Bryssel den 22.10.2004

KOM(2004)707 slutlig

MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN TILL RÅDET OCH EUROPAPARLAMENTET

om resultaten av den slutliga utvärderingen av EU:s handlingsplan mot narkotika (2000-2004)

1. EU:S NARKOTIKASTRATEGI OCH EU:S HANDLINGSPLAN FÖR NARKOTIKABEKÄMPNING (2000-2004)

Kommissionen lade 1999 fram ett meddelande om Europeiska unionens handlingsplan för narkotikabekämpning (2000 - 2004)[1]. Med detta meddelande som utgångspunkt godkände Europeiska rådet vid sitt möte i Helsingfors EU:s strategi mot narkotika 2000-2004[2]. Strategin bygger på en sektorsövergripande och integrerad syn på narkotika, där en minskning av såväl tillgången som efterfrågan på narkotika ses som lika viktiga och ömsesidigt förstärkande inslag av en balanserad strategi.

I juni 2000 godkände Europeiska rådet vid sitt möte i Feira EU:s handlingsplan mot narkotika 2000-2004[3]. I denna handlingsplan omsätts EU:s strategi mot narkotika ned till runt ett hundratal konkreta åtgärder som skall vidtas av medlemsstaterna, kommissionen, Europeiskt centrum för kontroll av narkotika och narkotikamissbruk (ECNN) och Europol.

I handlingsplanen fastställs att kommissionen skall genomföra ändamålsenliga utvärderingar, dels i halvtid, dels efter det att strategin mot narkotika 2000-2004 har löpt ut. I november 2000 lade kommissionen fram ett meddelande om halvtidsutvärderingen[4].

I detta meddelande redovisas resultaten av den slutliga utvärderingen och samtidigt skapas en grund för den framtida utvecklingen av EU:s narkotikastrategi med utgångspunkt i de erfarenheter som har samlats i samband med genomförandet av den nuvarande strategin.

2. SLUTUTVÄRDERINGENS SYFTE OCH METODIK

2.1. Syfte

Syftet med den slutliga utvärderingen är att bedöma hur framgångsrika åtgärderna i handlingsplanen har varit, hur väl de har uppfyllt målen i narkotikastrategin och att utvärdera effekterna av både narkotikastrategin och handlingsplanen på narkotikasituationen i EU.

Effektmätning som rör narkotikapolitiken är ett område som fortfarande befinner sig under utveckling och bristen på exakta och kvantifierbara operativa målsättningar i den nuvarande narkotikastrategin och handlingsplanen gör inte uppgiften lättare. Processen för effektmätning och för att definiera nyckelindikatorer och instrument, som i framtiden kan fungera som kvalitetsstandarder i samband med att nya strategier antas, har dock påbörjats.

2.2. Metod

Denna utvärdering inleddes i april 2003 med upprättandet av en styrgrupp (sammansatt av företrädare för kommissionen, de fyra medlemsstater som innehar ordförandeskapet under åren 2003 och 2004, ECNN och Europol) som skulle övervaka den slutliga utvärderingen och ge vägledning för dess genomförande. Gruppen har haft fyra möten för att avgöra vilka instrument och metoder som skall användas för utvärderingen och för att övervaka förfarandet.

I november 2003 skickades ett frågeformulär ut till alla dåvarande medlemsstater[5] i syfte att samla in detaljerad information om de åtgärder i handlingsplanen som de har genomfört (bilaga 1). En liknande uppföljningstabell skickades även till de berörda avdelningarna på kommissionen, ECNN och Europol (bilaga 2).

ECNN och kommissionen utarbetade en rad tematiska studier med inriktning på särskilda aspekter av narkotikafrågan[6]. ECNN utvecklade tillsammans med Europol en statistisk översikt som innehåller nyckeluppgifter om narkotikasituationen sådan den tedde sig 1999 respektive 2002-2003[7].

En Eurobarometerundersökning genomfördes i april/maj 2004 av ungdomars attityder och inställningar till narkotika.[8] Huvudresultaten från den undersökningen jämförs med resultaten från en liknande undersökning som gjordes 2002. Även den slutliga rapporten om brottsbekämpning och dess roll i kampen mot narkotikahandel[9], genomförandeplanerna för åtgärder mot tillgången till syntetisk narkotika[10] och för minskning av tillgång till och efterfrågan på narkotika[11] och den rapport om framstegen med genomförandet av dessa planer[12] som har antagits av rådet (bilaga 3) har beaktats.

Uppgifterna från de olika källorna har analyserats för att belysa de viktigaste framstegen under perioden, respektive områden där det krävs ytterligare framsteg. De användes även för att bedöma hur framgångsrika åtgärderna i handlingsplanen har varit och i vilken utsträckning genomförandet av handlingsplanen har uppfyllt målen i narkotikastrategin. Den statistiska översikten utgör grunden för utvärderingen av narkotikastrategins och handlingsplanens effekter på narkotikasituationen. De uppgifter som den slutliga utvärderingen bygger på härrör från tiden mellan 1999 och juni 2004.

3. DE VIKTIGASTE FRAMSTEGEN SAMT DE OMRÅDEN DÄR YTTERLIGARE FRAMSTEG KRÄVS

3.1. Samordning

Framsteg på nationell nivå

- Sedan 1999 har mer avancerade nationella narkotikastrategier antagits av medlemsstaterna. De flesta omfattar hela skalan av narkotikaanknuten verksamhet.

- Medlemsstaternas medvetenhet om att det behövs en sektorsövergripande samordning på narkotikaområdet har ökat. Alla medlemsstater håller med om att detta är ett viktigt inslag i narkotikapolitiken, även om det saknas en enhetlig definition av begreppet "samordning".

Områden där ytterligare framsteg krävs på nationell nivå

- Nationell narkotikasamordning behöver utvidgas till all narkotikapolitik, även de samråd som regelbundet sker med det civila samhället.

- Mer och tidigare samordning på nationell nivå (dvs. mellan folkhälsoinstitut, myndigheter för rättsliga och inrikes frågor, för utrikesfrågor och budget) skulle underlätta för medlemsstaternas företrädare att formulera sina ståndpunkter inför rådet.

Framsteg på EU-nivå

- Sedan handlingsplanen antogs har två möten varje år ägt rum mellan nationella samordnare av narkotikafrågor.

- Kommissionen offentliggjorde ett meddelande om samordning av narkotikafrågor 2003. Ett dokument innehållande den horisontella narkotikagruppens synpunkter på meddelandet har diskuterats .

Områden där ytterligare framsteg krävs på EU-nivå

- Lämplig uppföljning av kommissionens meddelande om samordning av narkotikafrågor måste säkerställas. Mötena mellan de nationella samordnarna bör bli mer fokuserade på enskilda frågor.

- Kommissionen bör stärka sina interna samordningsfunktioner och göra dessa mer anpassade till rådande föerhållanden. En tydligare och mer operativ samordning mellan alla avdelningar som har anknytning till narkotikafrågorna behövs. Kommissionens strukturella kopplingar till ECCM bör bibehållas.

- Det finns ingen tydlig ansvarsfördelning mellan de arbetsgrupper i rådet som sysslar med narkotikafrågor. De övergripande grupperna för narkotikabekämpning bör ha huvudansvaret för att samordna arbetet mellan alla olika grupper som arbetar med narkotikarelaterade frågor.

- Det civila samhället har inte rådfrågats regelbundet i samband med utarbetandet av EU:s narkotikapolitik, men sådant samråd bör bli ett fast inslag i arbetet. Detta kommer att tas upp i ett meddelande från kommissionen 2005.

3.2. Information och utvärdering

Resultat på nationell nivå

- Tillgången till och kvaliteten på uppgifterna om narkotikasituationen har blivit bättre i de flesta medlemsstater, liksom även det politiska stöd som behövs för särskild informations- och utvärderingsverksamhet.

- Alla medlemsstater har kommit överens om att tillämpa de fem epidemiologiska nyckelindikatorerna[13] och att tillhandahålla jämförbara och konsoliderade uppgifter.

