 April 2014, the fourth version of the workplan was available. Given the time and resources constraints a detailed planning of visits allocated to each of the mobilized experts were already prepared and regularly updated in line with the respective version of the workplan. In order to ensure high quality and efficiency of ROM CORMS missions’ organisation in line with the Quality Management provisions, a mission organisation tool was developed. 3.4. Logistic Arrangements In order to facilitate the logistic arrangements, the flight itineraries were pre-booked already since the beginning of the ROM CORMS implementation. Following guidelines to the travel agency, the prebooking was updated on a daily basis until the beginning of May 2014. 3.5. Cooperation – Communication Communication with ROM CORMS Management: The regular communication with the Project Manager and the Team Leader of the CORMS project on selection of operations and countries to be visited was concluded during the reporting period. The ROM CORMS budget and workplan have been submitted for approval in line with the provisions described in the section "Organisational Approach". Mobilisation of non-key Experts: The non-key Experts were timely mobilised and their CVs submitted for approval to CORMS. Special attention was paid to the selection of the experts following assessment of their professional record. All experts are experienced in ROM and have already visited at least a component of an IfS-priority 2 ROM CORMS p.10 projecs (mainly under the Cocaine Route Programme). A table consolidating the educational background and professional experience of the mobilised experts can be found in Annex VI. Communication with the projects The contact details of the key stakeholders were downloaded from the CORMS website and on this basis the list of the key project person to be met during the visits in the framework of ROM CORMS elaborated (please see Annex VIII). The list is attached in the Annex and in case of future ROM CORMS it needs to be updated through the communication with the ROM CORMS Management and project implementing authorities. A series of messages was sent to two of the projects to be visited (AMERIPOL, GAFISUD) following consultation with the CORMS management announcing the possibility to implement ROM CORMS. The proposed dates for seven out of fourteen planned visits had been confirmed by the beginning of May; however, in May the projects were informed that ROM CORMS was put on hold. 3.6. Reporting The report on the setup of ROM CORMS has been elaborated. The report includes both methodological as well as organisational aspects on the set up of effective ROM CORMS should constitute a valuable input for potential ROM CORMS to be implemented in future. 3.7. Budget On the basis of the detailed budget which has been elaborated for ROM CORMS (and communicated to the CORMS management), the to-date costs are summarised in Figure 5. # Categories of Expenses A Fees A.1 Non-key experts B Reimbursables B.1 TRAVEL B.2 PER DIEM B.3 EXTRA PER DIEM (VISA) Units Quantities Total 15.00 Work days Days 15.00 0.00 EUR 0.00 Days EUR 0.00 Issued visas EUR 0.00 Figure 5: Resources used during the reporting period ROM CORMS p.11 4. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS Following the study of all available documentation for the proper setup of the ROM CORMS system, the conclusions and recommendations formulated in existing ROM reports, IfS reports, and the Cocaine Route Programme mid-term review were collected in order to be subject of further assessment in potential future ROM missions. In this context some general conclusions are formulated, but also some project-specific ones: 4.1. General The general conclusions from the ROM CORMS exercise are: The EC plays an active and important role in fighting illicit trafficking and trans-national organised crime by providing considerable funds aiming at enhancing the regional and transregional cooperation capacities of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities in selected countries of Latin America and the Caribbean as well as in West Africa. Regional and trans-regional initiatives established with EU assistance have the potential to become important intermediaries in the dialogue with governments, international, and regional organisations, as long as the trans-regional cooperation has the same priority as the national law enforcement capacity. A particular opportunity is opening up for strengthening partnerships between Law Enforcement Agencies of the addressed regions and the promotion of South-South cooperation in training and information exchange. The support of the EC to trans-national networking/coordination is relevant and valid only if preconditions are in place which can reinforce the institutional and organisational capacity of the participating governments, institutions and organisations. The above conclusions have to be taken into account together with the following aspects which have been identified as key for the performance of the CRP projects and their contribution to the objectives of the overall Programme (i.e. the CRP): Involved People: Proactive project managers who apply inclusive management approaches, are supported by good quality staff, and promote communication among the project stakeholders are found behind the best practices. Proper partners: The involved organisations (mainly the partners in the consortia) should have a clear-cut role beyond the provision of experts. In the progress reporting, the benefits of utilising their technical capacity should be clearly demonstrated and the added-value of the support provided should be clearly articulated, both in terms of policy support and technical backstopping. Participatory approach: It would be preferable to have involvement of the different project stakeholders/target