EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2455 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSI ON TO THE CO UNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
 
On an EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) 
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
{COM(2008) 567} 
{SEC(2008) 2454} {SEC(2008) 2456}  
 
EN 2   EN Table of contents 
1. Procedural issues and stakeholder consultation ........................................................... 3 
1.1. Institutional background............................................................................................... 3 1.2. Methodology for the impact assessment and procedural issues................................... 4 1.3. Dialogue with key stakeholders ................................................................................... 4 2. Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)............ 9 
2.2. Current state-of-play .................................................................................................. 13 2.3. Subsidiarity .............................................................................................................. .. 19 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 22 
3.1. General objectives...................................................................................................... 22  
3.2. Specific and Operational objectives........................................................................... 22 4. Identification and assessment of policy options......................................................... 32 5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 36 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 37 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 39 Annex 1 - Logical Framework model ...................................................................................... 41 Annex 2 – Stakeholder consultation reference documents ...................................................... 42 Annex 3 – The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)................................................................ 44 Annex 4 – Provisional overview aggregat ed objectives Action Plan (2009-2012) ................. 46 
Annex 5 – impact assessment tables and swot analysis........................................................... 47 Annex 6 - List of abbreviations................................................................................................ 62 
Annex 7 -Glossary.............................................................................................................. ...... 63 
 
 
EN 3   EN 1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
1.1. Institutional background 
Illicit drugs are substances controlled by the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 
1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 C onvention on Psychotropic Substances and 
the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. 
These are the main international legal instru ments for addressing th e global drugs problem 
and providing a framework for Me mber States' drug legislation.  
All EU Member States and Candidate Countries  have signed and ratified these Conventions. 
As a consequence Member States are obliged to establish as criminal offences all activities with regards to the substan ces listed in the 1961 and 19 71 Conventions, including their 
cultivation, transport, import, export, distribution, possession and purchasing. Consumption of 
the substances controlled under these Conve ntions is not explicitly criminalised.  
Member States must guarantee fundamental righ ts, including those of the drug users, when 
implementing policies on drugs, as set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that States must pr otect children from the illicit use of narcotic 
drugs and psychotropic substances and drug production and trafficking
1. The EU framework 
for drug policy was develope d during the 1990s: The importa nce of European level 
cooperation in the field of drug dependence was reflected in the 1994 Communication from 
the Commission2. The creation of the European Mon itoring Centre for Drugs and Drug 
Addiction (EMCDDA) in 1993 and the Drugs Unit of Europol in 1994 were further signs of 
the importance and added value of dr ug policy at the European level. 
A first EU Drug Strategy ( 1995-1999) was adopted in 19953, promoting enhanced cooperation 
between Member States with the aim to re duce both the demand for and supply of drugs 
towards and within the EU. The EU Drug Strategy 2000-2004 and the EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2000-2004)4 introduced new possibilities for cooperation at EU level that became 
available in the through the adopti on of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  
The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012)5 endorsed in December 2004 by the European Council, 
is an integral part of the multi-annual programme " The Hague Programme' for strengthening 
freedom, security and justice in the EU6". It is based first and foremost on the fundamental 
principles of EU law and, in every regard, uphol ds the founding values of the Union: respect 
for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, solidarity, the rule of law and fundamental 
rights. It aims to guarantee a hi gh level of security for the ge neral public, to  protect public 
                                                 
1 Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: "States Parties shall take all appropriate 
measures, including legislative, ad ministrative, social and educatio nal measures, to protect children 
from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international 
treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances." 
2 COM (1994) 223 final; 21.6.1994 
3 9012/99 CORDROGUE 33; 
4 12555/3/99 CORDROGUE 64; 9283/00 CORDROGUE 3 
5 CORDROGUE 77, 22.11.200  
6 COM (2005) 184 final, 10.5.200 
 
EN 4   EN health and to protect and improve the well-bein g of society and of the individual, by taking a 
balanced, integrated appro ach to the drugs problem.  
The Strategy sets the framework, objectives and pr iorities for all drug-rel ated activities in the 
EU by means of two consecutive four-year Drug Action Plans to be brought forward by 
the Commission . The first of these Action Plans, th e EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008), 
was endorsed by the Council on 8 July 20057. The objectives and actions in the Strategy and 
Action Plans are partly structured as  a logical framework (see Annex 1).  
The EU Action Plan on Drugs ( 2005-2008) stipulates that the Co mmission is to organise an 
evaluation and calls upon the Commission to orga nise an impact assessment with a view of 
proposing a new EU Acti on Plan on Drugs (2009-2012)8. The final evaluation has taken place 
largely in parallel with the developmen t of this impact assessment report.  
The new EU Action Plan on Drugs covering the period from 2009 to 2012 together with the 
conclusions of the final evaluati on are to be presented in the Communication on an EU 
Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012), which is scheduled for adoption in September 2008. The 
full report of the evaluation can be f ound in the annex to the Communication.  
1.2. Methodology for the impact assessment and procedural issues 
This impact assessment is based to a great exte nt on the results of the evaluation of the Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) and on the Annual Progre ss Reviews of that Action Plan (2006 and 
2007) as well as information provided by the EMCDDA and Europol.  
This Impact Assessment process has been ma naged internally by DG JLS complemented by 
the advice of an external contractor9 that performed the role of 'critical friend' during the 
analysis and drafting phases of this impact a ssessment. They also provided technical advice 
with regards to the indicators for the monitoring and evaluation of the new EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2009-2012).  
The Commission also drew on external expertise  for the evaluation methodology to improve 
the quality and scope of the work10.  
1.3. Dialogue with key stakeholders 
In order to improve the quality and suppor t for the new proposal, the Commission has 
consulted with different groups of stakeholders  and experts. This c onsultation has provided 
valuable views on the necessity and priorities of the new Action Plan. 
                                                 
7 OJ C 168, 8.7.200 
8 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) 
implementation of the current plan, as such differen t from the technical term 'Impact Assessment' as 
used in the Commission's policy making process. 
9 Ernst & Young; Multiple Framework Service Contract JLS/2006/A1/004 
10 GHK Consultants International; Multiple Framework Contract JLS/2006/A1/004 
 
EN 5   EN Ongoing dialogue with Member States 
Overseeing the implementation of the current Action Plan on Drugs  is one of the key tasks of 
the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) in the Council. Through the Commission's 
annual Progress Reviews on the implementation of the Action Plan as well as through the 
publication of the Annual Re ports of EMCDDA and Europol, the HDG is well-informed 
about the developments in the drug situation and the EU responses to it. The HDG and the 
successive Council Presidencies have constan tly supported the view expressed in the EU 
Drugs Strategy that the Commission will not only evaluate the current Action Plan but also 
propose a new one for 2009-2012. This is of particul ar and explicit interest of France holding 
the Presidency at the later part of 200 8 when the current Action Plan finishes. 
Inter Service Steering Group on the Impact Assessment 
For the purpose of ensuring a broad input from Commission Services in this impact 
assessment process, an Inte r Service Steering Group (ISSG) was set up, consisting of 
representatives of 14 Director ate Generals in the Commission11, reflecting the broad range of 
aspects covered by the EU Action Plan on Drugs. This group met three times and their 
comments have been included in this repo rt. Furthermore, as the reporting on and 
implementation of a range of actions in the EU  Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is the task of 
several of these Commission departments, many of  the DGs represented in  the ISSG have also 
actively contributed to the evaluation of th e Action Plan, such in correspondence with the 
implementation road map that was agreed between services in 2005.  
Steering Group for the final Evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs  
The Commission established a Steering Group for the final evaluation of the current Action 
Plan consisting of representatives from th e respective Member States holding the EU 
Presidency between July 2006 and December 2 008, the European Parliament, the EMCDDA 
and Europol. The Steering Group had the task to give advice to the methodology for the 
evaluation, on the evaluation tools the Com mission planned to use and commented the 
outcomes resulting from the final evaluation. Th e Steering Group met four times between in 
2007 and 2008. 
Civil Society Forum on Drugs  
In 2006, the Commission published a Green Paper on the role of Civil Society in the 
European Union12. The open consultation of stakehol ders on the Green Paper yielded 65 
replies and there was strong support for a Civil Society Forum on Drugs, which was 
established by the Commission in 2007. The Fo rum involves 26 orga nisations from civil 
society active in the drug field across Eur ope. The Forum gathered in December 2007 and 
May 2008, during which members of the Forum we re asked to provide their views on the 
evaluation and the assessment of the implementation of the current  EU Action Plan as well as 
their views regarding a new EU Action Plan on Drugs ( 2009-2012). Generally, there was a 
strong support for an EU level approach am ong the Forum members, and they saw added 
value in continuing a European level dialogue. 
                                                 
11 SG, SJ, ENTR, EMPL, TREN, RTD, TAXUD, EAC, SANCO, RELEX, ELARG, AIDCO, ESTAT, 
DEV and JLS 
12 COM (2006) 0316 final; http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc _centre/drugs/doc_drugs_intro_en.htm  
 
EN 6   EN European Monitoring Centre for Dr ugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 
The Commission receives substantial suppor t from the EMCDDA in Lisbon for the 
monitoring and evaluation of the EU Drug St rategy (2005-2012) and the current EU Action 
Plan. Through the REITOX network of National Focal Points, the EM CDDA monitors the 
evolution of the drug situa tion and drug policy responses through key epidemiological 
indicators and a variety of a dditional reporting instruments.  
Europol 
The Drugs Unit of Europol provides information on law enforcement activ ities carried out in 
the framework of the Action Plan. It also re ports on trends in drug  trafficking routes, 
organised criminal groups invol ved in drug trafficking, seizur es and numbers of dismantled 
laboratories for the manufacture of illicit drugs  and chemical substances used in their 
manufacture (precursors). Eur opol assists Member States in operational activities like 
controlled deliveries and joint operations.  
Open consultation 
Due to time constraints, DG JLS did not to organi se an open consultation exclusively for this 
impact assessment or on the proposal for a new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012). 
However, a Youth Eurobarometer on Drugs cove ring a limited number of policy aspects was 
organised in March 2008, in which 12.500 res pondents aged 15-24 we re asked questions 
about how they think governments could best deal with the drug probl em, their opinion on the 
legal status of licit and illicit substances (a nd if changes are needed) and questions on the 
availability of prevention and how eas y they would have access to drugs. 
Input from the most relevant organisations and the Member St ates has been provided through 
the final evaluation process of the EU Ac tion Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) and through the 
channels described below. Furthermore, any new Action Plan will be largely based on the overall aims and priorities of the existi ng EU Drug Strategy (2005- 2012) and no major 
changes in the mandates of respective actors are foreseen even in the light of the future 
Lisbon Treaty.  
Table 1.1 presents some of the main feedback received from the stakeholder consultations. 
References to reports can be found in Annex 2. 
Table 1.1 – Results of the consultation of stakeholders 
Dialogue with Member 
States / Horizontal Working 
Party on Drugs (HDG) Between 2006 and 2008 the HDG has organised a great number of thematic 
debates on specific actions from the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) as well 
as on emerging and relevant issues, including progress reports and studies 
presented by the Commission. A consid erable number of Presidency and 
Council conclusions have been adopted, relevant to the evaluation topics and 
the new Action Plan. 
InterService Steering 
Group (ISSG) The InterService Steering Group met on the 14th of February 2008, the 26th of 
February 2008 and 31 March 2008. The Group provided input and advice to the Impact Assessment Report, primarily regarding the structure and problem 
definition, but also on potential policy options to further implement the 
Strategy. Overall, the input was consistent with the options chosen. One specific proposed option was worked out but deleted during the Impact Assessment 
process. This option proposed an limited EU Action Plan for activities that 
covered EU competence only, disregarding actions that call upon Member 
 
EN 7   EN States to act but that are not binding.  
Steering Group for the 
Evaluation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) This Steering Group was primarily established to reflect on the methodology 
and outcome of the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). But as 
one of the key purposes of the evaluation was to inform a future EU Drugs Action Plan as well, the feedback provided by the Steering Group on the 
conclusions and subsequent recommendations resulting from the evaluation 
process has had an important impact on the proposed new policy objectives for the new EU Drugs Action Plan. The Stee ring Group stressed that a new plan 
should be improved in terms of consistency and measurability, and that 
emphasis should be placed on new trends and threats emerging in the field of drugs. Furthermore, the Steering Group stressed the importance of continuation 
and strengthening those objectives and actions that have shown result and the 
potential reformulation or shifting of focus in objectives that turned out to be difficult to implement (or influence) at the level of Member States. 
Civil Society Forum on 
Drugs The Civil Society Forum on Drugs met in December 2007 and in May 2008. 
The meeting in December – the first ev er – focused on the EU Drugs Action 
Plan Progress Review 2007, discussing potential difficulties in the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). In the meeting of 
May 2008, the first results of the evaluation process were presented and 
discussed and participants were encouraged to present ideas and 
recommendations for the evaluation and/or for a future Action Plan. Key points 
raised included: 
– EU Policy must be based on the principles of public health and human 
rights.  
– Coordination between civil society, EU institutions and EU Member States 
should be strengthened and encouraged. 
– Specific attention should be paid to the needs of vulnerable groups. 
– A new Action Plan should encourage the development of quality standards 
in the full spectrum of drug demand reduction.  
– Poly drug use needs to be addressed in more detail 
– The new Action Plan should advocate alternative development, while taking 
into account local needs.  
– The new Action Plan should address on drug-related harms in prison and 
potential harms that may occur upon release of prisoners. 
– Drug-related deaths should be  further reduced by further 
implementation of demand reduction measures, including harm reduction. 
Many of the issues raised had been discussed before, among others within the 
Council in the past years.  
Europol/ EMCDDA Input from Europol and EMCDDA has been instrumental throughout the 
evaluation and impact assessment process. By providing information on the 
current state-of-play, info rmation on trends and on implementation of actions 
from the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2 008) in Member States has been 
essential for the evaluation process and for the formulation of new proposals for 
a new Action Plan.  
 
Impact Assessment Board opinion 
The Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 28 May 
2008. On the 13th of June 2008, the IAB provi ded an Impact Assessment Quality Checklist for 
the IAB Opinion, pointing out a number of key questions and suggestions for adjustment of 
 
EN 8   EN the Impact Assessment Report, for the cons ideration of the au thor DG. On the 27th of June, 
the Impact Assessment Board pr esented its opinion, in which it called for a number of 
important changes to the report.  
The general opinion was as follows: "The IA report should focu s on the main outcomes of the 
evaluation of the first Action Plan and the main  improvements which will consequently be 
made in the second Action Plan. In addition, the assessment of some impacts and the general presentation of the report should be improved. In its written exchange with the Board, DG JLS agree to change the report on all of these points. Given the nature of the recommendations, the Board would like to examine a revised dra ft IA report on which it will 
issue a new opinion" .  
On the 18
th of July the Impact Assessment Board resubmitted its opinion on this Impact 
Assessment. The revised opinion asked for a furthe r clarification of the importance of the ten 
problem-objective combinations identified in Chap ters 3 and further anal ysis of each of the 
problems against three options examined. Furthermore, the Impact Assessment Board recommended that results of stakeholder consul tation be included in the main body of this 
report, with references in annex. 
The issues identified by the Impact Assessment Bo ard have been incorpor ated in this report. 
 