- Vissa medlemsstater har gjort framsteg med att utveckla metoder för regelbundna utvärderingar av hur verkningsfulla deras åtgärder på narkotikaområdet är.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på nationell nivå

- Den systematiska övervakningen av genomförandet av nationella narkotikastrategier och handlingsplaner bör förbättras. Det behövs även förbättringar för att se till att genomförandet utvärderas regelbundet.

- Medlemsstaterna bör eftersträva att fullständigt genomföra de epidemiologiska indikatorerna.

- Uppgifterna om offentliga utgifter inom narkotikaområdet och analyserna av de politiska åtgärdernas kostnadseffektivitet behöver förbättras.

Resultat på EU-nivå

- Tillgången till och kvaliteten på information om narkotikasituationen har blivit bättre, framför allt tack vare ECNN:s och de nationella kontaktpunkternas arbete.

- Arbetet med den slutliga utvärderingen har lett till att ett antal viktiga metoder har utvecklats och att en styrgrupp har inrättats som skulle kunna utgöra ramen för framtida utvärderingar av EU:S politik på narkotikaområdet.

- Informationsutbytet om trenderna i narkotikabruket har förbättats, delvis tack vare att ett varningssystem har införts inom ramen för den gemensamma åtgärden för kontroll av syntetiska droger.[14]

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på EU-nivå

- Det saknas information om narkotikarelaterad brottslighet och mer arbete behöver läggas ned på lämpliga indikatorer, varvid ECNN:s och Europols insatser hittills på detta område bör beaktas.

- Mekanismerna för att övervaka nya trender i narkotikabruk bör förbättras. Forskning om sådana trender bör utvecklas ytterligare.

3.3. Minskning av efterfrågan

Resultat på nationell nivå

- I samtliga medlemsländer finns det ett medvetande om att förebyggande åtgärder måste inledas från tidig ålder. De har skapat allmänt förebyggande program med hjälp av nationella experter och det civila samhället.

- Särskilda förebyggande program som syftar till att bekämpa blandmissbruk och missbruk av såväl lagliga som olaglig narkotikapreparat blir allt vanligare. Informationskampanjer riktar sig allt oftare mot speciella målgrupper och tar upp riskbeteende och beroende i allmänhet.

- De flesta medlemsstater har ökat finansieringen av och tillgången på behandlingstjänster och även ökat bredden på de behandlingsalternativ som erbjuds.

- Alla medlemsstater ägnar större uppmärksamhet åt narkotikamissbrukande brottslingar, vilket tar sig uttryck i ökningen av alternativen till fängelse (t.ex. samhällstjänst) och större möjligheter till anstaltsbaserade ingripanden i form av psyk- och hälsovård.

- I alla medlemsstater har man bedrivit forskning om effekterna av att köra bil under inflytande av olaglig narkotikapreparat och mediciner och i vissa länder har man vidtagit striktare kontrollåtgärder.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på nationell nivå

- Mer regelbundna utvärderingar bör göras av verkningsfullheten hos åtgärder som avser att minska de negativa hälsoeffekter från narkotikaberoende och hos behandlingsmetoderna.

- Medlemsstaterna bör formulera allmänt erkända kvalifikationer för personer som är yrkesverksamma inom områdena förebyggande av droger och minskning av negativa hälsoeffekter orsakade av narkotikaberoende.

Resultat på EU-nivå

- Rådet har antagit ett antal resolutioner om frågor med anknytning till förebyggande av narkotikamissbruk (cf. Annexe 3).

- Gemenskapens åtgärdsprogram för att förebygga narkotikamissbruk (1996-2002)[15] och det nya folkhälsoprogrammet (2003-2008)[16] har bidragit med finansiering av förebyggande narkotikabekämpningsprojekt. Behandling är en ny fråga som blir allt viktigare.

- En rådsrekommendation om förebyggande och minskning av negativa hälsoeffekter orsakade av narkotikaberoende antogs 2003[17].

- Ett europeiskt åtgärdsprogram för trafiksäkerhet[18] och en rådsresolution om kampen mot användning av psykoaktiva ämnen som orsak till trafikolyckor[19] har antagits. I båda dessa handlingar beaktas effekterna av bilkörning under inverkan av alkohol, narkotika och läkemedel.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på EU-nivå

- EU bör främja ytterligare forskning om biomedicinska, psykosociala och andra faktorer bakom narkotikabruk och -beroende, särskilt inom områden där sådan forskning hittills har varit bristfällig (t.ex. långvarigt bruk av cannabis eller syntetisk narkotika).

- Spridningen av tillförlitlig information av god kvalitet och information om bra metoder bör förbättras.

- Kommissionen kommer att följa upp de viktigaste punkterna i den ovannämnda rådsrekommendationen från 2003.

3.4. Minskning av tillgången

Resultat på nationell nivå

- Inom de flesta medlemsstater har samarbetet mellan brottsbekämpande organ förbättrats genom att strukturer och åtgärder har införts eller förstärkts, som gemensamma polis- och tullgrupper, gemensamma brottsbekämpande operationer och samarbetsavtal.

- Det verkar som om fler medlemsstater nu kan agera i enlighet med bestämmelserna i avtalet om olaglig hantering av narkotika till havs, syftande till att genomföra artikel 17 i Förenta nationernas konvention från 2003 mot olaglig hantering av narkotika och psykotropa ämnen.

- Alla medlemsstater har införlivat det första direktivet om penningtvätt[20] i sin nationella lagstiftning och elva länder har införlivat ändringsdirektivet[21]. Därutöver har medlemsstaterna infört nya åtgärder för att förhindra att det finansiella systemet används för penningtvätt, t.ex. befogenheter att hindra transaktioner och ökade befogenheter att kontrollera inresande personer som medför stora penningsummor.

- Tio medlemsstater har i sin lagstiftning införlivat bestämmelserna i rådets rambeslut om gemensamma utredningsgrupper[22] och/eller ratificerat EU:s konvention om ömsesidig rättslig hjälp i brottmål[23], eller också har de konstaterat att befintlig lagstiftning redan gör det möjligt att bilda sådana utredningsgrupper.

- Tio medlemsstater har ratificerat konventionen om ömsesidigt bistånd och samarbete mellan tullförvaltningar (Neapel II)[24]. Fjorton medlemsstater har ratificerat konventionen om användning av informationsteknologi för tulländamål (CIS)[25].

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på nationell nivå

- De medlemsstater som inte har rapporterat att de ännu inte har några formella strukturer för samarbete mellan sina nationella brottsbekämpande organ bör lämpligen upprätta sådana strukturer.

- Medlemsstaterna bör se till att de har infört de förfaranden som behövs för att de skall kunna uppfylla bestämmelserna i artikel 17 i FN-konventionen från 1988 och de bör även överväga att utarbeta en praktisk vägledning för dess genomförande.

- De medlemsstater som ännu inte har gjort så bör införliva det andra direktivet om penningtvätt[26], rådets rambeslut om gemensamma utredningsgrupper och/eller ratificera EU:s konvention om ömsesidig rättslig hjälp i brottmål, Neapel II-konventionen och CIS-konventionen.

Resultat på EU-nivå

- Samarbete mellan brottsbekämpande organ på EU-nivå har förbättrats genom att strukturer har upprättats eller förstärkts, tack vare Europols och Eurojusts verksamhet och sådana åtgärder som gemensamma utredningar, gemensamma tullåtgärder, samarbete till havs, gemensamma grupper och centra för polis- och tullsamarbete.

- Ett antal EU-projekt (som CASE, EELS and EILCS) som syftar till att kartlägga produktionen av och handeln med syntetisk narkotikapreparat har upprättats och pågår för närvarande.

- Sedan 2000 har fem preparat varit föremål för EU-övergripande kontrollåtgärder inom ramen för den gemensamma åtgärden för kontroll av syntetiska droger.

- EU finansieringsprogram, som AGIS[27] har haft stor betydelse när det gäller att underlätta samarbetet mellan medlemsstaternas brottsbekämpande myndigheter.

