VIENNA, 3 September (United Nations Information Service) - How to ensure the availability of internationally controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes while preventing illicit cultivation and production, diversion, trafficking and abuse, including during the COVID-19 pandemic is being discussed this week in Vienna at the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 128th session. Postponed from May 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is being held in a hybrid format to enable Members to participate virtually from around the world. At elections held yesterday, the Board renewed the mandate of its President, Cornelis P. de Joncheere, and elected a new Bureau for a one-year term.

During the session, which is taking place from 31 August to 4 September 2020, the Board is reviewing the compliance of Member States with the three international drug control conventions and the functioning of the international drug control system.

The session opened with a meeting of the Board's Standing Committee on Estimates, which looked at national estimates of requirements for narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes and reviewed annual legitimate requirements of precursors for licit industrial use submitted by governments for those chemicals that are frequently subject to diversion to the illicit manufacture of drugs.

In plenary, the Board is working on the preparation of its annual report for 2020, which will include a thematic chapter on drug use among older persons and is considering civil society perspectives on the topic in the form of written submissions provided by the Vienna Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Committee on Drugs. During the session, the Board will meet with the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Ghada Waly.

At the opening of the session, the Board welcomed three new Members, who had been elected by the Economic and Social Council in 2019: César T. Arce Rivas, Viviana Manrique Zuluaga and Zukiswa Zingela.

The composition of the INCB Bureau following the 2 September elections:

Cornelis P. de Joncheere - President of the Board

Luis A. Otárola Peñaranda - First Vice-President

Jagjit Pavadia - Second Vice-President and Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates, and Member, Committee on Finance and Administration

The International Narcotics Control Board holds postponed 128th session, renews President's mandate and elects new Bureau Members

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are dying from drug overdoses at three times the rate of non-Indigenous Australians, according to Australia's Annual Overdose report.

The report, published by drug and alcohol research centre, the Pennington Institute, showed that 473 Indigenous people died of unintentional overdoses between 2014 to 2018.

In 2018, there were 17.3 unintentional overdose deaths per 100,000 Indigenous Australians.

This rate had almost doubled since 2009 and compared to 6.0 unintentional overdose deaths per 100,000 among non-Indigenous Australians in 2018.

Drug overdoses killing Indigenous people at three times the rate of other Australians

Afghans pushed out of work by the coronavirus pandemic after businesses and schools were shuttered have turned to opium cultivation for cash during this year's poppy harvest.

Afghanistan has long been the world's top grower of opium, producing more than 80 percent of the global supply and providing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the perennially cash-strapped economy.

A coronavirus lockdown and travel restrictions saw trade grind to a halt and many businesses were forced to lay off staff, in a conflict-riven country where stable jobs are already rare.

Farmers usually rely on a seasonal labour force for the spring and summer harvesting months but the coronavirus pandemic meant many were unwilling or unable to travel for the work.

More than 38,000 cases of coronavirus have been declared in Afghanistan and more than 1,400 deaths, though the health ministry estimated earlier this month that a third of the population has likely contracted the disease. A months-long lockdown, which has mainly affected cities, has slowly been lifted since the beginning of August, with some schools, wedding halls and markets reopening. Despite myriad eradication programs over the years, Afghan farmers continue to grow poppies with near impunity, as both government officials and the Taliban often profit from the lucrative trade.

Crushed by virus and war, jobless Afghans turn to opium for cash

The following letter was drafted by a coalition of 29 civil society organisations and community networks in the European Union. The letter urges the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that the current draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 be rejected, and measures are taken to ensure an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

We are writing regarding the proposed EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025, published by the European Commission on 24 July 2020 (the “2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda”, or the “Agenda”). We have serious concerns regarding both the process for its development as well as with the substance of the document and urge the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that this draft cannot be accepted, and to outline an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