EN 9   EN 2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Evaluation of the implementation of  the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and th e EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) are 
developed around the two main dimensions of drug policy, drug demand reduction and drug 
supply reduction . The European approach takes these as equally important and mutually 
reinforcing each other when implemented as parts of integrated drug policy. These two 
'pillars' are complemented by three cross cutting themes, coordination , international 
cooperation and information, research and evaluation . The Drug Strategy and Action Plans 
have been designed in the format of a Logica l Framework, identifying  Strategy objectives, 
Strategy priorities, Action Plan objectives and actions13.  
2.1.1. Main conclusions from the evaluatio n of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
Evaluating the impact of public policy plans su ch as the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008 
is by nature a very complicated exercise. The Action Plan had the aim to coordinate and influence major areas of government interventi ons in the field of drugs (public health/ 
security/ external relations) targeting a complex social phenomenon that is still insufficiently understood, that largely takes place outside the sc ope and control of public  authorities and that 
requires a coherent long-term approach.  
The Action Plan is a non-bindi ng coordination instrument prim arily for Member States, who 
are autonomous in implementing its aims and ob jectives. A limited number of objectives and 
actions are implemented only at EU level, i. e. through Commission activities. This indirect 
implementation may be effective in providing gu idance for national polic y level, but it does 
make assessment of direct consequences of  the plan more complicated. An additional 
complicating factor is that most objectives an d actions in the Action Plan are implemented 
indirectly: the Action Plan aims to influence the actions of others
14.  
Information on the implementation of the Action Plan at EU level is gathered from several 
Commission services and agencies. Information on the implementation of the Action Plan at 
the level of Member States is mainly pr ovided through the EMCDDA and Europol. For the 
evaluation of the Action Plan, the Commission has also conducted a written survey among 
Member States and a limited evaluation survey on intra-institutional cooperation and coordination conducted by an external evaluator. 
2.1.1.1. Overall conclusions of the evaluation 
(1) The evaluation shows that the EU Drugs Strate gy and Action Plan ar e well reflected in 
national policies. Member States have transl ated the objectives of the Action Plan in 
national policy, and/ or these objectives were  already reflected in existing documents.  
                                                
 
13 See Annex 1 for a brief overview of the key ob jectives of the current EU Drugs Action Plan 
14 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 86 objectives and actions, but directly responsible for the implementation of 23 of them. 14 of 86 are a shar ed responsibility 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 10   EN (2) Overall, the evaluation suggests that th e current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-
2008) has initiated a broad range of activ ities and cooperation. The Action Plan has 
been more than a paper plan: on practically  all specific objectives and actions progress 
has been made, with varying degrees of success.  
(3) The Action Plan suffers from a number of inte rnal inconsistencies as well as from the 
large number of objectives a nd actions, and the lack of prioritisation between them. 
2.1.1.2. Cross cutting theme: coordination (1) The evaluation shows that the HDG is the main forum of drug coordination at EU 
level and that the Europ ean Commission is well coordinated in the Council. At the 
same time, coordination within the Commi ssion regarding the implementation of 
the Action Plan could be improved, among others by setting clearer priorities and 
by improving the communication on EU drug policy objectives across policy 
fields.   
(2) All EU Member States have a national dr ug strategy, action pl an and/ or other 
overarching drug policy in place. In over half  of the countries, these policy documents 
reflect the structure and set up of the EU Drug Strategy or EU Action Plan on Drugs.  
(3) In all agreements the EU has finalised with  third countries/ regi ons, a specific clause 
on drugs has been included. However, the impact of these clauses still needs to be 
examined and more information on their follow up is needed.  
(4) Annually, a rich body of monitoring informa tion and situation reports are published on 
the drug situation. However, the utilisati on of these reports by EU policymakers, 
linking the phenomena described in them need for further policy analysis needs 
improvement. 
2.1.1.3. Drug demand reduction (1) Member States have invested in unive rsal, selective and indicated prevention 
programmes across the board, but the evid ence-base underpinning these programmes 
is still insufficient as th ey are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member States have 
introduced general quality gu idelines for prevention.   
(2) The level of availability, coverage and accessibility of prevention programmes is 
unclear. Overall, according to the EMCDDA the quality of selective prevention programmes is not regarded highly by expert s and in the field of indicated prevention 
– covering among others drug use in recreational settings – not enough information is available on such programmes in Member States.  
(3) A majority of Member States report that  they offer a variation 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 these programmes, but their applicability is still 
unclear. Further improvements are needed in  improving the effectiveness, 
accessibility, availability and coverage of  treatment services and for developing 
quality guidelines.   
 
EN 11   EN (4) New treatment options and/ or settings are required for new types of drug problems, 
e.g. problematic cannabis use requires a di fferent treatment response than opioid 
dependence. Member States need to invest in adapting/ adjusting to new trends in 
treatment demand.   
(5) In the field of harm reduction, major progre ss has been achieved in recent years. All 
EU Member States run harm reduction programmes. However, the effective 
coverage, availability and accessibility of these programmes in Member States 
are still a cause of concern.  Furthermore, in some Member  States an increasing lack 
of political support for harm reduction can pote ntially result in highe r levels of risk 
taking among new, younger generations of heroin injectors. 
(6) The availability of standardised data on th e social consequences of drug use is 
still very limited.  This also includes information of  efforts made by Member States to 
rehabilitate and rein tegrate (problematic) drug users in society. 
(7) The provision of continued and equal care for inmates in prison as compared to care 
available in society in gene ral is of great importance to  reduce drug-related harms. 
The infection rates for drug-related infectious diseases as well as the mortality 
rates for drug-related deaths are co nsiderably higher inside prison (and 
immediately after release from prison).   
(8) Treatment and harm reduction programmes are often not tailor made to address 
specific needs and problems of different groups of problematic or dependent 
drug users , e.g. women, minors, migrants, speci fic ethnic groups and vulnerable 
groups. This conclusion is confirme d by civil society organisations.  
2.1.1.4. Drug supply reduction (1) Law enforcement cooperation in the field of  drugs between Member States shows and 
increasing trend. However, existing instrument s such as Joint Inve stigation Teams and 
Joint Customs Organisations are not used to the full extent.  
(2) Member States overall contribu te well to the activ ities of Europol and are – in return – 
supported in investigations  involving internationall y operating organised crime 
groups. However , there is still substantial r oom for improvement, e.g. in 
information sharing and intelligence gat hering through closer coordination 
between law enforcement services at national level.  
(3) The results of various operational and in telligence law enforcement cross-border 
projects in the EU, e.g. MAOC-N , show the importance of strengthening intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement. 
(4) The Drug Strategy objective to make suppl y reduction and law enforcement output 
better measurable and therefore more accountable, is complicated by a lack of availability of standardised key indicators in this area. Drug seizures are collected 
through different methods and channels.  
(5)
 A long-term solution on forensic profiling for synthetic drugs  is not yet in place, but 
considerable progress was made in 2007 and 2008. 
 
EN 12   EN (6) The number of arrests for drug related offences  has risen considerably. In most cases 
the rise is due to arrests for consumption of drugs. It is unclear to which extent these 
arrests result in actual sentences. 
(7) In almost all Member States, there is a lack of priority in national  Customs 
organisations when drug precursor control is concerned . 
(8) Member States cooperation in the field of anti-money laundering  and asset 
confiscation has progressed in recent year s, and the number of investigations is 
increasing.  
2.1.1.5. Cross cutting theme: International Cooperation (1) According to the Member States, the Actio n Plan has been important for achieving 
coherence and consensus between EU Memb er States at international level. 
Increasingly, the Action Plan is consider ed as a 'model' of EU drugs policy.  
(2) The EU's has increasingly ac ted coherently, in particular in the Commission of 
Narcotic Drugs (CND) of the United Nations. However, a systematic procedure should 
be developed to ensure that the EU sp eaks with one voice in the CND plenary 
meetings. .  
(3) A great number of assistance projects with  candidate, stabilisation and association 
process countries have been supported in re cent years. Furthermor e, (negotiations on) 
agreements have started or already finalis ed with many of the countries involved, in 
particular regarding their pa rticipation in the EMCDDA a nd cooperation with Europol 
and Eurojust. However, the outcome of assistance projects is difficult to assess due 
to a lack of assessment tools and indicators.   
(4) External funding programmes and projects of both EC and the Member States should 
be linked more explicitly to th e priorities of EU drug policy. 
(5) The EU integrated and balanced approach  on drugs has served as a model for 
Candidate Countries as well as many Ne ighbourhood Policy Countries  in developing 
their national drug strategi es and action plans.  
(6) The EU is a major player when assistance to  third countries in th e field of drugs is 
concerned. Afghanistan and the Andean count ries are the main beneficiaries of the 
EUR 760 Million the EU spent in 2005 on drug -related projects, two-thirds of which 
was allocated to alternative development. With approximately 5% of overall 
external funding, the area of demand reduction is not well-represented in 
international assistance projects.   
(7) New drug trafficking routes, especially for heroin and cocaine, emerge on the Eastern 
border of the EU and through West-Africa. Th e diversification of routes suggests that 
anti-trafficking measures may be effective on traditional routes, but at the same time 
the number of routes increases and asks for flexible and broad cooperation with 
countries in this region.  
(8) With specific donations of over EU 20 Mill ion a year, the EU Member States are 
major contributors to UNODC (EC contributions not included).  
 
EN 13   EN 2.1.1.6. Cross cutting theme: Information, Research and Evaluation 
(1) The quality of information that is availa ble on the drug situation in Europe has 
improved in recent years, mostly due to  the work of Europol and EMCDDA.  
(2) Further steps might be considered to contribute to greater coordination and 
complementarity between research and funding structures at nationa l and EU level.  
(3) Diminishing support from national governments to National Focal Points is an 
increasing cause for concern as National Foca l Points are an essential part of the 
information infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  
(4) Monitoring in the field of drug demand reduction is impr oving but requires continued 
attention and support for implementation of data collection at the level of Member 
States.  
(5) The availability of reliable, comparable and us able information and data in the field of 
drug supply and supply reduction is  an ongoing cause of concern, as the lack of it 
does not allow for a proper analysis of the EU drug market and the effectiveness 
of law enforcement interventions.   
(6) The need for evaluation of drug policies continues to be of great importance. 
Improvements are required in order to better assess policy impacts.  
2.2. Current state-of-play 
As such, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is the most  specific and best-monitored 
EU Action Plan so far. However, as the evalua tion above also shows, there is still room for 
improvement and new trends in the drug situat ion also require new or further measures. 
Despite the results of the implementation of the current Action Plan as presented above, it is clear that the scale and seriousness of the dr ug problem in the EU remains considerable.  
2.2.1. Trends in the demand for drugs and adverse health and social problems 
In many respects, the European drug situation appears to have moved into a more stable 
period after the sometimes dramatic increases that  were seen in the 1990s and early part of 
this decade. Drug use levels remain high by hi storical standards a nd although considerable 
differences exist between Member States, to so me extent these are le ss pronounced than in the 
past. 
Cannabis remains the most commonly consumed illicit drug and with 17.5 million 
Europeans using the substance last year, pr evalence estimates are high by historical 
standards, but again the available trend data points overall to a stabilisation or even to some 
limited decline in the popularity of cannabis. Stimulant use patterns are more difficult to 
summarise. Cocaine was used by 4.5 million Europeans last year and has grown 
dramatically in some Member States although not in all,  while ecstasy use seems to have 
moderately decreased overall and amphetamine use remains an important element in the drug 
problem in some Nordic countries. The use of  heroin and drug injecting appear generally 
stable 
A decreasing age of first use among young people as well as the increase in poly-drug use, 
especially also involving licit substances such as alcohol , poses major challenges to 
 
EN 14   EN prevention and treatment and there is a need to  develop evaluated best practises, benchmarks 
and guidelines in these fields. 
In the EU between 1 and 8 people on 1.000 inhabitants classify as problem drug user . 
Around 1.1 million people in the EU inject drugs, mainly opiates15. These problem drug users 
are at risk of death by overdose and/ or at risk of developing serious drug-related infectious 
diseases . Drug related deaths, mainly overdose deaths , currently more than 7.500 cases 
annually in the EU16, constitute a significant cause of avoidable mortality among young 
adults. The downward trend in the EU in drug related deaths that  was visible for several years 
tailed off between 2004 and 2005, in order to drop again in 2006.  
EMCDDA reports that between 100.000 – 200.000 Eu ropeans who have ever injected drugs 
live with HIV and around one million with Hepatitis C. Injecting drug use still accounts for 3.500 newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the EU every year. The risk of infection is 
particularly high in exceptional circumst ances, where needle sharing is common e.g. in 
prisons, with infection rates up to 80%. Harm reduction policies (e.g. providing clean 
syringes and needles), when implemented as part  of a coordinated and coherent public health 
policy approach, can be effective in reducing ri sk behaviours and as a result the spread of 
infectious diseases among drug users.  
In 2005, 21 EU countries have reported in formation on 326.000 new drug treatment clients 
attending outpatient centres. Approximately 40% of these new clients are treated for opioid 
use, 20% for cannabis use, and 13% for cocain e use and the remaining clients for other drug 
use. In 2005, it is estimated that 585.000 depende nt drug users received substitution treatment 
in the EU and Norway. In recent years, the share of clie nts seeking treatment for other 
than opioid addiction is increasing.  
Negative social consequences are reported to be  generally linked with problem drug use. For 
instance, homelessness, together with living in unstable accommodation, was affecting 
about 10% of drug users entering treatm ent in 2006, while one in every two clients 
entering treatment was unemployed.  
2.2.2. Supply of drugs, related crime and law enforcement Production, manufacture a nd trafficking of drugs remain amongst the primary activities of 
organised crime networks operating towards a nd within the European Union posing serious 
challenges for EU policies, in particular in th e area of justice, freedom and security. Whilst 
principle drug trafficking routes remain prom inent there is a growing diversification of 
trafficking patterns. Also, with a variety of European Union drug production and entry points, 
there is a large-scale intra-EU trafficking. Criminal networks no longer limit their activities to 
one type of drug as reflected in the prevalen ce of 'cocktail' or 'poly-drug' seizures.  
According to the United Nations, most of the world’s illicit heroin  comes from only three 
countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar and Laos. Afghan istan continues to be the major supplier of 
                                                
 
15 EMCDDA Annual Report 2007 
16 EMCDDA Annual Report 2007, 2004 data; in 70% of drug-related death cases opioids are involved. 
 