- Politisk enighet har uppnåtts om rådets rambeslut om minimibestämmelser för brottsrekvisit och påföljder för olaglig narkotikahandel [28]. Det väntas snart antas formellt.

- Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning om narkotikaprekursorer (avseende handel inom gemenskapen)[29] har antagits. Ett förslag till rådets förordning om handel med narkotikaprekursorer med länder utanför EU[30] har lagts fram av kommissionen.

- OLAF har underlättat ett viktigt informationsutbyte om riskerna med olaglig användning av narkotikaprekursorer och kommer att fortsätta stödja Yachtinfo- och Marinfosystemen.

- Den fortsatta utvecklingen av en permanent operativ samordningsenhet som skall stödja samarbetet mellan tullförvaltningar befinner sig på diskussionsstadiet.

- Kommissionen har antagit ett förslag till ett tredje direktiv om penningtvätt[31].

- Antagandet av rådets beslut om en samarbetsordning för medlemsstaternas finansunderättelseenheter avseende utbyte av information[32] har skapat en bättre ram för samarbetet.

- Ett antal medlemsstater deltar i diskussioner om att upprätta gemensamma utredningsgrupper och att ge sina polisiära och rättsvårdande myndigheter ytterligare långtgående befogenheter att verka inom varandras respektive territorier.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behöver göras på EU-nivå

- Medlemsstaterna bör upprätta gemensamma utredningsgrupper för att hantera narkotikasmuggling sinsemellan, enligt vad som föreskrivs i rådets rambeslut och i konventionen.

- Ytterligare utveckling av gemensamma operationer mellan brottsbekämpande organ i medlemsstaterna bör diskuteras. Operationernas organisation och resultat bör rapporteras till rådet och kommissionen.

- Verksamheten som syftar till att bekämpa produktion och försäljning av syntetisk narkotikapreparat bör om möjligt byggas ut ytterligare. De förslag som kommissionen har lagt fram om kartläggning av distributionsnät kan fungera som en lämplig utgångspunkt för detta arbete.

- Rådets rekommendation om harmonisering av statistik över brottsbekämpande myndigheters beslag av narkotika och olagligt använda prekursorer[33] bör genomföras fullständigt.

- Det tredje direktivet om penningtvätt bör antas av Europaparlamentet och rådet så snart som möjligt.

3.5. Utvidgningen

Utvidgningen genomfördes visserligen inte förrän åtta månader före utgången av den period som omfattas av narkotikastrategin, men initiativ inom narkotikaområdet ingår i EU:s grundläggande regelverk. Alla nya medlemsstater och två av kandidatländerna har frivilligt svarat på kommissionens enkät[34]. En sammanfattning av dessa uppgifter kommer att offentliggöras i en separat rapport.

Resultat

- Phare-programmet och andra relevanta gemenskapsprogram har varit till stor nytta när det har gällt att introducera de nya medlemsstaterna och kandidatländerna till de inslag i gemenskapens regelverk som har anknytning till narkotika.

- Så gott som samtliga medlemsstater har stött de nya medlemsstaterna i deras arbete för att tackla narkotikamissbruk och olaglig narkotikahandel.

- Alla nya medlemsstater har införlivat de narkotikarelaterade inslagen i gemenskapens regelverk i sin egen nationella lagstiftning och kandidatländerna är i färd med att göra det.

- RIF-kapitlet i regelverket har preliminärt avslutats för Bulgarien och förhandlingarna med Rumänien går framåt.

- Avtalen med Bulgarien, Rumänien och Turkiet om deltagande i ECNN:s arbeta har paraferats.

Områden där det krävs ytterligare framsteg

- Ett nära samarbete bör föras med de nya medlemsstataerna och kandidatländerna när det gäller genomförandet av de narkotikarelaterade inslagen i gemenskapens regelverk.

- De nya medlemsstaterna bör utnyttja Agis och andra relevanta program fullt ut i syfte att underlätta samarbetet med andra medlemsstatater.

- Avtalen med tre kandidatländer om att göra det möjligt för dem att deltaga i ECNN:s arbete bör träda i kraft med det snaraste.

- Phare-programmet och andra gemenskapsprogram bör fortsätta sitt stöd till kandidatländerna på narkotikaområdet.

3.6. Internationellt samarbete

Resultat på nationell nivå

- Medlemsstaterna ger narkotikarelaterat bistånd till tredje land, antingen bilateralt eller genom kontoret för FN:s narkotikakontroll- och brottsförebyggande program (UNODC), i vissa fall både/och.

- Flera medlemsstater samarbetar med tredje land för att utveckla och förbättra system som skall förhindra penningtvätt.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behövs på nationell nivå

- Alla medlemsstater bör systematiskt bidra till den databas som har upprättats av kommissionen avseende projekt för tekniskt bistånd till kandidatländer och tredje land på narkotikaområdet.

- Medlemsstaterna bör regelbundet informera rådet och kommissionen om sina bilaterala insatser i tredje land och regioner utanför EU.

Resultat på EU-nivå

- Kommissionen koncentrerar sitt arbete på de två viktigaste handelsvägarna för olaglig narkotika till EU.

- Kommissionen har regelbundet informerat rådet om sina narkotikarelaterade biståndsinsatser i tredje land och regioner utanför EU och om det förbättrade integrerade förfarande som den använder för att finansiera narkotikarelaterade projekt i tredje land och regioner utanför EU.

- Inom ramen för den europeiska grannskapspolitiken pågår för närvarande diskussioner om handlingsplaner med ett flertal länder. Dessa innehåller i regel ett avsnitt om narkotikabekämpning.

- Alla relevanta avtal som sluts mellan gemenskapen och parter utanför EU innehåller särskilda bestämmelser om narkotika.

Områden där ytterligare framsteg behövs på EU-nivå

- Medlemsstaterna och kommissionen bör fortsätta företräda samordnade EU-ståndpunkter i internationella fora som arbetar med narkotikafrågor, säsrskilt FN:s narkotikakommission.

- Medlemsstaterna occh kommissionen bör fortsätta koppla det narkotikarelaterade bistånd de ger till Centralasien, Latinamerika, Stilla havsområdet och Västra Balkan till de handlingsplaner för narkotikabekämpning som har antagits tillsammans med dessa regioner. En lämplig finansieringsmekanism kan eventuellt övervägas i detta hänseende.

- EU:s nya handlingsplaner för narkotikabekämpning i olika delar av världen behöver kopplas samman med tilldelningen av medel för deras genomförande.

- Narkotikaexperter från medlemsstaterna bör fortsätta arbeta aktivt med att lyfta fram narkotikafrågorna i samband med att programplanering utarbetas eller förnyas för länder och regioner. Samarbetet mellan de geografiska arbetsgrupperna och arbetsgruppen för övergripande narkotikafrågor kan förbättras.

- Nya kriser och trender i narkotikabruk och produktion i vissa länder och regioner bör följas och bevakas.

- Befintliga mekanismer för internationell samoardning på narkotikaområdet, som Dublin-gruppen, bör utnyttjas fullt ut.

4. SLUTSATSER

I. Utvärdering av resultatet av de åtgärder som ingår i handlingsplanen

- Runt 95 % av de åtgärder som ingår i EU:s handlingsplan mot narkotika har genomförts eller befinner sig i något stadium av sitt genomförande.

- EU:s narkotikastrategi och handlingsplan har använts som central referens för åtgärder och har utgjort en ram för narkotikarelaterade åtgärder och initiativ på både nationell nivå och EU-nivå.

- Nästan alla medlemsstater har antagit en nationell narkotikastrategi eller handlingsplan. Dessa nationella strategier och planer speglar samma mönster som som kommer till uttryck i EU:s övergripande narkotikastrategi och handlingsplan.

II. Utvärdering av hur väl resultaten av handlingsplanen har uppfyllt narkotikastrategins målsättningar

- Det råder ingen tvekan om att genomförandet av handlingsplanens åtgärder i större eller mindre utsträckning har bidragit till att uppfylla de elva allmänna syftena i EU:s narkotikastrategi.

