Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012) - Report of the final evaluation of the EU drugs action plan (2005-2008) {COM(2008) 567} {SEC(2008) 2455} {SEC(2008) 2454}
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, cooperation policy, drug addiction, drug traffic, fight against crime, international cooperation

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Bruxelles, le 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2456 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
On an EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012) 

REPORT OF THE FINAL EVALUATION OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN 
(2005-2008) 

{COM(2008) 567} 
{SEC(2008) 2455} 
{SEC(2008) 2454} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 

Institutional background............................................................................................... 5 

The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)...................................................................... 7 

Aims and methodology of the evaluation .................................................................... 9 

1.3.1. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 

1.3.2.  Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................ 9 

1.3.3.  Evaluation questions .................................................................................................. 10 

1.3.4.  Methodology and data sources................................................................................... 11 

1.3.5.  Data sources ............................................................................................................... 12 

1.3.6.  Stakeholder involvement............................................................................................ 13 

1.4. 

Limitations of the evaluation...................................................................................... 14 

1.4.1. 

Inconsistencies of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ....................................... 14 

1.4.2.  Other limitations......................................................................................................... 15 

1.4.3.  Structure of this report................................................................................................ 17 

2. 

Implementation of the Action Plan at EU and national level..................................... 18 

2.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18 

2.1.1.  Cross-cutting theme: Coordination ............................................................................ 18 

2.1.2.  Drug demand reduction.............................................................................................. 24 

2.1.3.  Drug supply reduction................................................................................................ 30 

2.1.4.  Cross cutting theme: International cooperation ......................................................... 40 

2.1.5.  Cross-cutting theme: Information, research and evaluation....................................... 45 

3. 

Impact of the EU Drugs Action Plan on Member States' drug policy ....................... 51 

3.1.1. 

Incorporation of EU Action Plan objectives in national drug policy......................... 51 

3.1.2.  Coherence between the Action Plan and national policy objectives.......................... 53 

3.1.3.  National priorities not covered by the Action Plan .................................................... 53 

3.1.4.  Action Plan objectives covered by national drug policies ......................................... 54 

3.1.5.  Strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan ............................................................ 55 

4. 

Trends in the drug situation in the European Union .................................................. 57 

4.1. 

Drug use in the European Union ................................................................................ 57 

4.1.1.  Drug use among school students (15-16 years) ......................................................... 57 

4.1.2.  Drug use among young adults (15–34 years)............................................................. 58 

4.1.3.  Drug use among older adults (35–64 years)............................................................... 61 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

Problem drug use........................................................................................................ 61 

4.2.1.  Problem opioid use..................................................................................................... 62 

4.2.2.  Problem cocaine use................................................................................................... 62 

4.2.3.  Problem amphetamine/methamphetamine use........................................................... 63 

4.3. 

Health and social consequences of drug use .............................................................. 63 

4.3.1.  Drug-related infectious diseases................................................................................. 63 

4.3.2.  Drug-related deaths .................................................................................................... 65 

4.3.3.  Social consequences of drug use................................................................................ 66 

4.4. 

Drug supply to the European Union........................................................................... 67 

4.4.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 67 

4.4.2.  Source countries of heroin, cocaine and cannabis...................................................... 67 

4.4.3.  Transit routes of heroin, cocaine and cannabis into Europe ...................................... 68 

4.4.4.  The EU illicit drug market ......................................................................................... 69 

4.4.5.  Synthetic Drugs and drug precursors ......................................................................... 71 

4.4.6.  New psychoactive substances on the EU drug market............................................... 73 

4.4.7.  Measuring trends in the drug market.......................................................................... 73 

4.4.8.  Trends in national drug laws ...................................................................................... 75 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Impact and added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ......................... 77 

Impact of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) on the drug situation .................. 77 

Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ........................................... 79 

5.2.1.  Added value of the Action Plan according to Member States ................................... 79 

5.2.2.  Added value of the Action Plan ................................................................................. 80 

6. 

