EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 5.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1321 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
on the Mid-Term Review of the implementa tion of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-
2012) 
  
COM(2010) 630 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
accompanying the  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  
on the Mid-Term Review of the implementa tion of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-
2012) 
  
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ .. 3 
2. Coordination (objectives 1-4)....................................................................................... 4 3. Drug demand reduction (objectives 5-10).................................................................. 10 4. Drug supply reduction (objectives 11-15).................................................................. 23 5. International cooperation (objectives 16-20) ............................................................. 37 6. Information, research and ev aluation (objectives 21-24)........................................... 51 
Appendix 1 - List of abbreviations………………………………………………………61 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 sets out the ba sic principles for a European model of drugs policy based on the balanced approa ch to reducing the 
supply of and the demand for drugs. It aims to protect and impr ove the well-being of society a nd the individual, to protect pub lic health, to offer a high 
level of security for the general public.  
The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, adopted by the European Council in December 2008, is the last of two Action Plans that aim to implement the 
objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy. The Ac tion Plans help coordinate government interventions in the field of illegal drugs co vering public health, law 
enforcement, customs, criminal just ice and internati onal cooperation.  
The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 has five priorities: to strengthen coordination am ong all drugs policy actors, to reduce dru g use and its adverse 
health and social consequences, to reduce drugs availability, to strengthen intern ational cooperation and to improve our unders tanding of the drugs 
problem.  
It consists of 24 objectives and 72 actions in total. Its implementation is main ly the responsibility of the Member States with  support from the European 
Commission and technical assistance from th e EU agencies, the European Monitoring Ce ntre for Drugs and Dr ug Addiction (EMCDDA),  Europol and 
Eurojust. For each action, the responsible parties and a suggested deadline for its completion have  been provided for. Furtherm ore, for each action an 
objectively verifiable indicator to  monitor progress as well as the main documents  in which such progre ss can be assessed, have  been identified.  
In the following sections, a mid-term review  of the state of play regarding the cu rrent EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 is prese nted. For each action the 
available information on progress has been summarised. The output for each action that has reached its implementation deadline has been analysed. 
Ongoing actions are also m onitored. For five actions1 the deadline for completion was not yet indicated or  no relevant informati on was available to date. 
In this mid-term review the Commission was assisted by the Memb er States, the EMCDDA, and Europol . This assessment covers 2009 and the first half 
of 2010 and follows the structure of the Action Plan. 
                                                 
1 Actions 16, 28, 32, 55 and 66. 
 
EN 4   EN 2. COORDINATION (OBJECTIVES 1-4) 
Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: Coordination and cooperation in th e drug field can be strengthened at both European and national 
level so that drug policies are relevant to professionals and ci vil society, while at the same ti me enabling these structures t o provide feedback to inform 
policy. 
COORDINATION 
Objective / Action Responsible 
party State of play 
Objective 1. Ensure that a balanced and integrated approach is reflected in national policies a nd in the EU approach towards th ird countries and in 
international fora  
1. Member States and EU institutions 
to effectively coordinate drugs policy 
to reflect the objectives of the EU 
Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and this Action Plan MS 
COM 
Council The EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and the EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 are considered to be the main 
policy documents providing guidance for the drugs policy of the Member States and EU institutions. A 
survey conducted by the Commission in preparation of  this annual assessment showed that 12 of the 24 
Member States responding considered that the cu rrent Action Plan had provided guidance for the 
development of new national drugs policies. Eight of  these had acceded to the EU in 2004. Ten Member 
States indicated that the Action Pl an had been discussed and assessed against the background of their 
existing national policy. The extent to which the objectiv es of the EU Drugs Strategy and current EU Drugs 
Action Plan are actually reflected in national actions on drugs needs to be further assessed.  
Objective 2. Ensure effective coordination at EU level  
2. The Council’s  Horizontal Drugs 
Group (HDG), as the working group 
with leading and steering responsibility 
for drugs in the Council, should pro-actively coordinate EU drugs policy. 
The HDG should identify specific Council Even though the Horizontal Drugs Group (HDG) continues to be the main coordinating structure in the 
Council dealing with drugs policy, some concerns have been raised about the involvement of the HDG in 
initiatives addressed in the Multi-Disciplinary Grou p on Organised Crime (MDG) and in the newly 
established Standing Committee on Internal Security (COS I). The European Pact ag ainst international drug 
trafficking, for instance, which was adopted in June  2010, was presented directly at political level and 
 
EN 5   EN areas of work in other Council working 
groups and work towards effective coordination. discussed and adopted through COSI. The coordination with the HDG was not always considered adequate. 
The three Presidencies
2 in 2009 and the first half  of 2010 each presented a speci fic list of priorities to be 
addressed. The Czech Presidency placed emphasis on Migration, Integration and Drugs ; Production, 
Trafficking and Use of Methamphetamine ; and Evaluation of Supply Reduction Interventions . The Swedish 
Presidency focused on initiatives to prevent or delay the use of drugs among young people, a more 
effective fight against crime at EU  level to reduce drug supply, and a more extensive knowledge base for 
drugs policy and international cooperation. Spain’s priorities included the expansion of information and 
data in the field of drugs, cooperation between the EU and the LAC countr ies, and law enforcement 
cooperation in particular on the use of non-commercial aviation by criminal organisations for drug 
trafficking. 
During the Czech Presidency, the Council adopted Conclusions on the development and implementation of 
indicators in the field of drug supply  (9634/09; CORDROGUE 26; 8.5.2009), under Action 67 of the EU 
Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012. During the Swedish Presidency, the Council adopted Conclusions on the promotion of universal prevention programmes  (11818/2/09; CORDROGUE 48, 4.9.2009), on 
strengthening the fight against drug trafficking in Western Africa  (15248/09; CORDROGUE 69; 
4.11.2009) and on strengthening EU research capacity on illicit drugs  (15594/1/09 Rev1; CORDDROGUE 
78; 26.11.2009). During the Spanish Presid ency the Council adopted Conclusions on information systems 
on drugs  (5876/10Rev1; CORDROGUE 21; 29.1.2010) and on t he threat assessment of airfields and 
medium, small-size and light aircrafts that can be used for drug trafficking  (10328/10; CORDROGUE 53; 
28.5.2010). The Presidencies regularly ensured feedback  to the Horizontal Drugs Group on the drug-related 
activities of other working groups, notably the Multi-Disciplinary Group on  Organised Crime (MDG) , the 
Customs Cooperation Working Group  (dealing with drug precursors) and the Standing Committee on 
Internal Security (COSI) .  
3. The Commission and Council to 
ensure coherence between internal and 
external drugs policy COM 
Council Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the Eu ropean External Action 
Service (EEAS), the preparation of a Commission Communication on coherence between internal and 
external drugs policy has been postponed to 2012.  
4. The Council to examine the state of 
the drug problem once a year, on the 
basis of the Commission’s annual 
progress review, relevant reports from Council 
COM Presenting together the different strands of info rmation from the Commission, EMCDDA, Europol and 
other agencies such as Eurojust enables the Council to obtain coherent and coordinated insight into the 
main developments and challenges in  the field of drugs each year.  
                                                 
2 2009/1: Czech Republic; 2009/2: Sweden; 2010/1: Spain. 
 
EN 6   EN the EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust MS 
EMCDDA Europol 
Eurojust 
5. Presidency to convene meetings of 
the national drugs coordinators or their equivalents on a regular basis to 
advance coordination on specific and 
urgent issues requiring action. The coordinators to be invited to contribute 
to the Council’s annual examination of 
the state of the drugs problem (see 
action 4 above) PRES 
MS During the Czech, Swedish and Spanish Presidencies, meetings were organised between the national drug 
coordinators (NDC). The Czech Presidency focused on two topics during the NDC meeting in April 2009: 
Drugs Policy Coordination  and Migration, Integration and Drugs . The coordinators concluded that the 
exchange of experience and good prac tices in the field of drugs policy coordination needs to be encouraged 
and that action plans should include a cost-benefit analysis and have a proper financial basis. Moreover, 
they pointed out that migration requires special attention as in several countries specific migrant groups and 
national minority groups run a particular risk of developing drug problems. 
The Swedish Presidency devoted the ND C meeting in November 2009 to the prevention or delay of first 
use of illicit drugs among young people . The Spanish Presidency addressed poly-drug use in the EU , with 
an emphasis on alcohol use . The coordinators concluded that th e EU should examine whether a more 
holistic policy dealing with all ps ychoactive substances could be de veloped, taking into account the 
important links between illicit and licit drug use and the related problems related.  
Objective 3. Ensure effective coordination at national level  
6. Taking into account the work on 
Drugs coordination mechanisms in all 
EU Member States made by 
EMCDDA, Member States to examine 
inter-departmental coordination on 
drugs to ensure that coordinated positions are presented at EU level and 
that the objectives of the EU Action 
Plan are relayed to the most effective implementing level MS All EU Member States have a drug coordination mechanism and most of these have three main 
components: 
– A strategic inter-ministerial board, commission, committee, council or coordination group on drugs,  
which defines the general framework for drugs policy and adopts the national drug strategies and action 
plans. Usually this body includes all or most ministries and government departments concerned with 
drug-related matters. Experts and regional authorities are in some cases also members of these coordination bodies.  
– An operative body,  which can be the secretar iat of the inter-ministerial body, a national drug 
coordinator, a national drugs agency or drug strategy team and/or a department in a given ministry (mostly the Ministry of Health). These bodies perform day-to-day coordination in the drugs policy field 
and oversee the implementation and monitoring of drug strategies and action plans. 
– Regional and/or municipal bodies,  which coordinate at local level. Their task is to coordinate the 
 
EN 7   EN implementation of drug-related interventions. 
At EU level, there are several Council working parties and management boards of agencies dealing with 
illicit drugs policies where Member Stat es are represented. In addition, Member States are represented in 
several international structures and platforms (UNODC, CND, UNAIDS) that deal with different aspects of 
the drug phenomenon. For this annual assessment, the Commission asked Member States to report on how their positions on drugs policy in international organi sations and in EU structures are coordinated at 
national level.  
A large number of Member States
3 indicated that their positions in different Council Working Parties and 
in UN organisations are coordinated through inter-ministerial structures. Seven Member States4 indicated 
that one specific department may be responsible for the coordination of national drugs policy and that 
positions at EU and international level are coordinated on an ad-hoc basis. In some cases, working groups 
dealing with EU affairs have been set up within such coordinating departments. In Finland, a specific EU 
interdepartmental drug working group has been set up, while the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs may set up a specific working group on EU affairs in the fi eld of drugs. In France a nd Greece, the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs has the leading role in coordinating positions on drugs in the various bodies. In Latvia and 
Lithuania, specific mechanisms have been set up to coordinate positions in the EU, but not specifically 
related to drugs.  
Regarding coordination in international organisations such as the Council of Europe’s Pompidou Group 
and UN bodies, in most Member States, the national drug coordination mechanisms are in charge of 
preparing positions, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is often also structurally part of these mechanisms. 
For the coordination of positions in e.g. WHO and UNAIDS, the picture is more fragmented, as these 
organisations address a variety of issues other than drugs. In countries such as France, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes the lead, but coordinates positions with the inter-ministerial drug coordination 
structure. In Germany and Hungary, the coordination of international positions involves government 
agencies and civil society organisations.  
Objective 4. Ensure the participatio n of civil society in drugs policy  
7. The Commission to seek at least 
once a year feedback on drugs policy COM The third meeting of the EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs (CSF) was held in Brussels 3-4 March 2009. A 
number of issues were addressed at this meeting, including the EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, 
                                                 
3 Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Hung ary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Ro mania, Slovakia and Spain. 
4 Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland and Sweden. 
 
EN 8   EN from the Civil Society Forum on Drugs negotiations on the new UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action on international coop eration towards 
an integrated and balanced strategy to counter the world drug problem, and a Commission study into the global illicit drugs market 1998-2007
5.  
It was agreed that the CSF members would actively par ticipate in establishing the agenda on drugs policy, 
with the help of a core group of its members, which is to meet in between the official gatherings of the Forum.  
The next meeting of the CSF will be held by the end of 2010 and will discuss a possible input to the 
drafting of the new EU Drugs Strategy. An open call for applications to renew membership of the Forum will be launched in the second half of 2010.  
8. The Commission to launch an 
initiative, 'The European Alliance on 
Drugs', inviting civil society 
organisations across the EU (including 
e.g. schools, commercial enterprises, public bodies and NGOs) to participate 
in a common framework designed to 
create public commitment about and to take action on drug problems in 
society.  COM The title ‘European Alliance on Drugs’ was changed in to the ‘European Action on Drugs’ (EAD) to better 
reflect its mission: to engage civil society in concrete action to address illicit drugs and their potential risks.  
The awareness-raising campaign aims to involve individuals and groups, whose commitment to action may 
then have a multiplier effect among other groups in society. The actors involv ed include municipalities, 
media, clubs, schools, parent and youth associations, and companies. The campaign provides a platform
6 
and networking opportunities for civil-society bodies in  the Member States. In addition, several events 
bringing together campaign participan ts are organised each year in the Member States and in Brussels.  
The EAD was launched by Jacques Barrot, Vice-President in charge of Justice, Freedom and Security at a 
high-profile event on 26 June 2009 (World Drugs Day) and national events were held subsequently in 
Rome (2009), Berlin (20 10) and London (2 010). The 2010 annual EAD event took place on 25 June in 
Brussels, focusing on the prevention of drug-related crime among young people and bringing together personalities from the worlds of sports and entertai nment to share their experiences on drugs. Viviane 
Reding, Commission Vice-President in charge of ju stice, opened the event via a pre-recorded speech. 
To date, around 700 individuals and organisations from civil society have engaged in the EAD campaign. 
An independent evaluation of the campaign will be launched towards the end of 2010.  
9. Member States to involve civil 
society at all appropriate levels of 
drugs policy, in accordance with COM 
MS The ongoing reporting in this area seems to suggest an increasing invol vement of civil society in drugs 
policy within the Member States in  recent years. In a survey conduc ted in preparation of this annual 
assessment, the Commission asked the Member States about specific aspects of civil society involvement at 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
5 European Commission, A Study on Global Illicit Drug Market s 1998-2007, JLS/2007/C4/005; by Trimbos Institute and RAND. 
6 Website of the European Action on Drugs: http://ec.europa.eu/ead/html/index.jsp . 
 
EN 9   EN national practices  national level. Of the 24 responding Member States, 23 indicated that they involved civil society in drugs 
policy. Non-governmental organisations representing the interests of individual stakeholders in the field of drugs (e.g. users and/or their families) participate in the policy process in 17 Member States
7. The same 
number of Member States8 report the involvement of NGOs that ar e specifically active in the field of drugs 
policy. Nineteen Member States9 report the involvement of professional drug service providers in the 
development of national drugs policies. In seven Member States10, citizens’ opinion panels and surveys are 
used as a feedback instrument. Four Member States report that other specific groups are involved or 
consulted.  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
7 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hung ary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania,  Spain, Sweden and UK. 
8 Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,  Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, S lovakia, Spain, Sweden and UK. 
9 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germ any, Hungary, Ir eland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ma lta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia 
and UK. 
10 France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and UK. 
 
EN 10   EN 3. DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION (OBJECTIVES 5-10) 
Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need to further improve the effectiveness of measures to reduce drug us e and its consequences 
by improving the coverage, quality and effec tiveness of demand reduction interventions, i.e. prevention, treatment and harm red uction. This includes 
particular attention to vulnerable groups and the prevention of poly-drug use (combined use of illicit and licit substances, in cluding alcohol, volatile 
substances and tobacco). 
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION  
Objective Responsible 
party State of play 
Objective 5. Prevent the use of drug s and the risks associated with it  
10. To promote innovation in and 
systematically make available 
evidence-based and evaluated universal 
prevention programmes and interventions in different settings (e.g. 
towards young people in youth centres, 
and schools and towards adults in workplace and prison), aiming to 
prevent or delay first use of drugs. 
Prevention should also cover poly-drug use (combined use of illicit and licit 
substances, in particular alcohol) as 
well as drugs and driving  MS The EMCDDA has recently review ed current evidence regarding universal prevention in school settings
11. 
School-based programmes working with social influence principles have been found to have positive 
effects on young people’s drug use. Life skills-focus ed programmes also have beneficial effects on both 
mediating variables (e.g. self-esteem, peer pressure resistance) and substance use. However, some reviews 
have raised concerns regarding the existing evaluations and concluded that effectiveness may be overstated. 
The effects of knowledge-focused programmes on beha viour change are very limited. The research 
evidence for the effectiveness of school-based programmes through the involvement of peers is inconclusive. Programmes that incl ude booster sessions appear more effective. Interactive programmes 
have preventive effects on consumption behaviour (for  tobacco, alcohol, cannabi s and other illegal drugs) 
and are ‘statistically superior’ to non-interac tive interventions in preventing drug use. 
In 2007, EU Member States provided qualitative data on universal prevention in their country with expert 
ratings of the level of provision and the policy importance of different types of intervention. Follow-up data 
will be collected in 2010. According to the 2007 data, a wide variety of prevention interventions were implemented in European schools with very different le vels of provision. Overall,  these data showed that 
most pupils took part in programmes without evidence-based content (information provision and effective 
                                                 
11 http://emcdda.europa.eu/themes/best-practice/evidence/universal-prevention . 
 