III. Utvärdering av effekterna på narkotikasituationen

- Åtminstone i viss mån har framsteg gjorts mot att uppfylla några av målen i EU:s narkotikastrategi (mål 2 och särskilt mål 3)[35].

- På grundval av befintliga utvärderingsmetoder finns det inga klara bevis på att mål 1 att avsevärt minska förekomsten av olaglig narkotikaanvändning har uppnåtts eller att nyrekryteringen av unga missbrukare har minskat. Det framgår dock av de senaste statistiska uppgifterna att den uppåtgående trend som har varit rådande i narkotikabruk är på väg att plana ut, även om det befinner sig på en högre nivå än någonsin tidigare.

- Den information som finns tillgänglig tyder inte heller på att tillgången till olaglig narkotika har minskat avsevärt (mål 4). Samtidigt har de båda målen 4 och 5 i kombination givit upphov till ett antal initiativ på EU-nivå som har stärkt brottsbekämpande insatser mot olaglig narkotikahandel och tillgång.

- Ett antal viktiga initiativ har även tagits för att bekämpa penningtvätt (mål 6.1). Vad beträffar mål 6.2 deltar medlemsstaterna i flera viktiga insatser för att bekämpa olaglig handel med prekursorer, som Europeiska gemensamma enheten för prekursorer. Viktiga förslag har lagts fram för att utöka gemenskapslagstiftningen på området kontroll av handeln med prekursorer.

5. FÖRSLAG

- EU:s nästa narkotikastrategi bör innehålla tydliga och exakta mål och prioriteringar som kan överföras till operativa indikatorer och åtgärder i framtida handlingsplaner, med ansvar och tidsfrister för genomförandet tydligt fastställda. Informationssystem och utvärderingsmetoder bör beaktas när dessa mål och prioriteringar fastställs.

- Tillgängligheten, kvaliteten och jämförbarheten i de uppgifter som tas fram för att följa upp narkotikasituationen behöver ständigt förbättras.

- Kommissionen kommer 2005 att lägga fram ett förslag till handlingsplan för narkotikabekämpning 2005-2008. Kommissionen kommer dessutom att dra upp riktlinjerna för en årlig framstegsrapport om genomförandet av denna handlingsplan och och anordna en effektmätning 2008 i syfte att lägga fram en ny handlingsplan för perioden 2009-2012. Under den perioden kommer kommissionen att fortsätta med årliga utvärderingar. En övergripande utvärdering av EU:s narkotikastrategi och handlingsplaner kommer att genomföras 2012 och läggas fram inför rådet och Europaparlamentet.

- Målen i den nya narkotikastrategin och i handlingsplanerna bör återspeglas i det fleråriga programmet för att stärka området med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa.

- Verksamheten i rådets arbetsgrupp för övergripande narkotikafrågor kommer främst att fokuseras på att övervaka genomförandet av åtgärderna i de kommande handlingsplanerna för narkotikabekkämpning, och på att ha en ledande roll i samordningen av andra rådsarbetsgrupper som hanterar narkotikafrågor.

- Många intressanta insatser genomförs på narkotikaområdet. Resultaten av dessa insatser bör få större spridning för att främja liknande insatser på annat håll. I detta sammanhang bör man överväga att hålla ett årligt seminarium om någon aspekt av narkotikapolitiken som har anknytning till dessa insatser.

- Vid utarbetandet av EU:s nya narkotikastrategi 2005-2012 bör denna slutliga utvärdering beaktas.

ANNEX 1

Summary of 15 Member States responses to the questionnaire on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)

1. Co-ordination

1.2.2 What steps has your country taken towards the establishment or the strengthening of the national co-ordination mechanisms since 1999? Has your country appointed a National Drugs Co-ordinator in the related period? Does your country envisage carrying out or has your country carried out an evaluation of the co-ordination mechanisms?

All Member States recognise the importance of coordinating the activities of the multiple actors involved in the drugs issue. They report to have mechanisms in place for coordinating their national drugs policies. Member States have adopted different models of coordination, depending on their national administrative structures and on the aspects of the fight against drugs they intend to focus on; some have interdepartmental committees, some have appointed national drug coordinators (e.g. France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Sweden) and/or established dedicated coordination units or bodies (e.g. Austria, Greece, Ireland, Finland). Some, however, lack coordination mechanisms that cover all aspects. Few Member States provide for evaluation of their coordination mechanisms.

1.2.4 In what way has your country ensured a balanced and multidisciplinary approach in national drugs programmes and policies and their implementation?

The importance of maintaining a multidisciplinary and balanced approach is clearly recognised by all Member States. Most have adopted a national plan or strategy on drugs (Belgium Denmark, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the UK).

1.3.2 Has your country developed a specific strategy for co-operation with civil society regarding drug abuse? Please give details.

Most Member States make provisions for involving civil society in the fields of prevention, health care and treatment, mainly at local level. Most of them also consult civil society on an ad hoc basis, e.g. for specific projects. Many Member States mention financial support for community groups and organisations as a way of cooperating with civil society.

Some countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden) have more regular contacts with the networks of NGOs, the voluntary sector, associations, etc. These countries recognise the importance of linking policy making and practice through dialogue with civil society, but also refer to the supporting work done by these organisations to influence public opinion.

1.4.2. In which way has your country encouraged the provision of funding for the prevention of drug use, the prevention of drug related crime, the reduction of the negative health and social consequences of drugs and other proactive measures?

Public expenditure on prevention and risk reduction programmes and measures are different from one country to another depending on the national administrative structure, ministerial budgets and social security systems. Some Member States (Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, and United Kingdom) indicate an increase of funding for drug-demand reduction.

1.5 In which way has your country shared information with other Member States on national strategies and action plans? Has your country made use of the EMCDDA database on drug laws, the Falcone and OISIN programmes or any other tools for information exchange and operational co-operation? Please describe.

Member States consider other national measures, strategies and action plans as useful examples for orienting their own national debate. Very often information exchange is made via bilateral contacts and visits. The Horizontal Drugs Group and the meetings of the national coordinators are recognised as important occasions to share information and views.

All Member States acknowledge the importance of learning from the others and quote internet as an important source of information. Most of them report regular input and consultation of the EMCDDA databases (EDDRA, ELDD).

As far as law enforcement information sharing is concerned, most Member States mention the Europol national liaison officers. All Member States were able to take part in joint projects co-financed by the Commission's OISIN and/or the Falcone programmes. Since 2003 XXX (can we give a figure??) have received funding under the new AGIS programme[36].

2. Information and Evaluation

2.1.1 and 2.1.4 Does your country fully or partly provide information on the 5 key epidemiological indicators of the EMCDDA? If your country does not fully provide information on the 5 key epidemiological indicators when do you believe you will be in a position to do so? Please give brief description of the evolution of political and financial support to implement the 5 harmonised key indicators.

All Member States have established systems for the gathering and treatment of data which will provide comparable and reliable data on the 5 key epidemiologic indicators, and most Member States are able to provide (partial) information on all indicators. In order to improve the data quality of the used sources and to alleviate the lack of information on some indicators, Member States have introduced the necessary amendments in their legislative systems, organised special workgroups composed of representatives from various Ministries, services, and NGOs specialised in the fight against drugs and actively participated in EMCDDA workshops In most Member States, political and financial support provided by the government for establishing the five indicators (particularly through the national budget to the REITOX Network) is considered sufficient.

2.2.6 and 2.2.7 Which measures are used in your country to assess the effectiveness of preventing and combating organised drug related crime? What kind of crime and policy indicators has your country developed? Has your country drafted an annual assessment on the role of organised crime groups involved in drug trafficking?

No unanimity exists among member States on the methodology used to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive actions and measures to fight organised crime related to drug-trafficking, but all annual reports include statistics which illustrate the number of confiscations and their quantities, the share of dismantled clandestine laboratories, the number of arrests, the number of drug-related deaths and other indicators of repressive actions by the relevant agencies. Member States contribute to the annual EU Organised Crime report, which includes a section on drugs, in accordance with the criteria set out in Enfopol 35 Rev 2 (21.4.1997).

