Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on coordination on drugs in the European Union
Date: 2003-11-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, action programme, administrative cooperation, narcotic

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 12.11.2003
COM(2003) 681 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on coordination on drugs in the European Union

1.

INTRODUCTION

The drugs phenomenon is one of the major concerns of the citizens of Europe, and it has an
impact on collective and individual health and safety. The extended Union will have to face
new, more complex challenges, and the fight against drugs will have to remain on the priority
list.

While  the  Member  States  retain  the  primary  responsibility  here,  it  is  clear  that  for  certain
aspects  isolated  national  responses  will  not  suffice  and  that  a  framework  for  coordinated
European and transnational action is needed.

Given  that  this  is  a  complex,  multifaceted  problem  involving  a  large  number  of  players,
effective  coordination  between  all  of  them  is  essential.  This  implies  an  appropriate  level  of
coordination  both  within  and  between  the  European  Union  institutions  and  the  Member
States. This is one of the key points of drugs policy, since coordination  goes to the heart of
national and European decision-making processes.

2.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

Internationally,  the  need  for  a  balanced  and  multidisciplinary  comprehensive  response  has
been  recognised  by  the  United  Nations  for  fifteen  years  now.1  In  Europe,  the  European
programme against drugs of 1992 proposed that the Member States compare the effectiveness
of  their  national  coordination  mechanisms.  In  2000,  the  Union  adopted  an  Action  Plan  on
Drugs (2000-2004), confirming the call for an evaluation of coordination systems and inviting
the Member States to reinforce their coordination systems and practices.

This Action Plan calls on:

i) the Presidency of the Council to provide regular opportunities in principle twice a year for
national  drugs  co-ordinators  or  those  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  drugs  policies  to
meet in the framework of the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs to exchange information on
national developments and to review opportunities for increased cooperation.2

Since the Action Plan was adopted at the Feira European Council in June 2000, meetings of
national  drugs  coordinators  have  been  organised  by  all  the  Presidencies  to  exchange
experience  and  practices.  The  Commission  regards  these  meetings  as  an  important  element
for coordination in the Union;

ii)  the  Commission,  with  the  assistance  of  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and
Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA),  to  organise  a  study  to  be  completed  by  March  2001  to  test
whether the co-ordination arrangements that are in place could be improved and if so in what
way.3

1

2

3

In particular in 1987, at the time of the international agreement on the comprehensive multidisciplinary
outline of future activities in drug abuse control, and in June 1998, at the Special Session of the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGASS) on the common fight against the worldwide problem of drugs,
where coordination was defined as a cornerstone of a balanced and comprehensive drugs policy.
Paragraph 1.1.3 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2000-2004).
Paragraph 1.1.7 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2000-2004).

2

                                                
An EMCDDA study completed in 2002 in cooperation with the Commission came up with a
detailed survey of the existing arrangements and mechanisms for coordination in the Member
States.4  It  is  an  essential  stage  on  the  way  to  understanding  existing  mechanisms  and  the
political context in which coordination needs to be reinforced;

iii)  the  Council,  acting  on  the  basis  of  national  legislation  and  administrative  structures,  to
encourage all Member States to consider to establish where it does not exist and otherwise to
strengthen  the  national  coordination  mechanism  and/or  to  appoint  a  national  drugs
coordinator.5

Although there is a consensus on the need for coordination, there is still the question of what
it should consist of. Coordination is a difficult concept to define, but its absence can be felt.
The  parameters  of  coordination  change  considerably  depending  whether  the  result  sought
after is a smooth flow of information or something rather more ambitious, the elaboration of a
policy to combat drugs.

3.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS COMMUNICATION

The Commission does not regard coordination as an end in itself but as a means of making the
fight  against  drugs  more  effective.  The  fight  against  drugs  is  a  challenge  for  the  entire
European Union, and the main purpose of this Communication is to reinforce coordination in
the Union and offer some avenues to be explored.

To attain these objectives, the Communication:

1. explains why European Union coordination on drugs is essential, taking stock of the main
challenges arising and interests at stake;

2.  sums  up  existing  coordination  models  both  in  the  Member  States  and  in  the  Union
institutions;

3. offers some avenues to be explored and makes recommendations as to means of improving
coordination  and  exploring  how  greater  coordination  in  the  enlarged  Union  could  be
envisaged.

Three complementary levels of coordination are conceivable:

i) coordination within the Member States. Although it is clear that national coordination is the
sine qua non for  Union coordination, it is  for the  Member  States,  on  the  basis  of  their  own
legal administrative structures, to decide on the proper form of coordination;

ii) coordination within and between the European institutions;

4

5

This study aroused the interest of the International Narcotics Control Board (INC), whose 2001 report
“appreciates  the  fact  that  the  European  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  EMCDDA,  has  begun
examining existing drug coordination arrangements in the member States of the European Union, with a
view to further strengthening them.”
Paragraph 1.2.2 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2000-2004).

