sou · GZB366 · 2011-10-19 00:00:00 — The Com- mittee also proposes that press for an evaluation of harm reduction activities financed by the to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Clarifying drug policy positions Swedish drug policy is characterised by a restrictive approach guided by the long-term ambition to create a drug-free society. This restrictive outlook has not only entailed practical conse- quences for the policy but is also reflected in the positions has taken or needs to take in relation to specific issues under dis- cussion at international level. drug policy is not set out in its entirety in a readily accessible document. Anyone wishing to ascertain posi- tion on a specific drug policy matter must therefore do his/her own research, referring back to government bills and other documents stating the countrys positions However, the fact that these posi- tions are not always mutually consistent creates uncertainty in international negotiations and extra work both for negotiators and those responsible for drawing up the instructions for the negotia- tions. accordingly takes the view that posi- tion should be clarified in respect of a number of recurring issues in international discussions and negotiations. These include criminali- sation of the use of drugs, the position on addiction as an illness or a habit, the role of prevention, action against illegal drug use, harm reduction and the legalisation of cannabis. proposes that these clarifications should serve as a basis for a framework instruction to be adopted by the Gov- ernment and observed by participating ministries and government agencies in international negotiations and efforts to promote Swedish drug policies. The UN system is the global cooperation forum for crucial deci- sions on the foundations of drug policy. proposes that the Government draw up a policy on 's involvement in UN work on drug-related issues. These issues are technically complicated and politically sensitive. They are closely connected to a number of other policy areas of importance to . For example, there are strong links between drug policy, the fight against HIV and human rights. Eradication of illegal drug crops and alternative development have a direct bearing on environ- mental policy and poverty reduction. Crime prevention measures aimed at the illicit drug trade are inextricably linked to anti-corrup- tion efforts and human rights. Cohesion between policy areas is vital. Measures intended to further drug policy objectives should not be obstructed by measures in other policy areas, and vice versa. The CND is the foremost international forum, not only for drug control, psychotropic substances and precursors, but also for drug policy debates. It is also the governing body of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). By initiating resolutions, member states can raise issues that might otherwise languish in obscurity, and by taking an part in the ensuing negotiations they can bring influence to bear on the wording of resolutions. Although resolutions may not always be of major practical significance, they can mean a great deal when it comes to setting the agenda for policymaking and international cooperation. Once one of the most proactive countries involved in the CND and its work, has in the recent past tended to adopt a watchdog position, particularly with regard to normative issues. The operational segment that acts as a governing body of the UNODC in drug-related matters is an exception. Here, has been highly – and successfully – proactive. In view of the con- siderable influence a united EU can bring to bear, every attempt should be made to effect resolutions that all EU member states can support. However, one cannot ignore the fact that drug policies, and hence positions on certain strategic issues, vary among EU countries. should accordingly seek to gain support for ideas among like-minded countries, including non-EU member states. participation in the CND will require the enlargement of the Swedish delegation to include representatives of other minis- tries, primarily the , and, where appropriate, experts from government agencies. The fight against drugs, crime and terrorism is a priority area for the UN. UNODC has a key role to play here. is a major contributor to the organisation. proposes that a Swedish organisational strategy for UNODC be drawn up jointly by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Affairs and the . The strategy should specify positions on organisational issues such as governance, lead- ership and funding of operations – including staff and support functions at the organisations headquarters and field offices – and on issues concerning UNODCs substantive activities. The aim should be to balance UNODC operations with respect to drug demand reduction and drug supply reduction efforts, and to strike a balance in the former area between preventive measures, care and treatment on the one hand, and harm reduction on the other. The current trend is strongly tilted towards drug supply reduction and harm reduction. WHO has a key role to play in the international control of nar- cotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The CND may not adopt amendments to the 1961 and 1971 conventions without prior criti- cal review by () and a recommendation by the WHO. This provision is laid down in the drug conventions and cannot be amended or rescinded without renegotiating the conventions. Although the assignment is defined by treaty, the WHO has not convened the ECDD since 2006, as a result of which a number of potentially highly harmful substances have not been reviewed for international control. The WHOs explanation is that there is no funding avail- able for this activity. This is unacceptable. In the Committees view, should ensure that the WHOs remit pursuant to the drug conventions is addressed as part of the ongoing reform proc- ess and dealt with as the core assignment it is. The ECDDs