EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Bruxelles, le 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2456 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE CO UNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
On an EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012) 
REPORT OF THE FINAL EVALUATION  OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN 
(2005-2008) 
{COM(2008) 567} 
{SEC(2008) 2455} {SEC(2008) 2454} 
EN 2   EN Table of contents 
 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ .. 5 
1.1. Institutional background............................................................................................... 5 1.2. The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)...................................................................... 7 1.3. Aims and methodology of the evaluation .................................................................... 9 1.3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ ...... 9 
1.3.2. Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................ 9  
1.3.3. Evaluation questions .................................................................................................. 10  
1.3.4. Methodology and data sources................................................................................... 11 1.3.5. Data sources ............................................................................................................ ... 12 
1.3.6. Stakeholder involvement............................................................................................ 13 1.4. Limitations of the evaluation...................................................................................... 14 1.4.1. Inconsistencies of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ....................................... 14 1.4.2. Other limitations....................................................................................................... .. 15 
1.4.3. Structure of this report................................................................................................ 17 
2. Implementation of the Action Plan at EU and national level..................................... 18 2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. .. 18 
2.1.1. Cross-cutting theme: Coordination ............................................................................ 18 2.1.2. Drug demand reduction.............................................................................................. 24 2.1.3. Drug supply reduction................................................................................................ 30 2.1.4. Cross cutting theme: International cooperation ......................................................... 40 2.1.5. Cross-cutting theme: Informa tion, research and evaluation....................................... 45 
3. Impact of the EU Drugs Action Pl an on Member States' drug policy ....................... 51 
3.1.1. Incorporation of EU Action Plan objectives in national drug policy......................... 51 
3.1.2. Coherence between the Action Plan  and national policy objectives.......................... 53 
3.1.3. National priorities not covered by the Action Plan .................................................... 53 3.1.4. Action Plan objectives covere d by national drug policies ......................................... 54 
3.1.5. Strengths and weaknesse s of the Action Plan ............................................................ 55 
4. Trends in the drug situation in the European Union .................................................. 57 4.1. Drug use in the European Union ................................................................................ 57 4.1.1. Drug use among school students (15-16 years) ......................................................... 57 4.1.2. Drug use among young adults (15–34 years)............................................................. 58 4.1.3. Drug use among older adults (35–64 years)............................................................... 61 
EN 3   EN 4.2. Problem drug use........................................................................................................ 61  
4.2.1. Problem opioid use..................................................................................................... 6 2 
4.2.2. Problem cocaine use................................................................................................... 62  
4.2.3. Problem amphetamine/methamphetamine use........................................................... 63 4.3. Health and social consequences of drug use .............................................................. 63 4.3.1. Drug-related infectious diseases................................................................................. 63 4.3.2. Drug-related deaths .................................................................................................... 6 5 
4.3.3. Social consequences of drug use................................................................................ 66 4.4. Drug supply to the European Union........................................................................... 67 4.4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ .... 67 
4.4.2. Source countries of heroi n, cocaine and cannabis...................................................... 67 
4.4.3. Transit routes of heroin, cocai ne and cannabis into Europe ...................................... 68 
4.4.4. The EU illicit drug market ......................................................................................... 69 4.4.5. Synthetic Drugs and drug precursors ......................................................................... 71 4.4.6. New psychoactive substances on the EU drug market............................................... 73 4.4.7. Measuring trends in the drug market.......................................................................... 73 4.4.8. Trends in national drug laws ...................................................................................... 75 5. Impact and added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ......................... 77 
5.1. Impact of the EU Drugs Action Pl an (2005-2008) on the drug situation .................. 77 
5.2. Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ........................................... 79 5.2.1. Added value of the Action Plan according to Member States ................................... 79 5.2.2. Added value of the Action Plan ................................................................................. 80 6. Conclusions and recommendations for future drug policy ........................................ 81 6.1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ .... 81 
6.1.2. To what extent have the operational obj ectives and actions in the current EU 
Action Plan on Drugs been implemented a nd what have been the main outputs?..... 81 
6.1.3. Have the specific priorities in the St rategy and the operationa l objectives in the 
Action Plan been adopted by Member States?........................................................... 85 
6.1.4. What have been the overall changes in the drug situation in recent years? ............... 85 6.1.5. To what extent can these changes be a ssociated with the implementation of the 
EU Action Plan on Drugs? ......................................................................................... 86 
6.1.6. What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008?........ 86 
6.2. Recommendations for the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) ................................ 87 
6.2.1. Recommendations in the field of coordination .......................................................... 87 
6.2.2. Recommendations in the fiel d of drug demand reduction ......................................... 87 
6.2.3. Recommendations in the fiel d of drug supply reduction ........................................... 88 
EN 4   EN 6.2.4. Recommendations in the field of international cooperation ...................................... 88 
6.2.5. Recommendations in the field of in formation, research and evaluation.................... 89 
Annex 1 — Overview of objectives and ac tions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008).......................................................................................................................... . 91 
Annex 2 — List of abbreviations ........................................................................................... 139 Annex 3 — Glossary of terms................................................................................................ 140 Annex 4 — EMCDDA data sources  international comparison.............................................. 144
 
EN 5   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. Institutional background 
The EU Member States are the main actors in the drugs field, and drug legislation is 
primarily a matter of national competence. However, the Treaties explicitly acknowledge 
the need to deal with drug issues at EU level,  in particular in the fields of justice and 
home affairs1 and public health2.  
Community competences include the cont rol of the trade in drug precursors3 and the 
prevention of money laundering4. In the field of drug trafficking, a Council Framework 
Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts 
and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking5 has been adopted, while the Council 
Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive 
substances6 provides the EU with an instrument  to act on new drugs emerging in the 
market.  The Community role in many fields such as research, social  policy, education 
and youth also covers drug-related actions, ev en if not specifically mentioned in the 
Treaty.  
The EU framework for drug policy goes back to the early 1990s. A first European plan to 
combat drugs was adopted by the European Council in 19907. The importance of 
European-level cooperation to tackle dr ug dependence was re flected in a 1994 
Communication from the Commission.8 The creation of the European Monitoring Centre 
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in  1993 and the Drugs Un it of Europol in 
1994 was a further strong sign of the importa nce and added value of drug policy at 
European level. 
A first EU Drugs Strategy ( 1995-1999) was adopted in 19959 to promote enhanced 
cooperation between Member St ates with the aim of reduc ing both the demand for and 
supply of drugs towards and within the EU . The EU Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) and the 
EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)10 introduced new possibiliti es for cooperation at 
EU level. 
                                                 
1 Title VI, Articles 29 and 31(1)(e), TEU. 
2 Article 152 TEC: ‘The Community shall comple ment the Member States’ action in reducing 
drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention.’ 
3 Community Drug Precursor Legislation: Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 1), 
Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 D ecember 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring 
of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ L22, 26.1.2005, p. 1). Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 of 27 July 2005 laying down implementing rules for 
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors 
and for Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries (OJ L 202, 3.8.2005, p. 7). 
4 2005/60/EC — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, 26.10.2005. 
5 2004/757/JHA. 
6 2005/387/JHA. 
7 10234/1/90, 10.12.1990; a dopted by the European Council in  Rome on 13 & 14 December 1990. 
8 COM (1994) 223 final; 21.6.1994. 
9 9012/99 CORDROGUE 33. 
10 12555/3/99 CORDROGUE 64; 9283/00 CORDROGUE 3. 
EN 6   EN In December 2004, the European Council endor sed the European Drugs Strategy (2005-
2012)11, which set the framework, objectives and pr iorities for two consecutive four-year 
Drugs Action Plans to be brought forwar d by the Commission. The Strategy was an 
integral part of the multi-annual programme ‘The Hague Programme for strengthening 
freedom, security and justice in the EU’12. It is based first and foremost on the 
fundamental principles of EU law and upholds  the founding values of  the Union: respect 
for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equalit y, solidarity, the rule of law and human 
rights. It aims to protect and improve the we ll-being of society and of the individual, to 
protect public health, to ensure for the general public a high level of security and to take 
a balanced, integrated appro ach to the drugs problem.  
The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) sets out two general aims: 
(1) The EU aims at a contribution to the attainment of a hi gh level of health 
protection, well-being and social cohesi on by complementing Member States' 
action in preventing and reducing drug us e, dependence and drug-related harms to 
health and society. 
(2) The EU and its Member States aim to ensure a high level of security for the 
general public by taking action against drug production, cross-border trafficking 
in drugs and diversion of precursors, a nd by intensifying preventive action against 
drug-related crime, through effective c ooperation embedded in a joint approach. 
The Strategy sets the framework, objectives and priorities for all drug-related activities in 
the EU in the shape of two consecutive four-year Drugs Action Plans to be brought 
forward by the Commission . The first of these Action Pl ans, the EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2005-2008), was endorsed by the Council on 8 July 200513. The Action Plans aim 
to translate the broad objectives and priorities  of the Strategy into specific actions with 
objectively verifiable indicat ors to measure progress.  
The Strategy also specifies that ‘the evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans on 
Drugs will be conducted by the Commission, in  cooperation with the EMCDDA, Europol 
and the Member States’. The EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 calls upon the 
Commission to organise an impact assessmen t with a view to proposing a new EU Drugs 
Action Plan for (2009-2012)14.  
The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) were 
drafted under the current legal framework pr ovided by the EU and EC Treaties and based 
on the respective competences of the Union, Community and individual Member States, 
with due regard to subsidiarity and proportionality 
                                                 
11 CORDROGUE 77, 22.11.2004. 
12 COM(2005) 184 final, 10.5.2005. 
13 OJ C 168, 8.7.2005. 
14 OJ C168, 8.7.2005: Action 45.3; Note: the term ‘impact assessment’ in this context should be read 
as an ex-post evaluation of the implementation of the current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-
2008), and as such is different from the tech nical term ‘Impact Assessment’ as used in the 
Commission’s policy-making process. 
EN 7   EN 1.2. The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and it s two consecutive Acti on Plans have been 
developed around the two main dimensions of drug policy, drug demand reduction and 
drug supply reduction . These two ‘pillars’ are comple mented by three cross-cutting 
themes, coordination , international cooperation and information, research and 
evaluation . The Drugs Strategy and Action Plans ha ve been designed in the form of a 
‘logical framework’ identifying the Strategy’s  objectives and priorities and the Action 
Plan objectives and actions.  
As the first Action Plan to implement the ob jectives and priorities of the EU Drugs 
Strategy (2005-2008) in practice, the EU Dr ugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is the most 
detailed in this field to date at EU level,  covering the full range of EU drugs policy and 
unanimously endorsed by the Council, reflec ting the broad consensus between Member 
States on this issue.  
The Action Plan proposes policy action at national, EU and in ternational level and asks 
for the commitment of the 27 Member States  to work more closel y together, to share 
information and best practices, to jointly pr omote the EU model in drugs policy and to 
base drugs policy on scientif ic facts and evidence.  
Table 1  provides a global overview of the stru cture and key objectives of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008). The EU Drugs Stra tegy (2005-2008), as an overarching and 
balanced coordination docum ent for EU drugs policy, re flecting the concerns and 
priorities of the 27 Member States and the c onsensus between them, ha s translated into a 
large number of objectives (46) and actions (86) in the Action Plan. In addition, the 
international dimension of the drug problem is involving more and more regions in the 
world, as trafficking routes and the related organised criminal activ ity proliferate. The 
complexity of the health, social and secur ity problems resulting from this development 
continues to pose challenges to the EU if it is  to tackle the drug issue in a unified and 
coherent manner. 
EN 8   EN  
Table 1 — Schematic overview of objectives in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
Coordination 
• MS adopting national strategies and action plans in line with the EU Drug Strategy/ Action Plan to 
ensure the integrated, balanced approach in drug policy 
• Coordination at national and EU level 
• Strengthen involvemen t of civil society 
• Effective coordination in the Council 
• Systematic mainstreaming of drugs polic y in relations and agreements with 3rd countries  
Drug demand reduction Drug supply reduction & security 
• Encouraging improvement of coverage of, 
access to and effectiveness of demand reduction 
measures in Member States 
• Encouraging implementation of prevention in 
Member States (universal, selective, indicative, 
early detection)  
• Encouraging improvement and implementation 
of treatment and rehabilitation in Member States (early intervention, brie f treatment, long-term 
treatment, etc.) 
• Encouraging development of alternatives to 
imprisonment and of drug services in prisons in 
Member States 
• Encouraging implementation of harm reduction 
in Member States (reducing drug related deaths, 
drug-related infectious diseases)  • Improve law enforcement cooperation between 
Member States, Europo l, Eurojust, third 
countries and international organisations 
• Reducing production and cross border 
trafficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis 
• Reducing the manufacture and supply of 
synthetic drugs (ATS) 
• Combat serious criminal activity in chemical 
precursors diversion and smuggling through law 
enforcement coopera tion between Member 
States, Europol, Eurojust, third countries and international organisations 
• Preventing the diversion of precursors, in 
particular synthetic precursors imported to EU 
• Reducing money laundering & increasing the 
seizure of accumulated assets in relation to drug 
crime 
• Exploring links between drug production and 
trafficking and the financing of terrorism 
• Improving the prevention of drug-related crime 
and developments of new methods and best 
practices to curtail it 
• Increasing training for law enforcement agencies 
International cooperation 
 • Intensify law enforcemen t efforts directed at 
non-EU countries, especially producer countries 
and regions along trafficking routes 
• Adopting EU common positions on drugs in international for a, including on UNGASS 
• Articulation and promotion of the EU approach on drugs 
• Bringing forward joint EU resolutions and co-sponsor others 
• Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries 
• Enable candidate countries to participate in  the work of EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust 
• Assist European neighbours 
• Improve the coherence, visibility and effici ency of the assistance to candidate and 3rd countries/ regions 
• Ensure that drugs concerns are taken on board in priority setting of EU versus 3rd countries/ regions and 
continue and develop an active engagement with them 
• Improve the coherence, visibility and efficiency of assistance to candidate and 3rd countries/ regions 
Information, evaluation and research 
• Provide reliable and comparable data on key 
epidemiological indicators • Follow up of the mutual evaluation of drug law 
enforcement systems in  the Member States 
• Provide reliable information on the drug situation (incl. EMCDDA) 
• Develop clear information on emerging trends and patterns of drug use and drug markets 
• Produce estimates on public expenditures on drug issues 
• Promote research in the field of drugs 
• Create networks of excellence in research 
• Continuous and overall evaluation 
EN 9   EN 1.3. Aims and methodology of the evaluation 
1.3.1.  Introduction 
The Strategy and the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)15 call upon the Commission to 
draw up annual progress reviews on the im plementation of the Action Plan for 
consideration by the Council. The objective of  these reviews is not only to report on 
progress but also to deal with identified gaps and possible new challenges, should any significant changes in the EU Drugs situati on emerge during the implementation of the 
Action Plans.  
To date, the Commission has published annual progress reviews of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan (2005-2008) for the years 2006
16 and 200717. These reviews showed progress in the 
vast majority of actions implemented in th ese years, but some structural problems 
emerged that will influence the outcome of  the final evaluation of the current Drugs 
Action Plan.  
The 2006 progress review18 concluded — among other things  — that coordination could 
be improved between public health and law en forcement. Furthermore, in the field of 
monitoring, progress in the field of supply re duction and implementa tion at national level 
proved difficult to assess. Th e Commission also proposed a number of amendments to 
the existing indicators and assessment t ools in the Action Plan. Based on the 2007 
progress review19, the Commission concluded that prog ress was being made across the 
board in the Action Plan, but that the asse ssment of actual impacts on Member State 
policies and — indirectly — on the drugs si tuation in the EU was proving difficult. 
Again, the Commission pointed out that there was a struct ural lack of reliable and 
comparable data and information at EU level,  in the supply reduction field in particular.  
The Commission is responsible for conductin g the final evaluation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008). In order to improve  the quality and scope of the work, an 
independent consultant20 was asked in 2007 to advice on developing a methodology for 
evaluation. As part of th is task, the consultant also conducte d an analysis of the extent to 
which the current Action Plan on Drugs can in fact be evaluated. Over all, the consultant 
concluded that a one-on-one impact assessmen t of the Action Plan on the drugs situation 
in Europe was not feasible due to a variety of  reasons, some of which are explained in the 
following sections.  
1.3.2.  Scope of the evaluation 
This final evaluation of the EU Drugs Ac tion Plan (2005-2008) is the most extensive 
assessment of the implementation of EU drug polic y so far. As such, it is also the most 
extensive drug policy evaluation conducted in the global drug field, actively involving 27 
countries representing 490 million citizens.  
                                                 
15 Action 45.2. 
16 SEC (2006) 1803, 21.12.06. 
17 COM (2007) 781 final, 11.12.07; SEC (2007) 1739, 18.12.2007 
18 SEC (2006) 1803, 21.12.06. 
19 COM (2007) 781 final, 11.12.07; SEC (2007) 1739, 18.12.2007 
20 GHK Consultants International, London, UK. 
EN 10   EN It builds on the experiences gained through th e evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and 
Action Plan on Drugs for (2000-2004)21, which was the first time that such an evaluation 
exercise had been undertaken in the drugs  field at EU level. Some of the key 
recommendations of the 2004 evaluation for the next EU Drugs Strategy and Action 
Plans included: 
• Clear and precise objectives and priorities need  to be set that can be translated into 
operational indicators and actions in futu re Action Plans, with clearly defined 
responsibilities and deadlines for their implementation; 
• Continued progress should be made in the availability, quality and comparability of 
information on monitoring the drugs situation; 
• The primary focus of the work of the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) 
should be on moving forward with monitoring of the implementation of the actions set 
out in the future EU Action Plan on Dr ugs and on playing a leading role in 
coordinating the work of the other Council groups on drugs issues.  
This evaluation aims to go a step further in assessing the implementation of the activities 
set out in the Action Plan and the achievement of the Action Plan’s objectives, which in turn are related to the over all priorities of the EU Dr ugs Strategy (2005-2012). Because 
the Action Plan objectives and actions have all been assigned indicators / assessment 
tools, responsible parties and deadlines, more  data and information on the drug situation 
and the responses to it are av ailable in the EU today, even  though this mainly concerns 
the field of drug demand reduction.  
At the same time, the complexity of evalua ting the Action Plan has increased. Since 
2004, the EU has expanded from 15 to 27 Member States, resulting in the need to collect data and information on how the new countries have implemented the objectives of the Action Plan.  
1.3.3.  Evaluation questions 
The Strategy sets a clear aim for the outcome  of policy efforts by 2012 in stipulating that 
‘by the end of 2012, progress should have been made on all the prior ities in the fields 
defined in the Strategy. This will be achiev ed through interventions and actions at the 
level of individual Member States, groups of Me mber States or the EU as a whole and in 
cooperation with third countries and intern ational organisations such as the Council of 
Europe and the United Nations’ .  
Furthermore, when drafting the Strategy, the Me mber States agreed that its aim is to ‘ add 
value to national strategies while respec ting the principles of subsidiarity and 
proportionality as set out in the Treaties. (… ) Member States should consider the impact 
of their national strategies on other Member States, the ways nationa l strategies can be 
mutually supportive, and the contributions su ch strategies can make towards achieving 
the objectives of this European Union Strategy’ .  
                                                
 
21 COM (2004) 707 final, 22.10.2004 
EN 11   EN The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is  quite adamant on what should be the 
ultimate goal of current EU drug policy: ‘it should be clearl y understood that the 
Strategy and Action Plan are not an end in themselves: even if all the objectives they 
contain are reached, we must conclude t hat they have failed if the result is not a 
measurable reduction of the drug problem in our societies. The citizens of Europe expect 
this. The ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to  significantly reduce the prevalence of drug 
use among the population and to reduce the so cial harm and health damage caused by 
the use of and trade in illicit drugs’.  
Accordingly, this evaluation aims to assess th e extent to which the objectives and actions 
of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ha ve been achieved, how the Action Plan 
relates to the actual drug situa tion, and the added value it offe rs to drug policy in the EU 
as a whole. 
The following evaluation questions have thus been formulated: 
(1) To what extent have the operational objectives and actions in the current EU 
Action Plan on Drugs been implemente d and what are the main outputs?  
(2) Have the specific priorities in the Strategy and the operational objectives in the 
Action Plan been adopted by Member States? 
(3) What are the overall changes in the drug situation in recent years?  
(4) To what extent can these changes be linked to the implementation of the EU 
Action Plan on Drugs?  
(5) What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008? 
(6) What key conclusions and lessons can be drawn from this evaluation for the next 
plan covering the years 2009-2012? 
1.3.4.  Methodology and data sources 
In preparing for the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008, the Commission 
contracted an external consultant in 2007 to  help in the development of an evaluation 
methodology. Key elements of the consultant’s22 report have been incorporated in the 
final evaluation methodology used by the Commission.  
As the evaluation had to be conducted under pre ssure of time and part ly in para llel with 
the development of the new EU Drugs Ac tion Plan for (2009-2012), the Commission 
decided in 2008 to bring in a second external co ntractor to act as an independent ‘critical 
friend’ for the evaluation process. The contra ctor provided the Commission with critical 
reflections on the evaluation pr ocess and on draft documents.  
                                                 
22 GHK Consultants International, Study in view of designing a methodology to assess the impact of 
the EU Action Plan on Drugs, Specific Contract No JLS/2006/A1/FWC/004-3, 24 October 2007. 
EN 12   EN The key evaluation tasks identified by  the Commission were as follows:  
(1) Reflection on the structure of the EU  Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU 
Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 
This task aimed to analyse the internal c onsistency of the Action Plan in terms of 
structure, the relationship between objectives , actions, indicators and assessment tools, 
the clarity of formulation and an analysis of  priorities across objectives. This work was 
mostly carried out by the first contractor mentioned above.  
(2) The EMCDDA and Europol to be asked to provide summary reports on trends in 
the drug situation in Europe and the responses to it.  
The trend reports were necessary to identif y key developments in the drug situation 
during the implementation of the Action Plan (2005-2008), some of which might — 
hypothetically — be attributed to the impl ementation of the Action Plan. The trend 
information on responses was meant to complement information from other sources. 
(3) The Commission to send out a survey to the Member States to obtain the Member 
States’ views on the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  
The survey was sent out in March 2008 a nd included over 20 questions on the inclusion 
of objectives and actions of the Action Plan within national drug policy, Member States’ 
views on the strengths and w eaknesses of the Action Plan, and their assessment of the 
added value of the Plan for EU and national drug policy.  
(4) The Commission to launch a review of th e implementation of each of the specific 
objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 
This information gathering process was simila r to that for the Annual Reviews, although 
the information requested covered the period 2005-2008 and th e emphasis was on 
whether objectives and actions  had been achieved or not (as far as respondents could 
make such a judgment). 
(5) Finally, assessment of intra-instituti onal coordination and cooperation in the 
implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  
This task was conducted by the ‘critical friend ’, the external contr actor that provided 
support and advice to the Commission throughout  the evaluation process. The scope of 
the task was limited due to time restraints, but included a series of interviews with key Commission departments involved in the implem entation of parts of the Action Plan. The 
purpose of the exercise was to obtain a better picture of potential coor dination issues that 
might affect the implementation of the Action Plan. The assessment did not cover inter-institutional cooperation between th e Commission and the Council.  
1.3.5.  Data sources 
The data and information in this report were  collected from the sources available to the 
European Commission.  
For assessing the implementation of the objec tives and actions of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan (2005-2008), information on progress and achievement was gathered through the 
relevant Commission services, the EMCDDA and Europol. All relevant Commission 
services were asked to report on those objectiv es and actions they were (co-)responsible 
EN 13   EN for. Europol was asked to report on those actio ns relevant to its mandate and activities. 
The EMCDDA was asked to provide on info rmation on those actions for which it 
collects information from Member States. Both the EMCDDA and Europol were also 
asked to contribute to repor ting on key developments in the drug situation at EU and 
national level for which the Commission ha d no direct sources of information.  
In order to assess the impact of the Action Plan at national leve l, the Commission asked 
the Member States to complete a survey fo cusing on the translati on of the Action Plan 
objectives into national drug policy and on th e perceived added valu e of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan at nationa l and EU level.  
The information provided by the EMCDDA is collected through a ne twork of national 
focal points (Reitox). These data are summa rised every year, together with other 
information, in the EMCDDA’s Annual Repor t on the State of the Drugs Problem in 
Europe23 and in a Statistical Bulletin24. As this final evaluation report was prepared 
during the data verification phase for the EMCDDA Annual Report 2008, some of the 
most recent statistical data should be consid ered as provisional. However, although some 
individual items may be subject to revision, this is unlikely to  influence the interpretation 
of overall trends at European level.  
Europol information is provided by its Dr ugs Unit. Member State information is 
collected in the course of various proj ect-related activities through the Europol 
Information Exchange System connecting Euro pol and all National Units. Each Member 
State has only one official data communica tion channel with Europol: all operational and 
strategic information must be delivered by wo rking partners via thei r respective Europol 
National Units. Coordination of the informa tion flows between Member State bodies and 
the Europol Drugs Unit is therefore crucia l. Information on drug precursor control 
legislation and on seizures and stopped ship ments is collected by the Member States 
under a Community Regulation.  
Other sources also include studies and reports funded by the Commission.  
1.3.6.  Stakeholder involvement 
To facilitate the involvement of  the Member States and the EU institutions, agencies and 
structures in the evaluation process, a Steering Group was set up to advice on the 
evaluation methodology and the interpretation of the evaluation outcomes. The Steering 
Group consisted of representatives from the Member States holding the EU Presidency 
between the second half of 2006 and the end of 200825 and representatives of the 
European Parliament, Europol, the EMCCD A, EUROSTAT and the Commission. The 
Steering Group convened four times in 2007 an d 2008. Its input enabled the Commission 
to verify key evaluation questions as well  as to identify potential problems and 
shortcomings that might emerge during the evaluation process.  
The Commission also specifically asked for the input of the newly established Civil 
Society Forum on Drugs, which convened in December 2007 and in May 2008. The 
members of the Forum were asked to share their thoughts and experiences regarding the 
current EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008), wh ich resulted in a number of important 
observations being taken on board in this evaluation report.  
                                                 
23 Available in print and online: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/online/ar2007/en. 
24 Available online: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/main. 
25 Finland, Germany, Portug al, Slovenia and France. 
EN 14   EN 1.4. Limitations of the evaluation 
Evaluating the impact of public policy plan s such as the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008) is by nature not a simple exercise. The Action Plan aims to coordinate and 
influence major areas of govern ment intervention in  the field of drugs  (public health / 
security / external relations) at EU and Member State level,  targeting a complex social 
phenomenon that is still insufficiently unde rstood, that largely takes place outside the 
scope and control of public  authorities and that requi res a long-term approach.  
At the same time, the policy responses to the drug problem within the Member States are 
heterogeneous. These responses may reinforce each other, interact w ith or diverge from 
one other (un-)intentionally, a nd are implemented by a broad ra nge of different actors in 
each country, with specific interests and differe nt levels of intensity and efficiency. As 
with other complex social problems, this  environment makes the identification and 
evaluation of causal relationships between changes in the drug situation and the policy 
responses a complicated exer cise, if not impossible.  
1.4.1.  Inconsistencies of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
As indicated above, one of the evaluation tasks was to analyse the internal consistency of 
the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). In preparing the methodology for the final 
evaluation, the external cons ultants identified the followi ng key inconsistencies:  
• The coherence of the Action Plan suffers from a large number of objectives, several of 
which seem to overlap with one other. 
• Most objectives in the Action Plan can be ca tegorised as ‘general’ or ‘specific’, with 
few operational objectives. A considerable number of general objectives are often 
vaguely formulated, while sp ecific objectives are not sp ecific enough to prevent broad 
interpretation of what is mean t and which activities are covered. 
• No clear hierarchy is provided in the Acti on Plan. The objectives are indirectly linked 
to overarching priorities in the Drugs Strategy, but these are rather broadly 
formulated. The priorities in the Drugs St rategy are not accompanied by output or 
outcome indicators. 
• The links between objectives and acti ons in the Action Plan are sometimes 
problematic. Some actions restate the obj ective, making it di fficult to identify 
indicators and a ssessment criteria. 
• Some objectives and actions lack (subsidiar y) actions that break down implementation 
into clear stages. Progress is diffi cult to measure in these cases. 
• Regarding indicators, the Action Plan provi des a mix of output, outcome and impact 
indicators, but, in a considerable number of  cases, no indicators are provided at all but 
only assessment tools / data sources.  
The problems identified with the internal consistency of the Action Plan may influence 
the implementation of specific objectives and actions or make assessment of the progress 
achieved difficult if not impossible. 
EN 15   EN 1.4.2.  Other limitations 
A number of further challenges have been  found to have a specific impact on this 
evaluation.  
• The Action Plan is a coordinati on instrument with non-binding 
recommendations 
The Action Plan is primarily a non-bindi ng instrument for coordination among the 
Member States, which are autonomous in implementing its aims and objectives. A limited number of objectives and actions are im plemented only at EU level, i.e. through 
Commission activities. Most objectives and actions in the Action Plan are implemented 
indirectly: the Action Plan aims to influe nce the actions of others. This indirect 
implementation may be effective in providi ng guidance for national policy level, but it 
does make assessment of the direct conse quences of the plan more complicated.
26  
• The horizontal nature and broad sc ope of the Drugs Action Plan 
As the drugs phenomenon is a broad and comp lex social problem, the Drugs Action Plan 
tries to influence various fields of public  policy simultaneously in a coherent and 
coordinated way. These fields are all major areas of public policy (e.g. public health) with existing systems and structur es that need to be ‘tempted’ to take action. An in-depth 
ex-ante or ex-post evaluation of  the actual impact of the Acti on Plan on any one of these 
policy fields would already require major resources.  
• Lack of relevant comparable and reliable data on the drug phenomenon, drug 
demand and drug supply reduction 
The annual progress reviews have highlighted that  there is a lack of information and data 
to show progress for quite a fe w indicators in the Action Pla n, while there is also little 
information and data available on the outco mes and impacts of the Drugs Action Plan 
regarding the actual drug situa tion. The collection of data is  primarily the task of the 
Member States. The progress reviews provide information mostly on the results of the 
operational objectives and actions, but much less on the outcomes of the implementation 
of these specific objectives and their imp act on the global objectives of the Drugs 
Strategy. The lack of relevant data and information applies to both drug demand 
reduction and, in particular, drug supply re duction, but also concerns international 
cooperation. 
The information available on the drug situation and the responses to it is still insufficient 
to support a detailed analysis of  developments in the illicit drug market and the impact of 
drug policies on this market (see 3.1.5 for further details). 
                                                
 
26 The Commission is involved in the implementation of 44 of the 86 objectives and actions in the 
EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008, but directly responsible for only 8 of them. Member States are 
involved in the implementation of 64 of the 86 objectives and actions, but directly responsible for the implementation of 23. Responsibility for 14 of the 86 is shared between Member States and 
the Commission. The remaining 41 actions are the shared responsibility of the Member States, 
Commission, Presidency/Council, Europol, EMCDDA and a limited number of other stakeholders. 
EN 16   EN • Other data limitations 
Obtaining European data depends on partic ipating Member Sates having national data 
collection activities that conform to comm on reporting standards and use appropriately 
robust methods. Considerable progress has b een made in this respect, especially 
regarding key epidemiological indicators. However, it is important to note that 
differences still remain between countries in both the availability and quality of the data. 
Direct comparisons between countries shoul d therefore be made with caution, although 
time series data can point to general changes over time even when reporting systems are imperfect. Understanding differe nces in national data collec tion systems is a key element 
to understanding the European situation, and su fficient analytical capacity now exists in 
Europe to permit qualified statements to be  made on the overall situation with some 
confidence. Data on drug responses are gene rally less standardis ed and assessment is 
more reliant on qualitative measures. Even he re, however, there has been some progress 
and, provided sufficient caution is exerci sed, comments can be made on the overall 
situation, although any precise quantifi cation is generally more difficult. 
• Delays in data collection 
The collection of epidemiological data on the drug situation is complex and time-
consuming. The necessary compiling, reconciling and approving of national statistics and 
the high quality standards needed to ensure the reliability of data mean that international 
public health and law enforcement monitoring  systems have a reporting lag. Much of the 
EMCDDA information on drug trends and devel opments is collected at national level, 
often compiled from local and regional data collections within Memb er States, resulting 
in a time gap between the moment  of collection and the report . For this evaluation report, 
epidemiological data are available for the year 2006 at best. EM CDDA national reports 
and the narrative reports on the implemen tation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008) are usually more recent, and will in most cases include information up to the end 
of 2007. However, trends in the drug situa tion generally unfold over a longer period of 
time.  
• Timing of this evaluation 
Finally, it is important to note the actual period of impl ementation of the current EU 
Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). Original ly, the two envisaged Action Plans 
implementing the Drugs Strategy were supposed  to have a 3-year implementation period 
(2005-2007 and 2009-2011, respecti vely) followed by a 1-year  evaluation period (2008 
and 2012). Even though the current Action Plan o fficially covers the period from 2005 to 
2008, it was adopted in mid-2005 and evaluate d in the first half  of 2008, resulting 
effectively in an evaluation of implem entation in the years 2006 and 2007. As policy 
needs time to ‘trickle down’, the structural effects of this Action Plan might be difficult to identify. Furthermore, the time constrai nts accompanying this evaluation ruled out a 
number of potential evaluation methods, incl uding case studies and interviews at national 
level. 
Taking all these limitations into account, this final evaluation of the EU Action Plan on 
Drugs focused on the implementation of objectives and actions for which information was available and/or could be retrieved fr om existing sources of information, which 
comprised mostly self-reported information from Member States gathered through the 
EMCDDA’s Reitox Network of National Focal  Points and the Europol National Units, 
collected for monitoring purposes or for investigations to s upport ongoing analysis. 
EN 17   EN Information on the implementation of objectives  and actions was also collected through 
the Commission services and, where informati on was insufficient for this evaluation, the 
Commission put specific queries to the Member States, among others. 
Accordingly, it is not possible to assess in  full the impact of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan 2005-2008 on the drug situation in the EU.  
1.4.3.  Structure of this report 
The report is structured around the main ev aluation questions identified in point 1.2. 
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the impl ementation of the objectives and actions of 
the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008. Implemen tation is examined at the level of 
objectives, but a report on each action can be found in Annex 1.  
Chapter 3 provides an answer to the question as to the extent to which Member States 
have translated the EU Drugs Action Plan ( 2005-2008) into national po licy and/or if EU 
policy is reflected in national policy where it  predated the Action Plan. Member States’ 
perceptions of the strengths a nd weaknesses of the Action Plan can be found here as well.  
Chapter 4 provides a concise overview of the trends in the EU drug situation — for both 
drug demand and drug supply — including tre nds in the adverse social and health 
consequences of the drug problem. Where possible, a brief comparison with other 
countries and regions in the world is provided.  
Chapter 5 briefly reflects on the important but  difficult question as to what impact the 
Action Plan has had on the drug si tuation in the EU as well as what added value it has 
achieved. In Chapter 6, the main conclusions and recommendations for the next Action 
Plan are presented.  
Annex 1 includes the detailed reports for each of the actions and objectives. Annex 2 
contains a list of abbreviations. Annex 3 provi des a glossary of the terms used in this 
report, while annex 4 provides references on some of the information obtained from the 
EMCDDA.  
EN 18   EN 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL  
2.1. Introduction 
As an overall coordinating plan, the Action Pl an does not have instruments to directly 
influence the policy decisions  of Member States. At EU  level, the Commission has 
competence in the field of precursor legislation and in the area of international cooperation and external relations. The informa tion presented in this chapter is obtained 
from several sources, including the Europ ean Commission, Europol and the EMCDDA 
but also the Member States directly. The stat e-of-play is described in Annex 1 in detail, 
with information on implementati on and performance per action.  
2.1.1.  Cross-cutting theme: Coordination 
2.1.1.1.  National drug policies (obj. 1)  
For this evaluation, Member States were as ked about the existence of national drug 
policy documents. Between 2005 and early 2008, 18 Member States implemented new or updated drug strategies and/or action plans. All Memb er States reported that one or more 
relevant drug strategies or  national drug action plans were  in place. Most of these 
documents are recent and/or ongoing. For the majo rity of Member States, one or more of 
these existing policy documents will expire  in the period 2008- 2009, after which they 
will be renewed or redrafted. Of these Member States, 14 countries stated that their drug 
policy will be subject to evaluation. Table 2  provides an overview of the most important 
policy documents that are currently effective in the Member States, their life-cycle and 
intended follow-up.  
A 2006 data collection exercise showed that th e scope of intervention fields (prevention, 
treatment, law enforcement, etc.) covered by national drug strategies and action plans in the EU is very wide, reflecting the comprehe nsive and multidisciplinary approach to the 
drugs field in Europe. Convergen ce can also be seen in the format of drug strategies and 
action plans. Fourteen countries now stru cture their national drug-policy documents 
along lines similar to those of the current EU drug strategy and action plan. Moreover, 
the same number of countries now organi se their national dr ug policies using two 
complementary instruments: a strategic fram ework and an action plan. More information 
on national drug policies can be found in the next chapter. 
Most EU Member States have recently produced  or plan to produce a progress review of 
the implementation of their drug strategies or  action plans, and some might produce more 
in-depth evaluations in 2008. This reflects th e growing recognition of the need to include 
monitoring and evaluation as an essential co mponent in national drug strategies and 
action plans. EU Member States differ, how ever, in their methods and approaches for 
evaluating national drug strategies and action pl ans, and best practices in this field need 
to be identified.  
All EU Member States have a recent and/or updated drug policy. In more than half 
of the countries, these policy plans reflect the structure and set-up of the EU Drugs 
Strategy (2005-2012) and/ or the EU  Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 
EN 19   EN  
Table 2 — Overview of national drug strategies & national drug action plans in the Member States 
MS Type Current Future MS Type Current Future  
BE DS ongoing  LU DS/AP27 2005-2009 2010-2015 
 Other28 2004-2007 2008-2011 HU DS 2000-2009 2010-2015 
BG DS 2003-2008 2009-2012  AP 2008-2009 2010-2012 
 AP 2003-200829 2009-2012 MT DS30 2007- n.a. 
CZ DS 2005-2009 2010-2012  AP n.a. n.a. 
 AP 2007-200931 2010-2012 NL DS32 1995- 2009- 
DK DS 2003- -  Other33   
 AP 2003- - AT Other34 1998- 200835 
DE DS36 2003- 2008-37 PL DS 2005-2010 2010-2014 
 AP 2003- 2008-2013  AP 2005-2010 2010-2014 
EE DS 2005-2012 2013-2025 PT DS 2005-2012 - 
 AP 2007-2009 2010-2012  AP 2005-2008 2009-2012 
IE DS 2001-2008 2009-2016 RO DS 2005-2012 - 
 AP 2001-2008 2009-2016  AP 2005-2008 2009-2012 
EL DS 2006-2012 n.a. SI DS 2004-2009 2010- 
 AP 2006-2012 n.a.  Other38 -  
ES DS 2000-2008 2009-2016 SK DS 2004-2008 2009-2012 
 AP 2005-2008 2009-2012  AP 2005-2008 2009-2012 
FR AP 2005-2008 2008-2011 FI DS 1997-  
IT DS n.a. n.a.  AP 2008-2011 2012-2016 
 AP 2008 2009-2012 SE AP 2006-2010 2010- 
CY DS 2004-2008 2009-2013 UK DS 2008-2018  
 AP 2004-2008 2009-2013  AP 2008-2011  
LV Other39 2005-2008 2010-2013 
LT DS 2004-2008 2009-2016 
 AP 2004-2008 2009-2016 
 Other40 2004-2008  DS = Drug Strategy 
AP = Drug Action Plan 
Other = Other drug-related policy document 
n.a. = Information not available 
                                                 
27 The Strategy and Action Plan are one and the same. 
28 Security Action Plan. 
29 Updated in 2006 (source: EMCDDA overview). 
30 Source: EMCDDA overview. 
31 Previous Action Plan covered 2005-2006. 
32 Ongoing policy document. 
33 Specific action papers on: Schiphol Airport, cannabis, XTC and the tackling of organised crime. 
34 Narcotic Substances Act; the Austrian provinces have their own policy documents. 
35 Act will be revised. 
36 The German Laender also have programmes to combat drug addiction. 
37 Renewal will include concrete actions on licit substances. 
38 Specific Acts on production & trade and consumption. 
39 State programme for the restriction and control of addiction and the spread of narcotic and 
psychotropic substances. 
40 National Programme for Drug Control and Prevention. 
EN 20   EN 2.1.1.2.  Coordination at national level (obj. 2) 
All EU Member States have at least one na tional coordination unit or body in the 
drugs field which coordinates fully or part ially the implementation of the national 
drug strategy/action plan.  In most countries, the dr ug coordination mechanism has 
three levels. Firstly, a strategic, often in ter-ministerial, board, commission, committee, 
council or coordination group on drugs defines the general fr amework for drugs policy 
and adopts the national strategies and action plans. Secondly, an operative body acting as 
e.g. the secretariat of the strategic body, a national drug coordina tor, a national drug 
agency or drug strategy team and/or a depa rtment in a given ministry (usually the 
Ministry of Health) handles day-to-day coor dination in the drug policy field and oversees 
the implementation and monitoring of the drug strategies and action plans. Finally, 
regional and/or municipal bodies exist to co ordinate the implementation of drug-related 
interventions at local level. ( Ref. objective 2 ). 
2.1.1.3.  Coordination at EU level: the Council (obj. 4, 6) 
Overall, the Presidencies of the Horizont al Working Group on Drugs (HDG) have chosen 
policy priorities closely linked to the Action Pl an on Drugs; they have  liaised well with 
other relevant Council working parties and reported on othe r drug-related policy 
discussions in the Council. The participati on of other Council working party members at 
HDG meetings should be encouraged where relevant. Coordination is essential, and 
should remain an objective of the new action plan. 
All HDG Presidencies organ ise meetings of the Nati onal Drug Coordinators. 
However, consideration might be given to ensuring greater synergy between the activities of the HDG and the meetings  of the national drug coordinators. 
2.1.1.4.  Coordination at EU level: Commission, Europol & agencies  (obj. 1, 2, 6)  
Responsibility for implementing the EU Dr ugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is shared 
between the Member States, the Council, th e Presidencies, the Co mmission, Europol and 
EU agencies such as the EMCDDA, Eurojust and EMEA. The Commission is involved in the implementation of over half of the act ions in the Action Pl an, but is directly 
responsible for only 8 of them. The Commissi on’s influence on implementation is strong 
in the field of precursor legislation and wher e external cooperation is concerned. In the 
field of (public) health, the Commission prim arily has a complementary role to the 
Member States, while in the field of dr ug supply reduction the Member States are 
relatively autonomous (with the exception of specific areas such as anti-money 
laundering). 
Within the European Commission, responsibilit y for the implementation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) is sh ared between over thirt een Directorate Generals
41. The 
drug policy coordination unit of DG JLS is resp onsible for the horizontal coordination of 
drug policy within the Commission. Directly after the adoption of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan 2005-2008, an internal roadmap was draw n up specifying the se rvices responsible 
for implementing the actions the Commission was involved in and/ or for reporting on 
their progress. Coordination clusters have been set up in the field of drug precursor 
                                                 