groups early in the design stage in order to confirm appropriateness of the intervention logic. Such involvement can be demonstrated through already signed Memoranda of Understanding before the projects’ start. Holistic approach: Fighting organised crime needs a holistic approach. Beyond strengthening the law enforcement capacities and the development of the criminal investigation capacity of investigating agencies and their teams the judicial cooperation and the detention systems should not be neglected (particularly in West Africa). Cross cutting issues: Strengthening of law enforcement may have an impact on the so-called cross cutting issues (human rights, gender issues, good governance). These aspects should not be neglected by the projects. Appropriate project indicators: The projects demonstrate a weakness to set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) in order to measure the achieved results and the impact of their implementation on the wider environment. Additionally, there are no clear baseline data on which the OVIs refer to. ROM CORMS p.12 Self-Monitoring: Regular self-monitoring not only of the project activities, but also of the implementing environment (e.g. relevant political debates etc.) should be set in place by the projects since their beginning (beyond the CORMS monitoring function). Involvement of state authorities: The Team Leaders should invest more time in the involvement of the state authorities to the maximum possible degree and actively participate in the formulation of national policies, when possible. Adaptation capacity: When necessary, strong adaptation capacity within the context of the contract should be foreseen. In this context it should be noticed that actual discussions and bargaining over the conclusions of formal meetings frequently take place not during the meetings themselves, but also in the preparatory stages, in the run up to these meetings. In such cases the projects have to expand their influencing activities beyond the official meetings. Synergies: It is necessary to ensure synergies with other similar projects. When synergies among the projects exist and overlaps are avoided, the impact of the provided services is broader. CORMS plays a very important role in this aspect due to its capacity to access information and to provide the necessary expertise, but its mandate is limited in terms of managing the projects, steering deviating activities, and ensuring adherence to their set objectives. Presence of CORMS in Brussels would very much facilitate its coordinating role. Moreover, the role of the EC relevant actors is critical as regards the dissemination of information to CORMS or among the CRP projects. Adaptation and replication of best practices can improve the quality of the provided services and set the ground for better future projects. Proper Logframe: One of the main structural weaknesses of the projects has been the incomplete logframes and accompanying tools for the management of the projects in line with the Project Cycle Management provisions. This is a critical issue which should be tackled in the design stage. The official reporting requirements call for a time bound update on the progress of the activities together with an update of the annual work plan and the budget. It would be advisable if the requirements include also an update on the logframe in order to improve its quality and promote its use as a management tool. The technical deficiencies in the logframes of the projects are closely linked to the lack of Project Cycle Management knowledge. It is advisable that more instructions or even training is provided to the contractors on the logic behind the logframe. This is even more relevant to the OVIs at Results and Project Purpose level. Such task could be assigned to CORMS II. Proper risk management: The risks and assumptions at country level should not be neglected because they are essential for the potential adjustment of the intervention logic during the implementation of a project. Language: The linguistic barrier, mainly in the case of trans-national networking and coordination is a problem in some cases (mostly in West Africa). Different cultures / administrative traditions: Apart from the vastly differing concepts that exist in the administrations as a consequence of territorial and historical factors, the functioning of the public sector comes in a variety of shades and forms. While this should not be an impediment for successful networking, the participating structures are not always prepared sufficiently to take this on board. Small number of involved countries: Statistically it has been proven that networks with more than 4 countries do not manage to ensure proper, effective, and continuous involvement of all partners. Given that for an effective implementation with meaningful impact of the CRP many more countries have to be involved, the appropriate hierarchical structures within the implementing teams have to be foreseen (i.e. appropriate number or sub-teams/resources). Support Units (SU): Contracts like CORMS should be launched early in the implementation of a Programme (i.e. the CRP) in order to establish the necessary activity-oriented monitoring tools (guidelines, reporting templates, web-based repository document system etc). In this way, the SU will be able to ensure higher EU visibility (e.g. by creating common logos and brochures for all projects under the CRP). The SU could organise the kick-off meetings of the all projects under the Programme, bringing together the EC services and the projects in order to decide on the requirements, strategy and expectations. The commitment of the projects to cooperate with the SU could be ensured through the appropriate provisions in their contracts (e.g. the special conditions). The SU can also pay more attention