3

                                                
iii)  coordination  in  the  Union,  between  the  Member  States  meeting  in  the  Council,  the
Commission  and the European Parliament,  supported  by  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol.  There
are two aspects: internal coordination in the Union and coordination between the Union and
the outside world, including international organisations.

Given the subsidiarity principle, this Communication will focus on coordination in the Union
and its institutions, without losing sight of the fact that it depends on national coordination.

4.

WHY  DRUGS  COORDINATION  IS  ESSENTIAL:  THE  MAIN  CHALLENGES  ARISING  AND
INTERESTS AT STAKE

4.1.

A response to popular demand

Hitherto, the European Union’s response has not matched the public’s expectations in terms
of  public  health  and  safety.  The  acquis  communautaire  as  regards  drugs  is  not  voluminous,
though there are several non-mandatory instruments. The draft Constitution, as presented by
the Convention on the future of Europe, would not confer specific powers on the Union in this
respect.  But  a  Eurobarometer  published  in  April  20026  revealed  that  71%  of  Europeans
wanted the decisions in the field of drugs to be taken by the Union.

Enlargement will not  make  it  easier  for  the  Union  to  solve  difficulties  that  were  not  solved
when there were only 15 members. The Commission concludes that the time has come for the
Union  to  embark  on  fresh  progress  that  will  better  match  the  public’s  concerns  and
expectations.

4.2.

A continuous and coherent response

Drugs are a sensitive and highly political issue. The debate is often polarised between a more
enforcement-oriented  approach  focusing  on  measures  to  combat  trafficking  and  a  more
tolerant approach that focuses on prevention and reduction of drugs-induced health disorders.
The dichotomy is visible both within all the Member States and also between them.

We sometimes see attitudes changing, with the drugs issue taking a lower profile. This means
that the drugs issue goes through waves of media interest and does not have a constant level
of visibility and political commitment. Obviously, however, the drugs phenomenon cannot be
tackled with  a  short-term  policy  but requires  a  coherent  set  of  sustained  actions.  Continuity
and  consistency  are  key  elements  of  drugs  policy.  To  achieve  them,  a  high  level  of
coordination is necessary to ensure a durable partnership between all the relevant bodies.

The  Union  has  an  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2000-2004),  based  on  a  comprehensive  and
balanced  multidisciplinary  approach.  This  approach  clearly  demands  a  high  degree  of
coordination  between  all  concerned.  The  various  administrative  authorities  have  different
approaches  and  different  priorities,  and  they  are  jealous  of  their  prerogatives.  Balance  and
consistency  between  the  measures  put  into  effect  can  be  achieved  only  through  effective
coordination.

6

Eurobarometer (Public opinion in the European Union) – Report No 56, April 2002.

4

                                                
4.3.

Enlargement

The prospect of enlargement raises new challenges on the drugs front. There is concern about
the  risk  of  greater  frequency  of  drug  trafficking,  particularly  in  transit  through  central  and
eastern  Europe.  Large-scale  drug  seizures,  especially  of  heroin,  on  the  Balkans  and  central
European  route  confirm  that  the  region  plays  a  permanent  role  in  transporting  and  storing
drugs.  Closer  coordination  between  the  law-enforcement  authorities  in  those  countries  and
with  their  counterparts  in  other  countries  is  therefore  essential.  If  the  enforcement  aspect  is
obvious, it must not be forgotten that experimental and recreational drug-taking is on the rise
in most of the  new  Member  States.  EMCDDA  data  show  that  the  frequency  of  drug-taking
there is closer and closer to that in the 15 existing Member States.

The  PHARE  Programme  has  been  used  to  develop  institutional  capacities,  support
cooperation between law-enforcement agencies and NGOs active in the beneficiary countries
and give the EMCDDA the means of providing them with technical assistance. PHARE has
also  financed  the  development  of  national  drugs  programmes  and  the  establishment  of
coordination  bodies.  The  coordination  of  drugs  initiatives  in  those  countries  is  crucial  and
must be extended to the three candidate countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey), which lie on
one of the routes for importing drugs into Europe (heroin route).

4.4.

New trends in consumption

Drug  consumption  patterns  have  changed  substantially  in  recent  years  and  will  continue  to
evolve in the enlarged Union.  The statistics  show that synthetic  drugs  consumption patterns
are  evolving  rapidly:  the  growing  popularity  of  synthetic  recreational  drugs  among  young
people who are well integrated into society is a social phenomenon that is on the increase.

And  more  and  more  often  we  see  the  phenomenon  of  multi-drug  consumption:  addicts
combine different types of drugs, including alcohol and medicines.