41 DGs involved include: DG Justice, Freedom & S ecurity; DG Health & Consumers, DG Enterprise 
& Industry, DG Taxation & Customs Union, DG External Relations, EuropeAid, DG 
Enlargement, DG Development, DG Research, Eu rostat, DG Employment, Social Affairs & Equal 
Opportunities, DG Energy and Transport and DG Education & Culture. 
EN 21   EN legislation (Taxation & Custom s Union, Enterprise & Industry  DGs) and in the area of 
external relations (External Relations, En largement, Development and EuropeAid DGs). 
DG External Relations is responsible for coordinating the Commission’s position vis-à-
vis international organisati ons and third countries.  
As one element in the evaluation, the Commission also decided to assess the 
effectiveness of its own coordination struct ures for the implementation of the Action 
Plan. For this purpose, the external consulta nt brought in for the evaluation process was 
asked to conduct a limited assessment of the main services involved. 
The consultant came to the following findings: 
• The implementation of the EU Drugs Acti on Plan (2005-2008) in the Commission is 
supported by strong coordinating mechanisms, which results in a unified approach in 
the Council, in particular th e Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG). Preparatory 
work for the HDG is undertaken by a pe rmanent Inter-Service Group on Drugs (ISG), 
which brings together all the relevant DGs involved in the implementation of drug policy within the Commission.  
• However, coordination within DGs, or am ong groups of DGs on sectoral issues, is 
mostly informal and not very structured. 
• Commission coordination coul d be strengthened to impr ove the coherence between 
the principles and priorities of EU drugs  policy and how they are reflected in EU 
funding and external assistance programmes. 
• The Action Plan itself (or its successor) could contribute more to the implementation 
of activities through better pr ioritisation of objectives and a more operationalised 
description of actions.  
• The non-binding status of the Action Plan has an impact on its implementation by the 
different Commission services. The ab sence of a specific budget line for the 
implementation of actions that the Commi ssion is (co-)responsible for means that 
Commission services have only limited resources available to support the 
implementation of objectives
42.  
• Furthermore, as a result of the above, actions are often implemented by including 
them under one or other thematic or region al priorities of th e Commission. The result 
is that reporting on progress th en often relates to these prio rities and not specifically to 
the implementation of the actions themselves.  
• Where the Drugs Action Plan relates to specific Community competences, more 
resources are available and a more st ructured approach is visible.  
• A clearer description of actions and objectives as well as more focus in the Action 
Plan could strengthen its implementation, as  these actions and obj ectives could then 
                                                 
42 The specific Programme for Drug Prevention an d Information is the only programme with a 
budget specifically for supporting the implementation of priorities in the field of prevention, harm 
reduction and information & evaluation as identified in the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012. Other funding programmes may support the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan, but do not 
refer to the EU Drugs Strategy or its Action Plans directly, although they do include actions to 
tackle illicit drugs, for example the Community Public Health Programme 2003-2008 (established by Decision 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 23.09.2002). 
EN 22   EN be translated more easily into specific  activities, which may better support the 
achievement of the overall objective.  
Several tasks for the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) also require  the involvement of 
EU agencies such as the EM CDDA and intergovernmental st ructures such as Europol.  
The EMCDDA is a key information source for assessing the drug situation and responses 
to it at the level of the Member States . Cooperation between the Commission and the 
EMCDDA was assessed in 2007 as part of th e external evaluation of the monitoring 
centre. The evaluation showed that c ooperation between the Commission and the 
EMCDDA, in particular with the ‘home’ DG,  Justice, Freedom and Security, had very 
much improved in recent years and was in general considered to be good.  
The cooperation between the Commission and th e Drugs Unit at Eur opol is considered 
constructive, both inside the HDG and in da ily cooperation. However, collaboration is of 
a slightly different character, as Europol act ivities are more operational than policy- or 
information-oriented and Europol has its own intergovernmental mandate.  
Drug policy is a horizontal issue within the European Commission. Due to its non-
binding character, the acquis  and consequent tasks for the Commission in this area are 
limited. Overall, the Commission is well-prepared and well-coordinated where its 
representation vis-à-vis the Council is  concerned. However, the informal 
coordination structures within the Commi ssion, especially between DGs, can be 
improved by setting clearer priorities and by enhancing the flow of information.  
The Commission may consider further assess ing and reinforcing its coordination and 
implementation mechanisms once the next EU Drugs Action Plan for (2009-2012) is 
adopted by the Council.  
2.1.1.5.  Involvement of civil society  (obj. 3)  
As proposed in the EU Drugs Action Pl an (2005-2008), the European Commission 
established a Civil Society Forum on Drugs in 2007, bringing togeth er representatives 
from 29 NGOs and professionals in the fiel d of prevention, treatm ent, harm reduction, 
fundamental rights, etc. The Forum gives i nput to the Commission on EU drug policy as 
set out in the Strategy and Action Plan. Furthermore, it is a meeting place for civil 
society representatives and mirrors the broad range of interests, views and approaches 
that exist in EU society regarding drugs.  
One issue addressed during this evaluation concerned the position of civil society at 
national level. Member States were asked to reflect on the level of involvement of civil 
society in the formulation or implementati on of national drug polic y. In reply to the 
question whether opinion surveys or public consultations had been conducted recently to sound out public opinion on national drug policy, twelve Member States responded in the 
affirmative.  
In Hungary and Slovakia, national and smalle r-scale consultation su rveys, targeted at 
specific groups, are being conduc ted. In Ireland, in view of  the development of a new 
National Drugs Strategy, public consultation meetings are being organised around the 
country. Meetings with various sectoral groups and with community and voluntary 
organisations involved with dr ugs have been organised, along with focus groups with 
drug users and immigrants, and Government de partments and agencies in the drug field 
meet on a regular basis. NGOs have also been consulted during the development of 
national drug strategies and/ or drug action plans in Lithua nia, Luxembourg, Poland, and 
the UK.  
EN 23   EN Civil society — as represente d by relevant NGOs in the drug field — is also involved in 
official structures dealing with drug issues  at national level, such as national drug 
councils of advisory forums. Such formal i nvolvement exists in Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, 
Germany, Hungary, Portugal and Spain. In Bu lgaria, Hungary, Irela nd and the UK, civil 
society involvement is also ensured th rough local coordination and cooperation 
mechanisms.  
There is informal consultation and invol vement in drug policy development and 
implementation in France, Lithuania, Luxem bourg, Slovakia and Romania. This type of 
consultation includes meetings, NGO contribut ions to public deba te, advocacy through 
EU-funded projects and programmes, informal  discussions, websites, surveys, etc. 
In Member States such as Ireland, Slovakia and Slovenia, civil so ciety also plays an 
important role in the delivery of specific ac tivities and services, for example in the field 
of harm reduction.  
In Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Nether lands and Sweden, no specific options are 
available for civil society to engage in a di alogue with the public authorities responsible 
for drug policy. Civil society involvement is through the political system (parliament), 
public discussions in the media,  and bilateral contacts betwee n civil society organisations 
and the public administration. 
Despite the examples reported by the Membe r States, organisations participating in 
the Commission’s Civil Society Forum on Dr ugs have indicated that civil society 
involvement could be more substantial and al so support the collection of qualitative 
information on the delivery of services.  
EN 24   EN 2.1.2.  Drug demand reduction  
2.1.2.1.  Quality standards for demand reduction (obj. 7) 
In the field of drug demand re duction, the differences between Member States in terms of 
prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabi litation projects are s ubstantial. In recent 
years, the evidence base underpinning these interventions has incr eased. However, the 
available best evidence and practices are not always translated into national policy and 
service delivery. Accurate and comparable information on the coverage and 
accessibility of drug demand reduction fac ilities and measures is lacking at EU 
level, and the terms themselves are de fined differently in each Member State.  
However, the EMCDDA does collect informa tion from Member Stat es on whether they 
have quality -assurance43 mechanisms in place to increase the effectiveness of drug 
demand reduction activities in the areas of treatment and prevention. Furthermore, the 
EMCDDA addresses the issue of the reliability of data and definitions across countries.  
In the area of treatment , over half of the Member States report the availability of 
national quality standards for drug-free treatment and medically assisted treatment (19 MS). Quality standards for the evaluation of  drug treatment exist in 12 Member States. 
Quality management systems using intern ational quality standards (ISO 9000ff and 
EFQM
44) are available in only 2 countries. In 2008, the Commission published a study 
entitled: ‘The quality of treatment services  in Europe — drug tr eatment situation and 
exchange of good practice’45. It includes country reports on treatments available in the 
Member States as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of th e treatments most used 
in the EU. 
In the area of prevention , quality standards for school-based prevention exist in 10 
Member States, for selective prevention in 8 and for community-based prevention in 6 
countries. National standards fo r the evaluation of preventi on seem to be less common 
and are reported only by a few Member Stat es. The existing data provide only a basic 
and rather crude picture of the availability of quality assurance mechanisms, and the content and scope of these mechanisms needs to  be further investigated, for instance, the 
concept of what exactly constitutes a ‘standa rd’ or a ’guideline’ seems to differ across 
Member States.  
In short, the existing data provide only a ba sic picture of the avai lability of quality 
assurance mechanisms among EU Member Stat es in the field of drug demand reduction, 
although they do show that efforts to devel op quality standards or guidelines are being 
made in most countries. The content and scope of these measures should be 
investigated further. The development of definitions and quality models at EU level 
could also be further considered.   
                                                
 
43 Quality assurance can be defined as a system of procedures, checks, audits and corrective actions 
to ensure that a service and reporting activities are of the highest achievable quality. Quality 
assurance can be implemented as a more or less formal control measure, and with a higher or 
lower level of reporting, thro ugh providers and public cont rol institutions. Among the most 
traditional measures are quality standards, evaluation, quality management systems and training of 
staff. 
44 European Foundation for Quality Management. 
45 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_treament_frep_en.pdf. 
EN 25   EN 2.1.2.2.  Universal prevention  (obj. 8)  
The type of universal school-based drug prev ention interventions re ported by the largest 
number of countries concerns mostly events for parents and personal and social skills training for pupils, followed by merely informativ e strategies (information days, visits by 
experts or police offi cers to schools — see Figure 1 ). These interventions are usually 
also less intensive than other kinds. In contrast, standardised  programmes, peer 
approaches or interventi ons specifically for boys, which all aim to improve 
communication skills, correct normative misperceptions about drug use or increase the ability to handle conflicts, st ress and frustration, are reporte d in only a few countries. The 
overall predominance of interv entions that have no, or only a relatively weak evidence 
base might be due to the fact that they ar e less demanding in terms of resources, training 
and implementation efforts. Many EU countries  run a variety of sc hool-based prevention 
programmes, but a considerable number of these might not be effective at all.  
Figure 1 -Provision of school-based prevention46 
Provision of school-based prevention 2004 - 2007
0,020,040,060,080,0100,0120,0
Drug policies in school
Total smoking in bans school
Drug testing in schools
Mustap programmes
Information days about drugs 
Visit of police agents at schools
Other external lectures
Information only on drugs
Other drug prevention topics integrated in curricula
Personal and social skills training outside standardised
Peer to peer approaches
% of reporting countriesFull or extensive provision 2007
Full or extensive provision 2004
 
School settings tend to match overall prev ention policies, which now increasingly 
embrace stricter regulations on tobacco and alcohol and ai m to create protective and 
normative social environments to influence young people’s choices regarding drug use. 
Most countries now report tota l smoking bans in all schools and extensive application of 
drug policies in schools. Particularly in Ce ntral and Western Europe, Member States 
report comprehensive prevention of substance use at school, especial ly with regard to 
nicotine and alcohol, which may also be comp lemented by structural measures such as 
                                                 
46 Comparisons between 2004 and 2007 should be regarded with caution as the data are based on 
expert group ratings and can therefore va ry with the composition of these groups. 
EN 26   EN improving the design of school buildings and school life. A focus on information remains 
the most frequent approach, also in fam ily-based prevention. Despite demonstrating a 
consistent effectiveness across studies, intensive coaching and training sessions for 
families remain less common.  
Finally, developing standards for the delivery and content of preven tion projects is one 
way to improve the evidence base for preven tion and to reduce iatrogenic risks. The 
number of Member States reporting standard s for project design and evaluation increased 
from three in 2004 to nine in 2007. The setting of standards could be an important 
step for the future deve lopment of prevention policies at EU level.  
2.1.2.3.  Selective and indicated prevention  (obj. 9, 10)  
Selective prevention targets vulnerable groups prone  to risk factors that may contribute to 
future problem substance use. Almost half of  the EU countries report that their family-
based prevention is mostly selective. Ac ross reporting countries, only a very small 
minority of Member States report extensiv e provision for intervention to address e.g. 
substance abuse in the family, family conf lict and neglect, social disadvantage (e.g. 
unemployment), criminal justice problems, et hnic families subject to marginalisation, 
and families with mental health problems.  
Figure 2 — Importance of vulnerable groups within drug policies, percentage of reporting countries 
2004 / 200747 
Importance of target groups in drug policies
12,5
21,4
16,7
17,9
8,3
14,3
4,2
14,3
8,3
14,3
12,5
28,6
16,7
14,3
8,3
17,9
4,2
14,345,8
21,4
45,8
35,7
29,2
17,9
45,8
32,1
29,2
25,0
50,0
42,9
37,5
35,7
41,7
32,1
45,8
60,729,2
57,1
25,0
42,9
54,2
57,1
37,5
50,0
41,7
57,1
37,5
28,6
8,3
50,0
41,7
50,0
37,5
25,012,5
0,0
12,5
3,6
8,3
10,7
12,5
3,6
20,8
3,6
0,0
37,5
0,0
8,3
0,0
12,5
0,00,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0
2004
2007
2004
2007
20042007
2004
2007
2004
2007
2004
2007
2004
20072004
2007
2004
2007Early
school
leaversPupils
with
social,
academic
problems ImmigrantsEthnic
groupsHomeless
youthYoung
offendersYouth in
care insti
tutions Youth
disad
vantaged
neigh
bour
hoodsParty or
festival
goers% of reporting countries
Priority in written drug policies Mentioned in written drug policies Not explictly mentioned in drug policies Not known
 
                                                 
47 Comparisons between 2004 and 2007 should be regarded with caution as the data are based on 
expert group ratings and can therefore va ry with the composition of these groups. 
EN 27   EN The situation is similar for the most re levant vulnerable groups, such as, for 
example, young offenders, the homeless, tr uants, and disadvantaged or minority 
young people. They have become the prio rity target for intervention in an 
increasing number of drug policies since 20 04, but the actual level of intervention 
appears not have increased during this period (see Figure 2 ). 
There is no information available on the overall number and coverage of indicated 
prevention projects in recreati onal settings, as this indicator was found to be difficult to 
implement in practice and therefore was elim inated. Information is  available about the 
rated provision of intervention for party/festiv al goers and the policy importance given to 
work in recreational settings is  reported to have increased. 
2.1.2.4.  Treatment and social rehabilitation  (obj. 11, 12)  
All EU Member States provide subst itution treatment for opioid dependence. 
Substitution treatment is typically provided at specialised outpatient treatment facilities, 
in shared-care arrangements with office-based general practitioners, and integrated with 
psychosocial care.  
More than half a million opioid users rece ive drug substitution treatment in the EU 
countries, with the vast majority reported by the ‘old’ EU Member States. This represents 
more than one third of the total estimated number of problem opiate users in the EU. 
Between 2005 and 2006, the number of clients receiving this type of treatment saw an 
overall increase of around 12% (data availa ble for 19 EU Member States) with the 
strongest relative growth observed in some of the ‘new’ Member States. Data from a 
number of individual EU c ountries — where recent estimates of the prevalence of 
problem opiate use were available — show that the current coverage of opioid substitution treatment varies significantly betwee n countries, with ra tes ranging from 5% 
to more than 50% of opiate users. 
The main drug used in opioid maintena nce treatment is or al methadone, but 
buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) is steadily increasi ng, especially among 
clients treated by office-based medical doct ors. Compared to methadone, buprenorphine 
is associated with lower rates of mortality. Other substances, like he roin (diamorphine), 
slow-release morphine or codeine, are also used in substitution treatment in some countries.  
Member States have considerably deve loped their legal frameworks regulating 
substitution treatment for addi ction. National laws normally designate those substances 
that can be used, the admission criteria for such programmes, and who is permitted to prescribe.  
All EU Member States also provide the opti on of drug-free treatment, and three reported 
in 2005 that the treatment of opioid depende nce was predominantly based on drug-free 
approaches. In outpatient care, traditional psychotherapeutic treatment and ‘supportive’ 
methods are applied, but Member States differ according to the type or combination of methods used. In inpatient care, the 12-step Minnesota model is used in a few countries, 
while others use psychothe rapeutic treatment and/or  ‘supportive’ methods.  
Following the increase in cocaine use and associated problems in several Member States, 
specialised drug treatmen t facilities face the diffi cult task of adapting their services to the 
heterogeneous cocaine and crack-using populati ons. However, the latest available data 
show that, with the exception of Spain, Member States assesse d the availability and 
accessibility of cocaine-specific treatment programmes as low in 2006 . However, the 
EN 28   EN recent introduction of a cocaine-specific nationa l action plan in Spain is likely to further 
increase the availability of cocaine treatment options in this country.  
A survey commissioned by the EMCDDA on ca nnabis treatment provision in a sample 
of drug treatment services in 19 Member States showed that half of the services surveyed 
did not have programmes dedi cated to cannabis problems. This finding suggests that 
numerous cannabis users in Europe are trea ted within the same settings as other 
drug users with more severe drug problems , which entails a number of difficulties for 
users (e.g. stigmatisation, reluct ance to seek help), but al so for staff (e.g. lack of 
experience in adolescent drug a nd social behaviour). The surv ey also showed that most 
treatment services surveyed provided no more than 20 sessions for cannabis users. The 
main treatment methods were individual c ounselling and talk therapy/counselling about 
cannabis and about conditions of life. Longer residential care for cannabis problems is 
generally provided for respite purposes in c onnection with socio-behavioural problems. 
The level of drug treatment provision in prison remains low, compared to that in 
the community, though the prevalence of  drug use is high among prisoners.  In recent 
years, however, interventions targeting drug-using prisoners have expanded in the EU. 
Compared to five years ago, more countries now report acti vities in the following areas: 
drug-related information and prevention; screening for infectious diseases and 
vaccinations; and drug dependence treatment, including substitution treatment — while 
the provision of these interventions has b ecome more widespread within countries. 
Prison-based substitution treatment is now offi cially available in all but six Member 
States, although with very different levels of availability. 
In 2005, 22 of the 24 reporting Member States  mentioned that social rehabilitation 
programmes (including housing and/or educatio n and/or employment and/or training) for 
problem drug users were available. However, none of them rated the availability of 
these programmes as being very good an d one third considered the general 
availability of such social reinteg ration services to be low. The political attention 
devoted to and investment in the reintegrat ion sector has nevert heless risen in some 
Member States, and quality standards for drug treatment often stipulate that social care and reintegration services should be made available to clients. 
While housing support is provided to drug treat ment clients in many countries, shortages 
have also been documented, and four countries report that it is difficult for drug users to 
gain access to the general services for the hom eless that are traditionally used by problem 
alcohol users. New measures that can help  meet the accommodation needs of drug users 
are being undertaken in thr ee countries, which report that facilities for homeless long-
term addicts are being centralised and speci alised care homes are being opened for drug 
users with problem behaviour or co-morbidity . New approaches to he lping clients to find 
and hold down employment are also reported to  have had success, including: ‘mentoring 
schemes’ subsidised workplaces, and speci al coaching of employers and employees. 
Overall, drug treatment in the EU has s een a steady development in recent years. 
However, in terms of accessibility, coverage and the dissemination of evidence and best-
practices in treatment, ga ins still have to be made. In 2008, the Commission has 
published a report on the quality of  treatment services in Europe
48.  
                                                 
48
 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_treament_fre
EN 29   EN 2.1.2.5.  Harm reduction  (obj. 14, 15, 16, 17) 
In 2007, the Commission published a report49 on the implementation of the Council 
Recommendation of 18 June 2003 on the prev ention and reduction of health harm 
associated with drug dependence50. The study showed that th e prevention and reduction 
of drug-related harm is a public health objective in all Member States.  
A multi-component response to the preventi on of infectious diseases, combining 
measures to reduce injecting-related harm a nd effective drug treatment, is common in the 
EU. The main interventions in this field are opioid substitution treatment and needle and 
syringe exchange programmes (NSPs), which aim to prevent overdose deaths and the 
spread of infectious diseases. These measures are reported to be ava ilable in all countries 
and, while considerable differen ces exist in the range and leve ls of service provision, the 
general European trend is one  of growth and consolidati on in harm reduction measures. 
However, some countries have recently repo rted that the implem entation of such 
measures has been delayed due to  the lack of political support.   
The exchange or distribution of syringes is in general implemented in conjunction with 
information, education and counselling inte rventions and complemented by outreach 
health education and, in a few countries, by supervised drug cons umption facilities. 
Needle and syringe programmes are often delivered by specialist low-threshold drugs 
agencies and in eight countries through pharmacy-based programmes as well, which 
considerably increases the geographical availab ility of sterile injecting equipment. While 
low-threshold agencies with syringe exchange  are continuously expanding in many of the 
countries where the spread of problem heroin  injecting is more recent, a stagnation or 
decrease in such services is  reported by other countries in  this group, partly due to the 
lack of political support and funding. This raises the concern that decreases in syringe 
turnover could result in higher levels  of risk-taking among new, younger 
generations of heroin injectors, who have  not been reached by prevention messages.  
In some of the countries w ith older heroin epidemics a nd extensive treatment provision, 
however, a stabilisation and decrease in syri nge demand has been noted in recent years.  
The integration of services an d facilities that aim to preven t infectious diseases among 
drug users (VCT, vaccination, infectious dise ase treatment services) within general 
health and social care is curr ent practice in a number of c ountries, which increases their 
availability and facilitates and promotes drug  users’ access to a more complete spectrum 
of care if needed.  
Due to the high proportion of injecting drug users among prison inmates  and the 
potential for rapid spread of infections am ong prisoners, prisons are important settings 
for interventions targeting infectious diseas e related to drug use. Spain is, however, 
currently the only European country that provides a wi de range of harm-reduction 
measures in prisons.  
                                                                                                                                                 
p_en.pdfE.g. the Stability instrument has.not been a ssessed so far, in particular e consequences of 
the ces in EU and background information (SANCO/2006/C4/02) 
49 COM(2007) 199;  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/s ite/en/com/2007/com2007_0199en01.pdf. 
50 2003/488/EC. 
EN 30   EN As Chapter 4 shows, drug-related deaths (D RD), which soared over the 1980s and 1990s, 
showed a decreasing overall trend betw een 2000 and 2003. The positive trend over 2000-
2003 was reversed in 2004 and 2005, with increas es observed again in the majority of 
countries (15 out of 24 with information), although increases remained in general moderate. This recent trend contrasts with the wide expansion of treatment over the 
1990s in particular. The reduction of drug-related deat hs is a goal of most national 
drug strategies, but few countries have so  far adopted concrete action plans or 
provide systematic guidance on measures to be taken.   
All Member States have stepped up their leve ls of treatment provi sion, and several have 
removed access barriers. In so far as inform ation is available, there are still strong 
variations in opioid substitution coverage (bet ween 5% to 54% in 8 EU countries), and 
services are located mainly in metropolitan areas with a bigger than average number of 
users, while in rural areas treatment provisi on is limited. The past ye ars have also seen 
increased efforts to improve treatment st andards and qualifications among providers, 
which should also help to reduce the risk  of DRD. A wider choice of pharmaceutical 
options is available, including the increased use of opiate substitu tion drugs such as 
buprenorphine which may have a lowe r overdose potential if misused. 
Reasons for the recent stabilisation in DRD (see Chapter 4) are unc lear but it could be 
influenced by a combination of factors, wh ich may include an further increase in poly-
drug use (including alcohol and cocaine)
51 among opiate users, increased heroin 
availability (UNODC)52, aging of opiate users, or treatment possibly not reaching some 
of the more excluded groups of users. Anothe r possibility, which will  be analysed by the 
EMCDDA in the near future, is a more risky lifestyle amongst a new generation of 
intravenous drug users who are not reached by harm reduction measures and messages in 
the same way as older users. 
Despite the known connection between rel ease from prison and drug-induced 
deaths, few countries are systematically inve sting in educating prisoners on the risk 
of overdose on release from custody.  The period after release from prison or treatment 
is especially critical, and research show s that the risk of drug-induced death is 
substantially higher for the first two to four weeks. The number of people with past or 
current drug experience passi ng through European pr isons each year is  estimated to be 
607 000 (stock) with an estimat ed turnover of 860 000 pris oners — among them many 
problem drug users. Continuity of care and rehabilitation of drug users released from 
prison require serious attention, as they are im portant in preventing drug-related deaths.  
2.1.3.  Drug supply reduction 
2.1.3.1.  Introduction 
Drugs and precursor trafficking routes have  become more diversified, and criminal 
groups are becoming increasingly cooperative w ith the formation of large international 
coalitions, which are constantly searching fo r loopholes in the inte rnational drug control 
system. In order to tackle international organised crime, the Member States have 
established Europol, Eurojust and the Police Chiefs Task Force (EPCTF), the European 
                                                 
51 A field trial conducted by the EMCDDA in 2006 on substances involved in drug-related deaths 
observed that in a high proportion of cases several substances were found in the toxicological 
examinations. However, this is a cross-sectio nal study and trends cannot be assessed yet. 
52 The United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has issued a warning on this possible 
effect, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/ press_release_2006_10_05.html. 
EN 31   EN Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP), Joint Investig ation Teams (JITs) a nd regional initiatives 
such as the Maritime Analysis and Oper ational Centre on Narcotics (MAOC-N).  
To strengthen their law enforcement capacities,  Member States are developing the model 
of intelligence-led law enforcement , which aims to make the exchange of information 
more efficient and effective by selecting the most appropriate targets for police 
investigation based on the asse ssment of their roles, thei r impact on society and the 
environment in which they operate. The concept also permits a more efficient use of human and financial resources. 
The main tool for implementing the concept of intelligence-led law enforcement is the 
European Criminal Intelligence Model (ECIM), a cyclical process that starts with the 
Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), produced by Europol in close cooperation 
with the Member States. The OCTA is designed to identify current and future trends, knowledge gaps and intelligence requireme nts for data collection programmes in 
Member States and at European Union level. The aim is to develop intelligence products that provide the basis for targeting top criminal organisations in the Member States, where appropriate with the support of Eur opol and Eurojust and by making use, where 
feasible, of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs). 
This concept is supporte d at the highest level by the Police  Chiefs Task Force through its 
COSPOL Projects.
53 The objective of COSPOL projects is to facilitate best use of 
information, to identify opportunities for operati onal projects and to solve constraints in 
day-to-day cooperation, by ma king use of existing tools, in particular Europol’s 
analytical capacities. There are COSPOL proj ects on cocaine, heroin and synthetic drugs.  
2.1.3.2.  Cooperation between Member States and at EU level (obj. 18, 19)  
Europol runs drug-related projects, implementing joint multidisciplinary intelligence 
gathering and operational initia tives. It provides operationa l and strategic reports and 
expertise to Member States. In addition to th e OCTA, situation reports and ad hoc reports 
on specific crime phenomena are provided to en hance the intelligence picture of Member 
States and support their investigations. Th e drug-related projects include Project 
MUSTARD (heroin trafficking) , Project COLA (cocaine trafficking) and Project 
SYNERGY (production and trafficking of sy nthetic drugs, chemical precursors and 
production equipment).  
Joint Investigation Teams (JIT) and Joint  Customs Cooperation (JCOs) could be 
used to a greater extent by the Member States in collaboration with Europol.   
At national level, Member States carry out va rious investigations and projects annually to 
stem the flow of drugs into the EU through it s external borders, in cluding land borders, 
sea ports and airports. These projects in clude several Joint Customs Cooperation 
activities.  
Regional drug enforcement initiatives, i nvolving several Member States, focus on 
intelligence sharing, and operational cooperation has evolved in the maritime  sphere. In 
2007, an informal working group working in close cooperation with Europol prepared 
the ground for the Maritime Analysis and Opera tions Centre — Narcotics  (MAOC-N), 
which focuses on cocaine trafficking by air and sea in the Eastern At lantic Ocean region. 
In 2008, the ‘ Centre de Coordination et de Lutte  Antidrogue pour la Mediterranée’  
                                                 
53 Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police. 
EN 32   EN (CECLAD-M) is to be set up to counter dr ug trafficking in the Mediterranean. The 
Bucharest-based Southeast European Cooperation Initiative  (SECI) also includes a 
specialised task force on illegal drugs tra fficking. In the Baltic region, cooperation is 
through the Baltic Sea Task Force.   
The results of the various cross-border ope rational and intelligence law-enforcement 
projects in the EU, in part icular the success of MAOC-N  with almost 27 tonnes of 
cocaine seized in one year, show the importance of streng thening intelligence gathering 
and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligen ce-led law enforcement by land, sea and air.  
Moreover, to effectively addr ess the threat of international drug trafficking, EU-based 
counter-narcotics efforts must be accompan ied by enhanced inter-regional drug 
enforcement cooperation, such as the EU-L AC intelligence shari ng network. In this 
context, the setting up of an EU model platform for intelli gence sharing and capacity 
building is being explored by some Me mber States in cooperation with (and 
complementing) Europol and the European Co mmission, together with  increased use of 
EU funding instruments such as the Stability Instrument  and the Fight Against and 
Prevention of Crime Programme54.  
An indicator identified in the Action Plan for the outcome of law enforcement activities 
comprises the number and quantities of drugs seized. The data available for the period 
2004-2006 (see Table 3 ) show that the number of cocaine  seizures and the quantity of 
cocaine seized are increasing.  
Table 3 — Estimated number of seizures and quantities seized in the EU  
Year 2004  2005  2006  
Type of substance Seizures 
x1000 Quantity 
x1000 kg Seizures 
x1000 Quantity 
x 1000 kg Seizures 
x1000 Quantity 
x1000 kg 
Cannabis resin  270 1 080 292 890 314 709 
Herbal cannabis  136 55 159 54 167 64 
Cocaine  55 72 66 106 72 121 
Heroin  42 10 48 8 46 9 
Amphetamines  36 7 34 7 33 6 
Ecstasy (tablets x 
millions) 21 19 20 13 19 12 
Source: EMCDDA 
It must be noted that the regi stration of drug seizures is not standardised and that there 
are differences in calculation and regi stration methods between Member States. 
Furthermore, seizure statistics are not always easy to obtain as some major 
destination countries accounting for large pr oportion of total EU seizures do not 
report at all or report with a delay of over two years55.  
Figures 3 and 4 reflect longer-term trends in drug seizures over the period 2000–200656. 
As Figure  3 shows, the number of seizures grew for both types of cannabis, while the 
quantities seized were stable overall (resin) or declined (h erbal cannabis) over the same 
period. The most recent data, however, show a d ecrease in the quantit ies of resin seized 
                                                 
54 OJ L 58, 24.02.2007. 
55 E.g. Europol has not received seiz ure statistics from one specific Member State since 2003, while 
the EMCDDA receives seizure statistics from this country with a delay of two years or more. 
56 Note to Figures 3 and 4: The total amounts seized are based on data from all EMCDDA reporting 
countries (27 EU Member States). For countries included in the totals per year, missing data have been extrapolated fr om adjacent years. 
EN 33   EN and a small increase in quantities of herb al cannabis and number of plants seized, 
indicating a possible increase in local cannabis production (hydroponics) and shifts in 
cannabis markets. 
Furthermore, a decline in ecstasy seizures  was seen. For amphetamines, the number of 
seizures and quantities seized increased, but, in the last year s of this period, these figures 
were stable or declining. 
Figure 3 — Trends in quantities of seizures (c annabis resin, cannabis herbs, amphetamines and 
ecstasy) 
 
  
As Figure 4  shows, there was a considerable incr ease of over 350% in  cocaine seizures 
over the period 2000–2006, both in numbers and in quantity. Finally, heroin seizures were relatively stable during the same period, with a slightly declining trend. 
EN 34   EN Figure 4 — Trend in quantities of seizures of cocaine and heroin 
 
As the price and purity data in chapter 4  shows, the increase in seizures of e.g. cannabis 
and cocaine has not resulted in higher prices or in major cha nges in the potency of these 
substances on the illicit market . In fact, prices have fallen sharply, especially for ecstasy. 
2.1.3.3.  Reducing the manufacture and tr afficking of synthetic drugs (obj. 20)  
Europol’s Project SYNERGY — which gather s and exploits information, knowledge and 
experience in the area of synthetic drugs, related precursors and equipment — supported 
various major criminal investigations carri ed out by law enforcement agencies in the 
Member States during the reporting period. The quality and quantity of the data supplied 
for the Analysis Work Files and the EILCS by several Member States remains high. This 
cooperation is an indicator of satisfac tion among operational partners regarding 
SYNERGY and its added value. However, not all crucial Member States are fully 
contributing.  Table 4  presents an overview of dismantle d illicit synthetic drug facilities 
in the years 2005-2007.   
Project SYNERGY supports, and is supported by, the activities of the European Joint 
Unit on Precursors (EJUP) and the European Police Chiefs Task Force’s COSPOL initiative on synthetic drugs. During th e reporting period, seve ral meetings were 
organised by the European Commission to de velop a long-term solution for the forensic 
profiling of synthetic drugs, involving representa tives of forensic labo ratories as well as 
law enforcement agencies, EUROPOL and the Commission. It has been agreed that any 
future European long-term solution should bu ild on the experience of projects co-funded 
by the European Commission (mainly SYNER GY and CHAIN). A Eu ropean structure 
available to all Member States, with the pot ential to cover all drugs, synthetic or non-
synthetic, and catering to natio nal or regional needs, is to be set up. Decisions on a final 
structure are expected to be taken in  the second half of 2008 or early 2009.  
The Council Decision on information exchange, risk assessment and control of new 
psychoactive substances
57 has been fully implemented in the reporting period , but 
might require amendment to improve informa tion collection and to align the Decision 
with existing EU legislation, e.g. with  the EU pharmacovigilance system.  
                                                 
57 2005/387/JHA, 10.5.2005. 
EN 35   EN Table 4 — Overview of the number of disman tled illicit synthetic drug facilities58 
Member State59 2005 2006 2007 
Austria - 3 - 
Belgium 11 4 8 
Bulgaria n.a. n.a. 1 
Czech Republic 6 - 10 
Denmark - 1 - 
Estonia 3 3 2 
Germany 6 7 10 
Greece 2 - - 
Hungary 1 - 1 
Lithuania 1 1 - 
Netherlands 35 47 41 
Poland 23 9 16 
Portugal - - 2 
Romania n.a. n.a. - 
Spain 1 - - 
United Kingdom 1 - - 
Total 90 75 91 
2.1.3.4.   
2.1.3.5.  Drug precursor legislation (obj. 22)  
In August 2005, new Community legislation on drug precursor control came into force. 
The main aim of this new legislation was to introduce specific import controls for drug precursors in order to address the heighten ed concern about synthetic drug manufacture 
in the European Union. The pr ecursors required to produce su ch drugs are generally not 
available in the EU and must be sour ced outside. The new legislation further 
strengthened export controls , introduced Community rule s for the authorisation of 
operators engaged in the trading of sensitive precurso rs, and strengthened common rules 
for monitoring the intra-Community trade in drug precursors. In order to measure the 
results of the monitoring activities and to enable competent authorities to react to 
changing patterns in the diversion and traffick ing of drug precursors, Member States are 
further required to report seizures and stopped shipments on a quarterly basis  
On the basis of the information provided by Member States’ competent authorities on 
drug precursors, the Commission issued the firs t annual report on drug precursor seizures 
in the EU for the year 2006
60. This stated that the seizu res in 2006 for just two key 
                                                 
58 This overview includes major storage sites, synthesis production facilities and tableting units, but 
not small-scale or kitchen-type production facilitie s. Countries that reported no dismantled sites 
have not been included. 
59 Note: data for Bulgaria and Romania in 2005 and 2006 are not available. 
60 2006 annual report on EU drug precursor seizure,  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/drugs_precursors/seizures/index_en.htm. 
EN 36   EN synthetic drug precursors would be enough to produce drugs with an estimated 
street value of more th an EUR 2.5 billion.  
Furthermore, an external consultancy61 report on customs controls  of drug precursors in 
the EU, which was prepared at the request of the Commission, show s that Member State 
customs administrations still have important steps to take to ensure effective customs 
control of drug precursors. The report concludes that in  almost all Member States 
drug precursor control lacks priority for national Customs organisations either at 
national, regional or local level due to a lack of legitimacy and support from the 
authorising environment at Member State level.  Furthermore, specific problems are 
mentioned, including a lack of focus and ex pertise at operational level, as well as 
insufficient resources (equipment), mon itoring and operational capacity. Customs 
officials often also lack the knowledge and e quipment to recognise and detect suspicious 
precursor consignments. Information from Europ ean level is not always considered to be 
specific enough, even though it should be noted that EU-level information depends to a 
great extent on the input provided by Member States. A Community- wide approach in 
addressing these challenges is recommende d in order to reduce the capacity to 
manufacture and supply synthetic drugs. 
Under the new Community drug precursor le gislation, new ‘Guide lines for operators’ 
were adopted in 2006 with the aim of furt her exploiting the pote ntial benefits of 
cooperation with the private sector by structur ing the procedures used for the notification 
of suspicious orders and transactions to th e competent authorities.  A specific list of non-
controlled substances is review ed on a regular basis to allow the competent authorities to 
draw industry’s attention to th e risk of the diversion of non-controlled substances. In 
2006, more than 30% of EU precursor seizures  were thanks to c ooperation with the 
private sector. Member States have subse quently adopted Memoranda of Understanding 
and Codes of Conduct in conjunction with their operators. In 2007, the EU tabled a 
resolution on drug precursor control to th e United Nations’ Commission on Narcotic 
Drugs, specifically to promote the principle of cooperation. 
2.1.3.6.  Money laundering and asset confiscation (obj. 23)  
The European Criminal Assets Bureau (E CAB), launched by Europol under its Money 
Laundering Action Plan, handles the work car ried out by Europol on asset recovery, 
including operational support for Member States’ investigatio ns (including drugs 
investigations) to trace criminal proceeds,  managing the Financial Crime Information 
Centre’s website and acting as the CARIN permanent secretariat. ECAB provides operational support to Member States in iden tifying criminal proceeds where the assets 
are located outside their jurisdictional area and the investigation falls within Europol’s 
mandate. From 2005 to 2007, the ECAB supported a total of 244 invest igations in the 
Member States concerned with a sset tracing and identification
62.  
The Europol Money Laundering Project, SUSTRANS, supports Europol projects, 
including drugs projects, in ga thering and analysing financial data on criminal activities 
through which substantial illegal profits are generated. As part of SUSTRANS, a project 
on the intra-Community cross-border movement  of cash is being developed, reflecting 
the fact that a cross-border reporting system is in place. It addresses the emerging trend 
                                                 
61 Matrix Knowledge Group, Fact Finding Study on Customs Controls of Drugs Precursors in the 
European Union, Final Report, December 2007. 
62 Investigations supported in 2005: 57, 2006: 53 and 2007: 134. 
EN 37   EN of cash being moved in bulk throughout Eur ope without being detected. The use of 
money couriers is still a growing phenome non in money laundering ope rations within the 
European Union. A questionnaire has been se nt to Member States to gain a better 
understanding of cash smuggli ng routes and features. 
The Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of  18 Member States are connected to the 
FIU.NET system. The ultimate objective of this  project is to establish a secure and 
complete computer network fo r the exchange of financial intelligence among the 27 EU 
FIUs in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.  
The Council Decision on cooperation between th e asset recovery offices of the Member 
States63 was adopted on 6 December 2007. It aims to have Member States set up or 
designate, by 18 December 2008, nati onal asset recovery offices to act as national contact 
points for confiscation-related activities. In part icular, they will promote, through 
enhanced cooperation, speedy EU-wide tracing of assets derived from crime.  
2.1.3.7.  Drug-related crime (obj. 25) 
The EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 proposes developing an EU-wide definition of 
drug-related crime, by analogy w ith the EU definition of orga nised crime. The evaluation 
has shown that only few Member States have definitions of drug-rela ted crime at national 
level, and those that do exist differ widely. In 2007, the EMCDDA presented a 
publication setting out a broad definition of the term ‘drug -related crime’, with four 
crime categories: psychopharmacological crim es, economic-compulsive crimes, systemic 
crimes and drug law offences.  
As similar breakdown of the term had al ready been proposed in 2003, following which 
the Council asked for simplification. The Comm ission is preparing a paper on further 
steps regarding this definition and intends to link this exercise to a broader assessment of 
policy needs for drug-related crime informati on and statistics at EU level. A study on 
drug-related crime statistics and law enforcem ent information has been launched and will 
be finalised in the first half  of 2009. The outcomes of the stu dy should form the basis of a 
broader proposal concerning drug-related cr ime and indicators to measure it, based on 
policy needs at EU level. 
Drug-related arrests represent an important part  of all police arrests in the EU. The data 
currently available on drug-related offences at  EU level is not very  differentiated, but 
does show certain specific trends. Data ex ists on drug-related ar rests, collected by 
EMCDDA and data on drug-traffi cking, collected by Eurostat. 
Figure 5  shows that the total number of arre st-reports for drug use/ possession has 
increased with almost 75% in the period to over 600.000 in 2006, while the total number 
of arrest-reports for supply-re lated offences has marginally  increased with 11% in the 
same period to a reported total of over 134.000 in  2006 and seems to be levelling off. As  
Figure 6  shows, with over 440.000 arrests, can nabis use/possession accounts for over 
70% of the total number of arrests for drug us e/ possession. The largest increase in arrest 
reports in recent years can be seen for the use/ possession of cannabis and cocaine. Despite a trend in some EU Member States towards decriminalisation and/ or the differentiation between drug (dep endent) users and drug traffick ers in terms of penalties, 
this does not seem to lead to fewer arrests.  
                                                
 
63 2007/845/JHA, 6.12.2007. 
EN 38   EN Figure 5 — Indexed trends in reports of drug-related offences by broad type of offence in EU 
member states 2000-2006 64 
175
111
050100150200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Use-related reports (613 130)
Supply-related reports (134 251)
 
Figure 6 — Indexed trends in reports of offences  related to drug use/possession for use in EU 
Member States 2000-200665 
                                                 
64 Notes to Figure 6: 1. The trends represent the available information on the national number of drug-related offences reported by all law enforcement agencies in the EU Member States; all 
series are indexed to a base of 100 in 2000 and weighted by country population sizes to form an 
overall EU trend; the figures between brackets refer to the total number of offences reported in 
2006 (before weighting). 2. The general term ‘reports of drug-law offences’ is used since 
definitions and study units differ widely between countries. 3. Both trends are based on 17 countries. 4. Additionally, where 2000 data are mi ssing (3 cases for both use-related and supply-
related reports) 2001 data are used. Sources: Reitox national focal points and, for population data, 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. 
65 Notes to Figure 7: 1. The trends represent the available information on the national number of 
drug-law offences (criminal and non-criminal) repo rted by all law enforcement agencies in the EU 
Member States; all series are indexed to a base of 100 in 2000 and weighted by country population sizes to form an overall EU trend; the figures between brackets refer to the total 
number of offences related to drug use/possession as reported in 2006 in countries included in the 
trends (before weighting). 2. The general term ‘reports of drug-law offences’ is used since definitions and study units differ widely between countries. 3. The overall trend is based on 13 
countries, the trend for heroin, cocaine and cannabis on 11. 4. Additionally, where 2000 data are 
missing (3 cases for all use reports, cannabis, heroin and cocaine) 2001 data are used, and for 
missing 2002 data (1 case for cannabis, heroin and cocaine) data have been interpolated from 
adjacent years. 5. The Czech Republic was not in cluded in the trend calculation for cocaine due to 
the small number of cases reported. Sources: Reitox national focal points and, for population data, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. 
EN 39   EN 175
141
86184
050100150200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Use-reports (613 130)
Cannabis use (440 338)
Heroin use (42 222)
Cocaine use (66 036)
 