EN 15   EN heroin, accounting for over 90% of global opium production. In 2007, the estimated opium 
output increased 34 % to 8,200 tonnes17.  
Regarding the manufacturing of cocaine , the Andean region remains the major cocaine 
producing area in the world, w ith an estimated output in 2006 of 910 tons of cocaine. 
Colombia accounts for 70% of global production (640 tons), Peru for 20% (180 tons) and 
Bolivia for 10% (90 tons).  
Cannabis  continues to be the most widely produ ced, trafficked and consumed plant-based 
drug worldwide. In the absence of cultivati on monitoring systems and surveys, the UNODC 
estimates that in 2006 there were 231,000 hectares of illicit cannabis cultiv ation in the world, 
capable of producing 45,000 tons of herbal cannabis. The plan t is grown in 176 countries 
around the world, notably in the Am ericas (54%), Africa (26%),  Asia (15%), Europe (4%) 
and Oceania (1%).  
Two key corridors are used for the trafficking of opiates . Significant heroin trafficking takes 
place along the Northern Route , which starts in Afghanistan and crosses the central Asian 
States of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan , Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It is estimated 
that some 25% of smuggled hero in stays in central Asia for domestic consumption, while the 
remaining 75% is smuggled onward to Russia and Europe18  
Most heroin reaches Western Europe via the Balkan Routes , starting in Turkey, facilitated by 
Turkey’s geographical position in handling ex tensive commercial trade between Asia and 
Europe and good transport infrastructure.  There is an increased use of the central Balkan 
Route  from Turkey, via Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia into It aly or Slovenia and fr om FYROM via Kosovo 
under UNSC Resolution 1244 and/or Albania into Greece. The route via Ukraine and 
Romania  is also gaining importance. 
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 
there to Portugal and Spain.  
In recent years, West Africa has emerged as a transit and stor age zone for Maritime 
trafficking of cocaine from South America to Eu rope. At least 33 tons of cocaine has been 
seized en route to Europe via West Africa between 2005 and 2007. Prior to this, the entire 
continent rarely seized more than a ton per year. This criminal development poses a further threat to the fragile stability of the region, exploiting, inter-alia , the capacity of West African 
law enforcement agencies, high levels of corrupt ion and the lack of por t / coastline controls. 
An estimated 100 tons of heroin  are needed annually to s upply European Union heroin 
markets
19. There is large-scale secondary or intra- European Union trafficking, particularly 
from the Netherlands and Belgium.  
                                                 
17 UNODC, Afghan Survey, Winter 2007; as presented during the EU Troika with Western Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008.  
18 Council document 11159/07 CORDROGUE 40: Regional report on Central Asia. Brussels, 20 June 
2007. 
19 UNODC World Drug Report, 2006 
 
EN 16   EN The European Union remains, next to the United States, the second largest cocaine  consumer 
market in the world. An estimated 250 tons of  cocaine enter the Union annually via maritime 
shipments, air freight and couriers. In 2006, a lmost 120 tons of cocaine was seized in the 
Member States.  
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 European Union is a major production  region for synthetic drugs, in particular 
amphetamine and MDMA (ecstasy). Annually, so me 70 to 90 significant scale synthetic drug 
production and storage sites are se ized, with the vast majority in the Netherlands and, to a 
lesser extent, Belgium. In addi tion, Poland, Estonia and Lithuani a have played important roles 
especially in supplying Germany and Nordic Member States.  
A relatively recent phenomenon in the European Union is the increased transit/transhipment 
of suspicious large scale consignments of ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine, the principal 
precursors for methamphetamine manufacture , mostly en route from Asia with final 
destination to the Americas.   
Despite the measures implemented through the Ac tion Plan, the global illicit drugs market 
seems to have its own dynamics. Based on data  available from a limited number of EU 
countries, the street prices  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. 
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 States20. In 2006, reported THC 
content of cannabis resin samples ranged from 2.3% to 18.4%,  while that of herbal cannabis  
ranged from under 1% to 13%. In most reportin g countries, the typical MDMA content of an 
ecstasy tablet  was between 25 and 65 mg in 2006, a nd high-dose tablets (containing over 130 
mg of MDMA) were reported in some  European countries. The typical purity of cocaine  in 
Europe ranged between consider ably, with most countries re porting values between 25% and 
55%.  
Trends in potency are difficult to establish be cause of the important variability in purity 
levels. Furthermore, reliability and comparabil ity problems exist as well as non-standardised 
methods of sample strategies 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 amphetamine and for cocaine. No clear  European trend is appa rent in the data on 
the MDMA content of ecstasy tabl ets and in the data on heroin. 
Drug use and drug trafficking continue to pose an important burden on the criminal justice 
system. With almost 740.000 arrests for drug-rela ted offenses in 2006, 80% of which for use-
related offences and 20% for drug traffick ing, drugs are a major concern for police and 
prosecution.  
                                                 
20 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 quan tities to lower purity consumer doses. The available 
data should reflect street level prices, but not all countries make this distinction with good precision. 
Furthermore, the sampling is biased towards which samples get tested in forensic laboratories as 
considerable inter-sampling differences exist.  
 
EN 17   EN And according to the 2003  European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics21, 
covering statistical information from over 35 Me mber States of the Council of Europe, drug 
trafficking offences22 accounted for 10% of all detainees  in penitentia ries. However, 
considerable variations exist between countri es and depending on the method of registration 
of convictions in each reporti ng country, the share of drug-related offences may be higher 
than reported23. 
2.2.3. Economic and social burden of the drug problem 
The abuse of illicit drugs results in considerable social costs  for EU Member States. In the 
field of drugs, 'social costs'  are defined as the total of all of  the costs to society, direct and 
indirect caused by drug use24. The output, expressed in monetary  terms, is an estimate of the 
total burden that drug use places on society25.  
Recently, the EMCDDA has made efforts to make an  estimation of the social costs of the drug 
phenomenon to society. Due to a lack of defin itions and data, this exercise is difficult to 
achieve and only a few European countries have made rough estimations of the social costs of 
drug use to society.  
One of the more visible elements of social  costs related to drug use, concerns public 
expenditures on the drug pheno menon. Six EU Member States26 reported on their direct  and 
labelled  drug-related public expend iture regarding drugs. These countries estimated this 
expenditure to represent – on average – 0.32% of the total a nnual government spending, with 
variations from 0.11% to 0.96%. In terms of GD P, public expenditure on drugs represents a 
median of 0.15% of these countries, with variations fr om 0.05% to 0.46%27. This expenditure 
includes – in most cases – a vari ety of drug policy responses. In  the six countri es, 40-60% of 
the direct public expenditures concern prev ention, treatment and harm reduction measures. 
The remaining expenditure concerns the cost s of law enforcement and e.g. imprisonment. 
However, when indirect and/ or non-labelled public expenditure is taken into account, the 
balance between the different types of drug polic y will look very different (e.g. incorporating 
drug-related costs of policing, prosecution, etc.). 
                                                 
21 European Sourcebook of Crime and Cr iminal Justice Statistics [2003] 2nd ed., WODC, The Hague 
22 The category 'drug trafficking offences' may also possession of drugs for own consumption. 
23 Certain crimes may not be registered as a drug-rel ated offence, but according to the primary act, e.g. 
theft, assault, rape or unintended homicide. 
24 Single et.al. [2001]; Direct social costs include e.g. public expenditures on prevention of drug abuse, 
treatment and rehabilitation of drug addiction but also law enforcement costs aimed at tackling drug-
related crime, prosecution and the costs of imprisonment of drug offenders. Indirect social costs include – among others – the loss of productivity due to drug-related death and drug-related (infectious) 
diseases, imprisonment and indirect costs of social ma rginalisation of drug offenders or drug users, but 
also indirect costs related to a lack of public safety through fraud and corruption. 
25 EMCDDA Annual Report 2007, p.21 
26 Belgium, Hungary, The Netherlands, Finland, Sw eden and the UK; Source: EMCDDA Annual Report 
2007, p.21 
27 Overall, the amounts of public expenditure related to  drug-related issues in the reporting Member States 
ranges from EUR 200 000 to EUR 2 290 Million. 
 
EN 18   EN Based on reports from these Member States and Norway, the EMCDDA estimates that the 
total drug-related public expenditure in these 28 countries lays between 13 and 36 billion EUR annually, representing up to 0.33% of the GDP of EU Member States
28. Taking into 
account that public expenditure on ly represents a proportion of the overall social costs, the 
conclusion is justified that the drug phenome non has a considerable social and monetary 
impact on European societies.  
                                                 
28 EMCDDA Annual Report 2007 
 
EN 19   EN 2.3. Subsidiarity 
The EU Member States are the main actors in th e drugs field and drug le gislation is primarily 
a matter of national competence. However, the Treaties explicitly acknowledge the need to deal with drug issues at the EU level, in particular on justice and home affairs
29 and in public 
health30.  
The Community competence covers the control of the trade in chemical precursors31, the 
prevention of money laundering32 and the assessment of emerging psychoactive substances33. 
In the field of drug trafficking, a Co uncil Framework Decision laying down minimum 
provisions on the constituent elements of crimi nal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug 
trafficking34 has been adopted, while the Council Decision on the Info rmation Exchange, Risk 
Assessment and Control on new Psychoactive Substances35 provides the EU with an 
instrument to act on new drugs emerging in the market.  The Community role in many fields 
like research, social policy, education and youth al so covers drug related actions even if not 
specifically mentioned in the Treaty.  
The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) wa s drafted within the current legal framework of the EU 
and EC Treaties and based on the respective competences of the Union, Community and 
individual Member States, with due regard to subsid iarity and proportionality 
2.3.1. The need for EU action 
The complexity and global dimension of th e world drug problem requires policy action at 
supra national level for reasons of efficiency  (shared efforts), effectiveness (exchange of 
know-how and best practice), policy impact (avoi ding displacement and spill over effects) and 
political influence in the intern ational (UN) drug policy arena.  
Even if detailed characteristics of drugs scen es are different from one Member State to 
another and inside Member States, all EU Member States are affected by the adverse 
consequences of drug abuse and drug-related crim e to more or lesser extent. In a Europe 
without borders, drugs and drug us ers can move rather freely and more sophisticated methods 
need to be developed to detect illicit drugs as  well as providing services for drug users. As 
indicated above, organised cr ime groups increasingly organi se themselves at through 
international crime consortiums. Cooperation on law enforcement, agreed procedures, joint 
investigative teams and effective sharing of intelligence e.g. through Europol all contribute 
towards creating and area of Freedom Secur ity and Justice while at the same time 
guaranteeing full respect of fundamental rights. 
                                                 
29 Title VI articles 29 and 31(1)e TEU 
30 Article 152 TEC 
31 Community Precursor Legislation (Regulation (EC) no. 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors 
32 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 
33 Council Decision on the Information Exchange, Risk Assessment and Control of new Psychoactive 
Substances (2005/387/JHA) 
34 2004/757/JHA 
35 2005/387/JHA 
 
EN 20   EN Isolated policy initiatives by one  Member State have often resu lted in displacing the problem 
to neighbouring countries (shift or diversion of production, dr ug tourism, cross-border crime 
& trafficking). Efficiency, effectiveness and tr ansparency in drug policy requires exchange of 
best practices, common approaches and definitions  and joint actions in order to detect the 
"loopholes" that are utilis ed by drug traffickers. 
In the field of international c ooperation, the EU Member States pursue the principle of shared 
responsibility and are in creasingly aware that the European drug problem is part of a global 
context with patterns in drug pr oduction and trafficking reflecting to the EU drug scene. Over 
the past ten years, EU has deve loped into a major actor at international level providing at least 
EUR 760 million for demand and supply reducti on activities in third countries. Further 
assistance is provided for Candidate C ountries and European Neighbourhood Policy 
countries.  
2.3.2. Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
The evaluation of the EU Ac tion Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) shows that practically all 
Member States consider that there is an added value of having an Action Plan on Drugs at EU 
level. The key features of the adde d value can be listed as follows; 
• Action Plan provides clear European level objectives  and guidance for setting national 
priorities, resulting in greater coheren ce and convergence of drug policies between 
countries on a voluntary basis. 
• Action Plan provides guidance for sharing of best practise  and development of common 
standards on many key areas both on drug demand and drug supply reduction. 
• Member States share the view that the Action Plan provides a comprehensive drug policy 
framework , and that it has encouraged the deve lopment 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 in ternational arena in the field of drugs 
due to the fact that it could wo rk 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 eff ects caused by diverging 
policies among Member States. The Action Plan  and its large number of objectives and 
actions provide priorities, indicators and clar ify 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 Stat es and third countries and regions.  
Regarding the added value of the Action Plan fo r national level, the evaluation shows that the 
Action Plan is seen as a catalyst for the developm ent of national policies and that it helped to 
raise debate on sensitive policy issues at national level, for example on the introduction of harm reduction as part of drug demand reduction policies.  
 
EN 21   EN Member States referred to the EU Action Plan as being generally consistent and relevant for 
national drug policy by providing recommenda tions and argumentation for national policy 
discussions and developments in  legislation. The Action Plan ha s encouraged initiating joint 
activities and operations in the field of law enfo rcement, both within the EU but also towards 
the main producing countries.  
Finally, the focus on evidence-based policy ma king, monitoring, evaluation and information 
has been an important added value for national dr ug policies, resulting in  greater attention for 
effectiveness and efficiency at national leve l and in identifying and comparing trends.  
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 drugs, but also fo r the development of na tional drug policies.  
The Action Plan offers guidance for coordinati on between Member States, without which the 
EU's representation in international forums wo uld be fragmented and le ss 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 
functions as a representative model of EU dr ug policy in internationa l settings, something 
which is impossible for individual EU Member States.  
 