opera- tions should be financed through the regular WHO budget and not be dependant on voluntary earmarked contributions. The Affairs should raise this issue with the WHO at senior management level at its annual high-level meeting, and in addition urge the body's governing board to addresses the issue of funding through the regular budget. should also explore the possibility of establishing a common position on this solution in the EU. The EU is an important drug policy actor, both politically and in terms of practical cooperation. The of 27 European countries reaching agreement on a drug policy direction is not to be ignored in international contexts. The advantage of agreeing on a common drug strategy is that it will add value to the countries national strategies. While it is true that the EU drug strategy and action plan are not legal instruments, and thus not in themselves legally binding on member states, a large number of the measures recommended in the action plan are legally binding. of has entailed major changes regarding the scope for drug policy cooperation, particularly in the areas of and home affairs and foreign affairs. The current EU drugs strategy runs until . The principles on which its successor will be based have already been laid down by Council in the Programme. It is essential that the new strategy and action plan make full use of all available means under the to improve coordina- tion and cooperation, particularly with countries and regions of major importance for drug policy. The strategy must mobilise civil society and contribute to the enhancement of the knowledge base by promoting research and data comparability. proposes that play an part in the planning and implementation of a common EU drug policy. Commission has already begun work on the new drug strategy, which will launch in 2013. Clearly, there is time to lose. should take part in the Commissions work on the basis of a carefully considered, inter-ministerial concept of what the EU strategy should include, taking account of the new scope for cooperation afforded by the . With regard to participation in the Council's Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG), the Committee considers that the Swedish delegation should be enlarged to include representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the when matters falling within their spheres of responsibility are negotiated. Where appropriate, experts from government agencies should also take part. Swedish participation in drug and drug conferences/meet- ings with non-EU member states has been very sporadic. should make use of the opportunities for dialogue offered by these Using EU meetings to build alliances with like-minded countries is particularly important. Such meetings also afford an immediate insight into the kind of issues that are likely to be controversial or significant for other reasons, and that may need to be solved in other international fora. therefore proposes that the ministries concerned jointly determine which countries should be given priority by in the regular dialogue and cooperation process within the framework of EU cooperation against drugs. Regarding EU cooperation at operational level, this is working well in the Committees view, although its full potential is not always exploited. This applies particularly to Moni- toring () and, in some respects, to Europol. Commission administers a number of coopera- tion programmes which together place significant funds at the dis- posal of agencies, research institutions and civil society organisa- tions for drug-related projects and activities. Swedish projects and organisations are poorly represented in these programmes. The application process is protracted and complicated, and the Swedish contact points for the programmes are located in different agen- cies. In addition, information is often only obtainable via multiple routes. proposes that – working in collaboration with the tice and – be tasked with setting up a web portal, i.e. an introductory web page linking to EU programmes of relevance to drug-related issues. In addition to up-to-date information on the programmes, application forms, links to the programmes them- selves, etc., the portal should also include access to information on drug-related projects and activities already receiving support. There are also EU programmes providing technical assistance to candidate countries, potential candidate countries and neighbour- ing countries. These programmes involve a number of areas of rele- vance to drug policy. These include drug policy coordination, health matters, the fight against organised crime, capacity for civil society, etc. In the Committees view, these programmes, for which the (Sida) is the contact point, are a potential resource which from a Swedish standpoint could and should be used to steer drug policy development in the right direction. Purposeful, systematic advocacy work would enable Swedish government agencies and experts to contribute to exchanges of experience, and capacity and institution in with the spirit of the UN drug con- ventions and other policy documents. However, this will require the allocation of dedicated resources. Other fora for international cooperation There are, in addition to the UN and EU, a number of other fora for cooperation at various levels, and with varying degrees of Swedish participation. Global organisations include the to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the , , the () and the Finan- cial Action Task Force (FATF). The principal bodies at European level are for Security and Cooperation in Europe (). Several cooperation projects have been established in the Baltic Sea region. These undertakings are of a practical nature, e.g. law enforcement cooperation to fight organised crime, and cooperation among experts on alcohol and drug-related issues and HIV pre- vention. Finally, the Nordic countries cooperate effectively in a number of areas, including