The formulation of the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda through a unilateral Communication of the European Commission without consultation with EU Member States and other relevant EU actors, including civil society is deeply problematic. If the HDG accepts this document as it stands, a worrying procedural precedent will be set. To date, the ‘EU’s drugs strategies and action plans are developed through a rigorous process that allows Member States to work together on the development of strategic approaches. This involves a series of negotiations, evaluations and compromises so that consensus can be reached in the form of a new strategy document.’ The 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda appears to be the result of a hasty, opaque and non-participatory policy-making process, and represents a drastic departure from agreed EU policies. The lack of appropriate consultation and engagement inevitably means that the different experiences and views of EU Member States and other relevant EU actors have less weight in the new document. It fails to adopt a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug matters; it is not rooted on human rights, public health, and the key international drug policy documents; and it envisages a diminished role for civil society and affected communities.

The European Union has been a global leader in advancing a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug policies. The 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies established a consolidated framework that has become a ‘central guiding model’ for national-level drug strategies across the EU. However, the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda proposes -in its own words- a ‘paradigm-shift’. It disproportionately focuses EU policy on law enforcement and supply control, to the detriment of the priority previously given to public health, human rights, international cooperation, and scientific research and evaluation. If implemented, it will signal a diminished support for evidence-based drug treatment and harm reduction services, and it will weaken the voice of the EU in international drugs fora, where it has been a key global actor in defending the balanced, rights-based approach adopted by the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document.

In spite of the EU’s commitment to seek the ‘active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’ in the ‘development and implementation of drug policies’, the participation of civil society in the preparation of the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda has been deeply flawed. European NGOs were only allowed to provide input to the Agenda with the publication of the Road Map, on 10 June 2020, with no other opportunity to feed in the process, besides a call between the Commission and certain CSFD members in April. It should be borne in mind that the Road Map is a document of just over two pages that does not allow for a genuine understanding of, or feedback on, the Agenda. No draft of the Agenda was ever shared.

Furthermore, the European Commission disregarded the overwhelming majority of the 27 submissions sent by European NGOs, which urged the EU to retain the balanced and multidisciplinary approach that characterized the 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies. The fact that the deadline for submitting feedback was 15 July 2020, a mere nine days before the publication of the Communication, suggests that the consultation was not undertaken in the spirit of genuine inquiry, and that the Agenda was at least near completion when the Road Map was published.

Crucially, although the external evaluation of the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy was finalised in April 2020, the evaluation was not published or otherwise shared with civil society until three months later, on 24 July 2020, thus depriving stakeholders of crucial information when providing feedback to the Road Map. This is important, as there would appear to be a significant disconnect between the Agenda and the external evaluation. For instance, the evaluation consistently found that the 2013 Strategy had ‘sparked a considerable amount of progress’ in the cross-cutting areas of coordination, international cooperation, and monitoring, research and evaluation, which are precisely the areas now removed from the Agenda.

In addition to the grave concerns regarding the process and procedure, we felt it is important to bring your attention the key flaws in the draft Agenda:

. Although the Agenda explicitly claims to seek an ‘integrated, balanced, and multidisciplinary approach’ to drug policies, the draft is not balanced, as over half of its eight priority areas concern security and supply control interventions, with the rest distributed between prisons, prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Public health measures aimed at reducing the harms that can be associated to drug use have been relegated from the first priority of the 2013 Drugs Strategy to the end of the new Agenda. The cross-cutting themes of coordination, international cooperation, and information and research, which have been successfully developed since 2013 to materialise the multidisciplinary and integrated approach, have been dropped. The many references to the balanced approach across the operative parts of the 2013 Strategy, for instance as the basis for increased coordination across all actors, interventions at the CND, and international cooperation, have also disappeared.

Deprioritising human rights and public health.

 Human rights have practically disappeared from the draft Agenda, which contains no reference to the relevant international or regional human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, there is no mention of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy, a critical document developed with the leading support of Germany that lays down, for the first time, a set of clear and comprehensive international standards for articulating rights-based responses to illegal drug economies. In contrast, the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy explicitly referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, amongst others, and human rights were mentioned several times in the section on international cooperation. Public health has been relegated from the first policy field in the 2013 Strategy to the last priority areas of the Agenda, and has been replaced by ‘drug-related security’ as the first goal of the document.