EN 11   EN education). Information provided by the National Focal Points in 2008 and 2009 mentioned mainly one-off 
and isolated prevention interventions, with fe w evidence-based and evaluated programmes.  
In conclusion, there seems to be no indication th at evidence-based and evaluated programmes and 
strategies, including those targeting first use, are used more often in Member States. 
Objective 6. Prevent high risk behaviour of drug users — including injecting drug users — through targeted prevention  
11. To further develop early detection 
and intervention techniques and 
implement effective, evaluated selective prevention for vulnerable 
groups at high risk of developing drug 
problems, including injecting drug use MS In 2007, EU Member States provided qualitative data on selective prevention with expert ratings of the 
level of provision and the policy importance of differe nt types of interventions. Follow-up data will be 
collected in 2010. According to the 2007 data, there is limited provision of selective prevention in Europe, with most interventions targeting young offenders, vulnerable families and ethnic groups. The data indicate 
that the coverage of selective preventio n has not increased in recent years.  
Information provided by the National Focal Points in 2008 and 2009 highlighted recently implemented 
selective prevention interventions for ethnic gr oups in Belgium, Luxembourg and Hungary. FRED
12, a 
systematic intervention protocol for young offenders in Germany, is being implemented with EU support in 
15 other Member States13. Interventions based on the Strengthenin g Families model — an evidence-based 
parenting intervention for vulnerable families — have been implemented and evaluated in Ireland, Spain, 
the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.  
Overall trends in drug use are unlikely to reflect direc tly the impact of selective prevention interventions in 
Europe, as many other factors influence the numbers and characteristics of (problem) drug users. 
Information on the time lag between the age at which drug users enter drug treatment for the first time and 
the age at which they first used drugs might be an indi cator of early intervention needs, a measure to assess 
whether early intervention programmes are achieving the objective of bringing (problem) drug users into 
services earlier. For clients who entered trea tment for the first time in 2008, around 42  % started to use their 
main drug between the ages of 15 and 19, and 17  % before the age of 15 — rega rdless of the type of drug. 
For clients with cannabis as their primary drug, 39  % started to use the drug before the age of 15. Currently, 
for new outpatient clients, the average time lag between first use of primary drug and first treatment request is around 9 years
14. This differs by main drug of use and gender. A multiannual dataset, making longer-
term trends visible for this indicator, is not yet available.  
                                                 
12 http://www.lwl.org/LWL/Jugend/lwl_ks /Projekte_KS1/Fgn-english/?lang=en . 
13 Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, S weden, United Kingdom. 
14 The ‘primary drug’ means the drug for which treatment is requested. 
 
EN 12   EN 12. To further develop and implement 
effective, evaluated indicative prevention for specific high-risk 
groups of (poly-) drug users, by 
offering low-threshold access to counselling, problem behaviour 
management and outreach work where 
relevant MS In 2009, five 
15 Member States reported interventions for children with ADHD or disruptive behaviour and 
a third16 of EU countries reported early detection and counselling interventions for individuals who already 
use substances (early intervention). Overall, the number of reported interventions is low but they are more 
often evaluated and evidence-based than is the case in other areas of prevention.  
In 2008, the EMCDDA commissioned a study on indicated prevention17, including a literature review that 
identified six programmes (four of which are being assessed as ‘best practice’), and a data collection 
exercise in Member States that identified 23 programmes (three of which were ‘best practice’, i.e. 
compatible with EDDRA18 criteria). Another survey on internet-based counselling and treatment 
interventions19 found several internet-based drug treatment interventions, designed for cannabis, cocaine 
and ‘club drug’ (e.g. ecstasy) users. Four targeted young adults and adolescents, three were counsellor-
guided and one was a fully automated self-help programm e. Only one programme, ‘Quit the shit’ (QTS) in 
Germany, was evaluated for effectiveness. 
In the first half of 2010, an EU-led project targ eting recreational drug use in nightlife settings, ‘Healthy 
Nightlife Toolbox’20, was completed. As part of this project, a website provides information on a range of 
prevention programmes and projects targeting recreational drug use, which have been critically reviewed 
and classified according to strength  of evidence information. The proj ect was funded by the European 
Commission’s Programme of Community Action in the field of Public Health (2003-2008).  
Objective 7. Enhance the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation by im proving the availability, accessibility and qu ality of services  
13. Increase the effectiveness and 
spread of eviden ce-based drug 
treatment options covering a variety of 
psychosocial and pharmacological 
approaches, corresponding to the needs MS Opioid substitution treatment, combined with psychosocial interventions, has been found to be the most 
effective treatment option for opioid users. As yet, no drug has been found to be effective for treatment of cocaine dependence. However, more than 100 ongoing randomised controlled trials are testing new 
substances, sometimes in association with psychological  interventions. A number of clinical trials of 
pharmaceuticals for use in treating amphetamine depe ndence have recently been published or are in 
                                                 
15 Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden. 
16 Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary,  Portugal, Slovakia, Un ited Kingdom, Norway. 
17 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (200 9), Preventing later substance use disorders in at-risk children a nd adolescents: a review of the theory and 
evidence base of indicated pr evention. Thematic papers; http://emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/indicated-prevention . 
18 Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction Action. 
19 http://emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index78701EN.htm. 
20 http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/documents/projects/highlights/2007_5986_EN_85.pdf ; project No 2006345; project website: www.hnt-info.eu . 
 
EN 13   EN of drug users (including relevant 
treatment adapted to new drugs or types of use) progress. Among all studies, only naltrexone was asso ciated with a significant benefit in terms of use 
reduction. In a clinical study, the addition of contingency management improved the results compared to treatment alone. Few studies have assessed the effectiven ess of interventions for cannabis users, despite the 
increase in the demand for treatment.  
According to estimates using inform ation from different sources, at l east one million people received drug-
related treatment in Europe in 2007, most receiving opioid subs titution treatment. Opioid substitution 
treatment was provided to around 670
 000 opioid users in 2008. Availability of this type of treatment has 
risen tenfold since 1993 in the EU, an increase which has been facilitated in several countries by involving general practitioners, alongside specialist facilities, in delivery.  
As part of the survey conducted in preparation of  this annual assessment, the Commission asked the 
Member States what action had been taken to monitor an d/ or evaluate the effectiveness of drug treatment 
in the past two to three years. Of the 23 countries that provided information, three
21 indicated that no such 
action had been undertaken recently. Four22 reported that ad-hoc evaluations were being carried out (on 
individual programmes), but not structurally at national level. Ten Member States23 indicated that they had 
conducted evaluation studies to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment, and in almost half of these the 
evaluation specifically targeted substitution treatment. In France, therapeutic communities were evaluated, 
while Ireland reported structural evaluations in the field of drug treatment and the UK stated it had a 
national indicator for the delivery of treatment. Three Member States24 reported that they were developing 
indicators to better monitor the delivery of treatment, while four Member States25 indicated that they 
structurally monitor the delivery and effectiveness of drug  treatment services. In Denmark, this is part of a 
national programme to improve quality in the health sector.  
The survey also asked the Member States whether they had taken any specific measures since 2008 to 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
21 Belgium, Romania and Sweden. 
22 Austria, Finland, Greece and Poland. 
23 Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Irel and, Italy, Latvia, Lithuani a, Portugal, Slovakia and UK. 
24 Finland, Denmark and Lithuania. 
25 Denmark, Germany, Spain and UK. 
26 Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, La tvia, Poland, Portugal and Romania. 
27 Austria, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain. 
28 Denmark, France, Ireland, Lithua nia, Luxembourg, Sweden and UK. 
29 Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France,  Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxem bourg, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. 
30 Austria, Ireland, Ital y, Latvia and Spain. 
 
EN 14   EN implement evidence-based dr ug treatment options on a structural ba sis. Of the 23 Member States that 
responded, eight26 indicated that no specific m easures had been taken, in Germany because this is the 
responsibility of the Länder . In Bulgaria and Luxembourg all serv ices are already evidence- and best-
practice-based. Five Member States27 reported that the implementation of evidence-based programmes was 
an ongoing process, but not necessarily based on scientific grounds alone (Austria) and also involved the need to convince professionals to pursue an evaluatio n culture in their work (I taly). Seven Member States
28 
reported that they had undertaken specific action to implement evidence-bas ed treatment, mostly by 
developing and implementing treatment guidelines.  
Finally, the survey also asked whether Member St ates had made the application of evidence-based 
guidelines for drug treatment a precondition for public funding of treatment services. Of the 20 Member 
States that answered this question, 1329 indicated that this was not a precondition as such. For Germany, 
this was because services are often not publicly fu nded but are financed by e. g. insurance companies. 
However, Germany did report an in creased use of evidence-based guide lines. In Sweden, local authorities 
that purchase drug treatment services will most likely  include quality criteria in their orders. In Denmark 
and the UK, evidence-based drug treatment is not a direct precondition, but often part of broader good 
practice guidelines and rules for medical se rvices. Finally, in five Member States30, the delivery of 
evidence-based treatment is a precondition for public funding. 
14. To deliver existing and develop 
innovative rehabilitation and social re-
integration programmes that have measurable outcomes MS One way to identify both the need for and impact of rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes is 
to follow changes in the demographic profile of clients entering treatment. Treatment clients are 
characterised by disadvantaged social conditions. Data on clients entering outpatient drug treatment in the EU in 2008 found:  
– low levels of education (only 38
 % had completed primary education and 2  % had not completed 
obligatory schooling);  
– precarious living situations (9  % were living in unstable accommodation, most being homeless);  
– high levels of unemployment (35  % were unemployed and 12  % economically inactive).  
Social reintegration programmes may include vocational counselling, work placements and housing 
support. Prison-based interventions, which have an impact on relapse and re-offending, may link inmates to 
community-based housing and soci al support services in prep aration for their release.  
Information is scarce on the availability and coverage of social reintegration interventions in the Member 
States, the target groups they address and their outcomes. All Member States report the availability of 
housing, education and employment programmes and serv ices. Often, the educational or vocational training 
interventions that specifically target  drug users are contingent upon participants being drug-free for a 
 
EN 15   EN certain period. Five Member States31 report prioritising employment-related aspects  of the recovery process 
through new initiatives and increased funding allocation.  In most cases, these are part of drug users’ 
treatment care plans or contingent upon starting treatment. More information will be collected by the 
EMCDDA in 2010 with a new questionnaire on social reintegration, with a focus on employability-related 
interventions for drug users in treatment. 
15. To publicise, where appropriate the 
existence of treatment and 
rehabilitation services and the variety 
of options these services offer at national, regional and local level for 
potential target audiences  MS In 2010, the EMCDDA conducted a survey among Nati onal Focal Points in order to assess the availability 
of public registers (e.g. internet portals) inform ing the public of the existence of treatment and 
rehabilitation services and the options these services offer at national, regional and local level. The survey 
found that public registers were available in all 25 responding EU Member States. In most countries, they provide national coverage of available treatment fac ilities and programmes, with a regional breakdown. In 
some cases they allow the public to  search for specific treatment prog rammes by drug, target group (e.g. 
gender-specific, age-related), type of programme (e.g. outpatient or residential), costs, etc. 
In all reporting countries, these regi sters are accessible via the internet a nd in most cases on the website of 
the national treatment agencies or another relevant national health agency. In some cases, the list of 
facilities can be downloaded. Almost half of the count ries also provide maps to facilitate geographical 
searching of available treatment and rehabilitation programmes.  
These public registers are also available to the pub lic in the EMCDDA’s national drug treatment profiles 
for each respective country. These are available online and are among th e first hits in all popular search 
engines (only available in English). ( http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/responses/treatment-overviews
). 
As part of the survey conducted among Member States in preparation of this annual assessment report, the 
Commission asked Member States about the ‘channels’ through which potential users of drug treatment 
services are made aware of the existence and availability  of such services, apart from the internet. Nineteen 
out of 24 responding countries mention family doctors while 21 countries point to outreach services and government information services. In 22 countries, teleph one help lines as well as family and friends play an 
important role. In 17 countries, drug treatment servi ce providers advertise their se rvices directly, while in 
14 Member States public awareness campaigns draw a ttention to the availability of services. In Cyprus, 
potential clients are also referred to  services by schools or the army. In Denmark and Germany, social 
welfare services play a role, while in Germany and Spain hospital (emerg ency) departments refer clients to 
services as well. In the UK, referral is often by specialised community dr ug treatment services. 
                                                 
31 Germany, Italy, Austria, Port ugal and the United Kingdom. 
 
EN 16   EN Objective 8. Enhance the quality and effectiveness of drug demand reduction activities, taking account of specific needs of dru g users according to 
gender, cultural background, age, etc.  
17. To develop, implement and 
exchange good practice 
guidelines/quality standards for prevention, treatment, harm reduction 
and rehabilitation interventions and 
services MS 
COM 
EMCDDA The development, implementation and exchange of good practice guidelines and quality standards in the 
field of drug demand reduction is primarily a task of national authorities and service providers in this area. 
However, such guidelines and quality standards are not common practice in most Member States.  
A study commissioned by the EMCDDA, aiming to identify existing guidelines in Member States in the 
field of drug treatment , found out that 72 sets of guidelines existed in the 27 reporting countries. Most 
common were guidelines covering psychosocial interv entions (n=29); substitution treatment (n=28), and 
detoxification (n=22). Countries with higher rates of patients in oral substitution treatment were more likely 
to have treatment guidelines. Many guidelines targeted professionals (58), service providers (52) and 
health-care planners (25) as end users. Seventeen coun tries involved relevant professionals in expert groups 
to develop the guidelines, nine countries involved a researcher, four countries involved ‘other’ unspecified 
professionals, three countries involved politicians and one country involved clients. The study also found 
that guidelines were usually mandatory for opioid substitution treatment, and in approximately half of the 
responding countries guidelines are required in order to obtain authorisation to operate a treatment centre.  
18. Member States to survey the 
availability and effectiveness of prevention, treatment, harm reduction 
and rehabilitation services, in 
responding to specific needs, on the basis of a methodological framework 
to be developed by the Commission - 
with the support of the EMCDDA - and that is compatible with existing 
methodologies  MS 
COM EMCDDA Although the provision of drug demand reduction servi ces is the responsibility of the Member States, 
EMCDDA reports as well as the final evaluation report on the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 show that the link is often unclear between  the availability, accessibility and delivery of drug demand reduction 
services and actual needs in society.  
In preparation of this annual assessment, the Commission asked th e Member States to indicate whether 
they had conducted a national survey to assess the availability, coverage and effectiveness of demand 
reduction services in the past three year s. Of the 24 countries responding, eight
32 indicated that no such 
survey had been carried out recently . Malta indicated that a survey wa s underway, while Denmark pointed 
out that the delivery of demand reduction services is d ecentralised to local social  services. Some specific 
areas were surveyed nationally though, e.g. hepatitis C provision. Finland indicated that surveys had been 
carried out to map available services, but this did not necessarily include coverage or the link with potential 
needs. Germany indicated that a central register of all addiction services exists at federal level, but this does 
                                                 
32 Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Romania. 
 
EN 17   EN not include data on coverage and availability.  
Eleven Member States33 indicated that surveys had been conducted. In Hungary this included ad-hoc 
surveys into non-school prevention, rehabilitation and substitution treatment. In addition, with Structural 
Fund support, a pilot project had been launched in four regions to assess the need for and corresponding 
availability of demand reduction services with the aim of improving provision. In Ireland, an inventory for needle and syringe exchange was conducted, while in Lithuania an assessment of needs and matching 
availability was conducted structurally on the basis of the number of users applying for services. In 
Luxembourg a dedicated working group had been set up to assess demand-reduction needs, while in 
Portugal a gap analysis had been conducted in 2007 . In Sweden, needs assessments primarily covered the 
field of prevention, while in the UK such assessments were the task of local services, supported by the 
National Treatment Agency. In the UK, specific atten tion was devoted to matching the treatment needs of 
young people and available services.  
The Member States were also asked how the planning authorities in their countries allocated resources to 
the various drug treatment and harm reduction services , if surveys of coverage and availability were not 
conducted on a regular basis. Many of the 19 Member States
34 that responded to this question indicated that 
national indicators were used, such as the EMCDDA Key Indicators (e.g. Treatment Demand, Problem Drug Use). In Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Ge rmany, Spain and the UK, statistical data are often 
supplemented by expert estimations and needs assessmen ts at local level. In Germany and Poland, services 
are mostly provided by pr ivate drug services and/or NGOs who es timate the needs and apply for funding.  
19. To develop an EU consensus on 
minimum quality standards and 
benchmarks for prevention, treatment, 
harm reduction and rehabilitation interventions and services taking into 
account needs of specific groups and 
the work done at national and international level  MS 
Council 
COM 
EMCDDA The Commission is actively promoting the development, collection and exchange of quality standards and 
benchmarks in the field of drug demand reduction in the EU. In the field of prevention, the Commission 
funded a project ‘European standard s in evidence for drug prevention’
35 in 2008, under the Programme of 
Community Action in the field of Public Health (2003-2008). The project aims to produce a set of evidence-based drug prevention standards for use in the EU.  
In 2010, the Commission made funding available for the study ‘EU Consensus on minimum quality 
standards and benchmarks in drug demand reduction
36, as preparatory work for a Commission proposal for 
a Council Recommendation in this field by 2012. The proposal will aim to help bring about a measurable 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
33 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and UK. 
34 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denm ark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hung ary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Por tugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and UK. 
35 http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/ projects/database.html ; Project No 2007304; project website: http://www.cph.org.uk/drugprevention/ . 
36 Call for tender: JLS/2009/DPIP/PR/1023. 
 