research, collaboration on new psycho- substances and informal exchanges among government officials responsible for drug-related issues. finds cooperation efforts involving , WCO and FATF and the operational fight against crime in the Baltic Sea region to be both effective and of practical benefit. As regards other forms of cooperation, the picture is complicated. Conditions for cooperation have changed considerably, particularly in the wake of EU enlargement and the development of EU coop- eration in a range of areas. has seen the addition of several Eastern European countries. Meanwhile, , the UK and have opted out due to resource constraints. participates at the overall strategic level through the Affairs, and on a regular basis at working party level through the in a cooperative effort to fight drug smuggling through airports. Counting travelling time, and pre- paratory and supplementary work, the Affairs spends an estimated two weeks a year on cooperation with the . In the Committees view, this input should be weighed against the need to upgrade participation in UN and EU activities in this sphere, particularly in view of the upcoming development of a new EU drug strategy. In the government bill, A Cohesive Strategy for Alcohol, Nar- cotic Drugs, Doping and Tobacco Policy (ANDT) (Govt 2010/11:47), the Government underlined the need for greater coordination and prioritisation of Nordic cooperation on ANDT. With regard to general cooperation on drug policy, the former officials in has been replaced by an informal annual meeting denominated the . Although the Nordic countries are bound by strong cultural and language ties, there is no automatic consensus on drug policy. We have differing views on a number of major drug policy issues. It is nevertheless essential that Nordic cooperation, particularly on operational matters, be maintained, whereas the form taken by the general dialogue should always be open to dis- cussion. The Committee considers that research cooperation taking place under the auspices of the in (NVC) is of considerable value and should be encouraged. This also applies to the Network for Alcohol and Drug-Related Issues, a forum for dialogue between the research world and officials in the Nordic countries government offices responsible for drug-related issues. Similarly, informal cooperation focused on new psychoac- tive substances, carried on via the NADiS network, is a good example of an effective cooperation emerging in response to the need for collaboration. With regard to Nordic cooperation between the and customs authorities (PTN), the Committee notes that all EU member states are part of Europol, and have recourse to other EU countries liaison officers in countries where they themselves are not represented. It is important in this connection to be aware of the risk of the duplication of effort in other areas of PTN as the EU develops in response to the new possibilities afforded by the . Greater international participation by Swedish experts One of the Committees tasks was to examine ways in which can promote greater participation by Swedish experts in international drug-related activities, particularly within EU institu- tions. This is not only about making use of Swedish expertise in international contexts, but also about skills acquisition by . International organisations need the knowledge and experience that Swedish experts can offer, and Swedish agencies and organisa- tions need knowledge, experience and the contact networks that come with serving in international organisations. At present, very few Swedes are actively engaged in drug-related issues in organisa- tions outside . The question of international participation by Swedish experts cannot be viewed in isolation from other international commitments in this field. If drug-related issues are to be a priority cooperation area for , they should inform a range of areas, including international recruitment to key organisations. Among other things, this means that resources should be allocated both to disseminate information on how to access the systems and to defray the costs involved in maintaining national experts in the EU and the UN. Commitment on the part of agency leadership and human resources departments is also essential. Sida and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs Secretariat for Inter- national Recruitment are both actively engaged in enhancing 's presence in international organisations. To assist them in this task, departments in the Government Offices with responsi- bility for organisational and/or substantive matters, together with Permanent Representation in , should monitor developments in terms of vacancies at UNODC headquarters in and field offices that normally recruit experts on a project basis through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). In addition, Sida should give favourable consideration to offering UNODC Junior Professional Officers (JPOs) via the Associate Expert Programme. Such requests are submitted to donor countries on a regular basis. Much will depend on whether information on access to the systems is readily available to interested experts. recommends the dissemination of information about opportunities for 's students to apply for internship at UNODC. In addi- tion, interested Swedish experts should be encouraged to send their CVs in to UNODC, which keeps a register of suitable consultants whom the organisation can contact as necessary. Another course of action worth testing is to lend out Swedish experts on a non-reim- bursable loan agreement for special activities. National experts are an important means of strengthening presence in EU institutions and bringing influence to bear on the work of the Commission, as well as creating networks of considerable utility to agencies at home. In the Committees view, it is particularly important to have Swedish experts within the Commission in view of the recently begun work of drawing up proposals for a