to wider programme objectives, the main of which in the CRP is the trans-regional cooperation. ROM CORMS p.13 4.2. Project-Specific The project-specific conclusions/recommendations from the ROM CORMS exercise are: AMERIPOL-EU While trans-regional cooperation is intrinsic to AMERIPOL-EU, this is not appropriately translated at the level of planned activities. Therefore, despite some improvement in the cooperation among law enforcement and prosecuting authorities to fight transnational crime within Latin American, no real progress is visible in the relation to the Caribbean and West African Law Enforcement Agencies and judicial authorities. More effort in this aspect has to be done. Legal constraints hamper the sharing of classified information. Therefore, clear common rules among all Member States have to be set. Political constraints hamper the participation in the project of all LA countries (e.g. Argentina and Uruguay) although they are members of AMERIPOL and contribute financially to the organisation. Maybe a dialogue to ensure partial participation of these Member States could be launched (e.g. as observers). An accountability dialogue vis-à-vis the Civil Society (or information campaign) with regard to strengthening the law enforcement would be useful to be launched. AIRCOP Despite its consecutive phases (I, II, III), the project encountered problems in delivering the expected outcomes which are required in order to achieve its main purpose. It lacked a country-customised approach (especially in such diversified region as in West Africa) and had a questionable demand-driven character. Therefore, there is a need for an updated and realistic work plan and time schedule, including concrete actions for the coordination of the project in the two regions and with other relevant projects. The project has raised the national capacity of beneficiary LEAs in intercepting the flow of cocaine via air routes to West Africa and built up JAITFs at national level in West Africa creating regional communication networks; however, regional cooperation has to be further enhanced through a series of joint trainings, operations and the supply of communication tools, while there is still loose focus on the trans-regional approach to combating drug related crimes in airports and on the development of international cooperation through secure realtime communication systems and access to international databases. More is expected in this aspect within 2014. Ensure that the final set of countries to be involved does not contain unresponsive countries but only those willing to contribute (e.g. good practice was the replacement of Morocco with The Gambia). GAFISUD-EU The project seems to have success at national level, but there trans-regional cooperation has been neglected. In particular, the project has focused exclusively on Latin and Central America and no activities have been undertaken for promoting cooperation with authorities in the Caribbean or West Africa. ROM CORMS p.14 ANNEX I ROM CORMS WORKPLAN ROM CORMS ROM CORMS Workplan Project Title AIRCOP AMERIPOL-EU GAFISUD-EU Implementing Partner The project aims at building drug- United Nations Office interdiction capacity at selected on Drugs and Crime international airports (UNODC) in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. Objective(s) The project aims at enhancing the capacity for international cooperation of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities of the partner countries in tackling transnational organised crime networks. The overall objective of the project is to improve the coordinated action carried out by the GAFISUD Member States to fight organized crime and financial crimes. ROM CORMS La Fundación Internacional y para Iberoamérica de Administración y Políticas Públicas (FIIAPP) Financial Action Task Force of South America against Money Laundering (GAFISUD) Country Visit Start Visit End ROM Expert Nr of MRs Senegal Sun 11/05/2014 Tue 13/05/2014 Violy 1+1 Due date of the report Tue 27/05/2014 Ghana Mon 12/05/2014 Thu 15/05/2014 Leventis 1 Mali Wed 14/05/2014 Sat 17/05/2014 Violy Togo Sun 18/05/2014 Wed 21/05/2014 Spain Sun 04/05/2014 Colombia QC By Due date of the QC Submission date Phylactopoulos Missirlis Wed 28/05/2014 Thu 29/05/2014 Mon 19/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Tue 20/05/2014 Wed 22/05/2013 1 Thu 22/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Fri 23/05/2014 Mon 26/05/2014 Violy 1 Sat 24/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Mon 26/05/2014 Tue 27/05/2014 Mon 05/05/2014 Vivar Mariscal 1+1 Tue 27/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Wed 28/05/2014 Fri 30/05/2014 Sun 11/05/2014 Tue 13/05/2014 Vivar Mariscal 1 Tue 27/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Wed 28/05/2014 Fri 30/05/2014 Bolivia Sun 11/05/2014 Tue 13/05/2014 Buhigas Schubert 1 Sun 18/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Mon 19/05/2014 Fri 23/05/2014 Brazil Sat 10/05/2014 Tue 13/05/2014 Arizkorreta 1 Tue 20/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Wed 21/05/2014 Fri 23/05/2014 Peru Wed 14/05/2014 Sat 17/05/2014 Buhigas Schubert 1 Sun 25/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Tue 27/05/2014 Wed 28/05/2014 Argentina Tue 06/05/2014 Sat 10/05/2014 Vivar Mariscal 1+1 Mon 26/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Tue 27/05/2014 Wed 28/05/2014 Bolivia Wed 07/05/2014 Sat 10/05/2014 Buhigas Schubert 1 Sun 11/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Wed 14/05/2014 Fri 16/05/2014 Brazil Wed 14/05/2014 Fri 16/05/2014 Arizkorreta 1 Thu 22/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Fri 23/05/2014 Mon 26/05/2014 Colombia Wed 14/05/2014 Fri 16/05/2014 Vivar Mariscal 1 Tue 20/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Thu 22/05/2014 Mon 26/05/2014 Peru Sun 18/05/2014 Wed 