This diversification of consumption undoubtedly calls for greater coordination between those
involved  on  the  ground  but  also  for  greater  coordination  between  all  the  policies  of
prevention, risk reduction and control. In this context, the Commission is planning to set up a
network of national public health authorities to develop strategies for the prevention of abuses
of  legal  and  illegal  drugs  and  handle  coordination  and  the  establishment  of  consultation
structures in the Union.

4.5.

The need to approximate legislation

The  approximation  of  drugs  legislation  in  the  Union  is  necessary  wherever  isolated  and
divergent national responses will not suffice and effective action can only be taken jointly. A
significant example is the approximation of legislation on drug trafficking involving several
Member States. Union action here would truly add value to national policies.

In May 2001 the Commission presented a draft Framework Decision laying down minimum
provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug
trafficking.7  Unfortunately  this  is  still  blocked  in  the  Council,  as  the  Member  States  cannot
reach  agreement  on  it.  However,  the  European  Council  held  in  Brussels  in  October  2003
asked for the adoption of this text, if possible, by the end of 2003.

7

COM(2001) 259 final, 23.5.2001.

5

                                                
Here  again,  the  Member  States  have  different  expectations  as  to  the  Union’s  role.  Some  of
them want the Union to define the level of penalties for small-scale trafficking whereas other
prefer the Union to concentrate on cross-border crime. The absence of shared objectives, even
in  an  area  such  as  combating  drug-trafficking,  where  efforts  ought  to  be  pooled  around  a
common  project,  can  be  explained  by  differences  in  national  traditions  and  sensitivities  but
also by a lack of coordination and vision in the Union.

4.6.

The cost-effectiveness ratio

One of the key points in any policy is the  cost-effectiveness ratio.  But  it  is  very difficult to
count the expenditure in drugs matters. There is no precise definition of what is included, and
there  are  various  forms  of  drug-related  expenditure  on  things  like  prevention,  rehabilitation
and health-care, whose level and impact are very difficult to evaluate.8

In absolute terms, drugs-related expenditure is enormous, but it cannot be quantified and its
impact  cannot  be  measured  as  there  is  no  common  methodology.  Reinforcement  of
coordination within  Member States first and  in  Europe  afterwards could  help  to  produce  an
estimate of public drug-related expenditure, to measure the impact of the initiatives that are
taken and to give the public a clear view of the situation.

4.7.

Evaluation of policies and practices

The  pursuit of  quality  and  effectiveness  through the  evaluation  of  projects  and  programmes
has increasingly been standard practice in the Union, but the evaluation of policies and their
implementation  is  still  in  its  infancy.  In  general,  an  evaluation  culture  applying  quality
standards  should  serve  as  a  basis  for  political  decision-makers  base  when  they  adopt  new
strategies or programmes.

The policy evaluation culture is backed up by the evaluation of practices. A real-life example
is the mutual  evaluation  of drugs enforcement  agencies.9  The  objective  of  the  exercise  here
was  to  evaluate  cooperation  and  coordination  between  the  Member  States’  agencies,  their
operational practices and the level of international cooperation.

Another example is the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of health-
related harm associated with drug dependence,10 adopted on 18 June 2003, which highlights
the  need  to  develop  both  ex  ante  and  ex  post  evaluation  to  increase  the  effectiveness  and
efficiency of drug prevention and the reduction of drug-related health risks.

The  Union  as  a  whole,  since  adopting  the  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2000-2004),  has  paid  closer
attention to evaluation. As the  mid-term review of the Plan states,11 the development of  the
evaluation of drugs policies is fundamental both nationally and in Europe. In this context the
Commission,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol,  is
pursuing  its  efforts  for  a  final  evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  EMCDDA  will  also  be

8

9

10

11

Point  1.4.1  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2000-2004)  calls  on  the  Council  and  the  Commission  to
study, in the light of current efforts in this field of the EMCDDA and Pompidou group, an approach to
establish  a  list  of  all  public  expenditure  on  drugs.  The  EMCDDA  is  currently  conducting  a  study  on
this.
This  evaluation  was  called  for  the  Joint  Action  of  5  December  1997  establishing  a  mechanism  for
evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight
against organised crime: JO L 344, 15.12.1997, p. 7.
OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 31.
COM(2002) 599, 4.11.2002.

6

                                                
pursuing  its  research  into  the  coordination  mechanisms  in  the  Member  States,  the  new
Member States and the candidate countries, and will report to the Commission.

But the current Drugs Action Plan does not contain quantifiable objectives that could provide
a basis for evaluation. This lack of impact indicators makes it difficult to evaluate the Plan. If
there is to be genuine evaluation of drugs strategies and action plans in the Union, certain key
indicators must be defined to make the data comparable. There is also a clear need for a high
level  of  coordination  in  all  the  bodies  involved,  and  between  them.  And  evaluation  has  to
depend  on  the  expected  results,  yet  it  is  difficult  to  establish  a  clear  cause-and-effect
relationship  between  action  taken,  the  results  and  the  impact.  This  question  will  have  to  be
addressed in the final evaluation of the Action Plan.