EN 18   EN improvement in minimum quality standards and benchmarks covering all components in the field of drug 
demand reduction: prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and rehabilitation and reintegration in the EU Member States.  
The project will:  
– Conduct an inventory of existing (minimum) quality standards and benchmarks at national, EU and — 
where relevant — international level for the various types of demand-reduction interventions; 
– Develop a workable design for a realistic, feasible and scientifically robust framework for EU minimum 
quality standards and benchmarks;  
– Establish a framework for effective consultation an d an advisory mechanism for consensus building 
among experts and relevant stakeholders in the Member States and the EU institutions. The final report 
will set out options for EU minimum quality standards and benchmarks in the field of drug demand 
reduction. 
20. To develop, as appropriate, 
services for minorities, including, for example, migrants  MS In 2007, EU Member States provided qualitative data on selective prevention with expert ratings of the 
level of provision and the policy importance of different types of interventions, including those targeting specific minority groups in society. Follow-up data will be collected in 2011. According to the 2007 data, 
three countries reported the provis ion of prevention interventions for immigrants, in locations with 
sufficient numbers of the target population, while 11 c ountries reported no or rare provision or did not have 
information. Four countries reported provision for ethn ic groups, while ten countries reported no or rare 
provision or did not have information.  
More recent information provided by the National Focal Points in 2008 and 2009 mentioned interventions 
for ethnic groups in Belgium, Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania (low coverage) and Italy. No evaluated 
interventions for ethnic groups have been recorded in the EMCDDA’s EDDRA database since 2008. 
In 2008, eight countries
37 reported specific drug treatment programmes for minorities and ethnic groups, 
with different levels of provision . Only Greece reported that specialis ed programmes were available to 
nearly all drug-using members of ethnic groups who actively seek treatment. In three countries, national 
experts estimated that specialist treatment for these groups is available to less than half of users seeking it, while in four countries only a few could obtain treatment. National experts from 17 Member States 
                                                 
37 Belgium, Germany, Gr eece, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Finland and UK. 
 
EN 19   EN reported that specific treatment services for ethnic groups did not exist in their country. Denmark and 
Ireland had no information and two countries38 did not respond to the su rvey. Only Italy and Greece 
reported that treatment programmes were available for undocumented migrants.  
In 2008 gender-specific treatment programmes were reported in 16 EU Member States, and in four 
countries such programmes specifica lly targeted addicted pregnant women and their children. However, 
national experts rated the availability of these programmes as ‘limited to rare’ in most countries, i.e. only a 
minority of women in need would actually obtain treatment. Nine countries had no gender-specific 
treatment programmes. 
Children and adolescents are the most common target groups addr essed by specialised treatment 
programmes in Europe. In 24 EU Member States, a variety of interventions are being implemented at both 
outpatient and inpatient level. National experts in six countries considered the provision of these 
programmes as extensive to full, i.e. the majority of children or adolescents in n eed would obtain treatment. 
In the remaining 18 countries, however, only a minority of the target group have access to treatment. Only one country reported no specific treatme nt programmes for children/adolescents. 
Objective 9. Provide access to health care for drug users in prison  to prevent and reduce health-related harm associated with d rug abuse  
21. To develop and implement 
prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation services for people 
in prison, equivalent to services 
available outside prison. Particular emphasis to be placed on follow-up 
care after release from prison. MS The general principle of equivalence of care for prisoners compared to services for people outside prison is 
widely recognised by EU Member States. Objectives fo r drug-related services in prison are part of an 
increasing number of national drug strategies and dr ug action plans, targeting among other things the 
improvement of the quality and continuity of prison treatment and care. Some Member States have specific 
health and drug strategies for the prison system
39.  
Information about the availability and level of provision of specific health measures, based on expert 
sources, shows that services for inmates with drug prob lems are provided in all Member States in at least 
some prisons, but they generally reach few prisoners. 
On the basis of data available to the EMCDDA, commonly available interventions include infectious-
disease risk counselling (in all EU prison systems), and hepatitis C testing, which is routinely offered upon 
prison entry in at least 22 countries. Thirteen countri es report that prison staff receive drug-specific 
training, twelve countries provide hepatitis B vaccina tion programmes and seven countries have developed 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
38 Malta and Sweden. 
39 Spain and Luxembourg. 
 
EN 20   EN information material on drug overdoses and emergencies for the prison setting.  
The provision of information material on drugs and health issues and the treatment of drug dependence, 
including detoxification, drug-free treatment as well as opioid substitution treatment, are widespread across 
the EU.  
Since 2006, opioid substitution treatment has been introduced in prison in another six European countries40. 
In most countries, official regulations allow both the continuation in prison of opioid substitution treatment 
started in the community and the initiation of treatment  inside prison. In five EU countries, substitution 
treatment is currently not available to prisoners. Th e level of provision of opioid substitution treatment is 
variable and often depends on local conditions, but a link seems to exist between coverage in prisons and 
the scaling up of treatment in the community.  
Drug use continues to be more prevalent among prisoners than among the general population. Drug use and 
regular drug use in the month before imprisonment was reported by small proportions of respondents (1  % 
and 3  %, respectively) in some countries and by a clear majority in others (58  % and 77  %). Studies also 
indicate that the most harmful forms of drug use may be more frequent among prisoners, with between 6  % 
and 38  % of those surveyed reported havi ng injected drugs at some time.  
On admission to prison, most users reduce or stop consuming drugs, mainly due to problems in acquiring 
the substances. However, experts and policymakers in the EU admit that illicit drugs find their way into 
most prisons, despite all the measures taken to reduce their supply. Studies carried out since 2003 show that 
drug use in prison is reported by 1  % to 56  % of inmates. Injecting drug users in custody appear to share 
their equipment more often than users not in prison. This raises questions about the potential spread of 
infectious diseases among the prison population.  
22. Member States to endorse and 
implement in prison settings indicators to monitor drug use, drug-related 
health problems and drug services 
delivery on the basis of a methodological framework developed 
by the Commission – with the support MS 
COM EMCDDA In many European countries the number of prisoners ha s dramatically increased ov er the past two decades. 
More than 600
 000 people are incarcerated41 in the 27 EU Member States on a given day. At the same time, 
only limited information is available on drug use, drug-related health problems and drug services delivery 
in the EU Member States.  
Over the years, the EMCDDA has developed a number of instruments to provide information on drug use 
in prison. These include specific sections in the Natio nal Reports, but also standard tables and structured 
questionnaires to collect data on prevalence of drug use and drug use patterns among prisoners, data on 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
40 In 2006 in prisons in Pola nd, Sweden and the Czech Re public, and in 2008 in Bulg aria, Estonia and Romania. 
41 European Commission (EUROSTAT) — Statistics in Focus — Crime and Criminal Justice, 36/2009; total prison population in the EU2 7 in 2006. 
 
EN 21   EN of the EMCDDA that is compatible 
with existing methodologies, and taking into account the work done by 
the UNODC (in the project area of 
HIV/AIDS and treat.net) and by WHO (Health in prisons) infectious diseases with information on the health status (serological status) of drug users in several 
settings, including prisons, data on patients entering drug treatment in prison, information on health and social responses to drug users in prison, including data on substitution treatment, data on harm reduction 
interventions in several settings, including prison, and data on syringe availability in several settings, 
including prison. Despite this broad range of data sour ces, the reported information is often still scarce and 
fragmented, among other things due to a lack of unifor m monitoring mechanisms in  prison settings within 
Member States and at EU level.  
As part of this Drugs Action Plan, the EMCDDA will work on the definition and implementation of a 
prison monitoring strategy with the aim of filling information gaps, harmonising the existing data 
collection tools, and improving data and information comparability. An additional objective is to identify 
experts in the field of drugs and prison, making potential use of existing networks (e.g. the Council of 
Europe annual survey on penal statistics) in consultation with the National Focal Points. 
Objective 10. Ensure access to harm reduction services, in ord er to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and other drug-r elated blood-borne 
infectious diseases and to reduce the number of drug-related deaths in the EU  
23. To provide access to, and improve 
coverage of, harm reduction services 
and the variety of options these services offer options as an integral 
part of drug demand reduction, making 
use of interventions of proven effectiveness where available MS The prevention and reduction of drug-related harm is a public health objec tive in all Member States
42. A 
range of health and social servi ces to prevent and reduce harm asso ciated with drug dependence are 
recommended in the Council Recommendation of 18 June 200343, including those suggested by WHO, 
UNODC and UNAIDS (2009), as part of a ‘comprehensive package’ for HIV prevention among drug 
injectors. Among the main interventions with proven effectiveness in preventing drug-related harm are 
opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe exchange programmes.  
Responses to the spread of infectious diseases among drug users include: drug treatment, particularly 
opioid substitution treatment; the provision of sterile injection equipment; community-based activities that 
provide information and safer-use education; condom promotion among injecting drug users; infectious disease testing and counselling; antiretroviral treatment; and vaccination against viral hepatitis. 
Around 40 million syringes per year are distributed through specialised programmes. This is equivalent to 
an average of 80 syringes per injecting drug user in the 25 countries reporting syringe data.  
The information available indicates a scarcity of sp ecific harm-reduction responses to prevent drug-induced 
                                                 
42 European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Counc il recommendation of 18 June 2003 on 
the prevention and reduction of health-related harm asso ciated with drug dependence’, COM(2007)199 final. 
43 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:165:0031:0033:EN:PDF . 
 
EN 22   EN deaths and overdose-related morbidity, despite the fact that the reduction of drug -related deaths is an 
explicit policy objective in 16 countries. In general, harm reduction policies and interventions in the EU have progressed, but major differences exist between c ountries in the level of im plementation of specific 
measures, reflecting their individual drug situation as well as policy priorities.  
HIV infection rates  are generally falling in the EU, following a peak in 2001-2002. HIV prevalence 
monitoring data in samples of injecting drug user s are available from 23 countries over the period 2003–
2008. In 16 countries, HIV preval ence remained unchanged, while in  six countries it decreased. HCV 
prevalence is reported to be declining in ni ne countries and increasing in three others.  
During the period 1995–2007, between 6
 400 and 8  500 drug-induced deaths  were reported each year in 
Europe. Among Europeans aged 15–39 years, drug overdoses accounted for 4  % of all deaths. Areas with a 
higher prevalence of problem drug use can be dispropo rtionally affected. Between 2000 and 2003, most EU 
Member States reported a decrease in drug-induced deaths  — the total number declined by 23  %. In 
subsequent years, the number stabilised at 6  500 to 7  000 per year. Preliminary data available for 2008 
suggest an overall figure at least equal to that for th e previous year and possibly a rise of as much as 5  %, 
with increases reported by  12 out of 19 countries where a comparison was possible. Indications seem to 
suggest that more overdose deaths are occurring becaus e of cocaine use. Mortality rates for drug users are 
roughly 10 to 20 times higher than those of same age group in the general population. Generally, the main 
cause of death among problem drug users is  drug overdose, accoun ting for up to 50–60  % of deaths among 
injectors in countries with a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS. 
In 2009, the Commission published a Communication on combating HIV/AIDS in the European Union and 
neighbouring countries 2009-201344. In this Communication the Commission proposes a number of 
specific measures to scale up the implementation of pr evention strategies, support an effective response to 
HIV/AIDS in priority regions, such as the most aff ected EU Member States, the Russian Federation and the 
most affected neighbouring countries, and develop means to reach and support the populations most at risk 
and most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS across Europe. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
44 COM(2009) 569 final, 26.10.2009. 
 
EN 23   EN 4. DRUG SUPPLY REDUCTION (OBJECTIVES 11-15) 
Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need more effective law enforcement at EU  level to counter drug production and trafficking, 
making full use of the capacities of  Europol and other EU structures. Actions shoul d be based on an intelligence-led approach t hat systematically 
prioritises the suppliers causing the most ha rm or posing the most serious  threat. The work currently  being undertaken to stren gthen the links and 
coherence between the data used by the vari ous EU JHA entities will be necessary to support this. More coordinated operations v ia regional security 
platforms should be supported. The new plat forms should be set up without overlapping a nd be compatible with existing structure s. 
DRUG SUPPLY REDUCTION 
Objective Responsible 
party State of play 
Objective 11. Enhance effective law enforcement cooperation in the EU to counter drug production and trafficking 
24. To target criminal organisations 
and emerging threats, using an 
intelligence-led approach (based on the 
European Criminal Intelligence Model (ECIM) methodology) that prioritises 
the criminal networks and markets that 
pose the most serious threats  MS 
Europol 
Eurojust 
Council  Every year, the Council adopts Conclusions regarding th e priorities for the fight against organised crime. 
These priorities are largely based on the Organi sed Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA) published by 
Europol. According to the European Criminal Intelligence Model (ECIM), the OCTA findings should 
inform the Intelligence Requirement (IR) for the next OC TA. The IR directs intelligence data collection in 
the Member States. Apart from the OCTA findings, the IR should also take into consideration emerging 
threats that are based on criminal environment scans.  
The data collected through the IR are submitted to Europol, which acts as the central analysis capability in 
the EU, enabling it to produce more  specific, regional or commodity -oriented Threat Assessments, and 
identify top-level criminal networks in  the EU, in line with the priorities set by the Council. These top-level 
criminal networks are then targeted w ith EU-level resources such as COSPOL
45, Joint Investigation Teams 
(JITs), Joint Customs Operations (JCOs), with the su pport of Eurojust where necessary. Information from 
investigations and operations should be submitted to  Europol to feed into the next OCTA and for other 
                                                 
45 Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police ; the objective of COSPOL projects is to facilitate best use of information at EU level, to identify opportunities 
for operational projects and to solve barriers in day-to-day cooperation by making use of existing tools, in particular Europol ’s analytical capacities. In the field of drugs, there 
are COSPOL projects on cocaine (COLA), heroin (MUSTARD) and synthetic drugs (SYNERGY). 
 
EN 24   EN analysis purposes.  
So far, the COSPOL projects run by the European  Police Chiefs Task For ce (ECPTF) are not fully 
intelligence-led. The ECPTF checks ex-post whether exis ting projects correspond with OCTA priorities. In 
future, the aim is for the priorities to be set by the Council on the basis of the OCTA, which will influence 
more directly the planning of operational cooperation in the area of justice, freedom  and home affairs in the 
EU. The establishment of COSI may help achieve th is objective, as COSI will set the priorities for 
COSPOL, which is to become an operational ar m of COSI. The OCTA priorities and Europol’s 
identification of top-level criminal networks based on  these priorities should in the future inform COSI’s 
planning of operational cooperation. 
25. Multidisciplinary law enforcement 
operations, involving Europol and 
Eurojust, as well as police, customs 
and border control services, will be 
used to a greater extent through bilateral and multilateral cooperation 
initiatives, joint investigation teams 
(JIT) and joint customs operations (JCO). Member States will examine 
which measures are possible to 
facilitate and speed up the process and encourage greater use of these 
instruments in drugs cases  MS 
Europol 
Eurojust Europol, in cooperation with Eurojust, has continued to support the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) experts 
network. In 2009 the experts network focused, among other things, on updating the JIT model agreement
46, 
which was approved by the Council in early 2010. The new model agreement now includes a JIT model 
arrangement for cooperation with Europol and a new operational action plan. 
The 2010 meeting of the experts network will focus on funding possibilities for EU Member States to set 
up JITs and exchange best practices on how to reduce the costs of JITs. Europol has continued to provide 
training for its staff and for Member State liaison officers involved in setting up and running JITs. Eurojust 
was invited to the training to present its support functionalities for JITs. 
Europol has continued to provide support for JIT cour ses based on CEPOL learning tools. In addition to 
practical support (analysis, expertise and on-the-spot support for Member States) Europol also provides 
support, via its legal service, in the drafting of JI T agreements and assesses JIT arrangements. JITs are 
supposed to provide a suitable tool to combat serious international crime at Member State level. Europol 
encourages Member States to set up JITs at awareness events and in its  day-to-day dealings with national 
experts. However, the final decision to set up a JIT remains the responsibility of the Member States.  
Member States work together in multidisciplinary law enforcement operations. They contribute to 
Europol’s activities in the field of drugs, among other things by contributing to Analysis Work Files 
(AWFs). In 2010, Europol started a new drug-related project on cannabis (Project Cannabis), which includes an AWF on cannabis. One objective of the project is to support multidisciplinary law enforcement 
operations, including JITs and JCOs. Cocaine investigations are supported by Europol’s Project COLA, 
where appropriate under the umbrella of a JIT. Project COLA also provides support for JCOs and is 
                                                 
46 2010/C70/01 — Council Resolution of 26 February 2010 on a Model Agreement for Joint Investigation Teams. 
 