Some Member States undertake further research on the linkage between drug phenomena and criminal activities, e.g. Ireland's public surveys on the nature of the policing, the visibility and perception of crime, including drug related crime.

3. Reduction of Demand, Prevention of Drug Use and of Drug Related Crime

3.1.1.1 Does your country have general programmes for the prevention of both licit and illicit drug use, including poly-drug use? In which way, if any, does your country encourage the inclusion of drug use prevention in school curricula? Are there programmes set-up to assist parents? If yes, please describe briefly.

Member States underline the importance of prevention, and the need for better and accurate information campaigns and prevention programmes focused on the promotion of health as well as on the personal and social development of the young people.

Prevention programmes can involve, among many other measures, the creation of prevention centres, specific training for experts and civil society (teachers, parents, support organisations...), health professionals and even representatives of the law enforcement services, working in the school environment and among young people. The importance of regular cooperation with young people's associations, sports clubs, as well as taking preventive actions in nightclubs and major music and dance events are also stressed, in a way to promote healthy initiatives. Frequently decentralised, organised at local level in collaboration with the local autorities and the civil society, whit a short duration, they address to youngsters and other target groups.

Specific prevention projects aimed at tackling the poly-drug use and the abuse of licit substances (alcohol, tobacco, doping substances and medicinal products) are more and more implemented in all Member States.

Member States agree on the effectiveness of school based drug education programme, but only a few countries (France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and UK) have clear references to illicit substances and their effects inscribed on the schools curriculum.

3.1.1.3 Could you describe the way your country allocated resources for positive alternatives to drugs for youngsters, in particular in socially deprived urban areas?

Member States have many projects on positive alternatives to drug use specifically targeted on older children and adolescents in disadvantaged urban areas, namely through the creation of youth consultation centres that provide recreational, sports and educational activities with job counselling.

The budget allocated to these prevention projects came from different sources: health, youth or social services, youth organisations as well as local projects supported by local authorities. Sweden gives precise details on amounts allocated.

3.1.1.4 Could you mention and describe briefly a particularly innovative approach to the prevention of the abuse of synthetic drugs developed in your country?

Member States are stressing their concern for the increasing popularity of synthetic drugs in the European Union and underline the importance of school-based programmes and information campaigns aimed at young people, but also on the internet, in all media, as well as dance clubs and music festivals. The distribution of informative material, the implementation of risk reduction measures at parties, pill testing and cooperation with owners of night clubs, medical staff and police are also mentioned.

3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.7 Has your country developed outreach work and/or easy accessible services for drug users? Which steps were taken to increase access and availability of services designed to reach drug abusers who were not integrated or covered by mainstream services? Please describe these briefly. Which were the strategies for vaccinating drug users against hepatitis A and B?

Several Member States have adopted integrated policies for risk reduction which propose « low-threshold » services, such as programmes for syringe exchange, condom distribution, access to substitution treatments and drug consumption rooms. Certain high risk groups such as addicted pregnant women, homeless people, prostitutes and prison inmates can benefit from specific programmes. Vaccination against Hepatitis B, prevention and treatment of contagious diseases linked to intravenous drug abuse has been recognised as priorities by all Member States.

3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 3.3.1 Please report briefly on any awareness raising campaigns carried out on the dangers related to drug use as well as on major programmes on the reduction of risks and consequences related to use. Do the actions target all age groups, in particular children and young people? In what sense have these campaigns been innovative and have made use of new means of communication such as, for example, the Internet?

All Member states underline the importance of information/awareness campaigns on drug related risks and organise regular campaigns in the media for the general public, as well as specific ones directed at target groups. Campaigns aimed at specific substances (cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy...) are also mentioned. The spread of hotlines on drugs and the use of internet in the field of demand reduction seem to be increasing in all countries.

Sweden gives a number of examples of messages aimed at young at young people in different campaign contexts. Finland mentionnes a specific emphasis in the use of internet in drug demand reduction.

3.1.2.4 In which way does your country ensure that enough attention is paid to drug related issues in training and education of doctors, social workers and other professionals in the health and social sector? Are they included in the curricula of the education of these professionals?

Training of teachers, social workers, health professionals, and law enforcement representatives is a priority in all Member States and budgets have been allocated for this purpose. In several countries (Ireland, France, Germany, Portugal), specialisations in addiction, alcoholism, , and new substitution treatments are organised within the context of university courses.

3.1.2.5 Has any research been carried out in your country about the effects of driving under the influence of illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals? If yes, could you please summarize the results which could be relevant for policy decisions?

Several Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Finland and UK) announced having undertaken research on driving under the influence of illegal substances, or in association with alcohol and/or medicines. In many cases legislation was reviewed and controls and sanctions reinforced. On the other hand, even though testing for alcohol is compulsory, testing drivers involved in accidents for narcotics is not yet systematic.

3.1.3.1 Which are the types of treatment services for drugs users, and measures to assist severely dependent individuals, including measures to reduce the health related damages provided in your country? Please describe briefly

In accordance with their national situation and legislation, Member States have diversified drug care systems, which can include day-care centres, detoxification units, therapeutic communities, substitution centres, aftercare programmes and special units in prisons. Frequently carried out at local level and in collaboration with NGO's, they are directed towards different age groups, gender specific needs and drug dependent people in different stages of dependence.

Some Member States have also underlined the existence of drug consumption rooms and programmes of medical heroin delivery (Belgium, Germany).

3.1.3.2 Which are the average waiting periods for accessing treatment in your country?

Member States indicate that, after investments in treatment services mainly at local level, there are no waiting periods for accessing treatment other than for residential treatment and substitution treatment.

3.1.3.3 Has your country defined guidelines for the standards and goals of treatment services, and ensured the evidence-based evaluation of these treatments? If yes, please briefly describe the outcome. Does your country have a national protocol on treatment assessment?

The majority of Member States has not developed models for the systematic and global evaluation of drug treatment. However, scientific research on the effectiveness of the proposed measures is undertaken using the monitoring of drug-addicts under treatment (among other indicators).

3.1.3.4 In which way does your country ensure that adequate attention is paid to the social and professional integration of former addicts? Please describe briefly the most relevant measures adopted in this area, including any projects implemented under the Community Programmes between 1999 and 2003

The professional and social integration of drug addicts, considered very important by all Member States, is promoted in co-operation with NGO's, local authorities and the business community, to provide for educational programmes, vocational training and special employment opportunities for ex-addicts. The Netherlands and UK underline the programmes aimed at tackling this issue within the criminal justice system and the measures to prepare the drug misusing offender reintegration into the labour market.

3.2.2 Have the resources for research into the biomedical and social causes of addiction, prevention and behavioural patterns of drug consumption been modified during the reference period?

Several Member States indicate that they do not have exact figures for functions allocated to drug research, by the government departments, universities, NGOs, and research institutes. Nevertheless, they stress the importance of studies on epidemiology, public health and social sciences in achieving a better definition of public policies.

3.2.3 Has your country identified new areas where it is considered useful to implement actions at the European level to contribute to reduce drug-related harm?

New consumption trends, international and trans-border cooperation are areas generally identified as deserving greater attention within the EU.

3.3.2 How has your country addressed risk behaviour and addiction in general, including aspects of alcohol, medicine, substances used for doping in sport and tobacco use?

Member States' strategies and policies are increasingly geared towards addictions in general, linking licit and illicit drugs, with special measures concerning alcohol, tobacco, doping substances and abuse of medicinal products. Belgium also takes into account gambling and food dependency.

3.4.1.1 What programmes have been set-up in your country to promote best practices in the prevention of criminal activities linked with drugs, juvenile and urban delinquency?

The prevention of drug related crime, juvenile and urban delinquency is a priority for Member States which have allocated funds for programmes based on in-service training of police and other prevention agents, information campaigns on drugs and measures for the development of a healthy lifestyle through sports, leisure and educational activities, acquisition of specific skills, implementation of peer groups, counselling/follow up, cultural activities, and treatment/counselling activities.

In the Netherlands, the project "Communities that care", which involves civil society, aims to create a safe and liveable environment for young people.