4.8.

The  Union’s  role  in  relation  to  the  outside  world:  mainstreaming  the  drugs
policy and management of funds

The  intensification  of  comprehensive  economic  interdependence  has  in  turn  intensified  the
need  for  more  consistency  between  decisions  and  measures  to  prevent  and  combat  drugs
trafficking  and  measures  to  combat  poverty  and  promote  sustainable  development  in  drug-
producing  regions.  It  has  become  clear  in  the  fight  against  terrorism  that  a  sharp  division
between internal and external policies does not work. A pooling of efforts between the Union
institutions  and  the  Member  States  and  between  internal  and  external  policies  remains
essential  for  effective  Union  action  on  the  international  scene.12  This  complementarity  of
policies and action demands coordination between all involved.

In  parallel  with  development  activities,  drugs  issues  should  be  regularly  addressed  in  the
political  dialogue  with  third  countries.  Coordination  between  European  and  international
donors  is  very  important.  The  Union  has  a  number  of  Drugs  Action  Plans  with  certain
countries  and  regions  of  the  world  (Latin  America  and  Caribbean,  Central  Asia,  Balkans).
These Plans are a valuable political stage on the way to defining a framework for cooperation
with these countries, but all too often they are not accompanied by a clear determination and
practical means to achieve the avowed objectives. The risk is that major expectations will be
aroused without the means of attaining them being available.

The Union’s drugs policy is also expressed in practical terms in the form of assistance to third
countries.  In  the  last  few  years  the  Commission  has  thoroughly  reformed  its  external  aid
system.  A  ‘Country  Strategy  Paper’  and  a  programming  document  are  prepared  for  every
country  receiving  aid  with  the  purpose  of  linking  financial  assistance  more  closely  to  the
priorities  of  the  Union’s  partner  countries  on  the  basis  of  an  analysis  of  their  economic,
political  and  social  situation.  These  documents  are  discussed  with  the  Member  States  and
recipient  countries  and  then  approved  by  the  Commission.  They  thus  provide  a  valuable
opportunity  to  coordinate  aid  at  Union level:  each  body  has  an  opportunity  to  argue  the
importance of the drugs problem and have it recorded among the priorities for the country.

The Member States also supply third countries with substantial financial assistance. Although
the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  are  required  to  inform  each  other  of  all  projects
carried out in third countries, the exchange of information and, consequently, the coordination
of efforts  are  somewhat  half-hearted.  To  remedy  this  the  Commission,  at  the  request  of  the

12

Article 177 of the Treaty provides: “Community policy in the sphere of development cooperation shall
be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member State...”.

7

                                                
Horizontal Group on Drugs, has set up a database on projects financed in candidate countries
and third countries, but the Member States are not putting adequate information into it.

Regarding  international  cooperation,  coordination  is  indispensable  if  the  Union  and  the
Member States are to speak with one voice and engage in consistent action. More systematic
coordination  is  also  important  in  the  run-up  to  major  international  events  such  as  the  UN
General Assembly or the Narcotics Commission, and Dublin group meetings.

The  Commission  considers  that  reinforcement  of  the  European  identity  in  external  action
depends on better coordination of national policies to achieve genuine European coordination.
Stronger  Union  coordination  in  its  external  relations  is  urgently  needed  as  a  means  of
boosting the Union’s presence and profile on the international scene.

5.

THE MAIN MODELS OF COORDINATION

5.1.

States

The  15  present  Member  States  and  the  10  new  Member  States  formally  acknowledge  that
coordination is an essential element of policy on drugs. They have begun  coordinating  their
national policies, adopting strategies and/or action plans with specific objectives and setting
up central coordination units and/or appointing national coordinators.

But the interpretation of the concept of coordination and the procedures for giving effect to it
vary widely. The study done  by the  EMCDDA with  the  Commission  on  drugs coordination
mechanisms in the Member States and Norway13 highlighted the wide variety of approaches.

Annex  I  to  this  Communication  contains  a  summary  table  of  existing  mechanisms  in  the
Member States and an overview of the situation in the new Members.14

5.2.

In the Commission and with the EMCDDA and Europol

Several  Directorates-General  and  other  services  deal  with  drugs  questions.  To  enable  the
Commission to speak with one voice at drugs meetings both in the European Parliament and
the  Council  and  in  international  organisations,  there  is  a  drugs  coordination  unit  in  the
Directorate-General  for  Justice  and  Home  Affairs.  It  chairs  the  Interdepartmental  Group  on
Drugs (GID),  set  up  in  1989  so  that  all  Directorates-General  can  coordinate  their  action.  In
2002, the Commission also set up a coordination point for external drugs-related activities.