EN 40   EN 2.1.4.  Cross cutting theme: In ternational cooperation 
2.1.4.1.  Promoting the EU approach to drugs (obj. 29)  
The EU is a key actor in the field of internati onal cooperation on illi cit drugs. It is 
engaged in active dialo gue with the key production and tr afficking countries affected by 
the drug problem and plays a major role in supporting them with financial and technical assistance. The EU’s commitment to prom oting the balanced approach, whereby drug 
demand and supply reduction need to be addr essed in tandem, reflects the fundamental 
values and principles of the Union and is seen as an example of good practice for other 
countries in the world. The action taken by th e EU Presidencies and the Commission to 
promote the EU approach is reflected in statements in international fora such as the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), and in cooperation agreements with third 
countries, which generally include provisions on illegal drugs. Incr easing attention, albeit 
starting from a very low level, is being devot ed to funding projects in the field of demand 
reduction in third countries to  address drug use as well as drug trafficking and drug 
production. The results of such activities are mainly quantitative. However, a detailed 
assessment of the policy outcomes of  these activities is lacking.  
2.1.4.2.  EU drug policy at inte rnational and UN level (obj. 28, 30, 31)  
The EU is increasingly speaking with one voice in internati onal fora, notably in the UN 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs . During the period under review, the EU maintained a 
unified position in the UNGASS review proc ess. During the CND Working Sessions in 
2006-2008, the successive EU Presidencies (AT,  DE, SI) delivered joint EU statements 
on the follow-up to UNGASS, drug demand reduc tion, illicit drug tr afficking and supply, 
the INCB and policy directives to strength en the UNODC Drug Programme and the role 
of the CND as its governing body. The Commission, on behalf of the European 
Community, delivered its traditional stat ement on precursors at each CND session. 
However, a harmonised approach among EU actors during the plenary meetings 
should be agreed to ensure the EU speaks with one voice.   
With regard to its collaboration with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), 
the Community is active in the internationa l initiatives ‘Project Prism’ (addressing the 
diversion and trafficking of synthetic drug pr ecursors) and ‘Project Cohesion’ (diversion 
and trafficking of heroin and cocaine chem icals). Successful operations have been 
launched, which have yielded tangible results. Especially  under Project Prism, large 
amounts of synthetic drug precursors have been  stopped or seized, th ereby preventing the 
illicit production of more than  50 tonnes of amphetamines. Most EU Member States have 
actively participated in these operations. The role of the INCB as the global focal point 
for the exchange of information has b een vital in achieving this success.  
2.1.4.3.  Support for candidate, stabilisation and association process countries (obj. 32, 
33) 
Action to tackle drugs is regularly discussed in the meetings with candidate and potential 
candidate countries and with the Europ ean Neighbourhood partners. The candidate 
countries are increasingly participating in  the work of the EMCDDA, Europol and 
Eurojust and the EU provides support to these countries to develop their capacity to 
implement the acquis  and related action, e.g. developing national drug action plans 
and strategies. 
Negotiations are still under way between the Commission and Croatia on its participation 
in the EMCDDA, and ratification of the agreem ent with Turkey is expected shortly. In 
EN 41   EN 2007, Romania  and Bulgaria  became full members of the EMCDDA with their 
accession to the EU. Operational agreements were signed between Europol and Croatia in 2006. A  strategic agreement between Europol  and Turkey  was signed in 2004 and 
strategic agreements between Europol  and Albania  and between Europol and Bosnia-
Herzegovina entered into force in 2007. Th is was followed by a strategic agreement 
between Europol  and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2008. Agreements 
on strategic cooperation between Europol and Montenegro and between Europol and 
Serbia  are currently be ing negotiated .  
Eurojust  has concluded a formal th ird country agreement with Romania , while Turkey  
and Croatia  have appointed contact points for cooperation with Eurojust . Furthermore, 
Eurojust signed a cooperation agreement with Croatia  in 2007 and concluded a draft 
cooperation agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2008.  
2.1.4.4.  Assistance to European nei ghbours and cooperation with Russia (obj. 34) 
The European Neighbourhood Policy has paved the way towards closer cooperation on 
drugs with the ENP partners, based on regular  dialogue coupled with dedicated financial 
instruments. A drugs ‘Troika’ with Ukrain e took place in 2007 and 2008, while the first 
EU-Morocco ‘Troika’ was held  in 2008. Enhanced dialogue with Morocco is envisaged 
as part of this country’s ‘Statut Avancé’. More impetus is needed to cooperate with 
those ENP countries which are major drug  producers and/or affected by drug 
trafficking to and from Europe.  Developing regional approaches between ENP 
countries (East European ENP countries such  as Ukraine and Russia and those of the 
Mediterranean) could be considered in future.  
Since the Warsaw Conference of EU/Russian drugs expe rts in November 2006, EU-
Russia cooperation in the field of drugs has made some progr ess at operational level with 
the creation of an EU-Russia liaison officers’ network, an expert meeting on precursors, 
and progress on the operational agreement be tween the Federal Russian Drugs Control 
Service (FDCS) and Europol. A Memorandum of Understandi ng has been signed with 
the FDCS and the EMCDDA. There is consider able interest in a strategic partnership 
involving countries on the trafficking routes  and a possible dialogue on drug enforcement 
cooperation in the Black Sea region. The negotiation mandate for a new cooperation 
agreement between the EU and Russia could also provide a political framework to 
reinforce cooperation in the drugs field.  
2.1.4.5.  Cooperation with third countries 
At the end of 2007, the Commission published an update of EU a ssistance to third 
countries. As Table 5  shows, EU international cooperati on projects in the area of drugs 
accounted for over EUR 760 million in 2005, maki ng the EU one of the strongest players 
in the global effort against drugs. Most f unding was provided for alternative development 
(66%), institution building (17%, mostly law enforcement), supply reduction and law 
enforcement cooperation (11.4%), and de mand reduction, including harm reduction 
(5%). Of the total spending, tw o thirds was allocated to ac tivities in Afghanistan (EUR 
452 million) and almost one third to the thre e main coca growing countries, Colombia, 
Bolivia and Peru (EUR 220 million).  
EN 42   EN Table 5 – Projects funded by the European Union as of December 2005 
Summary — Thematic Distribution of Funds 
Themes No of 
Projects Amount 
in Euros Beneficiary  
countries & regions 
Institution  
Building 42 131 023 909 
(17.3%) Afghanistan (16), Central Asia (1), Southern Caucasus (1), 
Eastern Europe (1), SADC (1),  Mediterranean region (1), 
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1), Bulgaria & 
Romania (1), Turkey (1), Global  (8), West Africa (1), Middle 
East (1), Laos (4), Peru (1), Myanmar (1), Belarus (1), Burma 
(1), Peru & Bolivia (1), Trinidad & Tobago (1) 
Alternative  
Development 70 503 109 797 
(66.4%) Bolivia (12), Colombia (14), Peru (10), Afghanistan (23), 
Global (3), Morocco (1), Laos (3), Vietnam (1), Thailand & 
Burma (1), South-East Asia (1), Paraguay (1) 
Anti Precursor  
Diversion 6 3 203 024 
(0.4%) Afghanistan (1), Andean Region (1), Central Asia (2), Latin 
America (2) 
Anti Money  
Laundering 17 7 303 499 
(1%) CARDS (1), ASEM Region (2), Global (2), Zambia (1), AML 
(1), Iran (1), Latin America (1), China (1), Nigeria (4), UAE 
(1), East/Southern Africa (1), COT/other Caribbean States (1) 
Other Supply  
Reduction 58 76 339 605 
(10%) Afghanistan (13), Southern Cau casus (1), Western Balkans and 
Mediterranean Region (1), LAC (2), BIH (1), Global (1), 
Central Asia (2), Venezuela (1), AMLAT (1), Iran (2), China 
(1), Eastern Europe (1), Russia (2 ), Tajikistan (3), Africa (1), 
Eastern & South Eastern Africa (1 ), Palestinian Territories (1), 
West and Central Asia (1), Cape Verde (4), Colombia (3), Latin 
America (1), Barbados (1), Brazi l (2), Iraq (1), Jamaica (3), 
Pakistan (2), Turkey (3), UAE (1), Ukraine/Poland (1) 
Harm Reduction 11 4 876 054 
(0.6%) Global (1), Eastern Europe (1), South-Eastern Europe (1), 
South East Asia (1), Global (3 ), Ukraine (1), Belarus (1), 
Europe / Central Asia (1), Eastern Europe (1) 
Demand Reduction 59 32 343 660 
(4.3%) Latin America — Caribbean (1), Asia-Caribbean (2), Caribbean 
(1), Dominican Republic (1), Su rinam (1), Afghanistan (4), 
Russia (12), Myanmar (1), Pakistan (1), Iran (40), Venezuela 
(1), Montenegro (1), Serbia (2),  KOS (1), Global (6), Peru (3), 
Central Asia (2), South Africa (1), Lebanon (1), Cape Verde 
(1), Laos (2), Central America (1), Chile (1), Zambia (1), 
Bolivia (1), LAC (1), Andean C ountries (1), South America (1), 
Honduras (1), Thailand & Burma (2) 
Total  263 758 199 548  
Source: Progress Review 2007 
The remainder was spread throughout the re st of the world, pa rticularly in the 
Mediterranean/Balkan region, South-East Asia, South Caucasus and Central Asia . More 
than half of the EU Member States plus  the European Commission had international 
cooperation projects in  the area of drugs.  
Despite the considerable amount of funding provided by the Commission to drug-related 
assistance projects in third countries until end 2006, the cons equences of the lack of a 
thematic budget line for drugs under the new EC external funding instruments for project funding in 2007 and 2008 has not been assessed so far . 
In the drug precursor area, the Community ha s concluded several bi lateral drug precursor 
cooperation agreements with major players (A ndean Countries, USA, Mexico, Chile, and 
Turkey) and has embarked on negotiating a bila teral precursor agreement with China in 
order to strengthen controls over synthetic drug precursors. During the period under 
review, key milestones included the first mee ting of experts in th e field of both demand 
EN 43   EN reduction and supply reduction as part of the ‘P aris Pact’ process on heroin trafficking, 
and an agreement on the review of the 1999 Panama Action Plan between the EU and 
Latin America and the Caribbean, which id entified new priorities for cooperation. 
Looking to the future, the Commission and the Member States should work towards 
improving the link between political priorities in the drugs field and the funding available 
to support the implementation of the political  objectives in order to secure funding to 
address, for example, the growing problem of  illicit drug trafficking in West Africa and 
other new emerging routes, but also to actively support thir d countries in tackling the 
adverse consequences of drugs in their society through demand re duction activities.  
2.1.4.6.  Member State donations to in ternational organisations (obj. 37)  
The Member States were asked to report on their donations a nd contributions to 
international organisations for drug-related activities in the year s 2005 to 2007. Of the 24 
Member States that participated in th e survey, 19 reported donations to UNODC, the 
WHO, UNAIDS, the Pompidou Group (Council of  Europe) and other organisations.  
Table 6 — Donations to international organisations  for drug-related activities per MS 2005-2007 
  UNODC 
(EUR) WHO 
(EUR) UNAIDS 
(EUR) PG 
(EUR) Other66 
(EUR) Total 
(EUR) 
UK67 5 810 000  65 440 000 725 716 13 452 200 85 427 916 
FI68 2 400 000 5 400 000 21 520 000   29 320 000 
SE 24 770 000   113 575  24 883 575 
FR 8 300 000 100 000  60 000 262 000 8 722 000 
BE 1 157 457  6 325 080 116 940  7 599 477 
DE 2 110 000    5 000 000 7 462 000 
EL 566 350 6 341 30069 650 000 71 000   6 143 650 
NL 6 355 356   135 000  6 490 356 
IE 3 540 000   55 356  3 595 356 
DK 2 680 964   79 517  2 760 481 
ES 1 720 000    600 000 2 320 000 
LU 1 989 900     1 989 900 
AT 1 372 095     1 372 095 
CZ 329 326     329 326 
PL 177 500   15 000 76 600 269 100 
LT  223 128    223 128 
PT 48 231   50 000  98 231 
HU 50 000     50 000 
SI 13 000     13 000 
CY     6 322 6 322 
 63 390 179 12 064 428 93 935 080 1 422 104 19 397 122 188 723 913 
 
                                                 
66 Contributions were made to UNDP, OAS/CICAD, UNICEF, ARTF and CNTF. 
67 The UK contributions for 2005 are not available except for the contribution to the Pompidou 
Group. The UK contribution to UNAIDS for 2006 and 2007 is generic and not specifically for 
drug-related activities. The amount reported is the overall contribution of the UK to UNAIDS. 
68 The Finnish contributions to UNODC, UNAI DS and WHO are generic and therefore not 
specifically for drug-related activities. The amounts reported comprise the overall contributions of 
Finland to these organisations. 
69 The Greek contribution to WHO is generic and therefore not specifica lly for drug-related 
activities. 
EN 44   EN Table 6  provides an overview of the information provided by the Member States for the 
period 2005-2007. The overall amount of fund s donated in these years adds up to 
approximately EUR 182.5 million, or EU R 61 million on average per year.  
The largest donors are the UK and Finland,  although it must be noted that the 
contributions of these countries to UNO DC, WHO and UNAIDS are not specified and 
comprise the overall amounts give n to these organisations.  
Between 2004 and 2008 the European Commissi on has made financial pledges towards 
UNODC's Drugs Programme with an esti mated total of EUR 13.5 million. Financial 
support to several other projec ts is expected to be a pproved in 2008, with a potential 
value of over EUR 2 million. The table show s furthermore that, between 2005 and 2007, 
UNODC received EUR 62.8 million from 17 Member States for activities in the field of 
drug-supply reduction, but also for specific activities in the field of demand reduction, 
including the prevention of HIV infections among injecting drug us ers. Of the reporting 
Member States, Sweden is the largest donor  to UNODC, followed by France and the 
Netherlands. The UK and Germany donated over EUR 18 million to the United Nations 
Development Programme (UNDP) for institutio n building and alternative development 
activities.  
EN 45   EN 2.1.5.  Cross-cutting theme: Inform ation, research and evaluation 
2.1.5.1.  Introduction 
The cross-cutting theme ‘information, research and evaluation’ is a fundamental part of 
the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008. The activiti es covered under this heading provide 
information on the implementation of other obj ectives and actions in the Action Plan or 
are instrumental for the development of indica tors to measure the Action Plan’s impact. 
2.1.5.2.  Providing reliable information on the drug situation (obj. 40)  
In the period covered by the Action Plan , both the EMCDDA and Europol have 
published information on the drug situa tion. The EMCDDA has been publishing an 
increasing number of reports and publications  covering a wide variety of issues relating 
to the drug phenomenon. Europol  contributes specific analys is reports on drug-related 
organised crime and the Organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA). 
The EMCDDA plays a central role in the collection and interpretation of drug-related 
data and information at EU level. This role is recognised by the European Commission and the Member States. Between 2005 and 2008, the EMCDDA received over EUR 50.5 million in Commission funding
70 for the collection and analysis of (national) data and 
information. As the EMCDDA relies heavily on the information collected through its 
Reitox network of National Fo cal Points (NFP), approxim ately 20% of the EMCDDA 
budget is allocated to these 27 National Focal Points. Each National Focal Point receives 
a maximum grant from the EMCDDA every year71. National governments co-fund this 
grant, in most cases on a 50-50 basis. Du e to the enlargement of the EU, the total 
available budget for the National Focal Points has remained relatively stable compared to the situation before 2004, while the number of  countries receiving funding has increased.  
In recent years, some Member States have reduced their national funding for the National 
Focal Points. The EMCDDA grant provides a maximum of 50% to match the grant 
provided by the national government. However, not every NFP can apply for the 
maximum grant, as the national funding is le ss. In some Member States, the national 
funding for the NFP has faced serious  difficulties in recent times. Member States 
should realise that a coherent and overall pi cture of the EU drugs situation cannot 
be maintained without making available ad equate resources to the National Focal 
Points. If this tendency to reduce funding persists, the EMCDDA will not be able to 
continue its EU-wide data collection and analysis of the drug problem.  
2.1.5.3.  Monitoring of drug trends and markets (obj. 39, 41, 42) 
Information on the drug situation is ma inly available through the EMCDDA key 
epidemiological indicators
72 and data collections on drug production73, retail prices, and 
potency of drugs and composition of tablets74. Europol draws its data from the three 
                                                 
70 2005: EUR 12.0 million; 2006: EUR 12.1 million; 2007: 13.0 million and 2008: 13.4 million. 
71 In 2004 the ceiling for the EMCDDA contribution was approx. EUR 115 000 per year; following 
EU enlargement, this ceiling was reduced to  approx. EUR 97 000 per year in 2007. 
72 The five EMCDDA key epidemiological indicators are: drug use in the general population, 
problem drug use, drug-related infectious diseases, drug-related deaths & mortality, and demand for treatment. 
73 This primarily concerns production estimates by UNODC. 
74 Information on price and purity is collected by the EMCDDA, but from a limited number of Member States and using non-standardised collection methods. 
EN 46   EN drug-related projects, incorpora ting Analysis Work Files and related expert systems, for 
which data are provided by the Memb er States and third parties.  
In the field of drug demand reduction, inform ation is also available from the EMCDDA 
(prevention, treatment, drug -related harm, social reintegr ation, new and emerging trends, 
etc.) in the form of a variety of standard tables and structured questionnaires put to 
Member States to obtain information on e.g. the availability of demand reduction interventions in Member States, the demand for drug treatment, types of treatment interventions, harm reduc tion interventions, etc. In recent years, major investments 
have been made to increase  the reliability, comparabil ity and availability of these 
data.  
In the past 3 years, a steady improvement can  be observed in the implementation of the 
key indicators (KIs) by Member States. Mo reover, these indicators are increasingly 
viewed as global standards for information collection in these areas. Nearly all Member States now collect some information in each  indicator area, although the quality of 
information varies. For assessing implementatio n levels, three key dimensions have now 
been formalised: a) the extent to which national approaches meet accepted 
methodological standards ; b) the extent to which reporting can be carried out using 
agreed common categories ; c) the availability of contemporary information  (timeliness 
— i.e. availability of recent data within a reasonable time limit). As of 2009, minimum 
implementation targets will be available to facilitate future dialogue on the progress 
made by Member States in each information domain and to provide policy-makers with a 
clearer understanding of th e resource implications of KI implementation.  
Nevertheless, a clear problem area is that many countries have not invested in recent 
estimates of problem drug use (PDU indicator).  
In the field of drug supply reduction, the situat ion is more problematic as data are often 
not available, not consistent and/or not  comparable. Both Europol and the EMCDDA 
collect data on drug seizures in the Member States. However, discrepancies between the 
two data collections ca n be substantial, mainly due to  the fact that Europol does not 
receive information from one or more key destination countries. Data on drug-related 
arrest reports are collected by the EMCDDA , while EUROSTAT collects statistics on 
reported drug trafficking crimes, which include  a broad range of offe nces. Information on 
the outcome of arrests (e.g. sentences) is  not available on a st ructural basis.  
Data on drug precursor seizur es and stopped shipments have  been collected by the 
Commission since 2005. Member States are le gally bound to provide the necessary data 
in a standardised format
75. However, the collection of much of the other data 
available in the field of suppl y reduction is not standardis ed, not always reliable and 
often difficult to compare. Furthermore,  not every EU Memb er State collects the 
necessary information.  
It is very important to have the collection, pr ocessing and analysis of data in the field of 
drug supply (the market) and supply reduction (incl. law enforcement) standardised in 
the next few years. The available information does not offer enough evidence to 
monitor trends, to assess the effectivenes s of law enforcement interventions or to 
analyse the impact of this part of drug  policy on the EU drug situation. The 
                                                 
75 Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 (OJ L 202, 3.8.2005, p. 7). 
EN 47   EN development of a number of key indicato rs in this field should therefore be 
considered. 
In 2007, the Commission called for a major st udy on the characteristics and operating 
mechanisms of the global illicit drug market . This study is expected to provide more 
reliable data on the size of th e market, main trafficking rout es, the characteristics of drug 
policies in different parts of the world, a nd estimations of the costs to society.  
As indicated in 2.1.3, the Co mmission has also called for a study on existing drug market 
and law enforcement data in the EU, which — when linked to the need to formulate a operational and measurable definition of dr ug-related crime — will hopefully provide the 
basis for developing a limited set of key indica tors over the next few years. Europol and 
the EMCDDA will be closely involved in this process.  
As regards the estimation of  public expenditure by Memb er States on drug issues, 
progress has been made using estimation t echniques developed by the EMCDDA. In its 
most recent work, the EMCDDA estimates that Member State sp ending on drug-related 
issues represents on average 0.15% of GDP
76, which — when extrapolated to the EU-27 
countries — would represent a total sum of EUR 13 to 36 billion annually. However, in 
this area too, there are major difficulties in  identifying and making av ailable reliable and 
standardised information on dire ct and indirect public expend iture in the field of drugs. 
In addition to the efforts by the EMCDDA, the Commission is funding a project under 
the Sixth RTD Framework Programme wh ich focuses on the development of a 
methodology for the estimation of the costs of crimes, including certain elements of drug-related crimes. Finally, in  the area of freedom, jus tice and home affairs, the 
Commission is also working on improving the measurability of crime and law 
enforcement. One activity in this field is th e development of methods  to estimate the cost 
of law enforcement.  
These activities will yield results during the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
2009-2012.  
In May 2008, a new Flash Eurobarometer on ‘Young People and Drugs’  was conducted 
at the request of the European Comm ission. Over 12 500 randomly selected young 
people (15-24 years of age) were intervie wed across the 27 EU Member States. The 
objective was to examine the attitudes and pe rceptions of young EU citizens regarding 
drug-related issues and policies.  
Young people seem to support the EU’s balan ced approach to drug policy by advocating 
‘tough’ measures against drug dealers and tra ffickers (63%) but ‘soft’ measures to be 
used against drug users, e.g. information and prevention campaigns (47%) and the 
treatment and rehabilitati on of offenders (33%).  
Young people increasingly seem to make a distinction between substances in their 
perception of risks, since 81% and 96% of respondents thought heroin, cocaine and 
ecstasy pose a high risk to users, while only 41% thought that of canna bis. As regards the 
risks of licit substances, 70% of res pondents thought that tobacco smoking posed a 
medium to low health risk, while 75% t hought alcohol posed a medium to low risk. 
When asked about possible options for governme nt control of licit a nd illicit substances, 
almost all respondents thought heroin (97%),  cocaine (95%) and ecstasy (94%) should 
                                                
 
76 Data from six Member States only; variation from 0.05% to 0.46%. 
EN 48   EN remain under strict control. Regarding canna bis, one third (31%) of respondents thought 
a regulation model similar to that for alc ohol and tobacco could be introduced, while 
67% thought that controls should remain unchanged.  
Among all respondents, heroin was seen to be  the most difficult illicit drug to obtain, 
followed by cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. Coca ine was considered to be easily or very 
easily available by 35% of respondents aged 15-24. Cannabis was considered fairly easy 
or very easy to obtain by almost 63% of re spondents aged 15-24. Where licit substances 
are concerned, 72% of 15-18 ye ar-olds thought it would be easy  or very easy for them to 
get hold of tobacco as against 87% of thos e aged 22-24. Over 90% of respondents in all 
Member States but one indicated that it would be fairly easy or very easy for them to 
obtain alcohol.  
2.1.5.4.  Promoting drug-related research  (obj. 43, 44)  
One of the cornerstones of EU drugs policy is development of the knowledge base on the 
drug phenomenon, as a crucial elem ent to support drug policy.  
During the meeting of the National Drug Coordi nators in Berlin in March 2007, the issue 
of drug-related research within  the EU and compared to other regions in the world was 
discussed, highlighting the importance for the EU to make the best use of available 
research capacity and knowledge in the fi eld of drugs. The Commission presented a 
‘non-paper’ on this issue for the HDG at the end of 2007, when it also launched a study 
entitled ‘A comparative analysis of research in to illicit drugs in the European Union,’  
which will provide an overview of the research  areas, trends and infrastructures in the EU 
and make recommendations on how to enco urage the development of networks of 
excellence in the field of dr ug-related research, with a possible emphasis on increased 
coordination and prioritisation at EU level. The final report will be available in 2009. 
The EU Research Programmes77 increasingly provide opportunities for EU research 
organisations and networks in the field of drugs to collaborate at European level. The 
Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) provi des researchers and their networks in 
the EU with opportunities to submit proposals on a variety of res earch topics under the 
programmes on health, socio-economic sciences and humanities, and security research.  
However, the first results of the Seventh RTD Framework Programme reveal a very 
limited number of projects of only indirect  interest to the drug-related research 
field .  
The Commission also launches several calls for tender every year with the aim of 
obtaining an overview and/or ex ploring further specific elem ents of the drug problem. 
Table 7  presents an overview of Commission drug-related studies that have been 
conducted in recent years or are still ongoing.  
                                                 
77 Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes, run by the European Commission. 
EN 49   EN  
Table 7 — European Commission Calls fo r Tender for specific studies and reports 
Study or evaluation 
title / contents  Relevance 
objective/ 
action Date 
issued Date 
(to be) 
published European 
Commission 
DG 
Commission study on the influence of alcohol, drugs and 
medicines on driving, by 2008 9 2006 2010 DG Energy & 
Transport 
Commission work on drugs policy and harm reduction, including a report on drug treatment and good practices in 
EU and background information on health issues related to 
drug use in prison 12/13 2006 2008  DG Health & 
Consumers 
Background document on prevention and reduction of health-related harm associat ed with drug-dependence in 
the EU in view of a Commission report on the 
implementation of the Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003 (2003/488/EC) 14 & 15 2004 2007 DG Health & 
Consumers 
Commission report on the creation of national multi-
disciplinary units for the detection and investigation of 
criminals’ finances and assets  23.3 2007 2008 DG Justice, 
Freedom & 
Security 
Commission study on best practices in Member States 
which have established and implemented a national fund to 
provide funding for projects in the drug field and financed from the confiscation of assets earned through drug 
production and trafficking 23.5 2007 2008 DG Justice, 
Freedom & 
Security 
Commission study on drug-related crime prevention practices in third countries  25.3 2008 2009 DG Justice, 
Freedom & Security 
Commission report on the level of networking and 
acquired funding in research  44 2007 2008 DG Justice, 
Freedom & 
Security 
Review of the Panama Action Plan and Harm Reduction (cost efficiency of harm reduction on third countries) 29/34/35/37 2006 2008 DG External 
Relations 
Assessment of the characteristics and mechanisms of the 
Global Illicit Drug Market Overall 2007 2008 Justice, 
Freedom & 
Security 
Fact Finding Study on Customs Control of Drug Precursors in the EU 22/36 2007 2007 DG Taxation 
& Customs 
Union 
Evaluation of the Community drug precursor legislation 22 2008 2009 DG Enterprise 
& Industry; 
DG Taxation 
& Customs Union 
Evaluation of the EMCDDA 41 2006 2007 Justice, 
Freedom & 
Security 
2.1.5.5.   
EN 50   EN 2.1.5.6.  Continuous evaluation (obj. 45) 
The final evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 demonstrates that the EU is 
resolved to base its policies increasingly on information obtained through evaluation. The 
annual progress reviews published in 2006 a nd 2007 have provided the Commission and 
Member States with up-to-date inform ation on the progress made with the 
implementation of the Action Plan. The final ev aluation provides further insight into the 
extent to which objectives and actions have been realised.  
At national level, an increasing number of Me mber States have conducted evaluations of 
their national drug polici es in recent years78. The survey of Member States conducted for 
this evaluation reveals that at least 15 countries expect to conduct some type of 
evaluation of their national drug po licy in the next few years.  
The quality and the comprehensiveness of  evaluations at national level differ 
considerably, and most Member States end up with a process evaluation rather than an 
outcome evaluation. Further research and exch ange of best evaluation practices could 
support Member States in improvi ng the quality of evaluation.  
In 2004, the EU Member States decided to  adopt an EU Drugs Strategy to be 
implemented over a total period of 8 years. This relatively long implementation period was considered necessary to ensure that measures adopted and implemented through the 
Action Plans could be put into practice.  
This evaluation examines the extent to which the objectives and actions in the Action 
Plan have been implemented. For the final evaluation of the next EU Drugs Plan (2009-
2012) and the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 at the end of the implementation period, it 
might be useful for the EU to have a reflec tion period of at least one year during which 
the evaluation results can be analysed and di scussed and the challenges for future action 
can be properly assessed, as in the case of the reflection period the EU has intensively supported for the UNGASS 1998 evaluation and follow-up.  
                                                
 
78 E.g. Spain, Portugal, Hungary, United Kingdom, France. 
EN 51   EN 3. IMPACT OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN ON MEMBER STATES ' DRUG POLICY  
As part of this evaluation, Member States were sent a survey containing questions on the 
consistency and relevance of the EU Drugs  Action Plan (2005-2008) with their national 
policy. Member States were also asked to provide details on how the Action Plan has 
played a role in activities at national level.  Of the 27 Member States, 25 responded to the 
survey79. 
All Member States that pa rticipated in the evaluation survey were able to report clearly 
on who was responsible for the implementa tion of those objectives and actions  under 
the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) that ar e the responsibility of the Member States. 
In general, this task is the responsibility of the National Drugs Coordinator and/or the 
national coordination body for drug policy. In so me Member States this task is shared 
through interdepartmental coordination structures and working groups80.  
3.1.1.  Incorporation of EU Action Plan objectives in national drug policy 
Member States were also asked whether and how the object ives of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) have been incorporat ed in these national policy documents . 
Objectives are often not directly incorporated  in national policy, but 'translated' to make 
them relevant for the national level.  
In Estonia, Luxembourg, Poland, Portuga l, Slovakia, Spain and Romania, the 
development of the national drug action plan  took place almost in parallel with the 
development of the EU Drug Action Plan  (2005-2008), allowing optimal alignment 
between national and EU priorities and actio ns, where relevant. In several other EU 
Member States, national drug policy documents were developed prior to the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). This was the case fo r Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, 
France, Ireland, Lithuania, Hunga ry, the Netherlands, Austria,  Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, 
Finland, Sweden and the UK. However, the EU  Drugs Action has played a role in these 
countries too.  
In Bulgaria, the National Anti-Drugs Ac tion Plan 2003-2008 was amended in 2006 and 
aligned with the EU Action Pl an. The Danish Action Plan is subject to an ongoing 
evaluation and, as a result, in sights from the EU Action Pl an have been taken into 
consideration where relevant. In Austria and the Netherlands, the implementation of drug 
policy is an ongoing process and can be ad apted to new trends and developments, 
including the requirements of the EU Drug Acti on Plan. In Austria, the Länder have also 
been informed about the EU Drug Action Plan and have incorporated elements of it in 
their particular drug strategies and action plans. For the development of the Czech 
National Drug Action Plan 2007-2009, the EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008) was 
assessed and elements were incorporated, co mplemented by the inclusion of priorities 
that were relevant for the national level.  
The new Security Action Plan (2008-2011) in Belgium will take into account objectives 
from the EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008). Fr ance, the UK and Slovenia reported that 
their existing national policies at the time of the adoption of the EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008) were highly consistent with its obje ctives. An external mid-term evaluation 
                                                
 
79 At the time of drafting of this report, Italy and Malta had not responded to the survey. 
80 e.g. France, Neth erlands and Hungary 
EN 52   EN of the Hungarian National Drug Strategy (2000- 2009) revealed that it was consistent with 
both the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) a nd the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  
Practically all of the reporting Member States stated that the current and next EU Drugs 
Action Plans (2009-2012) will be taken into  consideration when a new national drug 
strategy or national drug action plan is de veloped. For some countries, the EU Action 
Plans will form a framework for their new policies; other Member States will ensure coherence and coordination between  national and EU priorities.  
Table 8  presents a brief overview of the number of Member States indicating that one or 
more of the key priorities fr om the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) which form the basis 
for the specific objectiv es in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) have been reflected 
in their national policy. The priorities seem to be well represented  
Table 8 – Reflection of EU Drug Strategy and EU Drugs Action Plan priorities in national 
drug policy  
Priority objective Nr. MS  
Reflected 
1. Improving access to and effectiveness of a broad range of prevention programmes and 
raising awareness about the risk of the use of psychoactive substances and related 
consequences.  25 
2. Development and improvement of access to an d effectiveness of selective and indicated 
prevention programmes, including early detection and early intervention.  24 
3. Improving coverage, access to, quality and effectiveness of targeted and diversified 
treatment and rehabilitation programmes, including integrated psychosocial and 
pharmacological care and integrating these in general public health policies.  25 
4. Improving access to harm reduc tion services for the preven tion and reduction of drug-
related health and social damage, including drug -related infectious diseases such as HIV/ 
AIDS, hepatitis C and other blood borne diseases. 25 
5. Reduction of drug related deaths.  25 
6. Further develop alternatives to imprisonment for drug abusers and making available drug 
services for people in prison.  22 
7. Strengthening EU law enforcement coopera tion on both strategic and crime prevention 
levels, in order to enhance operational activities in the field of drugs and the diversion of 
precursors production and (intra-EU) cross-border trafficking of drugs and precursors, while 
respecting the principle of subsidiarity.  23 
8. Intensifying effective (bi- and multilateral)  law enforcement coop eration, criminal 
investigation and forensic science cooperati on between Member States , within an EU 
Framework, that have common interests and/ or face the same drug problems by using existing 
instruments and frameworks. 24 
9. Intensifying law enforcement ef forts directed at non-EU Coun tries, especially producing 
countries and those along trafficking routes, including the strengthening of external borders of 
the EU, with the aim to stem the flow of drugs from these third countries. 21 
10. Target money laundering and seizure of accu mulated assets in relation to drug-related 
crime. 23 
11. Support the candidate  and stabilisation  and association  process countries with technical 
and other assistance to familiarise them with the EU acquis and to assist them in carrying out 
the required actions.  12 
12. Assisting third countries, including European Neighbourhood countries, and key drug 
producing and transit countries to be more effective in both drug demand and drug supply 
reduction, among others through closer cooperation among EU-Member States. 15 
13. Provide reliable information on the drug situation, both on drug demand and drug supply, 
among others by implementing the five key epidemiological indicators and by ensuring the 
continued work of the Reitox national focal points and Europol National Drugs Units.  24 
14. Reinforcing the knowledge infrastructure in the field of drugs by fostering monitoring and 
evaluation. 25 
EN 53   EN 3.1.2.  Coherence between the Action Plan and national policy objectives 
Member States were also asked whether they had made an assessment of which of the 
specific objectives and actions of the EU  Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) were part 
of their national drug policy and which of  the EU specific objectives and actions 
required further  action  at national level. This was especially relevant to those 
objectives for which the Member States are responsible.  
Most Member States reported that no such an assessment had been made on a one-on-one 
basis. Poland, Portugal, Sw eden and the UK reported that their national drug policy 
reflected all the relevant objectives and ac tions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008).  
Estonia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuani a and Slovakia reported that an analysis of 
this kind will be conducted when they draf t their new national ac tion plan on drugs. 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia and Romania reported th at such an assessment will be taken on 
board during the evaluation of their existing action plans. The Netherlands reported that 
it has introduced specific national policy meas ures (as part of an ongoing process) that 
contribute to specific objectives and actions  in the EU Drugs Ac tion Plan (2005-2008) 
and that were not previously covered. This includes, for example, specific actions on law 
enforcement cooperation with other Member States, a strong emphasis on reducing the 
production of synthetic drugs, etc. 
All Member States that part icipated in the survey say that the Action Plan is consistent 
with and relevant to national drug policy. The main dimensions, objectives and actions 
will form an important basis for the upcoming implementation of Austria's National Drugs Strategy. For Belgium, the section of  the Action Plan con cerning supply reduction 
is consistent with and relevant to nationa l drug policy. The main aims of the EU Drug 
Strategy are also reflected in  the Cypriot National Drug St rategy, but the implementation 
of these aims is restricted by available fi nancial and other resources. For France, a 
reference in the national drug policy to the EU Drug Action Plan is crucial for specific 
policy fields, such as harm reduction.  
However, the EU Drug Action Plan would be more consistent with French policy if a 
clear link were established with licit substa nces, including alcohol and tobacco. As the 
EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008) was develope d during the Luxembourg Presidency, at 
the same time as the National Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2009), there is a high level of consistency between the two plans. For th e purposes of evaluating the EU Drug Action 
Plan (2005-2008), Portugal developed its National Drug Action Pl an (2005-2008) which 
closely follows the structure of the EU Acti on Plan, while reflecting Portugal's needs and 
reality. The broad scope and detail of the EU Drug Action Plan has been instrumental for 
Slovakia by providing guidance for national activities.  
3.1.3.  National priorities not co vered by the Action Plan 
As table 2 in Chapter 2 showed, a number of  countries adopted the EU Drug Action Plan 
after they had adopted their national drug strategy and/or nation drug action plans. Some 
divergence between nati onal policies and the Action Plan was therefore to be expected. 
Furthermore, most national action plans take  account of national priorities, needs and 
realities. The EU Drug Action Plan may function as a supporting document in those 
cases.  
Member States were asked which specific national priorities were relevant but not 
covered by the EU Drugs Action Plan. Belgium's drug policy places emphasis on 
EN 54   EN synthetic drugs, street dealing and the cultivation of cannabis. Estonia places greater 
emphasis on drugs and drug-related harms in prison, while in the Czech Republic emphasis is placed on the development of qu ality standards and cost-effectiveness of 
drug services. In France and Germany, licit drugs  – mainly alcohol and tobacco - are also 
part of overall drug policy.  In both of these countries  and the Netherlands, greater 
emphasis is also placed on prevention and harm reduction
81. For Luxembourg, risk and 
harm reduction is a cross-cutting theme fo r reducing both demand and supply. The UK, 
Hungary and Ireland report th at the cornerstone of th eir national policy is the 
involvement of civil society82 through community and local co operation as well as in the 
planning and delivery of services.  
In Ireland and the UK, priority is given to the rehabilitation and reintegration of drug 
users (e.g. through public serv ices). Portugal reports on its Dissuasion Policy, which 
includes the decriminalisation of consumpti on and possession of dr ugs for personal use. 
Ireland, furthermore, reports priorities being given to community policing and the use of 
awareness campaigns. Finally, Slovakia report s that the EU Action Plan could place 
more emphasis on the control of drug-traffickin g at the external bord ers of the EU with 
Eastern Europe, including the Ukraine. 
3.1.4.  Action Plan objectives covered by national drug policies 
Most Member States report th at the objectives and actions in the EU Drug Action Plan 
(2005-2008) are covered by their national drug strategy and/ or action plans. For obvious 
reasons, objectives and actions that are impl emented at EU level are not included. A 
number of countries reported on some substantial differences. In Belgium, the Czech 
Republic, Ireland and Slovenia, the national drug strategy and/or action plan neither 
specifies nor addresses the cross-cutti ng theme of international cooperation and 
assistance. 
Some detailed actions under the various chap ters are not always covered in Member 
State policies. For example, ea rly detection and intervention is not covered in Estonia. 
Poland and Romania highlight the fact that  their national policy does not include the 
'efficient utilisation and development of al ternatives to impris onment'. Romania also 
reported that some specific actions in the field of supply reducti on were not covered, 
including the forensic prof iling of heroin and cocaine83, cooperation under Project 
Synergy and the forensic profiling of synthetic drugs84. In Bulgaria, there is no coverage 
of objectives on anti-money laundering85, the link between drug production and the 
financing of terrorism 86 and drug-related crimes and precursor diversion committed with 
the aid of information technology87, although these will be included in the next national 
action plan.  
As the Danish national drug strategy is unive rsal, it does not specifically include any of 
the EU drug policy objectives, although all aspects of the drug problem  are covered in 
both policies. The same is the case with Latvia's State Programme on drugs, which 
                                                 
81 In Germany, harm reduction (sur vival assistance) is one of the four pillars of drug policy: 
prevention, treatment, repression and survival assistance 
82 The community and voluntary sector 
83 EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008); objective 18.5 
84 Ibid.; objective 20.1, 20.2 
85 Ibid.; objective 23 
86 Ibid.; objective 24 
87 Ibid.; objective 26 
EN 55   EN despite its different structur e does cover many of the EU Ac tion Plan objectives. France, 
Spain and Slovenia reported that coordination aspects were not (always) included in their 
national policy. In Slovenia this specifically  concerns coordinati on at national level. 
Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia reported  that specific actions  in the field of 
information, research and evaluation were not covered.  
Most of the Member States that reporte d differences between national and EU drug 
policy indicated that these issu es would be addressed when renewing and/ or re-drafting 
new national drug policy documents in the next years. 
3.1.5.  Strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan 
The Member States were asked to report on the weaknesses of the EU Drug Action Plan 
(2005-2008). Several Member States report that the current Action Plan is too long in 
their view, that it has too many actions and that  it is difficult to read or translate into 
policy discussions at national level. At the sa me time, other Member States indicate that 
they think that important issues have been omitted.  
Examples include greater attention to illici t crop production and alternative development 
and the inclusion of cooperation with South Ea st Asia. Licit drugs, such as alcohol and 
tobacco, are also not properly covered by th e Action Plan. Some Member States mention 
that there is no overall threat assessment fo r the objectives in the Action Plan, while at 
the same time the plan is not flexible enough  to address new trends and developments 
that may occur during the four-year implemen tation period. The need for closer links 
with other policy fields, such as employmen t (rehabilitation of dr ug users) and mental 
health, was also mentioned. The Action Plan  ought to have placed more emphasis on 
cooperation between the drug de mand and drug supply sector, and thus concentrate more 
on an integrated approach to drug policy.  
Furthermore, even though the definition of objectives, actions, indicators and assessment 
tools has enhanced the measurability of the outcomes of the Action Plan, some of the 
objectives and actions are considered too vague  or not relevant. Several indicators and 
assessment tools are not adequately calibrated, with the result that th ese do not provide a 
satisfactory picture of the achievement of objectives.  
Some Member States also point out that the Action Plan has a limited impact in the 
Member States because it is non-binding an d that a large number of objectives and 
actions have to be implemented by Member States.  
A number of Member States also mention the lack of financia l resources for the 
implementation of the Action Plan. It is uncl ear whether these countries are referring to 
national or EC level funding, which is avai lable through a number of specific funding 
programmes, although not in the form of a specific budget line for the implementation of 
the Action Plan.  
As to the strengths of the EU Drugs Acti on Plan (2005-2008), Member States also had 
strong opinions. The EU Action Pl an reflects the key principles  of the EU model of drug 
policy, fostering an integrated and balanced  approach to the drug problem. It also 
strengthens coordination of dr ug policy within the EU and reinforces EU participation 
and coherence at international level and within the UN in particular.  
The EU Action Plan provides a comprehens ive framework for EU drug policy and – 
despite some of its shortcomings – sets priorities and provides indicators for each 
objective and action. As such, the Action Plan  facilitates a process in which similar 
policy measures are introduced in all EU Member States. As  such, it supports a process 
EN 56   EN of convergence between Member States' dr ug policies and helps to achieve policy 
consistency between these countries. For some  Member States, the Action Plan functions 
as a useful 'benchmark' against which to  compare their national drug policies.  
Another strong point that was mentioned wa s the Action Plan's focus on strengthening 
the knowledge base underpinning drugs po licy through research and monitoring.  
EN 57   EN 4. TRENDS IN THE DRUG SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.1. Drug use in the European Union 
In many respects, the European drug situation appears to have moved into a more stable 
period after the sometimes dram atic increases that were wi tnessed in the 1990s and early 
part of the current decade. Levels of drug use remain high by historical standards and, 
although there are considerable differences between Member St ates, to some extent these 
are less pronounced than in the past. 
Heroin use and drug injecting appear to be generally stable. Cannabis remains the most 
commonly consumed illicit drug, and prev alence estimates are high by historical 
standards; but again the available trend data  point overall to a stabilisation or even 
possibly to a limited decline in the popularity of cannabis. Patterns of stimulant use are 
more difficult to summarise. Cocaine use ha s increased dramatically in some Member 
States - although not in all - while ecstasy use seems to have moderately decreased overall and amphetamine use remains an impor tant aspect of the drug problem in some 
Nordic countries. In the Czech Republic, and to a lesser extent in Slovakia, methamphetamine problems have been observed, but elsewhere in Europe methamphetamine use remains rare.  
Finally, polydrug use is increasingly found to be a dominant pattern of use among many 
populations of drug users, and problematic use of illicit drugs often overlaps with 
concurrent problems of alcohol use. This ki nd of drug consumpti on pattern is poorly 
understood and presents a challenge to conventional monitoring approaches.  
4.1.1.  Drug use among school students (15-16 years) 
After tobacco and alcohol, cannabis continue s to be the psychoactive substance most 
commonly used by school pupils. According to the 2003 ESPAD
88 survey , between 1% 
and 13 % (on average 4 %) of pupils reporte d having tried cannabis for the first time 
when they were 13 years old or younger. Among 15–16 year olds, lifetime cannabis use 
ranges from more than 40 % in some European countries to below 10 % in others89.  
It is estimated that, in 2003, in the EU  Member States around 3.5 million (or 22.1%) 15-
16 year old students had used cannabis at least once in their lif etime, and around 1.7 
million (11%) had used cannabis during the mont h prior to the survey. On average, about 
4 % of 15–16 year olds report  having used the drug 40 or mo re times in their lives the 
range in prevalence by country is between 0 and 10 %), thereby re flecting the existence 
of a group of regular cannabis users among school students.  
Data from the ESPAD survey show an overa ll increase in prevalence of cannabis use 
among pupils in the period between 1995 and 2003, with a more marked increase between 1995 and 1999. There are, however , pronounced geographical differences in 
trends.  
                                                