new drug strategy and action plan for the EU. Although Swedish NGOs have expressed interest in greater international involvement, this often wanes rapidly due to lack of funds to cover travelling and accommodation expenses. The Com- mittee accordingly proposes that the Government consider intro- ducing grants for NGO participation in international meetings and conferences. It further proposes that Sida be instructed to examine the feasibility of earmarking funds for pilot projects in which Swedish NGOs are given the opportunity to help similar organisa- tions in developing countries to develop their own projects and programmes. international commitments are attended by an obligation to report on drug-related matters to a number of coordinating bodies. In some cases, statistics and information are collected at specified intervals and in accordance with set procedures. Parties to the UN international drug conventions are formally required to submit annual data on the functioning of the three conventions. The data are collected through four annual question- naires collectively entitled the Annual Reports Questionnaire (ARQ). The completed questionnaires are sent in electronically to UNODC, which summarises the information in two reports to the CND – one on the world situation with regard to drug abuse, and one on the world situation with regard to drug trafficking. The information also serves as a basis for other background documents prepared for the CND, and forms part of support data for () annual report and for the World Drug Report published annually by the UNODC. A similar report is also submitted annually to the . Responsibility for coordinating reports to the rests with . In view of the close similarity between annual reporting to the UN through the ARQs and its reporting to the , the Committee proposes that the task of compiling the ARQ data also be allocated to , and that this assignment be included in the agencys instructions. Procedures for reporting to the UN and EU need to be tight- ened up. Responsibility for producing the required statistics and data is divided among a number of ministries and agencies. In cases where a particular issue is of concern to several actors, submissions should be made jointly. has pointed to the need for a more clearly defined allocation of roles and responsibilities in terms of who should supply what part of the information requested in the questionnaires. It therefore proposes the creation of a net- work comprising those bodies responsible for supplying informa- tion. It may be beneficial in the initial stages for network partici- pants to meet in order to clarify aspects of the reporting process, such as scope, concepts and definitions. It can also be a useful means of establishing who else is contributing to the process, so that everyone involved can know who to turn to with any ques- tions they may have. has found that it can sometimes be difficult for an authority responsible for compiling data and information for the Government, and subsequent submission to the UN or EU, to get the required information in on time. An agency which owns statis- tical data and other information must be presumed to function as a supplier to the agency tasked with reporting to one or more inter- national organisations. This should be self-evident. In cases where an agency is not specifically instructed to supply the Government and other agencies with statistics or other background data, the Government should consider introducing provisions to that effect in the agency's instructions. Other reporting activities also take place on a regular basis. compiles a bien- nial report for the on a range of matters, including the number of newly infected individuals and access to clean syringes and needles by injecting drug users. has a wide-ranging obligation to report to the INCB. Annual and quarterly statistics on narcotic substances, psychotropic substances and precursors are submitted on seven separate forms. The agency estimates that the time required to meet this regular reporting obligation amounts to almost ten working weeks per year. This does not include a varying number of ad hoc queries and requests. This task should be regu- lated in the agency's instructions. The result of this extensive reporting process is a wealth of material detailing the current drug situation in from a range of standpoints. However, use is made of this body of information in . Not even those responsible for supplying the data are able to access the assembled information. It is unfor- tunate that the result of such a comprehensive, collective effort is not made more use of in the national context. It could easily be used as a basis for knowledge enhancement and in follow-up stud- ies. acknowledges the need for a system to dis- seminate the results of Swedish reporting at national level. The compiled responses to the questionnaires should be made available to all relevant ministries and organisations. also proposes that the reports be used for the purpose of knowledge enhancement. This might best be accomplished by the agency responsible for compiling the reports holding an annual seminar at which status updates contained in the reports are presented and discussed with other agencies and organisations engaged in drug- related activities. Finally, the Committee considers that the reports submitted to the UN and EU give an exhaustive picture of the strengths and weaknesses of drug policies and that they should be used in government follow-ups of these policies. Allocation of responsibility, coordination and knowledge development The drug question concerns a number of agencies and ministries. Overall responsibility for coordinating drug policy in the Govern- ment Offices rests with the Affairs. Several other ministries are responsible for specific policy issues. Coordination of all government work relating to alcohol, drug, doping and tobacco policy is the task of the ANDT Secretariat in the Affairs.