Admittedly,  internal  coordination  in  the  Commission  could  be  improved,  in  particular  by
enhancing  the  role  of  the  GID.  The  Group  should  meet  more  often  to  better  coordinate  the
Commission’s position in international events but also as a forum for exchanging information
on  different  departments’  priorities  and  programmes,  the  aim  being  to  improve  the
Commission’s ability to give guidance both on internal questions and in external relations.

Turning to cooperation with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction
(EMCDDA)  the  Commission  is  represented  on  its  Management  Board;  it  also  attends
meetings  of  the  Bureau  and  the  Budget  Committee,  which  are  bodies  set  up  to  assist  the

13

14

Norway was included in the study because it is a member of the EMCDDA.
The study done by the EMCDDA and the European Commission on strategies and coordination in the
field  of  drugs  in  the  European  Union,  and  the  summary  tables  with  updates,  are  on  the
EMCDDA website: http://www.emcdda.eu.int/policy_law/index.shtml.

8

                                                
Management Board. The Commission, through its focal point, is a member of the European
Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (Reitox).

The  Commission  is  also  considering  boosting  its  coordination  with  the  EMCDDA  and
Europol by inviting them to some GID meetings. The establishment of two contact points in
the Commission and the EMCDDA for regular exchanges of information on activities and on
national and European developments is under study.

If these objectives are to be attained, bodies at all levels must commit to them.

5.3.

The Union

Coordination on drugs between the  Member  States  and  with  the  Commission  is  handled  by
the high-level Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (GHD), set up by COREPER in February
1997. This Group’s remit is to initiate, review and coordinate all relevant activities and report
direct to COREPER. The EMCDDA and Europol also participate in GHD. It has a wide range
of activities, and calls on other groups when specific questions arise.

Since 1999, with the integration of the Council’s Common and Foreign and Security  Policy
Working  Party  on  Drugs  (CODRO),  the  GHD’s  remit  has  extended  to  coordination  of  the
Union’s international activities on drugs, including relations with international organisations.
The  GHD’s  coordination  function  thus  extends  to  external  policy  initiatives.  Even  if  the
purpose of the merger was to boost the GHD’s coordination function, its capacity to initiate
action in external relations is rather patchy, its agenda not always being overloaded. It would
be  desirable  for  the  GHD  to  give  stronger  priority  to  preparations  for  international  and
bilateral meetings so that the Union  can enjoy  the proper political weight.  For example, the
Narcotics Commission meets every spring. For the sake of effective coordination of the Union
position,  it  would  be  a  good  idea  for  the  four  GHD  meetings  preceding  the  Narcotics
Commission to include discussion in preparation for it.

In 2001,  when there was  a major  reorganisation  of  Council  Working  Parties,  the  GHD  also
took  over  some  of  the  responsibilities  of  the  Drug  Trafficking  Working  Party,  which
considered the operational aspects of the fight against drug trafficking and was abolished. But
the operational aspects of the fight against drug trafficking are still scattered over the Police
Cooperation  Working Party, the Customs Cooperation  Working  Party,  the  Multidisciplinary
Group  on  Organised  Crime  and  the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs.  For  the  moment
there  is  no  clear  division  of  responsibilities  and  the  coordination  of  work  done  by  these
Working Parties depends very much on the good will of their Chairs.

The GHD can also draw on the experience of specific Council Working Parties dealing with
individual aspects, such as:

- the Working Party on Public Health, which looks into questions related to the programme of
Community action on the prevention of drug dependence and lately also the drugs dimension
of the recently adopted programme of Community action in the field of public health;15

- the Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law as regards the approximation of legislation
on drug trafficking;

15

OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

9

                                                
- the  Economic  Policy  Working  Party,  which  considers  questions  relating  to  the  control  of
precursors; and

- geographical  Working  Parties  such  as  the  Working  Party  on  Latin  America,  the  Asia-
Oceania Working Party and so on.

The establishment of the GHD substantially improved  coordination  between Member  States
and  the  Commission,  though  there  is  still  much  to  be  done.  It  is  sometimes  difficult  for
participants to gain a general picture of the various issues under discussion. It would be most
helpful if there was prior coordination in each country prior to GHD meetings.

5.4.

Civil society

Hitherto civil society has not been systematically involved in devising the Union’s policy on
drugs. While some Member States admittedly regularly involve players in the field and NGOs
with defining their policy and the Commission draws on the experience of those active in the
field through its contacts and the projects it supports, such consultation is not a regular feature
in the Union.

In February 2000, however, there was a joint conference of Parliament, the Council and the
Commission, with civil society associated, in the context of preparations for the Drugs Action
Plan (2000-2004). There was a very useful constructive debate, and a large number of ideas
put forward there went into the Action Plan.

In May 2004, the Irish Presidency will be organising a conference with public authorities and
civil society to establish a new drugs strategy to run from 2005. The Commission is planning
to incorporate dialogue with civil society in its 2004 work programme.