 
88 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs, a 4-yearly survey in 35 countries 
aimed at pupils that turn 16 during the calendar year. The survey is coordinated by the Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and other Drugs (CAN). 
89 Countries with high prevalence rates include the UK and Ireland; countries with lower prevalence 
rates include Finland, Sweden, Greece, Cyprus  and Malta. Source: EM CDDA Annual Report 
2007. 
EN 58   EN At the time of this evaluation, the 2007 ESPA D data were not available. However, a 
more recent comparison of HBSC90 data for 2001–2002 and 2005–2006 shows a stable 
or decreasing trend in both lifetime and other more frequent cannabis use among 15 year 
olds. Other recent national school survey s conducted in Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom also re port stable or decreasing trends.  
Overall prevalence rates for use of other illi cit drugs are much lower than for cannabis 
among 15–16 year olds. In most countries, lif etime prevalence of cocaine use in 2003 
was 2 % or lower, but rising to 4% in Sp ain and 5% in the United Kingdom. Lifetime 
ecstasy use was reported by 0 to 8% of school students, with six EU countries reaching a 
prevalence of 5 % or more. Between 0 and 7%  of amphetamines had been used by pupils, 
with four EU countries having a prevalence of  5 % or more. There was an increase in the 
lifetime prevalence of the use of drugs ot her than cannabis between 1995 and 2003, but 
the newly available national school surveys in  2007 (Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, 
the United Kingdom) reported ei ther no change, or even a slight decrease in ever-in-
lifetime use of amphetamines and ecstasy. 
4.1.2.  Drug use among young adults (15–34 years) 
Most drug use occurs among 15–34 year ol ds, and lifetime prevalence usually grows 
dramatically in the early part of this age range (15–24 year olds).  
On average, it is estimated that about one in eight (or 13%) young European adults aged 
15-34 have used cannabis during the past year (range at na tional level: 1.9–20.3%). 
Among the youngest in this age gr oup (15-24 year olds), the estimated average is higher 
at 16.7% (range 3.6–28.2%), which translates into  one in six of them reporting having 
used cannabis in the past year. 
Comparing EU data with other regions of th e world is made difficult by methodological 
differences in surveys. However, based on available data, the pr evalence levels among 
young European adults aged 15-34 appear to be  generally lower than those observed in 
Australia, USA or Canada91. Figure 7  presents an overview of last-year prevalence of 
cannabis use in EU countries, the USA, Australia and Canada. 
After having shown a marked increase in  almost all EU countries during the 1990s92 and 
around the year 2000, with  last-year prevalence of ca nnabis use among young adults in 
the 15-34 age group reaching 15-20% in seven countries, cannabis use in Europe seems 
to have recently stabilised at a historically  high level. Information from the most recent 
national surveys currently shows a stabilisa tion of cannabis use in most EU countries93.  
Australia and the USA also re port stabilising or declining trends in cannabis use among 
young people, while Canada’s last survey dates back to 2004, thus making it difficult to interpret recent trends. 
                                                
 
90 Health Behaviour among School Children: a WHO collaborative survey which investigates school 
children’s health and health behaviour and has included since 2001 mandatory questions about cannabis use among 15-year-old students. 
91 Important differences exist among Member States. Some countries have similar prevalence compared to Australia or the USA average. 
92 EMCDDA Annual Report, 2007 
93 If an upward or downward change of 20% or more from the baseline figure is considered as a significant difference, there was an increase in cannabis use in five countries, a decrease in two 
countries and a stable situation in nine countries between 2001 and 2006. 
EN 59   EN Figure 7 - Cannabis use among young adults (aged 15-34): last year prevalence of use. EU by country 
including USA, Canada and Australia 
0,05,010,015,020,025,030,0
EL (2004)
CY (2006)
BG (2005)
LT (2004)
SE (2006)
PL (2006)
PT (2007)
HU (2003)
FI (2006)
LV (2003)
NL (2005)
NO (2004)
EE (2003)
IE (2006/07)
BE (2004)
DE (2006)
AT (2004)
DK (2005)
EU
SK (2006)
UK (E&W) (2006/07)
IT (2005)
FR (2005)
CZ (2004)
Australia (2004)
ES (2005/06)
USA (2006)
Canada (2004)
 
Last-year prevalence of amphetamine use  among young adults in the EU is estimated at 
1.3% (range 0.1% to 2.9%), while the equivale nt figure for the use of ecstasy is 1.8% 
(range 0.4% to 7.7 %).  
Figure 8  presents an overview of last-year prevalence of ecstasy use in EU countries, 
USA, Canada and Australia94. The EU average figure is si milar to the US figure but 
much lower than Australia95. After general increases in the 1990s, last-year prevalence 
indicates stabilisation or even moderate  decreases in amphetamine and ecstasy 
consumption in Europe96. Data from some countries su ggest that cocaine could be 
replacing amphetamines and ecstasy among so me sectors of the drug-using population. 
Australia and the USA report si milar trends, with a stabilisation or small decreases/ 
increases in ecstasy use among young people in recent years.  
On average, 2.3% of young European adults re port having used cocaine in the past year 
(range). This figure is highest among the 15–24 age group (2.6%), although the 
difference is less marked than in the case of cannabis or ecstasy. 
                                                 
94 See sources of data in annex 4.1 
95 Five EU Member States report higher last year  prevalence of ecstasy use than the USA average 
and one Member State has a higher last  year prevalence than Australia. 
96 During the period 2001–2006, of the 15 countries with sufficient data on last-year prevalence of 
amphetamine use among young adults, five report a decrease, four report stabilisation and six 
report an increase. For last-year ecstasy use, se ven of these countries report a decrease, five 
countries reported a stable situation an d three countries reported an increase. 
EN 60   EN Figure 8 - Ecstasy use among young adults (aged 15-34): last year prevalence of use. EU by country, 
including USA, Canada and Australia  
0,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,010,0
EL (2004)
PL (2006)
IT (2005)
DK (2005)
LT (2004)
PT (2007)
FR (2005)
BG (2005)DE (2006)NO (2004)
FI (2006)
CY (2006)
AT (2004)
EU average
LV (2003)
IE (2006/07)
ES (2005/06)
USA (2006)
HU (2003)
NL (2005)
SK (2006)EE (2003)
UK (E&W) (2006/07)
Australia (2004)
CZ (2004)
 
Figure 9  presents an overview of last-year pr evalence of cocaine use among young adults 
(15-34) in EU countries, the USA, Cana da and Australia. The average last-year 
prevalence of cocaine use in young European adults97 is less than half that reported by 
young American adults, and similar to that of young Australian adults. 
Data from general population su rveys show that there was an upward trend in cocaine 
use among young adults during the 1990s and the early years of the new Millennium in 
many European countries. New data (2005-2 007 surveys) show th at this trend is 
continuing in most reporting countries98. 
Data from Australia and the USA reveal a more  fluctuating trend in recent years, with the 
latest data showing an incr ease in Australia and a stable  situation in the USA.  
                                                 
97 There are big differences between EU Member Stat es. On one hand, there are many EU countries 
where the prevalence of cocaine use remains rela tively low (e.g. Greece, Finland), while others 
are up to the levels of preval ence observed in the US (UK, Spain, Germ any). Source: EMCDDA 
Annual Report, 2007. 
98 Last year, prevalence increased in seven countries, remained stable in four  countries and declined 
in one country. 
EN 61   EN Figure 9 - Cocaine use among young adults (aged 15 to 34): last year prevalence of use. EU by 
country, including Australia and the USA - last survey available for each country Greece
Poland
Czech Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Cyprus
Hungary
Bulgaria
Finland
Netherlands
Portugal
France
Slovakia
Austria
Germany
Norway
Australia (2004)
EU average
Denmark
Ireland
Italy
Spain
UK (E&W)
USA (2006)0,01,02,03,04,05,06,0
Last year prevalenc e
 
4.1.3.  Drug use among older adults (35–64 years) 
General population surveys show that recent drug use is declining among all successive 
age groups, and particularly rapidly after 35 y ears. Last-year prevalence of cannabis use, 
which is 13 % on average among young a dults aged 15–34, is below 3 % among 35–44 
year-olds in most EU countries and exceeds 7 % in only two countries. In the next age 
group (45–54), all countries report last-year can nabis use prevalence rates of under 3 %. 
Cocaine use is also mainly concentrated among young adults aged 15–34, with about 
seven out of eight last-y ear users being young adults. 
Overall, it can be roughly estimated that 5.5 million European adults aged 35–64 years 
have used cannabis in the last year and a bout 0.5 million have used cocaine during the 
same period. The use of ecstasy is confin ed almost entirely to younger age groups. 
Current data therefore do not confirm ongoing drug use among generations which have 
been confronted with earlier drug use trends  in the 1960s and 1970s. However, data show 
the existence of some groups of users aged  over 35 which are typically located in high-
prevalence countries. 
4.2. Problem drug use 
Problem drug use is defined by the EMCDDA as ‘injecting drug use or long 
duration/regular use of opioids, cocaine and/or amphetamines’99. It is usually estimated 
as the yearly prevalence rate per inhabita nt aged 15–64 and is ca lculated by indirect 
statistical methods. Cannabis use is not includ ed in this definition because of difficulties 
                                                 
99 Note: the EMCDDA definition of problem use is somewhat different from international standards 
as adopted in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical  Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the 
WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which include a broader definition of problem use, which - for example - also in cludes social aspect s of problem use.  
EN 62   EN in defining what problem use is. However, based on a recent study in Europe, it can be 
estimated that 2 to 2.5% of all young adults  aged 15-34 are using cannabis daily or 
almost daily (20 days or mo re in the last 30 days).  
4.2.1.  Problem opioid use 
Recent estimates100 of the prevalence of problem opioid use  at national level range 
roughly between one and six cases per 1,000 inhabitants aged 15–64. From the limited 
data available, an average annual prevalence of between four and fi ve cases per 1,000 of 
the population aged 15–64 can be derived. This translates into some 1.5 million (range 1.3-1.7) problem opioid users in the EU and Norway.  
Time trends in the prevalence of problem opi oid use should be interpreted with caution 
because of the limited number of repeated  estimates and the uncertainty surrounding 
individual estimates. Data from 10 European countries with repeated estimates during the 
period 2001–2006, point to diverse developments, with six countries showing a relatively 
stable prevalence, one showing a clear incr ease and three showing unclear trends. Other 
data from police seizures, drug-related deat hs and treatment demand indicate that there 
might be a recent increase in problem opioid use in some EU countries. This is related 
not only to problem heroin use, but increasingly also to the use of illicitly produced opioids (e.g. fentanyl) and the diversion of  substitution medications, in particular of 
buprenorphine. 
Injecting drug users (IDUs) run a high risk of experiencing health problems, such as 
infection with HIV or hepatitis, or drug overd ose. National estimates of IDUs typically 
range between 0.5 and 6 cases per year per 1,000 inhabitants aged 15–64 in the period 
2001 to 2005. Extrapolation from the limited data available suggests an average 
prevalence of IDU (current in jectors) of between 3 and 4 cases per 1,000 of the adult 
population. This would translate into around 1.1 million (0.9–1.3 million) injectors in the 
EU and Norway. These are predominantly problem opioid injectors, although they may inject other drugs as well. 
Overall, 43% of all opioid users entering out patient drug treatment reported injecting the 
drug, and among clients in long-term treatme nt the proportion is higher. Around 40% of 
opioid users entering treatment for the firs t time in 2006 report injecting the drug. 
Looking at time trends, the proportion of inj ectors among new opioi d clients decreased 
from 43% in 2003 to 35% in 2006 in the 13 countries where sufficient data are available, which may indicate a slight decreasing trend in heroin injection. However, studies among 
injecting drug users show diff erences between European countries with high proportions 
of new IDUs (injecting for less than two y ears) and young IDUs (under 25) in some of 
the new Member States.  
4.2.2.  Problem cocaine use  
National estimates of problem cocaine use (i njection or long dura tion/regular use) are 
available only for Spain and Italy. According to th e most recent data for Spain, there 
were between 4.5 and 6 problem cocaine us ers per 1,000 adult inhabitants (aged 15–64 
years) in 2002. Similarly, in Italy, in 2006, there were estimated to be between 3.7 and 4.5 problem cocaine users per 1 000 adults. 
                                                
 
100 Opioid use cannot be reliably understood by gene ral population survey data due to its very low 
prevalence, lack of suitable frame and likely denials of socially undesirable and even illegal behaviours. Therefore, indirect estimates are considered as 'the gold standard'.  
EN 63   EN Cocaine - mainly in powder form - was c ited as the principal reason for entering drug 
treatment in Europe in 2006 by about 16% of all treatmen t clients and 24% of those 
entering drug treatment for the first time (a gainst 13% in 2002). There is, however, a 
wide variation between countries: only in Sp ain (47%), the Nether lands (35%) and Italy 
(25%) do cocaine users make up a high propor tion of treatment clients. Elsewhere in 
Europe, cocaine accounts in general for less than 10% of all treatment demands, and in 
many Member States only negligible propor tions of treated drug users report having 
cocaine problems. 
4.2.3.  Problem amphetamine/methamphetamine use 
Only one Member State (Fin land) provided a recent na tional estimate of problem 
amphetamine use, which in 2005 was estimated to amount to between 12,000 and 22,000 problem amphetamine users (4.3 to  7.9 cases per 1,000, aged 15–64 years). 
Treatment for the use of amphetamines accounts  for a sizeable propor tion of the overall 
reported treatment demand in Latvia, Sweden  and Finland, where between 25% and 35% 
of drug clients entering trea tment mention it as their primary drug. From 2001 to 2006, 
the proportion of new clients entering treatm ent for primary amphetamine use has been 
relatively stable in Europe as a whole. 
By comparison with other parts of the wo rld, where the use of methamphetamine has 
increased in recent years, its levels of use in Europe seem to be limited. Historically, 
methamphetamine use in Europe has been c oncentrated in the Czech Republic and, to 
some extent, Slovakia. In 2006, in the Czech  Republic there were estimated to be 
17,500–22,500 methamphetamine users (2.4 to 3.9 cases per 1,000 aged 15–64 years) 
and in Slovakia 6,200–15,500 methamphetamine users (1.6 to 4.0 cases per 1,000 aged 15–64 years). In the last five years, the reported demand for treatment related to 
methamphetamine use has increased in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Clients in treatment for methamphetamine also report hi gh rates of injecting drug use: around 45 % 
in Slovakia and 80 % in the Czech Republic. 
4.3. Health and social cons equences of drug use 
4.3.1.  Drug-related infectious diseases 
Data on newly-diagnosed cases  of HIV  related to injecting drug use for 2006 suggest 
that infection rates are s till falling overall in the EU , following the peak in 2001–2002 
that was due to outbreaks in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.  In 2006, the overall rate of 
newly-diagnosed infections  among IDUs in the 25 EU Member States for which 
national data are available has decreased. Between 2001 and 2006, no strong increases  
were observed in the rate per million inhabitants in any country. 
The high annual rate of new HIV diagnoses re lated to injecting dr ug use in Estonia, 
Latvia and Portugal suggests that  transmission is still occurring in these countries at a 
high level, although there has been a gradual improvement in  the situation in all three 
countries. 
Figure 10  presents a comparison of the 2005 da ta on newly reported HIV cases in 
injecting drug users in the EU, USA, Canada and Australia
101. The incidence rate of 
newly diagnosed cases per million inhabitants is higher than in Australia, comparable to Canada but considerably lower than in the USA.  
                                                
 
101 See sources of data in annex 4.2 
EN 64   EN Trend data from HIV prevalence monitoring in samples of IDUs are available from 25 
countries over the period 2002–2006. In 15 countries, HIV prevalence remained 
unchanged during the period, while  prevalence in three count ries showed statistically 
significant decreases. In  two countries, however, decreasing trends at national level were 
contradicted by reports of some regional increas es. Finally, in five c ountries, at least one 
sample indicated an increasing tr end, even if this was for the mo st part still at low levels.  
From the available data and estimates of th e number of IDUs and problem drug users, it 
is estimated that there might  be between 100 000 and 200 00 0 people living with HIV in 
the EU, who have ever in thei r lives been drug injectors. 
Figure 10 - Newly diagnosed HIV infections in IDU per million population: 2005 rates for the 
Australia, the EU, Canada and USA 
Newly reported HIV cases in IDUs per million population. 2005 data.
02468101214161820
Australia EU Canada US (HIV data are for 
38 states and
dependent areas)rate per million inhabitant s
 
While high prevalence levels of HIV in fection are found only in some EU Member 
States, viral hepatitis, and in particular in fection caused by the hepa titis C virus (HCV), 
is more highly prevalent in IDUs acro ss Europe. HCV antibody levels among national 
samples of IDUs in 2005-2006 vary from around 15% to 90%, with most countries 
typically reporting leve ls in excess of 40%.  
The prevalence of antibodies to HBV infection va ries to an even grea ter extent than that 
of HCV antibodies, due to differences in vaccination levels and many other possible 
factors. The most complete da ta set available is for the antibody to the hepatitis B core 
antigen (anti-HBc), which indicates a hist ory of infection (or vaccination). In 2005–2006, 
prevalence levels for anti-HBc of over 40% were reported from six out of the 11 
countries where data were available. 
Trends over time in notified cases of hepatit is B and C show a di fferent picture. The 
proportion of IDUs among all notified cases of hepatitis B may have d eclined slightly in 
some countries. In the case of hepatitis C, the proportion of IDUs among notified cases has declined in five countries,  but has increased in five ot her countries. For both hepatitis 
B and hepatitis C, the proportion of IDUs am ong the notified cases continued to differ 
markedly between countries in 2006, suggesting geographic differences in the epidemiology of these infections. 
EN 65   EN From the available data and estimates of th e number of IDUs and problem drug users, it 
is estimated that there are around one million people living with an HCV infection  in 
the EU who have ever in thei r lives been drug injectors. 
4.3.2.  Drug-related deaths 
During the period 1990–2005, between 6,500 and over 8,500 drug-induced  deaths102 
were reported each year by EU Member States, totalling around 130,000 deaths during this period. These figures s hould be considered as a mi nimum estimate, given data 
limitations and under-reporting in Member States.  
Average population mortality due to drug-induced  death in the EU is 21 deaths aged 15 
to 64 per million inhabitants (range 3-5 to over 70)  deaths. This rate is more than doubled 
(44 deaths per million) among males aged  15-39 years. In 2005-2006, drug-induced 
deaths accounted for 3.5% of all de aths among Europeans aged 13 to 39. 
Opioids, mainly heroin or its metabolites, are present in the majority of drug-induced 
deaths reported in the EU, accounting for betw een 55% and almost 100% of all cases. A 
recent EMCDDA data collection also found that  more than one drug was mentioned in 
the toxicological results of between 60%  and 90% of opioid-induced deaths.  
Most cocaine deaths seem to be the result of  the chronic toxicity of the drug, which leads 
to cardiovascular and neurologi cal complications, some of wh ich may not be identified in 
existing reporting systems as being related to cocaine. Deaths actually recorded as 
attributable to cocaine usually also menti on the presence of other substances. Allowing 
for the likely under-reporting of cocaine-induced deaths in the EU, the most recent data 
reported from 14 Member States identified over 450 cocaine deaths. 
Deaths in which ecstasy is present conti nue to be rare, according to the limited 
information available. Amphetamine deaths are also infrequently reported in most 
countries, although in the Czech Republic a su bstantial number of drug-induced deaths 
have been attributed to pervitin (methamphetamine). 
Drug-induced deaths increased sharply in  Europe during the 1980s and early 1990s, 
possibly paralleling the expansi on of heroin use and injectio n, and have remained at high 
levels up to the present day. Figure 11  presents the indexed long-term trend in drug-
induced deaths in the EU Member States and Norway in the period 2000-2006
103. 
Trends over the period 2001 to 2005/2006 show a mo re mixed picture. In the first years 
of the period (2000–2003), many EU countries reported decreases in  the numbers of 
drug-induced deaths, which fell overall in  Europe. However, in 2004 and 2005, small 
increases in reported deaths were observed in most European count ries, which could be 
linked with growing polydrug use by opioid users and a possible increase in the 
availability of heroin. 
Figure 11- Indexed long term trend in drug-indu ced deaths in the EU Member States and Norway104 
- 2000 to 2006 
                                                 
102 Deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drugs and that occur, generally, shortly 
after the consumption of the substance(s). 
103 For 2006 data for Denmark, Spain, France, Poland, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Norway have 
been extrapolated from 2005. 
104 Note to Figure 11: A few countries did not provide data for some years. To correct this situation, 
the computation method defined in the following report was used: 'European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2001). Coordination of the implementation of EMCDDA standard 
EN 66   EN 5060708090100110Index %  (2000=100%) 
INDEX 100,00 96,83 83,12 76,51 81,24 85,47 82,192000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*
 
4.3.3.  Social consequences of drug use 
The availability of standardised data on the social consequences of drug use is still very 
limited, but adverse social consequences are repo rted to be generally linked with problem 
drug use. For instance, homelessness, toge ther with living in unstable accommodation, 
was affecting about 10 % of drug users ente ring treatment in 2006, while one in every 
two clients entering treatment was unemployed.  
                                                                                                                                                 
guidelines on drug-related deaths in the EU Memb er States, and the coll ection and analysis of 
information on drug-related deaths', Project CT.99.RTX.04, coordinated by the Trimbos Institute, Lisbon, EMCDDA. Sources: Reitox National Focal Points. 
EN 67   EN 4.4. Drug supply to the European Union 
4.4.1.  Introduction 
Production and trafficking of drugs remains on e of the primary activities of organised 
crime networks operating towards and with in the European Union, posing serious 
challenges for EU policies, in particular in  the area of justice, freedom and security. 
Whilst the principal drug trafficking routes remain prominent, there is a growing diversification of trafficki ng patterns. Also, with a vari ety of European Union drug 
production and entry points, ther e is large-scale intra-EU tr afficking. Criminal networks 
no longer confine their activities to one type of drug, as reflected in the prevalence of 
'cocktail' or 'poly-drug' seizures.  
The single market and free movement of goods , services, people and capital have not 
only brought benefits, but have also increased possibilities for organised crime to move 
people and/ or goods across and beyond national borders within the EU.  
4.4.2.  Source countries of hero in, cocaine and cannabis  
According to the United Nations , most of the world’s illicit heroin  comes from only 
three countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar and Laos. Afghanistan continues to be the major 
supplier of heroin, accounting for over 90% of global opium production. In 2007 the estimated opium output incr eased by 34 % to 8,200 tons
105.  
The United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime estimates that a considerable amount of 
Afghan opium is converted into morphine base or heroin in the count ry itself, in areas 
with limited governmental control . Such processing requires some 10 000 tons of 
chemicals per year, including more than 1 000  tons of the principal precursor, acetic 
anhydride. 
The National Drug Control Strategy of Afgh anistan was adopted in January 2006. It 
identified four priority areas: the targeti ng of drug traffickers and the drugs trade; 
treatment of drug users and re duction of demand; strengthening of alternative livelihoods 
and institution building. However, particular ly in the Helmand province, where more 
than 50% of Afghan poppy cultivation takes place, drugs and insecurity are self-
reinforcing. Alternative development and commercial trading is difficult during the conflicts
106.  
Regarding the manufacture of cocaine , the Andean region remains the major cocaine 
producing area in the world, with an estimated  output in 2006 of 910 tons of cocaine. 
Colombia accounts for 70% of global productio n (640 tons), Peru fo r 20% (180 tons) and 
Bolivia for 10% (90 tons).  
Cocaine processing is contro lled by Colombian, Peruvian and Bolivian organised crime 
groups. They pressurise farmers to grow co ca bush and use violence to protect their 
laboratories against other groups or  law enforcement officials.  
Cannabis  continues to be the most widely pr oduced, trafficked and consumed plant-
based drug worldwide. In the absence of cultivation monito ring systems and surveys, the 
UNODC estimates that in 2006 there were 231,0 00 hectares of illicit cannabis cultivation 
                                                 
105 UNODC, Afghan Survey, Winter 2007; as presented during the EU Troika with Western Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008.  
106 UNODC, Afghan Survey, Winter 2007; as presented during the EU Troika with Western Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008. . 
EN 68   EN in the world, capable of producing 45,000 tons of herbal cannabis. The plant is grown in 
176 countries around the world, part icularly in the Americas (54%), Africa (26%), Asia 
(15%), Europe (4%) and Oceania (1%).  
Morocco continues to be the main global sour ce of cannabis resin wi th an estimated 80% 
of global production taking place in  the country; most of this  is for European and North 
African markets. Herbal cannabis is suppl ied to the Member States mainly from 
Colombia, Jamaica, South Africa and Nigeri a, with Egypt as an additional notable 
source.  
Albania has also developed into a major sour ce of herbal cannabis, which is grown over 
large areas; most of the product is destin ed for Greece and Italy. Cannabis cultivation 
also takes place in Bulgaria and Poland with some 50% destined for export.  
4.4.3.  Transit routes of heroin, cocaine and cannabis into Europe 
Two key corridors are used for the trafficking of opiates . Significant heroin trafficking 
takes place along the Northern Route , which starts in Afghanist an and crosses the central 
Asian States of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajiki stan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It is 
estimated that some 25% of smuggled he roin stays in central Asia for domestic 
consumption, while the remaining 75% is smuggled onward to Russia and Europe107  
Most heroin reaches Western Europe via the Balkan Routes , starting in Turkey, 
facilitated by Turkey’s geogr aphical position in handling extensive commercial trade 
between Asia and Europe and its good transp ort infrastructure. Increasing use is being 
made of the central Balkan Route  from Turkey, via Bulgar ia, the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia a nd Herzegovina and Croatia into Italy or 
Slovenia and from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia via Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244 and/or Albania into Greece. The route via Ukraine and Romania  is also 
gaining in importance. Furthermore, of additio nal note is the use of the ‘roll-on, roll-off’ 
transport of trucks on trains along the Balkan  Routes, in particular  from Hungary, Italy 
and Slovenia into Austria.  
Whilst awaiting onward transportation into West ern Europe, heroin is often stockpiled in 
countries such as Albania, Bosnia a nd Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo under UNSC 
Resolution 1244, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungar y. The dual use of the Balkan Routes for 
smuggling heroin to and ecstasy from the Eu ropean Union is a noteworthy feature. The 
Northern Black Sea route  is also prominent, while Africa is turning into a crossroads for 
heroin trafficking. Heroin is also trafficked  from Afghanistan to Pakistan and onwards 
from there.  
Three main cocaine sea routes  to Europe have been identified. The Northern route runs 
from the Caribbean via the Azores to  Portugal and Galicia in Spain. The Central route  
runs from South America via Cape Verde or Madeira and the Canary Islands to Europe. 
More recently, the African route  has evolved, which runs from South America to 
Western Africa and from th ere to Portugal and Spain.
 
Huge amounts of cocaine are transported fr om South America to the European Union 
across the Atlantic Ocean, main ly via maritime routes. Multi-tonne shipments take place 
from Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Ch ile, Argentina and Suriname to the coasts 
                                                 
107 Council document 11159/07 CORDROGUE 40: Regional report on Central Asia. Brussels, 20 
June 2007. 
EN 69   EN of Spain and Portugal and majo r ports of Belgium, the Neth erlands and Italy. Historical 
and linguistic ties with Latin America infl uence the role of Spain and Portugal. 
Significant amounts of cocaine are smuggled from South America to Europe via the 
Caribbean, aided by the region’ s geographical proximity to co caine source countries and 
cultural links with some Member States, for example between Curacao and the Netherlands and between Jamaica and the United Kingdom. The French overseas 
territories of Martinique a nd Guadeloupe are also becomi ng increasingly important as 
transit areas. Fast boats, cargo freighters  and container ships re main the most common 
means of moving the drug through the region, but traffickers also use aircraft for drops in 
international waters.  
In recent years, West Africa has emerged as a transit and storage zone for maritime 
trafficking of cocaine from South America to Europe. This is controlled by South 
American and European criminals, the former having established businesses in West-Africa to cover their illicit act ivities and justify their presen ce. Subsequent transportation 
by sea to Europe takes place in fishing boats, from where the drugs are often unloaded on 
the northern coast of Portugal or in Galicia in Spain. Again, cultura l ties (e.g. Ghana and 
Nigeria with the United Kingdom and Cape Verde with Portugal)  facilitate this kind of 
trafficking. At least 33 tons of  cocaine was seized en route to Europe via West Africa 
between 2005 and 2007. Prio r to this, the entire continent rarely seized more than a ton 
per year. This criminal development poses a fu rther threat to the fragile stability of the 
region, exploiting, inter alia, the capacity of  West African law enforcement agencies, 
high levels of corruption and the lack of port / coastline controls. 
Colombian criminal groups have also estab lished alliances with Moroccan networks to 
set up smuggling routes from Western to No rthern Africa. These link up with cannabis 
smuggling routes into the European Union and utilise the logist ics and know-how of 
well-established cannabis trafficking groups. Cocaine is also transported by air from 
West African countries to Eur opean airports. To avoid contro ls, couriers frequently use 
indirect flights via Morocco or Libya.  
4.4.4.  The EU illicit drug market 
An estimated 100 tons of heroin  are needed annually to supply European Union heroin 
markets
108. There is large-scale secondary or  intra-European Union trafficking, 
particularly from the Netherlands and Belg ium. Most heroin destined for the major 
market of United Kingdom, as well to France,  Germany and Spain, is supplied via these 
two countries. Heroin is often transported fr om the Netherlands by trucks, sometimes in 
multi-drug consignments, which may include synthetic drugs, cocaine and cannabis.  
Trafficking of heroin towards and within th e European Union continues to be dominated 
by Turkish criminal groups, with a significan t and increasing involve ment of Albanian 
criminal networks. Turkish groups make use of facilitators in Southw est Asia to liaise 
with domestic criminals or brokers, who can pur chase large quantities of heroin directly 
from the source region. Very ra rely do heroin consignments travel to Europe in a single 
journey; they are bought and sold by diffe rent criminal groups along the route. 
The presence of large Turkish or Kurdish co mmunities in Belgium, France, Germany, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom facilitates the activities of Turkish organised crime, with increased involvement of third generati on Turks. Ethnic Albanian groups control the 
                                                
 
108 UNODC World Drug Report, 2006 
EN 70   EN wholesale markets for heroin in several Memb er States, particular in the northern and 
eastern parts of the Europ ean Union. The drugs are obtained from depots located in 
Central and Eastern Europe.  
The European Union remains, next to the United States, the second largest cocaine  
consumer market in the world. An estimat ed 250 tons of cocaine enter the Union 
annually via maritime shipments, air freight  and couriers. In 2006, almost 120 tons of 
cocaine was seized in the Member States. According to the 2007 World Drug Report of 
UNODC, more than 45% of produced co caine is intercepted worldwide. 
Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy continue to be the principal entry 
points of maritime cocaine shipments into the European Union. In 2006, Spanish law 
enforcement agencies seized 49,650 kg of co caine, with 66% being seized on the high 
seas and another 11% in sea-container traffi c. Trafficking towards the Iberian Peninsula 
is dominated by the Colombian-Galician connection. In 2006, Portuguese and Spanish authorities dismantled several cocaine pro cessing laboratories operated by criminal 
groups comprising Spanish, Colombian, Ven ezuelan and Ecuadorian nationals. Cocaine 
base was being transformed into cocaine hydr ochloride or extracted from clothes or 
liquids. 
Considerable amounts of cocaine  are trafficked from depots in Spain to other Member 
States, with France being an important trans it country. The Netherla nds is another nexus 
point from where cocaine is distributed. A lthough large amounts of cocaine are smuggled 
to Europe in sea freight, the role of couriers  and air freight is also  significant. Each year, 
about 30 tons of cocaine is transported by couriers from South America and the 
Caribbean to airports in the Netherlands , Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and 
France.  
Colombian groups operating in the Netherland s are almost exclusively engaged in the 
importation of cocaine, with subsequent wh olesale distribution be ing carried out by 
Dutch, Surinamese and Antillean groups. Howe ver, distribution to  the United Kingdom 
is mainly organised by British criminals, often based in the Netherlands. Colombians also control the importation of cocai ne into Italy with the actu al smuggling being carried out 
by Italian-based groups, in particular Calabria ns and Albanians. According to the Italian 
authorities, illicit cocaine processing facilitie s are also located in Albania, from where 
cocaine is transported to Italy by powerful spee dboats that cross the Ad riatic Sea in less 
than one hour.  
Criminal coalitions involved in internationa l cocaine trafficking are increasingly diverse 
in their make-up. For example, Russian crimin als in the United States organise cocaine 
importations from South America to Austri a in close association with Slovenians, 
Croatians and Montenegrans.  
Due to its proximity to Morocco, most cannabis resin  enters the European Union 
through Spain, with the vast majority destined for other Member States.  
The Netherlands is another major nexus poi nt for Moroccan-sour ced cannabis resin, 
which is largely trafficked overland, through Spain, Fran ce and Belgium. Large amounts 
of Moroccan cannabis resin ar e for secondary di stribution to other Member States, 
predominantly to the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark. 
Over recent years, Albania has become a cons iderable source country of herbal cannabis 
which is smuggled, not only into Greece and Italy, but also through former Yugoslav 
EN 71   EN Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria into Turkey and to Croatia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.  
Spanish organised crime groups, in addition to  Moroccan groups, are heavily involved in 
the trafficking of cannabis resin into Spai n and its subsequent distribution to other 
Member States, closely co-operating with ot her indigenous groups, such as British, 
Dutch and Scandinavians. Some of these gr oups have established bases in Spain to 
facilitate such trafficking. French crimin al groups, in co-operation with Spanish, 
Moroccan and Algerian nationals, are also invo lved in large-scale cannabis trafficking 
from Spain to their country. 
Hydroponic cannabis cultivation takes place in many Member States. Whilst home-
grown cultivation for personal use is frequen tly discovered, sophisticated higher capacity 
facilities are commonplace in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent Belgium and the 
United Kingdom. Germany has also reported an  increasing prevalence of professional 
indoor cannabis cultivation. 
4.4.5.  Synthetic Drugs and drug precursors 
The European Union is a major production  region for synthetic drugs, in particular 
amphetamine and MDMA (ecstasy). Annuall y, some 70 to 90 sites for drug production 
and storage on a significant sc ale are seized, the vast majority of them being in the 
Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, Belgium109. In addition, Poland, Estonia and 
Lithuania have played important  roles, especially in supp lying Germany and the Nordic 
Member States. Furthermore, amphetamine tabl eted with the 'captagon' logo is produced 
on a substantial scale in Bulgaria for the domestic market as well as for the export to Turkey and Middle Eastern countries.  
Since 2002, large-scale facilities, i.e. sophi sticated laboratories of MDMA, were only 
seized in Belgium and the Netherlands. Ho wever, dismantling of small-scale production 
units of various sizes and stag es of development have also  been reported in many other 
Member States.  
As higher-capacity production spreads, legitim ate chemical companies are likely to be 
exploited for the acquisition of chemicals, i ndustrial equipment, specialist glassware and 
other materials. Increased and pro-active law enforcement co-operati on with industry will 
be necessary.  
Whilst synthetic drugs are trafficked from  the Netherlands and Belgium throughout the 
European Union, the main European market for both MDMA and amphetamine is the United Kingdom. Many consignments to the country have been part of so-called 
‘cocktail’ loads, involving substantial quantities of amphetamine, MDMA, cannabis, 
cocaine and heroin. This highlights the need to  target facilitating transport organisations, 
where illicit loads for different criminal  groups may merge. Other significant or 
emerging markets include Germany, Sca ndinavian countries, Spain and Italy.  
The processing of synthetic drugs, in partic ular the tableting a nd packing phases is 
spreading gradually, reducing the risk of an inclusive production criminal network being 
dismantled. For instance, amphetamine is often exported in wet form from the 
Netherlands and Belgium to the United Kingdom, where it is dried and re-packed for subsequent distribution. Furthermore, MDMA has been trafficked to the United Kingdom 
                                                
 
109 Source: Europol data on dismantled sites; see table 4 
EN 72   EN in powder form which, together with the se izure of tableting machines, indicates the 
existence of tableting facilities in that country. With regard to MDMA, this is 
symptomatic of the trafficking trends to Australia and Canada before these countries started seizing large scal e production facilities.  
MDMA is smuggled to global markets, with large amounts being trafficked via various 
European ports and airports. This may decrease in frequency and volume due to 
increasing production capacities in Asia, North America and Oceania, in particular in 
Indonesia, Canada and Australia, where ther e is sometimes a Dutch connection. In view 
of this development, it is believed that these regions will eventually become self-sufficient in MDMA production and dist ribution. Whilst produc tion of MDMA and 
amphetamine in the European Union is under the control of indigenous organised crime groups, there is an in crease in the involvement of ot her domiciled or part-domiciled 
ethnic groups in synthetic drug production i.e. Turks, Moroccans and Chinese.  
As Dutch and Belgian criminality continues to  maintain its advantage with regard to 
logistics, expertise, us e of technology, improved methodology, professionalism and 
production capacity, it is unlikely that their dom inance, at least in the short to medium-
term, will diminish significantly on the European Union level.  
Major synthetic drug production in the European  Union requires the global diversion of 
drug precursors, in particular BM K (1-Phenyl-2-Propanone) and PMK (3,4-
Methylenedixoyphenyl-2-propanone), and region al trafficking of other chemicals.  
Illicit traffic in drug precurso rs is based on the source and ex istence of legal manufacture, 
geography, availability, demand, regular trad e routes, ease of in itial diversion and 
communication between organised crime in bot h source and trafficki ng regions and their 
domiciled counterparts in the European Union.  
In the European Union there is limited legal use of BMK and no legal use of PMK. Both 
are thus sourced from outside the region, main ly from China where they are legitimately 
and heavily used in the polymer, pharmaceutic al and cosmetic industries. Since 2004, 
legitimate industries in the Russian Federation ha ve been identified as sources of diverted 
BMK. Drug precursors that are traded legitima tely within these countries are exported to 
Western Europe via legitimate intermediary companies and brokers or (cover) companies 
that have been infiltrated, established or  corrupted by organi sed crime. Equally, 
companies are established by synthetic drug  producers to ‘legitimise’ the acquisition 
and/or trade in chemicals and thus con ceal their subsequent diversion from the 
authorities.  
A relatively recent phenomenon in the European Union is the increased transhipment of 
suspicious large-scale consignments of e phedrine and pseudo-ephedrine, the principal 
precursors for methamphetamine manufacture , mostly en route from Asia with their final 
destination the Americas.  This includes (wrongly labelled ) air cargo transhipments of 
pseudo-ephedrine shipped from Congo to Belg ium for onward transfer to Mexico and 
from Iran to France destined for Congo; of e phedrine consignments from the Balkans to 
the Czech Republic for methamphetamine pr oduction and from Pakistan to Greece 
ultimately bound for the Netherlands; of ephedr ine tablets from Pakistan directly to the 
United Kingdom, as well as attempted ephe drine export to Mexico from Belgium.  
In the light of recent discoveries in the European Union of recipes for large-scale 
methamphetamine production, methamphetamine production facilities and increasing seizures, the movement and pot ential diversion of (pseudo) ephedrine should be closely 
monitored.  
EN 73   EN 4.4.6.  New psychoactive substances on the EU drug market 
A significant development in recent years is th e spread of various piperazine derivatives. 
This group of synthetic substances include s BZP (1-benzylpiperazine) and mCPP (1-(3-
chlorophenyl) piperazine). BZ P has been found in a majority  of EU Member States and, 
in March 2008, the Council adopted a Decision110 defining BZP as a new psychoactive 
substance which is to be made subject to c ontrol measures and criminal sanctions in the 
EU. 
The substance mCPP has been found in almost all Member States an d is described as 
producing stimulant and halluci nogenic effects similar to th ose of ecstasy (MDMA). In 
March 2007, the EMCDDA and Europol submitt ed to the Commission a concise report 
on the active monitoring of mCPP which concl uded that ‘mCPP is unlikely to establish 
itself as a recreational drug in its own right’, due to its indistinct psychoactive properties 
and some adverse effects. Since mCPP has no par ticular appeal to users, it seems that its 
market in the EU is driven by a s upply push rather th an a demand pull. 
4.4.7.  Measuring trends in the drug market 
The annual monetary value of the global illicit drug market is estimated at between EUR 
160-200 billion111, making it one of the largest informal economic markets in the world, 
operating beyond the control and supervision of governments and feeding into illegal 
organised crime activities, including money- laundering. It is to be expected that the 
global illicit drug market  is influenced by changes in ma rket conditions, as for any other 
group of commodities. But due to a lack of  precise information on the global production 
of illicit drugs, as well as due to a lack of precise information on drug consumption and reliable and comparable information on drug se izures, more precise details on the volume 
and other key characteristic s of the market are stil l unknown. The lack of this 
information makes law enforcement impact difficult to assess.  
A limited number of market indi cators are available in a number of EU countries that can 
provide some detail on the drug market. Drug retail prices  are available from a limited 
number of Member States, even though these n eed to be interpreted with caution due to 
reliability and comparability problems and non-standardised methods of calculation and 
collection. Furthermore, prices may be infl uenced by 'normal' economic factors such as 
exchange rate developments betwee n e.g. the US dollar and the Euro. Table 9  presents 
the typical retail prices (range of most fre quent (modal) prices in most reporting Member 
States) in Europe reported to the EMCDDA. Ho wever, the variability of prices is much 
greater, for instance, in the case of heroin, with prices ranging fr om EUR 15 to EUR 110 
per gram depending on the country of purchase.  
                                                
 
110 Based on the Council Decision on the Information Exchange, Risk Assessment and Control of 
new Psychoactive Substances (2005/387/JHA) 
111 US$ 250-320; source: UNODC 
EN 74   EN  
Table 9 – Typical retail prices (range of most frequent (modal) prices in reporting MS) 
Substance Typical retail price in 
EUR Unit 
Herbal cannabis/ cannabis resin 4-10 Gram 
Cocaine 50-75 Gram 
Ecstasy 3-9 Tablet 
Amphetamines 10-15 Gram 
Brown heroin 30-45 Gram 
Figure 12  presents an overview of the indexed tr ends in EU retail prices for major drug 
types in the period from 2000 to 2006112. Based on data available from a limited number 
of EU countries, the street pr ices corrected for inflation declined  for all drugs mentioned 
above over the period 2000–2006. Most reported  decreases are in a range of 10–30%, but 
street prices for ecstasy seem  to have declined even more. 
Figure 12 - Indexed trends in EU retail prices fo r major drug types, adjusting for inflation, 2000-
2006  
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Index (2000 = 100)Cannabis resin
Herbal cannabis
Cocaine
Heroin brow n
Amphetamines
Ec s tas y
 
A second indicator for developments on the illicit drug market concerns the  potency/ 
purity  of substances purchased or seized in a number of EU Member States113. In 2006, 
                                                 