EN 22   EN 3. O BJECTIVES  
3.1. General objectives 
This impact assessment has as its main purpose to assess the most appropriate policy 
instrument to implement the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012).  As presented before, the 
Strategy is to be implemented through two consecutive EU Drugs Action Plans . The general 
policy aims of the Strategy are as follows: 
• The EU aims at attainment of high le vel of health prot ection, well-being and 
social cohesion by complementing Memb er States' action in preventing and 
reducing drug use, dependence and drug-related harms to health and society 
• The EU and Member States aim to ensure  a high level of security for general 
public by taking action against drug producti on, cross-border trafficking in drugs 
and diversion of precursors, and by inte nsifying preventive action against drug 
related crime, through effective coop eration embedded in joint approach. 
The Strategy clearly states that the integrat ed, multidisciplinary and balanced approach of 
combining demand and supply reduction is the basis of the Union's answer to the drugs 
problem. This approach requires cooperation an d coordination and fu rther development not 
only in numerous sectors, including welfare, he alth, education and justice and home affairs, 
but also in relation with non-Member Stat es and relevant international forums. 
3.2. Specific and Operational objectives 
As the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) remains the overarching policy for the development of 
any new EU Action Plan on Drugs, the objective s and priorities as de fined in the Strategy 
remain valid.  
As the problem definition showed, the implem entation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008) has seen progress in quite a few areas, ther e is also room for further improvement and 
amendments.  
The overall conclusions on the evaluation showed that the current Action Plan has a number 
of internal consistency problems, which have resulted in some cases in confusion about 
objectives and actions (e.g. unspecific formulation; definition problems, etc.), the availability 
of relevant indicators to measure progress (som etimes indicators were assessment tools and 
vice versa). A future policy plan shou ld aim to avoid these problems.  
At the same time, for each of the five constituting policy elements in the Action Plan, the 
conclusions also reflected shortcomings. These shortcomings are important for the 
development of a new EU Action Plan on Drugs. Such a plan would on the one hand have to reflect the broad range of priorities as identified in the Drugs Strategy, at the same time lessons learnt from the evaluation and the ex perience gained through the past five years 
should be taken on board.  
Annex 3 presents a schematic overview of the (provisionally) proposed objectives for a new 
Action Plan. It would go beyond th e possibilities and restraints of  this impact assessment to 
 
EN 23   EN include all potential new objectives and actions in a new Action Plan or reflect on each of the 
30 or more conclusions as identified in the problem definition.  
As an alternative, for each of the five key policy fields in the Strategy, two important 
problems identified by the evaluation have been matched with an example for an operational 
objective for a new EU Drugs Actio n Plan in this section. These examples of new objectives 
might still change as the final drafting of a po ssible new Action Plan is ongoing and part of a 
political process. The ten examples for each of the policy fields can be considered key 
problems following the evaluation process. As the Strategy and Action Plans aim to foster 
progress and synergy across the board of EU drug  policy, no hierarchy in importance has been 
given between the policy fields.  
The overall impacts of the policy options are st ill based on the whole framework of an Action 
Plan, but each of the policy option will also be  analysed against the operational objectives. A 
focus on the examples only would ignore the sy nergies created through the multidisciplinary, 
balanced and integrated approach which the whole constellation of Drug Strategy and Action 
Plan objectives represent. 
3.2.1. Specific Objective Enhancing Coordination 
The Strategy states that "the Action Plans should include actions that will contribute to the 
further development of a Eu ropean coordination mechanism" .  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The evaluation shows that the Horizontal Drugs Group is the main forum of drug 
coordination at EU level. The European Commi ssion is well coordinate d in the Council. At 
the same time, coordination within the Co mmission regarding the implementation of the 
Action Plan can be improved, among others by se tting clearer priorities and by improving the 
communication on EU drug policy objectives across policy fields.  
Proposed action according option 1 
As there is no guiding Action Pl an and the Drugs, Commission coordination is limited to 
possible tasks identified through the Drugs Strategy, which have no operational character  
Proposed action according option 2 
Commission coordination in the field of drugs is not specifically addressed in the current 
Action Plan 2005-2008.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
The Commission will ensure coherence between the internal and external aspects of its 
involvement in drug policy, including the mana gement of relevant funding mechanisms.  
Motivation:  
The evaluation has showed that the coordinati on of drug policy within Commission services 
needs further clarifica tion, clearer prioritisati on and task-division. This includes the input of 
drug issues into annual work planning of the existing available funding programmes. 
 
EN 24   EN  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Annually, a rich body of monitoring informat ion and situation reports are published on the 
drug situation. However, the utilisation of thes e reports by EU policymakers, linking the 
phenomena described in them for further policy analysis need s improvement.  
Proposed action according option 1 
Monitoring reports of e.g. EMCDDA and Europol will continue to be published as these are 
based on specific founding regulations. Howeve r, the Commission will not produce progress 
reviews under this option.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan only refers to the gene ral role of the Council to implement the Action 
Plan. This problem focuses on an annual reporting and reflection cycle, which is not explicitly 
foreseen in the current EU Drugs Action Plan. The publication of  Commissions Annual 
Progress Reviews and EMCDDA/ Europol monitori ng reports is foreseen  in objectives 40 and 
45 of the current Action Plan. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
The Council to critically exam ine the state-of-the-drug problem  once a year, on the basis of 
the relevant annual reports from EMCDDA, EU ROPOL, EUROJUST and the annual review 
of the Commission  
Motivation: 
So far, the EMCDDA annual repo rt is primarily presented in the European Parliament, the 
Commission annual progress review in the Horizontal Drugs Group in the Council and 
Europol's Organised Crime Threat Analyses on dr ugs in the Police Chiefs Task Force in the 
Council. A more comprehensive discussion, bri nging together trends in demand and supply 
reduction can strengthen the an alytical work in the HDG.  
3.2.2. Specific Objective Drug Demand Reduction 
In the policy field of drug demand reduction, th e Strategy aims for the following identifiable 
result by 2012: "A measurable reduction of the use of drugs, of dependence and of drug-
related health and social risks36".  
                                                 
36 EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 3, article 22. 
 
EN 25   EN  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Member States have invested in universal, selective and indicated prevention programmes 
across the board, but the eviden ce-base underpinning these programmes is still weak as they 
are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member States have introduced general quality guidelines 
for prevention.  
Proposed action according option 1 
No further impetus is given in the field of drug demand reduction. The establishment of 
quality standards is not mentioned as such in the Strategy and will therefore not be further 
encouraged.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan calls for the implemen tation of effective prevention programmes at 
MS level. However, indicators are geared towa rds measuring outputs wh ile this info is not 
available. Objectives 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the cu rrent Action Plan call upon Member States to 
improve the availability, accessibility, coverage a nd effectiveness of prevention activities, but 
do not call for the establishmen t of quality standards.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Develop and implement at national level qual ity standards for prevention, treatment, harm 
reduction and rehabilitation  
Motivation: 
In recent years, Member States have been encouraged to implement prevention programmes 
where these did not exist. However, effective prevention programmes are based on evaluation 
and specific quality criteria deri ved from research. As it is impo ssible to assess the availability 
of effective programmes in schools and other settings in Member States, it is more efficient to 
assess whether Member States have set quality standards, which elements are part of these 
standards and how these are implemented (e.g. as funding condition). 
 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The provision of continued and equal care fo r inmates in prison as compared to care 
available in society in general is of grea t importance to reduce drug-related harms. The 
infection rates for drug-related infectious diseases as well as the mortality rates for drug-related deaths are considerably higher inside  prison (and immediately after release from 
prison).  
Proposed action according option 1 
Harm reduction and health care for people in pr isons is not specifically  covered by the Drugs 
Strategy. No further steps will be undertaken ot her than potential – ad-hoc – follows ups 
related to the 2003 Council R ecommendation (2003/488/EC).  
Proposed action according option 2 
The health situation in prisons  is indirectly covered in th e current action plan through the 
implementation of the Council Recommendati on from 2003 (2003/488/EC). The current 
Action Plan places specific emphasis for addition al focus on the drug-rela ted health situation 
in prisons (objective 13). However, the implemen tation of the Action Plan in the past 3 years 
shows that more specific activ ities are required which are not specified in the plan.. 
 
EN 26   EN  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Develop prevention, treatment, harm reduction a nd reintegration services for people in or 
released from prison. Develop methods to m onitor/ analyse prison drug use and service 
delivery, in line with the Council Recommendati on on the prevention and reduction of health 
related harm associated  with drug dependence.  
Motivation:  
Prisons remain among the most im portant settings where drug-rela ted infectious diseases but 
also drug-related deaths occur, despite existing evidence and best-practices to avoid them. As 
over 600.000 people are detained in a prison ever y year, the great majo rity for a relatively 
short period of time, the risk of infection for society outside prison is an important cause for 
concern. Furthermore, the fundamental right of in mates to health care facilities and treatment 
are concerned here as well. 
3.2.3. Specific Objective Drug Supply Reduction 
In the policy field of drug supply reduction, th e Strategy aims for the following identifiable 
result by 2012: "A measurable improvement in the effe ctiveness, efficiency and knowledge 
base of law enforcement interventions and ac tions by the EU and its Member States 
targeting production, trafficking of drugs,  the diversion of precursor, including the 
diversion of synthetic drug precursors importe d into the EU, drug trafficking and the 
financing of terrorism, money laundering in relation to drug crime.37 ". 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The results of various operational and intel ligence law enforcement cross-border projects in 
the EU, e.g. MAOC-N, show the importance of strengthening intel ligence gathering and 
sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement alon g air, sea and land 
vectors. 
Proposed action according option 1 
The possibility exists that Member States set up collaborative platforms, but the involvement 
of EU structures is not arranged and th erefore not required, with potential adverse 
consequences on coordination and cooperation in the field of intelligence sharing. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan allows for cooperation between Member States on the basis of 
existing instruments (objective 18). In recent year s a number of Member States have taken the 
initiative to set up long-lasting collaborations to tackle emer ging trends in drug trafficking. 
However, as the current plan provides no gui dance on the interaction between MS and EU 
level as well as towards the role of EU stru ctures such as Europol in these initiatives, 
fragmentation of intelligence collection and sh aring continues to pose a potential risk to 
success and efficacy. 
                                                 
37 EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 4, article 26. 
 
EN 27   EN  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
To set up, where necessary, regional security pl atforms to counter emerging threats by means 
of coordinated operational responses. Such action to be compatible with  existing operational 
arrangements at EU level and based on specific  threat assessments, us ing existing resources 
where possible (e.g. MAOC-N, Baltic Sea Task Force, etc.).  
Motivation: 
Diverging trends in drug trafficking routes make  a swift response to new threats essential, so 
that preventive measures to pro-actively handle risks and the minimisation of threats can be 
put in place. The focus on making use of existin g operational arrangements at EU level is key 
to avoid an emerging spectrum of individual init iatives from several Member States that do 
not fit in with intelligence sharing practices , jeopardising the exchange of information 
between initiatives and this rendering  these initiatives less effective. 
 
EN 28   EN  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
In almost all Member States, th ere is a lack of pr iority among national Customs organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned. 
Proposed action according option 1 
The existing precursor legislation remains uncha nged, but the prioritisati on at Strategic level 
among Customs organisations is not a specific aim in this legislation or in the Drugs Strategy. 
The status-quo will continue. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan calls upon Member States  to strengthen drug precursor controls at 
their borders (objective 21), however, the Plan does  not give details at wh ich level specifically 
initiatives need to be taken.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Effective and uniform external border control management. Customs services to integrate 
precursor controls at a strate gic level and to c oordinate more closely with other law 
enforcement agencies engaged in an ti-drug operations (mutual support). 
Motivation: 
The conclusion was partly based on a Commi ssion survey in 2007, identifying a lack of 
political priority setting in drug precursor  control at strategic level within Customs 
organisations. Without such a strategic notion, a coherent drug precursor control on external 
EU borders is not feasible.  
3.2.4. Specific Objective International Cooperation 
Regarding the cross-cutting theme of Intern ational Cooperation, the Strategy aims for the 
following result by 2012: "A measurable improvement in effective and more visible 
coordination between Member States and be tween them and the Commission in promoting 
and furthering  a balanced approach to the drugs and precursor problem in dealings with 
international organisations, in intern ational fora and with third countries38".  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The priorities of EU drug policy are not well  translated into external funding programmes 
and projects in third countries 
Proposed action according option 1 
Without specific priorities for external agr eements coherence will be difficult to achieve. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan already asked for the inte gration of the balanced approach in external 
agreements and programmes (objective 5). This objective needs to be reiterated and formalised  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Ensure the integration of projects in the drugs field into the EU's cooperation and assistance 
programmes with third countries/ regions. This  should cover demand and supply reduction, as 
well as alternative development in  producer and transit countries.  
                                                 
38 EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 4, article 28. 
 
EN 29   EN  
Motivation : 
EU assistance to third countries has been increa singly decentralised and a direct translation of 
the horizontal policy aspects in EU drug policy is  not automatically translated into funding 
priorities. As the EU Action Plan on Drugs does not have its own budgetary resources, a 
proper translation of its objectives into existing funding sources is essential for 
implementation.  
 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The EU integrated and balanced approach on drugs has served as a model for Candidate 
Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in developing their national drug 
strategies and action plans.  
Proposed action according option 1 
As the funding programmes exist independently fr om the Action Plans, pr oject funding in the 
field of drugs may continue, but coherence and integration of policy issues in funding will be 
extremely difficult due to a lack of a coordinatio n mechanism and due to a lack of priorities.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan already asked for a c oherent approach, linking EU drug policy to EU 
funding mechanisms towards third countries ( objective 35). This objective needs to be 
reiterated and strengthened through the Commis sion's coordination mechanism as mentioned 
under section coordination. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Further develop regional cooperation initiatives  and assistance programs to address demand 
and supply reduction to be strengthen with c ountries covered by Development Cooperation 
Instruments (DCI) and European Development Fund (EDF), with a particular attention to new 
regions that are in the front line, such as in Africa and in Asia.  
Motivation: 
Continue support to these countries by providi ng technical and other assistance for their 
alignment with and implementation of the EU acquis.  
3.2.5. Information, research and evaluation 
Regarding the cross-cutting theme of informa tion and research, the Strategy aims for the 
following result by 2012: "A better understanding of the drugs problem and the 
development of an optimal response to it through a measurable and sustainable 
improvement in the knowledge bas e and knowledge infrastructure39".  
Regarding the cross-cutting theme of evaluati on, the Strategy aims fo r the following result by 
2012: "To give clear indications about the merits and shortcoming of current actions and 
activities on EU level, evaluation should continue  to be an integral part of an EU approach 
to drugs policy40". 
                                                 
39 EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 6, article 31. 
40 EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 6, article 32. 
 
EN 30   EN  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Diminishing support from national governments to National Focal Points is an increasing 
cause for concern. National Focal Points are an essential part of the information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  
Proposed action according option 1 
Without an EU Action Plan, the EMCDDA will c ontinue to collect data on key indicators. 
However, no new or additional policy relevant in formation is identified that could feed into 
the EU policy process. A framework for the u tilisation of monitoring data will not be 
available.  
Proposed action according option 2 
This is primarily a political objective, reiterating the importance of data collection at national level. The current Action Plan calls upon on the EMCDDA to produce timely and accurate 
data on the drug situation (objectives 39, 40); however, the indispensible support of Member 
States to National Focal Points is not stressed.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Member States to continue to suppor t the EMCDDA Reitox National Focal Points  
Motivation: 
National Focal Points report na tional data to the EMCDDA. Without the data from all 
Member states, an EU wide standardised comparison and trend analysis is virtually 
impossible. The evaluation report showed that  two Member States have stopped national 
funding of their NFP's. Other Member States have reduced funding in recent years (or not 
adjusted to inflation). The result is that the Reitox network becomes more vulnerable and 
ultimately, EU wide monitoring of th e drug situation is placed at risk. 
 