21/05/2014 Buhigas Schubert 1 Fri 23/05/2014 Phylactopoulos Missirlis Mon 26/05/2014 Tue 27/05/2014 p.1/1 ANNEX II MISSION ORGANISATION TOOL ROM CORMS Mission Organisation Tool NOT STARTED (before the initial date) OPEN OPEN (to be started) URG. Date: 30/04/2014 URGENT (to be completed in the coming week) DEL. DELAYED (after the deadline) #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! GAFISUD Bolivia GAFISUD Brazil GAFISUD Colombia GAFISUD Peru COMPLETED (implemented) NK3 NK4 EK ALL JB AIRCOP Senegal AIRCOP Ghana AIRCOP Mali AIRCOP Togo Project Visits AMERIPOLAMERIPOL- AMERIPOL- AMERIPOLAMERIPOL- GAFISUD EU EU Spain EU Bolivia EU Brazil EU Peru Argentina Colombia Project-Visit start 11/05/2014 12/05/2014 14/05/2014 18/05/2014 04/05/2014 11/05/2014 10/05/2014 11/05/2014 14/05/2014 06/05/2014 07/05/2014 14/05/2014 14/05/2014 18/05/2014 Project-Visit end 13/05/2014 15/05/2014 17/05/2014 21/05/2014 05/05/2014 13/05/2014 13/05/2014 13/05/2014 17/05/2014 10/05/2014 10/05/2014 16/05/2014 16/05/2014 21/05/2014 NK4 NK4 NK4 NK4 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 NK3 1. - - Organiser Stage 1 - - Initial Date 27/03/2014 28/03/2014 30/03/2014 03/04/2014 20/03/2014 27/03/2014 26/03/2014 27/03/2014 30/03/2014 22/03/2014 23/03/2014 30/03/2014 30/03/2014 03/04/2014 - - Deadline 01/04/2014 02/04/2014 04/04/2014 08/04/2014 25/03/2014 01/04/2014 31/03/2014 01/04/2014 04/04/2014 27/03/2014 28/03/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 08/04/2014 1. - Contact the Expert to: completed 2. - Contact the project coordinator to: 2. - - Stage 2 - - Initial Date 01/04/2014 02/04/2014 04/04/2014 08/04/2014 25/03/2014 01/04/2014 31/03/2014 01/04/2014 04/04/2014 27/03/2014 28/03/2014 04/04/2014 04/04/2014 08/04/2014 - - Deadline 11/04/2014 12/04/2014 14/04/2014 18/04/2014 04/04/2014 11/04/2014 10/04/2014 11/04/2014 14/04/2014 06/04/2014 07/04/2014 14/04/2014 14/04/2014 18/04/2014 1. - Upon feedback of the project coordinator, contact the partnersofto: Upon confirmation the project coordinator 2- completed completed completed completed completed completed completed completed completed completed completed and partners, contact the Expert to: 3. - - Stage 3 - - Initial Date 11/04/2014 12/04/2014 14/04/2014 18/04/2014 04/04/2014 11/04/2014 10/04/2014 11/04/2014 14/04/2014 06/04/2014 07/04/2014 14/04/2014 14/04/2014 18/04/2014 - - Deadline 26/04/2014 27/04/2014 29/04/2014 03/05/2014 19/04/2014 26/04/2014 25/04/2014 26/04/2014 29/04/2014 21/04/2014 22/04/2014 29/04/2014 29/04/2014 03/05/2014 1. - 2. - Contact the project coordinator and partners to: Internal Coordination: 3. - Contact the Expert to: 4. - - Stage 4 - - Initial Date 04/05/2014 05/05/2014 07/05/2014 11/05/2014 27/04/2014 04/05/2014 03/05/2014 04/05/2014 07/05/2014 29/04/2014 30/04/2014 07/05/2014 07/05/2014 11/05/2014 - - Deadline 10/05/2014 11/05/2014 13/05/2014 17/05/2014 03/05/2014 10/05/2014 09/05/2014 10/05/2014 13/05/2014 05/05/2014 06/05/2014 13/05/2014 13/05/2014 17/05/2014 1. - Contact the Expert to: ROM CORMS p.1/1 ANNEX III PROGRAMME SYNOPSIS ROM CORMS PROGRAMME SYNOPSIS Project Title: Cocaine Route Programme Project Number: Date Financing Agreement: 22/12/2010 Country: TPS - All Countries Start Date - actual: 01/01/2009 End Date - planned: 31/12/2017 End Date - likely: 31/12/2017 Primary Commitment: € 34916977.00 1. Project Background In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the trafficking of cocaine from Latin America to Europe through Caribbean and West Africa, mostly by sea and air routes, with an emerging role of Central America. As a result money laundering has grown dramatically. Its interactions with the global financial and economic crises are posing an increasing danger to global economic stability. Since 2009, the European Union has committed almost €30 million over 36 countries along the cocaine route from the Andes to Europe through its flagship “Cocaine Route Programme” under the Instrument for Stability (IfS), Long-term component, Global and Trans-regional threats. 2. Project Intervention Logic: Overall Objective: To fight illicit trafficking and trans-national organised crime, while fully respecting human rights, to improve human security and stability. Project Purpose: To enhance the regional and trans-regional cooperation capacities of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities in selected countries of LAC and WA. AMERIPOL: To contribute to strengthen cooperation of law enforcement, judicial and prosecuting authorities of Latin America and Caribbean countries and the EU in tackling transregional organised crime AIRCOP: To strengthen the anti-drug capacities at selected airports through the “Airport Communication Programme” GAFISUD: To support the fight against money laundering and financial crime in West Africa, Latin America and Caribbean countries Expected Results: 1) Enhanced joint interdiction capacities of LEAs, judicial, prosecuting and civil authorities in targeted countries to interrupt the flow of drugs (and illicit trafficking); 2) Strengthening of the information base - and information sharing at regional and trans-regional level - for LEAs, judicial and prosecuting authorities involved in the fight against organised crime in targeted countries; 3) Reinforcement of Anti Money Laundering and asset seizure capacities for concerned local authorities in targeted countries. AMERIPOL: 1) Training curricula, exchange programmes and handbooks for coordinated and integrated capacity building programmes focused on inter-institutional and international investigations and judicial procedures are available; 2) Recommendations to relevant authorities to alleviate gaps and legal obstacles to inter-institutional and international criminal investigation and prosecution are disseminated; 3) Inter-institutional and international operating