EN 25   EN currently involved in the planning of the Joint Customs and Police Operation Radar, which focuses on the 
smuggling of cocaine entering Europe from South America via Africa.  
Regarding cooperation in tackling heroin trafficking, in 2009 Eurojust and Europol prepared and published 
a Joint Investigation Team Manual47 under the JITs Project. The Manual supplements the existing 
Eurojust/Europol document ‘Guide to EU Member States Legislation on Joint Investigation Teams’ . The 
main goal of the manual is to inform practitioners about the legal basis and requirements for setting up a 
JIT and to provide advice on when a JIT can be usefully employed. Member States increasingly use 
Europol as a facilitator/coordinator in ongoing intelligence projects for combating drug/heroin trafficking and its illegal production. 
AWF Heroin was not involved in any JCO or JIT during the reporting period, although the project has 
supported a number of live investigations run by Member  States’ law enforcement teams, such as the West 
African anti-drugs trafficking networ k initiative, operations against traffi cking in acetic anhydride (a key 
precursor for the manufacturing of heroin), and the COSPOL Project on heroin trafficking (high-value targets). Overall, the quantity and quality of contributions has improved notably since the Opening Order 
was amended in December 2008. However, there is s till room for improvement in  the area of cooperation 
with Europol: in particular, the Memb er States need to be more pro-active in initiating new sub-projects, 
sharing live intelligence and involving Europol in JITs. 
Synthetic drug investigations are supported by Europol’s Project SYNERGY. In 2009 and 2010, no JITs or 
JCOs were supported by SYNERGY. In general, the in volvement of Member States  in the project varies. 
While several key partners participate in most large-scale multilateral cases, the involvement of other 
countries is limited to  a few specific cases. 
27. Implementation of drugs-related 
COSPOL projects, paying special attention to 
- the input of appr opriate levels of 
expertise in COSPOL meetings 
- the value added in terms of 
appropriate intelligence and 
investigation capacity, and making MS 
Europol There are three drugs-related COSPOL projects:  COLA, MUSTARD and SYNERGY. These ongoing 
projects provided support for Member State investigations in 2009 and the first half of 2010.  
Project COLA has made important progress in the past two years, even though it has also encountered 
problems. Several bilateral operations are underway, a lthough none have yet progressed to JIT status. The 
identification of criminal high-value targets (HVT) enga ged in trafficking cocaine to the EU has been less 
than effective, as only 10 of the 12 forerunner Member States repo rted HVT targets and the required 
investigation intelligence to AWF COLA. Neverthele ss, the number of HVTs identified by contributing 
Member States has reached 63, which is too much to handle and should be limited to high-value upstream 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
47 13598/09; Enfopol 218. 
 
EN 26   EN appropriate use to this end of already 
existing or future Analytical Work Files (AWF) traffickers. The COLA working group has joined with the COSPOL Heroin and Synthetic drugs projects 
and revised the approach to identification of HVTs, providing a more prescriptive approach to follow and a limit of five targets (those that cause the mo st harm) for each forerunner Member State.  
Furthermore, some lead Member States have failed to devote resources or planning to the COSPOL 
Cocaine project, hampering the development of key intelligence lines and the targeting of upstream traffickers. In addition, many of the forerunner Member States have indicated that prosecutors in their 
countries refuse to share information collected during  investigations. In order for AWF COLA to function 
properly, the data provided to it need to be up-to-date and include information on ongoing investigations, otherwise the AWF is at risk of becoming obsolete. Fi nally, awareness needs to be raised that major drug 
seizure locations in the EU should be considered as  normal crime scenes and made subject to forensic 
examination.  
The COSPOL project on heroin trafficking aims to identify and dismantle transnational criminal 
organisations involved in international heroin traffick ing from Afghanistan to the EU, in particular Turkish 
organisations and associated groups, using existing instruments, e.g. Europol analytical support for Project 
Heroin. COSPOL was initially set up to encourage su pport for the AWFs. Participation in the COSPOL 
project on heroin should be aligned with Member States’ participation in Europol AWFs that support 
developing investigations. In 2010 there was an increase in the number of contributions under the COSPOL 
umbrella to AWF Heroin, offering the possibility of meaningful intelligence developments.  
HVTs engaged in trafficking heroin to the European illegal drugs market have been identified in the AWF. 
Details of more than 80 HVTs have been submitted to AWF Heroin by five COSPOL Member States. A 
number of match reports were generated, and the project team maintains close cooperation with the 
COSPOL Driver and Co-Driver on this.  
The COSPOL Synthetic Drugs Group comprises 12 Member States
48 and Europol. The Action Plan 2009-
2010 for the COSPOL Synthetic Drugs project has three main objectives:  
- controlled delivery of BMK and disrupting identif ied criminal groups along the trafficking chain  
- thematic approach: barrier model — tackling synthe tic drugs by creating sub- action plans within each 
identified phase of the logistic supply chain 
- subject approach: overview of top criminals in Europe — listing and ta rgeting HVTs in Europe that are 
active in the field of synthetic drugs. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
48 Belgium (Co-driver), Finland, France, Germany, Italy (joined in November 2009), Lithuania, the Netherlands (Driver), Poland, S pain, Sweden, the United Kingdom. 
 
EN 27   EN The first objective was removed from the action plan as it had been pending for a few years without any 
results. The second objective has been  more successful. A barrier model is under development in which 
Member States and Europol work together to create so-called barriers in the drug-supply logistic chain 
targeting the acquisition of precursors and other chem icals, hardware and production or storage places, 
along with the production of drugs, the dumping of waste, and retail sales.  
The third objective is ongoing and has already achieved significant operational results. On the basis of the 
information submitted by the Member States, Europol has introduced a methodology and ranked 64 HVTs. 
Based on the Europol ranking and ongoing inquiries in several Member States, one HVT was selected for joint investigation and subsequently arrested with six other associates. Four other HVTs were selected for 
potential targeting. 
While the overall intelligence contributions by COSPOL members to AWF Synergy need to be improved, 
particularly from crucial key partners (e.g. LT, PL and UK), in the case of specific operations, Europol 
appreciates the high-level commitment from concerned MS (e.g. BE, DE and NL).  
Project Cannabis was established in March 2010. In parallel, the European Expert Group on Cannabis has 
been created to provide expertise to the Project. The experts have therefore concluded that no COSPOL 
project is necessary to suppor t this drug-related project.  
29. To make more systematic use of 
Member State liaison officers and 
liaison magistrates, where appropriate, 
in third countries for the exchange of information and intelligence between 
MS law enforcement agencies and 
Europol taking into account the Council Decision 2003/170/JHA of the 
27th February 2003 on the common 
use of liaison officers posted abroad by the law enforcement agencies of the 
Member States in the version of 24th 
July 2006, Council Decision 2006/560/JHA MS 
Europol 
Eurojust Specific liaison officer meetings took  place in 2009 and in the first half of 2010, some of which also 
concerned cooperation in the field of drugs. In March 2009 a bilateral liaison officers meeting in Russia 
focused on the outcomes of work conducted by three working groups, namely on drugs, on cybercrime and 
on counterfeit goods. These groups aim to enhance cooperation with the Russian authorities, share 
technical or operational information and exchange plans for strategic cooperation.  
In November 2009, at another bilateral liaison officers meeting in Russia, the Russian delegates made 
several positive comments on the improved cooperation with Europol via EU Member States with regard to 
money counterfeiting cases and drugs investigations. The limitations of a pending operational agreement 
with Europol were also discussed. Europol praised the good cooperation with Russia under the existing 
strategic agreement (limited to training, awarenes s and exchange of non-personal information).  
In March 2010, a liaison officers meeting took place in  Bogotá, Colombia. EU lia ison officers participated 
and discussed the enhancement of cooperation with Colombia, with reference to the upcoming signature of 
an operational cooperation agreement and the possibility of using Colombia as a gateway for the exchange of information with Latin  America via Ameripol. 
30. To adopt and implement an EU- MS The European Drug Profiling Sy stem, which is co-financed by the Commission and driven by the D utch 
 
EN 28   EN wide system for the forensic profiling 
in relation to drugs law enforcement for synthetic drugs and for other drugs, 
where appropriate, drawing on, inter 
alia, the experien ce gained through 
projects such as SYNERGY and 
CHAIN, the structure and expertise of 
Europol and the Commission's Joint Research Centre, and ongoing MS law 
enforcement activities and experiences 
in this area  COM  
EUROPOL Police Agency and the Dutch Forensic Institute, in partnership with other European law enforcement 
agencies and forensic laboratories
49, Europol and the Commission, was launched in February 2010 in 
Stockholm. EDPS, as a law enforcement- led project, is expected  to provide an extra tool for strengthening 
drug enforcement abilities to curb drug trafficking in Europe. With an initial focus on amphetamines 
profiling, which was the main focus of the forer unner projects CHAIN and SYNERGY, EDPS has the 
ambition to expand its range to the profiling of othe r synthetic drugs. Furthermore, EDPS countries have 
started working on a feasibility study to profile heroin and cocaine, which they expect to conclude in March 
2011.  
In order to make good use of the EDPS, it is essential for the amphetamine profiling standards acquired 
within the CHAIN and SYNERGY projects to be app lied to other drugs at EU level. The Western 
Australian Chemistry Centre owns the copyright on the profiling database, which is to be hosted by 
Europol according to the Council Conclusions on a Eur opean system for forensic drug profiling adopted in 
200950. The project has a budget of €  3.2 million for a duration of 36 months. Annual assessments are to 
provide a clear vision of the state of the project. 
Objective 12. Enhance effective judicial cooperati on in the area of combating drug trafficking and law enforcement as regards production, trafficking 
of drugs and/or precursors, and mone y laundering related to this traffic  
31. To encourage the full use of the 
existing EU instruments on mutual 
assistance requests in criminal matters, 
of European arrest warrants, and of sanctions issued by MS jurisdictions  MS 
COM 
Eurojust In 2009, the Commission published its report on the implementation of Framework Decision 
2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of 
criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Eurojust contributed to the Commission’s 
report as regards judicial cooperation in the field of drugs. Eurojust’s input was based on data from 2004 to 2008. During that period, 771 drug trafficking cases were submitted to Eurojust, rising from 77 in 2004 to 
207 in 2007. As a consequence, the conclusion seems to be justified that judicial cooperation through 
Eurojust in the field of drug trafficking has improved. 
33. To strengthen the cooperation 
among EU Member States in order to 
achieve the full application of the legal MS 
COM At EU level, there are two legal instruments to which the principle of mutual recognition of confiscation 
orders seems to apply. These instruments c oncern a) the freezing orders issued by a judicial authority  for 
the purpose of securing evidence or subsequent confiscation of property51 and b) confiscation orders issued 
                                                 
49 Sweden, Finland, Belgium, France, UK and Switzerland. 
50 17024/09 CO EUR-PREP 3 JAI 896 POLGEN 229. 
51 Council Framework Decision  2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the Eu ropean Union of orders  freezing property or evidence. 
 
EN 29   EN instruments relating to mutual 
recognition of confiscation of orders  Council 
Eurojust Europol by a court  competent in criminal matters concerning either an amount of money or specific items of 
property
52. 
Both Council Framework Decisions provide for the Commission to produce a written report on the 
measures taken by Member States  to comply with their provisions. The Commission adopted the 
implementation report on the first Fr amework Decision in December 200853 and the implementation report 
on the second Framework Decision is due in 2010. 
Both reports show that the implementation of these Framework Decisions adopted under the former ‘third 
pillar’ is not satisfactory. In regard  to the Framework Decision on freezi ng orders, four Member States are 
yet to transpose it into national law while regardin g the Framework Decision on confiscation orders, only 
13 Member States have notified the Commission on implementation. 
34. To support the establishment of 
effective Asset Recovery Offices in the 
Member States in accordance with the 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA and to further support the Member States 
involved through the CARIN network. 
To support investigations through Europol and related Europol AWFs COM 
MS 
Europol 
Eurojust Since January 2009 the Commission has organised five meetings of an informal EU Asset Recovery 
Offices (ARO) Platform in order to enhance their cooperation and coordination at EU level. So far 23 
Member States have established or designated Asset Recovery Offices
54. While there are differences in the 
AROs’ structure, mandate and access to information, asset tracing requests from Member States seem to 
have generally increased and response times seem to have shortened.  
Progress has also been made in the deployment of a secure channel of communication for the exchange of 
information between AROs. Twelve AROs have agreed to participate in a pilot project using Europol’s 
Siena system. The pilot will end in September 2010. The Commission will adopt a report on the 
implementation of Council Decision 2007/845/JHA55 by the end of 2010. Extensive use has been made of 
Commission funding programmes in this area, in par ticular the Specific Progra mme ‘Prevention of and 
Fight against Crime56. The Commission has co-financed the activities of the CARIN Network in 2010 as 
well as the development of investigation methods and techniques in the field of asset recovery. 
Furthermore, a high-level pan-European conference on  Asset Recovery Offices in the EU Member States 
will take place in December 2010. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
52 Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on th e application of the principle of mutual recognition to confisc ation orders. 
53 COM(2008) 885 final. 
54 The Commission has received 20 official notifications. 
55 Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooper ation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in  the field of tracing and identification 
of proceeds from, or other property related to, crime. 
56 Council Decision of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of the General Programme on Security an d Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific 
Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’. 
 
EN 30   EN One problem identified in the implementation of this action concerns the lack of statistical information. For 
the years 2009 and 2009, no statis tical data are available on invest igations supported by the Europol 
Criminal Asset Bureau on drug-related criminal activ ities. Furthermore, not all Member States have 
statistics on the value of assets confiscated and r ecovered in connection with  drug-related  criminal 
activities, information which is crucial for assessing the added value of these cooperation instruments.  
Objective 13. Respond rapidly and effectively at operational, po licy and political levels to emerging threats (e.g. emerging dr ugs, new routes)  
35. To set up, where necessary, 
regional security platforms (e.g. MAOC-N, Baltic Sea TF) to counter 
emerging threats by means of 
coordinated operational responses. Such action to be compatible with 
existing legal and operational 
arrangements at EU level and based on specific threat assessments (see also 
action 42). New platforms should be 
set up without overlapping and be compatible with existing structures.  MS 
Council Europol 
COM  Following the model of MAOC-N and seeking to replicate its success in interdicting drugs in the Atlantic 
Ocean, ten Mediterranean Member States (including  five EU Member States) have launched the Centre de 
Coordination pour la lutte anti-drogue en Méditerranée  (CeCLAD-M), which focuses on interdiction in 
the Mediterranean Sea. Based in Toulon, CeCLAD-M has been activ e in the Western Mediterranean 
mainly by targeting the smuggling of cannabis resin from Morocco.  
At the end of 2009, MAOC-N became a legal entity  after its founding treat y was ratified by three 
contracting parties (Ireland, Portugal and France). An independent evaluation, presented in October 2009, 
concluded that over the past two years MAOC has had considerable success. Its achievements, in particular the coordination of drugs interdiction operations in the Atlantic, which led to the seizure of more than 43 
tonnes of cocaine, illustrate the added value of shar ing information and pooling assets to prevent drugs 
from reaching Europe. However, the evaluation pointed out that the shar ing of informati on with Europol 
had to be improved. 
During the period under review for this annual assessment, MAOC-N has continued to hamper the 
shipment of cocaine from Latin America to Europe. However, seizures of illicit drugs in operations coordinated by MAOC-N and CeCLAD-M have declined over the past months. The main reason seems to 
be the high versatility of criminal networks, which have already established new trafficking routes to 
circumvent the law enforcement plat forms. MAOC-N is now seeking to become active in West Africa, in 
order to gather more and better intelligence about traf fickers’ activities in this  transit zone for Latin 
American cocaine bou nd for Europe.  
In 2010, under the Spanish Presidency, the JHA Council adopted two initiatives to improve the 
coordination of actions undertaken by Member States, the Commission, international organisations and 
third countries to fight illega l drug trafficking. In Apr il, the JHA Council adopted the Action Oriented 
 