6.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION

In  this  chapter  the  Commission  considers  the  importance  of  key  elements  for  effective
coordination.

a) An administrative culture

Effective coordination depends on an administrative culture. In some countries, coordination
is  easy  to  arrange  through  regular  informal  contacts  and  a  cooperative  approach  by  the
relevant  civil  servants.  Sound  coordination  can  therefore  be  ensured,  even  if  there  is  no
structure  formally  responsible  for  it:  this  type  of  informal  coordination  is  most  commonly
found in smaller countries. The  same principle applies to coordination between  the  national
and local levels.

Without  reliable  information  on  the  sectors  of  activity  requiring  to  be  coordinated,
coordination is powerless. It is therefore important to ensure mutual trust between the bodies
involved even if approaches and priorities differ.

It  is  clear  that  coordination  is  based  on  the  will  to  cooperate.  An  administrative  culture  of
cooperation emerges from a long process that depends to some extent of the general culture of
the country. Even so, attitudes can be influenced by  structures  in place and by  stimuli  from
the hierarchy.

10

b) A framework for action

The development of a common framework for action in the Union implies laying down clear
objectives  and  determining  indicators  to  monitor  their  attainment.  A  clear  definition  of  the
task of each body and a clear distribution of powers among all those responsible are essential
for  sound  coordination.  A  clear  definition  of  the  objectives,  tasks,  bodies  and  persons
involved is vital for the success of any coordinated policy as it obviates the risk of duplication
and conflicts of powers.

A full plan of national and European action can make a valuable contribution to identifying
responsibilities and clarifying roles and powers. It is also a useful means of guaranteeing an
overall approach  since  it  is  an  opportunity  to define priorities, verify compliance  with them
and identify the requisite resources. It is one of the main tools for effective coordination.

c) The need to determine specific priorities

While  it  is  important  to  have  an  action  plan  that  covers  the  whole  range  of  drug-related
activities,  it  is  also  crucial  to  lay  down  specific  short-  and  medium-term  priorities  so  as  to
concentrate  on  core  activities,  along  with  results  indicators  as  a  basis  for  evaluation.  The
Council’s recent approval of two ‘implementation papers’ – one on synthetic drugs16 and one
on reduction of demand and supply17 – is a first phase of prioritisation.

Only  a  high  degree  of  concerted  political  action  through  permanent  coordination  structures
and practices will make it possible to set specific priorities and rank activities hierarchically.

There might be a General Union Strategy on Drugs, with general principles and  a relatively
long  time-frame  (eight  years,  perhaps),  accompanied  by  shorter-term  action  plans  (four
years?) focusing on short- and medium-term priorities.

d) A coordinator/a coordination structure

To provide an effective response, the fight against drugs must at all events remain among the
priorities of all pour Governments.

The presence of a national  coordinator or coordination unit is not enough in  itself to ensure
effective  coordination.  But  the  existence  of  a  coordination  structure  can  help  to  ensure  i)  a
coordinated  response  to  a  phenomenon  as  complex  and  fragmentary  as  drugs  and  ii)  the
constant visibility of the problem by manifesting resolute government intentions, iii) a long-
term  approach,  guaranteeing  the  continuance  of  major  objectives  and  continuity  of  activity,
and iv) the consistency of the agreed political approach and its implementation.

To  be  effective  the  coordination  structure  should  i)  be  formally  recognised  by  all  players
involved,  ii)  have  clearly-defined  tasks  and  objectives  and  iii)  have  the  practical  means
(human and financial resources) to attain these objectives. The Commission further considers
that such a structure should be directly involved in implementing policies and therefore enjoy
specific  financial  resources.  The  structure  should  also  bear  the  ultimate  responsibility  for
evaluating strategies.

16

17

CORDROGUE 81, Rev.2, 26.11.2002.
CORDROGUE 40 CATS 25 SAN 85, Rev. 2, 27.5.2003.

11

                                                
7.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall strategies to respond to the social, health, economic and security challenges of drugs
should be coordinated in the Union and linked to practical programmes and measures.

The overall balanced approach approved by the Heads of State or Government cannot operate
without  effective  coordination  of  all  involved.  Coordination,  consequently,  is  an  essential
instrument for responding to the complexity of the drugs phenomenon and its consequences.
In  this  context  the  Commission  undertakes  to  strengthen  its  own  internal  coordination  on
drugs, taking the Interdepartmental Drugs Group as a basis.