procedures, including feedback and reporting mechanisms are developed; 4) Improved platforms for exchange of information and best practices at prosecution level; 5) Improved exchange of information and intelligence is operational in a secure and effective way through information systems at regional and trans-regional level; 6) The capacity to carry out complex inter-institutional and international operations of investigation and prosecution is improved. AIRCOP: 1) Project implementation and review mechanisms established; 2) Effective operation of Joint Airport Interdiction Task Forces (JAITF) to combat drug related crime on airports ensured. GAFISUD: 1) Assessing the current capacity to meet the investigation needs in the member states; 2) Improving and homogenizing the existing investigation capacitates in the member countries; 3) Bring member countries into line with the new international standards (proposed amendment to FATF Recommendation 27) improving their capacity to develop investigation within framework of a national AML/CFT strategy; 4) Assessing and improving the regulations related to administrative cooperation to fight asset laundering among the national authorities of the member countries (National Coordination, Financial Intelligence Units, Superintendence’s, Customs, etc.); 5) Assessing and improving th national regulations and existing agreements in the field of international judicial cooperation to fight asset laundering; 6) Strengthening of police cooperation to fight asset laundering among the national authorities of member countries (National and Specialized Police Forces, Ministries of Internal Affairs); 7) Improving and formalizing cooperation line in the administrative, police and judicial fields with selected countries and FSRB Planned Activities: AMERIPOL: 1) Perform detailed and realistic gap analyses, assessing the capacity for response (prevention and repression), cooperation and coordination at inter-institutional and international level; 2) Provide assistance in the formulation of an operational cooperation policy and the establishment of agreed inter-agency and international standard operating procedures for information exchange in view of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of drug trafficking and money laundering and related financial offences as well as the tracing, recovery (seizure and confiscation); 3) Promote the most relevant EU-LAC good practices such as Joint Investigation Teams, Intelligence Working Files and others; 4) Design and setup a holistic capacity building programme: 5) Technical assistance and mentoring; 6) Establish a platform to foster the exchange of information and intelligence; 7) In the medium term, support trans-national joint operations in collaboration with AMERIPOL, IMPACS and RSS once the necessary administrative agreements and legal framework are in place. AIRCOP: 1.1) Identification of L. America project coordinator & support staff; Letters of agreement for signature by Ministries and UNODC; Coordination missions to the beneficiary countries; Identification of National Focal Points for all JAITF to be created. 1.2) Formal semi-annual technical meetings of Project Steering Committee. 2.1) Joint needs assessment missions to evaluate drug interdiction level at 5 selected airports and training needs; Support to national authorities in elaborating/ signing interagency cooperation agreement; Establishment of JAITF; Negotiation of shared or pooled facilities with airport authorities/airlines/ local agencies; Support JAITF to reach cooperation agreements with airline companies; Purchase of communication/ computer/ photographic equipment and inspection & testing tools. 2.2) Preparation of training programmes for all JAITF; Practical on-site training at airports; Translation of Checklist for airport interdiction into Spanish; On-site mentoring by airport interdiction specialists in support of newly-established JAITF; Monitoring of the extent of post-seizure investigations; Joint operation among JAITF; Evaluation of training & equipment components. 2.3) Two preparatory partners meetings; Training to participating airports; Implement the Operation’s preparatory phase; Implement COCAIR operational phase; Debriefing session; Press conference on results. 2.4) Further adaptation of WCO CENcomm communication system to JAITF needs and installation at selected airports; Creation of access to CENcomm and I-24/7 and training. GAFISUD: 1) Analyzing the units in charge of making the investigation and promoting regulation adjustment to correct the spotted shortages; 2) Creating exchange and training opportunities to develop investigation on money laundering and terrorist financing within the framework of national AML/CFT strategy; 3) Analyzing the investigation method and techniques being used and supporting the spread of best practices, particularly focusing on the way inter-institutional teams work, the use of special investigation techniques and the existence of procedural protocols; 4) Analyzing the legal authorities of each financial intelligence unit to comply with the FATF recommendations in the field of cooperation with its counterparts, and promoting the necessary national regulation reforms so as provide them with the required legal authority; 5) Creating exchange opportunities among police units, which may enable the improvement of the way relevant information is communicated, the use of controlled delivery operations and joint investigation among police units; 6) Analyzing regional regulations in the field of international legal cooperation, and fostering and supporting the required reforms for international conventions and FATF recommendations; 7) Creating coordination, exchange and training opportunities for the members of each of defined areas (administrative, police and judicial), as