Conclusions and recommendations for future drug policy ........................................ 81 

6.1.1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 81 

6.1.2.  To what extent have the operational objectives and actions in the current EU 

Action Plan on Drugs been implemented and what have been the main outputs?..... 81 

6.1.3.  Have the specific priorities in the Strategy and the operational objectives in the 

Action Plan been adopted by Member States?........................................................... 85 

6.1.4.  What have been the overall changes in the drug situation in recent years? ............... 85 

6.1.5.  To what extent can these changes be associated with the implementation of the 

EU Action Plan on Drugs? ......................................................................................... 86 

6.1.6.  What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008?........ 86 

6.2. 

Recommendations for the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) ................................ 87 

6.2.1.  Recommendations in the field of coordination .......................................................... 87 

6.2.2.  Recommendations in the field of drug demand reduction ......................................... 87 

6.2.3.  Recommendations in the field of drug supply reduction ........................................... 88 

EN 

3 

   EN 

6.2.4.  Recommendations in the field of international cooperation ...................................... 88 

6.2.5.  Recommendations in the field of information, research and evaluation.................... 89 

Annex 1 — Overview of objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-

2008)........................................................................................................................... 91 

Annex 2 — List of abbreviations ........................................................................................... 139 

Annex 3 — Glossary of terms ................................................................................................ 140 

Annex 4 — EMCDDA data sources international comparison.............................................. 144 

EN 

4 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Institutional background 

The  EU  Member  States  are  the  main  actors  in  the  drugs  field,  and  drug  legislation  is 
primarily a matter of national competence. However, the Treaties explicitly acknowledge 
the  need  to  deal  with  drug  issues  at  EU  level,  in  particular  in  the  fields  of  justice  and 
home affairs1 and public health2.  
Community  competences  include  the  control  of  the  trade  in  drug  precursors3  and  the 
prevention of money laundering4. In the field of drug trafficking, a Council Framework 
Decision  laying  down  minimum  provisions  on  the  constituent  elements  of  criminal  acts 
and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking5 has been adopted, while the Council 
Decision on the information exchange, risk assessment and control of new psychoactive 
substances6  provides  the  EU  with  an  instrument  to  act  on  new  drugs  emerging  in  the 
market.  The  Community  role  in  many  fields  such  as  research,  social  policy,  education 
and  youth  also  covers  drug-related  actions,  even  if  not  specifically  mentioned  in  the 
Treaty.  

The EU framework for drug policy goes back to the early 1990s. A first European plan to 
combat  drugs  was  adopted  by  the  European  Council  in  19907.  The  importance  of 
European-level  cooperation  to  tackle  drug  dependence  was  reflected  in  a  1994 
Communication from the Commission.8 The creation of the European Monitoring Centre 
for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA)  in  1993  and  the  Drugs  Unit  of  Europol  in 
1994  was  a  further  strong  sign  of  the  importance  and  added  value  of  drug  policy  at 
European level. 
A  first  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (1995-1999)  was  adopted  in  19959  to  promote  enhanced 
cooperation between Member States with the aim of reducing both the demand for and 
supply of drugs towards and within the EU. The EU Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) and the 
EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)10 introduced new possibilities for cooperation at 
EU level. 

1 
2 

3 

4 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Title VI, Articles 29 and 31(1)(e), TEU. 
Article  152  TEC:  ‘The  Community  shall  complement  the  Member  States’  action  in  reducing 
drugs-related health damage, including information and prevention.’ 
Community  Drug  Precursor  Legislation:  Regulation  (EC)  No  273/2004  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 1), 
Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring 
of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ L22, 26.1.2005, p. 1). 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 of 27 July 2005 laying down implementing rules for 
Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors 
and  for  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  111/2005  laying  down  rules  for  the  monitoring  of  trade 
between the Community and third countries (OJ L 202, 3.8.2005, p. 7). 
2005/60/EC — Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the 
use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purpose  of  money  laundering  and  terrorist  financing, 
26.10.2005. 
2004/757/JHA. 
2005/387/JHA. 
10234/1/90, 10.12.1990; adopted by the European Council in Rome on 13 & 14 December 1990. 
COM (1994) 223 final; 21.6.1994. 
9012/99 CORDROGUE 33. 
12555/3/99 CORDROGUE 64; 9283/00 CORDROGUE 3. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
In December 2004, the European Council endorsed the European Drugs Strategy (2005-
2012)11, which set the framework, objectives and priorities for two consecutive four-year 
Drugs  Action  Plans  to  be  brought  forward  by  the  Commission.  The  Strategy  was  an 
integral  part  of  the  multi-annual  programme  ‘The  Hague  Programme  for  strengthening 
freedom,  security  and  justice  in  the  EU’12.  It  is  based  first  and  foremost  on  the 
fundamental principles of EU law and upholds the founding values of the Union: respect 
for  human  dignity,  liberty,  democracy,  equality,  solidarity,  the  rule  of  law  and  human 
rights. It aims to protect and improve the well-being of society and of the individual, to 
protect public health, to ensure for the general public a high level of security and to take 
a balanced, integrated approach to the drugs problem.  