3.4.2 and 3.4.3 Could you describe the mechanisms in place to provide alternatives to Prison (in particular for young offenders). Which measures have been foreseen to provide drug prevention and treatment services and, where appropriate, measures to reduce health damages in prisons and upon release from prison?

In several Member States(Portugal, Denmark...), depending the penal system and on the basis of the voluntary acceptance of treatment, a large spectrum of alternative measures is proposed to drug addicts in order to avoid incarceration: financial penalties and administrative sanctions, community work, vocational training and follow-up, etc.

In view of the high level of drug consumption in prisons, some countries have introduced risk reduction measures, such as vaccination programmes, needles exchange, drug free rooms, substitution treatments by methadone, etc.

3.4.4 Please mention the main examples of sharing with other Member States best practices on the handling of drugs addicts in the justice system. In what way were the results of the study prepared by the EMCDDA in this field considered by your country

Some Member States refer to sharing best practices in the treatment of drug addicts in the justice system through active participation in the European Union Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and the European Network Drugs Services in Prison (ENDSP), as well as cooperation with other Member States within the EMCDDA and the Pompidou Group.

The study of the EMCDDA is referred to by only few countries.

3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 In view of the need to develop expertise in the prevention of drug use, has your country promoted the creation of co-ordinated qualification skills in this area? What has been done in order to encourage the development and implementation of a network of trainers and other professionals in the health and social sector? How have the best practices been promoted and brought to the attention of other Member States and the Commission?

Training of prevention agents is deemed paramount in all Member States, although efforts must still be made to create formal qualifications.

In the context of health promotion strategies, expert networks and specialised training centres have been established to ensure permanent training of the various prevention agents.

Several Member States underline the role of the EDDRA and EMCDDA networks, of the Pompidou Group and of the HDG in the exchange of information on prevention.

4. Supply Reduction

4.1.1.1 Please indicate which measures your country has applied to ensure a high and uniform level of security at the external borders of the EU in relation to drugs.

Within Member States the law enforcement services involved in combating drug trafficking are involved in close co-operation. This co-operation can take the form of joint groups of risk analysis, a network of "contact points" between the relevant services, special teams of police and customs officers, a "coastal-watch" programme involving police, customs and the maritime rescue service, memoranda of understanding and operational protocols between the relevant services.

In order to ensure a high level of security at the EU's external borders, Member State law enforcement services use a range of equipment such as drug detection scanners, patrol vessels, and drug detector dogs. Member States also refer to the training provided to law enforcement personnel in combating drug trafficking.

Co-operation also takes place between the law enforcement services of different Member States. For example, there are police/customs co-operation centres, joint customs operations, and participation in training courses by one Member State in those hosted by another Member State. The Convention on mutual assistance and co-operation between customs administrations (Naples II) is also seen to have potential as a tool for cross-border co-operation.

4.1.1.3 Has your country, taking into account the existing EU systems for exchange of information and working with other Member States in the relevant Council bodies, reinforced its efforts against maritime drug trafficking? Has your country organised training courses on the identification and surveillance of suspicious vessels, and have you established procedures for boarding and searching vessels? Has your country implemented the principles laid down in Article 17 of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances? If so, please describe briefly how this has been done.

A number of Member States have indicated that they are in a position to operate in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances or have incorporated Article 17 or parts of Article 17 into national law (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands).

Member States refer to a number of techniques used for combating maritime drug trafficking such as risk profiling, ship surveillance and vessel search techniques. Use is made of the maritime information systems such as MAR-INFO and YACHTINFO in order to exchange information on suspected drug trafficking and on drug seizures. Maritime co-operation between Member States has led to the capture of ships which were used for drug smuggling and the seizure of illicit drugs.

Some Member States indicate that they have training courses in the field of combating maritime drug trafficking or such training is included as a part of the training provided to the relevant personnel (France, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands). One Member State (France) indicates that it has established a guide regarding the implementation of Article 17 of the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

4.1.1.4 Has your country, with the support of Europol, examined the means to combine forensic and law enforcement information in order to identify the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs and those involved in their production and trafficking? What are the results of this analysis?

At national level, Member States combine forensic and law enforcement information in order to identify the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs. In, at least, one Member State (France) a sharing of databases between the relevant law enforcement agencies containing scientific information on synthetic drugs is to be developed.

Many Member States emphasise the importance of the various EU projects aimed at identifying the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs such as CASE, Synthes-lab, EELS, EILCS, and CHEDDAR

4.1.1.5 Has the co-operation between police, customs and judicial authorities been improved in your country in the drugs field? Has your country participated in EU Third Pillar Programmes in the field of co-operation between these authorities? Please give details, in particular of the results and benefits of such programmes for your country.

Member State police and customs services participate in joint enforcement operations and investigations against drug traffickers, joint training courses and have appointed police/custom liaison officers. Some Member States have permanent joint police/customs teams (France, Germany, the Netherlands). Greece refers to its Central Anti-Drug Coordination Body with police and customs representation and the UK refers to its Concerted Inter-Agency Drugs Action Group.

Training courses and seminars aimed at improving police, customs and judicial co-operation at EU level have received funding from the European Commission under various programmes. In the Nordic Member States police and customs collaboration takes place within a specific framework PTN (Police and Customs Co-operation in the Nordic Countries).

4.1.1.6 Has your country implemented the project-based EU law enforcement strategy against transnational organised crime to combat drug trafficking? Please describe briefly.

Techniques used to combat organised crime include surveillance, infiltration and phone-taping. Investigations into the activities of trans-national organised crime groups involved in the distribution of drugs have taken place. These investigations have involved the law enforcement authorities of several Member States. Member States also participate in relevant Europol Analysis Work Files (AWFs) such as Mustard, Cola and Genesis.

4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3 What measures has your country taken against money laundering? How does the analysis and exchange of information between your Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and other FIUs work?

All MS have transposed into national law Directive 91/308/CEE of the Council of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and 11 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the UK) have transposed Directive 2001/97/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC. In addition, Member States have introduced new measures to reduce money laundering such as powers to oppose the execution of a transaction and increased powers for the control of travellers who import large sums of money.

Council Decision of 17 December 2000 relative to the exchange of information between the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of the Member States provides a primary framework for the exchange of information between the FIUs of the Member States. 8 Member States utilise the FIU-Net as a means of exchanging information between FIUs. Individual Member States also exchange information with third country FIUs. This exchange of information often takes place under the auspices of signed Memoranda of Understanding which generally are developed in accordance with the principles of the Egmont Group. The Egmont Secure Web is also utilised as a secure communication network.

Some Member States also refer to the 40 Recommendations of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the Council Framework Decision on money laundering, identifying, tracing, freezing and confiscation of criminal assets and the proceeds of crime and the Council of Europe Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

4.1.2.6 What type of training for customs and police does your country provide in view of combating the diversion of chemical precursors, including possibly the assistance of the Commission and EUROPOL?

Law enforcement officers receive training in combating the diversion of precursors through stand alone courses or through courses related to combating synthetic drugs production and trafficking. Some Member States refer to the assistance provided by Europol in this regard.

4.2.1 Please describe the joint investigative units which have been established in your country between police, customs and other law enforcement agencies specifically responsible for tackling drug trafficking.

Some Member States have permanent joint police/customs teams. Other law enforcement authorities may be represented on these teams. In other Member States joint police/customs investigations take place as the need arises.

4.2.2 Please describe the measures your country has taken, with the assistance of Europol where appropriate, to reinforce co-operation with other Member States against drug trafficking. In particular, please mention if any joint teams with other Member States have been established when dealing with drug trafficking between Member States. If no such teams have been established, please explain why this is the case.

Co-operation between Member States against drug trafficking generally takes place through exchanges of information, joint investigations or law enforcement co-operation in border areas. Some Member States have established a joint police/customs team to combat drug trafficking on road and rail routes between them. 6 Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) together with Europol are involved in a European Joint Unit to combat serious criminal activity in the field of precursor chemical diversion.