well as joint events among the three areas; 8) Fostering the creation of information bases, fed and shared by the Group countries. ANNEX IV BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONS SHEET (BCS) ROM CORMS BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONS SHEET ROM CORMS: GRADING CALCULATOR for the ROM Report c/n Criterion 1 Relevance and Quality of Design i Relevance 1.1 Response to Target Groups’ Needs 1.2 Partners’ Policy Support 1.3 EC Alignment ii Quality of Design 1.4 Coherence of Intervention Logic Description Combined criterion Is the project aligned with and supportive of the EC development policy and strategies (the Instrument for Stability (IfS), IfS Strategy and the respective Multiannual Indicative Programmes and in particular to the Cocaine Route Programme)? Total (1-4) - - 40% - - 20% - - 10% - - 10% - 60% - - 30% - - 20% - - 10% - - - - - 15% - - 10% - - 15% - - 15% - - 15% - - 30% - The internal coherence and validity of the intervention logic, its formalization in a logframe (or other format) and the implementation arrangements. Is the intervention logic still clear and coherent? Is it flexible and easily adapatable to facilitate rapid responses to changes in circumstences? Does it include appropriate risk management and phase out strategies? Are the resources, capacity and timeframe adequate to achieve the project objectives? Is the current project design sufficiently taking cross-cutting issues into account? 2.3 Cost-effectiveness - Weight Is the project consistent with, and supportive of Partner Government policies? 1.6 Mainstreaming Of Cross-Cutting Issues 2.2 Inputs management - Does the project still respond to the identified problems and to the needs of the target groups and beneficiaries in the partner countries? Have the target groups been involved in the project design and do they support it? 2 Efficiency Rating (1-4) The extent to which the objectives of the intervention are still consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and partners' and donor's policies. 1.5 Participatory Approach 2.1 Project Management Grading (a-d) A measure of how economically (in terms of quality, quantity and time) resources/inputs are converted to outputs. - Are project management tools appropriately used (logframe, calendar of activities, monitoring system)? What is the quality of the project reporting? Are the inputs (financial, human resources) available and managed as planned? Is the implementation of the activities cost-effective? Is the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? Does the project coordinate with the other projects under the Cocaine Route Programme and any other relevant interventions to facilitate synergies? 2.4 Partner contribution & involvement Do the project partners contribute as planned? Does the communication among the project stakeholders facilitate the activity implementation? 2.5 Activities implementation Are the activities implemented in line with the initial plans? 2.6 Outputs delivery Have the outputs been delivered as planned and are they of a good quality? The extent to which the intervention's objectives (on outcome and project purpose level) are, or are expected to be, achieved. - - - 3.1 Results achievement Have the expected results been achieved as planned and are they judged useful by the target groups? - 40% - 3.2 Project Purpose achievement To what extent has the project purpose been achieved so far and has the project already contributed to expected results of the Cocaine Route Programme? - 60% - - - - - 60% - - 40% - 3 Effectiveness 4 Impact 4.1 Contribution to the Overall Objective 4.3 Indirect Impact Likelihood of positive and negative, medium to long-term effects of an intervention, both direct and indirect, intended and unintended. - - Are there any changes at the level of the Overall Objective of the project which can be observed so far? Has project contributed to these changes? Does the project contribute to the Project Purpose of the Cocaine Route Programme? What direct impact appears likely by the end of the project? Has the project generated any unintended or unexpected impact, and if so how have this affected the overall project impact? Likelihood of the continuation of benefits of an intervention after its completion. - - - What is the financial viability of the project? If there is a need for future financial suport will funds be available and by whom? - 30% - 5.2 Level of ownership What is the level of ownership of the operation by the relevant stakeholders and do they plan to continue delivering the project benefits? - 25% - 5.3 Policy support What is the likelihood that the inter-institutional structures and processes created in the frame of the project will continue? Can changes in policies and priorities affect the potential sustainability of the project? - 25% - 5.4 Capacity Development Has the project appropriately contributed to the development of partner's individual and organizational capacities to be able to maintain the project services? - 30% - - - - 5 Sustainability 5.1 Financial viability OVERALL - - List of Grades Column1 Column2 A Very Good B Good C Has problems D Serious Deficiencies ROM CORMS p.1/1 ANNEX V ROM CORMS REPORT TEMPLATE ROM CORMS ROM Report ROM reference Contract Number Report date MR-1XXXXX.YY C-xxxxxx dd/mm/yyyy I. Project data Project title Project title according to CRIS Project Status Project Type Start date End date -- Select one --- Select one -dd/mm/yyyy dd/mm/yyyy CRIS Domain DAC - CRS Sector Domain Code - Description according to CRIS Horizontal II. Sectoral data II. Financial data EC funding Total budget of operation Total EC funds disbursed by: 0.00 0.00 0.00 dd/mm/yyyy III. Geographic data Geographical zone CRIS Number Geo_Zone C-xxxxxx Project Management HQ responsible EU Delegation responsible Implementing