112 Notes to Figure 12:  1. The trends represent the availabl e information on national street-level 
prices for each drug in the EU Member States and Norway, weighted by country population sizes 
to form an overall EU trend. Pri ces have been adjusted for nationa l inflation rates (base year 2000) 
and all series indexed to a base of 100 in 2000. 2. Countries missing drug price information for 
two or more consecutive years are not included in the trend calculations for the drug: the trend for 
heroin brown on 6 (40% of the EU population), amphetamine on 8 (55% of the EU population), cocaine on 9 (58% of the EU population), ecstasy on 10 (58% of the EU population), herbal 
cannabis on 10 (61% of the EU population), and cannabis resin on 12 (67% of the EU population). 
3. 3. Additionally, where 2006 data are missing (6 cases) 2005 prices are used; for missing 2001 data (3 cases) 2002 prices are used; data missing for other years (14 cases) have been interpolated 
from adjacent years. Sources: Price data: Reitox National Focal Points 
113 It should be recognised that purity levels will invariably reflect the stage at which the drug is 
taken out of the illicit market i.e. from higher purity bulk quantities to lower purity consumer 
doses. The available data should reflect street level prices, but not all countries make this 
distinction very precisely. Furthermore, the sampling is biased towards which samples are tested in forensic laboratories, as there are considerable inter-sampling differences.  
EN 75   EN the reported THC content of cannabis resi n samples ranged from 2.3% to 18.4%, while 
that of herbal cannabis  ranged from less than 1% to 13%. For amphetamines , major 
variations in purity were observed: several countries reported purities of 10% or less, 
while others reported levels  between 25% and 47%.  
In most reporting countries, th e typical MDMA content of an ecstasy tablet  was between 
25 and 65 mg in 2006, and high-dose tablets (containing over 130 mg of MDMA) were 
reported in some European countries. The typical purity of cocaine  in Europe varied 
considerably, with most c ountries reporting values betw een 25% and 55%. The typical 
purity of brown heroin  ranged between 15% and 25% in most reporting countries. 
Trends in potency are difficult to establish because of the considerable variability in 
purity levels. Furthermore, there are reliability and comparability problems as well as non-standardised methods of sample strate gies and calculation. However, from the 
available data it can be estimated that potency  levels remained stable or declined for 
cannabis resin and herbal cannabis, for amphe tamine and for cocaine. No clear European 
trend is apparent in the data on the MDMA c ontent of ecstasy tablets or in the data on 
heroin. 
4.4.8.  Trends in national drug laws  
Over the past 10 years, most European countri es have adopted an a pproach in their legal 
system that distinguishes betw een the drug trafficker, who is considered as an operator in 
the drug market, and drug (dependent) users, who are considered as consumers and/or victims possibly in need of treatment. Howeve r, individual Member States draw different 
distinctions between tr afficker and user, and ‘threshold quantities’  for personal 
possession has been one of th e key issues in this area. Maximum or probable penalties 
for use or possession for personal use, in the absence of aggravati ng circumstances, have 
been reduced in various Eu ropean countries since 2001.  
Member States have introduced or widened options for drug users to undergo treatment 
or counselling, instead of punishment. Nevert heless, these options are overwhelmingly 
conditional; breach of the treatment order will restart the procedure of criminal charge, 
prosecution or punishment.  
A general trend can be observed in Europe in the development of alternatives to criminal 
conviction for cases of use and possession of  small quantities of cannabis for personal 
use without aggravating circumstances. Cannabi s is now frequently distinguished from 
other illicit substances either in the law,  by prosecutorial direct ive, or by judiciary 
practice. For those suspected of drug trafficking, the trend is to increase the possible penalty. In addition, there has been an incr eased emphasis in recent years on penalising 
the specific offence of distributing to young people. 
According to the 2003  European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics
114, 
covering statistical information from over 35 Member States of the Council of Europe, 
drug trafficking offences115 accounted for 10% of all detainees in penitentiaries. 
However, considerable vari ations exist between countri es and, depending on the method 
                                                 
114 European Sourcebook of Crime and Cr iminal Justice Statistics [2003] 2nd ed., WODC, The Hague 
115 The category 'drug trafficking offences' may also possession of drugs for own consumption. 
EN 76   EN of registration of convictions in each reporting country, the share of drug-related offences 
may be higher than reported116. 
Drugs and road transport are an issue that has seen considerable legislative developments 
in recent years. Yet there is a great variation in the indivi dual countries’ legal responses 
to drug-driving, between zero tole rance or impairment laws, and in the range of penalties 
available. To facilitate rapid detection, seve ral countries have recently passed laws to 
permit or define roadside drug testing, ofte n using on-site rapid testing devices. Three 
countries have also specifically legislated on testing for drugs in the workplace, while in 
other countries there are new la ws to regulate drug testing of drivers, arrestees, prisoners 
or employees in different situations.  
A large Commission project on the influence of  alcohol, drugs and medicines on driving, 
funded by the 6th Framework Programme and involvi ng 19 Member States, will be 
finalised in 2010117. The project will – among others – examine legislative options to 
cover the use of illicit and medical substances  in traffic legislation, examine possibilities 
and techniques for road-side screening and provide further estimates of road accidents related to substance use.  
                                                
 
116 Certain crimes may not be registered as a drug -related offence, but acc ording to the primary act, 
e.g. theft, assault, rape or unintended homicide. 
117 http://www.druid-
project.eu/cln_007/nn_107542/Druid/EN/home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true   
EN 77   EN 5. IMPACT AND ADDED VALUE OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN (2005-2008) 
5.1. Impact of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) on the drug situation 
As indicated at the beginning of this re port, the limitations that accompany this 
evaluation in particular, and ev aluation of public policy in gene ral, makes it very difficult 
to identify direct causal relationships betw een the impact of the implementation of the 
Action Plan and the drugs situation in the EU.  
Nonetheless, this evaluation process carried  out by the Commission is relatively unique 
compared to other regions in the worl d. Through the evaluati on exercise and the 
continuing monitoring of the drug situati on, EU policymakers have a wealth of 
information to their disposal for further analysis.  
As already indicated in Chapter 1, the Action Plan should primarily be considered as a 
coordination instrument and a 'guidance doc ument' for EU level and Member States 
where drugs policy is concerned. The Action Plan covers a wide range of initiatives and activities – some of which ha ve been in existence for qu ite a long time – and add new 
priorities. The potential impact of the Acti on Plan – and for that matter – of the Drug 
Strategy (2005-2012) lies in the comprehens ive and simultaneous implementation of its 
objectives and actions, reflected in the integr ated and balanced approach which has been 
embraced by the Member States.  
The vast majority of the object ives in the Action Plan do not have a single significant and 
direct effect on the drug situation, which includes drug use, adverse consequences of 
drug use and drug-related crimes. The ratio nale of intervention that underpins the 
Strategy and Action Plan is that when the di fferent policy elements are implemented in 
conjunction with each other, synergies can emerge that influence drug demand on the one hand and drug supply on the other.  
The information gathered through th is report is detailed, but in  most cases it is the output 
of specific objectives and acti ons in the Action Plan that  is presented and not the 
outcome of those actions. For example, if all Member States had adopted the aim of 
implementing specific selective prevention pr ogrammes for vulnerable groups in society, 
this could be considered as an output . But the available information would not reveal the 
content and quality of these programmes or their accessibility to the target groups. The outcome of these interventions, when fully implemented, would be such that fewer 
people who belong to vulnerable groups w ould develop a drug problem, ultimately 
resulting in a visible impact  on the drug situation, i.e. a re duced demand for drugs from 
these groups and a reduction of  the adverse consequences of  drug use. Often information 
on output is available, but not inform ation on outcome, let alone on impact. 
The Action Plan states that "the ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to significantly reduce 
the prevalence of drug use among the populat ion and to reduce the social harm and 
health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs".   
This is an ambitious aim given the relatively short period for the implementation of the 
actions and objectives. On the ba sis of this report's findings,  we can conclude that the 
aim has, at best, been partly achieved, even though it must be noted that some measures 
have been in place for a longer period of time. When taking th e information in this report 
into account, the conclusion can be drawn that the ultimate aim of the Action Plan has at best been pa rtly achieved. The prevalence of drug use among the population  has not 
been significantly reduced, but has stabilised at a historic ally high level (possibly 
EN 78   EN reflecting a global trend), while cocaine use has increased considerably in a growing 
number of Member States. This is despite th e fact that Member States report that they 
have increasingly implemented a wide ra nge of drug prevention programmes (see 
objectives 8, 9 and 10). Nevertheless, the pr evalence rates of drug use in the EU are 
modest when put beside other comparable re gions and countries in the world where such 
information is available. 
As regards the damage to the health of the population caused by drug use , some 
positive signs can be identified. An increasing number of problematic or dependent drug 
users are receiving treatment (obj. 11, 12). However, not much is known about treatment 
outcome, while treatment demand is increas ing for non-opioid type  drug users (e.g. 
cannabis and cocaine). Furthermore, the inter action between licit dr ug use, especially 
alcohol, and illicit drug use (coc aine, cannabis) has become an important concern. As a 
consequence, it is not possible to assess whether the Action Plan has had a positive 
impact on reducing the adverse consequences  of drug use through the availability of 
more treatment. The available indicators do not explain whether an increase in treatment demand is the result of an increase in the s cale of the problem or in dependent drug use, 
or that treatment services are better equippe d to reach out to people who need treatment. 
Probably both are true.  
Nonetheless, a positive impact on reducing the adverse consequences of drug use can be 
seen if we look at the rates of HIV/ AIDS  infections among injecting drug users in the 
EU, which have fallen steadily in recent years.  In this area, the broad implementation of 
harm reduction measures (obj. 14, 15, 16, 17) a nd in the HIV/AIDS infection rates seem 
to be linked, even though scient ific validation is needed in or der to establish a conclusive 
direct relationship. The same is true for the reduction of drug-related deaths and mortality 
among drug users, even though the downward trend appeared to tail off in 2004 and 
2005.  
In relation to the drugs-crime nexus, the social harm caused by the use of and trade in 
illicit drugs  has not diminished. As indicated above,  the level of drug use prevalence has 
stabilised or increased in the past years.  At the same time, EU law enforcement has 
produced an overall stable output in the number  and quantities of seizures of the most 
prevalent illicit drugs throughout  the EU and a marked increas e in cocaine seizures in 
recent years. The number of arrests for possess ion of drugs for personal use has increased 
by 75% since 2000 and the number of arrests for trafficking by 11%. At the same time, 
prices for most illicit drugs have fallen, some sharply. The purity of seized drugs has 
remained relatively stable. These data – of impe rfect quality – suggest that drug supply to 
the EU has not been affected. Furthermore, there are no signs that drug-related crime in 
the EU has diminished.  
The EU's activities in curbi ng drug trafficking fro m e.g. South America towards the EU 
might have had an impact on  traditional trafficking rout es (obj. 35, 36, 37), but this 
conclusion is not supported by evidence. At the same time, trafficking routes are 
becoming increasingly divergent and a gr owing number of neighbouring countries 
surrounding the EU seem to be targeted by organised crime groups. Furthermore, some 
neighbouring countries, in particular Easter n European neighbours that have a serious 
HIV/ AIDS epidemic among injecting drug user s, may increasingly pose a serious public 
health threat to Member States in the EU.  
EN 79   EN 5.2. Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
5.2.1.  Added value of the Action Plan according to Member States 
As already described in Chapter 1, the EU  Drugs Strategy emphasises the requirement 
that drug policy at EU level should have a dded value for Member States, by creating 
synergies between Member States' drug policie s and by tackling the drug problem at EU 
level, if it has the potential to achieve better results.  
The survey conducted for the purpose of this  evaluation showed that practically all 
Member States consider that there is an added value  in having an Action Plan on Drugs 
at EU level . The key features of the added value can be listed as follows: 
• An Action Plan provides clear European-level objectives  and guidance for setting 
national priorities, resulting in greater coherence and convergence of drug policies 
between countries on a voluntary basis. 
• An Action Plan provides guidance for sharing of best practice  and development of 
common standards in many key areas on both drug demand and drug supply 
reduction. 
• Member States share the view th at the Action Plan provides a comprehensive drug 
policy framework , and that it has encouraged the development of high quality, broad 
national strategies and action plans across the EU. 
• Many Member States indicated that the EU Action Plan was important for 
international cooperation . The EU has gained influence in the international arena in 
the field of drugs, because it has been able to work on the basis of the consensus reflected in the Strategy and Action Plan.  
• The EU Action Plan plays an important role in presenting the European model of 
drug policy , with the balanced approach and Funda mental Rights as its cornerstones.  
Synergies created by the Action Plan help to avoid  displacement effects  caused by 
diverging policies among Member States. The Action Plan and its objectives and actions 
provide priorities and indicators, and clarify responsibilities between EU institutions and 
Member States. The Action Plan is also seen  as an instrument to promote cooperation 
among Member States and between Member St ates and third countries and regions.  
Regarding the added value  of the Action Plan for the national level , the evaluation 
shows that the Action Plan is seen as a catal yst for the development of national policies 
and that it has helped to raise the level of  debate on sensitive pol icy issues at national 
level, for example on the introduction of harm reduction as part of drug demand 
reduction policies.  
Member States still consid er national policy documents as the primary source of 
reference for national drug policy. Nevertheless , all Member States referred to the EU 
Action Plan as being generally consistent and relevant for national drug policy  by 
providing recommendations and arguments  for national policy discussions and 
developments in legislation. The Action Plan  has encouraged the initiation of joint 
activities and operations in the field of law enforcement, both within the EU but also 
towards the main producing countries.  
Finally, the focus on evidence-based policymak ing, monitoring, evaluation and 
information  has provided important added value fo r national drug policies, resulting in 
greater attention being paid to effectiven ess and efficiency at national level.  
EN 80   EN So, overall, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008)  is considered by Member States 
as an important policy instrument , with a clear added value for both EU and 
international cooperation in the field of dr ugs, but also for the development of national 
drug policies.  
The Action Plan offers guidance for coordination between Member States , without 
which the EU's representation in international forums  would be fragmented and less 
influential. Given the fact that the EU Action Plan on  Drugs is based upon a broad 
consensus among Member States and in fact  reflects to a great extent the existing 
political reality in the Member States, it f unctions as a representa tive model of EU drug 
policy in international settings, somethi ng which is impossible for individual EU 
Member States.  
5.2.2.  Added value of the Action Plan 
What the Member States have to say about the added value of the Action Plan has 
already revealed many of its strengths. The fact  that so many Member States consider the 
Action Plan positively is one  example of the growing convergence between drugs 
policies in the Member States. As Chapter 3 shows, Member State drug policy to a large 
extent reflects EU drug policy and vice versa.  
For the new Member States, the (previous) EU Drugs Strategy a nd Action Plan set a 
benchmark for overarching drug polic y during the accession process.  
As the Action Plan brings together many differe nt policy initiatives to  deal with the drug 
problem across the board, it encourages coherence and fosters bilateral and multilateral cooperation between Member States.  
As indicated above, at UN level the EU increasingly speaks with one voice, which 
strengthens the position of the EU  as a region in UN cooperation.  
In the field of monitoring and evaluation, the attention being directed at these 
cornerstones of policy making has helped to consolidate the ongoing and expanding 
collection of information and data on the drug  situation through stru ctures such as the 
EMCDDA.  
Although one cannot conclude that some of these developments might not have taken 
place without the Action Plan, it does still provide the framework and policy agenda for 
cooperation.  
EN 81   EN 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DRUG POLICY  
6.1.1.  Introduction 
The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is generally regarded as an important 
coordination instrument for drug policy at  EU level, enhancing cooperation and 
coordination between Member States, and resul ting in a broad variety of activities carried 
out at all levels of drug policy. The Action Plan has not remained a 'dead letter'.  
The EU's resolve to base drug policy on scientific information and best available 
evidence and to foster the monitoring and ev aluation of these polic ies remains strong. In 
practice, such an approach involves bringi ng the strengths and weaknesses of these 
policies into the open. This makes the EU vulne rable to criticism from other structures, 
countries and regions that do not pursue the same level of  transparency. At the same 
time, it is the process of "trial and error"  that provides the impetus for innovation and 
effectiveness.  
Evaluating the impact of public policy plan s such as the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-
2008 is by nature not a simple exercise. The aim of the Action Plan was to coordinate 
and influence major areas of government inte rventions in the field of drugs (public 
health/ security / external relations ), targeting a complex soci al phenomenon that is still 
insufficiently understood, which largely take s place outside the scope and control of 
public authorities and which demands a long-term approach.  
The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU  Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) pay a 
great deal of attention to the important role of coordination  at EU level as a pre -
condition for the implementation of th e drug policy objectives and priorities . 
Overall, the evaluation suggests that the current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) 
has initiated a broad range of  activities and cooperation. Th e Action Plan has been more 
than a plan on paper: progress has been ma de on nearly all specific objectives and 
actions, with varying degrees of success.  
6.1.2.  To what extent have the operational obj ectives and actions in  the current EU 
Action Plan on Drugs been implemented and what have been the main outputs?  
6.1.2.1.  Overall conclusions 
The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is mainly a coordination instrument, pulling 
together the main strands of drug policy. Th e Action Plan is a non-binding coordination 
document for Member States, who are auto nomous in implementing its aims and 
objectives.  
(1) This indirect implementation may be e ffective in providing guidance for national 
policy level, but it does make assessment of  the direct consequences of the plan 
more complicated. 
(2) The Action Plan suffers from a number of internal inconsistencies as well as from 
the large number of objectives and actions, and the lack of prioritisation between 
them. These inconsistencies need to be  avoided when drafting the next Action 
Plan. 
6.1.2.2.  Coordination 
The evaluation shows that the Horizontal Drugs Group is the main forum of drug 
coordination at EU level. The European Comm ission is well coordina ted in the Council. 
EN 82   EN At the same time, coordination within the Commission regarding the implementation of 
the Action Plan can be improved, among othe rs by setting cleare r priorities and by 
improving the communication on EU drug po licy objectives acro ss policy fields.  
(1) All EU Member States have a national drug strategy, action plan and/or other 
overarching drug policy in place. In ove r half of the countries, these policy 
documents reflect the structure and set- up of the EU Drug Strategy or EU Action 
Plan on Drugs. Most Member States have  also appointed a central coordinating 
body for the coordination of drug polic y, but the form and shape of these 
structures may vary.  
(2) In all agreements that the EU has finalised  with third countries / regions, a specific 
clause on drugs has been included. However, the exact value of having these clauses on drugs has yet to be examined, as no information is available on their 
follow-up.  
(3) Furthermore, there is a lack of strategi c coordination of EU assistance to third 
countries, in particular between Member  States and between national and EU 
level. 
(4) In a large number of EU Member States, civil society is actively involved in drug 
policy-making at national level. In some Member States, active involvement also 
includes the local level and/ or involvement in delivery of services. 
(5) The feedback and interpreta tion of drug-related data by policy makers needs to be 
improved. The annual reports of the Co mmission, EMCDDA and Europol are not 
presented together and analysed in cohere nce and the results are seldom translated 
into new insights or policy proposals.  
6.1.2.3.  Drug demand reduction 
Member States have invested in unive rsal, selective and indicated prevention 
programmes across the board, but  the evidence base under pinning these programmes is 
still weak and they are seldom evaluated, a nd therefore often not evidence-based. Only a 
handful of Member States have introduced general quality guidelines for prevention.  
(1) The coverage, content and effectiveness of these prevention programmes is 
unclear. Overall, the quality of selec tive prevention programmes is not highly 
regarded by experts. In the field of  indicated prevention – covering, among 
others, drug use in recreational settings – there is very little information on the 
existence of such programmes in Member States.  
(2) A majority of Member States report th at they offer a variety of treatment 
programmes to dependent drug users, incl uding drug-free treatment, psychosocial 
treatment and substitution treatment. An  increasing number of Member States 
have also developed quality guidelines for treatment programmes, but the level of application is still unclear. Further improve ments are also needed in accessibility, 
availability and coverage of treatment services.  
(3) New treatment options and/or settings ar e required for new or emerging types of 
drug problems, including polydrug use, in tensive cannabis use or crack cocaine 
addiction. Member States need to invest in adapting/adjusting to new trends in 
demand for treatment.  
(4) In the field of harm reduction, major prog ress has been achieved in recent years. 
In all EU Member States the prevention and reduction of drug-related harm is a 
EN 83   EN defined public health objective at na tional level. Among the most prevalent 
interventions are needle and syringe exch ange programmes, combined with health 
education and advice, outreach workers and opioid substitution treatment combined with psycho-social assistance. However, availability  and accessibility 
of these programmes are variable am ong the Member States and in some 
countries with low coverage there are si gns of higher levels of risk-taking among 
new, younger generations of – in particular - heroin injectors, who have not been 
reached by prevention and harm reduction messages. 
(5) The availability of standardised information and data on the social consequences 
of drug use is very limited. This also in cludes information on the efforts made by 
Member States to rehabilitate and reintegr ate (problematic) drug users in society.  
(6) Many countries have acknowledged the majo r importance of equivalence of care 
between prison and community and the co ntinuity of services for released 
prisoners with drug-use rela ted problems. However, drug services in prison and 
other custodial settings still need to be improved so as to prevent and reduce infectious diseases and to reduce the risks of drug-related deaths, which are 
increasing (in the period immediat ely after release from prison). 
(7) Treatment and harm reduction programmes ar e often not tailored to address the 
specific needs and problems of differen t groups of problem or dependent drug 
users, e.g. women, under-aged young people, migrants, specific ethnic groups and 
vulnerable groups. This conc lusion was confirmed by civi l society organisations 
represented in the Commission's Civil Society Forum on Drugs.  
6.1.2.4.  Reduction of drug supply 
Law enforcement cooperation between Member St ates through existing instruments is on 
the increase, even though the existing instrume nts such as JITs and JCOs are not being 
used to the full extent.  
(1) Whilst Member State support to Europol has been enhanced, in particular in the 
area of synthetic drugs and related precurs ors, there remains substantial room for 
improvement in all areas. This requires, inter alia, enhanced information and intelligence collation and coordination between law enforcement services at the national level.  
(2) The results of various operational and intelligence law enforcement cross-border 
projects in the EU highlight the im portance of strengthening intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced, intelligence-led law enforcement along air, sea and land routes.  
(3) Nevertheless, despite the increased inve stment in law enforcement cooperation, 
arrests and seizures, the overall drug market  is stable, and prices have fallen in 
recent years. 
(4) The Drug Strategy's objective of making it easier to measure supply reduction and 
law enforcement output more effectively and therefore make it more accountable, 
is complicated by a lack of availability of standardised key indicators in this area. Various different methods and channels are used to collect data on drug seizures. 
Furthermore, not all Member States contribute actively to  this data collection, and 
these include some major destination countries.  
EN 84   EN (5) A long-term solution on forensic profiling for synthetic drugs is not yet in place, 
but considerable progress has been made.  
(6) The number of arrests for drug related o ffences rose considerably between 2000 
and 2006, although in most cases the rise is  due to arrests for consumption of 
drugs. It is unclear to what extent thes e arrests result in actual sentences. The 
number of arrests for drug- trafficking has increased marginally in the same 
period. 
(7) In almost all Member States, there is a l ack of priority accorded to drug precursor 
control by national Customs organisations.  
(8) Member States' cooperation in the fi eld of combating money laundering and 
confiscation of assets has progressed in  recent years, and the number of 
investigations is increasing.  
6.1.2.5.  International cooperation 
According to the Member States, the Acti on Plan has been impor tant in terms of 
achieving coherence and consensus between EU Member States at international level. 
Increasingly, the Action Plan is regarded as the "showcase" of the EU drugs policy 
outside the EU.  
(1) The EU has increasingly taken a consistent  position, in particular in the United 
Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). However, in the Plenary 
Sessions, the EU does not yet always speak with one voice.  
(2) A large number of assistance projects with candidate, stabilisation and association 
process countries have been supported in recent years. Furthermore, (negotiations 
on) agreements have started or already b een finalised with many of the countries 
involved, in particular regarding thei r participation in the EMCDDA and 
cooperation with Eur opol and Eurojust.  
(3) The EU's integrated and balanced appro ach on drugs has served as a model for 
Candidate Countries, Stabilisation and Asso ciation Process countries, as well as 
many European Neighbourhood Policy Count ries in developing their national 
drug strategies and action plans.  
(4) The EU is a major player where assistance to third countries in the field of drugs 
is concerned. Based on the total stoc k of drug-related projects in 2005, 
Afghanistan and the Andean countries are the main beneficiaries of the EUR 760 
million spent by the EU in 2005, two-thirds of which was allocated to alternative 
development. With 5% of the overall  external funding, current spending on 
demand reduction is not well-balanced in international assistance projects, but it is increasing slightly.  
(5) The priorities of EU drug policy are not always explicitly linked into external 
funding programmes and projec ts in third countries.  
(6) With specific donations of over EUR 20 Mi llion a year, the EU Member States 
are major contributors to UNODC (excluding EC contributions).  
EN 85   EN 6.1.2.6.  Information, research and evaluation 
The quality of information that is availabl e on the drug situation in Europe has improved 
in recent years, with the support for the ac tivities of Europol and the EMCDDA, assisted 
and enabled through enhanced Member State provision.  
(1) Research cooperation in the field of illegal drugs needs more stimulation. A 
Commission study launched in 2008 will provide insight into research in the field 
of illicit drugs in the EU, and the results of its findings in 2009 will pave the way for greater coordination betw een researchers in the EU , as well as identifying 
future priorities to bridge  the knowledge gaps in the field of drugs research.  
(2) The Commission acknowledges the importa nce of monitoring and information 
sharing in the drugs fiel d through its funding programme s and the funding of the 
EMCDDA. Diminishing support from nati onal governments to National Focal 
Points is giving increasing cause for concer n, as they are an essential part of the 
information infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  
(3) Monitoring of drug demand reduction is improving, but demands continued 
attention and support for implementation of common data collection standards 
and methodologies at the leve l of the Member States.  
(4) The availability of reliable, comparable and usable information and data in the 
field of drug supply and supply reduction is an ongoing cause for concern, 
preventing a proper analysis of the EU dr ug market and the effectiveness of law 
enforcement actions.  
(5) The need for evaluation of drug policies c ontinues to be very important. The final 
evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) can be considered as the 
most detailed evaluation of EU drug policy ever. Bu t improvements are required 
in order to better assess policy impacts. 
6.1.3.  Have the specific priorities in the Strate gy and the operational objectives in the 
Action Plan been adopted by Member States? 
The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are su itably reflected in national policies. The 
evaluation shows that Member States have tr anslated the objectives of the Action Plan 
into national policy, and/or th at these objectives were already reflected in existing 
documents. 
(1) Member States report that the Action Pl an reflects the main policy fields at 
national level. Some national priorities  are not covered, mostly owing to 
differences in the drug situations in Member States.  
(2) The evaluation shows that the Action Plan supports a process of convergence 
between Member States' drug policies and helps to achieve policy consistency between countries. 
6.1.4.  What have been the overall changes in the drug situation in  recent years?  
Although there has not been a sign ificant reduction in the prev alence of drug use, the use 
of the most prevalent drugs seems to have stabilised and/or fallen slightly. The use of 
cocaine is showing an upward tr end in some Member States.  
(1) The long-term trend in the EU in the prevalence of drug-re lated infectious 
diseases, especially HIV/ AIDS infections , is that these have been reduced in 
EN 86   EN recent years, as have drug-related deaths (except for the years 2004 and 2005). 
Nevertheless, major efforts still have to be made. 
(2) New trends in drug use, especially poly-dr ug use, have emerged in recent years. 
This involves in particular the combin ed use of illicit and licit substances, 
including alcohol.  
(3) The number and size of cocaine seizures  are rising, while for herbal cannabis, 
heroin and amphetamines seizures appear  to be stabilising. The number of 
seizures of cannabis resin has increased, while the quantity seized has decreased. 
Prices for illicit substances in general ha ve fallen, while purity levels seem to be 
fairly stable. As a result, it is difficult to draw conclusions about whether seizure levels have an effect on the availabili ty of drugs and/or on the organised crime 
groups involved. 
(4) In the light of the above, it is clear th at the scale and seriousness of the drug 
problem in the EU continues to be consider able, in terms of both health and social 
costs.  
6.1.5.  To what extent can these changes be associ ated with the implementation of the 
EU Action Plan on Drugs?  
The stabilisation in prevalence levels of most illicit drugs except for cocaine cannot be 
linked to specific interventions implemented through the Action Plan. 
(1) At the same time, the ongoing reduction in drug-related infectious diseases and 
drug-related deaths, on the one hand, and the EU wide implementation of harm 
reduction measures, on the other, suggest s a correlation, even  though such a link 
cannot be proven. However, some Memb er States have achieved dramatic 
reductions in drug-related health harms after the intr oduction of harm reduction 
measures.  
(2) The ongoing and apparently stable supply of illicit drugs into Europe does not 
seem to be affected by existing interventions, including those implemented through the Action Plan. Whilst it may be s uggested that the changing trafficking 
routes are a consequence of law enfo rcement operations, such actions do not 
appear to have had any e ffect on supply, price or pur ity. However, the lack of 
reliable statistical information and data prevents any credible conclusions being drawn.  
6.1.6.  What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008? 
Member States consider that the Action Plan  has added value at both EU level as for 
national policy, where the Action Plan functions as a guiding document.  
(1) Furthermore, the current Action Plan re presents a European added value in 
committing the Member States, the Commi ssion and other relevant actors - albeit 
not in a mandatory form - to achie ving commonly agreed objectives. 
(2) The Action Plan provides a framework fo r strengthening coordi nation structures 
at the EU level and for a coherent approach on drugs. 
(3) The Action Plan has a specific added value at international level, where the EU's 
integrated, balanced approach between demand and supply re duction, with due 
respect for Fundamental Rights, is se en as the EU model of drug policy. 
EN 87   EN 6.2. Recommendations for the EU Dr ugs Action Plan (2009-2012) 
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) was th e most detailed Action Plan to date, 
constructed to implement the objectives of th e Strategy. The final evaluation showed that 
progress has been made on many operational objectives defined in the Action Plan. 
However, there are also a number of important  lessons to be learned for the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2009-2012).  
The implementation of the EU Action Plan wi ll continue to face significant difficulties 
due to the non-binding nature of the plan. The Action Plan can only have an indirect 
effect on the implementation of dr ug policies in Member States.  
(1) The next EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012)  may benefit from a reduced number 
of objectives and actions and the formulation of a limited number of priorities. It is also important to identify respons ibilities for implementing the specific 
activities more closely and following up on them.  
(2) On the other hand, it is also important to  note that the next Action Plan will 
continue to be based on the Strategy a nd on the EU model of an integrated and 
balanced approach. An Acti on Plan that aims to function as a coordinating and 
guiding document in all key areas of drug policy, that requires the participation and involvement of 27 Member States w ith different drug problems and different 
responses to them, will by its very nature  not have to be too detailed nor too 
concise and limited in scope and size if it is to appeal to all stakeholders.  
6.2.1.  Recommendations in the field of coordination 
(1) Initiatives by EU Member States can be  further supported, where necessary, by 
the Commission using existing budgetary re sources and technical support in order 
to foster EU coherence of such initiatives. 
(2) Greater emphasis could be placed on the cycle of reporting on the drug situation 
in Europe. The current annual report s of Commission, EMCDDA and Europol 
could be analysed in more detail, when  necessary culminati ng in specific Council 
conclusions.  
(3) The role of the National Drug Coordinators  could be enhanced and brought into 
line with the work of the HDG, and a review  could be conducted of the extent to 
which Member States' drug policies are c onsistent with the EU Action Plan.  
6.2.2.  Recommendations in the field of drug demand reduction 
(1) Greater attention should be  paid to the development and actual implementation of 
quality guidelines and benchmarks for eff ective interventions in the field of drug 
demand. There are no interven tions at EU level.  
(2) Greater attention should be paid to the roll-out and dissemination of effective 
interventions. The knowledge base in the field of drugs is expanding and 
improving, but the dissemination of knowledge  at the professional level is still 
inadequate.  
(3) More attention should be focused on objectives in the field of drug prevention, for 
example by emphasising the importance of delaying first use and by focusing on 
poly drug use, including licit s ubstances such as alcohol.  
EN 88   EN (4) Member States should develop the ava ilability of treatment options for non-
traditional types of problematic drug use, such as cannabis use and amphetamine use.  
(5) The Member States should invest more efforts in reducing a voidable drug-related 
infectious diseases, in particular  HIV/ AIDS and Hepatitis C.  
(6) The Member States should invest more efforts in reducing a voidable drug-related 
deaths – currently around 7.500 per year - by investing in pris on health-care and 
after care and by furthe r rolling out harm reduction interventions.  
(7) More attention should be given to the needs of specific groups in prevention, 
treatment and rehabilitation, e.g. drug dependent (pregnant) women, under-aged 
children, ethnic groups, etc. 
6.2.3.  Recommendations in the field of drug supply reduction 
(1) Greater attention should be given to th e development of quality guidelines and 
benchmarks for measuring effective inte rventions in the field of drug supply 
reduction, both at national level – with  due regard to national practices and 
legislation – and at EU level.  
(2) More and better use should be made of ex isting instruments in the field of law 
enforcement cooperation between Member States.  
(3) More emphasis should be placed on identif ying and reporting new trends in drug 
trafficking routes with a view to analys ing related data and developing rapid and 
effective responses, by exploiting Eu ropol capacity as appropriate. 
(4) With regard to multilateral cooperation, in particular in the framework of Europol 
activities, the focus should be on the coordinated efforts a nd contributions of 
those Member States most highly exposed to or impacting on a particular drug 
production / trafficking phenomenon.  
(5) EU activities in the field of supply re duction should increasingly be based on a 
proper analysis of the mechanisms that  govern the illicit drug market and be 
based on the principle of intelligence-led law enforcement.  
(6) More emphasis could be placed on law enfo rcement objectives that aim to reduce 
the negative consequences of the drug tr ade and the impact of organised crime on 
society at relevant phases in the chain from drug production to retail, including 
anti-fraud and anti-money laundering activ ities and the confiscation of financial 
assets.  
(7) The evidence base for supply reduction measures should be strengthened. Often 
the complexity of the law enforcement system, its operational character and the 
need for confidentiality in operations are mentioned as significant obstacles to achieving greater transparency and insight on the impact of law enforcement activities. Such a lack of transparency in unsatisfact ory and cannot continue. By 
placing greater emphasis on monitoring, th e effectiveness and efficiency of 
evaluation and research can be enhanced, wh ich is essential when allocating finite 
resources. 
6.2.4.  Recommendations in the field of international cooperation 
(1)
 The balanced approach, reflecting a pr oportionate response in drug demand and 
drug supply reduction while respecting EU fundamental rights, should be 
EN 89   EN emphasised more strongly in the EU's c ooperation with third countries, including 
those along trafficking routes. 
(2) This involves identifying complementariti es and coherence between the funding 
instruments at EU level and national level through explicit polic y priorities during 
the present funding period and in prepar ing for the next funding period from 2013 
onwards.  
(3) The coherence between political decisi ons/strategies taken, for example, in 
Troikas, political dialogues and mechanisms  such as EU-LAC and in the funding 
of drug-related projects through regiona lly oriented EC funding programmes 
should be improved 
(4) International cooperation should monitor and – if possible – anticipate new drug 
trafficking routes, which can help prio ritise EU assistance to countries and 
regions along these routes, to support law enforcement cooperation and address 
emerging drug-related health and social problems. 
(5) Alternative livelihoods, taking into account specific economic and social 
problems of local crop producers, has beco me a major tool for the EU in its 
Strategy to reduce the growing of co ca, opium poppy and cannabis in producer 
countries, and might be further stre ngthened in the new Action Plan.  
(6) Existing cooperation mechanisms, such as EU-LAC Mechanism for Cooperation 
and Coordination, should be further s upported and developed, and action plans 
need to be implemented.  
(7) The Action Plans on Drugs (Central Asia, Western Balkans, Afghanistan) and the 
drug-related provisions in  the action plans with the European Neighbourhood 
countries and third country cooperation agr eements need to be fully implemented 
with financial assistance from the Member States and the EU 
6.2.5.  Recommendations in the field of in formation, research and evaluation 
(1) The quality and availability at EU level of  relevant data and information in the 
field of drug supply reduction and drug-related crime should be improved, while comparable indicators in the field of  drug demand reduction should be further 
developed and implemented.  
(2) Research into the eviden ce base underpinning drug demand and drug supply 
reduction policies should be further de veloped through better coordination and 
cooperation between Member States and at  EU level. An effective research 
priority identification and setting shoul d be ensured by a coordinated approach 
between stakeholders and the relevant  Commission services. Drug related 
research priorities should be included in future Community Research Programmes. All Presidencies during th e current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-
2008) have made a strong case for enhanced coordination. 
(3) There is a need for further consolidation of information structures at national and 
EU levels, in particular those of the EMCDDA and Europol, so that the 
information needed for the monitoring a nd evaluation of the EU Action Plans is 
provided and collected in a systematic and comparable manner. Work towards 
measuring drug policy impacts at nationa l and EU level should continue. 
EN 90   EN (4) To support collation at EU-level, the data collection and information gathering via 
National Focal Points of the Reitox netw ork and through Europol National Units 
should be maintained and, where necessary, strengthened.  
(5) Information exchange mechanisms coul d be developed to measure practical 
delivery of policy outputs ag ainst political commitment, in particular regarding 
key conditions for the implementation and effectiveness of obj ectives and actions 
in the Action Plan. 
(6) The integrated, balanced approach s hould be further strengthened by closer 
collaboration between the demand reduction and supply reduction sectors, the aim 
being to identify possible unintended cons equences of one policy on another and 
to better understand the (local) drug s phenomenon and related market, allowing 
the identification of and effective response to new trends and to health and social 
threats. 
(7) Evaluation of drug policies at national and EU level, an d the exchange of related 
best practices, should be further enc ouraged as a way of providing a solid 
foundation for an evidence-based EU drug policy. 
(8) By the end of the implementation of th e EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) and 
the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012), the out comes of EU drug policy should be 
evaluated. On the basis of the evaluation, a reflection period of at least one year 
should take place to allow for a proper analysis of achievements and follow-up. 
 
EN 91   EN Annex 1 — Overview of objectives and action s of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
This is a simplified table compared to the progress review s 2006/2007. No indicators are menti oned (though progress reporting w ill involve the 
indicator and assessment tool).  
Number Objective/ action Respon- 
sible Level of achievement 
1 Ensure a balanced, multidisciplinary 
approach. 
Member States, with due regard to their 
national legislation and administrative 
structures, to adopt an overall national 
strategy and one or more action plans on 
drugs and to ensure that national strategies/action plans are in line with the 
EU Strategy/Action Plans. MS This objective has been partly achieved 
In early 2008, all EU Member States except Austria
118 had a national drug strategy and/or a national 
drug action plan. During the period 2005-2008, two countries which had previously no such documents 
adopted one: Italy (action plan) and Malta (drug policy document). 
The United Kingdom, in 2008, adopted for the first time both a drug strategy and an action plan. This 
approach to planning exists now in almost half of EU Member States. 
Overall, between 2005 and early 2008, 18 Member States implemented new or updated drug strategies 
and/or action plans119. In addition, nine Member States120 have drug policy documents which are due to 
end in 2008, and these policies are likely to be revised shortly. 
The average duration of national drug strategies or single policy documents (programme, action plan) in 
the EU is currently around seven years, while the average duration of comple mentary action plans tends 
to be about four years. Exceptions to this include the Dutch drug policy document, which dates back to 
1995, and the new 2008 drug action plan for Italy, which has a duration of only one year.  
2 Effective coordination at EU and national 
level 
Member States and the Commission to 
have a fully operational drugs coordination mechanis m and to designate 
a person, department or body to act as 
drugs coordinator. MS 
COM This objective has been achieved 
Information on this action was reported by the Memb er States’ National Focal Points to the EMCDDA. 
Member States were also asked to confirm their coordination structure through the Commission’s 
survey. Drug coordination mechanisms exist in all EU Member States. However, their characteristics 
vary as they reflect the political structure, admini strative culture and size of each country. The most 
frequent mechanism (20 Member States) has three components to it: 
an inter-ministerial body which defines the drug policy and adopts the national strategies and action 
plans; 
                                                 
118 Austria has a regional drug or addiction strategy in all its nine Provinces. 
119 Bulgaria (updated action plan), Czech Republic (strategy and two successi ve action plans), Estonia ( action plan), Greece (stra tegy), Spain (action plan), France (plan 
addiction), Italy (action plan), Latvia (programme), Luxembourg (strategy and action plan), Hungary (action plan), Malta (polic y document), Poland (programme), Portugal 
(action plan), Romania (action plan), Finland (programme), Slov akia (action plans), Sweden (ac tion plan), United Kingdom (strat egy and action plan) 
120 Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia 
 
EN 92   EN an operational body which does the day-to-day coordination in the drug policy field; 
regional and/or municipal bodies which coordinate drug-related measures at the local level 
Twenty-five Member States have one or more designated coordinators or coordination bodies in the 
drugs field: eleven report that they  have one (or two) specialised agency (ies) or department(s), five that 
they have a national drug coordinator and nine that they have both. In the two remaining Member 
States, the responsibility lies with one (or more) member(s) of the government.  
The current drug coordination mechanisms were implemented before 2005. However, a few changes at 
national and regional/local level have occurred since then. 
At EU level, all Member States participate in the meetings of the National Drug Coordinators, though 
the representation in these meetings is not always consistent for each country.  
Conclusions  
Drug policy coordination mechanisms are in pl ace in every Member Stat es, but the available 
information does not indicate whethe r these mechanisms are ‘fully oper ational’ and whether they are 
influential enough to have a coordinated impact on the policies of the Member States. The impact depends on the policy implementation mechanisms ava ilable to the coordination structure as well as on 
the quality of information and feedback on achievements and the extent to which implementation of 
drug policy is a shared concern within governments. The presence of a coordinating entity at national 
level is in itself an acknowledgement of the crosscu tting nature of drugs as a policy area and the need 
for a balanced approach in this field. It is recommendable to include the issue of coordination and 
implementation in national drug policy evaluations.  
3 Strengthen the involvement of civil 
society   
3.1 The Commission to issue a Green Paper on 
ways of cooperating effectively with civil 
society. COM This objective has been achieved 
In 2006 the Commission published a Green Paper on the role of Civil Society in Drugs Policy in the 
European Union. After a wide—ranging consultation on how to organise a structured and continuous dialogue between the Commission and Civil Society, 26 organisations were selected as Members of the 
Forum out of 75 on the basis of the conditions set out in a report published in June 2007. The first 
meeting of the Civil Society Foru m was held in December 2007, with  informal exchanges and views 
between the Commission and the Civil Society on the 2007 Progress Review of the EU Action Plan. 
Moreover, as part of the work of the Final Evaluation and the new action plan, the Commission 
consulted civil society in the 2nd Forum in May 2008, generating constructive suggestions and 
recommendations on the part of the civil society.  
3.2 Member States to give the opportunity to 
civil society to present their opinion. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Thus far, no debate has been organised in Council on the involvement of Civil Society in the Horizontal 
Drugs Group. Nevertheless, with a view to this present evaluation, the Commission asked the Member 
 
EN 93   EN States to report on the existence of public consultation mechanisms and the involvement of civil society 
in national (or regional/ local) drug policy. Responses varied as to whether civil society is consulted by 
authorities and institutions at national level. Civil society was consulted at national level by 13 Member States during the process of formulation and adoption of (re-) newed national drug policy. The majority 
of countries reported frequent consultation betwee n national institutions and NGOs through informal 
discussions, websites and surveys. Six countries reported that a representative from civil society takes part in meetings of the central authorities and/ or national drug coordinating mechanism on drugs 
related matters.  
In Estonia, Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands and Sweden, no specific options are available for civil 
society to have a dialogue with public authorities on drug policy. Involvement takes place through the 
political system, public debate and co ntacts between NGOs and government. 
Conclusion 
A majority of Member States have developed consultation mechanisms for the involvement of civil 
society in drug policy. Some Memb er States have also introduced su ch mechanisms at local level. 
However, organisations that participate in the Commission’s Civil Society Forum on Drugs have 
indicated that civil societ y involvement could be more substantial and also support the collection of 
qualitative information on the delivery of services.  
4 Effective coordination in the Council   
4.1 The HDG to focus its activities on 
monitoring implementation of the EU 
Action Plan. Council This objective has been achieved 
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) has played a consistent role in the agenda planning of HDG 
Presidencies between 2005 and 2008 . Most Presidencies identified cu rrent or upcoming actions under 
the Action Plan timetable. The HDG Presidencies mana ged specific priorities or profiles during their 
term. After the adoption of the Action Plan during the UK Presidency , the Austrian Presidency  
stressed International Cooperation (UN), while the Finnish Presidency emphasised EU research and 
the involvement of Civil Society and organised a conference in the 2nd half of 2006. The German  
Presidency  placed much emphasis on drug demand reducti on, in particular on harm reduction (drug-
related infectious diseases) but also on drug prevention programmes, early detection and early 
intervention121. In supply reduction, the Germans stressed the control of cross-border trafficking, 
including joint interdisciplinary operation projects, etc.  The German Presidency was also very active in 
the field of international cooperation , especially cooperation with Latin America.  
The agenda of the Portuguese  Presidency  focused on two main objectives: responding to the changing 
dynamics of drug supply and drug demand and proposing future actions to take forward the Action 
Plan. The Presidency placed West Africa — a rapidly growing platform for the redistribution to Europe 
                                                 
121 This priority was discussed during the meeting of National Drug Coordinators. 
 
EN 94   EN of cocaine produced in South America — on the top of the Group’s agenda. The Portuguese Presidency 
also highlighted the importance of high quality evaluation of drug policies and organised a conference 
around this theme. One of th e main objectives of the Slovenian  Presidency’s  agenda was enhancing 
relations with the Western Balkans, third countrie s and international organisations, including the work 
for the UNGASS assessment process and preparation of  the 51st session of the CND, while gradually 
launching preparations for the 52nd session of the CND. The French  Presidency  has indicated that it 
will place emphasis on the adoption of the new EU Drugs Action Plan  (2009-2012) by  December 2008, 
on enhanced cooperation between Member States to enhance the EU external s ecurity in the field of 
drugs. 
4.2 The HDG to be the leading forum in the 
Council for EU coordination on drugs. 
Effective coordination between it and other Council Working Parties dealing with drug 
issues, including external relations (e.g. 
police cooperation WG, customs cooperation WG, Multidisciplinary Group 
on organised crime, public health WG, etc.). PRES 
Council This objective has been achieved 
Over the years, presidencies have regularly ensured feedback from and interaction with other relevant 
Council working parties, providing key input to drug-related activities and strengthening its 
coordination and leading role within the Council on drugs. The item “coordination with other Council 
working groups” was systematically on the agenda; sometimes, a room document describing drug-
related activities in other Council working groups was distributed. The HDG was involved in discussions on drugs in external relations geographical groups which have been reported (by the 
Council and the Commission) to main meetings on drugs. Reporting on external relations, however, 
should be more systematic and generalised as a regular practice. Other then geographic WGs, the 
Customs Cooperation WG is partic ularly concerned, because of pr ecursors. A thematic debate on 
improving cooperation between these two groups took place in December 2005.  
Conclusions 
Coordination through the HDG remains an essential condition for the coherence of EU drug policy. 
Overall, the HDG Pres idencies have chosen priorities closely connected to the Action Plan on Drugs, 
and they have liaised well with other relevant Council working parties. Reporting on different meetings/actions on drugs should be generalised. The participation of other WG members at HDG 
meetings should be encouraged when necessary.  
5 Systematic mainstreaming of drugs policy 
into relations and agreements with relevant third countries   
5.1 Ensure that EU action plans for various 
regions are only adopted if adequate 
resources for their implementation are 
allocated. Council This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
With the exception of the new action-oriented paper on Afghanistan adopted in 2006, there were no new 
action plans on drugs with a country/ region during the 2005-2008 reporting period. However, the 
Panama Action Plan within the EU-LAC coordination and cooperation framework was revised in 2007 
and the review of the Action Plan on Drugs with the Western Balkans was launched in 2008. Within the framework of an EU-Brazil Strategic Partnership, an EU-Brazil Action Plan was agreed in 2008, 
including a chapter on illicit drugs and related crime. In 2008, the action-oriented paper on Afghanistan 
 
EN 95   EN will be reviewed but the results of this assessment are not available so far. Under the European 
Neighbourhood Policy122, a large number of the Action Plans adopted so far contain provisions on 
drugs. Drugs cooperation is also extensively addressed in the EU-Russia Action Plan against organised crime and Common Space on Justice, Freedom and Security ( cf. Action 34.2 ). 
Conclusions 
Activities undertaken under the Actio n Plans on Drugs have no dedi cated budgets, but can receive 
budget allocations via national and EU assistance pr ogrammes. With regard to the ENP action plans, 
drug-related activities can be financed through the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument. The EU 
should adopt new action plans with third countries only if dedicated funding is available. Third 
countries should be encouraged to assume ownershi p of collaborative activities by taking responsibility 
for their own policies and for collaborative projects.  
5.2 Include a specific provision on drugs 
cooperation in new agreements with third 
countries/regions. HDG should be informed 
of the opening of relevant negotiations. Council 
COM This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
In general, agreements with third countries — under negotiation or signed/ concluded — include a 
substantive article on drugs cooper ation. Negotiations on Justice and Home Affairs provisions are not 
yet final with Serbia. Negotiations with Ukraine ar e well advanced while those with China are at the 
initial phase. Negotiations with Russia are expected to start soon. Negotiations with ASEAN countries 
are at different stages: with Indonesia (not yet signed), with Singapore (to be concluded) and with 
Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei (not yet formally started). Negotiations with South Africa have been concluded. Negotiations with the Andean Community and Central American Republic 
made progress in 2007 and 2008. The Commission has proposed negotiating directives as regards 
Libya. Negotiations with Iraq are in their initial phase. All cooperation and association agreements 
between the EU and third countries and regions inco rporate drug related elem ents. These agreements 
need to be concluded/ ratified and fully implemented. 
6 Maintain a regular forum for EU 
coordination. 
The Presidency to provide the 
opportunity to those responsible for drug 
coordination to meet to exchange information on national developments, to 
review the scope for greater cooperation 
and to focus on the implementation of the 
EU Action Plan. PRES 
MS COM This objective has been achieved 
Within the lifetime of the current EU Action Plan, a ll so far HDG Presidencies have held a meeting of 
the National Drugs Coordinators. Some of these were open  to external parties, su ch as representatives of 
civil society, to UN organisations or the Pompidou Group. The meetings of the National Drug 
Coordinators in general offer an opportunity for shar ing best practices at EU level and for focusing on 
specific concerns. Nevertheless, the HDG meetings s eem somewhat distanced fr om the work that is 
done in the horizontal working group.  
Conclusions 
All HDG Presidencies organise meetings of the Na tional Drug Coordinators. These might be seen as 
creating more synergy between the activities of the HDG and the meetings  of the national drug 
                                                 
122 ENP countries: Algeria, Armenia, Azerba ijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jo rdan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palest inian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine. 
 