The European Commission:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Considers that both national and European drugs coordination should be strengthened
in the light of national legislation and traditions and administrative structures;

Considers that, to be effective, coordination must extend to all aspects of drugs policy,
including  social  and  public-health  aspects,  enforcement  measures  and  international
cooperation, and policy on youth;

that  close  cooperation  between 

law-enforcement  authorities  and
Considers 
coordination between them and local, national and European social and public-health
services is necessary for an effective response to the phenomenon of drugs in general
and synthetic drugs in particular;

Regrets that the proposal for a Framework Decision on drug trafficking presented by
the Commission in May 2001 is still blocked in the Council and calls on the Member
States to reach a political agreement on it before the end of 2003;

In  a  mutual  learning  process,  calls  on  national  and  European  authorities  to
systematically  develop  the  evaluation  of  national  and  European  drugs  strategies  and
activities and regularly monitor them on the basis of agreed pre-defined indicators;

Emphasises the  importance of  the  recommendations  put to  the  Member  States in the
final Council report  on  the  second  series  of  evaluations  of  enforcement  services  and
their  role  in  combating  drug  trafficking.18  In  particular,  the  Commission  emphasises
the importance of following up the recommendations concerning i) the organisation of
the  various  national  services  combating  drug  trafficking,  ii)  the  reinforcement  of
cooperation between national financial information units, iii) the establishment of joint
investigation teams and iv) the exchange of information with Europol;

Emphasises  the  importance  of  the  Council  Recommendation  on  the  prevention  and
reduction of health-related damages associated with drug dependence.19 In particular,
in the context of this Communication, the Commission emphasises the importance of
promoting i) the establishment of  cooperation networks between the bodies  involved
in local field work so as to ensure continuity in services and facilitate access to users
and ii) proper integration of public health services, including mental health, and social
services, and specialist risk-reduction strategies;

18

19

CRIMORG 68, 29.9.2003.
OJ L 165, 3.7.2003, p. 31-33.

12

                                                
(8) 

(9) 

Considers  that  first  the  exchange  of  information  and  then  coordination  are  the
foundations for a visible and effective external policy. It calls on the Council to ensure
that  external  aspects  receive  proper  attention  at  meetings  of  the  Horizontal  Working
Party on Drugs;

Considers that the Council should ensure that there is a link between the adoption of
new  Union  action  plans  for  various  regions  of  the  world  and  the  allocation  of
resources for their implementation;

(10)  Encourages  the  Council  to  reinforce  the  coordination  of  the  Union’s  position  at
international  meetings,  in  particular  the  UN  General  Assembly  and  the  Narcotics
Commission;

(11)  Calls  on  the  Member  States  to  systematically  feed  the  database  set  up  by  the
Commission  at  the  request  of  the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs,  concerning
projects financed in applicant countries and third countries;20

(12)  Encourages  the  Member  States,  in  the  light  of  their  national  legislation  and
administrative  structures,  to  consider  whether  they  should  set  up  a  national
coordination mechanism or reinforce it if it already exists, and/or whether to designate
a national drugs coordinator;21

(13)  Encourages  the  Member  States,  in  full  respect  for  the  subsidiarity  principle,  to

consider adopting a comprehensive national strategy and or action plan against drugs;

(14)  Encourages the Member States to ensure full concordance between national and Union
action  plans  so  as 
the  Union’s  balanced,  multidisciplinary
that 
comprehensive  approach  is  achieved  and  that  the  Union’s  common  priorities  and
objectives are transposed;

to  ensure 

(15)  Emphasises the importance of the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs as the priority
forum for Union coordination and the value of the six-monthly high)level meetings of
those responsible for drugs coordination;

(16)  Encourages the Council, in the context of the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs, to
boost coordination between operational services through a clear distribution of powers
in relation to drugs between the Police and Customs Cooperation Working Parties and
the Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime.

20

21

In accordance with paragraph 5.2.4 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2000-2004).
cf. Point 1.2.2 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2000-2004).

13

                                                
ANNEX I22

In  the  study  done  by  the  EMCDDA  in  cooperation  with  the  Commission  on  drugs
coordination mechanisms  in  the  Member  States  and  Norway,23 the various approaches were
looked  at  from  four  angles:  1)  the  institutional  forms  of  coordination;  2)  the  authority  in
charge; 3) the scope of coordination; 4) the existence or not of a national coordinator.24

8.

THE 15 MEMBER STATES OF THE UNION

Synoptic table (as at 31.12.2002)

Ministerial
Committees

Specific coordination
agencies or units

Ministry to which
attached

Scope of
coordination

National Coordinator

Belgium

Interministerial
Conference

Drugs and health unit (health
general
aspects). 
(A 
coordination 
is
federal
in 
announced 
Government’s policy note on
the 
19
January 2001)

unit 
the 

problem, 

drugs 

Federal  Ministry 
Public  Health 
and public health unit)

of
(Drugs

Specific
(health)

Coordinator Health

coordinator
(general 
announced  in  the  federal
Government’s 
policy
note)

Denmark

n.a.

unit,
coordination 
Drugs 
Ministry  of  the  Interior  and
Health

Ministry  of  the  Interior
and Health

Comprehensive

n.a.