organisation Type of organisation -- Select one -FirstName LastName FirstName LastName Implementing Organisation -- Select one -- IV. Managerial data V. ROM data ROM expert FirstName LastName ROM visit date(s) from dd/mm/yyyy ROM Quality Controller FirstName LastName Relevance and quality of design Efficiency of implementation to date Effectiveness to date Impact prospects Potential sustainability 15/05/2014 EN to dd/mm/yyyy -- Select one --- Select one --- Select one --- Select one --- Select one -- Page 1 / 2 IV. Summary of conclusions Relevance and quality of design <Please use only text. DO NOT FORMAT the text> Efficiency of Implementation to date <Please use only text. DO NOT FORMAT the text> Effectiveness of Implementation to date <Please use only text. DO NOT FORMAT the text> Impact prospects <Please use only text. DO NOT FORMAT the text> Potential sustainability <Please use only text. DO NOT FORMAT the text> Key observations and recommendations <The recommendations should be numbered [e.g. 1), 2), 3) ...] in a compact text> 15/05/2014 EN Page 2 / 2 ANNEX VI APPROVED NON-KEY EXPERTS ROM CORMS CORMS: Non-key experts Prepared on: 01/Apr/2014 Number of ROM Experts (non-key experts for CORMS): 8 Years of Experience Age ROM expert 18 43 ES • BSc In Engineering • EC-ROM implementation • PCM/LFA • Project Management • Governance • Institutional Capacity Development • Social Protection • Civil Society Latin America & Carribean Africa Neighbourhood Western Balkans & Turkey EU EN: VG FR: VG PT: VG ES: VG EU: VG NB: W Carlos ROM expert 12 36 ES • Media Studies • Philosophy • MA in Economic Development • MA in International Relations • EC-ROM implementation • Governance, Regional integration • Security • Institutional Capacity Development • Social Protection • Civil Society Africa Latin America Asia EU EN: VG ES: VG FR: G DE: G KARVOUNI Eugenia ROM Logistics Expert 16 39 GR • Degree in French Literature and Language • MSc in Logistics • EC ROM & Evaluation • PCM/LFA, EC Regulations • Organisation of ROM Missions • Logistics Neighbourhood (JO, EG, SY) EU All Regions (Thematic Projects) EN: VG FR: VG EL: VG Mr LEVENTIS Panagiotis ROM expert 21 45 GR • MSc in Engineering • EC-ROM implementation • PCM/LFA • Project Management • Capacity Development • Informatics • Communications • Justice • Narcotics Asia Neighbourhood Western Balkans & Turkey Latin America EU EN: VG EL: VG DE: G ES: W LV: W 5 Mr MISSIRLIS Konstantinos ROM Quality Manager 20 43 GR • Diploma in Engineering • MEng in Process analysis and design • PhD in Process analysis and design • EC ROM & Evaluation • PCM/LFA, EC Regulations • Project Management • Quality Assurance • Infrastructures • Communications • Security • Military operations Neighbourhood Western Balkans & Turkey Asia Africa EU All Regions (Thematic Projects) EN: VG FR: VG EL: VG JA: W DE: W 6 Mr PHYLACTOPOULOS Andronicos ROM Expert / Quality Control 22 56 GR/US • Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering • MSc in Mechanical Engineering • Diploma in Mechanical Engineering • EC-ROM, Ex-Post ROM implementation, • PCM/LFA • EC regulations, PCM/LFA approach • EC CARDS, IPA, CBC programmes • Project management • Infrastructure, transport • Financial sector Neighbourhood Western Balkans & Turkey Asia Africa EU All Regions (Thematic Projects) EL: VG EN: VG FR: W 7 Ms VIOLY Anne-Katrin ROM expert 6 31 FR • BA in Political Science • MA in Law and European Studies • MA in International Relations • EC-ROM • PCM/LFA, EC regulations • Organisation of ROM Missions • EC External cooperation and assistance regulations and requirements • Narcotics • Military operations • Political science Africa Asia All European Countries EU Neighbourhood (MA, LB) EN: VG FR: VG DE: VG 8 Mr VIVAR-MARISCAL Jorge ROM expert 20 48 GB • MA in International Relations • BA in Latin American Politics and Economics • Diploma in Social Sciences • PCM/LFA • EC Project management, monitoring & evaluation • Governance • Narcotics • Communications • Social Infrastructure and Services Asia Latin America Africa EU EN: VG ES: VG PT: G New N° Title 1 Mr ARIZKORRETA Iosu 2 Mr BUHIGAS SCHUBERT 3 Ms 4 ROM CORMS Last Name First Name Proposed Position Nationality Educational Background Areas of knowledge Regional Experience ISO3166 Languages (VG, G, W) ISO639 p.1/1 ANNEX VII CRP STAKEHOLDERS ROM CORMS Targeted CRP Stakeholders AMERIPOL-EU Name Position SPAIN GAFISUD Name Position ARGENTINA Gerard Muñoz Arcos Project Manager, FIAPP Blanca Palacios Project officer, FIAPP COLOMBIA Project Team AIRCOP Name Position SENEGAL Project Team Project Team Ricardo GIL GAFISUD Team Leader Daouda Gadiaga AIRCOP Team Leader Africa Azucena PULIDO GAFISUD Key Expert Jonathan RIGGS Antonio CORREA GAFISUD Key Expert Mame Seydou NDOUR AIRCOP Law enforcement specialist AIRCOP Key Expert Marcos ALVAR AMERIPOL Team Leader María Luisa OLAVARRIA GAFISUD Key Expert Jean-Claude HIPOLITE AIRCOP Key Expert Fabio CONTINI AMERIPOL Key Expert GAFISUD Key Expert Flemming QUIST AIRCOP Key Expert Yesid ROMANOS AMERIPOL Key Expert Leopoldo FERNANDEZ HERCE Esteban FULLIN Pierre LAPAQUE AIRCOP Key Expert Mark WILLIAMS AMERIPOL Key Expert Marconi COSTA MELO GAFISUD’s Executive Secreatry GAFISUD Associate Secretary Amado de ANDRES AIRCOP Key Expert Pascal BENITEZ AMERIPOL Key Expert Daniel CARVALHO AIRCOP Project Assistant Esmeralda RASILLO AMERIPOL Key Expert Pierre Bertrand WCO / COCAIR III National Focal Point Lieutenant Colonel Yesid ROMANOS LINARES National Focal Point José Sbatella Financial Information Unit Of Argentina Local Stakeholders Unidad Nacional de AMERIPOL de Colombia LIC. José A. Sbattella Ndjiaw Ndiaye Controleur des Douanes Adjoint au Chef de la CAAT Dr. Carlos Alberto Ciampoli Director de Relaciones Institutionales , Unidad de Informacòn FiancieraMinisterio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos Samba M. THIAM Responsable du BRLR-AO Local Stakeholders TENIENTE CORONEL HERNÁN SAENZ SOLANO JEFE DE GRUPO CONTROL. AVIACIÓN CIVIL Y EMBARCACIONES Dr.Victor Antonio Malavolta TENIENTE CORONEL NESTOR RINCÓN BASTIDAS MAYOR JORGE ENRIQUE MENDOZA LIZCANO COMANDANTE ANTINARCOTICOS. PUERTO BUENAVENTURA COMANDANTE ANTINARCOTICOS. PUERTO SANTA MARTA MAYOR JAVIER RODRIGUEZPORRAS JEFE DE RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES Fabio Armando PEREZ QUIROZ Fiscal Especializado de la Unidad Nacional Antinarcoticos e Interdicción Marítima MAYOR JOSÉ MOISÉS CONTRERAS REYES COMANDANTE ANTINARCOTICOS. CARTAGENA Mayor Genral José Roberto Leòn Riano Coronel Jorge Luis Vargas Director General National Focal Point Presidente de la Unidad de Informaciòn Financiera- Local Stakeholders Subsecretario Técnico de Planeamiento y Control del Narcotrafico- C.P.N. Gustavo Segnana Coordinador de Cooperaciòn y Financiamento Modou Diagne internacional- Raùl Omar Plée Fiscal General, Unidad Fiscal para la Investigacion de los Delitos de lavado de dinero y Financiamento del terrorismo Amadou Diallo CENTIF Mario Luis Bourbotte Comisario Inspector, Direccion General de Coordinacion Internacional Demba Diallo CENTIF Comisario, Jefe Division Operacion Federales Superintendencia de drogas peligrosas Mamadou Thiandoum Police de l'air et des frontieres Nestor Roncaglia Daniel Hector de La Colina Comandante Mayor, Director Antidrogas Mariana Foglia Directora Nacional de Cooperación Regional e CENTIF Moctar Kettani DOUCOURE Customs Brigadier General Luis Roberto Perez Albaran Farid Samir Benavides Miguel Samper Strouss BOLIVIA Project Team Viceministro de Politica Criminal y Justicia Restaurativa Encargado- Direccion de Politica Criminal Julian David Wiches Guzmàn NFP PRELAC y Director de Politica contra las Drogas y Activitades Relacionadas BOLIVIA Ndjiaw NDIAYE Customs Abdullahi Zungum GIABA Madické Niang GIABA Jeffrey O. Isima GIABA Mohamed Lamine Coulibaly Ghana GIABA National Focal Point Mariela Sanchez Local Stakeholders FIU Bolivia Project Team Project Team BRAZIL National Focal Point Colonel Andrés Américo Romero Rojas Local Stakeholders Project Team Unidad Nacional de AMERIPOL de Bolivia National Focal Point Francis Yeboah Local Stakeholders National Focal Point Mortey Akpadzi TENIENTE CORONEL JOSÉ JEFE DIVISIÓN DE GONZALO QUESADA INTELIGENCIA, FUERZA CAMACHO ESPECIAL DE LA LUCHA CONTRA EL TENIENTE CORONEL COMANDANTE EDWARD BARRIENTOS ROM CORMS DEPARTAMENTAL DE SANTACRUZ, TENIENTE CORONEL EDWARD Airport Commander for NACOB Economic Organized Crime Office Bernardo Machado Mota Justice Tsar Local Stakeholders Samuel Thompson Essel Financial Intelligence Unit p.1/2 AMERIPOL-EU Name Position BRAZIL GAFISUD Name Position Flávia Maria Valente Carneiro, National Focal Point Deputy Director of the AntiMoney Laundering Division of the Central Bank of Brazil Prosper Agblor COCIT - Coordenação-Geral de Combate a Ilícitos Transnacionais- Ministério das Relações Exteriores Sec. Rodrigo Soares Unidad Nacional de AMERIPOL de Brasil Local Stakeholders CEZAR LUIZ BUSTO DE SOUZA Oslain Campos Santana Màrcio Nunes Position Chief of Staff of the Council Bernardo Antonio Machado for Financial Activities Control Mota (COAF) Suleiman Ahmed Money Laundering Division of the Central Bank of Brazil, João Paulo Viana Magalhães contact point appointed for Cynthia Lamptey Project Team Simone AZUAGA (Ms.) AIRCOP Name Andrei BORGES DE MENDONÇA Fiscal Especializado de la Unidad Nacional Antinarcoticos e Interdicción Marítima COLOMBIA DELEGADO DE POLICIA FEDERAL -COORD.GRAL CGPRED/DICOR/DPF Director, Fight Against Organised Crime Coordinador General de la DGPRED National Focal Point Carmen MASIAS CLAUX Executive President George Blankson Ghana Revenue Authority National Focal Point U.S.A.- West Africa Regional Training Center Project Team Unidad de Informacion y de Analisis Financiero de Colombia UIAF Unidad de Informacion y de Analisis Financiero de Colombia UIAF National Focal Point Maiga Mousa Zabour Directeur de l'office des Stupéfiants OCS Local Stakeholders SERGIO ESPINOSA Unidad Nacional de AMERIPOL de Peru Bank of Ghana - Banking Supervision Department Patrick Gyan Local Stakeholders Coronel LUIS OCTAVIO BISSO PUN Local Stakeholders Joseph Koffi Amuah-awuah Matthew Rose MALI Claudia Andrea Soraca Project Team Ghana Police Service Project Team Luis Edmundo Suárez PERU Ministry of Justice TOGO Luis Edmondo Suàrez Soto JORGE YUMI Francisco Echeverri Lara Yalile MARTINEX BELTRAN Jefe de Area de Asesores Elka Vengas Ahumada Director FIU Gerente de Asuntos Internacionales y Capacitación Direccion de Assuntos Internacionales Direccion Nacional de Fiscalias Project Team National Focal Point Jorge VALENCIA JAUREGUI Asesor de Control de Oferta Marcos Guillermo GARCIA INJOQUE Asesor Superintendencia Nacional Adjunta de Tributos Internos CORONEL Hector LOAYZA ARRIETA MAYOR JOSÉ JORGE ÁLVAREZ Jefe de estado mayor Subdirectora, Conotrl y Fiscalizaciòn de sustancias Nubia Elena Pacheco Gomez quìmicas y Estupefacientes PERU Bikiliwe Botcholi Project Team Chef CAAT à l’aéroport de Lomé Controlleur Adjoint de la CAAT de Lomé Local Stakeholders INTELIGENCIA REGIONAL LORETO Tchaa Bignossi AQUITEME National Focal Point Sergio Espinosa Local Stakeholders Angela AREVALO VASQUEZ Fiscal Adjunta Provincial Eduardo CASAVILCA ROJAS David CIFUENTES MENDOZA ROM CORMS Arizina Tata CENTIF Bureau Central National Hodabalo-Pitemnewe KADJA INTERPOL Direction Centrale de la Okpan LANTAME Police Judiciaire Direction Centrale de la Yoma PISSAN Police Judiciaire Wanta Ranougo Laboratoire National des BADOMBENA Stupefiants Coordinator Ejecutuvo UIF Egoulou AWIZOBA Analist UIF Dokisime Gnama LATTA Office Central de Repression du trafic illice des drogues et du blanchiment Ministere de la Securitè et de la Protection Civile p.2/2