EN 96   EN coordinators. 
7 Improve coverage of, access to and 
effectiveness of drug demand reduction 
measures. 
Improve coverage of, access to, quality 
and evaluation of drug demand reduction 
programmes and ensure effective dissemination of evaluated best practices. 
More effective use and regular updating 
of the EMCDDA based EDDRA 
(Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction 
Action) and other databases. MS 
EMCDDA The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed through this evaluation 
In the field of drug demand reduction, the differences between Member States in terms of prevention, 
treatment, harm reduction and rehab ilitation projects are substantial. In  recent years, the evidence base 
underpinning these interventions has increased. Howe ver, available best-evidence and best-practice is 
not always translated into national policy and servi ce delivery. Accurate and comparable information on 
the coverage and accessibility of drug demand reductio n facilities and measures is lacking at EU level, 
and the terms themselves are defined differently in each Member State. The EMCDDA does, however, 
collect information from Member States on whether they have quality -assurance
123 mechanisms in place 
to increase the effectiveness of drug demand re duction activities in the areas of treatment and 
prevention. Furthermore, the EMCDDA addresses the issue of reliability of data and definitions across 
countries.  
In the area of treatment , over half of the Member States report the availability of national quality 
standards for drug-free treatment (16 MS); medically-a ssisted treatment (19 MS); and the evaluation of 
drug treatment at national level (12 MS). Quality-management systems using international quality standards (ISO 9000ff and EFQM) are available in only two countries. In the area of prevention , 
quality standards for school-based prevention by ten Member States; for selective prevention by eight; 
and community-based prevention by six. National standards for the evaluation of prevention seem to be less common and are only reported by a few Member States. The existing data provide only a basic and 
rather crude picture of the availability of quality-assurance mechanisms and the content and scope of 
these measures has to be further investigated as, fo r instance, the concept of what exactly and correctly 
constitutes a ‘standard’ or a ’guideline’ seems to differ across Member States. There are also 
considerable methodological difficulties associated with measuring the effectiveness of drug demand 
reduction activities at population level, taking into account the level of drug use and risk perception.  
Conclusions  
The existing data provide only a basic picture of the availability of quality assurance mechanisms 
among EU Member States in the field of drug demand reduction, but show that efforts to develop 
quality standards or guidelines exist in most countrie s. The content and scope of these measures have 
however to be investigated further. The development of definitions and quality models at EU level may be further considered.  
                                                 
123 Quality assurance  can be defined as a system of procedures, checks, audits a nd corrective actions to ensure that service and reporting activitie s are of the highest 
achievable quality. Quality assurance can be a more or less formal control measure, and with a higher or lower level of reporti ng, by providers and public control 
institutions. Among the most traditional measur es are quality standards, evaluation, qu ality management systems and training of  staff.  
 
EN 97   EN 8 Improve access to an d effectiveness of 
school-based preventi on programmes, in 
accordance with national legislation.   
8.1 Improve access to and effectiveness of 
school-based prevention programmes, in 
accordance with national legislation. MS This objective has been partly achieved 
The evidence-base for effective school-based drug prevention programmes is expanding, but most 
research has been done in the United States or — on  smaller scale — within a limited number of EU 
Member States. The effectiveness  of programmes can be assessed through systematic and long-term 
randomised controlled trials. At EU level such research is rare, and EU funded projects do not always fit 
in well with existing prevention practices in Member  States. Research shows that programmes that 
delay the age of first use of licit and illicit substances and/ or that reduce the frequency of use may have 
health benefits as younger adolescents may be more vulnerable to the adverse consequences of drug use 
and only a limited group of adolescents continue to use at a later age. Where the direct assessment of 
intervention effects is lacking, as an alternative,  effectiveness can be estimated on the basis of the 
quality of its components. Here life-skills approaches and the correction of normative beliefs have been 
found to be relatively effective, while informati on provision alone is considered ineffective.  
In 2007 58% of the programmes had process and outcome evaluation, compared to 32% in 2004. This 
partly reflects a reduction in the number of reported  programmes following a more strict application of 
the definitions provided and may not mean that evaluation has be come a standard component of 
prevention programmes in general. 
8.2 Support implementation and development of 
joint prevention programmes of public 
services, school communities and NGOs. MS This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
As indicated in action 7, the l ack of shared definitions between Member States sometimes makes 
comparison difficult. In some reports from Member States, manuals or isolated interventions are considered as “programm e”. For monitoring purposes (EMCDD A), the concept of “programme” has 
been applied here in the more strict sense as comprehensive, multi-session, standardised and manualised 
interventions, content-defined for each session and with printed material (so-called MUSTAP) that provide a defined and sequenced protocol of interconnected activities. These elements do not reflect a 
quality standard as such, but interventions that lack these elements are generally too ad-hoc based and 
difficult to evaluate and therefore often not consistent. Data provided by the EU Member States through their National Focal Points shows that ‘programmes’ in a more strict sense (as mentioned above) still 
remain rare in Europe and no information exists to suggest that the situation has improved since 
2004
124.  
In order to respond to the prevailing broader interpretations of the term “programme” in Member States, 
EMCDDA data collection also covers the provisio n of other kinds of drug prevention activities in 
                                                 
124 Findings have to be treated with caution due to the limited number of Focal Points reporting (2004: 13; 2007:9) and the small number of programmes covered.  
 
EN 98   EN school. The analysis shows an overall stable situ ation: some types of interventions (e.g. peer 
approaches) decreased between 2004  and 2007, while others increased and the rest remained stable . 
The Drug Prevention and Information Programme125 (2007-2013) co-fund initiatives from Member 
States in which collaboration between varieties of stakeholders is made possible.  
9 Set up, develop and improve selective 
prevention and new ways of reaching 
target groups, e.g. by using different media and new information 
methodologies.  
Develop and improve prevention 
programmes for selected target groups 
(e.g. street operators, socially disadvantaged groups, socially excluded 
children and families at risk, young 
people in the out of school sector) and specific settings (e.g. drugs and driving, 
drugs in the work place, drugs in 
recreational settings), ta king into account 
gender differences. MS 
COM The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Research findings and reviews have identified a number of particularly vulnerable groups  for 
increased use of drugs, the development of drug problems or rapid progression into dependency. These include: young offenders, early school leavers and pupils with social or academic problems, young 
people in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and party or festival goers. Also some living 
conditions and family situations are known to increas e the risk of problem drug use for children. These 
include: parental or sibling drug and/ or mental health problems, conflict, neglect, and social 
disadvantage.  
In a majority of Member States (b etween 17 and 25) these types of vuln erable families are not explicitly 
mentioned in drug policies. This does not however rule out  generic programmes — not related to drug 
prevention policies — might be in place for these groups  or that drug issues might not be addressed in 
more generic practice. 
Overall since 2004, some relevant vulnerable groups, especially young offenders, the homeless, truant, 
disadvantaged and minority youth gr oups, became priority groups in an increasing number of drug 
policies. The level of provision of interventions to vulnerable groups, however, did not consistently 
increase since 2004 if judged on the basis of Member States’ reports . It only increased for young 
people in care institutions and immigrants, wher eas for some other groups the number decreased
126.  
The approaches used in selective prevention range from structural improvements for social inclusion 
(providing opportunities to young people in deprived neighbourhoods) to intensive personalised 
interventions (e.g. courses for young drug law offenders).  
There is no information in 2007 about the overall number and coverage of prevention projects in 
recreational settings  as this indicator was found to be difficult to implement in practice and was 
therefore eliminated from the questi onnaire after discussions with REITOX focal points. Information is 
available about the rated provision of interventions for party/ festival goers and the policy importance 
given to working in recreational settings is reported to have increased. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
125 OJ L 257, 03.10.2007 
126 Note: percentage changes reporting in this data need to be interpreted with caution as the number of countries reporting or no t reporting in each wave is different and 
therefore reporting artefacts cannot be rule d out. All data presented on importance of vulnerable groups in drug policies and t he level of provision of interventions has been 
obtained through qualitative ratings by  experts or expert panels from each Member State. As rating categories have slightly cha nged since 2004 and countries reporting are 
not exactly the same in 2007 as in 2004 results have to be interpreted with caution. 
 
EN 99   EN 10 Improve methods for early detection of 
risk factors and ea rly intervention.  The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
This objective is difficult to implement and compliance is difficult to assess due to a lack of clear 
formulation of the actions and a lack of definition of  the concepts ‘early detection, early intervention’ 
and of the specific groups involved.  
The EMCDDA has made use of the age of first use/ first treatment demand indicator as an indirect 
measure for the effectiveness of early detection and early intervention programmes. As the indicator 
does not cover the background of drug users seeking treatment in the context of risk factors relevant for 
early detection, and drug problems may develop over time due to changes in personal situation, it is an 
imperfect measure. However, the indicator may provide trend information on changes in the age of first use and possible correlation with increased needs for treatment.  
The figures reported last year are confirmed in th is year's new reporting. According to the treatment 
demand indicator (TDI), among the entire treated population in the European countries in 2005 around 
half of the clients started to use their main drug between the age of 15 and 19, and 15% before the age 
of 15 — regardless of the type of drug. Among ne w outpatient clients with volatile substances and 
cannabis as primary substances for entering treatment , 51% and 33% respectively started to use the drug 
before the age of 15. The mean age of new drug clients is 28.5 years and the time lag between first 
‘primary drug use’ and first treat ment request is around 8 years (
127). However, differences are found in 
this time lag according to the main drug of use. Among new outpatient clients, it is around 7 years for 
cannabis (7.4) and more than  9 for opiates and cocaine. 
10.1 Detection of risk factors related to 
experimental use by different target groups, especially by young people, and the 
dissemination thereof for the benefit of early 
intervention programmes and the training of professionals. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
All Member States have been reporting on national studies and, to a more limited extent, on the 
corresponding interventions that ad dress risk factors and predictors for drug use among minors. In 
particular, children from families with substance use problems are targeted by research or intervention 
programmes and services.  
10.2 Ensure the provision of training for relevant 
professionals who come into contact with 
potential drug users, especially young people. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
No structured information is provided on ‘training for professionals who come into contact with 
potential drug users, especially young people’. However, some ad-hoc information is collected in the EMCDDA’s data gathering process. For example, in  Germany, Italy and Pola nd, teaching packages or 
intensive training courses for t eachers on motivational short inte rventions are provided. These 
packages/courses aim to assist schools in setting thei r own rules and help teacher s to know how to deal 
with pupils displaying conspicuous behaviour, or are designed to provide support to teachers in early 
identification, intervention or transferral to specialis ed services. However, it is  clear that there is an 
                                                 
127 The ‘primary drug’ means the drug for which treatment is requested. 
 
EN 100   EN insufficient level of data available to respond to this action.  
10.3 Implementation of the early intervention 
programmes, including measures especially 
related to experimental use of psychoactive substances. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
An account of developments in early interven tion programmes will be pr ovided by an upcoming 
EMCDDA publication. Some information is availabl e for this update. For example, in Germany, 
Greece, and the Netherlands, some specialised facilities exist that o ffer counselling and care to children 
and teenagers with drug problems. In Denmark and Ireland, SMS messaging services are being used for 
interactive counselling and for suppor t to stop cannabis smoking. Overall, it is important to point out 
that many facilities combine inpatient and outpatie nt measures and include key elements from both 
addiction therapy and youth welfare. Early intervention is also provided by specialised centres for drug 
treatment.  
11 Ensure the availabilit y of and access to 
targeted and diversified treatment and 
rehabilitation programmes.   
11.1 Evidence based treatment options covering a 
variety of psychosocial and pharmacological 
approaches to be ava ilable and correspond 
to demand for treatment. MS This action has been partially, but not sufficiently, ac hieved as quality of services can be improved 
Data on clients who entered drug treatment (due to  any illicit drug) in the course of 2006 are available 
from 22 EU countries128. Coverage data show that among the 355 000, clients who entered drug 
treatment, around 186 000 reported heroin as the primary drug for which they were seeking 
assistance129. Around 30% of clients entering the facilities r eceived treatment for the first time in their 
life. While rates vary between countries, and data ma inly reflect the situation in specialised outpatient 
and inpatient drug treatment services, it is important to note that in these 22 countries alone at least 
178 000 drug users are newly being reached by struct ured treatment services in one year. It is also 
important to note that the percentage of clients entering treatment for cocaine or cannabis-related 
problems has been increasing in recent  years, with cannabis seeing a s light increase from 2005 to 2006.  
In 2006 for the first time ever all EU Member States provided opioid substitution treatment , even if 
levels of provision and coverage clearly differ. Mo re than half a million opioid users receive drug 
substitution treatment in the EU countries, the vast  majority of cases reported from the ‘old’ EU 
Member States. This represents more than one thir d of the total estimated number of problem opiate 
users in the EU. Between 2005 and 2006, the number  of clients receiving this type of treatment 
increased overall by around 12%130.  
                                                 
128 No data were available from: Belgium, Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia. 
129 According to the available coverage information, the data cover approximately 60% of the specialised inpatient and 80% of outp atient drug treatment units in these 
countries, but only a minor proportion of other treatment f acilities or of general practitioners (GPs) providing treatment. 
130 Data available from 19 Member States 
 
EN 101   EN The substance predominantly used was methadone (70% of all substitution treatment), but the share of 
buprenorphine has increased quickly over the past few years, especially among c lients treated by office-
based medical doctors. Other substances — especially buprenorphine — have become equally important or even more important in the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence in a growing 
number of European countries. Pr escription of medical heroin (diamorphine), which showed positive 
results among chronic treatment-resistant opioid users, is a treatment option in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany partly making use of special regulations. Additionally, a randomised 
trial of injectable opioids (RIOTT) started in 2005 in the United Kingdom comparing the effectiveness 
of injectable diamorphine, injectable methadone and oral methadone, and the results are expected at the end of 2008. A concept for a heroin prescription pilot project was submitted to the Minister of Health of 
Luxembourg in April 2008 while, in February 2008, the Danish parliament approved a diamorphine 
prescription pilot project. 
Data from a number of individual EU countries — where recent estima tes of the preval ence of problem 
opiate use were available — show that the current coverage of opioid substitution treatment varies between countries with an in-treatment-rate of 5%  to about 54% of all current opiate users.  
11.2 Establish strategies and guidelines for 
increasing availability of and access to 
services for drug users not reached by existing services. MS This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
Findings from a survey commissioned by the EMCDDA on cannabis treatment provision  in a sample 
of drug treatment services in 19 Member States re vealed a relative lack of treatment programmes 
dedicated to problem cannabis users. To overcome this, four Member States
131 report concrete efforts to 
develop treatment offers specifically for young cannabis users, collaborating in a study on the 
effectiveness of a comprehensive family-based treatment focusing on problematic cannabis use 
(INCANT). Promising results have been observed in a German randomised control study examining a 
treatment program for adolescents with cannabis disorder (CANDIS), showing that half of the patients 
had stopped their cannabis use by the end of the treatment, while another 30% reduced their consumption. 
The latest available data show that, with the exception of Spain, Member States assessed the availability 
and accessibility of cocaine specific treatment programmes  as low. The recent introduction of a 
cocaine-specific national action plan in Spain and Ireland is likely to further increase the availability of 
cocaine treatment options in these two countries. Little evidence has so far been found of psychosocial 
treatment interventions being effective in treating cocaine dependence, although a combination with 
contingency management approaches has shown promise in reducing cocaine use. To date, no effective 
pharmacological treatment options for cocaine dependen ce are available, but several therapeutic drugs 
(e.g. Modafinil, Topiramate) have shown potential in c linical trials. The results fr om clinical trials of a 
vaccine for immunotherapy of cocaine dependen ce (TA-CD) are keenly awaited. However, the 
                                                 
131 France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium 
 
EN 102   EN effectiveness of such an approach is uncertain and even if successful; it would raise a number of ethical 
concerns. 
11.3 Improve access to and coverage of 
rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes, paying special attention to 
specialised (social, psychological, medical) 
services for young people who use drugs. MS This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
Political attention and investment in the reintegration sector has risen in some Member States and 
quality standards in drug treatment provide for social care and reintegration services to be made 
available to clients. The socio-demographic profile of clients entering treatme nt reveals their specific 
needs: they are characterised by disadvantaged soci al conditions, a low level of school and professional 
education and often an unstable living situation.  
Homelessness, together with living in unstable accommodation, is one  of the most serious forms of 
social exclusion facing drug users, affecting about 10% of drug users entering treatment in 2006. While 
housing support is provided to drug treatment clients in many countries, shortages have also been 
documented, and four countries report that it is di fficult for drug users to gain access to the general 
services for the homeless that are traditionally used by problem alcohol users (Ireland, Italy, Hungary, 
and Austria). New centralised facilities for homeless chronic addicts or alternative care homes for drug 
users with problem behaviour or mental illness ha ve been established in Denmark, Belgium and the 
Netherlands. 
Programmes and actions in many countries do not aim at drug users alone but address vulnerable social 
groups in general and are typically run at local or regional level. While the creation of new opportunities for training and access to education is reported as co mmon in many countries, waged work is harder to 
obtain for the target group. A number of projects ha ve been developed in some Member States under 
the EU Commission’s EQUAL initiative in the area of employment and social inclusion.  
Helping drug treatment clients find employment is a key element in social reintegration, as one in every 
two clients entering treatment is unemployed. New approaches to helping clients to find and hold down 
employment are reported to have shown success, These include: ‘mentoring schemes’, subsidised 
workplaces and the coaching of em ployers and employees during th e first months by specifically 
assigned social reintegration workers. 
11.4 Organise and promote dissemination of 
information on the availability of treatment and rehabilitation programmes. MS This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
The use of information, education and communication techniques with regard to drug prevention and 
risk reduction is a common approach in all Member St ates and specific educational materials, telephone 
help lines and websites exist in all, or most, countries.  
In 22 Member States, online inventories of national treatment and rehabilitation resources are available. 
Innovative internet-based and SMS-based initiatives in counselling, support and dissemination of 
information — especially dedicated to problem cannabis use — have also been reported by Denmark, Germany and Ireland. 
The EMCDDA launched in May 2008 the first module of its Internet portal on best practice in the fields 
of drug-related prevention,  treatment, harm reduction and social re integration. The portal provides an 
 
EN 103   EN overview on the latest evidence on the efficacy and ef fectiveness of different interventions, presenting 
tools and standards aimed at improving the quality of interventions, as well as highlighting examples of 
evaluated practice from across Europe. It is aimed at professionals, policy-makers and researchers in the 
drugs field.  
12 Improve the quality of treatment services 
Support development of know-how on 
drug treatment while continuing to develop and support the exchange of best 
practices in this field. Council 
COM Objective achieved — report published 
To complement Member States’ activities in this field, the Programme for Community Action in the 
field of Public Health
132 (2003-2008) continues to support a range of projects in the field of drug 
demand reduction, including prevention, harm reduction and treatment. Other projects funded by the 
Programme and dealing with health determinants (e.g. mental health, alcohol and tobacco) and drug-
related infectious diseases (in particular HIV/AIDS) are often linked to drug demand reduction 
activities. Funding for these kinds of activities w ill continue under the second Community action 
Programme for Public Health 2008-2013 and will be enhanced by the new Drug Prevention and 
Information Programme133 (2007-2013) and the 7th Research, Technological and Development 
Framework Programme134 (2007-2013).  
In 2006, the Commission launched preparatory work on drugs policy and harm reduction, including a 
report on drug treatment and good practices across Europe135. The tender called for a study providing an 
overview and analysis of available drug treatment options in the Member States, including efficacy of 
treatment in EU, types, characteris tics, level of provision and models  of transfer of know how. The 
results of the study and the country profiles have been double checked with the Reitox Network. The 
final report has been published.136 
13 Further develop alternatives to 
imprisonment for drug abusers and drug services for people in prisons, with due 
regard to national legislation.   
13.1 Make effective use of and develop further 
alternatives to prison for drug abusers. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Available data on Alternatives to prison  need to be interpreted with caution. Alternatives to prison  
(ATP) are provisionally defined as therapeutic measures or treatment for adult  drug-using offenders  that 
take place outside prison. Alternatives  can include therapeutic measur es where no prison sentence may 
be given under the law.  
                                                 
132 OJ L 271, 09.10.2002 
133 OJ L 257, 03.10.2007 
134 OJ L 412/1, 30.12.2006 
135 Call for tender published on 10/05/2006 — ref: 2006-92638. 
136 http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/drug_call_en.htm 
 
EN 104   EN A wide variety of alternatives to prison are available in almost al l the EU Member States , for different 
types of user and for different types of offence. In 14 EU Member States, the concept of alternatives to 
prison is supported in national drug strategies or action plans, with the primary aim being to prevent 
future use, reduce crime and prevent infectious dis eases, rather than to cut the prison population or 
public expenditure. In thirteen countries, standards for delivery of treatment as an alternative are 
available.  
Member States, through the Reitox network, were asked what proportion of drug-using offenders might 
have faced a prison sentence under national law but we re diverted to treatment . No country could give 
exact percentages for all its ATPs. Details of comp letion rates were available for some of the ATP 
options in some countries, ranging from approximately 30% in Ireland (graduations from the Drug 
Court) to 70% or 80% for Spain and Italy (prison terms served outside prison). The majority of Member 
States had no information on this matter. Few count ries have a tracking system in place to follow all 
those who have been diverted to various treatment op tions. There have been developments in legislation 
in various countries during the period of the EU Action Plan. Legislation has brought new possibilities for ATPs, including suspension of custodial sentences (for treatment) in Spain and Hungary; 
encouragement of probation  with treatment in Hung ary; and educational meas ures in an outpatient 
facility in Slovakia. A further four countries have passed laws to widen the scope of existing ATPs. In 
Italy, eligibility for ATPs has been extended to those convicted of an offence punishable by up to six 
years in prison (previously it was four years); in Poland, the new limit is five years. In the United 
Kingdom, testing on arrest is now permitted, with those testing positive being required to undergo an assessment. 
There were also developments in terms of law en forcement. In Belgium, public prosecutors are 
developing closer cooperation with treatment organisations. In the Netherlands, a more stringent selection of offenders for treatment is seeking to make  the system more efficient, and there are efforts to 
increase the use of ‘conditional release’ (rel ease conditional on treatment) after prison.  
13.2 Develop prevention, treatment and harm 
reduction services for people in prison, reintegration services on release from prison 
and methods to monitor/ analyse drug use 
among prisoners. MS 
COM This action has been (partially) achieved 
In 2006, the Commission launched a call for tenders for work on drug policy and harm reduction, 
including a study on the status quo of prevention, treatment and harm reduction services for people in 
prisons and in reintegration services for persons on release from prisons, and for approaches to 
monitoring/analysing the situation.  
In November 2007 a debate on interventions in pris ons and the role of harm reduction was held in the 
Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG). The Memb er States concluded that there is a need to 
implement the same standards on the prevention of in fectious diseases and treatment of drug-related 
diseases across Europe as well as improve the inform ation at EU level on the prevalence of infectious 
diseases in prisons and ways of preventing them. Member States recommended the introduction of specific harm reduction measures, including substitution treatment, drug free treatment and the creation 
of drug free units within prisons. The need to develop a common methodology and terminology for 
 
EN 105   EN collecting data, having comparable EU data and subsequently defining and exchanging best practices 
was also identified. To ensure coherence and sustainability of interventions before, during and after 
imprisonment, excellent networking is required. This  should include, in particular, helpers in prisons 
and, institutions and NGOs involved in reintegr ation after release, for example ensuring the 
continuation of methadone maintenance programmes that  started in prison. It was concluded that there 
should be equitable delivery and availability of prev ention tools and therapeutic possibilities offered to 
inmates in comparison to the general population. Finally, the Presidency conclusions137 of the HDG 
debate called on the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Council Recommendation on drugs in 
prison. 
14 Prevention of health risks related to drug 
use 
Implementation of the Council 
Recommendation on th e prevention and 
reduction of health related harm 
associated with drug dependence MS This objective has been achieved (but still on going for MS), Commission report was published 
On 18 April 2007, the Commission adopted and published the final report138 of a study into the 
implementation of the Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003, presenting key conclusions and recommendations on the implementation of the Council Recommendation, based on a background 
study
139 that included a comprehensive overview of th e situation in each of the Member States. The 
report concluded that 25 EU Member States have defined prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence as a national public health objective and as part of the national 
response to the drug problem. Harm reduction facilities and services are available in all EU Member 
States, although they vary widely between Member States.  
The Commission report was discussed in the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG). The 
conclusions of the report were endorsed by the H DG and it was agreed that this reporting exercise 
should be repeated under the next EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012). The Council debate resulted in Member States' conclusions
140 in particular on harm reduction co nstituting an essential component of 
demand reduction, on the need for improving the knowledge and understanding on the impact of harm 
reduction measures, on the attention to be given to areas of harm reduction where a need for improvement is identified (such as the prevention of hepatitis B and C infections). An important 
conclusion was that the improved response to drug-related health issues in custodial settings could 
prevent and limit drug-related health damage among th ose in prison especially when supported by post 
release care. There is therefore a st rong need to improve harm reduction measures in prisons as well as 
reintegration services. 
                                                 
137 CORDROGUE 13, 23/01/2008 
138 COM (2007) 199 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0199en01.pdf  
139 Gouwe, et al. [2006]. ‘Prevention and reduction of health -related harm associated with drug dependence — an inventory of policies, evidence and pract ices in the EU 
relevant to the implementation of the Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003’,  Trimbos Institute; 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_report_en.pdf   
140 CORDROGUE 43, 02/07/2007 
 
EN 106   EN 15 Availability and access to harm reduction 
services 
Improve access for addi cts to all relevant 
services and treatment options designed 
to reduce harm, with due regard to 
national legislation. MS This objective has been partly achieved,  but requires further implementation 
Needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) and opioid substitution treatment is available in all EU 
Member States. They can be effective in reducing ri sk behaviour (needle sharing) and of drug-related 
infectious diseases. They are usually delivered by specialist low-threshold drugs agencies, and in eight 
countries also through pharmacy-b ased programmes, which consider ably increases the geographical 
availability of sterile injecting equipment. While th e continuous expansion of low-threshold agencies 
with syringe exchange can be documented for many of the countries where the spread of problem heroin injecting is more recent, a stagnation or decrease of su ch services was reported by other countries in this 
group (Bulgaria, Poland and Romania), partly due to lack of support and funding. While overall levels of drug maintenance treatment and harm reduction service provision in the EU have increased 
considerably over the past decades, coverage of these interventions is limited in some countries.  
In some of the countries with older heroin epidemics and extensive treatment provision, however, a 
stabilisation and decrease of syringe demand can be no ted over the past years. Specialist drugs agencies 
with syringe programmes have low access barriers, wo rk with peer educators and outreach teams, and 
increasingly offer basic medical care se rvices, thus functioning as street-hospitals, mobile surgeries, and 
field nursing stations, health suites or health counselling centres for the broader target group of socially 
marginalised, excluded  or homeless people. 
With regard to recreational drug use, harm re duction is a common approach in European nightlife 
settings (clubs, raves, festivals) an d consists in providing users with information (via leaflets, websites) 
on the potential harm associated with recreational drug use. Safedance guidelines are implemented in 
the UK and locally in Belgium, Denmark, German y, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary and the 
Netherlands. Two Member States officially provide on-site pill testing (Austria and Spain) at large 
festivals or rave parties, while this harm reduction approach has been discontinued for legal reasons in France, Germany and the Czech Repub lic or due to a lack of funds in Belgium. An important role in 
raising awareness of risks and providing support to drug users in crisis is furthermore played by 
telephone and internet-based drug help lines in a majority of Member States. 
In the vast majority of countries, the level of pr ovision of and access to services for preventing and 
reducing health-related harm associated with drug use in prisons cannot be considered as equivalent to the community. Spain is currently the only European country that provides a wide range of harm-
reduction measures in prisons. 
16 Prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS, 
hepatitis C, other blood-borne infections 
and diseases 
Ensure the implementation of 
comprehensive and coordinated national MS 
COM This objective is partly achieved but requires furt her implementation 
Recent data on newly diagnosed cases of HIV related to injecting drug use (IDU ) suggest that, in most 
EU countries, infection ra tes are low (under 5 cases per million inhabitants in 2006). Case reporting 
data for IDUs are not available for two countries, bo th with high levels of HIV infection among IDUs. 
Complementary surveillance of HI V prevalence among samples of IDUs confirms an overall stable 
 
EN 107   EN and/or regional programmes on HIV/ 
AIDS, hepatitis C and other blood-borne 
diseases. These programmes should be integrated into general social and health 
care services. situation in most regions although among the minority of regions showing changes in prevalence 
between 2002 and 2006 more are increasing (16 MS) than declining (12 MS), though changes are 
generally not pronounced. 
Six new Member States report a consistently low prev alence of less than 1% in all studies carried out 
since 2002. This may be at least partly due to prevention measures for IDUs but other factors may also play a role. Nonetheless, complacency concerning th e provision of prevention m easures to IDUs should 
be avoided. In the EU, since 2002, increases in HIV prevalence among IDUs have been observed in repeated regional or national studies across seven countries, albeit in some cases alongside stable or 
declining trends in other regions of the same country.  
Furthermore, the incidence of AIDS related to injecting drug use is high in five countries (over 5 cases 
per million in 2006), suggesting th e need for continued alertness rega rding the timely access of infected 
drug users to diagnosis and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).  
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody levels of over 60% in  at least one sample of IDUs are reported from 
18 countries. It is estimated that there may be arou nd one million people living in the EU with an HCV 
infection who have been drug injectors at some point in their lives.  
A multi-component response to the prevention of infe ctious diseases, combining measures to reduce 
injecting-related harm and effective drug treatment, is common in the EU.  
The integration of services and facilities that aim to  prevent infectious diseas es for drug users (VCT, 
vaccination, infectious disease treatment services) within general health an d social care is current 
practice in a number of countries, increases the av ailability and facilitates and promotes drug users’ 
access to a more complete spectrum of care if needed.  
Between 2005 and 2006, many countries with recent heroin epidemics reported  increasing numbers of 
syringes exchanged or distributed through specialised NSPs, but there is a large group of countries where syringe exchange is now stable or has been declining (see also thematic paper 15). While decreasing syringe trends in countries with older heroin epidemics might be due to higher availability of effective drug treatment, there are some countries where decreases are attributed to a lack of support and/or funding. This raises the concer n that decreases in syri nge turnover could result in higher levels of 
risk taking among new, younger generations of heroin injectors, who not been reached by prevention 
messages. 
17 Reduction of drug related deaths 
Reduction of drug related deaths to be 
included as a specific target at all levels 
with interventions specifically designed for this purpose, such as promoting 
outreach work, e.g. the work of street MS This objective has been partly achieved, but requires further priority 
Drug-related deaths (overdoses) are one of the major causes of death among young people in Europe. 
Even with a likely underestimation, they account for 3.5% of all deaths among Europeans aged 15-39 
years; in eight Member States this rate reaches 7% . Over the past 15 years, there have been yearly 
between 6 500 to 8 500 overdose deaths, totalling some 130 000 cases over that period. The scale of the 
problem of overdose deaths can be illustrated by comparing it to AIDS mortality related to injection 
 
EN 108   EN units, through well-trained healthcare 
operators. drug use, which was estimated to be around 2 600 cases in 2003141.  
Drug-related deaths soared over  the 1980s and 1990s and showed a decreasing overall trend between 
2000 and 2003. The positive 2000-2003 trend was reverted in 2004 and 2005 with increases observed again in the majority of countries (15 out of 24 with information), although increases remained in 
general moderate.  
This recent trend contrasts with the wide expansi on of treatment that took place over the 1990s in 
particular. The reduction of drug-related deaths is a goal of most national drug strategies, but few 
countries have so far adopted concrete action plans or provide systematic guidance on measures to be 
taken . All Member States have stepped up their levels of treatment provision, and several have removed 
access barriers. As far as information is available, there are still strong variations in opioid substitution 
coverage (between 5% and 54% in 8 EU countries) and services are located especially in metropolitan 
areas with a bigger than average number of users, wh ile in rural areas, treatment provision is limited.  
The past years have also seen increased efforts to improve treatment standards and qualifications among 
providers, which should also help to reduce the risk for DRD. A wider choice of pharmaceutical options are available, including the increas ed use of opiate substitution drugs such as buprenorphine, that may 
have a lower overdose potential if misused. 
Reasons for the recent stabilisation in DRD are uncle ar but could be influenced by a combination of 
factors, e.g. an increase in polydrug  use (including alcohol and cocaine) (
142) among opiate users, and 
increased heroin availability (UNODC) (143), aging of opiate users, ev entually treatment not reaching 
some of the more excluded groups of users. Another possibility, which will be analysed by the EMCDDA in the near future, is a more risky lifes tyle amongst a new generation of intravenous drug 
users which are not reached by harm reduction measur es and messages in the same way as older ones. 
Data on other ways of reducing drug-related deaths, e.g. information dissemination, awareness raising, 
individual risk assessment and counselling, training in overdose management and prison pre-release 
counselling, are limited in Europe.  
The time after release from prison or treatment is esp ecially critical, and research  shows that the risk of 
drug-induced death is substantially higher for the first two to four weeks. The number of people with 
past or current drug experience passing through European prisons each year is estimated to be 607 000 
(stock) with an estimated turnover of 860 000 prisoners — among them many problem drug users. Considering research results on drug-induced mortality  in the year following release, a considerable 
                                                 
141 EMCDDA, draft 2008 AR, based on data from Eurostat and EuroHIV 
142 A field trial conducted by the EMCDDA in 2006 on substances invo lved in drug-related deaths ob served that in a high proportion of cases several substances were found in 
the toxicological examinations. However, this is a cross-sectional study and trends cannot be assessed yet. 
143 UNODC issued a warning on this possible effect http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_2006_10_05.html 
 
EN 109   EN proportion of drug-related deaths in the EU could happen around prison release.  
Despite the obvious connection between prison release and drug-induced deaths, few countries are 
systematically investing in educating prisoners about the risk of overdose on release from custody. Also the continuity of care and rehabilitation of drug user s released from prison require serious attention. The 
differential rate of drug related deaths reported by MS suggests that even when reporting artefacts are 
considered, considerable potential exists to share experiences on what measures may impact on this 
problem.  
18 Step up and develop law enforcement 
cooperation between Member States and, 
where appropriate, with Europol, 
Eurojust and third countries and 
international organisations, against international organised drug production 
and trafficking.   
18.1/ 18.4 Member States , where appropriate with 
Europol and Eurojust, third countries and international organisations, shall carry out 
specific actions in the fight against 
organised international drug production and trafficking and cross-border drug trafficking 
and criminal networks engaged in these 
activities inside the EU, by implementing:  
Operational law enforcement projects, such 
as joint investigation teams, joint customs 
operations and joint investigations. 
Law enforcement intelligence projects to 
improve both the intelligence picture and 
interventions made. These projects should involve at least two MS and should be 
focused on production, illicit cross border 
trafficking and criminal networks engaged 
in these activities. MS 
Europol Eurojust The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In line with its mandate, Europol contributed through drug-related projects to joint multidisciplinary 
operational and intelligence gathering projects . Europol runs Project MUSTARD on heroin 
trafficking with an emphasis on Turkish criminal and associated groups, Project COLA on cocaine with 
an emphasis on Latin American cr iminal organisations and Project SYNERGY on the production and 
trafficking of synthetic drugs, chemical precursors and production equipment with a focus on 
indigenous criminal organisations. In addition to the central AWF components, Project COLA includes 
the Europol Cocaine Logo System (ECLS) whilst Project Synergy includes the Europol Ecstasy Logo System (EELS) and the Europol Illic it Laboratory Comparison System (EILCS). These make it possible 
to achieve a match between seizures with a vi ew to promoting international law enforcement 
cooperation and exchange of information. Further details under Action 18.2. 
As reported in 2007, Joint Investigation Teams (JIT)  and Joint Customs Cooperation (JCOs)  could 
be used more by the Member States in collabora tion with Europol. Information on the quantities of 
precursors and drugs seized in the framework of sub-projects, JITs and JCOs is only partially provided to Europol by the Member States  and therefore not available.  
Other cooperation mechanisms  comprise: COSPOL  (Comprehensive Operational Strategy Planning 
for Police), the European Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP) , an inter-disciplinary law enforcement 
coordination mechanism to tackle drug precursors smuggling, using the auspices of Europol, and the 
Bucharest based Southeast European Cooperation Initiative (SECI) , which includes a specialised task 
force on illegal drugs trafficking. The Baltic Sea Task Force has been set up.  
Regional drug enfo rcement initiatives  focusing on intelligence sharing and operational cooperation 
have evolved in the maritime  sphere. In 2007, an informal working group working in close cooperation 
 
EN 110   EN with Europol prepared the Maritime Anal ysis and Operations Centre — Narcotics (MAOC-N) , 
focusing on cocaine trafficking by ai r and sea in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean region. In 2008 the ‘Centre 
de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Mediterranée’ (CECLAD-M)  is expected to be set up, 
aimed at drug trafficking in  the Mediterranean Sea.  
With regard to drug trafficking by air , the UNODC led Airport Communica tion Project (Aircop) aims at 
improving controls, particularly at airports, through enhanced inter-agency and regional cooperation. In parallel, MAOC-N has launched an analysis on possi ble operational measures to curb or interdict 
uncanalised flights trafficking bulk cocaine. The work of the Airports Platform of the Pompidou Group 
is being taken into consideration.  
With regard to inter-regional cooperation  on intelligence sharing and capacity building, the EU-LAC 
Intelligence Sharing Working Group (ISWG) was set up in 2007, supp orted by 7 Member States and 
Europol. Under the EC’s Stability Instrument, dedi cated projects will address the inter-regional 
challenges of heroin trafficking (project set up in 2007) and cocaine trafficking (being set up in 2008).  
The Portuguese Presidency of the Council HDG established an inventory of information exchange 
mechanisms in the field of drugs to provide guidance for further policy development and strengthen 
operational effectiveness in intelligence-led law enforcement. 
Conclusions 
The results of the various operational and intelligence law enforcement cross-border projects in the EU, 
in particular the success of MAOC-N with almost 27 tons of cocaine seized in one year, show the 
importance of strengthening intelligence gathering an d sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led 
law enforcement along air, sea and land vectors.  
Moreover, to address the threats from international drug trafficking, EU based counter narcotics efforts 
must be accompanied by enhanced inter-regional dr ug enforcement cooperatio n such as the EU-LAC 
intelligence sharing network. In this context, th e EU model platform for intelligence sharing and 
capacity building is being explored by some Member States in cooperation with Europol and the 
European Commission together with increased use of EU funding instruments such as the Stability 
Instrument and the Fight Against and Prevention of Crime Programme.  
18.2 Seek to exploit to the full the operational 
and strategic potential of Europol, building 
on existing collaboration between Europol 
and the Europol National Units and 
improving the intelligence picture of supply and distribution, by: 
Member States improving the consistency 
with which live information (information as specified in the opening orders of Analysis MS 
Europol This action has been partly achieved 
The Europol Drugs Unit provides operational and strategic reports (over 400 in 2007) and expertise 
to the Member States in the framew ork of three drug related projects supported by analysis work files 
(AWFs) and expert systems. In addition to the Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), situation 
reports and ad hoc reports on specific crime phenomena  are provided to enhanc e the intelligence picture 
of the Member States and support their investigations. 
More input by the Member States to the AWFs of the Europol projects COLA, MUSTARD and 
SYNERGY should be noted over the reporting period: In 2007 — there were a total of 1950 contributions from the Member Stat es compared to 1461 in 2006  
 
EN 111   EN Work Files) on drug trafficking groups and 
routes is forwarded to the agency in 
accordance with the Eu ropol Conv ention for 
such exchange of information; 
Member States improving the consistency 
with which they forward seizure data to Europol; 
Europol ensuring that the accumulated 
information is available for Member States’ operational and strategic use; 
Europol providing periodic strategic threat 
assessments based on this data; 
Evaluating the success and operational 
impact of the cycle of intelligence gathering, analysis, distribution and consequent 
operational action, and making systematic 
improvements. With the odd exception, the Memb er States generally provide seizure data  to Europol on request only. 
However, not all data is comprehensive and receive d in time. Complete seizure statistics for 2007 are 
not yet available. 
The registration and reporting of seizures is  not standardised in the Member States, resulting in 
variances in registration and reporting and thus difficulties in EU. The 2001 Council Recommendation 
on the alignment of statistics on seizures of drugs and diverted precursors,
144 which provides detailed 
guidelines for collection of this type of data at national level, has not been implemented. 
18.3 Strengthen controls at the external borders 
of the EU to stem the flow of drugs from 
third countries. MS The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In 2007, a greater number of Memb er States provided information regarding this action for the present 
Progress Review than in 2006. However, the informa tion provided does not rev eal the impact of these 
efforts on the flow of drugs from third countries into  the EU. Due to the fact that there are no agreed 
standards and rules at EU level for registering and differentiating drugs seizures made at external 
borders, data provided by Member States are diff icult to interpret. Furthermore, the information 
obtained does not show which operations have led to what kind of seizures.  
18.4 See 18.1 MS See 18.1 
18.5 Assess the feasibility of developing a 
strategy for the use of heroin and cocaine 
forensic profiling results for law 
enforcement strategic and operational purposes and make recommendations 
regarding same. MS This action has not been achieved 
No assessment has taken place for developing a strategy for the use of heroin and cocaine forensic 
profiling results. However, such a strategy may be ad dressed in the future within the context of the on-
going cooperation on the long-term solution at EU level for the forensic profiling of synthetic drugs (see Action 20.2)  
19 Implement joint multidisciplinary MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
                                                 
144 Decision of 707/12/01; 13618/01 STUP 29 / 12411/01 STUP 26 ADD 1 & ADD 1 COR 1 (NL, EN) & ADD 1 COR 2 (FR, EN, DK) / 12411/1/0 1 REV 1 STUP 26. 
 