The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) sets out two general aims: 

(1) 

(2) 

The  EU  aims  at  a  contribution  to  the  attainment  of  a  high  level  of  health 
protection,  well-being  and  social  cohesion  by  complementing  Member  States' 
action in preventing and reducing drug use, dependence and drug-related harms to 
health and society. 

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  aim  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  security  for  the 
general public by taking action against drug production, cross-border trafficking 
in drugs and diversion of precursors, and by intensifying preventive action against 
drug-related crime, through effective cooperation embedded in a joint approach. 

The Strategy sets the framework, objectives and priorities for all drug-related activities in 
the EU in the shape of two consecutive four-year Drugs Action Plans to be brought 
forward  by  the  Commission.  The  first  of  these  Action  Plans,  the  EU  Action  Plan  on 
Drugs (2005-2008), was endorsed by the Council on 8 July 200513. The Action Plans aim 
to translate the broad objectives and priorities of the Strategy into specific actions with 
objectively verifiable indicators to measure progress.  

The Strategy also specifies that ‘the evaluation of the Strategy and the Action Plans on 
Drugs will be conducted by the Commission, in cooperation with the EMCDDA, Europol 
and  the  Member  States’.  The  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  2005-2008  calls  upon  the 
Commission to organise an impact assessment with a view to proposing a new EU Drugs 
Action Plan for (2009-2012)14.  

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  were 
drafted under the current legal framework provided by the EU and EC Treaties and based 
on the respective competences of the Union, Community and individual Member States, 
with due regard to subsidiarity and proportionality 

11 
12 
13 
14 

CORDROGUE 77, 22.11.2004. 
COM(2005) 184 final, 10.5.2005. 
OJ C 168, 8.7.2005. 
OJ C168, 8.7.2005: Action 45.3; Note: the term ‘impact assessment’ in this context should be read 
as  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  current  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-
2008),  and  as  such  is  different  from  the  technical  term  ‘Impact  Assessment’  as  used  in  the 
Commission’s policy-making process. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2. 

The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  its  two  consecutive  Action  Plans  have  been 
developed around the two main dimensions of drug policy, drug demand reduction and 
drug  supply  reduction.  These  two  ‘pillars’  are  complemented  by  three  cross-cutting 
themes,  coordination, 
information,  research  and 
evaluation.  The  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plans  have  been  designed  in  the  form  of  a 
‘logical  framework’  identifying  the  Strategy’s  objectives  and  priorities  and  the  Action 
Plan objectives and actions.  

international  cooperation  and 

As  the  first  Action  Plan  to  implement  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  the  EU  Drugs 
Strategy  (2005-2008)  in  practice,  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  the  most 
detailed in this field to date at EU level, covering the full range of EU drugs policy and 
unanimously endorsed by the Council, reflecting the broad consensus between Member 
States on this issue.  

The Action Plan proposes policy action at national, EU and international level and asks 
for  the  commitment  of  the  27  Member  States  to  work  more  closely  together,  to  share 
information and best practices, to jointly promote the EU model in drugs policy and to 
base drugs policy on scientific facts and evidence.  