EN 31   EN Paper: Strategic and concerted action to improve cooperation in combating organised crime, especially 
drug trafficking, originating in West Africa57 and in June 2010 it endorsed the European Pact to combat 
international drug trafficking — disrupting cocaine and heroin routes58. The pact proposes a pragmatic 
division of tasks between Member States, as each can  make a different contribu tion depending on what it is 
best equipped for. The pact has th ree parts, focusing on cocaine (in particular trafficking through WA), 
heroin (Western Balkans) and counter ing the proceeds of crime. Similar pacts covering synthetic drugs and 
cannabis are planned over the coming years. 
The practical implementation of the pact will follow a methodology based on the ‘project-b ased approach’ 
proposed by the Belgian Presidency. Under this approach, groups of volunteer countries should coordinate 
the implementation of the three parts of the pact. These groups will inform COSI about their work at least 
twice during each presidency and will inform the HDG as appropriate. COSI w ill report to the JHA 
Council once per presidency.  
While this approach is likely to enable flexible and speedy action to facilitate the implementation of the 
pact, it does pose challenges. From a political point of view, the risk of fragmentation should be avoided by 
carefully drafting the mandate of these project groups, which should not be able to pre-empt EU decisions. 
In addition, there is a coordination challenge that must  be addressed, in order to ensure coherence between 
the work of these groups and that of Counc il working parties dealing with drugs matters. 
36. The EU to focus on coordinated 
and joint efforts between the Member 
States and regions most highly exposed to particular drug 
production/trafficking phenomena, in 
cooperation with Europol as appropriate  MS 
Europol 
Eurojust  Council EU Member States have stepped up their efforts to coordinate anti-trafficking actions within and outside 
Europe. The setting up of MAOC-N in 2007 and then CeCLAD-M, which aim to stop drugs shipments 
before they reach European shores, marked a turning po int in these efforts. In addition, groups of Member 
States set up in 2009 two intelligence-led cooperation platforms in Ghana (UK-le d) and Senegal (led by 
France). These bring together law enforcement officer s posted in the region by EU Member States, who 
share intelligence and/or coordinate operational and capacity-building activities. 
Under French leadership, Member States have created  the Fontanot Group, which is an informal group 
gathering the heads of Police services  in charge of technical cooperatio n, to coordinate non-operational 
cooperation (capacity building and training) in West Africa. A similar development is envisaged for the Western Balkan region.  
Europol is associated with these developments. It pa rticipates in MAOC-N Management Board meetings as 
                                                 
57 5069/3/10 CORDROGUE 4 
58 8495/10 COR 1 CORDROGUE 38 
 
EN 32   EN an observer and is regularly invited to attend CeCLAD-M and the Fontanot Group meetings. However, the 
intensity and quality of information exchange between MAOC-N and Europol (in particular post-operation debriefings) must be improved.  
Objective 14. Reduce the manufacture and supply of synthetic drugs  
37. Member States to actively maintain 
law enforcement cooperation/joint 
operations in this area and to share 
intelligence and best practices. Optimal use to be made of Europol’s Analytical 
Work File SYNERGY, its 
components
59 and the associated EJUP 
and COSPOL initiatives  MS 
Europol 
Eurojust Project Synergy includes the Europol Illicit Labora tory Comparison System (EILCS) and the Europol 
Ecstasy Logo System (EELS), the la tter incorporated within  the general Europol Synthetic Drug System 
(ESDS). The EILCS collates detailed photographic and technical information on synthetic drug production, 
storage and dump sites, enabling the identification of  matches between seized equipment, materials and 
chemicals, and the initiation of information exch ange, backtracking investigations and forensic 
examination for the targeting of facilitators and criminal groups.  
The ESDS collates modus operandi, photographic information and basic forensic information on significant 
seizures, enabling the identification of matches between  seizures or seized punches, and the initiation of 
information exchange, further investigations and fore nsic profiling for the targeting of criminal groups. 
Related criminal data arising from the findings of the ESDS and EILCS may be analysed within the AWF 
component.  
In 2009, 130 contributions were submitted by Member States to the EILCS (2008: 128 contributions). To 
date in 2010, 46 contributions have  been received. This generated five Synergy technical/operational 
reports in 2009 and seven reports in 2010. Member States dismantled 96 illicit synthetic drug production 
sites in 2009. In previous years these numbers were relatively stable (2005: 90; 2006: 75; 2007: 91; 2008: 
83). In 2010, Member States have so far reported the dismantling of 11 illicit synthetic drug production sites, but there may be a delay in reporting. 
In 2009, Project Synergy supported 244 bilateral and/or  multilateral court cases, while in 2010 it has so far 
supported 120 cases. In 2009, 136 Synergy operational reports were delivered to support Member States, 
and 41 reports have so far been delivered in 2010. Twenty-one Member States in total cooperated in Project 
Synergy in 2009. So far in 2010, 17 Member States have been cooperating.  
Objective 15. Reduce the diversion and trafficking in/via the EU of drug precursors used for the manufacturing of illicit drugs  
                                                 
59 Project Synergy includes the Analysis Work File (AWF), the Eu ropol Illicit Laboratory Comparison System (EILCS) and the Ecstas y Logo System, the latter incorporated 
within the general Europol Synthetic Drugs Seizure System (ESDSS). 
 
EN 33   EN 38. The EU to develop a clear and 
unified position on this matter at international level and in the relevant 
international fora, based on existing 
legislation and cooperative practices with the private sector, through 
effective coordination through the 
relevant Council committees COM 
Council MS The EU acted in a coordinated fashio n on drug-precursor matters at the 53
rd Commission on Narcotic 
Drugs. This included a proposal to reschedule phenylacetic acid under the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic subs tances. The EU also reached a joint position on a 
Russian-Argentinean draft Resolution
60 as well as on joint statements delivered on behalf of the EU.  
39. Customs and border control 
services to integrate precursor controls 
at a strategic level, enhancing the 
effectiveness of border control 
management through implementing the 
Community Risk Management, and to coordinate more closely with other law 
enforcement agenci es engaged in 
combating drug production and trafficking  MS Drug precursors have been selected as a priority c ontrol area for EU customs. This calls for EU-wide risk 
criteria to be developed for targeting and selection and applied uniformly along EU borders.  
Moreover, several activities have been undertaken to en sure EU-level customs control of drug precursors 
under the Customs 2013 Programme.  
40. The EU to give full support to 
international operational cooperation 
aimed at preventing the diversion of drug precursors, such as the INCB-led 
projects PRISM and COHESION. The 
operational cooperation among the investigation authorities within the EU 
is to be supported by the EJUP 
cooperation frame work and the 
Europol-AWF co-operation 
framework. This cooperation COM 
MS The EU strongly supports and actively participates in international operational cooperation, i.e. the INCB-
led projects Cohesion and Prism. It is an active memb er of the Task Forces fo r both projects (DG TAXUD 
and OLAF). It has taken part in the voluntary intern ational time-bound operations launched within these 
projects, i.e. Operations ‘Crystal Flow’ and ‘PILA’ under Project Prism, and Operation ‘DICE’ under 
Project Cohesion. These operations provide a strong and flexible approach to counter the ever-changing use 
of substitute/non-controlled substances and modus operandi of diversion techniques. 
During operations there has been an intense exchan ge of information between the INCB and the members 
of the Task Force. This has helped to identify a subs tantial number of diversion attempts, prevent deliveries 
and/or enable seizures of drug precursors. For specifi c figures, see the INCB annu al reports on precursors 
for 2008 and 2009. 
                                                 
60 E/CN.7/2010/L.19 — Strengthening interna tional cooperation and regulatory and institu tional frameworks for the control of subs tances frequently used in the manufacture of 
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 
 
EN 34   EN framework should be further 
intensified/utilised. 
41. From a law enforcement and 
intelligence-led perspective, the EU 
and Members States to fully support 
Europol's drug related projects and EJUP, with a view to combating 
criminal networks involved in 
precursor trafficking  MS 
EJUP 
Europol Since 2004, Project Synergy has supported the activities of the European Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP), 
a joint multinational, multi-disciplinary unit consisting of law enforcement national experts from Austria, 
Belgium, France, Germany, the Neth erlands (lead country) and the United Kingdom. Since 2009, however, 
EJUP’s activities have significantly decreased and Pr oject Synergy support has been requested on few 
occasions. Only seven EJUP contributions by two Member  States were submitted to AWF Synergy in 2009 
and one so far in 2010. Project Synergy focuses on criminal networks involved in precursor trafficking. 
This is implemented via two ongoing Sub-Projects (BMK trafficking from the Russian Federation and precursor trafficking from Asia incl. China). The fi rst project strongly depends on the involvement of 
crucial Member States
61. However, submissions from Lithuania and Poland decreased in the second half of 
2009 and in 2010.  
The European Commission now participates in EJUP meetings. Furthermore, there has been a regular 
exchange of information between Europol and OLAF. Ex change visits have been arranged between OLAF 
and Europol and initial steps have been taken to pr epare an operational working arrangement. This will 
facilitate a more in-depth exchange of data. 
42. To evaluate EU drug precursor 
control legislation and its implementation COM 
MS The Commission has completed its evaluation of the European drug precursors legislation. The European 
legislation (Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and Co uncil Regulation (EC) No 111/2005) establishes 
harmonised rules for the control and monitoring of the trade in drug precursors, which have licit uses in a 
broad range of products (e.g. chem icals, pharmaceuticals, plastics) but are also frequently used for the 
illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with a view to preventing their diversion from the legal trade. The results of the Commission’ s evaluation are summarised  in a report from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation and functioning of the 
European legislation on drug precursors
62, which was published on 7 January 2010. 
The Commission’s report was prepared under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and Article 32 of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005. It describes the state of implementation of the European legislation, 
including the actions undertaken by the Commission, Member States and industry to facilitate 
                                                 
61 e.g. Lithuania, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and Belgium. 
62 COM(2009) 709 final; 7.1.2010; Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament pursuant to Article 16 of  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 and to Article 32 of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 on the impl ementation and functioning of the 
Community legislation on monitoring and control of trade in drug precursors. 
 
EN 35   EN implementation, as well as the strengths and weaknesses identified during the evaluation. It also reports the 
main trends in the diversion of drug precursors.  
The report makes recommendations for improving the current framework. These primarily involve support 
measures to improve the implementation of the existing legislation in order to gain from established best 
practices. Furthermore, the recommendations set out possible modifications of the legislation, subject to further analysis of the impacts of various options for both competent authorities and economic operators. 
Based on the Commission’s report, the Council adopted conclusions on the functioning and 
implementation of the European legislation on drug precursors 
63 on 25 May 2010. The Council recognises 
the importance of the achievements in drug precursor control and underlines the need to continue these 
activities, in particular to improve the implementation of the existing legislation. Furthermore, the Council 
invites the Commission to propose legislative amendments after carefully assessing their potential impacts 
on Member State authorities and economic operators. 
43. The EU to develop and exploit, 
where possible in consultation with Europol, cooperation agreements with 
principal identified source countries of 
main synthetic drug precursors COM An agreement has been concluded with the People’s  Republic of China, which can be considered a major 
step as China plays an important role in the production of drug precursors. An EU-China Technical Best Practice Expert Workshop on Drug Precursors was held in October 2009 to facilitate the practical 
implementation of the agreement, and other practical activities to implement it are planned. 
Furthermore, agreement was reached in 2010 with the Russian Federatio n to start negotiations on an EU-
Russia agreement on precursors. 
44. The Commission, OLAF, Europol, 
EJUP and COSPOL to enhance inter-
disciplinary cooperation, with a view to establishing joint initiatives  COM 
MS/EJUP 
Europol A number of steps have been taken to improve inter-agency cooperation. Since 2009 Europol has been 
invited to participate in the European Commission’s Drug Precursors Control Co mmittee as an observer. 
The European Commission has been invited to participate in meetings of Europol’s European Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP). Cooperation with OLAF has also been developed under one specific AWF Synergy 
Sub-Project regarding precursor trafficking from China.  
Project Cannabis has established the European Expert Group on Cannabis (EEGC). The aim of the EEGC 
is to improve the collective operational response to the cannabis problem in the European Union. This 
group will provide expertise in th e area of cannabis production/cultivation (detection, dismantling and 
registration of plantations, definitions, security matte rs, techniques, manual) and trafficking, including 
modus operandi, e.g. concealment methods, financial in vestigation information, gathering and exchange of 
additional investigation information (apart from alr eady used intelligence and information for operational 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
63 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/114613.pdf. 
 
EN 36   EN analysis within AWF Cannabis), exchange of expertise, best practices and networking. Being Member 
State-led, the EEGC provides additional e xpertise and may advise Project Cannabis.  
Project Heroin has recently been in contact with the Commission in the fi eld of precursor chemicals, more 
specifically acetic anhydride, the key chemical diverted from international trade and smuggled to 
Afghanistan for use in the illicit production of heroin. COSPOL has raised the matter of criminal activity in the EU concerning the trafficking of acetic anhydride,  and joint initiatives have been discussed. A number 
of significant acetic anhydride data / case investigatio n contributions were forwarded to AWF Heroin in the 
first half of the year, and this work is increasingly being taken forward with LE agencies in the MS most 
affected. Europol and the Commission intend to work closely in this field. 
 
 
EN 37   EN 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (OBJECTIVES 16-20) 
Priority as defined in th e Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: The effectiveness of EU, the world's major donor in  the struggle for sustai nable solutions to the 
global drug problem, would benefit greatly from better coordination of national and Community policies. We are ready to intensi fy our commitment in 
the field of international coopera tion to this end, while reaffirming that effectiv e drug control must be based on the concept of a ‘balanced approach’ —  
emphasizing that illicit drug cultivation is  an important component of drug supply. 
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION  
Objective Responsible 
party State of play 
Objective 16. Systematically include EU drug policy concerns in  relations with third countries and regions where appropriate an d within the broader 
development and security agenda. To do so on the basis of st rategic planning and coordinati on between all actors concerned  
45. To ensure that EU relations with 
third countries reflect the objectives of 
the EU Drugs Strategy and Action 
Plans MS 
COM Agreements concluded by the EU with third countries in the reporting period also cover cooperation in the 
field of drugs and seek to reflect the balanced approach.  
In the period under review, 15 Member States concl uded bilateral agreements with third countries which 
also address cooperation in the fiel d of drugs. Such agreements were concluded with countries in Eastern 
Europe / Central Asia (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia)  and the Western Balkans 
(Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia , Kosovo and Albania), and with third countries 
elsewhere, including Afghanistan, Ir aq, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Li bya, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, 
the USA and Japan. The majority concerned cooperat ion in the field of drug supply reduction. Two 
Member States, Germany and Portugal, mentioned th at they had also signed bilateral cooperation 
documents that also covered drug demand reduction and/or alternative development. In the case of 
Germany, this concerned agreements with the gover nment of Afghanistan (alternative development) and 
with Peru (demand reduction & alternative developmen t). Portugal has signed a bilateral protocol (2006-
2008) to foster cooperatio n between researchers.  
46. To improve the effectiveness of 
existing frameworks on drugs such as 
the Cooperation and Coordination Council 
COM Bi-regional dialogue on drugs is via the EU-LAC Cooperation and Coordination Mechanism on Drugs, 
which is prepared by the EU-LAC Technical Co mmittee on Drugs. The added value of the EU-LAC 
dialogue on drugs was recognised at the EU-LAC Summit in Lima in May 2008, which called for the 
 
EN 38   EN Mechanism between the EU and LAC, 
the EU-Andean Specialised Dialogue and of 'Drug Troikas’ with third 
countries and regions, by identifying 
specific areas of cooperation and establishing outcome indicators  strengthening of the Mechanism. New working procedures for the Mechanism were subsequently endorsed 
by the XIth High Level Meeting on 26-27 May 2009 in Quito. The XII High Level Meeting of the EU-LAC Mechanism on Drugs, held in Madrid on 26-27 April 2010, emphasised the use of evidence-based 
criteria, joint evaluation processes and impact assessments in the development of new initiatives. 
A number of meetings with third count ries with a special (shared) intere st in the field of drugs took place 
over the past period. During the Czech Presidency in 2009, ‘Drug Troikas’
64 were organised with Ukraine, 
Central Asia, the Western Balkans, the United St ates and the EU-West-A frica Dialogue on Drugs 
(ECOWAS). During the Swedish Presidency in the second half of 2009, Drugs Troikas were held with Russia, with the United States and with Pakistan. The Spanish Presidency organised Political Dialogue 
meetings with the Western Balkans, the United States  and a meeting under the EU West-Africa Dialogue 
(ECOWAS).  
47. In line with the EU’s political 
decisions and strategies and with the 
support of the MS and EC assistance programmes, to address drug-related 
concerns in producer countries and 
those along (emerging) trafficking routes, such as West Africa, through 
projects aimed at reducing the demand 
for and the supply of drugs, including measures of alternative development, 
and preventing the diversion of 
chemical precursors. The assistance is to be coordinated, where appropriate, 
to the drug action plans between the 
EU and third countries and regions (see Actions 46 and 50) COM 
MS As EU external aid funding decisions are generally taken at the end of year, the reporting covers the years 
2008 (as this year was not covered under the previous reporting exercise) and 2009 (as no funding decision 
was taken in the first half of 2010). The Commission continued to provide funding in 2008 and 2009 for actions in priority regions and countries in the field of drug supply and demand reduction, covering strategy 
development, institution and capacity building and alternative development, thus reflecting the 
comprehensive and balanced approach of the EU Drug Strategy.  
In 2008, the fifth phase of the Central Asia Drug Programme  (CADAP 5 ) with a budget of €
 5 million 
was approved under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) . This consolidates the previous 
phases and supports new areas in the field of drug  demand reduction. On the law enforcement side, 
capacity-building measures in Central Asian countries continue to be supported under the Border 
Management Programme in  Central Asia (BOMCA),  whose eighth phase wa s approved in 2009. 
With regard to projects along the cocaine trafficking routes at bilateral level the Commission approved in 
2008 a €  3.3 million project under the DCI to support the Venezuelan anti-drug agency, in addition to 
bilateral anti-drug actions financed by the Commission in the three cocaine-produci ng countries (Colombia, 
Peru and Bolivia). For the new trafficking route of West Africa, the Commission approved in 2008 a €  2 
million project under the 9th European Development Fund to strengthen drug law enforcement capacities in 
Guinea-Bissau.  
At regional level , the Commission approved in 2008 under the DCI a new drugs programme (€  3.25 
                                                 
64 With the entry into force of the Lisbon  Treaty in November 2009, th e term ‘Troika’ is replaced  by ‘Political Dialogue’. 
 