EN 112   EN operational and intelligence gathering 
projects, share best practice, and increase 
counter narcotics work . Focus this work 
on external count ries and regions 
associated with the production of and 
cross-border trafficking in heroin, cocaine and cannabis into the EU. Europol As noted under Action 18.1/ 18.4, there are a grow ing number of joint multid isciplinary operational and 
intelligence gathering networks. Whilst Europol-le d Projects COLA and MUSTARD have supported 
many investigations, including via JITs and JCOs, contributions from the Member States most affected by these phenomena are generally  insufficient. The European Police Chiefs Task Force COSPOL 
initiatives (the Comprehensive Operational Strategy Planning for Police) on heroin and cocaine provide 
platforms to address this concern. 
As indicated under action 18.1, in 2007 and 2008 a number of law enforcement projects involving at 
least two Member States have been or are about to be established, including MAOC-N, CECLAD-M 
and the Baltic Sea Task Force Cooperation. 
20 Reduce the manufacture and supply of 
synthetic drugs (ATS).   
20.1 Develop operations and intelligence 
gathering projects to prevent and combat synthetic drug manufacture and trafficking. 
These operations should involve at least 2 
Member States. In this regard full use should be made of the Synergy Project. MS 
Europol This action has been partly achieved 
Europol’s Project SYNERGY  — which gathers and uses information, knowledge and experience in 
the area of synthetic drugs, related precursors and equipment — supported various major criminal 
investigations carried out by law enforcement in the Member States during  the reporting period.  
Project Synergy also includes the Europol Illicit Laboratory Comparison System (EILCS) , which 
collates technical information on synthetic drug production, and the Europol Ecstasy Logo System 
(EELS)  — the latter incorporated within the general Europol Synthetic Dr ug Seizure System  
(ESDSS).   
The quality and quantity of data supplied for the Analysis Work Files and the EILCS from several 
Member States remains high. This cooperation is an indicator of satisfaction among operational partners 
concerning their relationship with SYNERGY and its added value. However, not all crucial Member States are contributing fully.  
Project SYNERGY supports, and is supported by, the activities of the European Joint Unit on 
Precursors (EJUP) and the European Police Chiefs Task Force’s COSPOL initiative on synthetic 
drugs. SYNERGY also supports and is supported by  the CHAIN Project, a European Union initiative on 
the profiling of amphetamine for law enforcement purposes, whereby significant seizures may be 
forensically matched, leading to or supporting ongoing intelligence analysis. 
20.2 Develop a long term solution at EU level for 
the use of synthetic drug forensic profiling 
results for law enforcement strategic and 
operational purposes. The development of 
such a solution should be done by law 
enforcement agencies and forensic authorities working together and building MS  
COM 
Europol This action has not yet been achieved , but results are expected shortly 
Several meetings have been organised by the European Commission on a long term solution on forensic 
profiling of synthetic drugs. The meetings were attend ed by representatives of forensic laboratories and 
law enforcement agencies, mainly of those Member Stat es that are involved in a series of projects aimed 
at developing reliable methods of profiling of ampheta mines. Other participants were representatives of 
EUROPOL and the Commission (Joint Research Centre and DG Justice, Freedom and Security, DG Research).  
 
EN 113   EN upon experiences in this field. It is agreed that any future European long term solution should built on the experience of Proj ects co-
funded by the European Commission (mainly SYNERGY and CHAIN). The role of Europol and JRC 
Ispra has been recognised. The Euro pean structure available to all MS, with the potential to cover all 
drugs, synthetics or otherwise — depending on natio nal or regional needs — should be set up. The idea 
is that the exact form will be decided by the Council on a proposal from the COM. 
The Commission will inform the Counc il (HDG) of the conclusions reached when operational, legal, 
and budgetary aspects have been cl arified with Europol and the JRC.  
20.3 Implement fully the Council Decision on 
information exchange, risk assessment and 
control of new psychoactive substances. Council 
MS 
COM 
Europol 
EMCDDA EMEA This objective has been achieved 
The implementation of the Council Decision in 2005, 2006 and 2007 is described in the corresponding 
EMCDDA-Europol Annual Reports on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA. In 2007 
the Commission decided not to take further steps regarding 1-(3-chlorophenyl) piperazine (mCPP) as 
the substance was not eligible for a risk assessment, being used as an intermediate in the manufacturing of a medicinal product. However, in 2006 and 2007 EMCDDA and Europol actively monitored and 
assessed the available data on mCPP. The Council Decision has been fully implemented in 2007 
through the risk assessment procedure on 1-Benzylpiperazine, resulting in a Decision of the Council in March 2008 to control the substance. The final decisi on-making procedure took as much time as the risk 
assessment process. 
Conclusions  
The Council Decision has proven to be a rapid and effective instrument in identifying and assessing 
new psychoactive substances that appear on the mark et. Some issues need further consideration. The 
deadlines as adopted in the Council Decision may n eed to be reconsidered, allowing more time for 
information collection and risk assessment. An active monitoring component may be formally 
introduced in the mechanism, allowing more informa tion to be collected before a risk assessment takes 
place or where assessment cannot be requested for legal reasons. And finally, the link between the 
Council Decision and the EU Pharmacovigilance system might be further explored for those substances 
that also have medical purposes.  
21 Combat serious criminal activity in the 
field of chemical precursor diversion and smuggling by stepping up law 
enforcement cooperation between 
Member States and, as  appropriate, with 
Europol, Eurojust, and third countries 
and international organisations. 
Implement law enforcement projects such 
as the European Joint Unit on 
Precursors. These projects should involve MS 
Europol Eurojust This objective has been partly achieved 
Supported by Europol Project Synergy, the European Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP ), a 
multinational, multi-disciplinary joint unit consistin g of law enforcement national experts from Austria, 
Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, continues to be a significant 
supportive tool for the numerous investigations in th e Member States on precursor chemicals trafficking 
from the source countries to the large scale synthe tic drug production sites. No new law enforcement 
projects such as the EJUP have been set up since January 2005.  
In addition, Project SYNERGY reports, in the framework of COSPOL activities, have led to enhanced 
awareness and cooperation with industry in relation to scheduled and non-scheduled chemicals used in 
synthetic drug production, diverted from particular companies. This has led to increased Member States 
 
EN 114   EN at least 2 Member States. cooperation with industry. 
22 Prevent the diversion of precursors, in 
particular synthetic drug precursors 
imported into the EU.   
22.1 Implement the Community drug precursor 
legislation, in partic ular the cooperation 
between MS in relation to controls of 
imports of synthetic drug precursors. Strengthen external border controls by 
customs or other competent authorities and 
strengthen intra-Community controls. MS 
COM This action has been partly achieved 
EU law enforcement authorities continue to be active in detecting suspicious consignments of drug 
precursors. In 2006, the number of cases increased further. These cases involve higher quantities of 
ephedrines stopped or seized, while the quantities of  P-2-P (the key amphetamine precursor which is 
now also increasingly found being diverted for use in illicit methamphetamine manufacture) seem to be 
stable in comparison with 2005. In turn, seizures of  3, 4 MdP-2-P have decreased. Acetic anhydride (the 
key heroin precursor) and potassium permanganate (the key precursor for making cocaine) continue to 
be seized or stopped, but have decreased in comparison with 2005. In 2006, there were no further cases 
reported with regard to Ephedra.  
Moreover, suspicious consignments of a relatively high number of pharmaceuti cal preparations under 
transhipment through the EU were stopped. As in 2005, GBL and BDO (precursors used to make GHB) 
continue to be seized by using the EU voluntary monitoring control mechanisms, based on the voluntary partnership with industrial sectors.  
See EU drug Precursors seizures in 2006: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/docum ents/customs/customs_controls/drugs_precursors/
seizures/report_2006_en.pdf  
22.2 Support international operations of the UN 
INCB (International Narcotics Control 
Board), in particular Project Prism. MS 
COM 
Europol This action has been achieved 
The Commission is directly supporting INCB-led operations, including Operation Transhipment and 
Operation Target, via its UNODC-implemented project to strengthen efforts against drug precursors in Afghanistan, and between Afghanistan and its neighbours. 
22.3 Develop cooperation between Member 
States’ authorities competent for precursor 
control and Industry. MS 
COM This action has been achieved 
The Commission, together with a group of experts from Member States and from Industry, has drafted a 
guidance document “Drug precursors’ control in the EU — guidelines for operators”  which has been 
distributed among operators legally trading in drug precursors. This document sets out 
recommendations to help operators detect and report suspicious transactions and orders of so-called 
scheduled drug precursors. It also provides them with an updated list of “non-scheduled substances”, 
where operators have agreed to collaborate actively and voluntarily with Member States to notify any 
suspicious transactions with non- scheduled substances, as they can nevertheless be used in the illicit 
manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.  
Both mandatory (scheduled drug precursors) and voluntary (non-scheduled drug precursor) systems 
 
EN 115   EN allow continuous and increased number of seizures and stopped shipments. 
The systems in place fully reflect an d acknowledge the vital nature of th e principle of co-operation with 
industry and prove to be very effective in comba ting the diversion of drug precursors for illicit drug 
manufacturing, while offering the necessary flexibility to respond quickly to changing trends and 
patterns of diversion. 
The Commission and the national competent authorities took part in various seminars aimed at 
facilitating implementation of the legislation in the new Member States. The Commission has further 
undertaken to provide an “e-learning” tool to trained operators on their responsibilities and duties in the 
field of drug precursor's control. This eLearning will be ready by end 2008. At international level, the 
EU proposal for a United Nations Resolution145 adopted by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND) invited UN Contracting Parties to set up guidelines for operators and to set up guidelines at 
international levels.  
23 Target money laundering and seizure of 
accumulated assets in relation to drug 
crime.   
23.1 Implement operational law enforcement 
projects such as 
Projects to pursue drug trafficking 
organisations, including concurrent and in depth investigation of the criminals’ 
finances and assets (of whatever kind) 
aimed at maximising recovery of assets and the compilation/sharing of associated 
intelligence; and 
Projects aimed at detecting and disrupting 
criminal cash flows with in the EU and from 
the EU to specific high-risk destinations 
outside the EU and source countries. 
These operational law enforcement projects 
should involve at leas t two Member States. MS 
Europol 
Eurojust The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
Number of operational law enforcement pr ojects initiated or completed:  
The Criminal Assets Bureau (ECAB) , launched by Europol under its Money Laundering Action Plan, 
encompasses the work carried out by Europol on asset recovery, including operational support for 
Member States’ investigations (inc luding drugs investigations) to tr ace criminal proceeds, managing the 
Financial Crime Information Centre Website and acting as the CARIN permanent secretariat. The 
Europol Criminal Assets Bureau pr ovides operational supp ort to MS in identifyi ng criminal proceeds, 
when the assets are located outside their jurisdictional area and the investigation falls within Europol’s 
mandate. In 2007, the ECAB supported a total of 134 investigations in the Member States relating to 
asset tracing and identificati on (2005: 57; 2006: 53).  
The Europol Money Laundering Project, SUSTRANS , supports the drug related Project Synergy in 
gathering and analysing financial related data, where substantial illegal profits were generated. Within 
Project SUSTRANS, a project on intra-Community cross-border movement of cash is being developed, reflecting the presence of a cross-bo rder reporting system. It addresse s the emerging trend of cash being 
moved in bulk throughout Europe without being detected. The use of money couriers is still a growing 
phenomenon in money laundering operations within the European Union. A questionnaire has been sent 
to Member States to gain a better understanding of cash smuggling routes and features. 
                                                 
145 50th CND (March 2007), Resolution 50/10 
 
EN 116   EN Cash and assets seized as a result  of drug related investigations: 
In 2007, the ECAB helped in 48 cases to identify criminal proceeds  originating specifically from drug 
trafficking investigations. In 2005, there were 20 su ch cases, and in 2006 15  cases were dealt with. 
In conclusion, cross-cutting cooperation between Europol’s drugs, money laundering and assests tracing 
projects has led to enhanced support to Member States. In this regard and in the framework of the 
COSPOL-Synergy partnership a major new initiative has started involving several Member States. 
23.2 Develop cooperation in the exchange of 
information between Financial Intelligence 
Units (FIUs) by utilising FIU-Net as a 
means of exchanging information between 
them. MS The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of 18 Memb er States are connected to the FIU.NET system. 
The ultimate objective of the project is to establis h a secure and complete computer network for the 
exchange of financial intelligence among the 27 EU  FIUs in combating money laundering and the 
financing of terrorism.  
It is expected that the Commission will provide co-f inancing to the project for the period 2007-2009 
under the financial programme “Prevention of and Fight against Crime”. 
23.3 Consider the possibility of creating national 
multi-disciplinary Units for the detection 
and investigation of criminals’ finances and assets. MS 
COM The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The Council Decision on cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States
146 was 
adopted on 6 December 2007 to ensu re that Member States set up or designate, by 18 December 2008, 
national Asset Recovery Offices which will act as national contact points for confiscation-related 
activities. They will notably prom ote, through enhanced cooperation, the fastest possible EU-wide 
tracing of assets derived from crime.  
A Europol project to support this instrument has been launched for the period 2008-2010. It will 
coordinate expert onsite support missions, on the request of MS, to provide advice and guidance on the 
establishment and effective operation of national Asset Recovery Offices.  
23.4 Identify and evaluate best practice in 
criminal asset confiscation legislation and 
procedures of the Member States, taking 
into account all relevant EU instruments. COM This objective has not been achieved , but results are expected shortly 
The Commission signed a contract for a study analys ing Member States’ legislation and practices in 
criminal confiscation. The study will focus on what has proven to be effective at national level with a 
view to promoting and exchanging best practice. The results of this study are expected to be available by end 2008. 
23.5 Explore best prac tice in Member States 
which have established and implemented a 
national fund used to provide funding for 
projects in the drugs field and financed from COM This action has not been achieved 
The Commission is not planning to contract out a specific study on the use of confiscated funds for 
police/community drugs projects. Information on best practice related to the use of confiscated assets 
may become available through the Commission study on Member States’ best practices in confiscation 
                                                 
146 2007/845/JHA, 6.12.2007 
 
EN 117   EN the confiscation of assets earned through 
drug production and trafficking. and asset recovery. The results are exp ected to be available by end 2008. 
24 Explore possible links between drug 
production and trafficking and financing of terrorism. 
Identify possible links between drug 
production and trafficking and financing of terrorism and use this information to 
support or initiate investigations and/or 
actions. COM 
Europol MS This objective has not been achieved 
To date no major project or programmes investigating the links between drug production and the 
financing of terrorism are running at EU level. However, the Council’s working party on terrorism 
concluded in March 2008 that the links between drug trafficking and terrorism should be explored 
further at EU level, including action to draw up a list of major drug traffickers.  
Links between drug trafficking and terrorism are most evident in certain parts of Afghanistan. Although 
evidence is hard to find, the EU should be vigilant about a possible occurrence of similar trends closer 
to the EU. Member States could make better use of existing financing programmes at EU level to 
initiate, develop and support activities in this field with a view to reflection and dialogue at European 
level.  
25 Step up work on prevention of drug 
related crime.   
25.1 Adopting a common definition of the term 
‘drug-related crime’. Council 
COM 6.2.5.1.  This action has not yet been achieved, but will see further work  in 2008 and 2009 
6.2.5.2.  In 2007, the EMCDDA presented in a publication a broad definition of the term ‘drug-related 
crime’, identifying 4 crime categories: psych opharmacological crimes, economic-compulsive 
crimes, systemic crimes and drug law offences . A similar breakdown of the term had been 
proposed in 2003, and is still relevant when ta king the international scientific literature into 
account. The Commission is preparing a paper on further step s regarding this definition, but 
intends to link this exercise to a broader de bate on policy needs fo r drug-related crime 
information and statistics at EU level.  
6.2.5.3.  The evaluation showed that only few Member States have defined drug-related crime at 
national level. A study on drug-related crime statistics and law enforcement information has 
been launched and will be finalised in the first half of 2009. The outcomes of the study 
should form the basis of a broader proposal on drug-related crime and indicators, based on policy needs at EU level.
 
25.2 Share experiences and best practices in 
preventing the distribution of drugs at street 
level and present the results. MS 
Council This action has been partly achieved 
The Portuguese Presidency of the HDG instigated a debate on “Preventing the distribution of drugs at 
street level” in December 2007, which concluded that  
• There is added value in a European common approach to preventing the distribution at street level 
although the national and local particularities have to be taken into account. 
• The information exchange and sharing of best practices is crucial. The work already developed by 
 
EN 118   EN some organisations in this field (like the Pomp idou Group, the European Forum for Urban Security 
and the European Crime Prevention Network) should be considered. 
• There is a need to develop synergies between law enforcement authorities and social/health services. 
As it is a local problem, all the stakeholders should be involved. 
26 Develop new methods and best practice to 
combat drug-relat ed crimes and to 
prevent the diversion of precursors committed with the aid of information 
technology. 
MS to collect data on drug-related crime 
and precursor diversion committed with 
the aid of information technology with a view to developing new methods and best 
practice to combat these phenomena. MS 
Council This objective has not been achieved 
The collection of data on drug-related crime a nd precursor diversion committed with the aid of 
information technology differs from one Member Stat e to the other. Nine Member States indicate that 
they collect this type of data. Belgium and the UK specify that they collect data on suspicious activities 
of internet-based companies (precu rsors). Sweden only collects such data on drug offences. The Czech 
Republic and Slovakia indicate that this task is currently being implemented. Estonia and Lithuania 
state that this type of data collection exists, but do  not specify its contents. In Latvia, the Register of 
Criminal Offences includes a codification for ‘crimes committed with the aid of information 
technologies'. In Denmark, there are cases reported of drug-related crimes in  which the internet was 
used as a communication tool, but no details are given about specific data collections.  
27 Increase training for law enforcement 
agencies. 
MS and CEPOL, within their respective 
competences, to include  in their annual 
work (training) programmes more training courses for law enforcement 
officers specifically rel ating to combating 
drug production and trafficking. MS 
CEPOL This objective has been partly achieved 
CEPOL organised for the first time two specific traini ng courses (in Slovakia and Greece) in the field of 
fighting drug related crime in 2008. The latter course will help develop a common curriculum.  
As drug crime cannot be isolated from the overall phenomenon of organised crime, there are two other 
courses on Northeast Europe and Southeast Europe Organised Crime Organisations foreseen by CEPOL 
in 2008. All courses are supported by Europol.  
28 Adopt EU common positions on drugs in 
international fora. 
EU positions at in ternational meetings 
dealing with drugs issu es to be prepared 
in the HDG and other coordination fora. 
EU coordination meetings to take place in 
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND) and other meetings. PRES 
MS 
COM 
 This objective has been achieved 
The role played by the EU in international fora, in particular in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND), has proved to be increasingly important over the years.  
Over the past three years the HDG has proven its worth as the prime forum for prior coordination 
between Member States — and Commission — pos itions. In particular, common EU positions were 
defined during HDG meetings for the annual sessions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs with regard 
to draft resolutions, EU statements and other impor tant drug-related issues, like the follow-up to the 
UNGASS or the Second Ministerial Conference on Drug Trafficking Ro utes from Afghanistan (“Paris 2 
— Moscow 1”) in June 2006 in the framework of the Paris Pact Initiative. Supplementing the HDG, preparatory EU Coordination meetings also took place regularly in Vienna and were organised on a 
daily basis during the CND sessions, as well as on an ad hoc basis when needed. 
During the CND Sessions in 2006-2008, the respectiv e EU Presidencies (AT, DE, SI) delivered EU 
Statements on the follow up to UNGASS, drug demand re duction, illicit drug trafficking and supply, the 
 
EN 119   EN INCB and policy directives to strengthen the Drug Programme of UNODC and the role of the CND as 
its governing body. The EC, on behalf  of the European Community, de livered its traditional statement 
on precursors during each CND session. However, a harmonised approach among EU actors during the plenary meetings should be agreed to ensure the EU speaks with one voice.  
Conclusions 
• To remain a major world player on drugs issues, it is of paramount importance that the EU maintains 
common positions and speaks with one voice in international fora, and in particular during the 
annual sessions of the CND. It is, therefore, fund amental to continue the trend towards a reinforced, 
unified role for the EU and to reaffirm the coordinating role of the HDG. 
29 Articulate and promote the EU approach 
on drugs. 
The Presidency and/or Commission to 
take the lead role in articulating and 
promoting the EU’s balanced approach. PRES 
MS 
COM This objective has been achieved 
See also Actions 28 and 30. The EU statements and positions in all external fora have promoted the 
EU’s balanced approach. Furthermore, statements on drugs issues by the Commissioners and Commission officials have consistently referred to the balanced approach on drugs. The balanced 
approach is the guideline of the EU and Commission dialogues with third countries; troika agendas are 
built up around this concept and action plans for coop eration are structured as such. The Commission is 
increasingly assisting third countries on demand reduc tion, in parallel with more traditional assistance 
concerning alternative development and supply reduction. The balanced approach seems to be reflected 
in national strategies of many of the third countr ies with which the EU has established dialogues. 
Conclusions  
The activities undertaken by the EU Presidencies and Commission for this objective mainly reflect the 
policy outputs as the quantitative expression of success. However, for an assessment of the policy outcomes of this action, it is important to assess th e scope and level of detail of these EU sponsored 
statements, the extent to which th ey actually reflect the balanced ap proach between supply and demand 
reduction, and their follow-up in practice.  
30 Bring forward EU joint resolutions and 
co-sponsor other resolutions. 
At the UN, in particular the CND, the 
Presidency to endeavour to have 
resolutions brought forward as EU joint 
resolutions and/or EU co-sponsoring of other resolutions. PRES 
MS 
COM This objective has been achieved (to a great extent) 
During the 51
st session of the CND147, the EU played an active role in the negotiation of resolutions and 
tabled two resolutions, on the “Preparations for the high-level segment of the 52nd session relating to the 
UNGASS20 follow-up” and together with Nigeria on “Strengthening international support to countries 
of W-Africa in their efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking”. 
Furthermore, the following resolutio ns were co-sponsored by the EU: 
– “Follow-up to the 2nd Ministerial Conference on Drug Trafficking Routes from Afghanistan” 
                                                 
147 The 51st CND took place from 10-14 March 2008. 
 
EN 120   EN – “Marking the Centennial of the convening of the International Opium Commission” 
– “Provision of International Assistance to States neighbouring Afghanistan based on their 
performance” 
– “Strengthening International Cooperation for the control of precursor ch emicals used for the 
manufacture of synthetic drugs” 
– “Strengthening cooperation between the UNODC and other UN bodies for the promotion of human 
rights it the implementation of the international drug control treaties” 
– “Responding to the threat posed by the distribution of internationally controlled drugs on the 
unregulated market” 
– “Promoting coordination and alignment of decisions between the CND and the Programme 
Coordinating Board of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS” 
– Sharing of information regarding the use of non- scheduled substances as substitutes for scheduled 
substances frequently used in the illicit manufact ure of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances 
and new methods of manufacture of illicit drugs” 
– “Strengthening international support for States in  West Africa and their efforts to combat drug 
trafficking” 
– “Improving the governance and financial situation of the UNODC” 
No individual  EU MS tabled a resolution. However, Sweden co-sponsored the resolution on “The 
consequences of cannabis use” (tabled by the US), while Spain and France co-sponsored the resolution 
on “Control of international movement of poppy seeds obtained from illicitly grown opium poppy plants” (tabled by India), and the resolution tabled by the Arab Group on “Reducing the demand for and 
abuse of cannabis” was co-sponsored by France. 
The EC conducted the negotiations on behalf of th e EU on the two resolutions on precursors. In 
addition, the EU spoke with one voice during the negotiations of the 2 US resolutions on Cannabis and 
Early Detection (former SBIRT). 
31 Formulate an EU contribution to the final 
evaluation of the implementation of the results of the 1998 UN General Assembly 
Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS).   
31.1 Take an initiative to propose common EU 
criteria, in the framework of the 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, for the final COM  
Council 
PRES This action has been achieved 
In 2006, the CND adopted the EU-tabled Resolution (49/1), based on a Commission initiative, on the 
assessment of the ten-year review of the UNGASS 1998 process. As provided for in the resolution, 
 
EN 121   EN evaluation of the implementation of the 
Political Declaration, the Declaration on the 
guiding principles of drug demand reduction and the Measures to enhance international 
cooperation to counter the world drug 
problem adopted at UNGASS 1998. MS UNODC engaged with experts from all geographical regions and international organisations, for the 
collection of supplementary data and expertise to su pport the global assessment by Member States. In 
2007, the Commission financed this expert working group. 
In 2008, the CND adopted the EU-tabled Resolution (51/4) on the preparations for the high-level 
segment of the 52
nd CND in 2009, relating to the follow-up to the UNGASS 1998 process. The 
resolution decided to establish open-ended expert working groups to work on the following UNGASS-related topics: (a) Drug demand reduction; (b) Supp ly reduction (manufactur e and trafficking); (c) 
Countering money-laundering and promoting judicial cooperation; (d) International cooperation on the 
eradication of illicit drug crops and on alterna tive development; (e) Control of precursors and of 
amphetamine-type stimulants. 
The objective of the working group was to assess progress achieved and difficulties encountered by 
Member States in meeting the goals set out in the UNGASS Political Declarati on, and to identify areas 
requiring further action. The conclusions of the ex pert working groups feed into the intersessional 
meetings of the CND which prepare recommendations for decisions to be adopted by the CND at its 52
nd session in 2009. 
Conclusion 
By proposing the resolutions, providing funding and by active participation in the working groups, the 
EU confirmed its commitment to help improve the evidence base that supports drug policies at UN 
level.  
31.2 Support an EU common position on the 
results of the final evaluation of the implementation of the Political Declaration, 
the Declaration on the guiding principles of 
drug demand reduction and the Measures to enhance international cooperation to counter 
the world drug problem adopted at 
UNGASS 1998. COM 
Council PRES 
MS This objective has been partl y achieved, work is ongoing 
Since 2006 the EU has worked on an EU position on UNGASS on the basis of a Commission initiative.  
The common position refers both to a global assessment of the declarations and Action Plans adopted 
by UNGASS 1998 and the identification of future action: what should be the final outcome of the high-
level segment in 2009 and what elements should guide future UN drug policy? 
Concerning the future, the common position emphasises the main elements of EU drugs policy — 
compliance with international drug control and human rights instruments, the balanced and 
multidisciplinary approach, policies based on monitori ng and scientific evidence,  cooperation, strategic 
coherence across UN bodies — to address future cha llenges in an efficient and cost effective way.  
Conclusion 
The EU has participated constructively in the UNGASS debate, speaking, based on the common 
position, with one voice.
 
32 Support the candidate and stabilisation 
and association process countries.  
Provide the necessary technical and other 
assistance to these countries to familiarise MS 
COM  EMCDDA This objective has been achieved 
Candidate countries (Croatia, Turkey and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)  
Technical cooperation with Croatia  started in June 2006 and is currently continuing under the IPA 
project. The objective of this project is to strengthen the activities launched under Phare IV. Croatia 
 
EN 122   EN them with the EU acquis and to assist 
them in carrying out the required actions. Europol provided the EMCDDA with a national report, statistical tables and structured questionnaires for the 
first time in 2007 and delivered its 2008 national report. Croatia is currently negotiating with the 
Commission an agreement on its participation in the work of the EMCDDA.  
The progress made by Turkey on setting up its national focal point and its national data-collection 
system on drugs was maintained in 2007, and Turkey published for the second time its national report to 
the EMCDDA. While the joint work programme was officially endorsed by the national authorities in March 2007 and was implemented smoothly, some obstacles have appeared for the implementation of 
the ESPAD school survey in the co untry. Technical cooper ation with Turkey is currently continuing 
under the IPA project, which aims at strengthening the activities under Phare IV. Turkey is currently 
ratifying the agreement on its participation in the EMCDDA. 
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the EMCDDA ar e currently cooperating under the 
CARDS project, described below. So far, this country has not yet applied officially for membership in 
the EMCDDA.  
Potential candidate countries 
Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244)  
Direct cooperation between the EMCDDA and the Western Balkans started at the end of November 
2007 under the CARDS–EMCDDA proj ect, aimed at assessing the capacity of the countries to establish 
a drug information system compatible with the EMCDDA. It is expected that they will be able to 
provide a first Country Situation Summary (CSS) on the respective drugs situation on the basis of 
existing information and will have received targeted support for that purpose.  A second result of the 
project will be the assessment of the potential for th e creation and/or strengthening of a National Focal 
Point in the Western Balkans countries with a view to their possible participation in the work of the EMCDDA.  
33 Enable candidate countries to participate 
in the work of EMCDDA, Europol and 
Eurojust.148 
Conclude agreements with candidate 
countries. Council 
COM 
 This objective has been largely achieved 
In July 2006, the Council adopted a mandate authorising the Commission to open negotiations with 
Croatia with a view to its participation in the EMCDDA . Turkey has initialled agreements with the 
European Community. These agreements have yet to be formally signed and concluded before they 
enter into force. In January 2007 Romania  and Bulgaria  became full members of  the EMCDDA with 
their accession to the EU. An op erational agreement between Croatia  and Europol  was signed on 
16.01.2006 and entered into force on 16.08.2006. Croatia now has a liaison officer in The Hague (since 
March 2008).  
                                                 
148 Eurojust to cooperate with the candidate countries through nom ination of contact points and cons ideration of cooperation agree ments in line with the Council conclusions on 
Eurojust of 2 December 2004. 
 
EN 123   EN A strategic agreement between Europol  and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia  was signed on 
16.01.2007 and entered into force on 14.03.2008. A  strategic agreement between Europol  and Turkey  
was signed in May 2004. A decision on extending this agreement to operational status is still under negotiation. A strategic agreement between Europol  and Albania  was signed on 26.03.2007 and 
entered into force on 10.05.2007 . A strategic agreement between Europol  and Bosnia-Herzegovina  
was signed and entered into force on 26.01.2007. Montenegro  was added to the Council list of third 
countries with which European sign  a cooperation agreement in February 2007. Negotiations on a draft 
Agreement on Strategic Co-operatio n were finalised at working level on 24 April 2008 and will be 
submitted to the Europol  MB in May, after which it will be submitted to the Council for approval. 
Finally, Serbia  was added to the Council list in June 2002. Negotiations of a draft Agreement on 
Strategic Co-operation were finalised at working level on 24 April 2008 and will be submitted to the 
Europol  Management Board in May 2008, after which it will be submitted to the Council for approval. 
Eurojust  has concluded a formal third country agreement with Romania . Turkey  and Croatia  have 
appointed contact points for cooperation with Eurojust . Eurojust  and Croatia  signed a cooperation 
agreement on 8 November 20 07. Preparations for the entry into fo rce of the coopera tion agreement are 
on-going. Eurojust  concluded a draft cooperation agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia  on 10 April 2008. Preparations for formal approval by the Council and the subsequent 
signature of the agreement are on-going. Turkey  has appointed two contact points for Eurojust .  
34 Assist European neighbours.   
34.1 Implement drugs sections of European 
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans. MS 
COM This action has been achieved, but the outcome cannot be assessed 
The Commission published progress reports on the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans in 
2008. These and other sources demonstrate progress, but more effort is needed.  
Armenia  needs to develop a comprehensive and balanced national anti-drugs strategy. It is fully 
engaged in the SCAD programme (Southern Caucasus Anti-Drug) at regional level. Azerbaijan  has 
made improvements. It formulated its national strategy in June 2007, and approved a five year action programme to combat drug addiction. Legislation has been adopted to implement the 1988 UN 
Convention, and a State Commission on antinarcotics ha s been established. Azerbaijan is fully engaged 
in the SCAD (Southern Caucasus Anti–Drugs) programme. 
Georgia  adopted, but has not yet implemented, a concept paper for a national drugs strategy in February 
2007. It is fully engaged in the SCAD programme. Moldova  adopted in March 2007 an AP on “fighting 
the use of drugs and drug business” for the years 2007-2009. Although Moldova participates in 
BUMAD (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova Anti-Drugs) and EUBAM (EU Border Assistance in Moldova 
and Ukraine), but still needs support in implementing its strategy.  
Concerning Ukraine , the EU-Ukraine JHA Action Plan was streamlined in 2006 and cooperation in the 
field of drugs updated. This country’s work in the fight against drugs continued in line with 
international commitments, with an additional focus on cooperation with other countries in the Black 
 
EN 124   EN Sea region. It actively participated in BUMAD and EUBAM.  
Egypt’s  legislation is in compliance with UN conven tions. It has a coordinating “Anti-Narcotics 
General Authority”. Drugs were discussed in the EU-Egypt JLS subcommittee late 2007. The years 2006-2008 show that Israel  intensified its fight against drug abuse, through the establishment of a 
special Knesset committee on drugs and the implem entation of a comprehensive set of measures. 
No progress is noted for Jordan , apart from new money laundering legislation endorsed in May 2007, 
which is in line with the 1988 UN Convention. Lebanon’s  efforts should be intensified and sustained. 
No progress is registered in the implementation of the National Drugs Action Plan. A Mini-Dublin 
Group  took place in December 2007. The internal security forces postp oned the eradication of hashish 
in the Beqaa scheduled for the second half of 2007 due to violence by drug growers.  
Cooperation with Morocco  has improved. This country has had a National Drugs Strategy since 2006 
and in the JLS subcommittee, which took place in  April 2008, requested EU assistance for its 
implementation. The establishment of a dialogue/opera tional cooperation with Morocco is a priority for 
the EU, which organised the first TROIKA on drugs in 2008 and supports its full involvement in operational anti-drugs activities in the Mediterranean. Although Tunisia  is not a producing country, it is 
increasingly a transit coun try and should therefore be fully i nvolved in operational activities in the 
Mediterranean. 
Conclusions  
The European Neighbourhood Policy has paved the way towards closer cooperation on drugs with the 
ENP partners, based on regular dialogue (via subcommittees) coupled with dedicated financial instruments. A specific drug Troika with the Ukraine took place in 20 07 and in 2008, while the first 
Troika with Morocco was held in 2008. More impetus is needed, however, regarding other cannabis 
producing countries (particularly Lebanon) as well as countries affected by trafficking towards and from Europe. Furthermore, the principle of the EU balanced approach requires further strengthening and 
prioritisation in the funding of  ENP programmes. Developing re gional approaches between ENP 
countries, East European countries including Russi a and the Mediterranean is an important issue for 
future policy consideration. 
 
34.2 Implement the drugs section of the EU-
Russia Action Plan against organised crime 
and of the Roadmap to the Common Space 
of Freedom, Security and Justice; explore 
scope for enhanced action with Russia, especially in this roadmap, and other 
neighbouring countries to reduce the drug-
related risk. MS  
COM This action has been partly achieved 
EU-Russia cooperation on drugs fits in the framework established by the Road Map for the Common 
Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, adopted by  the EU-Russia Summit in May 2005, and the EU-
Russia Action Plan against Organised Crime.  
In October 2005 the JHA Permanent Partnership Council endorsed broad areas of cooperation to take 
forward EU/Russia cooperation on drugs. Several activities have since been undertaken, including:  
• An EU-Russia conference on drugs that helped to identify joint initiatives and actions to complete 
key elements of the Road Map. In 2007, further initiatives in the field of drugs were recommended. 
• An Action–Oriented Paper on Russia to implement aspects of the EU-Russi a Road Map, including 
 
EN 125   EN drugs, was adopted at the end of 2006, with a progress report adopted in 2008.  
• A training course on synthetic drugs was organised by Poland in 2007, involving Russian law 
enforcement officers.  
• In May 2007 the Russian Advanced Training Poli ce Academy (VIPK) hosted an EU-Russia expert 
meeting on controlled delivery of synthetic drugs precursors from Russia to Belgium and the 
Netherlands, with a follow-up meeting held in 2008.  
• The EMCDDA and the Russian Federal Drug Control Service (FDCS) signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding in 2007, enabling the FDCS to participate in EMCDDA activities and to foster 
exchanges, gatherings and analysis of information on drug use.  
• Contacts were established between the FDCS and the Maritime Analysis and Cooperation Centre — 
Narcotics (MAOC-N) with a view to cooperating and/or drawing inspiration for future cooperation arrangements, in particular as regard the Black Sea region.  
• EU-Russia focal points on drugs were established, in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in 
the European Commission, to facilitate informal contacts and exchange of information. An EU-Russia liaison officers’ network was created, which met 4 times, with a widespread exchange of 
information and enhanced networking at experts le vel. Other meetings were organised on synthetic 
drugs and precursors, on the Black Sea region cooperation and on drugs from Afghanistan.  
• Finally, work on an operational agreement between FDCS and Europol has progressed, in particular 
following Europol’s assessment on  Russia’s data protection system. 
 
A negotiating mandate for a new agreement on a co mprehensive framework for EU/Russia relations, 
including drugs, has been adopted by the Council, and the negotiations with Russia are to commence. 
Conclusion 
Russia is an important partner with whom there is considerable interest to engage and reinforce a 
strategic partnership on drugs, both at bilateral basis and vis-à-vis other third countries and regions as well as in the relevant international organisations and fora. EU support for the enhancement of Russian 
law enforcement capacities in Central Asia was specifically requested by Russia. The EU and Russia 
should also pursue the id ea of a dialogue on enhanced mariti me drug enforcement cooperation in the 
Black Sea region, drawing inspiration from MAOC-N and the respective operational cooperation 
arrangements being set up for the Atlantic Ocean.  
Cooperation between EU and Russia in the field of drug demand reduction, reflecting the EU’s balanced 
approach to drugs, should be highlighted in future developments of the partnership, e.g. regarding the 
drug-related HIV/ AIDS epidemic in the Russian Federation. Russia should be encouraged to make 
more use of the instruments at its disposal, includ ing under the ENP-I regime (see also Action 34.1) like 
TAIEX or Twinnings or the new “Common Space Facility”. 
 