Table 1 provides a global overview of the structure and key objectives of the EU Drugs 
Action  Plan  (2005-2008).  The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2008),  as  an  overarching  and 
balanced  coordination  document  for  EU  drugs  policy,  reflecting  the  concerns  and 
priorities of the 27 Member States and the consensus between them, has translated into a 
large  number  of  objectives  (46)  and  actions  (86)  in  the  Action  Plan.  In  addition,  the 
international dimension of the drug problem is involving more and more regions in the 
world,  as  trafficking  routes  and  the  related  organised  criminal  activity  proliferate.  The 
complexity  of  the  health,  social  and  security  problems  resulting  from  this  development 
continues  to  pose  challenges  to  the  EU  if  it  is  to  tackle  the  drug  issue  in  a  unified  and 
coherent manner. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

Table 1 — Schematic overview of objectives in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

Coordination 
•  MS adopting national strategies and action plans in line with the EU Drug Strategy/ Action Plan to 

ensure the integrated, balanced approach in drug policy 

•  Coordination at national and EU level 
•  Strengthen involvement of civil society 
•  Effective coordination in the Council 
•  Systematic mainstreaming of drugs policy in relations and agreements with 3rd countries 

Drug demand reduction 
•  Encouraging 

improvement  of  coverage  of, 
access to and effectiveness of demand reduction 
measures in Member States 

•  Encouraging  implementation  of  prevention  in 
Member  States  (universal,  selective,  indicative, 
early detection) 

•  Encouraging  improvement  and  implementation 
of treatment and rehabilitation in Member States 
(early  intervention,  brief  treatment,  long-term 
treatment, etc.) 

•  Encouraging  development  of  alternatives  to 
imprisonment and of drug services in prisons in 
Member States 

•  Encouraging  implementation  of  harm  reduction 
in Member States (reducing drug related deaths, 
drug-related infectious diseases) 

Drug supply reduction & security 
• 

Improve  law  enforcement  cooperation  between 
Member  States,  Europol,  Eurojust, 
third 
countries and international organisations 

•  Reducing 

production 

and 

cross 

border 

trafficking of heroin, cocaine and cannabis 

•  Reducing 

the  manufacture  and  supply  of 

synthetic drugs (ATS) 

•  Combat  serious  criminal  activity  in  chemical 
precursors diversion and smuggling through law 
enforcement  cooperation  between  Member 
States,  Europol,  Eurojust,  third  countries  and 
international organisations 

•  Preventing 

the  diversion  of  precursors, 

in 

particular synthetic precursors imported to EU 
•  Reducing  money  laundering  &  increasing  the 
seizure of accumulated assets in relation to drug 
crime 

•  Exploring  links  between  drug  production  and 

trafficking and the financing of terrorism 
Improving  the  prevention  of  drug-related  crime 
and  developments  of  new  methods  and  best 
practices to curtail it 
Increasing training for law enforcement agencies 

• 

• 

International cooperation 

• 

Intensify  law  enforcement  efforts  directed  at 
non-EU countries, especially producer countries 
and regions along trafficking routes 

•  Adopting EU common positions on drugs in international for a, including on UNGASS 
•  Articulation and promotion of the EU approach on drugs 
•  Bringing forward joint EU resolutions and co-sponsor others 
•  Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries 
•  Enable candidate countries to participate in the work of EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust 
•  Assist European neighbours 

Improve the coherence, visibility and efficiency of the assistance to candidate and 3rd countries/ regions 
• 
•  Ensure that drugs concerns are taken on board in priority setting of EU versus 3rd countries/ regions and 

continue and develop an active engagement with them 
Improve the coherence, visibility and efficiency of assistance to candidate and 3rd countries/ regions 

• 

Information, evaluation and research 

•  Provide  reliable  and  comparable  data  on  key 

epidemiological indicators 

•  Follow up of the mutual evaluation of drug law 
enforcement systems in the Member States 

•  Provide reliable information on the drug situation (incl. EMCDDA) 
•  Develop clear information on emerging trends and patterns of drug use and drug markets 
•  Produce estimates on public expenditures on drug issues 
•  Promote research in the field of drugs 
•  Create networks of excellence in research 
•  Continuous and overall evaluation 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
1.3. 

Aims and methodology of the evaluation 

Introduction 

1.3.1. 
The Strategy and the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)15 call upon the Commission to 
draw  up  annual  progress  reviews  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  for 
consideration  by  the  Council.  The  objective  of  these  reviews  is  not  only  to  report  on 
progress  but  also  to  deal  with  identified  gaps  and  possible  new  challenges,  should  any 
significant changes in the EU Drugs situation emerge during the implementation of the 
Action Plans.  