Dropping support for key international documents.

 Equally surprising is the little attention paid to the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document - only a footnote in the preambular part of the Agenda, and a mention in the Action Plan, outside its priority areas -, even though it has been consistently described by the EU as ‘the most comprehensive policy agreement of the international community and a milestone in the discussions on international drug policy’. It is also inexplicable that the Agenda would completely fail to reference the 2018 UN System Common Position on Drugs, a watershed document championed by the EU and EU Member States, as it establishes for the first time a coherent position across all UN entities on key topics like decriminalisation and harm reduction.

Reducing the space for civil society and people who use drugs.

 Whereas the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy contained a commitment to promote and encourage ‘the active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’, the EU Drugs Agenda only mentions ‘engagement’ with the CSFD. Involvement with civil society beyond the CSFD has been omitted, and there is no reference to engaging with people who use drugs and clients of drug services, which the 2013 Strategy did.

Weakening the external dimensions of drug policy.

 The 2021-25 Drugs Agenda risks weakening the external action of the EU in bilateral and multilateral drugs fora, as it does not set clear guidelines for EU coordinated intervention, and it does not provide strong support for the key international documents that the EU has been forcefully defending and promoting in the last years. For instance, the Agenda does not provide any concrete principle or guideline for intervening at the CND, even though it is arguably the centre of the international drug control system, and the role of the EU there is more important than ever. This contrasts greatly with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which committed the EU to a ‘strong voice’ in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, with the aim of promoting the balanced approach. Another case in point is the only reference to alternative development in the whole Agenda, which can be found under the heading ‘dismantling drug production’, and is not deemed to warrant even one of the 24 priority areas set in the document. This is especially surprising considering that the 2018 Council Conclusions adopted exclusively on this topic committed the EU to a ‘leading role (…) in the funding and implementation of alternative development’, and stated clearly that the success of alternative development goes ‘beyond an exclusive focus on illicit drug crop monitoring’.

 In spite of the EU’s leading role in fostering scientific knowledge and research on drug markets and drug use through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda has dropped the cross-cutting theme on monitoring, research and evaluation, and science-based drug policies are scarcely mentioned in the operative parts of the document. Again, this makes a striking contrast with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which featured a whole theme on research and evaluation for ‘a better understanding of all aspects of the drug phenomenon’, and provided a role for the EMCDDA in supply reduction, international cooperation, and the overall implementation of the document, among others.

 Although the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda explicitly seeks to reduce drug-related stigma, the European Commission press release accompanying the publication of the proposed Agenda was deeply stigmatising, as it puts drug policies at the same level as child abuse and firearms trafficking. Furthermore, the Agenda contains some instances of stigmatising language (‘substance abuse’ and ‘substance misuse’) that did not exist in the 2013 Drugs Strategy.

In light of the above and following established practices for the development of previous EU drugs strategies, we urge you, as the Council Presidency, to take political leadership and encourage the HDG to reject the draft proposed by the European Commission. A new process for strategy development should ensure that the new document reflects in a balanced manner the existing EU and the latest international commitments (in particular the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document), the views of the EU Member States and all the relevant actors within the EU institutions, and engages meaningfully with civil society.

We would also be grateful if you could share this letter with your HDG colleagues before the 9 September meeting.
We remain at your disposal for any further discussion on this matter, and look forward to our continued cooperation on this and other topics during the German Presidency.

Drug policy experts raise concerns regarding the draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 - Open Letter

By Kathryn Ledebur, Linda Farthing and Thomas Grisaffi

Bolivia has seen widespread public protests in recent months against the interim government, led by Jeanine Añez, which has twice postponed elections due to coronavirus. Her government has repeatedly violated its mandate by passing new laws and persecuting its political opponents, including coca growers in the Chapare region east of Cochabamba, who we collaborate with on research projects.

Bolivia is the world’s third largest producer of cocaine, a drug manufactured from coca leaves, which is central to Andean culture. Under the previous government of Evo Morales, coca growers benefited from a programme that allowed them to cultivate a plot of coca up to 2,500 square metres, and actively engaged farmers to self-police to respect these limits.