EN 39   EN million) to be implemented by the Secretariat General of the Andean Community in Colombia, Peru, 
Bolivia and Ecuador, which covers drug monitoring, exchange of experiences in alternative development and demand reduction, precursor control and capacity-building in forensics. In 2009, a new regional 
programme with €
 6 million for drugs policies ( COPOLAD)  was approved and funded by the DCI under 
the Regional Indicative Programme for Latin America. It is based on a balanced approach to drug demand and drug supply reduction and aims to support concre te anti-drug cooperation activities complementing the 
coordination efforts under the EU-LAC Mechanism.  
At trans-regional level
, the Commission approved under the Instrument for Stability (IfS) the PRELAC 
project in 2008, which aims to help prevent the diversion of drugs precursors in the Latin American and 
Caribbean region. In 2009 €  6.5 million were allocated under the If S for capacity-building measures to 
strengthen law enforcement, in particular informa tion and intelligence sharing, along the cocaine route, 
with several components in West Africa as well as Latin America and the Caribbean.  
In 2009, France and the UK established anti-drugs intelligence-driven platforms  in West Africa in order 
to try to anticipate smuggling bound for Europe. France set up a platform in the French Embassy in Dakar, 
where liaison officers (LOs) from the UK, France, Spai n and Portugal meet to coordinate law enforcement 
activities. The UK established a platform in Accra’s British High Commission, which hosts LOs from the UK, Germany, France, Spain and also the US.  
Interpol is implementing Project OASIS (Africa Operational Assistance Services and Infrastructure 
Support to Africa Police Forces)  with the aim of strengthening A frican law enforcement capabilities to 
combat organised crime, including narcotic smuggling. OASIS, funded by Germany, has a budget of €
 20 
million for five years (2008-2012).  
In addition, the Commission is co-financing the Maritime Analysis Operat ion and Coordination Centre 
— Narcotics (MAOC-N). The Commission has also financed an initiative by the UK, France, Italy and 
Spain to carry out a feasibility study in order to agree a methodology and rules for sharing intelligence in 
the context of EU-led security operations ag ainst drug traffickin g in West Africa.  
In order to improve the eff ectiveness of EU cooperation with third countries, the EU has provided financial 
support (more than €  2.5 million up to 01/01/2013) to the Westbridge II project, led by the UK in 
partnership with the Netherlands and Germany. This project financed under the Instrument for Stability aims to disrupt and prevent the use of  West African airports and ports as a transit route for drugs, especially 
cocaine originating in South America. Cooperation with host agencies (capacity building) in selected West 
African countries and intelligence-sharing with EU Me mber States are integral parts of this project  
48. To step up regional and intra- COM  As described under Action 47, the Commission has stepped up efforts to develop regional and inter-
 
EN 40   EN regional cooperation to reduce the 
demand for and supply of drugs in third countries with the support of MS 
and EC funding programmes, such as 
the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European 
Development Fund, the Instrument for 
Stability and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument MS regional cooperation. One of the main initiatives in 2009-2010 was COPOLAD (Cooperation programme 
between Latin America and the EU on anti-drugs policies). 
For the Caribbean region, the Commission makes funds availa ble for Caricom’s Implementation Agency 
for Crime and Security to promote cooperation between the Caribbean countries in the fight against drugs.  
The Commission envisages providing financial support for ECOWAS’s
65 Action Plan to combat drugs and 
organised crime under the European Development Fund’s Regional indicative programme for West Africa 
to the tune of €  16 million. It would cover support for ECOWAS’s drugs unit, data collection and analysis, 
exchange of good practices on drug prevention and treatment, law enforcement coordination, strengthening the legal framework, and measures against money laundering. Negotiations with ECOWAS in view of the 
adoption of the programme were ongoing at the time the mid-term review was published.  
Major inter-regional initiatives have been launched under the Instrument for Stability to combat organised 
crime and drug trafficking along the cocaine and heroine route, notably: 
- The Cocaine Route Programme (€19 million — 2009-2011): The objective is to enhance the cooperation 
capacity of law enforcement and judicial authorities in  beneficiary countries to contribute to the fight 
against international criminal networks, while fully respecting human rights.  
- The Heroin Route Programme: A €
 9.5 million project focusing on th e fight against the trafficking of 
drugs and precursors and organised crime by setting up secured networks of national intelligence units 
covering the ten countries of the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO). The project involves cross-
border cooperation between Afghanistan, Iran and Pa kistan and will aim to strengthen the Drugs Control 
Coordination Unit of the ECO Secretariat. It complement s other efforts in the region, in particular in the 
Central Asian countries (BOMCA, CADAP and CARICC) by extending their achiev ements throughout the 
region, enhancing their internal capacities an d fostering trans-regional cooperation. 
The Commission is also envisaging further support for possible follow-up activities of the UNODC 
TARCET programme in Afghanistan, which has targeted the movement of precursors through the regional 
DCI Programme.  
Finally, the mid-term review of cooperation assistance under DCI and ENPI carried out in 2009-2010 
reaffirmed the priority of this field for allocati ons at regional, sub-regional and national level. 
49. In the interest of coordination, to Council Recognising the risk of duplication and the need to bridge gaps, EU Member States drew up in 2008 an 
                                                 
65 EU Cooperation with Western African  States in the field of drugs. 
 
EN 41   EN establish a monitoring mechanism on 
EU drug-related assistance given to third countries MS 
COM inventory, or matrix, of EU activities (national and Commission) in West Africa. The Member States 
decided to update the matrix twice a year. However, few Member States have so far sent information on time to the Council’s General Secretariat on their updated lists of projects. In additio n, the matrix has so far 
failed to deliver its full potential because it has been used only as a source of in formation on projects and 
not as a tool to help identify future funding prioritie s. Since 2009, the EU and the US are, in addition, 
exchanging information on their resp ective projects in the region and have created a joint matrix of 
activities in West Africa.  
The overall matrix on EU external assistance was published for the last time in 2008, covering information 
on Member State and EU expenditure on drug-related  external assistance until 2006. These data are no 
longer collected as no proper reporting mechanism ha s been found to ensure timely, standardised and 
accurate reporting. 
50. To carry out a survey of the scope 
and outcome of EC drug-related 
projects in 3rd countries COM In the beginning of 2010, the Commission launched  a call for tender for a qualitative evaluation of a 
number of external relations projects funded by the EU. The evaluation is underway and will examine a 
selection of 20 projects, some of which will be assessed  on the ground. The report on this evaluation is due 
after summer 2010. 
51. To update and implement the EU 
Drug Action Plans for the Central 
Asian Republics66; Latin America and 
the Caribbean67; and Western Balkans 
and Candidat e Countries68 MS 
COM New Action Plans on drugs (2009-2013) between the EU and the Central Asian States and between the EU 
and Western Balkan countries were adopted duri ng the Czech Presidency. The Commission devoted a 
considerable amount of work to the preparation of these Action Plans.  
52. Utilise the Dublin Group 
consultative mechanism and maintain an active dialogue with third countries 
for the implementation of Mini Dublin 
Groups’ recommendations MS 
COM Dublin Group Last year, the Dublin Group continued to perform its informal consultative and coordination tasks in drug 
supply and demand reduction, at regional and country level, along the guidelines established by the contracting parties (7641/1/06). Regional Dublin Group chairs, in cooperation with Mini Dublin Groups, 
provided detailed and extensive reports on the state of the drugs problem, focusing on selected countries. 
Regional chairs recommended actions to be implemen ted and evaluated those already in place. However, 
the recommendations of the regi onal chairs are not always pr ecise enough, which hampers the 
implementation of concrete actions. Furthermore, no ov erall assessment tool has been made available for 
                                                 
66 12353/02 CORDROGUE 78 CORDROGUE 78 CODRO 1 NIS 107. 
67 7163/1/99 REV 1 CORDROGUE 19 CODRO 2; Port of Spain Declaration — 10451/07 CORDROGUE 34 COLAT 9 AMLAT 54. 
68 5062/2/03 REV 2 CORDROGUE 3 COWEB 76 + COR 1. 
 
EN 42   EN this exercise.  
As part of a broader debate on expanding the drugs issue to a broader security dimension, the current 
French Chair has proposed to extend the Group’s mission to all forms of serious crime, not only those 
involving drugs. This may cause some difficulty for other areas of the drugs issue, in particular the Group’s 
work in the field of drug demand reduction.  
Objective 17. Promote and implement the EU approach to alternat ive development (as defined in document 9597/06 CORDROGUE 44 and  
UNODC/CND/2008/WG.3/CRP.4) in cooperation with third countries, ta king into account human rights, human security and specific f ramework 
conditions  
53. To intensify the financial support 
for the implementation of alternative 
development projects and programmes, 
making certain that interventions are properly sequenced and that 
development assistance is not 
conditional on reductions of illicit drug crop cultivation and finance initiatives 
for the prevention of illicit drug crop 
cultivation  MS 
COM Of the EU Member States, the Unite d Kingdom reports that it runs a €
 12 million alternative development 
project in Afghanistan, which started in 2008. Finl and also reports a long-ter m alternative development 
project with Peru (€  750  000), but this will end in 2010.  
The Commission has acquired experience with alterna tive development in Latin America and Afghanistan, 
by mainstreaming the EU approach to alternative development in its development agenda — no (forced) 
eradication, no conditionality, respect for human rights, and market access.  Projects are based on the notion 
of correct sequencing, with eradica tion possible only when alternative liv elihoods are in place. The ultimate 
goal is to address poverty.  
Regarding the Andean Countries , the Commission is funding alternative development programmes in 
Bolivia  to the tune of €  56 million, supporting sustainable livelihoods and social infrastructure in regions 
from which people migrate to coca-growing areas, st rengthening local authorities and ‘rationalisation’ of 
the production of coca leaves, thr ough the implementation of mechanisms of community control and 
capacity strengthening of local institutions and organisati ons of coca producers, also with a sector budget 
support programme. The Commission delegation in Bolivia has commissioned an evaluation of the EU’s 
alternative development programmes, which will be finalised by the end of this year. 
Several programmes in Colombia  have components for alternative development, including the €  92 million 
Laboratorio de PAZ, Regional development for peace and stability (€  26 million) and Regional 
development for peace and stability II (€  8.4 million, with €  4.2 million for the alternative development 
component), which aims to support vulnerable popula tions that cultivate illicit crops in developing legal, 
sustainable livelihood alternatives. In Peru , a project for supporting modernisation of the state and 
strengthening good governan ce and social inclusion (€  6 million) includes support to the Peruvian anti-drug 
agency). A new alternative development programme is being formulated (€  8 million), which aims to help 
reduce poverty, promote social integration and prevent the illegal cultivation of coca.  
 
EN 43   EN The mid-term review of the cooperation assistance reaffi rmed the priority of this field for allocations at 
regional, sub-regional and national level.  
Regarding Afghanistan , the European Commission’s strategy a ssociates the rural economy and the 
creation of alternative livelihoods with production and productivity gains in the rural economy and 
improved sustainable management of natural resources. This PAL Strategy (programme for alternative development) in Afghanistan has two major functions: investment, by channelling resources to 
communities in the three provinces (Nangarhar, Laghma n and Kunar) where it is being implemented, and a 
laboratory function (for identifying best practices in the development of alternative livelihood options and channelling lessons learned to appropriate partners). The Commission has invested in a number of strategic 
rural development sub-sectors such as irrigation and water resources management, horticulture, or livestock 
to stimulate the rural economy and help create licit employment opportunities. 
In addition to the alternative development projects targeting the Andean Countries and Afghanistan, the 
Commission has also completed a horizontal project: Importance of mainstreaming alternative 
development underlined by programmes/projects
. 
The project, which was completed in August 2008, provided a platform for debate and information on 
mainstreaming alternative development in ideas, programmes, communities, governments and agencies 
across the globe. The focus was on the countries of So uth-East Asia and the Andean region/Latin America 
in which the main agro-n arcotic crops are grown.  
54. To include alternative development 
in the broader development agenda of 
Member States and encourage third countries to integrate alternative 
development in their national policies  MS 
COM In preparation of this assessment, the Commission co nducted a survey among Member States to obtain 
insight into the extent to which alternative development programmes with the aim of replacing drug crop 
production constitute a structural element of a broader development policy agenda. 
Four Member States
69 reported that alternative development is part of such a broader development policy, 
although not always directly. Italy supported alternative development projects in the Andean region until 
2007, but this support was cut for budgetary reasons. Germany reported that alternative development projects in the field of drugs are onl y supported in exceptional cases as part of overall development policy. 
No information was available from the remaining 22 Member States, which suggests that alternative 
development is integrated in broader development policy in only a handful of Member States and is supported — primarily — at EU level through EU funding programmes.  
                                                 
69 Belgium, France, Italy and UK. 
 
EN 44   EN Objective 18. Strengthen EU coordination in the multilatera l context and promote an integrated and balanced approach  
56. To ensure better coordination and 
continuity between the HDG and MS 
delegations to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND), including through the 
appropriate burden-sharing among Member States on the initiative of the 
Presidency Council 
PRES 
MS The rotating EU Presidenci es are responsible for preparing and coordinating EU positions ahead of and 
during the CND. When relevant for this preparation and coordination, representatives from the EU 
Representations and the EC/EU Delegation in Vienna participate in meetings of the Horizontal Drugs 
Group in Brussels. In general, EU Statements during the CND are prepared and negotiated by the EU 
delegations in Vienna, while resolutions are either draf ted (in the case of EU initiatives) or discussed in the 
HDG prior to the CND. At their request, the EU Pres idencies are supported by other EU Member States 
and by the EC/EU Delegation Vienna during these proceedings.  
The preparation and coordination for the 52
nd Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its related High Level 
Segment in 2009, regarding the follow-up of the 1998 UNGASS Political Declaration70, showed to be a 
true test case for EU coordination and continuity at UN level. Subsequently, the negotiations on a new 
Political Declaration and Plan of Action took place between October 2008 and March 2009. The EU was 
strongly guided by an official EU position pa per prepared in advance of these negotiations71. The Czech 
EU Presidency had a lead role in the negotiations , closely supported by the European Commission’s 
Delegation in Vienna (as of 01/12/2009: European Union Delegation) as well as by the Commission’s 
drugs policy coordination department. 
Although the EU negotiating strategy was considered solid and unified until a very late stage in the 
negotiation process, some difficulties were encountered in the guidance provided by the Horizontal Drugs 
Group on political choices and decisions that needed to be made, mainly for the preparation of unified EU statements and negotiation positions wh ere in some cases a lack of cons ensus between EU Member States 
resulted in stalemate situations in which the EU Presidency could not take a strong stance in negotiations 
with third countries. This problem recurred in 2010. Another factor that may have had a detrimental impact 
on the EU’s capability to negotiate at UN level was that in cases of disagreement, reaching consensus 
among the EU-27 consumed much energy and time, which had a negative impact on the active participation, support and burden-sharing of Member States in the subsequent negotiations with third 
countries.  
57. To prepare, coordinate and adopt 
EU common positions and joint PRES The preparation of an EU response to the evaluation report and follow-up of the 1998 UNGASS 
Declaration was the most important preparatory work for the EU in 2008 and 2009 regarding the CND. 
                                                 
70 Political Declaration of the Twentieth Sp ecial Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution S-20/2, annex). 
71 13501/1/08 REV1 CORDROGUE 71. 
 