To date, the Commission has published annual progress reviews of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan (2005-2008) for the years 200616 and 200717. These reviews showed progress in the 
vast  majority  of  actions  implemented  in  these  years,  but  some  structural  problems 
emerged  that  will  influence  the  outcome  of  the  final  evaluation  of  the  current  Drugs 
Action Plan.  
The 2006 progress review18 concluded — among other things — that coordination could 
be  improved  between  public  health  and  law  enforcement.  Furthermore,  in  the  field  of 
monitoring, progress in the field of supply reduction and implementation at national level 
proved  difficult  to  assess.  The  Commission  also  proposed  a  number  of  amendments  to 
the  existing  indicators  and  assessment  tools  in  the  Action  Plan.  Based  on  the  2007 
progress  review19,  the  Commission  concluded  that  progress  was  being  made  across  the 
board  in  the  Action  Plan,  but  that  the  assessment  of  actual  impacts  on  Member  State 
policies  and  —  indirectly  —  on  the  drugs  situation  in  the  EU  was  proving  difficult. 
Again,  the  Commission  pointed  out  that  there  was  a  structural  lack  of  reliable  and 
comparable data and information at EU level, in the supply reduction field in particular.  

The  Commission  is  responsible  for  conducting  the  final  evaluation  of  the  EU  Drugs 
Action  Plan  (2005-2008).  In  order  to  improve  the  quality  and  scope  of  the  work,  an 
independent consultant20 was asked in 2007 to advice on developing a methodology for 
evaluation. As part of this task, the consultant also conducted an analysis of the extent to 
which the current Action Plan on Drugs can in fact be evaluated. Overall, the consultant 
concluded that a one-on-one impact assessment of the Action Plan on the drugs situation 
in Europe was not feasible due to a variety of reasons, some of which are explained in the 
following sections.  

1.3.2. 

Scope of the evaluation 

This  final  evaluation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  the  most  extensive 
assessment of the implementation of EU drug policy so far. As such, it is also the most 
extensive drug policy evaluation conducted in the global drug field, actively involving 27 
countries representing 490 million citizens.  

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Action 45.2. 
SEC (2006) 1803, 21.12.06. 
COM (2007) 781 final, 11.12.07; SEC (2007) 1739, 18.12.2007 
SEC (2006) 1803, 21.12.06. 
COM (2007) 781 final, 11.12.07; SEC (2007) 1739, 18.12.2007 
GHK Consultants International, London, UK. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
It builds on the experiences gained through the evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and 
Action Plan on Drugs for (2000-2004)21, which was the first time that such an evaluation 
exercise  had  been  undertaken  in  the  drugs  field  at  EU  level.  Some  of  the  key 
recommendations  of  the  2004  evaluation  for  the  next  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action 
Plans included: 

•  Clear  and  precise  objectives  and  priorities  need  to  be  set  that  can  be  translated  into 
operational  indicators  and  actions  in  future  Action  Plans,  with  clearly  defined 
responsibilities and deadlines for their implementation; 

•  Continued  progress  should  be  made  in  the  availability,  quality  and  comparability  of 

information on monitoring the drugs situation; 

•  The  primary  focus  of  the  work  of  the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs  (HDG) 
should be on moving forward with monitoring of the implementation of the actions set 
out  in  the  future  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  and  on  playing  a  leading  role  in 
coordinating the work of the other Council groups on drugs issues.  

This evaluation aims to go a step further in assessing the implementation of the activities 
set out in the Action Plan and the achievement of the Action Plan’s objectives, which in 
turn are related to the overall priorities of the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012). Because 
the  Action  Plan  objectives  and  actions  have  all  been  assigned  indicators  /  assessment 
tools, responsible parties and deadlines, more data and information on the drug situation 
and the responses to it are available in the EU today, even though this mainly concerns 
the field of drug demand reduction.  

At  the  same  time,  the  complexity  of  evaluating  the  Action  Plan  has  increased.  Since 
2004, the EU has expanded from 15 to 27 Member States, resulting in the need to collect 
data and information on how the new countries have implemented the objectives of the 
Action Plan.  