 
EN 31   EN  
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The availability of reliable, comparable and usab le information and data in the field of drug 
supply and supply reduction is an o ngoing cause of concern, as the lack of it does not allow 
for a proper analysis of the EU drug market  and the effectiveness of law enforcement 
interventions. 
Proposed action according option 1 
This objective will not be achieved due to a la ck of agreement and prio ritisation. The status 
quo will continue. 
Proposed action according option 2 
Strengthening information and data collection in the field of supply reduction is not and 
objective in the current Action Pl an and therefore the status quo would continue to exist.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Development of policy relevant data on th e illicit drug market, supply reduction and law 
enforcement and the structures required for their collection.  
Motivation: 
As the annual reviews and the evaluation report  show, the data collection in the field of 
supply reduction is often incomp lete, not standardis ed and difficult to compare. No key 
indicators have been identified. Without improved data on supply reduction, the Drug 
Strategy objectives of attaining 'measurable reductions in dr ug supply to the EU' cannot be 
assessed due to a lack of data. 
 
EN 32   EN 4. I DENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS  
The European Commission has the following options  at its disposal when determining the 
need for policy development in the fi eld of drug policy. These options are: 
Option 1 Do nothing. No new Action Plan  is proposed (baseline scenario) 
Option 2 The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005- 2008) is renewed for another four year 
period 
Option 3 A new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented 
 3.1 An EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented that is limited to 
the Commission competences in the field of drugs  
 3.2 A detailed EU Action Plan on Drug s (2009-2012) is presented, covering 
operational objectives and actions for EU and Member State level 
 3.3 A Binding EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is proposed 
Option 4 Spend EU resources 
For this impact assessment, option 3.1  is not explored further, since it is inconsistent with 
clear objectives on coordination as presen ted in the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012). Option 
3.3 on a binding EU action plan (i.e. through legislation) is also no t explored further, as there 
is no specific legal base for the Commission to  propose an EU Action Plan on Drugs that 
would be legally binding on the Member States and constitute  'de jure' common drugs policy 
in the EU. Member States remain the main actors in the drugs field with the Community having a competence in money laundering and pr ecursors and complementing competence in 
some other areas.  
The current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2 008) does make reference to existing legal 
instruments such as Council Decisions and Co uncil Framework Decisions and promotes the 
development of a Council Recommendation on drug services in custodia l settings. Possible 
future legislative proposals have not been included in the EU Action Plan on Drugs as each of 
them will be subject to a separate impact assessment.  
Option 4  of spending EU resources  is also ruled out as there is no specific budget line 
committed to the implementation of the EU Dr ug Strategy and its Action Plans on Drugs. A 
specific budget-line for this purpose – if it is  to have any impact – would involve extensive 
financial resources. As section 2.3 shows, the direct annual spending of Member State in 
tackling the drug problem at national level is estimated at app. EUR 13 to 36 billion. Nonetheless there are several EU funding instru ments available which support the objectives 
of the EU Drugs Strategy of which one programme explicitly  aims to support the 
implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy (2005 -2012) and the activities of the EU Action 
Plan. The Commission funding in these cases is mostly limite d to the funding of innovation 
and the exchange of best-practices.  
With a total budget of EUR 21.35 million, the objectives of the Drug Prevention and 
Information Programme 2007-2013 a re to prevent and reduce drug use, dependence and 
 
EN 33   EN drug-related harms; to contribute to the impr ovement of information on drug use; and to 
support the work on the EU Drugs Strategy ( 2005-2012). The programme  highlights under its 
specific objective "monitor, implement and evaluate the implementation and development of 
the EU Drugs Strategy and EU Ac tion Plans (2005-2008) and (2009-2012)"41 . 
Other budgetary resources ar e available that can be indirectly  used to fund specific elements 
of the EU Drugs Strategy and EU Action Plans on Drugs, especially in the field of public 
health and in the relations with Candi date, Associated a nd third countries42.  
The introduction – under this option – of a spec ific EU budget-line for the implementation of 
the EU Drug Strategy and/ or its Action Plan s would require considerably higher resources 
and a specific legal basis and is highly unlik ely during the remaini ng implementation period 
of the EU Drug Strategy.  
The remaining alternative options  are being explored further in  this impact assessment and 
will be compared with option one – do nothing, considered here as the baseline scenario. 
                                                 
41 OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, Art. 3c; Specific Programme on 'Drug Prevention and Information' (2007-2013), 
as part of the General Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' 
42 Funding for drug-related activities is furthermore available through the Programme for the Prevention 
of and Fight against Crime (2007-2013), the Public Health Programme (2008-2013), the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (2007-2013), the European Development Fund (2008-2013), the 
Development Cooperation Instrument (2007-2013), the 7
th Research Framewor k Programme (2007-
2013) and the Stability Instrument (2007-2013). 
 
EN 34   EN Option 1 Do nothing. No new Action Pl an is proposed (baseline scenario) 
According to this option, no Action Plan for the implementation of the latter half of the EU 
Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) is proposed. The St rategy will continue to provide a general 
framework for drug related activities in the EU  but no operational objec tives or actions are 
identified, no indicators for implementation are developed and no deadlines for actions are 
set. The responsible partners for achieving the ta rgets set in the Strategy are not specified on a 
more detailed level than is already done in the Strategy.  
The EU Drug Strategy becomes a 'declaration of inte nt' rather than a 'Strategy' and as a result, 
actions in the field of drugs are left almo st exclusively to the Member States. The 
Commission will continue to work with precu rsors and money laundering in accordance with 
its legal mandate and complement Member States' actions in the field of public health and in 
justice and home affairs. 
Member States will continue to coordinate their policies in th e Horizontal Drugs Group of the 
Council within the framework provided by the EU  Drugs Strategy and actions needed for its 
implementation are discussed on an ad hoc ba sis and probably in the form of informal 
'progress reviews' by each Presidency to whic h the Commission is likely to be asked to 
'contribute' as it does for sim ilar Presidency reports.  
The Commission, Europol and the EMCDDA will continue working with their respective 
mandates. Different Community Programs continue  to complement Member States activities 
in the drugs field, in particular in research and prevention according to the program guidelines 
and annual work programs discussed according to  the comitology procedure. Member States 
will revert to acting more indivi dually in international fora, esp ecially in more sensitive policy 
areas where the Strategy is not explicit. 
Option 2 The EU Action Plan on Drug s (2005-2008) is renewed for another four 
year period 
This option includes that the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008)43 will be renewed. 
Ongoing actions will be continued. Comp leted actions will be removed.  
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is cons idered to be a 'living' document' in the 
sense that those operationa l objectives or actions th at are no longer considered relevant or that 
have been completed can be removed upon re commendation from the Commission's annual 
progress review.  
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) incl udes assessment tools and indicators for 
measuring the implementation of each action. De veloping measurable indicators for some of 
the objectives of the Action Plan has been very  difficult and according to the final evaluation 
of the current Action Plan problems remain, pr eviously already high lighted in the annual 
Progress Reviews.  
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is no t a legally binding document but having been 
unanimously approved by the European Council, it does provide the framework for all drug 
related activities in the EU. As the subsidiarity test clarified,  it has added value for Member 
                                                 
43 See Annex 3 for an ov erview of objectives 
 
EN 35   EN States and it functions as a model for e .g. the Candidate Countries and the Neighbourhood 
Policy Countries in devel oping their nationa l strategies and action plans. 
Option 3.2 A new EU Action Plan  on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented 
This option builds on the main lessons from th e final evaluation of the EU Action Plan (2005-
2008) as requested in the EU Drugs Strate gy (2005-2012). No new budge tary resources are 
foreseen for the new Action Plan.  
The evaluation has provided some important el ements for this policy option which aims to 
provide guidance for EU and Member State level.  As the overarching specific objectives from 
the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) continue fo r another four years, quite a few of the 
operational objectives of the EU Action Pl an on Drugs (2005-2008) as presented in Table 1.1  
will return in the new Action Plan, possibly in a revised and reworded format. In Annex 4, a 
provisional overview is presented of refo rmulated operational objectives for a new 
comprehensive Action Plan foreseen in this option.  
The evaluation revealed that there is a certain level of overlap between specific objectives and 
actions in the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008)  and some actions are too detailed or not 
detailed enough for implementation, while othe rs did not seem to contribute enough to the 
specific objectives in the Strategy. Furthermore, certain indicators and assessment tools as 
presented in the current Action Plan need to be  corrected or adapted. Operational objectives 
will be revised accordingly. Most changes in the actual plan as pursued in this option will 
concern the specific actions. Any new operational objectives and actions will 'screened' 
against the criteria for objectives and actions44 as identified in the EU Drug Strategy (2005-
2012).  
A proposal for a new and detailed EU Acti on Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) for both EU and 
Member State will take on board  evaluation findings and can ad apt to the most recent changes 
in the drug situation and the most rece nt insights in the responses to it. 
                                                 
44 Criteria include: actions must offer EU added valu e and be measurable and realistic, include a clear 
timeframe and reference to a responsible party, must contribute directly to the achievement of the 
Strategy goals & priorities, be cost-effective. Finally, the number of actions should be limited. 
 
EN 36   EN 5. A NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
As for most complex social problems, government  interventions require a long-term planning, 
investment and implementation. It is very difficult, if not impossi ble, to establish the direct 
impact of any particular policy option on the dr ug situation. External factors other than drug 
policies, such as economic and social change, the level of employment or changes in the 
youth culture clearly also have a major impact.  
The International Drug Conventi ons limit the use of dr ugs to scientific a nd medical purposes.. 
There is a substantial law enforcement mechan ism to control the supply of drugs (production, 
trade and trafficking). The evaluation of the cu rrent Action Plan shows that the indicators 
developed so far on the supply si de mainly provide informatio n on the output of operations 
(e.g. drug seizures, number of operations) but little on the impact on the drug situation, in 
particular the availability of drugs. Under the new Action Plan, shared EU indicators and 
parameters will need to be developed to improve the monitoring of law enforcement 
interventions.  
Given the complexity of conceiving an impact  evaluation of drug polic ies at the European 
level and the difficulties of estimating drug relate d expenses and of cost benefit analysis of 
drug related actions at any level, it is currently  not possible to make more than an educated 
guess of the monetary impact in this field. 
A comprehensive Action Plan – when implem ented - will ideally have impact on the 
amelioration of the many areas in society a ffected by the drug problem and on the policies 
dealing with them. These areas cover the security  of the citizen in it s widest sense: public 
health and social well being, security, safety and public or der, economic and social costs, 
fundamental rights and environmental impacts. A nnex 5 includes the tables with the potential 
impacts of the three policy options.  
Table A5.1 is the baseline s cenario. Tables A5.2 and A5.4 reflect the impacts of the 
alternative options. Tables A 5.3 and A5.5 include an assessmen t of strengths, weaknesses, 
opportunities and threats of the two alternative options 2 a nd 3.2. The rating of impacts is 
done against the baseline scenario ('0' impact).  
The overall rating per impact ha s been done taking in to account the impacts of the whole 
Action Plan and not the specific objectives used as an example in Chapter 3. The ratings in the 'relevance sections' in tabl es A4.1, A4.2 and A4.4 reflect the relevance of the options in 
addressing the problems identified by means of example in Section 3.  
The rating exercise shows that option 3.2 scores the more positively when compared to option 
2 and especially when compared to option 1.  
 
EN 37   EN 6. C OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
Due to the presence of an overarching a nd continuing EU Drug St rategy (2005-2012), none of 
the options presented will lead to major policy shifts. However, as the overview of impacts 
shows, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-20 08) and a potential ne w EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2009-2012) have the function of translati ng the objectives and pr iorities of the Drug 
Strategy so that these can be implemented.  
Table 6.1 presents the rating of the four differe nt policy options for which impacts have been 
identified in section 5. As indicated above, it is  very difficult to assess impacts of a broad 
action plan that aims to influence a very broa d range of government activ ities and activities in 
civil society. The comparison between option 1 and option 2, and betw een option 1 and option 
3.2 is therefore somewhat artificial. Again, the Action Plan is a non-binding coordination 
instrument! Therefore impacts depend on the ex tent of transpositio n and adaptation by 
Member States of the objectives in the plan. This can not be pre-asse ssed. The Action Plan in 
option 3.2 places more emphasis on coordinative instruments and indicators through which 
compliance and progress become better measurab le. Overall, the expectation is that by 
building on the lessons of the fi rst Action Plan (option 2), a ne w Action Plan (option 3.2) will 
have greater impact in specific areas. But both option 2 and 3.2 are st rongly preferred when 
compared to the baseline.  
Table 6.1 Comparison table policy impacts  
 Option 
1 Option 
2 Option 
3.2 
Impact Rating Rating Rating 
Health impact 0 ++ +++ 
Security impact 0 ++ +++ 
Other social impacts 0 + ++ 
Fundamental rights impact 0 + ++ 
Environmental impact 0 + + 
Economic impact 0 0 0 
Social costs 0 + + 
Impact on (informal) political influence of Commission in drug 
policy 0 + ++ 
Impact on EU coordination 0 + ++ 
Impact on third countries and organisations 0 ++ ++ 
Relevance    
Coordination 0 + ++ 
Demand reduction 0 ++ +++ 
Supply reduction 0 ++ +++ 
International cooperation 0 0 + 
Information, research, evaluation  0 + ++ 
 
EN 38   EN The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) cl early states that the Commissi on is asked to present two 
consecutive EU Action Plans on Drugs with the aim to translate and implement the specific 
objectives of the Strategy.  
All proposed policy options have something pos itive to offer in terms of impact but the 
evaluation of the current Action Plan clearly s hows that Member States recognise the added 
value of an EU level Action Plan. Option 1  would, in effect, represent a step backwards and 
one that is not supported by the main stak eholders, namely the Member States and by 
secondary stakeholders such as civil society. In  fact, a failure of the Commission to come up 
with a proposal for a full fledged new Action Plan will lead to a proposal from the Presidency reflecting - at least in part - priorities, which in turn may jeopardise the consensus on and convergence of policies noted by the evaluation(s).  
The evaluation of the current Action Plan also cl early shows that there is a need for a more 
concise, prioritised Action Plan that takes on board new insights and challenges that have 
emerged and that ask for a rethinking and especi ally rewording of the existing EU Action Plan 
on Drugs. This is one of the reasons why option 2  is not recommendable.  
A new EU Action Plan on Drugs  (2009-2012) as presented in option 3  will allow the EU and 
Member States the broadest and most efficient in strument to implement th e Strategy. It should 
consolidate the balanced and integrated approach as a European drug policy model and 
develop the knowledge and evidence base to su pport the policy and be open to adjustments, 
when necessary and justified. Option 3  is therefore the preferred option.  
 