A number of Member States have transposed into national law the provisions of the Council Framework Decision on joint investigation teams and/or have ratified the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters or have indicated that legislation in place already enables the setting up of such teams (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). However, joint investigation teams, as provided for in the Framework Decision or the Convention, dealing with drug trafficking between Member States have not been established. Some Member States are involved in discussions with regard to forming joint investigation teams and giving their police and judicial authorities additional, more far-reaching powers to operate on each other's territories.

4.2.3 Please describe the measures your country has taken to promote regional co-operation with other Member States affected by similar drug problems.

A number of Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain) have created police and custom co-operation centres on their common borders. Regional systems of exchange of information have been established by, for example, a permanent liaison bureau and the appointment of joint superintendents. Police officers from one Member States participate in police officer meetings of another Member State (Belgium and the Netherlands). In addition, a number of Member States have adopted a co-ordinated regional approach to combating drug tourism (Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). The Nordic Member States are part of a regional law enforcement co-operation known as PTN with a significant focus on combating drug-related crime. These Member States and Germany are also part of the Task Force on Organised Crime in the Baltic Sea Region.

4.2.5 In what way does your country promote new investigation techniques, research and documentation of drug related crime?

Member States use investigation techniques such as controlled deliveries, undercover agents, simulated purchases in combating drug trafficking and drug related crime. Some Member States have at their disposal tools such as a specialist research centre, a national network of drug experts and a computerised system for the collection, development and analysis of data on operations against the illegal traffic in drugs. A number of Member States refer to research carried out or being carried out on drug-related crime.

5. International

5.1.3 During the reference period, which Candidate Countries has your country supported, with technical assistance and/or finance where necessary, in their efforts to counter drug abuse and drug trafficking?

Almost all Member States have provided assistance to the candidate countries in their efforts to combat drug abuse and trafficking. This assistance has taken a number of forms such as:

Participation in the PHARE programme and in particular in twinning projects under this programme;

Organisation of study visits and seminars and provision of training to law enforcement officers;

The signing of bilateral co-operation agreements in relation to internal security matters;

Funding to the Council of Europe's Pompidou Group in the framework of training in drug demand reduction interventions provided to Central and Eastern European countries;

Provision of financial assistance to drug related projects in candidate countries; and

Provision of technical assistance and equipment.

5.1.5 Has your country implemented the pre-accession pact on organised crime and extended it to all applicant countries?

A number of Member States refer to the utilisation of the PHARE programme in the implementation of the Pre-accession pact on organised crime and to the Council working group with responsibility for overseeing its implementation. In the context of the Pre-accession Pact contact points have been established.

5.2.2 and 5.2.3 How has your country co-ordinated its projects in third countries with other countries, multilateral and international organisations to enable their assessment? In this framework, has the co-operation with multilateral and international organisations been strengthened where this would increase the effectiveness of the actions carried out?

Member States provide drug-related assistance to third countries on a bilateral basis and/or through the UNODC. Some Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK) indicate that they co-ordinate their bilateral projects with other Member States, multilateral and international organisations. A number of Member States refer to the provision of information to the Commission on drug-related assistance to third countries. The Dublin Group and the "major donors group" of the UNODC are cited as primary mechanisms for co-ordination and for strengthening co-operation with multilateral and international institutions. In this regard Member States also refer to their membership of or observer status to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe, CICAD and the work of the Paris Pact initiative. In the context of co-operation with Latin America and the Caribbean some Member States refer to the Co-ordination and Co-operation Mechanism on Drugs between the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean.

5.2.4 What resources have been made available for third countries for the implementation of programmes and projects for supply reduction and demand reduction? In what way have the projects undertaken been reported to the Horizontal Drugs Group of the Council?

Many Member States provide financial assistance to demand reduction and/or supply reduction projects in third countries. Most of these countries indicate that the Commission and the Council's Horizontal Drugs Group are kept informed of their drug-related assistance to third countries.

5.2.5 Please describe in what way, in relations with non-candidate and non-European countries, all relevant Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) instruments take full account of the aims of the EU-Drug Strategy.

A number of Member States (Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK) affirm that in their relations with non-candidate and non-European countries in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy they take account of the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy.

5.2.6 Has your country drawn up an action plan on drugs co-operation with North Africa and implemented fully the action plans on Latin America and the Caribbean and Central Asia?

No Member State has drawn up an action plan on drugs with North Africa. With regard to the implementation of the plans with Latin America and the Caribbean and Central Asia, Member States refer to the training, technical and financial assistance they provide and law enforcement operational co-operation.

5.2.7 Please describe the measures, if any, your country has taken to help non-EU countries and regions to develop their anti-money laundering systems

A number of Member States refer to co-operation with non-EU countries to develop and improve anti-money laundering systems under the auspices of the Egmont Group (Belgium, France, and Greece) and to participation in the work of the Council of Europe's anti-money laundering programme PC-R-EV recently renamed Moneyval (Belgium and the Netherlands). Member States also refer to participation in the PHARE anti-money laundering programme and in initiatives of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force). Other assistance provided by Member States include study visits by/to non-EU Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), participation in IMF and World Bank evaluations, financial support and observer status in FATF regional bodies.

5.2.8 Please describe the tools used to support the development of a common international set of indicators in the field of demand reduction and to promote a common standard for national reporting to international organisations

Many Member States refer to their participation in the work of the EMCDDA in the development of a common international set of indicators in the demand reduction field. Member States also refer to the work of the Pompidou Group and the UN and to all of these bodies in the context of promoting a common standard for national reporting to international organisations.

5.2.9 Please describe the measures used by your country to integrate drugs as a cross-sectional issue into supranational co-operation schemes (particularly with the developing countries)

Member States affirm that they see drugs as being a cross-sectional issue and stress the importance of dialogue on this issue within bodies such as the Dublin Group and the UN.

ANNEX 2

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU ACTION PLAN ON DRUGS 2000-2004:

FOLLOW-UP TABLE FOR THE COMMISSION, THE EMCDDA AND EUROPOL [37]

+++++ TABLE +++++

ANNEX 3

Instruments of the European Union in the field of drugs (2000 - 2004).

A. Instruments of the EU adopted during the period 1 January 2000 - 31 July 2004.

- Council Resolution on cannabis. CORDROGUE 59 - 07.07.2004

- Progress report in relation to the Implementation Plans on Demand and Supply Reduction of Drugs and the Supply of Synthetic drugs - CORDROGUE 43 - 14.06.2004

- Council Recommendation regarding guidelines for taking samples of seized drugs. CORDROGUE 26 - 30.03.2004

- Regulation (EC) no 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors. OJ L 47, 18.02.2004 - P.1

-Council Decision 2003/847/JHA of 27 November 2003 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drugs 2C-I, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7 and TMA-2,OJ L 321,06.12.2003 - P. 64

- Resolution of the Council on combating the impact of psychoactive substances use on road accidents. CORDROGUE 97 - 13.11.2003

- Council resolution on the posting of liaison officers with particular expertise in drugs to Albania. CORDROGUE 95 - 13.11.2003

- Council Resolution of 17 December 2003 on training for drug law enforcement officers. CORDROGUE 96 - 12.11.2003

- Council Resolution on the importance of the role of the families in preventing drug abuse by adolescents. CORDROGUE 94 - 12.11.2003

- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on coordination on drugs in the European Union. COM/2003/0681 final - 12.11.2003

- Resolution of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, for the development of education curricula on substance misuse disorders for medical and other care students and professionals and their inclusion in university studies. CORDROGUE 57 - 19.06.2003

- Resolution of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council for the integration of the effective management (diagnosis, brief intervention, referrals) and medically assisted treatment for opiate dependent patients within the national health care. CORDROGUE 56 - 19.06.2003

- Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003 on the prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence. OJ L 165, 03.07.2003 P.31

- Resolution of the Council on the importance of early intervention to prevent drug dependence and drug related harm among young people using drugs. CORDROGUE 58 - 13.06.2003

- Implementation paper on demand and supply reduction to deliver the EU Drugs Action Plan. CORDROGUE 40 - 27.05.2003

- Action Plan on Drugs between the EU and Countries of Western Balkans and Candidate Countries (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey). CORDROGUE 3 REV 2 - 23.05.2003