This policy, which emphasised community participation and respect for human rights, was lauded and funded by the European Union. Internationally recognised in the mainstream press as best practice in this area, Bolivia’s community coca control programme has long served as an example for cooperation in other parts of the world.

But this approach was recently reversed. One former EU official in the country confidentially told us that this represents a “significant setback”. Yet the EU has been helping to make this happen.

Bolivia reverses years of progress with new draconian cocaine policy, supported by the European Union

Over 60 Groups Urge UN Body to Ensure Accountability

(Geneva) – The United Nations Human Rights Council should establish an independent international investigation on extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations in the Philippines, Human Rights Watch said today, joining dozens of other human rights and civil society groups worldwide in calling for an investigation. The council will convene its 45th session on September 14, 2020.

On August 27, 62 human rights and civil society groups sent a letter to UN member and observer countries at the Human Rights Council to express their “continued grave concern over ongoing extrajudicial executions and other serious human rights violations” in the Philippines. Over 30 groups from the Philippines signed the letter, representing much of the country’s human rights and civil society movement.

“The several dozen Philippine and international groups calling for an investigation into the Philippines is a remarkable show of solidarity that members of the UN Human Rights Council should not ignore,” said Laila Matar, deputy Geneva director at Human Rights Watch. “The extrajudicial killings and other severe rights abuses in the Philippines continue unabated, and the groups endorsing this letter are saying enough is enough.”

The four-page letter and its six-page annex outline the “grave concern over ongoing extrajudicial executions and other serious human rights violations in the context of the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines, fueled by incitement to violence and discrimination by the highest levels of government with near-total impunity.” The groups urged the council to respond “robustly” to the recent report on the situation in the Philippines by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Human Rights Council should act on Philippines - Civil society letter

By Kgalema Motlanthe, Former President of South Africa; Olusegun Obasanjo, Former President of Nigeria / Global Commission on Drug Policy

When we were Presidents of Nigeria and South Africa – the largest economies on the continent – our Administrations dreamt of many things. One in particular was to create drug-free societies.

We were wrong because we thought prohibition, repression, and prison would protect our children. We allowed harsh penalties for drug-related offenses, including the non-violent ones. We legitimised State forces when they arrested and punished many citizens, even when, in retrospect, that was excessive.

It didn’t work because the prohibition that global superpowers imposed to the world at the end of World War II was a continuation of their political concerns, and cultural preferences. It was not a rational and concrete strategy to cope with addiction.

Still today, alcohol and tobacco are sold, freely consumed and pushed by sophisticated marketing and few people challenge this although those substances are harmful to people’s health. The somewhat artificial distinction between those substances and illegal drugs (such as cannabis) led the world, and us as African leaders, to many mistakes.

Those young people that were thrown in prison, did we convince them to take a better path?

More often than not, the main thing they learnt in prison is the craft of crime!

Drugs: Let’s admit we were wrong

By European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Over the past five years, more than 40 000 people have died of a drug-related overdose in the European Union and the UK; around 80% of these being linked to the use of heroin or other opioids. Yet, with effective intervention, they could have been prevented.

On International Overdose Awareness Day, the EMCDDA is launching a new set of resources designed to improve understanding of drug overdoses and responses to them in Europe. These have been developed under the agency’s harm-reduction initiative, through which it aims to support countries’ actions to prevent overdose and reduce overdose-related mortality, ultimately contributing to a healthier Europe (EMCDDA Strategy 2025). The initiative consists of a rolling programme of activities which target specific areas of harm reduction practice, build on the evidence base in this area and deliver relevant tools for policy and practice.

Many people overdose in the presence of their partners or peers. Empowering friends, family and other bystanders to act effectively, before emergency services arrive at the scene, can therefore save lives. Overdose prevention programmes, combining first aid training with the provision of the overdose-reversal drug naloxone, were piloted in Europe in the late 1990s. Now available at local or national level in 12 European countries, these take-home naloxone (THN) programmes are targeted at-risk opioid users and those likely to witness an overdose.