1.3.3.  Evaluation questions 

The Strategy sets a clear aim for the outcome of policy efforts by 2012 in stipulating that 
‘by  the  end  of  2012,  progress  should  have  been made  on  all  the  priorities  in  the  fields 
defined  in  the  Strategy.  This  will  be  achieved  through  interventions  and  actions  at  the 
level of individual Member States, groups of Member States or the EU as a whole and in 
cooperation with third countries and international organisations such as the Council of 
Europe and the United Nations’.  

Furthermore, when drafting the Strategy, the Member States agreed that its aim is to ‘add 
value  to  national  strategies  while  respecting  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality as set out in the Treaties. (…) Member States should consider the impact 
of their national strategies on other Member States, the ways national strategies can be 
mutually supportive, and the contributions such strategies can make towards achieving 
the objectives of this European Union Strategy’.  

21 

COM (2004) 707 final, 22.10.2004 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  is  quite  adamant  on  what  should  be  the 
ultimate  goal  of  current  EU  drug  policy:  ‘it  should  be  clearly  understood  that  the 
Strategy  and  Action  Plan  are  not  an  end  in  themselves:  even  if  all  the  objectives  they 
contain  are  reached,  we  must  conclude  that  they  have  failed  if  the  result  is  not  a 
measurable reduction of the drug problem in our societies. The citizens of Europe expect 
this. The ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to significantly reduce the prevalence of drug 
use among the population and to reduce the social harm and health damage caused by 
the use of and trade in illicit drugs’.  

Accordingly, this evaluation aims to assess the extent to which the objectives and actions 
of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  have  been  achieved,  how  the  Action  Plan 
relates to the actual drug situation, and the added value it offers to drug policy in the EU 
as a whole. 

The following evaluation questions have thus been formulated: 

(1) 

(2) 

To  what  extent  have  the  operational  objectives  and  actions  in  the  current  EU 
Action Plan on Drugs been implemented and what are the main outputs?  

Have  the  specific  priorities  in  the  Strategy  and  the  operational  objectives  in  the 
Action Plan been adopted by Member States? 

(3)  What are the overall changes in the drug situation in recent years?  

(4) 

To  what  extent  can  these  changes  be  linked  to  the  implementation  of  the  EU 
Action Plan on Drugs?  

(5)  What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008? 

(6)  What key conclusions and lessons can be drawn from this evaluation for the next 

plan covering the years 2009-2012? 

1.3.4.  Methodology and data sources 

In preparing for the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008, the Commission 
contracted  an  external  consultant  in  2007  to  help  in  the  development  of  an  evaluation 
methodology.  Key  elements  of  the  consultant’s22  report  have  been  incorporated  in  the 
final evaluation methodology used by the Commission.  

As the evaluation had to be conducted under pressure of time and partly in parallel with 
the  development  of  the  new  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  for  (2009-2012),  the  Commission 
decided in 2008 to bring in a second external contractor to act as an independent ‘critical 
friend’ for the evaluation process. The contractor provided the Commission with critical 
reflections on the evaluation process and on draft documents.  

22 

GHK Consultants International, Study in view of designing a methodology to assess the impact of 
the EU Action Plan on Drugs, Specific Contract No JLS/2006/A1/FWC/004-3, 24 October 2007. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
The key evaluation tasks identified by the Commission were as follows:  

(1) 

Reflection  on  the  structure  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  the  EU 
Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 

This  task  aimed  to  analyse  the  internal  consistency  of  the  Action  Plan  in  terms  of 
structure,  the  relationship  between  objectives,  actions,  indicators  and  assessment  tools, 
the clarity of formulation and an analysis of priorities across objectives. This work was 
mostly carried out by the first contractor mentioned above.  

(2) 

The EMCDDA and Europol to be asked to provide summary reports on trends in 
the drug situation in Europe and the responses to it.  

The  trend  reports  were  necessary  to  identify  key  developments  in  the  drug  situation 
during  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  (2005-2008),  some  of  which  might  — 
hypothetically  —  be  attributed  to  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan.  The  trend 
information on responses was meant to complement information from other sources. 