EN 39   EN 7. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
An action plan is a tool for turning a strategy in to concrete, measurable actions and objectives. 
The progress reviews and evaluation on the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) showed 
clearly that it is not always possible to identify causal relati onships between policy actions 
and interventions in practice, let alone on the drug situation. 
Despite all the difficulties in defining the imp act and as already indicated in the current 
Action Plan, the ultimate goal of the Stra tegy and Action Plans by 2012 should be a 
measurable reduction of drug related problems in our  societies. Much of this can be measured 
with already existing epidemiological indicators, including the five EMCDDA key epidemiological indicators, or with their s light improvement. Key impacts would then be: 
• Reduction in the availability of illicit drugs at the local level and of drug related nuisance 
and increased feeling of security of EU citizens
45 
• Reduction on the prevalence of drug use, in pa rticular problematic us e and of drug related 
deaths. 
• Reduction of the spread of dr ug related infectious diseases46  
• Increase of the age of onset of first drug use47. 
Even if indicators and assessment tools in many cases, in the case of the current Action Plan, 
have turned out to measure ma inly progress made, the work done  so far in elaborating and 
refining them will continue with the assistan ce of the EMCDDA and Europol. Indicators will 
be developed in such a way that informati on and data needed for the evaluation of the 
proposed Action Plan will mostly be collected as part of the stan dardized information 
collection process and less que stionnaires would be used. 
The Action Plan will continue to seek to provide for each action an indicator, a timeframe and 
assign the responsible parties for its impl ementation. The Commission will continue to 
prepare annual Progress Reviews and present thes e to the Horizontal Drugs Group and to the 
European Parliament48. The Commission will carry out an overall evaluation of the Action 
Plan and the EU Drugs Strategy in 2012. 
The EMCDDA and Europol will continue produci ng Annual Reports on the state of the drugs 
problem for their areas of competence. An importa nt part of evaluation and monitoring will be 
to develop indicators for the supply side that m easure the impact especially on the availability 
of drugs but also on the level of drug relate d crime, illicit trade in precursors and money 
laundering.  
                                                 
45 To be measured using Eurostat Crime data (e.g. victimisation survey – under development) 
46 In coherence with policy of combating HIV/AIDS; See Communication from the Commission to the 
Council and the European Parliament on combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the neighbouring countries, 2006-2009, COM/2005/0654 final 
47 To be measured using HBSC and ESPAD data and other surveys available through the EMCDDA 
48 A new practise in line with the Lisbon Treaty on enhancing the role of the European Parliament 
 
EN 40   EN By the end of 2008, the Commission will publish the results of a major study49 into the 
evolution of the global drug problem and the char acteristics of the global illicit drug market. It 
should help to provide tools fo r developing policy impact indi cators for the evaluation of the 
Strategy in 2012.  
Evidence based policy can only be establishe d as a result of a long process including 
continuous evaluation but a major impact of the new Action Plan would be to further develop 
the evidence base for the future Strategy. 
                                                 
49 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/tenders/funding_calls_en.htm 
 
EN 41   EN Annex 1 - Logical Framework model 
Intervention logic Ob jectively Verifiable 
Indicators Means of verification/ 
assessment tools Assumptions, risks & 
conditions 
Global objectives of the 
EU Drug Strategy 2005-
2012 (long-term impact ) Measures (direct or 
indirect) to prove the 
extent to which the 
overall objectives are 
fulfilled Data sources and 
methods used to show  
fulfillment  of overall 
objectives  
Identifiable result per 
strategy policy field 
(envisaged outcome of 
the policy)  Measures (direct or 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent the policy result is 
achieved  Information sources and 
methods used to show 
achievement  of strategy 
goal Conditions, events & 
decisions beyond the 
policies control relevant 
to the achievement of goal 
Specific objectives/ 
strategy priorities  Measures (direct or 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent objectives are 
achieved Information  sources and 
methods used to show 
achievement  of specific 
objectives Conditions, events & 
decisions beyond the 
policies control key to achievement of result 
Operational objectives 
in Action Plan (building 
blocks for results) Measures (direct or 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent the priorities have 
been realised Information sources and 
methods used to show 
realisation  of priorities Conditions, events & 
decisions beyond the 
policies control key to 
realisation of priorities 
Actions Measures (direct or 
indirect) to show 
realisation of actions Information sources and 
methods used to show 
delivery  of outputs Conditions, events & 
decisions beyond the 
policies control key to 
realisation of outputs 
Policy inputs 
 Instruments to implement the policy, e.g.:  
Type and level of resources needed to implement the actions  
Budget  
Time  
Legislation  
Actors and stakeholders  
 
EN 42   EN Annex 2 – Stakeholder consul tation reference documents 
As explained in section 1.3, a wide  range of stakeholders have been consulted in preparation 
of the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Pl an (2005-2008) and this Impact Assessment. 
Underneath a range of reference documents is provided, relevant for the consultation process.  
Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (2007-2008) – relevant documents  
• Council Conclusions on the 2006 Progress Review  on the Implementation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008); 10301/07 CORDROGUE 32, 4.6.2007 
• Reducing the production and cross-border tra fficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis 
(action 19 of the EU Drugs Action Plan ( 2005-2008); Conclusions on th e thematic debate 
within the meeting of 20 June 2007; 12540/07 CORDROGUE 58, 3.9.2007  
• Conference on Evaluation of Public Poli cies and Programmes on Drugs, 19 and 20 
September, Lisbon, Portugal – Co nclusions of the Presidency; 13493/07 CORDROGUE 
70, 4.10.2007  
• Conclusions by the Presidency on the Thematic  debate of 11 July 2007 – Cooperation with 
West Africa in the field of  Drugs (actions 35 and 36.4 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008)); 13620/07 CORDROGUE 71, 8.10.2007  
• Council Conclusions on drug traffi cking along the cocaine route; 15483/07 CORDROGUE 
82, 20.11.2007  
• Conclusions of the thematic debate - Interventions in prisons: the role of harm reduction 
measures (actions 13.2 and 15 of th e EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)); 5609/08 
CORDROGUE 13, 23.01.2008 
• Conclusions of the thematic debate - Inform ation exchange mechanisms in the field of 
drugs (actions 18.1 and 19 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008); 5641/08 
CORDROGUE 15, 23.1.2008 
• Conclusions of the them atic debate – Preventing the Dist ribution of Drugs at Street Level 
(action 25.2 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)); 5615/08 CORDROGUE 14, 
23.1.2008 
• Conclusions on Afghanistan; 8273/1/08 CORDROGUE 33, 11.4.2008  
InterService Steering Group on the Impact A ssessment for a new EU Drugs Action Plan 
(2009-2012) 
• Report of the meeting of 26 Febr/uary 2008/ 
• Report of the meeting of 31 March 2008 
• Report of the meeting of 19 May 2008  
Steering Group for the Evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2012) 
• Terms of reference 
• Report of the Steering Group meeting of 14 February 2007 
• Report of the Steering Group meeting of 17 January 2008 
Civil Society Forum on Drugs in the European Union 
 
EN 43   EN • Final Report of the meeting on 13 and 14 December 2007 
• Final Report of the meeting on 20 and 21 May 2008 
Europol/ EMCDDA 
• Several technical reports, A nnual Reports, contributions to  the evaluation and impact 
assessment 
 
EN 44   EN Annex 3 – The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
As the first Action Plan to implement the objecti ves and priorities of the EU Drugs Strategy 
(2005-2008) in practice, the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is the most detailed in this 
field to date at EU level, covering the full range of EU drug policy and unanimously endorsed 
by the Council, reflecting the broad consensus between Member States on this issue. The Action Plan proposes policy action at national, EU and international level and asks for the 
commitment of the 27 Member States to work mo re closely together, to  share information and 
best-practices, to jointly promote the EU mode l in drugs policy and to  base drug policy on 
scientific facts and evidence.  
A global overview of the structure and key obj ectives in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008) can be found in Table 1 . The EU Drugs Strategy (2005- 2012), as an overarching and 
balanced coordination document for EU drug policy, reflecti ng concerns, priorities and 
consensus of 27 Member States, has been transl ated into a large number of objectives (46) 
and actions (86) in th e current Action Plan.  
 
EN 45   EN  
Table 1 - Schematic overview of objectives in EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 
Coordination 
(1) 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 
(2) Coordination at national and EU level 
(3) Strengthen involvement of civil society 
(4, 6) Effective coordination in the Council 
(5) Systematic mainstreaming of drugs polic y in relations and agreements with 3rd countries  
Drug Demand Reduction Drug Supply Reduction & security 
(7) Encouraging improvement of coverage of, access 
to and effectiveness of demand reduction measures in 
Member States (8-10)  Encouraging implementation of prevention in 
Member States (universal, selective, indicative, early 
detection)  
(11-12)  Encouraging improvement and 
implementation of treatment and rehabilitation in 
Member States (early intervention, brief treatment, 
long-term treatment, etc.) 
(13) Encouraging development of alternatives to 
imprisonment and of drug services in prisons in Member States 
(14-17)  Encouraging implementation of harm 
reduction in Member States (reducing drug related 
deaths, drug-related infectious diseases)  (18) Improve law enforcement cooperation between 
Member States, Europol, Eurojust, third countries and 
international organisations (19) Reducing production and cross border trafficking 
of heroin, cocaine and cannabis 
(20) Reducing the manufacture and supply of synthetic 
drugs (ATS) 
(21) Combat serious criminal  activity in chemical 
precursors diversion and smuggling through law enforcement cooperation between Member States, 
Europol, Eurojust, third countries and international 
organisations (22) Preventing the diversion of precursors, in 
particular synthetic precursors imported into the EU 
(23) Reducing money laundering and increasing the 
seizure of accumulated assets in relation to drug crime 
(24) Exploring links between drug production and 
trafficking and the financing of terrorism (25-26)  Improving the preven tion of drug-related 
crime and developments of new methods and best 
practices to curtail it 
(27) Increasing training for law enforcement agencies 
International Cooperation 
(28, 31) Adopting EU common positions on drugs in international for a, including on UNGASS 
(29) Articulation and promotion of the EU approach on drugs 
(30) Bringing forward joint EU resolutions and co-sponsor others 
(32) Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries 
(33) Enable candidate countries to participate in  the work of EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust 
(34) Assist European neighbours 
(35) 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 
(36) Intensify law enforcement efforts di rected at non-EU countries, especi ally producer countries and regions 
along trafficking routes 
(37) Continue to develop an active political engagement by the EU with third countries 
(38) Improve the coherence, visibility  and efficiency of the assistance to candidate countries and 3rd countries/ 
regions 
Information, evaluation and research 
(39) Provide reliable and comparable data on key epidemiological indicators 
(40) Provide reliable information on the drug situation 
(41) Develop clear information on emerging trends and patterns of drug use and drug markets 
(42) Produce estimates on public expenditures on drug issues 
(43, 44) Promote research in the field of drug s and create networks of excellence in research 
(45) Continuous and overall evaluation 
(46) Follow up of the mutual evaluation of drug law enforcement systems in the Member States 
 
EN 46   EN 8. A NNEX 4 – PROVISIONAL OVERVIEW AGGREGATED OBJECTIVES ACTION PLAN 
(2009-2012) 
Coordination (provisional) 
(1) Ensure that a balanced and integrated approach, with due regard for fundamental rights, is reflected in 
national policies and in the EU approach towards 3rd countries and in international fora 
(2) Ensuring effective coordination at EU level 
(3) Ensuring effective coordination at national level 
(4) Ensure the participation of civil society in drug policy  
Drug Demand Reduction Drug Supply Reduction & security 
(5) Prevent the use of drugs and the risks associated 
with it (6) Prevent problem use of drugs - including injecting 
drug use - through targeted prevention 
(7) Enhance the effectivene ss of drug treatment and 
rehabilitation by improving the availability, 
accessibility and quality of services 
(8) Enhance quality and effectiveness of drug demand 
reduction activities, taking account of specific needs of 
drug users according to e.g. gender, cultural 
background, age, etc. 
(9) Ensure health care to drug users in prison to 
prevent and reduce health-har ms associated with drug 
use 
(10) Ensure access to harm reduction services, in order 
to reduce the spread of HIV/ AIDS, hepatitis C and other drug-related blood-borne infectious diseases and 
to reduce the number drug-related deaths in the EU (11) Enhance effective law en forcement cooperation in 
the EU to counter drug production and trafficking (12) To respond rapidly and effectively to emerging 
threats  
(13) To reduce the manufacture and supply of 
synthetic drugs 
(14) Reduce the diversion and trafficking in the EU of 
chemical precursors used for the manufacturing of illicit drugs, in particular synthetic drug precursors 
(15) To reduce the impact on society of organised 
crime active in drug pro duction and trafficking 
International Cooperation 
(16) To include systematically EU drug concerns in relatio ns with third countries wher e appropriate. To do so on 
the basis of strategic planning and coordination between all actors concerned 
(17) To strengthen EU coordination in the multilateral cont ext and promote an integrated and balanced approach 
(18) Improve cooperation with Candidate, Stabilisation and Association Process and European Neighbourhood 
Policy countries (ENP) 
(19) Improve cooperation at regional and/ or inter-regional level 
Information, evaluation and research 
(20) To expand the knowledge base in the field of drugs by promoting research 
(21) To ensure the exchange of accurate and policy relevant information in the field of illicit drugs 
(22) To further develop instruments to monitor the drug  situation and the effectiveness of responses to it 
(23) To ensure ongoing evaluation of drug policy 
 