Facts and myths about overdose and take-home naloxone — EMCDDA publishes new resources

Stakeholders, who are at the forefront of drug policy reform advocacy in the country, have decried criminalisation and molestation of drug users by law enforcement agencies in the country.

They said the imperative of criminal justice reform was to adopt alternatives to incarceration for low-level petty offences, while calling on government to provide drug treatment in all primary health care centres across the country, which could be easily accessible for all drugs users.

Communications / Programme Assistant, YouthRise Nigeria, Martha Saleh, said the programme was also part of the “Support, Don’t Punish” global advocacy campaign, which called for prioritisation of health and reduction of drug-related harms among youths.

According to her, the platform gave youths the opportunity to deliberate on growing prevalence of drug use among young people, and how the current punitive response to the challenges impacts the health, human rights, and overall development of young people in Nigeria.

Stakeholders decry criminalisation of drug users in Nigeria

People who inject drugs who are in contact with harm reduction organisations are more likely to use condoms and sterile needles, and be on opioid substitution therapy or HIV treatment.

An analysis of five nationwide surveys conducted in Ukraine over eight years has found that people who inject drugs who are reached by harm reduction non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have consistently better outcomes relating to HIV prevention, testing and treatment.

These better outcomes were seen despite NGO clients being more marginalised as they are more likely to have been imprisoned, be economically more impoverished and inject more frequently.

A greater proportion of NGO clients were found to be living with HIV than non-NGO clients – with prevalence high at 29% – but they were more likely to be on treatment than those who had not received NGO support.

Data from national surveys carried out by the Alliance for Public Health, one of the largest harm reduction NGOs in Ukraine, was used for the analysis.

The first survey, conducted in 2009, involved around 3,900 people. Surveys in 2011, 2013 and 2015 involved between 9,000 and 9,500 people each, and the final survey in 2017 involved around 10,000 people.

All survey respondents had injected drugs in the last 30 days, were aged 14 or above and lived in one of 31 cities, covering all of the country’s regions. Roughly 80% of respondents were men and 20% were women.

Across all surveys, around one‐third of those questioned were NGO clients, a level that remained stable each year.

Indisputable worth of Ukrainian harm reduction organisations revealed by eight-year analysis

 The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has launched a new survey to collect feedback on the World Drug Report. The objective of this survey is to maintain the relevance of the 

 by understanding how it is used and the extent to which it fulfills the needs and expectations of its readers. The survey is estimated to take no more than 10 minutes to complete. The identity of individual respondents is not recorded and anonymity will be preserved in the processing and analysis of the responses. Kindly submit your answer to the online survey by 

. Survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9CNF83B

World Drug Report survey 2020

The Pompidou Group's European Prevention Prize was first launched in 2004. It is awarded every two years. In each two-year cycle, up to three prizes are awarded. You can find information about earlier prize-winners by following the links in the 'Successful Projects' box on this webpage.

Prize-winners are high-quality drug prevention projects that fully involve young people. Young people are involved in the development and implementation of activities, in project decisions, in project management and perhaps in project evaluation.

The Pompidou Group awards the Prize to highlight excellent drug prevention projects that have proved successful in practice in involving young people. It aims to encourage the development of drug prevention work where young people are actively participating. The Pompidou Group believes that the genuine involvement of young people improves the possibilities of successful drug prevention.

The projects which apply are evaluated by a Jury of seven young people (aged between 16 and 21 at the time of their appointment) recruited from the Pompidou Group's and Council of Europe member States. The jurors are selected by the Pompidou Group based on their experience of youth participation in drug prevention. Jurors serve for two terms. The Jury is advised by a former juror and by a drug prevention expert, but only jury members take the decisions on awarding the Prize.

The prize-winners each receive a trophy, a diploma and a prize-money of €5.000. Previous prize-winners say that the recognition of their value by the Pompidou Group has been invaluable in helping them to secure funding.

News