EN 45   EN resolutions in the CND MS 
COM Council  During the Portuguese and Slovene EU Presidencies a first attempt was made to develop a joint EU 
position, which included the formation of specific working groups on key topics relating to the UNGASS evaluation report. These working groups produced a number of principal findings, which were further 
developed and finalised during the French Presidency in the second half of 2008. The final document 
consisted of a number of key principles, priorities an d negotiation ‘red lines’. This EU Position Paper on 
UNGASS
72 was unanimously adopted by COREPER in October 2008. During the High Level Segment and 
52nd CND and during the 53rd CND, the EU delivered common (opening) statements on the various agenda 
items as well as on the UNGASS review.  
However, due to the disagreement of one EU Member State with one of the core aspects of EU drugs 
policy, the process of reaching consen sus has become more difficult, in particular as regards the opening 
statements and statements on drug demand reduction. During the 52nd CND, the EU did not initiate any EU 
resolution, although one resolution was tabled du ring the meeting by one EU Member State and 
subsequently co-sponsored by the other EU Member States. Of the 14 resolutions adopted during the 52nd 
CND, the EU as a whole co-sponsored 11 while 3 resolutions were co-sponsored by individual Member 
States on a national basis. At the 53rd CND, the EU tabled 3 resolutions (2 initiated by France, 1 by the 
UK), which were all adopted. Of the 16 resolutions that were adopted during the 53rd CND, the EU co-
sponsored 7 (in addition to the 3 tabled), while 4 resolutions were co-sponsored by individual Member 
States on a national basis.  
The convergence indicator for EU in put in the UN drug control system73, which showed 99  % convergence 
of national positions towards CND resolutions in 2007, saw a decline to 79  % in 2009 and 69  % in 2010. 
An important issue that may require further debate concerns clarification of the criteria by which the EU 
decides to co-sponsor resolutions of third countries during the CND. 
58. To present an EU position in the 
high-level segment of the 52nd CND on 
the evaluation of and follow-up to 
UNGASS '9874, reflecting the 
fundamental principl es of EU drugs 
policy Council 
MS 
COM The cooperation and coordination of the EU within the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs has 
shown a mixed picture in recent years. Since 2006 th e EU had been the main advocate of a thorough 
evaluation of and reflection on the Political Declaratio n of the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session 
on Drugs. In 2009, the negotiations for a new UN Political Declaration a nd Plan of Action took place. The 
EU adopted a united position in pr eparation of these negotiations, which included a number of important 
red lines, including the balanced approach, respect for human rights, harm reduction, non-sequential 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
72 13501/1/08 REV1 CORDROGUE 71. 
73 9099/05, CORDROGUE 27, 30.5.2005. 
74 Political Declaration (resolution S-20/2, annex) of the Twentieth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 
 
EN 46   EN alternative development, and the need for monitoring and supporting evidence-based policies .  
The EU managed relatively well to maintain its position during the first part of the negotiations, which is 
one of the reasons why some of the more progressi ve elements from the 1998  UNGASS declaration were 
not reversed. Nevertheless, during the final stage of negotiations, disagreement emerged on support for the 
term ‘harm reduction’ in the negotiations. As a result, the EU Presidency could not finalise the negotiations 
on this issue and the disagreement between some Member States was openly displayed during the High 
Level Segment of the CND, where a co nsiderable number of EU Member States supported an interpretative 
statement on harm reduction.  
59. To coordinate activities with other 
international fora or programmes, in 
particular UNODC, Pompidou Group, 
WHO, UNAIDS, WCO and Interpol  MS 
COM The EU has many dealings with international organisations. However, despite the adoption of the Lisbon 
Treaty, the EU is not recognised as an official repres entative entity in e.g. the UN system, as negotiations 
on its status continue.  
In different international organisations, the EU is coordinated through the Presidency or through one of its 
Member States that acts as coordinator. For exampl e, within the United Nationals Office for Drug and 
Crime (UNODC), Germany currently represents the EU in the Working Group on Finance and Governance. At the same time, in the UNODC Major D onor Group, only those EU Member States that are 
considered major donors participate without specific representation.  
Currently there exists no clear coordination role for th e EU Presidency or EU delegation at the Council of 
Europe where the work of the Pompidou Group is c oncerned. All Member States of the EU are also 
Members of the PG and represent themselves th rough the Permanent Correspondents Meetings.  
Objective 19. Support the candidate and st abilisation and association process countries  
60. To provide the necessary technical 
and other assistance to these countries 
to familiarise them with the EU acquis  
in the field of drugs and to assist them 
in carrying out the required actions, 
including those adopted in the drug action plan with the Western Balkans
75 MS 
COM 
Council EMCDDA 
Europol Cooperation between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkan region on drug supply and drug 
demand reduction has continued over the period under review. The issue of drug trafficking is monitored 
through the Progress Report (opinion for candidate countries), but is also part of the regular political and technical dialogue with all th e countries of the region.  
Substantial increases in the capacities of law enfor cement agencies in the Western Balkans countries to 
counter transnational organised crime were guaranteed in the course of the dialogue on visa liberalisation, which required the development of tailor-made roadmaps. Each roadmap has a strong focus on measures to 
increase the effective fight against organised crime and corruption. The strengthening of border control was 
                                                 
75 5062/2/03 REV 2 CORDROGUE 3 COWEB 76 + COR 1. 
 
EN 47   EN also an issue incorporated in the road maps, which has indirectly helped to weaken some of the transit 
routes used by drug traffickers.  
Through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) the Commission has promoted both regional 
and country-specific projects on counter-narcotics. Thes e initiatives have also guaranteed continuity with 
some projects previously launched within th e CARDS assistance framew ork. For instance, €  2.5 million of 
IPA funds have been secured to fina nce a multi-beneficiary project on ‘Fight against organised crime, in 
particular illicit drug trafficking, and the prevention of terrorism’ , which was launched in February 2010 
and covered the whole Western Balkans region and Turkey. This project is led by Austria and Germany and aims to bring existing regional mechanisms into line with EU acquis , standards and best practices. It 
promotes cooperation for the further development of the International Law Enforcement Coordination 
Units (ILECUs), thus leading to a consolidation of the strategic and institutional basic structure 
implemented within the ILECUs. Ongoing national initia tives include: a €2.2 million IPA 2007 project to 
strengthen the capacities of the Ministry of the Interior  of Croatia to combat narcotic drugs trafficking and 
drug abuse, an IPA 2007 project to strengthen the Turkish Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug 
Addiction. The following actions are under preparation: an IPA 2007 project to support Serbia in the 
implementation of the national strategy for the fight against drug abuse, an IPA 2010 project to strengthen the capacity of the Police in Montenegro to fight against drugs. 
Several projects have been financed or are under preparation in the field of fighting transnational crimes, 
including drug trafficking. These include a €5 million regional project which is in the process of being launched under IPA 2010 with the aim of strengthening the operational capacity and capabilities of the 
Public/State Prosecutors' Offices in  the Western Balkan region, to en able them better to prosecute and 
investigate cross-border organised crime. 
The Commission is also supporting short-term targeted  activities (study seminars, education and awareness 
initiatives, expert meetings, and conferences ) under TAIEX and TWINNING programmes.  
The EU is systematically encouraging regional cooper ation, especially on tackling transnational threats 
such as drug trafficking. In this regard, increase d operational cooperation with in the SECI/SELEC centre is 
a positive development. The Commission is supporting the strengthening of SECI/SELEC capacities with 
an IPA 2008 project (€
 1.5 million). 
The EMCDDA initiated its technical cooperation with  the Western Balkans countries through the CARDS 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
76 Turkey has signed an agreement with the European Commission on its membership of the EMCDDA. This agreement now needs to be ra tified by the national parliament. An 
agreement on Croatia's cooperation with the EM CDDA is expected to be signed in 2010. 
 
EN 48   EN project (December 2007 — October 2009), which involved Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serb ia. The main objective of the project was to assess 
the capacity of the Western Balkans to establish dr ug information systems compatible with the EMCDDA. 
The main outcomes included a comprehensive needs assessment report, information maps detailing the 
different national information sources and experts, country overviews providing a structured synopsis of the trends and characteristics of th e national drugs problem, and participation in the survey for the 
European Study on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD). 
The participation of Croatia and Turkey 
76 in EMCDDA activities was supported by the Instrument for Pre-
Accession (IPA), from March 2008 to November 2009. In November 2009, the EMCDDA organised — 
with IPA funding — a conf erence to share experience and best pr actice on technical cooperation between 
IPA beneficiaries and EU agencies. 
Objective 20. To improve cooperation with  European Neighbourhood Policy countries  
61. To improve the dialogue on drugs 
with European Neighbourhood Policy countries in a bilateral or regional 
context, in particular through existing 
subcommittees MS 
COM The dialogue on drugs with European Neighbourhood Policy countries focused on the implementation of 
ENP partners’ obligations under the 1988 UN Conventio n on Illicit Traffic in Narcotic and Psychotropic 
Substances as well as other international instrument s. Assistance for capacity building within designated 
national authorities and law enforcement bodies for both repressive and preventive measures also figured 
prominently in the dialogue as well as support for designing or updating comprehensive and holistic national drug strategies. Emphasis was also placed on the need to improve intelligence-sharing on drugs 
production and trafficking routes with geographical ne ighbours and at regional level. Equal importance was 
given to improving dialogue and cooperation with civil society groups on the development and implementation of effective harm-reduction initiatives and programmes for high-risk groups and to the 
need for continued public invest ment in rehabilitation programmes and publicly accessible curative 
facilities.  
Nevertheless, some aspects of cooperation require further attention. The degree of intelligence-sharing on 
drugs production and trafficking supply routes at re gional level is overshadowed by ongoing political 
tensions in the Middle East and South Caucasus. At the same time, the underinvestment in human 
resources within law enforcement agen cies to tackle drugs issues remain s a constraint for all ENP partners. 
A dialogue on drugs has furthermore not yet been initiated with all relevant countries. This concerns — among others — Armenia and Azerbaij an. Finally, initiatives by the EU to upgrade cooperation on drugs 
with other important ENP partners (notably Morocco) through the organisation of Troika meetings were 
frustrated by the co untries concerned.  
62. The Commission to encourage COM The various ENP Action Plans place drugs cooperation with in the framework of regional cooperati on and 
 
EN 49   EN these countries to use the European 
Neighbourhood Policy Instrument to implement the drug sections of the 
ENP Action Plans the fight against organised crime as well as national ef forts to develop adequate prevention, treatment and 
rehabilitation programmes. The TAIEX instrument was placed at the disp osal of the ENP partners in 
particular to help in building capacity in formul ating national strategies and improving coordination 
between national agencies and stakeholders. However, take-up of the TAIEX instrument has been limited, 
with only 3 study visits completed in 2009 involving Israel and Morocco. One Twinning action on drugs is under preparation with Morocco.  
Under bilateral cooperation, identification work began on a rural development programme to mitigate 
cannabis cultivation in Morocco (Rif area) for the pr ogramming period 2011-13, while discussions were 
initiated on a similar future programme in the Lebano n (Beka’a Valley). At region al level, all ENP South 
partners participated in the Euro Med Police II programme prioritising drugs cooperation while support 
was extended to improving border management, including anti-drugs surveillance, in ENP East through the 
EUBAM, SCIBM (South Caucasus Integrated Border Management) and SCAD V programmes.  
As part of the multilateral activities of the Eastern Partnership, an expert panel on Integrated Border 
Management (IBM) was established under Platform 1 to encourage expert dial ogue and to accompany the 
implementation of the Eastern Partnership’s €
 44.5 million Flagship Initiative on IBM, which includes 
among its priorities effective cooper ation against drug trafficking, particularly along major regional 
transport corridors.  
Ukraine concluded a Memorandum of Understanding on technical cooperation with EMCDDA in January 
2010, while Europol established formal contacts with Israel, Jordan, Moldova and Ukraine, concluding a Strategic Agreement including drugs cooperation with the latter two. With TAIEX support, EMCDDA 
plans to hold a regional seminar on the EU Drugs m onitoring system with all ENP partners in October 
2010.  
Some difficulties need to be overcome in this area of  cooperation as well. For example, low ENP partner 
interest is reported in using bilateral cooperation f unding under the ENPI for dr ug-related programmes. The 
relevant countries have a strong preference for usin g these means to advance convergence and economic 
integration. In this regard, the possibility of incorpor ating drug-specific regional activities in revised ENPI 
Regional East and Inter-Regional Strategy Papers for 2010-13 is limited due to intense prioritisation of 
enhanced support for economic integration and policy convergence in the key areas of energy, the environment and SME development. Available funding opportunities for expertise under TAIEX and 
Twinning are also not yet fully exploited by ENP partners.  
Most ENP partner countries prioritise supply reductio n measures over demand reduction, with few having 
an interest in investing in harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation programmes, and prefer to invest in 
repressive measures, including stricter drug legislation and drug crop eradication measures.  
 
EN 50   EN A budget of €  3.7 million has been allocated to facilitate c ooperation between interested ENP partners and 
EU agencies (incl. EMCDDA) under the revised Inte r-Regional Strategy Paper and Indicative Programme 
for 2011-13. Finally, interest in drugs cooperation u nder the multilateral track of the Eastern Partnership 
seems limited to date within the Panel on IBM under Platform 1 (Flagship Initiative on IBM). 
 
EN 51   EN 6. INFORMATION , RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (OBJECTIVES 21-24) 
Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need to increase our knowledge of all aspects of drug use through more  and better coordinated 
research and data, including data on drug-related crime and on the way th e illicit drug supply market works. 
INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION  
Objective Responsible 
party State of play 
Objective 21. Expand the knowledge base in  the field of drugs by promoting research  
63. The Council and Commission to: 
- identify future EU research priorities 
in the field of illicit drugs and the 
mechanisms needed in order to 
generate new knowledge; 
- develop new approaches and 
technologies; 
- strengthen research capability by 
developing and focusing its strategic direction and taking steps to improve 
cooperation in the EU MS 
COM 
EMCDDA 
Council In the course of 2009 and the first half of 2010, the Council and the Commission with the support of 
EMCDDA developed an EU strategic framework in the field of drugs-related research. In June 2009 the 
Commission published the report on a study
77 taking stock of illicit drugs research in all 27 EU countries 
and at EU level as well as making comparisons with research in the drugs field in the US, Canada and 
Australia. In September 2009 the Commission organised a conference bringing together policy-makers, 
programme managers from research funding organisations, and leading researchers from the EU, to examine the study findings and to debate possible mechanisms to engage researchers at both national and 
European level to improve research capability and co operation. Following these events, in November 2009 
the Commission presented a Commission Staff Working Paper
78 to the Council in which it made 
recommendations to strengthen research capacity and stimulate research cooperation in the field of drugs 
across the EU. The Council adopted thes e recommendations in its Conclusions79 of 7 December 2009 and 
also identified a number of drug-related research priorities in the field of drug demand, drug supply and policy evaluation. The Council also stressed the need to improve coordination between policy, research and 
practice. Finally, the Conclusions invited the Member States to strengthen national coordination 
mechanisms, to maximise the use of EU funding instruments, and in particular to consider the 
establishment of a European Research Area Network (E RA-NET) in the field of illicit drugs. By the end of 
                                                 
77 Call for Tender JLS/2007/C4/006; Study: ‘A Comparative Analysis of Research in the field of Illicit Drugs in the EU’.  
78 Commission Staff Working Paper: Strengthening EU Research Capacity on Illicit Drugs; SEC(2009) 1631 final, 23.11.2009. 
79 17177/09; CORDROGUE 78; 7.12.2009. 
 
EN 52   EN 2009, the Netherlands had indicated it could coordinate the establishment of such a structure. In 2009 the 
Commission also launched a call for proposals for a €  6.5 million grant on ‘Addictions’, as part of the 
Seventh Framework Programme for Research (F P7) under the Socio-Economic and Humanities 
Programme (SSH). In 2010, a call with an amount of €  2 million was launched in support of the ERA-NET 
in the field of drugs (SSH Programme). In addition, a call for proposals for large collaborative projects (€6 
to €12 million) in the field of 'addictive disorders’ was published under the FP7 Health Theme.  
In a survey conducted in preparation of this annu al assessment, the Commission asked Member States for 
updated information on national research funding prog rammes that specifically target drug-related research. 
Of the twenty Member States responding, ten countrie s reported that dedicated funding was available for 
drug-related research, either dir ectly from drug-coordinating structures through open calls for tender80 or 
through national research funding structures81. In Germany, a specific budget for drug-related research was 
available from 2001 to 2008. In Luxembourg, drug-related research is funded from a national fund to 
combat drug trafficking, in which confiscated assets from drug crimes are deposited. From the other ten responding countries, five countries said they did not have any funding programme specifically targeting 
drug-related research
82, while the remaining five83 indicated that funds for drug-related research are 
available from a variety of general research funding programmes.  
One of the recommendations in the Council Conclusions on drug-related research therefore also concerned 
the need to improve coordination between national re presentatives in drug-coordination mechanisms and 
those representing their Member States in pr ogramming committees, for ex ample for the EU’s 7th RTD 
Framework Programme, but also in the Public Health Programme and Drug Prevention and Information 
Programme.  
In the survey, the Commission also asked Member States how they coordinated their input in these specific 
programmes. Of the twenty countries respondi ng to this question, seven Member States84 indicated that 
their national drug coordination mechanism played an active role in disseminating information about 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
80 Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Spain. 
81 Belgium, Finland and Sweden. 
82 Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta and Romania. 
83 Austria, France, Portugal, Slovakia and UK. 
84 Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Lit huania, Poland, Romania and Spain. 
85 Austria, Denmark, Cyprus and Greece. 
86 Belgium, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and UK. 
87 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/research . 
 