EN 47   EN 9. A NNEX 5 – IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLES AND SWOT ANALYSIS  
Underneath, the three policy options are comp ared, in which option 1 is the 'Do nothing' 
option in which no new action plan is propose d (baseline scenario),  option 2 involves the 
extension (without modification) of the cu rrent EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) and 
option 3.2 the option proposing a new EU Dr ugs Action Plan (2009-2012). The impacts of 
options 2 and 3.2 are always rated agains t the baseline scenar io (option 1).  
Explanation of ratings 
0 = baseline (no change in impact) 
+/- = small positive or negative impact compared to baseline 
++/-- = medium positive or negative impact compared to baseline 
+++/--- = big positive or negative  impact compared to baseline 
Table A5.1 - Impacts relative to the scenario of option 1 
Option 1 – Do Nothing! No action plan proposed 
Assessment Criteria Rating Motivation 
Impacts  
Health impact 0 • Member States continue to provide a high level 
of health protection but mutual cooperation and 
the sharing of best practise may be hampered by 
the lack of an overall policy framework and the resulting lack of priorities in the EU drug 
policies 
• The complementary nature of EU public health 
policies (e.g. through implementation of 
Community Programs) is more difficult to 
ensure. 
• No intensifying of support to reduce drug-
related harms and no focus on emerging health 
problems such as co-occ urring health problems 
Security impact 0 • The EU Drug Strategy reflects priorities to 
enhance safety and security. These are not 
operationalised and depend completely on the question if and how MS implement them. 
• Without a policy and cooperation framework, 
Member States are not encouraged to work 
together to tackle cross-border trafficking  
Other social impacts 0 • Exchange of best practi ce, information and data 
collection (e.g. on effective treatment; know-
how on safe dismantling of illegal drug laboratories) increasingly difficult due to the 
lack of common framework 
Fundamental rights impact 0 • Member States and the EC continue to 
guarantee Fundamental Rights 
• Social inclusion, non-dis crimination, and access 
to treatment are defined at national level. (comment: there are two EU Directives on non-
discrimination, and also on access to services, 
which includes health care)  
 
EN 48   EN Environmental impact 0 • Potential environment impacts of reducing drug 
production are not taken into consideration in 
Strategy 
Economic impact 0 • No additional financial cost for EU budget is 
foreseen as existing resources are in place and 
will continue until 2012/2013 
• Less efficient spending of EU funds may occur 
because of the difficulty  in ensuring coherence 
between national and Community Programs but 
also due to the doubling of investments in knowledge infrastructure, in law enforcement 
capacity and in international assistance 
• No extra administrative costs for the EU or for 
the Member States 
Social costs50 0 • Potential increase in costs (burden of crime to 
society) as Member States have no shared framework to tackle cros s-border drug-related 
crime 
• Increased costs because of the difficulties in 
tackling drug related crim e, in particular cross 
border crime 
• Increased costs because of the problems in 
controlling illegal drug trafficking, and illegal 
trafficking in precursors and money laundering 
• Increased costs because of a lack of cooperation 
and coordination in reducing drug-related harms 
with cross-border spill over effects (e.g. infectious diseases) 
Impact on (informal) political influence of 
Commission in drug policy 0 • The Commission retreats from its "acquis" of 
proposing drug policies from a neutral and 
professional perspective, which has come to be accepted by the Member States.  
• In this option, the Commission's (informal) 
political influence in EU drug policy is compromised.  
• The participation of the Commission in the 
Council coordination structures will be mainly 
passive due to a lack of a clear working agenda.  
• The Commission's visibility in drugs will 
decline. 
Impact on EU coordination 0 • MS policies may drift apart with potential 
effects for neighbouring countries 
• Potential diminishing attention for the need to 
collectively monitor the drug situation 
(diminishing support for EMCDDA activities)  
Impact on third countries and organisations 0 • The impact of this policy option on third 
countries and organisations will be limited from 
the perspective of formal cooperation. 
• However, due to the abse nce of an actual policy 
plan that offers guidance for cooperation with 
third countries and organisations, the quality of 
cooperation will not benefit and will retain a bilateral and fragmented nature.  
                                                 
50 See section 2.2.3 for an explanation of social costs in the drug field. 
 
EN 49   EN  
Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 
Problem identified in evaluation  Potential action based on this policy option 
Coordination    
The evaluation shows that the Horizontal 
Drugs Group is the main forum of drug coordination at EU level. The European 
Commission is well coordinated in the Council. 
At the same time, coordination within the 
Commission regarding the implementation of 
the Action Plan can be improved, among others by setting clearer priorities and by improving 
the communication on EU drug policy 
objectives across policy fields.  0 .  
Annually, a rich body of monitoring 
information and situation reports are published 
on the drug situation. However, the utilisation 
of these reports by EU policymakers, linking the phenomena described in them for further 
policy analysis needs improvement.  0 . 
Demand reduction   
Member States have invested in universal, 
selective and indicated prevention programmes across the board, but the evidence-base 
underpinning these programmes is still weak as 
they are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member States have introduced general quality 
guidelines for prevention.  0  
The provision of continued and equal care for 
inmates in prison as compared to care 
available in society in general is of great 
importance to reduce drug -related harms. The 
infection rates for drug-related infectious 
diseases as well as the mortality rates for drug-
related deaths are considerably higher inside prison (and immediately after release from 
prison).  0  
Supply reduction   
The results of various operational and 
intelligence law enforcement cross-border projects in the EU, e.g. MAOC-N, show the 
importance of strengthening intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement along air, sea 
and land vectors.  0  
In almost all Member States, there is a lack of 
priority among national Customs organisations when drug precursor control is concerned.  0  
International cooperation   
The priorities of EU drug policy are not well 
translated into external funding programmes 
and projects in third countries  0  
The EU integrated and balanced approach on 
drugs has served as a model for Candidate 
Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in d eveloping their national 
drug strategies and action plans.  0  
 
EN 50   EN  
Information, research, evaluation    
Diminishing support from national 
governments to National Focal Points is an 
increasing cause for concern. National Focal Points are an essential part of the information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  0  
The availability of reliable, comparable and 
usable information and data in the field of drug supply and supply reduction is an ongoing 
cause of concern, as the lack of it does not 
allow for a proper analysis of the EU drug market and the effectiveness of law enforcement 
interventions.  0  
 
EN 51   EN Table A5.2 - Impacts relative to the scenario of option 2 
Option 2 – Action Plan on Drug s (2005-2008) extended with 4 years 
Assessment Criteria Rating Motivation 
Impacts  
Health impact ++ • Overall, the measures  in the current AP 
cover a general and broad range of drug demand reduction objectives. However, 
recent changes in drug use patterns are not 
properly addressed.  
• Increasing drug-related public health threat 
on EU's borders are not addressed(Africa, 
Eastern Europe) 
• No intensifying of support to reduce drug-
related harms and no focus on emerging 
health problems such as co-occurring 
disorders 
Security impact ++ • Overall, the measures  in the current AP 
cover traditional supply reduction as a whole and will continue to do so. However, 
recent trends in drug-rel ated security issues 
are not covered well.  
Other social impacts + • Exchange of best practice, information and 
data collection difficult due to the lack of an 
updated common framework and priority 
setting 
• Social reintegration and rehabilitation 
receives no further attention in the AP and 
continues to be underdeveloped in Member 
States  
• The prevention of social exclusion (and 
poverty) among drug dependent users is 
addressed by the existing programmes but 
does not receive additional attention.  
Fundamental rights impact + • Fundamental Rights are taken as a starting 
point for drug policies at the European level 
• Access to services is part of the Action Plan 
while non discrimination and social inclusion are not. 
Environmental impact + • The current Action Plan prioritises 
collaboration at UN level and towards 3rd 
countries, allowing the EU to promote the 
balanced and also proportionate approach, 
which does not support aggressive chemical 
eradication policies as pursued by some 3rd 
countries and international organisations 
• Exchange of best-practice in drug-lab 
dismantling techniques can help identify 
environmental spills and/ or reduce 
environmental risks during operations 
Economic impact 0 • No additional financial cost for EU budget 
is foreseen as existing resources are in place 
and will continue until 2012/2013 
• No impact on Member States' budget 
• The are financial advantages (efficiency, 
effectiveness) possible due to a commonly 
 
EN 52   EN agreed framework but, due to lack of 
priority setting and duplication, these are 
rather limited  
Social costs + • Provides a framework for coherent action 
against organised drug related crime but 
increased costs if this framework is not 
updated according to the evaluation and if no clear priorities are set 
• Increased costs because of the problems in 
controlling illegal drug trafficking, and illegal trafficking in precursors and money 
laundering unless clear priorities are set 
• Provides a framework for coherent action 
against public health th reats in and between 
Member States  
Impact on (informal) political influence of 
Commission in drug policy + • The Commission is considered by Member 
States as a neutral and expert 'broker' in the 
field of drugs, entrusted with the political 
task of drafting a new Action Plan.  
• The Commission has fulfilled most tasks 
assigned to her in the current Action Plan. 
The role of the Commission would become less initiating and more technical-
administrative. 
Impact on EU coordination + • The convergence of policies between 
Member States will not change immediately. But ther e is a risk that 
Member States become 'weary' of the 
existing Action Plan and continue to 
develop their own (and possibly diverging) 
policies to address new trends and developments.  
• The contribution to the further development 
of a European coordination mechanism in the field of drugs is not strengthened and 
lessons learned through the evaluation not 
taken on board. 
Impact on third countries and organisations ++ • The collaboration and assistance to 3rd 
countries and regions (as well as to 
Candidate and Associat ed countries) will 
continue. But new trends in drug trafficking routes and consumption patters, with 
adverse consequences on safety & security 
as well as on Fundamental rights, social and 
health problems, will not be addressed 
Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 
Problem identified in evaluation  Potential action based on this policy 
option 
Coordination   
The evaluation shows that the Horizontal Drugs 
Group is the main forum of drug coordination at EU level. The European Commission is well 
coordinated in the Council. At the same time, 
coordination within the Commission regarding the implementation of the Action Plan can be improved, 
among others by setting clearer priorities and by 
improving the communication on EU drug policy objectives across policy fields.  +  
 
EN 53   EN Annually, a rich body of monitoring information 
and situation reports are published on the drug 
situation. However, the u tilisation of these reports 
by EU policymakers, linking the phenomena 
described in them for further policy analysis needs 
improvement.  +  
Demand reduction   
Member States have invested in universal, selective 
and indicated prevention programmes across the 
board, but the evidence-base underpinning these 
programmes is still weak as they are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member States have 
introduced general quality guidelines for 
prevention.  +  
The provision of continued and equal care for 
inmates in prison as compared to care available in 
society in general is of great importance to reduce 
drug-related harms. The infection rates for drug-related infectious diseases as well as the mortality 
rates for drug-related deaths are considerably 
higher inside prison (and immediately after release 
from prison).  ++  
Supply reduction   
The results of various operational and intelligence 
law enforcement cross-border projects in the EU, e.g. MAOC-N, show the importance of 
strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing as 
a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement along air, sea and land vectors.  ++  
In almost all Member States, there is a lack of 
priority among national Customs organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned.  +  
International cooperation   
The priorities of EU drug policy are not well 
translated into external funding programmes and 
projects in third countries  0  
The EU integrated and balanced approach on drugs 
has served as a model for Candidate Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in 
developing their national dr ug strategies and action 
plans.  0  
Information, research, evaluation    
Diminishing support from national governments to 
National Focal Points is an increasing cause for 
concern. National Focal Points are an essential part of the information infrastructure of the 
EMCDDA.  +  
The availability of reliable, comparable and usable 
information and data in the field of drug supply and supply reduction is an ongoing cause of concern, as 
the lack of it does not allow for a proper analysis of 
the EU drug market and the effectiveness of law 
enforcement interventions.  0  
 
 
EN 54   EN In addition to the impact a ssessment above, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and 
threats can be assessed for option 2.  
Table A5.3 SWOT analysis of option 2 
Strengths 
– The current Action Plan represents a European 
added value in committing, albeit not legally, 
the Member States, the Commission and other relevant actors towards achieving commonly 
agreed objectives. 
– The current Action Plan is a tool for developing 
and Area for Freedom Security and Justice and 
explicitly confirms the commitment in having 
full respect for fundamental rights. 
– The Action Plan provid es a framework for 
strengthening coordination structures at the EU 
level and for coherent approach on drugs. 
– The coherence of drugs related actions and the 
complementarity between  different Community 
Programs and action at the national level is 
partly ensured.  
– Provides a framework for coordination but no 
new policy incentives 
– The ongoing objectives in the current Action 
Plan can be implemented in full, allowing for a larger implementation period and therefore for a 
potential more rigorous evaluation by 2012.  Weaknesses 
– The Implementation of the current Action Plan is a 
particularly difficult process due to the non-binding 
character of the plan. The Ac tion Plan has an indirect 
implementation effect on MS policies.  
– A further prioritisation inside the Action Plan would 
be beneficial for it to have a more explicit input in the planning and implementation of the Community 
Programs.  
– Information and data available are not always 
available and/or relevant in measuring the 
achievements of the objectiv es. There is an overall 
lack of information on if an d to what extent the actions 
have an impact on the drug situation.  
– A more effective implementation of the EU Drug 
Strategy requires a revision of operational objectives 
specific actions and indicators in the EU Action Plan 
on Drugs, acceptable to all Member States and the Commission.  
Opportunities 
– Indicators for the evaluation of the current 
Action Plan can be fu rther elaborated to 
improve further on the final evaluation of 2008.  
– The objectives and actions as implemented 
through the current Action Plan will have more 
time to 'trickle' down to national level. As a 
result, implementation results may be enhanced over time.  Threats 
– The current Action Plan does not establish a hierarchy 
of new priorities. It risks becoming only a list of 
ongoing activities if not updated. 
– The full impact of the expansion of the EU since 2004 
can not be assessed, with its impact on trafficking 
routes of (illegal) goods, intra-EU migration, the 
spread of drug-related infectious diseases, new neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Russia).  
 