EN 126   EN 35 Ensure that drugs co ncerns are taken on 
board when establishing priorities in the 
EU’s cooperation with third countries/regions. 
Mainstream projects in the drugs field 
into the EU’s cooperation with third countries/regions, especially those 
affected by drug problems. Particular 
attention should be paid to providing assistance to and cooperating with: 
• the countries on the Eastern border of 
the EU 
• the Balkan States 
• Afghanistan (particularly in the 
context of the delivery of its 2005 
Counter-Narcotics Implementation 
Plan and future implementation plans) and its neighbours; the EU and 
Member States should aim to increase 
their assistance 
• the Latin American and Caribbean 
countries 
• Morocco 
• countries on other drug routes 
This assistance and cooperation to be 
linked to the drugs action plans adopted 
by the EU with various regions and the 
drug sections of other action plans with EU partners, where applicable. MS 
COM This objective has been partly achieved 
The EC’s external funding priorities as set out in th e country and regional strategy papers for the period 
2007-2013 continue to make provision for EC external assistance in third countries particularly affected by drug problems, such as the Andean Region and Afghanistan.  
With regard to the countries at the Eastern border of the EU, the  BUMAD  (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova 
Anti-Drug Programme), SCAD  (South Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme) and EUBAM  (EU Border 
Assistance Mission Moldova/Ukraine) continue to be implemented. A Border Management programme 
in the South Caucasus region (SCIBM) has been launched, and will be implemented as of the beginning 
of 2009. As explained under Objective 32, the general capacity building efforts in the area of Justice and Home Affairs in the Western Balkans  have been complemented w ith drug specific initiatives, 
including three TAIEX regional workshops. For th e Western Balkans and Turkey, CARDS and IPA 
assistance helps strengthen police and judicial capacities against OC, including drug trafficking. 
Various projects on demand reduction, including harm reduction or combating illicit drug trafficking, 
are being implemented, as well as with the EMCDDA to establish drug compatible information systems 
in the region. Under IPA, the EU is programming regional support to the Western Balkans for an 
amount of EUR 2,5 million to improve, inter alia,  their capacities to prevent and combat organised 
crime and drug trafficking. (Please refer to objective 32 for more information). 
In Afghanistan , the EC has made a multi-annual commitment of EUR 200 million to the rule of law 
sector, which now represents 40% of the EC’s total assistance to Afghanistan. In parallel, a new police 
mission, EUPOL, was sent to Afghanistan with 200 police officers on the ground to give training and mentoring to the Afghan National Police (ANP). In terms of strengthening the state, the EC is a key 
donor to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afgh anistan (LOTFA), funding the Afghan National Police 
(EUR 200 million since 2002), making the EU the biggest donor to LOTFA) with a further EUR 15 million into the new Counter-Narcotics Trust Fund. In terms of the rural economy, the EC has so far 
committed EUR 280 million for rural development, food security and alternative livelihoods since 2002. 
Concerning other assistance in the region, the assistance to Pakistan  targets rural development in 
provinces bordering Afghanistan. The Commission also supports regional cooperation between Pakistan 
and Afghanistan, addressing border management. In Central Asia , the programmes BOMCA  (Border 
Management for Central Asia) and CADAP (Central Asia Drugs Programme) are being implemented. Work for the Afghani borders with Tajikistan is underway (EUR 18 million). In 2007, an additional 
EUR 19.7 million for construction of two further Border Crossing Points (Afghanistan- Uzbekistan and 
Afghanistan-Turkmenistan borders) has been made available. With effect from 2008, the Instrument for 
Stability is supporting trans-regional co-operation in the countries of the Economic Cooperation 
Organisation (ECO) with EUR 9.5 million for the fight against trafficking from/to Afghanistan. 
LAC countries  are the second largest beneficiary of all th e EU international assi stance against drugs. 
The EC funding has mainly been targeted at alternative development projects.  
In the area of demand reduction and harm reduction, an initiative to support twinning between LAC and 
 
EN 127   EN European cities was launched in April 2008. For the Andean Community, an EC-financed regional 
project is aimed at addressing the emerging and growing problem of synthetic drugs in the Andean 
countries. On supply reduction, a project to promote intelligence exchange between law enforcement representatives from the LAC region and European Drug Liaison Officers posted in the region has been 
launched, an initiative to tackle the growing trend of  cocaine trafficking from Latin America to and via 
West Africa. A supply and demand reduction programme focusing on the Caribbean was financed through the EDF funded regional programme. The programme includes a component aimed at 
enhancing law enforcement capacity in the region. The Suriname “Drug Demand Reduction 
Programme” was completed successfully in 2007. 
Concerning precursors, the PRECAN  project, for the And ean Region, reached its conclusion in April 
2007; a follow-up a project against precursor's diversion will be launched at the end of 2008 under the 
Stability Instrument, extending its scope to other Latin America and Caribbean countries. In 2008, 
finally, the Commission has started working on the identification of a large- scale project under the 
Instrument for Stability to address the cocaine route passing through West Africa. 
Conclusions 
Drug-related projects have remained a priority in EU cooperation with countries which are particularly 
affected by the cultivation, transit, trafficking and use of drugs
149. Consideration should be given to 
devoting more resources to strengthening cooperation with  countries in the frontline of trafficking, such 
as Iran, Pakistan and the Caribbean, as well as to emer ging routes such as West  Africa. It is important 
that EC funded activities in these regions and countrie s consistently reflect the priorities and principles 
of the EU’s balanced approach. 
36 Intensify law enforcement efforts directed 
at non-EU countries, especially producer 
countries and regions along trafficking routes.   
36.1 Create and/or further develop MS liaison 
officers’ networks. Each network to meet, at 
least on a six monthly basis, to improve operational cooperation and coordination of 
MS action in third countries. MS This action has been partly achieved 
This action aims to monitor the application by customs administrations of the Council Decision on 
Common Use of Liaison Officers (LO) , which includes the network of Liaison Officers on drugs 
trafficking. 
During the reporting period, four  EU-Russia Liaison Officers Meetin gs took place in 2006, 2007 and 
2008. In September 2006, a first meeting of senior level officials took place. Furthermore, two Western 
Balkan Lead Liaison Officers Mee tings took place in 2006 and 2007 , focusing on cooperation in the 
field of drugs. Spain ran an AGIS funded project from January 2006 to March 2007 to establish a 
                                                 
149 Under Action 38.2 details are given of anti-drugs projects funded by the EU and EC (data from 2005).  
 
EN 128   EN network in Latin America (ELON-LAC), the main aim of which is to exchange information on drugs 
within the network of Liaison Officers po sted in Latin America and the Caribbean.   
36.2 Provide relevant training to MS liaison 
officers. MS The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
Training for Liaison Officers is mainly at national level by their national administration. However 
training carried out at EU level by CEPOL could be of benefit to Liaison Officers also, along with one-
off seminars organised by Europol and the Member States. CEPOL does not, however, organise any 
specific training course just for Li aison officers. Such specific traini ng is hardly feasible since Liaison 
officers normally cover a wide array of crimes (if not all) and are not employed as specialists for a 
particular type of crime when posted abroad. 
Training for liaison officers is norm ally delivered at MS level. In general, only highly trained and 
experienced officers are taken into cons ideration for liaison officer posts. 
36.3 Implement or support, as appropriate, 
operational law enforcement projects, share best practice and increase counter narcotics 
work in the countries/ regions listed in 
Action 35. MS The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Member States implement a broad variety of activities and cooperations with countries and regions 
listed under action 35. The results are unknown and have not been evaluated.  
36.4 Provide assistance to the law enforcement 
agencies of the countries/regions listed in 
Action 35, in the field of counteracting the 
production and trafficking of drugs and diversion of precursors. This assistance 
should include assistance in the field of 
training. MS 
COM 
 The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Law enforcement cooperation with third countries is  included in the drug cooperation chapters in all 
association and cooperation agreem ents with non-EU countries in the field of drugs. The feedback 
received from the Member States in this specifi c field prompted practical  information on activities 
carried out in the past year and — in one or tw o cases — on seizures. Unfortunately, reports on 
activities and data on numbers and quantities do not re veal much about the success of the action. It is 
recommended to amend the first and delete the second and third indicators for this action in future progress reports.  
37 Continue and develop an active political 
engagement by the EU with third 
countries/regions.   
37.1 Use mechanisms, such as the Coordination 
and Cooperation Me chanism on Drugs 
between the EU/ Latin America and the 
Caribbean, EU specialised dialogue on 
drugs with the Andean community and Drug 
Troika meetings to pursue an active political dialogue with the countries and regions 
concerned. Council 
COM This action has been partly achieved, but its outcome cannot be assessed 
The EU-LAC Drugs Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism met regularly during the reporting 
period, both at Technical and High levels. In 2006, the May EU-LAC Summit reiterated the 
commitment to cooperate, in accordance with the principle of shared responsibility, in tackling the illicit 
drugs problem and endorsed the proposal of the High Level Meeting of the Mechanism that a full 
review be conducted of the 1999 Panama Ac tion Plan and the Lisb on areas for action. 
In 2007, the High Level Meeting of  the Mechanism that took place in  Trinidad and Tobago concluded 
with the Port of Spain Declaration, which identified new priorities for future cooperation in the field of 
 
EN 129   EN drugs (see action 37.2). The High Level meeting that took place in Vienna in March 2008 resulted in the 
adoption of the ‘Hofburg Declaration’, in which th e parties identified the next steps towards the 
implementation of the revised Panama Action Plan. The LAC side proposed Rules of Procedure. Concerning the EU-CAN Specialised High Level Dialogue on Drugs, there were constructive and 
fruitful meetings in June 2005 and in September 2006. The latest High Level Specialised Dialogue was 
held in Bogota on 1 and 2 November 2007, allowing for a most fruitful exchange of views both on demand and supply reduction. 
Between 2005 and 2008, regular bilateral and regional  Troika meetings have been organised, involving 
the main producer and transit countries (like Afghanistan, Western Ba lkans, ECOWAS, Russia, 
Morocco, etc.) and main partners such as the United States.  
Conclusion 
Over the years, the EU-LAC Drugs Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism have played a significant 
role in highlighting the drugs issue on the EU/LAC agenda. The Mechanism facilitated and 
strengthened coordination between both regions in UN fora, in particular during annual CND meetings and by the co-sponsoring or supporting of resolutions. The Mechanism has helped to bring out regions’ 
efforts in the field of drugs and to pinpoint the needs for mutual cooperation. However, the mechanism 
has experienced operational and procedural diffic ulties that have prevented better results being 
achieved. This is why Rules of Procedure for the Mechanism were proposed and a reflection period 
initiated during the High Level Dialogue in 2008. This  process will focus on how  to review procedures 
and establish new instruments/tools. The rules of procedure should be endorsed by the next High-Level meeting in 2009.  
37.2 Review the activities and measures and, 
where appropriate, establish new priorities 
in the drugs action plans the EU has adopted with: 
• Latin America and the Caribbean 
• Central Asia  
Western Balkan countries. Council 
COM This action has been partly achieved, but its outcome cannot be assessed 
The review of the Panama Action Plan, agreed wi th Latin American and Caribbean countries, was 
launched in Cartagena in 2007 and concluded in May 2007 at the High Level Meeting of the EU-LAC Coordination and Cooperation Mechan ism in Trinidad and Tobago. The Port of Spain Declaration sets 
out future priorities for cooperation in the fields of demand and supply reduction and other areas related 
to drugs, such as money laundering, customs, police and judicial cooperation. During the last meeting of the EU-LAC High-level meeting, in Vienna on 4-5 March, the Hofburg Declaration identified the next 
steps towards the implementation of the revised Panama Action Plan.  
The review of the action plan with  the Western Balkans took place in 2008. Concerning Central Asia, 
the review will start and be based on the evaluation of the two main programmes in the region, BOMCA 
and CADAP. 
37.3 Participate fully in the work of international 
organisations and fora concerned with the 
drugs problem, such as the Council of 
Europe (Pompidou Group), UNODC, WHO Council 
MS 
COM This action has been achieved 
The Member States and European Commission part icipated in the meetings of the Permanent 
Representatives of the Pompidou Group. Member States and the European Commission (observer) 
actively participate in the work of  the UNODC, as well as in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) 
 
EN 130   EN and UNAIDS. and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Crim inal Justice (CCPCJ) and the Paris Pact. Several EU 
Member States are major donors of the activities of WHO and UNAIDS, which include activities in the 
field of drugs. 
37.4 Utilise fully the Dublin Group as a flexible, 
informal consultation and coordination 
mechanism for global, regional and country-
specific problems of illicit drugs production, trafficking and demand. Council 
MS 
COM The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In the period 2005-2008, the regional chairs of the Dublin Group (mostly EU Member States) produced 
regular detailed reports on the drugs situation in the Caribbean, North, East, West and South Africa, 
Central America and Mexico, and South America, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South East Asia and China and South West Asia. These prov ide a lot of on-site information. Nevertheless, the 
follow-up of the recommendations in countries concerned made through the Dublin Group mechanism 
needs further attention as these are often rather exte nsive and detailed and it is unclear if they are being 
implemented.  
37.5 Maintain an active dialogue with third 
countries for the implementation of the Mini Dublin Group’s recommendations. Council 
Dublin Group The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The Dublin Group remains a very valuable inst rument for Member States and the Commission for 
consultations and inspiring cooper ation activities. The Group’s reports are detailed and informative. 
Nevertheless, the follow-up of the recommendations through the Dublin Group mechanism needs 
further attention as these are often rather extensive an d detailed and it is unclear to what extent they are 
being implemented. It may be suggested that the regional chairs of the Dublin Group monitor the 
implementation of these recommendations as well. 
38 Improve the coherence, visibility and 
efficiency of the assistance to candidate countries and third countries/ regions.   
38.1 Exchange information on drug related 
technical assistance projects and operational 
activities in candidate countries and third countries/regions, in particular to identify 
duplication and gaps in technical assistance 
and operational activities. Council 
COM This objective has been partly achieved 
In June 2006, the HDG agreed on a set of conclusions and recommendations on the level and nature of 
Member States’ and the Commission’s external assist ance in the area of drugs. The conclusions were 
based on a 2004 Commission report. At the end of 2007, the Commission published an update of this 
‘Drug Matrix’ table for the year 2 005. The exercise revealed that ne arly EUR 760 million, the stock of 
EU international cooperation projects in the area of drugs in 2005, made the EU one of the strongest players in the global efforts against drugs. Of the to tal spending, two-thirds was allocated to activities in 
Afghanistan and almost one third to the three ma in coca growing countries (Colombia, Bolivia and 
Peru). Most funding was provided for alternative development (66%), institution building (17%, mostly 
law enforcement), supply reduction and law enforcement cooperation (11.4%) and demand reduction 
including harm reduction (5%). In 2005, more than half of the EU Member States plus the European Commission had international cooperation projects in the area of drugs. This includes fourteen of the 
fifteen countries that were members of the EU before January 2005 and one of the twelve new Member 
States since that date. Approximately 80% of the valu e of the stock of projects is accounted for by the 
EC and one Member State; seven Member States acco unt for another 15%. The collection of data for 
 
EN 131   EN the 2006 Drugs Matrix was launched in September 2007 and had not been completed at the time of 
finalisation of this evaluation.  
Conclusions 
With EUR 760 million in 2005, the EU is one of the major funders of drug-related assistance projects in 
the world, with major contributions allocated to alternative development, institution building and supply 
reduction activities in mainly Afghanistan and the Andean Region. Notwithstanding the above, the projects to which these figures corr espond reflect only the most visible and easily measurable part of the 
efforts undertaken by the EU There are other coop eration and coordination initiatives that, by their 
nature, are confidential, do not take the form of projects and/ or are part of continuous undertakings the cost of which is difficult to ascertain. Furthermore, the data collection process is very complicated and 
time consuming, in terms of identifying Member State projects and funding, and of retrieving EC 
funded projects, as drug projects ar e not registered as such and much of the expenditure is decentralised.  
38.2 Evaluate EC and Member States drug 
projects included in cooperation 
programmes. MS 
COM This objective has not been achieved 
No evaluation has taken place 
39 Provide reliable and comparable data on 
key epidemiological indicators. 
Full implementation of the five key 
epidemiological indicators and, as appropriate, fine tuning of these 
indicators. MS 
EMCDDA This objective has been achieved, but requires ongoing investment and attention 
In the past 3 years, a steady improvement can be observed in the implementation of the Key indicators 
(KIs) by Member States. Moreover, these measures are increasingly viewed as global standards for 
information collection in these areas. Nearly all Me mber States now collect some information in each 
indicator area, although the quality varies. For assessing implementation levels, three key dimensions 
have now been formalised: a) the extent to which national approac hes meet accepted methodological 
standards ; b) the extent to which reporting can be made using agreed common categories ; c) the 
availability of fresh information (timeliness — i.e. availability of recent data within reasonable time 
limit). As of 2009, minimum implementation targets will be available for progress made by Member 
States in each information domain and provide po licymakers with a clearer  understanding of the 
resource implications of KI implementation.  
It is clear that Member States must try to m eet minimum implementation criteria of each KI. These 
criteria need to be drawn up and subsequently interpreted with due regard for different national contexts. As the number of countries participating in the European system has now grown to 30, the 
need for a common, transparent and simp le system has become ever clearer. 
The overall picture of the implementation level of the KIs is relatively positive with the majority of 
countries reporting both recent and compliant data. However, a clear problem area is that many 
countries have not invested in rece nt estimates of problem drug use (PDU indicator). A project 
assessing and improving data coverage in the area of treatment demand showed that the t reatment 
demand ind icator currently has good data coverage on outpatient and inpatient treatment centres, but 
that data coverage remains quite limited in low threshold agencies, treatment units in prison and general 
 
EN 132   EN practitioners treating drug users. A related project focusing on ‘prevalence’ is looking at the total 
number of drug patients attending treatment centres, including clients in continuous treatment. The 
study shows that a significant proportion (around 65%) of the treatment population in Europe are now long-stayers (one year and more) and do not therefore feature among those entering treatment. Changes 
in data collection, following new trends in the treatment sector (new patterns of drug use, expansion and 
diversification of drug treatment availability) has sh own the need for a revision of the EMCDDA data 
collection tools in the area of drug treatment. For this purpose, two main activities will be developed in 
the field of data collection on drug treatment in the following period: 
• a revision of the TDI over the next two years  
• a more integrated approach to information collected at European level on treatment clients and 
treatment organisation 
 
During 2007, the component of DRD indicator based on population statistics on poisonings or 
overdoses (drug-induced deaths) continued its consolidation. Considerable work to improve quality, validity and comparability were carried out in several countries, although further improvements are still 
needed, in particular cross validation studies betw een different mortality re gistries, with mortality 
cohorts and with other indicators such as problem drug use estimations. New data collection started in 2007 to assess in more detail the combinations of substances involved in drug-induced deaths, following 
a first data collection in which eight countries participated. These two data collections aimed to obtain 
more information on the role of poly drug use in these deaths.  
Conclusions 
MS and the Commission to consider how best to obtain reliable and comparable data on key 
epidemiological indicators. 
40 Provide reliable information on the drug 
situation.   
40.1 Reitox National Focal Points and Europol 
National Drugs Units to pursue their work to 
ensure their annual and standardised 
reporting on national drugs situations. MS This action has been achieved 
Quality management procedures are constantly being improved by the EMCDDA, in close collaboration 
with the Reitox national focal points, in order to fu lfil the objective of ‘providing reliable information 
on the drug situation’. The quality of the Reitox national reports has been continuously improving over 
the last year, although the quality of single chapters  can vary. In 2007, improvements were also related 
to adherence to guidelines, layout rules and the common referencing of sources. Regarding timeliness in 
national report deliveries, in 2007 only 50% of the countries met the deadline (14 countries), compared 
to 61% in 2005 (17 countries). The EMCDDA is currently taking measures in close collaboration with the Reitox network to improve the timeliness of reports. The description of trends plays a major role in 
national reports, but in some countries reliable quantitative data are still missing to base this information 
 
EN 133   EN on. Some reports are oriented towards scientific standards, but in the majority of cases a more 
comprehensive analysis and interpretation of data is  still lacking. In line with the conclusions of the 
Reitox Head of focal points meeting in May 2007, and also as a result of the current reflection carried out at the EMCDDA in close collaboration with the Reitox NFPs, the national reporting system and the 
quality criteria will be revised in 2008-2009.  
Europol reports have different levels of detail, de pending on relevant target groups and sensitivity. 
Europol contributes to the EU’s Organised Crime Threat Assessment Reports. In 2007, Europol and 
EMCDDA also contributed to the UNGASS assessment expert group of UNODC.  
40.2 EMCDDA and Europol to pursue annual 
reporting on the drug phenomenon at EU 
scale. EMCDDA 
Europol This action has been achieved 
Overall, in 2006 and 2007 both EMCDDA (including the Reitox Network) and Europol delivered a 
series of reports on the drug demand and drug supply situation in Europe, providing policy makers and 
implementing agencies with up-to-date information on the drug situation and the responses to it. 
41 Develop clear information on emerging 
trends and patterns of drug use and drug 
markets. Council 
COM  
41.1 Achieve an agreement on EU guidelines and 
mechanisms on detecting, monitoring and responding to emerging trends. COM This action has not been achieved, but progress was made  
The Commission intends to present a Commission Services Working Paper to the Council in the second 
half of 2008. It will identify the possibilities and relevance of EU guidelines and mechanisms for 
detecting, monitoring and responding to emerging trends in drug users and the drug market, 
complementary to the existing system s such as the Early Warning Syst em and the Council Decision on 
the Information Exchange, Risk Assessment and Control of new Psychoactive Substances
150. The paper 
will address the importance of national and local information exchange on new trends and the 
difficulties accompanying early detection of new trends at EU level.  
In the field of monitoring new trends, the EMCDDA has set up the E-POD project (European 
Perspectives on Drugs), which includes the Early Warning System and Council Decision 
implementation and through which case studies — based on qualitative review techniques — on specific types of substances or trends are being developed. A study on hallucinogenic mushrooms and 
on GHB/ GBL has been published, while a factsheet on Methamphetamine is being developed. In 
November 2007 the EMCDDA also held an expert meeting to explore the use of health emergency data to help detect, track and understand emerging drug trends. In 2008 the EMCDDA is launching a 
feasibility study to explore the potential for collec ting hospital emergencies data, with a view to 
understanding and responding to emerging drug trends.
  
                                                 
150 2005/JHA/387 
 
EN 134   EN 41.2 The Commission to provide for a 
Eurobarometer survey on youth attitude 
regarding drugs. The results of the Eurobarometer should be analysed in 
conjunction with the data from the 
EMCDDA ‘Population survey’ key indicator.  MS This action has been achieved 
A Flash Eurobarometer on “Young People and Drugs”  was conducted between in May 2008. Over 
12 500 randomly selected young people (15-24 years-of-age) were interviewed across the 27 EU Member States. The objective was to study young EU  citizens’ attitudes and perceptions about drug-
related issues and policies.  
Young people seem to support the EU’s balanced approach in drug policy by advocating ‘‘tough’’ 
measures to be taken against drug dealers and traffi ckers (63%) but also advoca ting ‘‘soft’’ measures to 
be used against drug users, e.g. through information and prevention campaigns (47%) and the treatment 
and rehabilitation of offenders (33%). 
Young people increasingly seem to make a distinction in risk perception between substances, as 81% 
and 96% of respondents thought heroin, cocaine and ecstasy pose a high risk for users, while only 41% 
thought that of cannabis. When compared to the risks of licit substances, 70% of respondents thought 
the smoking of tobacco posed a medium to low health risk, while 75% thought alcohol posed a medium 
to low risk. 
When asked about possible options for government control of licit and illicit substances, almost all 
respondents thought heroin (97%), cocaine (95%) and ecstasy (94%) should remain under strict control. 
Regarding cannabis, one-third (31%) of respondents thought a model similar to alcohol and tobacco could be introduced, while 67% thought that controls should remain unchanged.  
Among all respondents, heroin was seen to be the most difficult illicit drug to obtain, followed by 
cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. Cocaine was considered  to be easy or very available to 35% of the 
respondents aged 15-24. Cannabis was considered fairly easy or very easy to obtain by almost 63% of 
respondents aged 15-24. 72% of 15-18 year-olds thought it would be easy to very easy for them to get 
hold of tobacco against 87% of those aged 22-24. Over 90% of respondents in all Member States but one indicated that it would be fairly easy to very easy for them to obtain alcohol. 
 
42 Produce estimates on public expenditures 
on drug issues. 
Member States and Commission to 
consider the development of compatible 
methodologies on direct and indirect 
expenditure on drug-related measures, 
with the support of the EMCDDA. MS 
COM 
EMCDDA This objective has not been achieved 
Estimates of public expenditures on drug issues can provide important information to policy makers on 
how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their interventions in demand and supply reduction. In recent years, research on drug -related expenditure has been unde rtaken in some EU countries and 
internationally
151, resulting in different approaches regarding methodology and quality.  
Under the 6th RTD Framework Programme, th e Commission is funding a project which aims to develop 
ways of estimating the cost of crime, including a numb er of drug-related offences. In 2008 and 2009 the 
Commission will invest in developing ways of measuring the costs of law enforcement. Finally, in 2008 
                                                 
151 Kopp P., Fenoglio P. (2003), Public spending on drugs in the European Union during the 1990s.; http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=1357 ; Postma M. (2004). Public 
expenditure on drugs in the European Union 2000-2004.; http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=1357 ;  
 
EN 135   EN the Commission is funding a study that will provide estimates on social costs of the drug problem in a 
number of countries worldwide and produce estimates on the size of the global drug market.  
Recently, the EMCDDA considered setting up a common methodology to collect details of public 
expenditure by Member States.  
The methodology proposes a unified and standardised approach that maximises the validity and the 
cross-country comparability of the results on the basis of labelled  and non-labelled  expenditures. Public 
expenditures explicitly “ labelled ” as drug-related must be traced back by exhaustively reviewing 
official accountancy documents in  MS, in accordance with a cla ssification on the basis of the 
COFOG152, the International Classification of the Functions of Government and Reuter’s153 drug 
programs division (i.e. Prevention Treatment, Enforcement, or Harm reduction). “Non-labelled”  drug-
related expenditures should be estimated through a modelling top-down approach. Starting from overall 
aggregated expenditures, this procedure will estimate  the proportion causally attributable to drug use. 
As a first step in exploring a broader scope of drug-related expenditures, efforts are proposed to focus 
initially on two government functions as defined by COFOG: Public order and safety, and Health.  
Within EMCDDA reflection on the feasibility of setting up a common methodology to collect details of 
public expenditure at EU level, a test has been conducted involving 30 European countries. Its results 
and opinions of experts suggest that the twofold strategy proposed could be subject to regular monitoring by the EMCDDA.  
Therefore, and as a fund amental prerequisite, the implementation should follow a progressive and 
incremental approach in those MS which have shown interest and have the analytical capacity to do so. The EMCDDA will be able to offer technical and operational counselling on the topic aimed at keeping 
the cross-country comparability of the results provided by MS.  
43 Promote research in the field of drugs.   
43.1 Promote research in the context of the 
Community Programme for Research and Development and of Member States’ 
research programmes  
• on biomedical, psychosocial and other 
factors contributing to drug use and MS 
COM The achievement of this action ca not be assessed 
The EU Research Programmes
154 increasingly provide opportunities for EU research organisations and 
networks in the field of drugs to collaborate at international level.  
Activities in these fields have previously received support from the 6th Research Framework Programme 
(2002-2006) and earlier Framework Programmes. Fo r example, research carried out under the 6th 
Research Framework Programme included the deve lopment of methods fo r profiling amphetamines155, 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
152 United Nations (2008) COFOG Detailed structure and explanatory notes.; http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4   
153 Reuter, P. (2006). What drug policies cost. Estimating government drug policy expenditures. In: Addiction, 101: 315-322;  
154 5th, 6th and 7th Framework Programmes run by the European Commission. 
155 CHAMP project ( http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/ssp/champ_en.htm )  
 
EN 136   EN addiction, and; 
• on other relevant issues, such as the 
effectiveness of primary awareness 
campaigns, effective interventions to prevent HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C, and 
the long term effects of Ecstasy use.
 research into organised crime (Assessing Organised Crime)156 and Increased Knowledge on Organised 
Crime,157 and underlined the usefulness of such research.  
 The 7
th Framework Programme (2007-2013) provides the opportunity to researchers and their networks 
in the EU to submit proposals on a variety of research topics under the programmes on health, socio-
economic sciences and humanities and security research.  
However, the first results of the 7th RTD Framework Programme show  a very limited number of 
projects of only indirect interest to the drug-related research field. 
43.2 Promote research on identifying protective 
factors in countries with low HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates in drug users. MS 
Support of 
EMCDDA The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
The preliminary work undertaken so far demonstrates  that research activities in to protective factors in 
countries with low HIV/ AIDS prevalence rates in drug users are relativel y scarce. Considerable 
potential exists for further studies in this area. Any future research will need to be sensitive to 
ethnographic and social risk factors in IDUs, po pulation dynamics and service utilisation issues.  
 
An EMCDDA study from 2007 included a literature review of protectiv e factors for HIV infection and 
brought together mathematical modellers and epidemiologists to develop new analysis of existing data 
sets that may give some further insights into this issue. The literature review itself has not identified 
individual factors that could easily explain persistent low HIV prevalence in IDUs in some EU countries. Early intervention is likely to have had a protective effect in at least some low prevalence 
countries. Furthermore: 
– Estimates have been developed for the level of infection of HIV, HCV and HBV in IDUs depending 
on duration of exposure for various EU countries. These methods may be used for monitoring the 
incidence of infection from repeated cross-sectional studies in IDUs.  
– The association between HIV and HCV prevalence in  IDU populations reveals a threshold effect, 
where under a certain HCV prevalence HIV prevalen ce is likely to be around zero. This may be 
further developed towards using HCV data as an indicator of the risk of HIV outbreaks.  
– Estimates of the heterogeneity in risk of infection among IDU populations have been developed 
based on different statistical approaches which may be developed into proxy indicators of risk 
behaviour distribution, as a complement to data on self-reported behaviour and potentially as a tool 
to evaluate the effect of prevention efforts. 
– An exploratory model of drug users moving in and out of drug treatment has been developed that 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
156 Assessing Organised Crime ( http://www.assessingorganised crime.net)  
157 Increased Knowledge on Organised Crime ( http://ikoc.unicatt.it ) 
 
EN 137   EN can be used for analyses on the effect s of HIV testing and other interventions. 
– Two additional literature reviews have been done: 1) on mathematical modelling of HIV and 
hepatitis in IDUs (AIDS, in press), 2) An analys is of published data on IDU risk behaviour in 
Europe 
43.3 Make full use of the research capacity of the 
Council of Europe (Pompidou Group). MS 
COM The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The Council of Europe (Pompidou Group) has established a collaboration platform on drug-related 
research in which experts explore gaps and priorities in  this field. The platform works together with the 
Commission and EMCDDA on setting up a database  on existing EU drug-related research.  
44 Create networks of excellence in drug 
research. 
Encourage research networks, 
universities and professionals to 
develop/create networks of excellence for the optimal use of resources and effective 
dissemination of results. COM This objective has not yet been achieved, bu t results are expected in 2008 and 2009 
The Commission has launched a study on “A comparative analysis of research into illicit drugs in the 
European Union” which will provide an overview of th e research areas, trends and infrastructures in the 
EU and make recommendations on how to encourage ne tworks of excellence in the field of drug-related 
research. The final report will be available in 2009.  
45 Continuous and overall evaluation   
45.1 Establish a consolidated list of indicators 
and assessment tools for the evaluation of the EU Drug Strategy and Action Plans. COM 
EMCDDA Europol This action has been achieved, but is ongoing 
With a view to the final evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008), the Commission 
developed an evaluation methodology based on the advice of an external contractor and a Steering 
Group, consisting of representativ es of the HDG Presidencies (2
nd half 2005 to end 2007), the 
EMCDDA, Europol and the European Parliament.  
45.2 Commission to present progress reviews to 
the Council and the European Parliament on 
the implementation of the Action Plan and 
proposals to deal with identified gaps and possible new challenges. COM This action has been achieved 
As the current EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) was adopted by the European Council in July 2005, a 
first progress review was published in December 20 06, covering activities in the second half of 2005 
and the first half of 2006. The 2007 progress review was publis hed in December 2007, covering 
activities in the second half of 2006 to the first ha lf of 2007. The 2007 progress review was presented as 
a Commission Communication with detailed information annexed to it. 
45.3 Commission to organise an impact 
assessment with a view of proposing a new 
Action Plan for 2009-2012. COM This action has been achieved 
This evaluation report presents the state of play on the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2009) and is 
annexed to the Commission’s proposal for the new EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012).  
46 Follow-up of the mutual evaluation of 
drug law enforcement systems in the Member States. Council The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
In 1999 and 2000 the Council conducted an evaluation of drug law enforcement systems in the Member 
States (ref.). This resulted in a number of recomm endations to the Member States for improvement. 
 
EN 138   EN Extent of implementation of 
recommendations for best practices. There is no information available about the extent to which these recommendations have been followed 
up by the Member States. The implementation of this  objective cannot be held to be satisfactory.  
 
EN 139   EN Annex 2 — List of abbreviations 
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
AWF Analysis Work Files 
BMK 1 Phenyl 2 propanone  
BOMCA Border Management for Central Asia 
BUMAD Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova Anti-Drug Programme 
CADAP Central Asia Drug Programme 
CCPCJ Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 
CECLAD-M Centre de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Méditerranée 
CEPOL European Police College 
CICAD Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission 
CND Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
COSPOL Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police 
CWP Customs Working Party 
DRD Drug-related Deaths 
DRID Drug-related Infectious Diseases 
ECAB European Criminal Assets Bureau 
EJUP European Joint Unit on Precursors 
EMCDDA European Monitoring Cent re on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy 
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 
JRC Joint Research Centre 
MAOC — N Maritime Analysis 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  
PRECAN Prevention of Precursor Diversion in the Andean Region Project 
REITOX Réseau Européen d’Informati on sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
SCAD South Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme 
SECI Southeast European Cooperation Initiative 
SUSTRANS Suspicious Transactions Project (Europol) 
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 140   EN Annex 3 — Glossary of terms  
A 
Amphetamine Type Stimulants 
The term amphetamine-type stimulants is used to refer to amphetamines (amphetamine, meth-amphetamine and 
related substances) and ecstasy (MDMA and related analogues). Amphetamine and methamphetamine are 
central nervous system stimulants. Ecstasy refers to synthetic substances that are chemically related to 
amphetamines but which differ to some extent in their effects. The best-known member of the ecstasy group of drugs is 3,4-methylenedioxy-metham phetamine (MDMA), but ot her analogues are also occasionally found in 
ecstasy tablets (MDA, MDEA).  
Assessment tool 
An assessment tool is a means of verifying progress on  or achievement of an action. 
B 
Buprenorphine 
Buprenorphine is a mixed opioid agonis t/ antagonist which can be used in substitution treatment. It has been 
used extensively in many countries for the short term tr eatment of moderate to severe pain. The mixed opioid-
action/ blocking-action appears to make buprenorphine safe in overdose. It may also provide an easier 
withdrawal phase, and due to a longer action, may allow for altern ate day dosing. Buprenorphine is also 
available under the brand name Subutex ®. See also: Methadone, Maintenance treatment. 
C 
CND 
The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is the central policy-making body within the United Nations system 
dealing with drug-related matters. It analyses the world drug situation and develops proposals to strengthen the 
international drug control system and combat the world drug problem. In 1991, the UN General Assembly established the Fund of the United Nations Internati onal Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) and expanded the 
mandate of the Commission to enable it to function as the governing body of UNDCP. UNDCP is part of the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 
D 
Drug dependence 
Drug dependence is often defined as: a maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant 
impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time within a 12-
month period. (1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the followi ng: (a) need for markedly  increased amounts of 
the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect; (b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the 
same amount of the substance. (2) Withdrawal, as manifested by either  of the following: (a) the withdrawal 
characteristic for the substance (refers to Criteria A and B of the criteria sets for withdrawal from the specific 
substances; (b) the same (or closely related) substan ce is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; (3) the 
substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended; (4) there is a persistent 
desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control substance use; (5) a great deal of time is spent in activities 
necessary to obtain the substance (e.g. visiting multiple doc tors or driving long distances), use of the substance 
(e.g. chain-smoking), or recovering from its effects; (6) Important social, occupational or recreational activities 
are given up or reduced because of substance use; (7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of 
having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or 
exacerbated by the substance (e.g. current cocaine use de spite recognition of cocaine -induced depression, or 
continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption) ( source: DSM 
IV). 
 
EN 141   EN Drug free treatment 
Drug free treatment involves the application of psychosocial and educational techniques to achieve long-term 
abstinence from drugs. Traditionally, drug-free treatment ha s been residential and long term, e.g. in therapeutic 
communities. Today, it is also offered in community-based settings. 
Drug-related death 
Drug-related death is defined in this report as: deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drugs 
and generally occurring shortly after the consumption of the substance(s). These deaths are known as 
‘overdoses’, ‘poisonings’ or drug-induced deaths. 
Drug-related infectious diseases 
The most prevalent types of drug-related infectious  diseases are Hepatitis B and C, HIV/ AIDS and 
Tuberculosis.  
H 
Harm Reduction 
There is no universal definition of the term harm reduction. For this report the definition of the International 
Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) is used: “policies and programmes which attempt primarily to reduce the 
adverse health, social and economic consequences of mood altering substances to individual drug users, their 
families and their communities”.  
Hepatitis B  
Hepatitis B is a virus spread through the blood and bodily fluids of an infected person. Many people do not 
realise they have been infected with  the virus, because symptoms may not develop immediately, or at all. The 
hepatitis B virus can then go on to cause a chronic (long-t erm) illness, which follows th e acute infection. This is 
very common if babies or children contract the virus, but can also occur in adults. The virus is present in body 
fluids such as blood, saliva, semen and vaginal flui d. It can be passed from person to person, through 
unprotected sex (without using a condom) and sharing needles to inject drugs. Infected mothers can  also transmit 
the virus to their baby during the delivery process (often  without the woman being awar e that she is infected). 
The incubation period (i.e. the time from coming into contact with the virus to developing the infection) is between one and six months. There is a blood test to det ect the virus. There is also  a vaccine to protect you 
against hepatitis B.  
Hepatitis C  
Hepatitis C is a blood-borne viral infection. At times it is also passed on through other body fluids. Drug users 
sharing needles are particularly at risk. Anyone whose blood has come into contact with the blood of someone infected with the hepatitis C virus is also at risk. Approximately 20% of people will fight the infection and 
naturally clear it from their bodies within two to six months. Of the rest some will remain well, and never 
develop liver damage but many will develop mild to m oderate liver damage (with or without symptoms). A 
further 20% will progress to cirrhosis of the liver over a period of 20- 30 years. Excessive drinking of alcohol is 
often associated with increas ed likelihood of progression to severe liv er complications. There is no vaccine to 
prevent hepatitis C but treatment can clear the in fection in approximately half those infected. 
HIV/ AIDS 
AIDS was first recognised as a new condition in 1981. Since then around 40 million people worldwide have 
been infected with HIV, the virus which can lead to AIDS. About a third of them have died. However, 
developments in treatment since the mid-nineties have dramatically improved the life expectancy for those 
diagnosed with HIV. People with HIV may not have any symptoms at all while they are in the latent phase. 
However, many people experience symptoms in the first couple of months after getting infected. These symptoms may include high temperature and fever, fatigue, skin rash, muscle pains, headache, nausea, vomiting 
and diarrhoea. Once someone becomes ill with HIV, they are open to many infections. These can include 
infections of the mouth, such as thrush (oral candidiasis), unusual types of pneumonia, tuberculosis (TB), infections of the brain and eyes, unusual skin problems and odd infections of the gastrointestinal tract. Most 
people with severe HIV infection also experience weight loss, enlargement of their lymph glands and persistent 
diarrhoea.  
 
EN 142   EN I 
Injecting Drug User (IDU) 
Injections are usually intravenous, but may also be intramuscular, subcutaneous.  
Indicator 
An indicator is a tool by which the progress or achievemen t of an action or objective can be measured. 
M 
Maintenance treatment 
Maintenance treatment is a harm reduction intervention aiming at stabilising opiate users medically and socially 
allowing for genuine social re-integration. To avoid criminal activity when acquiring the illicit drugs and 
eliminating high risk situation when administrating the drug via injecting, the treatment provides the patient with 
a substitution drug, mostly orally administered methadone or buprenorphine. Often maintenance treatment is provided as DOT (Daily Observed Therapy) which allows  for thorough monitoring of the effects of substitution 
drugs in every patient. Furthermore patients are supported by medical and social service professionals to 
guarantee beneficial lo ng-term effects on so cial re-integration. 
Medically assisted treatment 
Medically assisted treatment (MAT) covers both substitution treatment with agonists (methadone, 
buprenorphine, dihydrocodeine, heroin, slow-release morphine) and other pharmacological treatments (e.g. with antagonists such as naltrexone) which is targeted  at the drug use itself (not anti-depressives and 
benzodiazepines). 
Methadone 
A synthetic opiate drug used in maintenance therapy for those dependent on opioids. It has a long half-life, and 
can be given orally once daily with supervision. Meth adone acts as a replacement for opiates in the body and 
thus can lessen withdrawal symptoms and cravings. At hi gher doses, it can also reduce the euphoric effects of 
opiates, thereby further protecting opiate users from relapse. Methadone is provided under several brand names. 
N 
Needle and syringe exchange 
An intervention in which needles, syringes, other injecting equipment (such as alcohol swabs to clean injecting 
sites, and water with which to mix powdered drugs) are prov ided to IDUs through outreach, drop-in centres, 
clinics or shop fronts, mobile units such as vans and buses and/ or vending machines. Most NSPs include a 
retrieval service for used syringes. 
P 
Prevalence 
Prevalence is a statistic of pr imary interest in public heal th because it identifies the leve l of burden of disease or 
health-related events on the population and health care system. Prevalen ce represents new and pre-existing cases 
alive on a certain date, in contrast to incidence, whic h reflects new cases of a condition diagnosed during a given 
period of time. Prevalence is a function of bo th the incidence of the disease and survival.  
Prevention 
The term generally covers three different types of dr ug prevention, each with di stinctive characteristics. 
Universal prevention  used to be referred to as primary prevention. This is aimed at the general population or 
parts of it (e.g. young people) that are not identified on the basis of individual risk factors. Selective prevention  
aims at specific groups of individuals who have an increased risk of developing drug problems (e.g. children of alcoholics or drug addicts, socially deprived young people, etc.). Indicated prevention  aims at individuals who 
do not have drug or addiction problems according to the international diagnostic criteria for substance use 
disorders, but who do have some early characteristics of problematic use (e.g. young people using drugs with 
 
EN 143   EN high frequency). Practically all prev ention programmes (school-based, family-oriented, mass media, community) 
cover one or more of these types of prevention.  
Problem use 
In its ‘Methodological guidelines to estimate the prevalence of problem use at national level (1999), the 
EMCDDA defines problem drug use as “injecting drug use” or “long duration/ regular use of opiates, cocaine 
and/ or amphetamines”. At international level, the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders 
(DSM-IV) and the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) use a somewhat broader definition of 
problem use, which also includes social aspects of  problem use.  
R 
Risk factors 
Risk factors are personal or social conditions that are considered mediating factors in increasing the probability 
that an individual will develop problem drug use or drug  dependence. Scientific literature roughly differentiates 
between early childhood risk factors (e.g. lack of social  skills, lack of social support in families) and late 
childhood risk factors (lack of problem solving skills, dysfunctional families, mental health/ addiction problems in family, lack of self-esteem) and adolescent risk factors (negative infl uence of peers, lowered self-esteem 
during adolescence). 
S 
Social costs 
In the scientific literature on drug policy, social costs related to drugs include both direct and indirect social 
costs. Direct social costs include p ublic expenditures on prevention, treatment, harm reduction, law enforcement 
& prosecution, penitentiaries, etc. Indirect social costs include loss of life (drug-related death), loss of 
productivity due to drug-related infectious diseases or imprisonment, social marginalisation of drug users, the 
indirect economic impact of open drug scenes, fraud and corruption. Social costs can be both material and 
immaterial, but the social cost model aims to esti mate the economic value of both types of costs. 
Substitution treatment 
Substitution treatment is a form of medical care offered to  opiate addicts (primarily heroin addicts) based on a 
similar or identical substance to the drug normally used. It is offered in two forms: maintenance  — providing the 
user with enough of the substance to reduce risky or harmful behaviour; or detoxification  — gradually cutting 
the quantity of the drug to zero. Treatment comes either with or without psycho-social support. 
 
EN 144   EN Annex 4 — EMCDDA data source s international comparison 
4.1. General population surveys (Prevalence and trends). 
Comment on methodology : The basic behavioural concepts as ked in different general population 
surveys are roughly comparable (lifetime, last year  or last month use). However, sample selection, 
data collection method (e.g. face to face intervie w or computer-assisted questionnaire) as well as the 
survey and social context (e.g. social disapproval) can differ and can have some effect on the resulting 
figures. 
European Union — European Monitoring  Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
• Reitox National reports . General population surveys indicator. See tables GPS-2 and GPS-4 in the 
EMCDDA Statistical Bulletin. 
Australia — Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
• For prevalence data: 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: Detailed Findings. AIHW 
cat. no. PHE 66. Canberra, 2005. AIHW (Drug Statistics Series No.16).  
• For trends information: 2007 National Drug Stra tegy Household Survey: First results. Canberra, 
April 2008. Cat. no. PHE 98 (Drug Statistics Series No.20). 
United States — Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 
• Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug use and Health, 2006; http://www.samhsa.gov ; 
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm#NHSDA.info ; 
• For trends information: results from the 2006 Na tional Survey on Drug Use and Health: National 
Findings; http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ns duh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.cfm#Ch9 ) 
Canada 
• Adlaf, E.M., Begin, P., & Sawka, E. (Eds.). ( 2005). Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national 
survey of Canadians’ use of alcohol and other dr ugs: Prevalence of use and related harms: Detailed 
report. Ottawa: Canadian Ce ntre on Substance Abuse. 
4.2. HIV infections in injecting drug users 
A) Numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infections: 
European Union — European Monitoring  Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
• Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. EMCDDA, 2007 
Australia — National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research 
• HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissibl e infections in Australia Annual Surveillance 
Report 2007, p42.; http://www.nchecr.unsw.edu.au/NCECRweb .nsf/resources/SurvRep07/$file/ASR2007.pdf
 
United States -- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
• HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2005, p37; 
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillan ce/resources/reports/#surveillance  
Canada 
• Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. Surveillance Report to December 31, 
2006, p17; http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/index-eng.html . 
B) Population sizes: 
European Union — Eurostat 
• http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu   
Australia, United States and Canada and USA  
• US Census Bureau; http://www.census.gov  
4.3. Direct drug-related mortality 
European Union — European Monitoring  Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
• Reitox National reports. 
 
EN 145   EN Australia  
• Degenhardt, L., and Roxburgh, A. (2007). Accident al drug-induced deaths due to opioids in 
Australia, 2005. Sydney: National Dr ug and Alcohol Research Centre. 
United States — Substance Abuse and Ment al Health Services Administration 
• Office of Applied Studies. Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2003: Area Profiles of Drug-Related 
Mortality. DAWN Series D-27, DHHS Publica tion No. (SMA) 05-4023. Rockville, MD, 2005. 
Canada  
• Popova S, Rehm J and Fischer B: An overview of illegal opioid use and health services utilisation 
in Canada. Public Health. Vol. 120, Issue 4, 2006, pp. 320-328. 
Population sizes: 
European Union — Eurostat 
• http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu   
Australia — Australian Bureau of Statistics  
• estimated resident population on 30 June 2005; 
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Pr oductsbyReleaseDate/1F51406DCEEBAC14CA256EC
7007B5B4E?OpenDocument  
Canada — Statistics Canada 
• population on 1 July 2007 aged 15-64; http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo31a.htm