Germany

Interministerial  Group
on Drugs

Bureau 
of 
Commissioner for Drugs

the  Federal

Federal  Ministry 
Health

of

Comprehensive

Federal 
drugs 
for 
Coordinators

Commissioner
Land

+ 

Greece

Spain

France

Interministerial
coordination
Committee de

OKANA  (Unit 
drugs)

to  combat

Ministry of Health

President of OKANA

Specific
(enlargement  of
powers
planned)

Interministerial  drugs
working party

Government  Delegation  for
the national drugs plan

Ministry of the Interior

Comprehensive

Interministerial
Committee on drugs

Interministerial  Mission 
combat  drugs 
addiction

to
and  drug

Ireland

Cabinet  Committee  on
social inclusion

Drugs  coordination  unit  in
Department 
the 
of
Community, 
and
Rural 
Gaeltacht Affairs

Minister
Prime 
(secondment 
from
Ministry  of  Employment
and Social Affairs)

Department 
of
Community,  Rural  and
Gaeltacht Affairs

Comprehensive

Comprehensive

Italy

Interministerial
Committee on drugs

Department  for  coordination
of drugs policies

Prime Minister

Comprehensive

Government  delegate  for
the national plan on drugs

of 

President 
the
Interministerial  Mission
to combat drugs and drug
addiction

State  Ministry  with
responsibility  for  drugs
strategy

Special Commissioner for
coordination  of  drugs
policies

Luxembourg

Interministerial
Committee on drugs

Drugs 
Ministry of Health

coordination 

unit,

Ministry of Health

Specific

Drugs coordinator

Netherlands

Drugs  policy  working
party

Department  of  mental  health
and drug addiction policy

Ministry 
Welfare and Sport

of  Health,

Comprehensive

n.a.

22

23

24

The data in the two tables were supplied by the EMCDDA.
Norway was included in the study because it is a member of the EMCDDA.
The study done by the EMCDDA and the European Commission on strategies and coordination in the
field  of  drugs  in  the  European  Union,  and  the  summary  tables  with  updates,  are  on  the
EMCDDA website: http://www.emcdda.eu.int/policy_law/index.shtml.

14

                                                
Austria

Federal  Coordination
on drugs

Federal drugs coordination

of 
and 

Social
Ministry 
the
Security 
(principal
Generations 
responsibility) 
+
Ministries  of  the  Interior
and Justice

Comprehensive

drugs
Federal 
+  Land
coordinators 
coordinators on drugs and
drug addiction

Portugal

Coordination
Committee 
on 
national strategy

Drugs  and  drug  addiction
institute (IDT)

the

Ministry of Health

Comprehensive

President  of  the  Drugs
and 
addiction
institute

drug 

Finland

National  Committee
on drugs policy

Drugs unit

Ministry  of  Health  and
Social Affairs

Comprehensive

n.a.

Sweden

Drugs working party

Central coordination Unit

Ministry  of  Health  and
Social Affairs

Comprehensive

Drugs coordinator

United
Kingdom

Ministerial  Committee
on drugs

Drugs Strategy Directorate

Home Office

Comprehensive

n.a.

Norway

National drugs bureau

Drugs unit

Ministry  of  Health  and
Social Affairs

Comprehensive

n.a.

9.

THE NEW MEMBER STATES

An initial analysis of coordination of drugs strategies and mechanisms in the 10 new Member
States25  reveals  that  there  is  a  consensus  on  the  need  to  develop  coordination  so  as  to
implement more effective policies. As in the existing Member States, coordination in the new
Member  States  is  apparently  based  on  a  two-tier  model  with  an  interministerial  committee
and a technical unit.

25

cf. EMCDDA Annual Report 2004.

15

                                                
Synoptic table (as at 28.02.2003)

Ministerial Committees

Specific coordination agencies and units

Cyprus

n.a.

n.a.

Estonia

Ministerial drugs policy committee

Department of public health, Ministry of social affairs

Hungary

Drugs coordination committee

Secretariat of Drugs coordination committee

Latvia

Drugs and drug abuse commission26

n.a.

Lithuania

Governmental drugs control commission27

Secretariat of Governmental drugs control commission

Malta

n.a.

n.a.

Poland

Interministerial Council on drug abuse

National drugs prevention  office  (including  secretariat  of
the Interministerial Council on drug abuse)

Czech Republic

National drugs commission

Secretariat of National drugs commission

Slovakia

Ministerial council on drugs and drug addiction

Secretariat  of  Ministerial  council  on  drugs  and  drug
addiction

Slovenia

Interministerial drugs commission

Government drugs bureau

26

27

In Latvia the drugs strategy provides for a new coordination body.
In Lithuania the draft drugs strategy provides for a new coordination body: the drugs control department
reporting to the government.

16