 
EN 55   EN Table A5.4 - Impacts relative to  the scenario of option 3.2 
Option 3.2 – A complete new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is proposed 
Assessment Criteria Rating Motivation 
Impact  
Health impact +++ • Recent changes in the drug situation can be 
taken on board 
• A more proactive AP can be more sensitive in 
emerging trends  
• New insights can be translated in quality 
requirements, increasin g effectiveness and 
efficiency 
• More ambitious action can be taken to reduce 
avoidable drug-related harms 
• Assistance to neighbouring and third countries 
in reducing drug-related harms can be 
prioritised 
Security impact +++ • A new Action Plan can take on board recent 
trends in drug-related se curity issues, including: 
• New trafficking routes through 
Western Africa and Balkans: impact 
on societies concerned, including some Member States. 
• Broad security issues e.g. increasing 
opium production in Afghanistan 
• Drugs and driving; drugs in the 
workplace  
• Funding of terrorism 
Other social impacts ++ • Exchange of best practi ce, information and data 
collection enhanced through updated common 
framework and priority setting 
• Social reintegration and rehabilitation can be 
improved  
• The prevention of social exclusion (and 
poverty) among drug dependent users is better 
addressed by placing emphasis on fundamental rights, rehabilitation and on a broader 
implementation of demand reduction 
interventions, including early intervention and harm reduction. 
Fundamental rights impact ++ • Fundamental Rights are taken as a starting point 
at European level and more strongly promoted 
in cooperation with 3rd countries. 
• An updated EU model, based on an integrated, 
balanced approach and on Fundamental Rights 
would not be available to civil society in countries with very restrictive policies 
• Access to services, non-discrimination and 
social inclusion part of the new AP 
Environmental impact + • Prioritising alternative development, taking into 
concern social and environmental aspects of 
local populations in production countries can be better prioritised 
• Promoting exchange of be st-practice in drug-lab 
dismantling techniques can help identify environmental spills and/ or reduce 
environmental risks during operations 
Economic impact 0 • No additional financial cost for EU budget is 
 
EN 56   EN foreseen as existing resources are in place and 
will continue until 2012/2013. 
• Potential voluntary extra spending on priorities 
and cooperation by Member States 
• Financial advantages both for the EU budget 
and for the Member States because of the enhanced complementarity as a result of clear 
priority setting (e.g. EU spends EUR 760 
million annually on international cooperation and coordination) 
Social costs + • Reduced costs, since provides an updated 
framework and clear priorities in tackling 
organised crime 
• Reduced costs because an updated approach e.g. 
on exchange of best practice in tackling drug related crime 
• Decreased costs because of the problems in 
controlling illegal drug trafficking, and illegal trafficking in precursors and money laundering 
unless clear priorities are set 
• Greater focus on public health threats  
Impact on (informal) political influence of 
Commission in drug policy ++ • The Commission's position as a neutral and 
expert broker in the EU drug policy field can be 
further reinforced.  
• The Commission, supported by EMCDDA and 
Europol can actively work to help create 
improved conditions for policy analysis and information collection, necessary for the further 
development of EU drug policy.  
Impact on EU coordination ++ • New Action Plan will reiterate commitment of 
Member States to policy objectives 
• New policy insights in Member States can be 
included within framework of Strategy 
Impact on third countries and organisations ++ • The collaboration and assistance to 3rd 
countries and regions (as well as to Candidate and Associated countries) will continue. New 
trends in drug traf ficking routes and 
consumption patters, with adverse 
consequences on safety & security as well as on 
Fundamental rights, social and health problems, can be taken on board 
• The EU model of drug policy will be further 
enhanced based on new insights and evidence and can continue to function as a model for the 
rest of the world. This is also very relevant and 
important in the upcoming UNGASS evaluation and follow up discussion in 2009.  
 
EN 57   EN  
Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 
   
Coordination   
The evaluation shows that the Horizontal 
Drugs Group is the main forum of drug 
coordination at EU level. The European 
Commission is well coordinated in the Council. At the same time, coordination within the 
Commission regarding the implementation of 
the Action Plan can be improved, among others by setting clearer priorities and by improving 
the communication on EU drug policy 
objectives across policy fields.  ++ Proposed objective:  
The Commission will ensure coherence between 
the internal and external aspects of its 
involvement in drug policy, including the management of relevant funding mechanisms.  
Motivation: 
The evaluation has showed that the coordination of 
drug policy within Commission services needs 
further clarification, clear er prioritisation and task-
division. This includes the input of drug issues into annual work planning of the existing available 
funding programmes. 
Annually, a rich body of monitoring 
information and situation reports are published on the drug situation. However, the utilisation 
of these reports by EU policymakers, linking 
the phenomena described in them for further 
policy analysis needs improvement.  ++ Proposed objective:  
The Council to critically examine the state-of-the-drug problem once a year, on the basis of the 
relevant annual reports from EMCDDA, 
EUROPOL, EUROJUST and the annual review 
of the Commission 
Motivation: 
So far, the EMCDDA annual report is primarily 
presented in the European Parliament, the 
Commission annual prog ress review in the 
Horizontal Drugs Group in the Council and 
Europol's Organised Crime Threat Analyses on 
drugs in the Police Chiefs Task Force in the Council. A more comprehensive discussion, 
bringing together trends in demand and supply 
reduction can strengthen the analytical work in the HDG.  
Demand reduction   
Member States have invested in universal, 
selective and indicated prevention programmes 
across the board, but the evidence-base underpinning these programmes is still weak as 
they are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member 
States have introduced general quality 
guidelines for prevention.  ++ Proposed objective:  
Develop and implement at  national level quality 
standards for prevention,  treatment, harm 
reduction and rehabilitation  
Motivation: 
In recent years, Member States have been 
encouraged to implemen t prevention programmes 
where these did not exist. However, effective prevention programmes are based on evaluation 
and specific quality criteria derived from research. 
As it is impossible to assess the availability of effective programmes in schools and other settings 
in Member States, it is more efficient to assess 
whether Member States have set quality standards, which elements are part of these standards and how 
these are implemented (e.g. as funding condition). 
The provision of continued and equal care for 
inmates in prison as compared to care available in society in general is of great 
importance to reduce drug -related harms. The 
infection rates for drug-related infectious diseases as well as the mortality rates for drug-
related deaths are considerably higher inside 
prison (and immediately after release from prison).  +++ Proposed objective:  
Develop prevention, trea tment, harm reduction 
and reintegration services for people in or 
released from prison. Develop methods to 
monitor/ analyse prison drug use and service delivery, in line with the Council 
Recommendation on the prevention and reduction 
of health related harm associated with drug dependence. 
 
EN 58   EN Motivation: 
Prisons remain among the most important settings 
where drug-related infectious diseases but also drug-related deaths occur, despite existing evidence 
and best-practices to avoid them. As over 600.000 
people are detained in a pr ison every year, the great 
majority for a relatively short period of time, the 
risk of infection for society outside prison is an 
important cause for con cern. Furthermore, the 
fundamental right of inmates to health care 
facilities and treatment are concerned here as well. 
Supply reduction   
The results of various operational and 
intelligence law enforcement cross-border projects in the EU, e.g. MAOC-N, show the 
importance of strengthening intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement along air, sea 
and land vectors.  +++ Proposed objective:  
To set up, where necessary, regional security platforms to counter emerging threats by means of 
coordinated operational responses. Such action to 
be compatible with existing operational arrangements at EU level  and based on specific 
threat assessments, using existing resources 
where possible (e.g. MAOC-N, Baltic Sea Task 
Force, etc.). 
Motivation: 
Diverging trends in drug trafficking routes make a 
swift response to new threats essential, so that 
preventive measures to pro-actively handle risks and the minimisation of threats can be put in place. 
The focus on making use of existing operational 
arrangements at EU level is key to avoid an emerging spectrum of individual initiatives from 
several Member States that do not fit in with 
intelligence sharing practices, jeopardising the exchange of information between initiatives and 
this rendering these initiatives less effective. 
In almost all Member States, there is a lack of 
priority among national Customs organisations when drug precursor control is concerned.  ++ Proposed objective:  
Effective and uniform external border control management. Customs services to integrate 
precursor controls at a strategic level and to 
coordinate more closely with other law enforcement agencies engaged in anti-drug 
operations (mutual support). 
Motivation: 
The conclusion was partly based on a Commission 
survey in 2007, identifying a lack of political priority setting in drug precursor control at strategic 
level within Customs organisations. Without such a 
strategic notion, a coherent drug precursor control on external EU border s is not feasible.  
International cooperation   
The priorities of EU drug policy are not well 
translated into external funding programmes 
and projects in third countries  + Proposed objective:  
Ensure the integration of projects in the drugs 
field into the EU's cooperation and assistance programmes with third co untries/ regions. This 
should cover demand and supply reduction, as 
well as alternative development in producer and transit countries. 
Motivation: 
EU assistance to third countries has been 
increasingly decentralised and a direct translation 
of the horizontal policy aspects in EU drug policy 
is not automatically translated into funding 
 
EN 59   EN priorities. As the EU Action Plan on Drugs does 
not have its own budgetary resources, a proper 
translation of its objectives into existing funding sources is essential for implementation.  
The EU integrated and balanced approach on 
drugs has served as a model for Candidate 
Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in d eveloping their national 
drug strategies and action plans.  + Proposed objective:  
Further develop regional  cooperatio n initiatives 
and assistance programs to address demand and supply reduction to be strengthen with countries 
covered by Development Cooperation Instruments 
(DCI) and European Devel opment Fund (EDF), 
with a particular attention to new regions that are 
in the front line, such as in Africa and in Asia.  
Motivation: 
Continue support to these countries by providing 
technical and other assistance for their alignment 
with and implementation of the EU acquis. 
Information, research, evaluation    
Diminishing support from national 
governments to National Focal Points is an 
increasing cause for concern. National Focal 
Points are an essential part of the information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  + Proposed objective:  
Member States to continue to support the 
EMCDDA Reitox National Focal Points. 
Motivation: 
National Focal Points report national data to the 
EMCDDA. Without the data from all Member states, an EU wide standardised comparison and 
trend analysis is virtually impossible to make, as 
secondary data sources are often not available and no quality check is conducted. As the evaluation 
report showed, two out of 27 National Focal Points 
have stopped their funding of their NFP's. Other Member States have reduced funding in recent 
years (or not adjusted to inflation). The result is 
that the Reitox network becomes more vulnerable and ultimately, EU wide monitoring of the drug 
situation is placed at risk. 
The availability of reliable, comparable and 
usable information and data in the field of drug supply and supply reduction is an ongoing 
cause of concern, as the lack of it does not 
allow for a proper analysis of the EU drug market and the effectiveness of law enforcement 
interventions.  ++ Proposed objective:  
Development of policy relevant data on the illicit drug market, supply reduction and law 
enforcement and the structures required for 
their collection. Motivation: 
As the annual reviews and the evaluation report 
show, the data collection in the field of supply 
reduction is often incomplete, not standardised and 
difficult to compare. No key indicators have been identified. Without improved data on supply 
reduction, the Drug Strategy objectives of attaining 
'measurable reductions in drug supply to the EU' cannot be assessed due to a lack of data. 
 
 
EN 60   EN In addition to the impact a ssessment above, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and 
threats can be assessed for option 3.2.  
Table A5.5 SWOT analysis of option 3.2 
Strengths 
• This option allows for the defining of a smaller 
number of objectives and actions within the 
framework provided by the EU Drugs Strategy and for development of improved indicators to 
assess the extent to which the Action Plan 
achieved its aims.  
• Further consolidating the balanced approach as an 
EU approach on drugs.  
• Complementarity between policies and funding 
instruments at the EU level during the present 
funding period and in preparing for the next funding period from 2013 onwards.  
• Coordination mechanisms are consolidated based 
on the evaluation, new policy incentives are introduced within a coherent framework 
• The work towards measuring drug policy impacts 
and national and EU level can continue.  Weaknesses 
• Implementation of the new Action Plan will 
continue to be particularly difficult process due to 
the non-binding character of the plan. The Action 
Plan has an indirect im plementation ef fect on MS 
policies.  
• A new Action Plan may terminate existing 
initiatives that are still developing, causing upheaval 
and an inefficient use of resources.  
Opportunities 
• A new Action Plan can take on board key findings 
from the evaluation of the current Action Plan on 
Drugs, including a focus on setting quality standards, taking on board new insights, evidence 
and know-how regarding effective responses to 
the drug phenomenon. 
• Flaws and shortcomings from the current Action 
Plan can be avoided while formulating new objectives. 
• Emphasis can be placed on new developments, 
trends and patterns in the field of drug supply and drug demand, including new drug use trends, new 
trafficking routes and new international 
developments e.g. a great er focus on alternative 
development and security.  
• Taking into account the developments in the drug 
situation, as reported by the EMCDDA and Europol, as well as lessons learned from the 
evaluation, the new Action Plan would 
concentrate on the most relevant ways of moving 
towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 
The starting point of this approach would continue to be the relevant Treaties and the 
respect of fundamental rights and other basic 
European values.  
• Developing and improving, together with the 
EMCDDA and Europol, indicators and 
assessment tools providing for a systematic collection of information and data supporting the 
evaluation of the Action Plan especially in the 
area of supply reduction.  
• Some of the key objectives and actions as 
implemented through the current Action Plan will 
be continued in the new Action Plan and will have 
more time to 'trickle' down to national level. As a Threats 
• A very specific new Action Plan on Drugs may 
cause disagreement among Member States due to a 
changed political situation.  
• Some key achievements/ principles of the current 
EU Action Plan on Drugs may be seriously 
scrutinised due to changing political perspectives in 
some Member States on e.g. prevention and harm 
reduction, but also on the importance of monitoring and evaluation.  
 
 
EN 61   EN result, implementation results may be enhanced 
over time.  
 
 
EN 62   EN 10. A NNEX 6 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
ESPAD European School Survey Pr oject on Alcohol and other Drugs 
HBSC Health Behaviour in School Children (WHO) 
HDG Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (Council) 
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
IDU Intravenous Drug User 
INCB International Narcotics Control Board 
MAOC - N Maritime Analysis Operations Centre - Narcotics 
MS Member State 
NFP National Focal Point  
NGO Non Governmental Organization 
REITOX Réseau Européen d'Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime  
UNAIDS Joint United Nations  Programme on HIV/AIDS 
WHO World Health Organisation 
 
 
EN 63   EN 11. A NNEX 7 -GLOSSARY  
A 
Amphetamine Type Stimulants 
The term of 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 by which this progress or achievement of the implementation of an action can be 
verified. 
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 to 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 administered 
as 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). 
Drug-related death 
Drug-related death is defined in this report as: deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drug 
and generally occurring shortly after the consumption of the substance(s). These deaths are known as 
‘overdoses’, ‘poisonings’ or drug-induced deaths. 
 
EN 64   EN 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.  
I 
Injecting Drug User (IDU) 
Injections are usually intravenous, but may also be intramuscular, subcutaneous.  
 
EN 65   EN 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 stabilizing 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 the provision 
of substitution drugs in every patient. Furthermore patients are supported by medical and social service 
professionals to guarantee beneficial long-term effects on social re-integration of the individual patient. 
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). 
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 
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.  
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 which 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 prevention generally covers three different  types of drug prevention,  each with distinctive 
characteristics. Universal prevention  used to be referred to as primary prevention. This type of prevention is 
aimed at the general population or parts of it (e.g. young people) that is 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 youth, etc.). Indicated 
prevention  aims at individuals who do not have drug or addiction problems accordin g to the international 
diagnostic criteria for substance use disorders, but who do have some ear ly characteristics of problematic use 
 
EN 66   EN (e.g. young people using drugs with high frequency). Pr actically all prevention programmes (school-based, 
family-oriented, mass media, community) cover one or more of these types of prevention.  
R 
Risk factors 
Risk factors are personal or social conditions that are considered mediating factors to increase the probability 
that an individual develops 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 cost s include e.g. public expenditures on prevention, treatment, harm reduction, law 
enforcement & prosecution, penitentiaries , etc. Indirect social costs include e.g. 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. Soci al 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 come s either with or without psycho-social support.