- Agreement between the European Community and the Turkish Republic on precursors and chemical substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. OJ L 064, 07.03.2003 - P.30

- Resolution of the Representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council on the treatment of drug abusers in prisons. CORDROGUE 54 REV 4 - 28.11. 2002

- Implementation plan on actions to be taken in regard to the supply of synthetic drugs. CORDROGUE 81 REV 2 - 26.11.2002

- Council Resolution on the generic classification of specific groups of new synthetic drugs. CORDROGUE 64 REV 4 - 11.11. 2002

- Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament on the mid-term evaluation of the EU action plan on drugs. (2000-2004). COM(2002)599, 04.11.2002

- Council Decision of 30 September 2002 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area (2002-2006). OJ L 232, 29.10.2002 - P.1

- Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008). OJ L 271, 09.10.2002 - P.1

- Action plan on Drugs between the EU and Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan). CORDROGUE 78 - 25.09.2002

- Council Decision of 22 July 2002 establishing a framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS). OJ L 203, 01.08.2002 - P.5

- Commission Regulation (EC) No 1232/2002 of 9 July 2002 replacing the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3769/92 . OJ L 180, 10.07.2002 - P.5

- Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams. OJ L 162, 20.06.2002 - P.1

- Council Regulation (EC) No 988/2002 of 3 June 2002 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substancesOJ L 151, 11.06.2002 - P.1

- Resolution of the Council on the incorporation of drug prevention in school curricula. CORDROGUE 4 REV 3 - 08.05. 2002

- Council Recommendation of 25 April 2002 on improving investigation methods in the fight against organised crime linked to organised drug trafficking: simultaneous investigations into drug trafficking by criminal organisations and their finances/assets. OJ C 114, 15.05.2002 - P.1

- Council Recommendation of 25 April 2002 on the need to enhance cooperation and exchanges of information between the various operational units specialising in combating trafficking in precursors in the Member States of the European Union. OJ C 114, 15.05.2002 - P.3

- Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Member States on the prevention of the recreational use of drugs. CORDROGUE 2 REV 3 - 15.04. 2002

- Council Decision of 28 February 2002 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drug PMMA. OJ L 063, 06.03.2002 - P. 14

- Joint declaration on drugs of the Ministers of the European Union in association with the European Commission, and the Candidate Countries. CORDROGUE 7 REV 2 - 15.02 2002

- Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004. OJ L 346, 31.12.2001- P.1

- Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering - Commission Declaration. OJ L 344, 28.12.2001- P. 76

- Council Resolution on the implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators on drugs, developed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). CORDROGUE 67- 15.11.2001

- Council Act of 16 October 2001 establishing, in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.OJ C 326, 21.11.2001 - P.1

- Council Decision of 28 June 2001 establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for the prevention of crime (Hippokrates). OJ L 186, 07.07.2001 - P. 11

- Council Framework Decision of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. OJ L 182, 05.07.2001 - P. 1

- Council Decision of 28 June 2001 establishing a second phase of incentives, exchanges, training and cooperation for law enforcement authorities (Oisin II) - OJ L 186, 07.07.2001 - P.4

- Council Regulation (EC) No 1116/2001 of 5 June 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.O J L 153, 08.06.2001 - P. 4

- Council Decision of 28 May 2001 setting up a European crime prevention network. OJ L 153, 08.06.2001 - P.1

- Council Decision of 28 May 2001 on the transmission of samples of controlled substances.O J L 150, 06.06.2001 - P.1

- Council recommendation on the alignment of law enforcement drug and diverted precursors statistics. STUP 26 - 30.10.2001 and STUP 29-13.11.2001

- Council conclusions on networking information on emerging trends and patterns in drug abuse and poly-drug use and the associated risks. O J C 017, 19.01.2001 - P. 2

- Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a JHA Council Decision establishing a system of special forensic profiling analysis of synthetic drugs. OJ C 10, 12.01.2001 - P. 1

- Council Decision of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information. OJ L 271, 24.10.2000 - P. 4

- Council Regulation (EC) No 2220/2000 of 28 September 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. OJ L 253, 07.10.2000 - P.1

- Council Decision of 28 September 2000 on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway on the participation of Norway in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. OJ L 257, 11.10.2000 - P.23

- Commission Regulation (EC) No 1610/2000 of 24 July 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3769/92 implementing and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. JO L 185, 25.07.2000 - P.30

- Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union. JO C 197, 12.07.2000 - P-3

B. Pending EU instruments.

- Proposal for a 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, including terrorist financing. COM (2004) 448 - 30.06.2004

- Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors". UD 81, CORDROGUE, COMER 120, 30.06.2004

- Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (recast). COM (2003) 808 (01) - 19.12.2003

- Draft Council Recommendation on the monitoring of the chemical composition of narcotics, in order to improve investigation results in the fight against transnational drug trafficking within the European Union. CORDROGUE 82-13.11.2003

- Proposal for a Council Decision on the information exchange, risk-assessment and the control on new narcotic drugs and new synthetic drugs. COM(2003)0560 final - 03.10.2003.

- Initiative by the Kingdom of Spain for the conclusion of a Convention on the suppression by customs administrations of illicit drug trafficking on the high seas. JO C 45, 19.02.2002

- Proposal for a Council framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. COM (001) 259 final 23.05.2001. OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001 - P.172

[1] KOM(1999)239 slutlig, 26.5.1999.

[2] Cordrogue 64, Rev 3, 12555/3/99, 1.12.1999.

[3] Cordrogue 32, 9283/00, 7.6.2000.

[4] KOM(2002)599 slutlig, 4.11.2002.

[5] Om inget annat anges syftar referenser till medlemsstaterna på de tidigare 15 medlemsstaterna.

[6] Dessa studier finns tillgängliga på www.emcdda.eu.int eller www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home och www.europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs

[7] Tillgänglig på www.emcdda.eu.int

[8] Se www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home

[9] Crimorg 43, rev 3, 9615/3/03

[10] Cordrogue 81, rev 2, 12452/2/02

[11] Cordrogue 40, rev 2, 8926/2/03

[12] Cordrogue 43, 10481/04

[13] 1. Narkotikabrukets omfattning och mönster bland allmänheten. 2. Det problemfyllda narkotikabrukets utbredning. 3. Narkotikabrukares efterfrågan av behandling 4. Antalet narkotikarelaterade dödsfall och dödligheten bland narkotikabrukare. 5. Narkotikarelaterade infektionssjukdomar.

[14] EGT L 167, 25.6.1997, s. 1.

[15] EGT L 19, 22.1.1997, s. 25.

[16] EGT L 271, 9.10.2002, s. 1.

[17] EUT L 165, 3.7.2003, s. 31.

[18] KOM(2003)311 slutlig.

[19] Cordrogue 97, 13.11.2003

[20] Direktiv nr 91/308/EEG, EGT L 166, 28.6.1991, s. 77.

[21] Direktiv nr 2001/97/EG, EGT L 344, 28.12.2001, s. 76.

[22] EGT L 162, 20.6.2002, s.1.

[23] EGT C 197, 12.7.2000, s. 1.

[24] EGT C 24, 23.1.1998, s. 2.

[25] EGT C 316, 27.11.1999, s. 34.

[26] Se fotnot 21.

[27] EGT L 203, 1.8.2002, s. 5.

[28] KOM(2001)259 slutlig

[29] EUT L 47, 18.2.2004, s. 1.

[30] KOM (2004) 244 slutlig.

[31] KOM(2004)448, 30.6.2004.

[32] EGT L 271, 24.10.2000, s. 4.

[33] Stup 26, 30.10.2001, Stup 29, 13.11.2001.

[34] Se Sektion 2.2

[35] För fördjupning se översikten och temadokumentet "Main lessons from investigation of evaluation in the drug policy field in the European Union" på ENCC:s webbplats.

[36] The AGIS programme (Framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) started in 2003 and incorporates previous Title VI programmes, such as Falcone and OISIN.

[37] Only the actions where the Commission, the EMCDDA and EUROPOL are directly involved are analysed.