EN 53   EN funding opportunities. It re mained unclear how these countries coordi nate their input within the different 
programming and advisory committees of the EU funding programmes. Four Member States85 indicated 
they do not coordinate such input. Finland and Malta  are currently ex amining a coordination structure for 
this purpose. Seven Member States86 reported that they do coordinate their input for the EU funding 
programmes, either through their national research structures or through their drug coordination mechanisms. The results show that funding for drug-related  research at EU level could be boosted further if 
more Member States ensured that information on research priorities is exchanged between their drug 
coordination mechanisms and government representatives in the relevant programming committees for the EU funding programmes. 
To provide and disseminate drug-related research information and drug-related research findings from the 
EMCDDA and the EU, the EMCDDA has enha nced its thematic website on research
87 to include a section 
on EC funding available for research, information on research at national level, and links to relevant EC, 
national and EMCDDA resources.  
22. Ensure the exchange of accurate and policy-rel evant information in the field of illicit drugs  
64. Member States to provide Reitox88 
National Focal Points (NFP) with the 
necessary resources to meet the obligations and quality standards of 
EMCDDA membership. NFPs to 
contribute to the EMCDDA on the basis of annual agreements and with 
appropriate support from the 
EMCDDA MS 
EMCDDA In 2009, 26 Member States signed a grant agreement with the EMCDDA. One country (Malta) did not have 
an operational focal point and therefore was not in a po sition to fulfil the contractual obligations linked to 
the grant agreement. The national focal point (NFP) of another Member State was relocated to another 
public entity at national level and became temporarily inoperative, so the grant agreement was cancelled. 
Out of the 25 remaining NFPs, three countries did not request the maximum amount available per country. 
Two of these NFPs had to request a further reduction during the year as matching national resources were cut due to the financial crisis. Apart from the abov e-mentioned individual cases the REITOX co-financing 
system seemed to have provided sufficient resources for effective functioning of the NFPs. 
National reports and standardised tables are two key areas where the EMCDDA collects monitoring 
information from the Reitox NFPs. In 2008, NFPs adopted new guidelines for national reporting, which 
were used as a reference document for the first time in 2009. The new guidelines made changes primarily to the structure of the report and not so much th e content. In 2009, all NFPs complied with the new 
reporting guidelines and delivered a national report. The exception was Malta, which has had no 
operational FP since 2008 and did not deliver any kind of data to the EMCDDA. Out of the 26 countries, the deadline was observed by 12 and a further 10 sent reports one month after the deadline.  
                                                 
88 Réseau Européen d’Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies (REITOX). 
 
EN 54   EN In 2009, 16 mandatory and 5 voluntary standard tables were due to be delivered by the NFPs by the end of 
September. In total, the EMCDDA recei ved 990 datasets, of which 136 (13.7  %) were received after the 
deadline. Of the 990 reported datasets, 139 (14  %) were tables without data. Depending on the country, 
reasons for empty submission varied significantly, e.g. new data not yet accessible at the NFPs, lack of data 
collection for a particular issue at national or regi onal level, or survey not carried out annually.  
The quality of the national reports and the reported datasets has been increasing over recent years, although 
the availability of new information varies greatly between  countries and the topic addressed. With regard to 
quality control, the EMCDDA has identified limitations and weaknesses in data and data collection systems 
and is seeking options for overcoming them together w ith NFPs. Due to the varying situations in different 
NFPs, bilateral discussions have proved to be useful, and training and technical support is tailored to and 
focused on the needs of those countries where problems have been identified.  
Objective 23. Further develop instruments to monitor the drug situation and the effectiveness of responses to it  
65. To further improve and fully 
implement the five EMCDDA key epidemiological indicators and the 
development of new indicators and 
measures in drug demand reduction MS 
EMCDDA COM The 5 Key Epidemiological Indicators (Prevalence and patterns of drug use, Problem drug use, Treatment 
demand, Drug-related deaths, and Drug -related infectious diseases) are a core task of the EMCDDA; they 
were politically endorsed by a Council Resolution in 2001. An assessment of the progress by Member 
States in implementing the Key Indicators (KI) was first performed in 2002. In 2009, a new assessment 
approach was developed in order to measure the level of implementation of the KIs and the progress made to date, and to identify the main obstacles to full implementation.  
The new implementation assessment conducted in 2009 included both a description of the activities carried 
out at national level to implement the KIs and an analysis of the quality of the information held in the Member States, and was delivered to the EMCDDA ag ainst a set of detailed criteria developed in close 
consultation with National Focal Points. Findings from the assessment reflect the stage of development of 
the indicators in a country. The results of the assessm ent indicate that the level of implementation of the 
indicators and the quality of the data have considerably improved in most of the countries since the KIs 
were implemented. However, some methodological aspects still need fine-tuning, especially with regard to the timeliness of data delivered to the EMCDDA. A limited number of  countries still face structural 
problems preventing the implementation of several in dicators and need to make a special effort to 
overcome these obstacles.  
Currently, the Treatment Demand Indicat or (TDI) is undergoing revision in response to changes in the 
treatment field and in the profile of problem drug users. The full revision of the TDI protocol and data 
management issues should be concluded in 2011 and will include simplified data reporting methods. 
The Problem Drug Use Indicator (PDU), as it has b een defined until now, has been most suitable for 
 
EN 55   EN estimating the size of populations of heavy, chronic heroin users. However, the changing drug situation in 
Europe (i.e. emergence of new populations like dependent cocaine users or cannabis users in need of treatment) required rethinking of the entire area. This was also supported by demands from National Focal 
Points, policy makers and the EU Drug Action Plan. El ements of the PDU revisi on planned for the near 
future include: review of the conceptual basis of th e current definition (e.g. operationalisation of definition 
elements — ‘regular’ and ‘long-term’, bringing the ar ea more into line with international classifications, 
flexibility of the definition in changing conditions, the possibility of defining harm thresholds, etc.). A 
multidisciplinary approach is to be taken and the re vision is intended to be a long-term process with a 
strong research stimulation component.  
The instruments used to assess drug demand reduction responses have been revised over recent years, in 
accordance with experiences and changes in the enviro nment. A first overall scheme for demand reduction 
indicators has been developed, based on an analysis of existing instruments and the items and categories 
used. Future work will focus on a restructuring of data management and presentation of interventions. Core elements will include: conceptual framework, policy relevance, current availability (including accessibility, 
access and coverage issues), quality measures and best practice. Cost-related aspects of interventions will 
be integrated where possible as data become available. 
All Member States provided data to the EMCDDA in 2009, according to the TDI Protocol and Guidelines. 
In Poland the process of adapting the national reporting system on treatment demand will be finalised 
shortly. There remain differences between Member Stat es with regard to data quality and coverage in 
respect of TDI implementation.  
67. To develop key indicators for the 
collection of policy-relevant data on 
drug-related crime, illegal cultivation,  
drug markets and supply reduction 
interventions and to develop a strategy 
to collect them COM 
EMCDDA 
Europol MS A number of bodies are collecting data in the field of dr ug supply in the EU and at international level, with 
the EMCDDA being the main such collector.  
While making use of the wealth of information and expertise available the European Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol and other bodies, the Commission also solicited external 
technical advice on a strategy to develop key indicators in the field of drug market s, drug-related crime and 
supply reduction by commissioning a study
89 in 2008 and organising two expert meetings in 2009. The 
meetings brought together a panel of law enforcement officers, drug-policy analysts, policy-makers and 
scientists. The Council reaffirmed the importance of this issue in its Conclusions of 28 May 200990.  
                                                 
89 Tender JLS/2008/C2/001 — Study on policy-relevant information and data in the field of drug-supply reduction and drug-related crime in the EU and third countries. 
90 9634/09; CORDROGUE 26, 8.5.2009. 
 
EN 56   EN Based on these activities and inputs, the Commission considered it important for progress to be made on 
developing drug supply indicators during the lifetime of the current EU Drugs Strategy. In order to facilitate this, it published a Commission Staff Working Paper with the aim of — among other things — 
providing a framework and setting out actions for developing key indicators in the field of drug supply at 
EU level. 
The paper proposed measures for enhancing the availability of information and data on drug supply, by 
developing key indicators on drug markets, drug-related crime and drug-supply reduction and by 
improving existing data collection systems in this field.  
As the lead agency in developing this area of data  collection in the EU, the EMCDDA in 2010 also started 
a number of projects concerned with the conceptua lisation, development and implementation of new 
indicators in the field of drug supply, this in addition to the data routinely collected and analysed on supply 
and supply reduction. These new indicators concern — among others — the area of ‘drug prices and 
purity’, in which data on drug prices in the retail a nd wholesale market are to be collected and analysed, 
and different options are to be reviewed for developing purity-adjusted price series in Europe, together with 
an analysis of the respective data requirements. Regarding purity, in 2010 the EMCDDA intends to develop 
its reporting tools on drug purity. This should allo w reporting countries to distinguish between different 
levels of the market (retail, wholesale, undifferentiated) in their submitted data. 
68. To develop analytical instruments 
to better assess the effectiveness and 
impact of drug policy (e.g. model evaluation tools, po licy effectiveness 
indices, public expenditure analysis 
etc.) COM 
EMCDDA 
MS The European Commission is supporting the development of new analytical instruments to better assess the 
effectiveness and impact of drugs policy in the EU by f unding initiatives through — among others — the 
Specific Programmes on Drug Prevention and Information
91 and on the Prevention of and Fight Against 
Crime as well as through the Pub lic Health Programme and the 7th RTD Framework Programme. €  5 to €  7 
million is allocated every year to  projects under these programmes. In  addition, the Commission has issued 
calls for studies in the field of drugs to  meet specific needs for EU drugs policy92. 
                                                 
91 Decision No 1150/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 September 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2 013 the Specific Programme ‘Drug 
prevention and information’ as part of the General Programme Fundamental Rights and Justice, OJ L 257, 03.10.2007, p. 23; Council Decision of 12 February 2007 
establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Pro gramme ‘Prevention of and Fight against 
Crime’ (2007/125/JHA); OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 7.  
92 2007 : JLS/2007/C4/005 — Detailed analysis of the operation of the worl d market in illicit drugs and of policy measures to curtail i t (€  469.958); 2008 : JLS/2007/C4/006 — A 
Comparative Analysis of Research into Illicit Drugs in the European Union (€  247.400); JLS/2008/C2/001 — Study on policy-relevant information and data in the field of drug 
supply reduction and drug-related cr ime in the EU and third countries (€  165.065); 2009: JLS/2010/DPIP/PR/1023 — Study on the development of an EU framework for 
minimum quality standards and benchmarks in drug demand reduction (€  225.700). 
 
EN 57   EN In addition, the EMCDDA is supporting the developm ent of drugs policy assessm ent instruments through a 
number of projects and tools. At the end of 2009, the Agency published a Selected Issue on ‘Drug offences: sentencing and other outcomes’, which analysed the implementation of drug control systems within the 
European Union — the outcome of eac h process, rather than a more restricted account of national laws. 
Individual countries have already used data on drug sentencing to inform or evaluate legal frameworks or policies, but this is the first time such data have been collected EU-wide. 
At the beginning of 2010, the EMCDDA released a shor t technical report that reviewed the methodologies 
used to evaluate the effects of drug-r elated changes to legislation. Some 36 studies that evaluated aspects of 
legislative changes regarding illegal use and possession, regulations permitting use and possession, and 
enforcement strategies were reviewed. Evaluations may highlight the intended effects of a legal change, but 
there can also be unintended consequences, and a fu ll picture will describe all of these, perhaps by 
combining different indicator types. In mid-2010, the EMCDDA organised a Reitox Academy on the 
evaluation of national drug strategies and action plans. The meeting focused on reviewing current national activities regarding the design of evaluation studies, the collection and interpretation of data for such 
studies, and the use of their results. 
69. To assess the functioning of 
Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the information exchange, risk assessment 
and control of new psychoactive 
substances, and amend, if necessary COM 
Council EMCDDA 
Europol 
EMEA In the Annual Report on the implementation of the Council Decision
93, EMCDDA and Europol indicated 
that, during 2009, 24 new psychoactive substances were  officially notified for the first time in the EU 
through information exchange via the Early Warning Sy stem (EWS) set up by the Decision. The number of 
new compounds reported in 2009 was higher than ever; all were synthetic, including two substances with 
medicinal properties. In the first half of 2010, the number of notified substances increased at an even faster rate.  
In the past five years, the Council Decision has been implemented fully on a number of occasions. 
Throughout the different stages of the implementation process, specific problems emerged both in terms of interpretation of specific paragraphs and regarding the timeliness of the procedure. Furthermore, the 
question has been raised whether the scope and procedur e of the Council Decision is still fit for purpose, 
given the fast-changing trends in the market for new psychoactive substances. These trends include for example: 
- The number of — mostly synthetic — substances on sale in the market for ‘legal’ drugs seems to be 
increasing. Not all of these substances may have a serious risk potential for human health, but their 
                                                 
93 EMCDDA–Europol 2009 Annual Report on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA - in accordance with Article 10 of Co uncil Decision 2005/387/JHA on the 
information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. 
 
EN 58   EN consequences are ofte n unknown due to a lack of research. 
- Substances that have been brought under control at national or at EU level are often easily replaced by 
new substances, often by making simple changes at the molecular level. The Council Decision can address 
one individual substance at a time only. 
- Some substances are sold with the label ‘not for human consumption ’. However, for user communities 
their use as psychoactive substances is clear (e.g. mephedrone); 
Many of the new, ‘legal’ psychoactive substances ar e sold over the internet, which makes control at 
national level complicated and occasionally leads to ‘media hypes’; 
In several Member States there are ‘smart shops’ or  ‘head shops’ which may sell all kinds of products, 
varying from herbal teas to psychoactive plant leafs and synthetic psychoactive substances. These shops are 
often not regulated. 
Taking into account the above, by the end of 2010, the Commission will present an assessment report on 
the functioning of Council Decision 20058/387/JHA94. The assessment will — among other things — look 
into how Member States control new psychoactive substances, draw up an inventory of relevant EU 
legislation (e.g. food law) that may be of use in addressing new psychoactive substances, and assess the 
functioning of the Council Decision from a procedural and practical perspective.  
Objective 24. Ensure the ongoing evaluation of drug policy  
70. Member States to evaluate and 
fine-tune national drug policies on a 
regular or ongoing basis MS Six EU Member States adopted new drug strategies and/or action plans in 200995 and five others96 had 
drugs policy documents ending in 2008 but had not renewed them at the end of 2009. Among these eleven 
countries, eight have reported evaluations of their former drugs policy documents and only three97 have not 
done such an evaluation. Ireland has assessed its strategy against predefined key performance indicators. 
Completed final drug strategy evaluations have also been reported by Luxembourg, Slovenia and the 
Netherlands, and their results should be or have already been used for the development of new national 
drug strategies or action plans to be adopted in 2010. Current final evaluations are also reported by the 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
94 OJ L 127, 20.5.2005; pp. 32-37. 
95 Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Hungary and Slovakia. 
96 Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,  Portugal and Romania. 
97 Bulgaria, Ireland and Lithuania. 
 
EN 59   EN Czech Republic, Sweden and Poland. 
The number of evaluations of national drug strategies or action plans in Europe is rapidly growing, and 
evaluations are progressively becoming a standard tool in this area. However, the approaches and methods 
used differ between countries. Some countries, for example, use external evaluators while others produce 
evaluations internally. Some only consider implementation, while others also address impact — some rely only on routine data while others also use ad hoc data, etc. 
 
EN 60   EN Appendix 1 — List of abbreviations  
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
AWF Analysis Work File 
BMK 1-Phenyl-2-propanone  
BOMCA Border Management for Central Asia 
BUMAD Byelorussia, Ukraine, Moldova Anti-Drug Programme 
CADAP Central Asia Drug Programme 
CECLAD-M Centre de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Méditerranée 
CEPOL European Police College 
CND Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
COSPOL Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police 
DRD Drug-Related Deaths 
DRID Drug-Related Infectious Diseases 
ECAB European Criminal Assets Bureau 
EDF European Development Fund 
EJUP European Joint Unit on Precursors 
EMCDDA European Monitoring Cent re on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy 
ENPI European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument 
EPCTF European Police Chiefs Task Force 
EU LAC EU – Latin American Cooperation 
HBV Hepatitis B virus 
HCV Hepatitis C virus 
HDG Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (Council) 
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
IDU Injecting Drug User 
INCB International Narcotics Control Board 
IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 
JCO Joint Customs Cooperation 
JIT Joint Investigation Team 
MAOC – N Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics 
MS Member State 
NFP National Focal Point  
NSP Needle and Syringe Exchange Programmes 
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation 
PMK 3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one  
REITOX Réseau Européen d’Informati on sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
SCAD South Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme 
TAIEX Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime  
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 
UNGASS United Nations General Assembly Special Session 
WHO World Health Organisation 
 
EN 61   EN