(3) 

The Commission to send out a survey to the Member States to obtain the Member 
States’ views on the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  

The survey was sent out in March 2008 and included over 20 questions on the inclusion 
of objectives and actions of the Action Plan within national drug policy, Member States’ 
views  on  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  Action  Plan,  and  their  assessment  of  the 
added value of the Plan for EU and national drug policy.  

(4) 

The Commission to launch a review of the implementation of each of the specific 
objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 

This information gathering process was similar to that for the Annual Reviews, although 
the  information  requested  covered  the  period  2005-2008  and  the  emphasis  was  on 
whether  objectives  and  actions  had  been  achieved  or  not  (as  far  as  respondents  could 
make such a judgment). 

(5) 

Finally,  assessment  of  intra-institutional  coordination  and  cooperation  in  the 
implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  

This  task  was  conducted  by  the  ‘critical  friend’,  the  external  contractor  that  provided 
support and advice to the Commission throughout the evaluation process. The scope of 
the task was limited due to time restraints, but included a series of interviews with key 
Commission departments involved in the implementation of parts of the Action Plan. The 
purpose of the exercise was to obtain a better picture of potential coordination issues that 
might affect the implementation of the Action Plan. The assessment did not cover inter-
institutional cooperation between the Commission and the Council.  

1.3.5.  Data sources 

The data and information in this report were collected from the sources available to the 
European Commission.  

For assessing the implementation of the objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan  (2005-2008),  information  on  progress  and  achievement  was  gathered  through  the 
relevant  Commission  services,  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol.  All  relevant  Commission 
services were asked to report on those objectives and actions they were (co-)responsible 

EN 

12 

   EN 

for. Europol was asked to report on those actions relevant to its mandate and activities. 
The  EMCDDA  was  asked  to  provide  on  information  on  those  actions  for  which  it 
collects  information  from  Member  States.  Both  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol  were  also 
asked  to  contribute  to  reporting  on  key  developments  in  the  drug  situation  at  EU  and 
national level for which the Commission had no direct sources of information.  

In order to assess the impact of the Action Plan at national level, the Commission asked 
the Member States  to complete a survey focusing on the  translation of the Action Plan 
objectives into national drug policy and on the perceived added value of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan at national and EU level.  

The  information  provided  by  the  EMCDDA  is  collected  through  a  network  of  national 
focal  points  (Reitox).  These  data  are  summarised  every  year,  together  with  other 
information,  in  the  EMCDDA’s  Annual  Report  on  the  State  of  the  Drugs  Problem  in 
Europe23  and  in  a  Statistical  Bulletin24.  As  this  final  evaluation  report  was  prepared 
during  the  data  verification  phase  for  the  EMCDDA  Annual  Report  2008,  some  of  the 
most recent statistical data should be considered as provisional. However, although some 
individual items may be subject to revision, this is unlikely to influence the interpretation 
of overall trends at European level.  

Europol  information  is  provided  by  its  Drugs  Unit.  Member  State  information  is 
collected  in  the  course  of  various  project-related  activities  through  the  Europol 
Information Exchange System connecting Europol and all National Units. Each Member 
State has only one official data communication channel with Europol: all operational and 
strategic information must be delivered by working partners via their respective Europol 
National Units. Coordination of the information flows between Member State bodies and 
the  Europol  Drugs  Unit  is  therefore  crucial.  Information  on  drug  precursor  control 
legislation  and  on  seizures  and  stopped  shipments  is  collected  by  the  Member  States 
under a Community Regulation.  

Other sources also include studies and reports funded by the Commission.  

1.3.6. 

Stakeholder involvement 

To facilitate the involvement of the Member States and the EU institutions, agencies and 
structures  in  the  evaluation  process,  a  Steering  Group  was  set  up  to  advice  on  the 
evaluation methodology and the interpretation of the evaluation outcomes. The Steering 
Group consisted  of  representatives from the Member  States holding  the EU Presidency 
between  the  second  half  of  2006  and  the  end  of  200825  and  representatives  of  the 
European  Parliament,  Europol,  the  EMCCDA,  EUROSTAT  and  the  Commission.  The 
Steering Group convened four times in 2007 and 2008. Its input enabled the Commission 
to  verify  key  evaluation  questions  as  well  as  to  identify  potential  problems  and 
shortcomings that might emerge during the evaluation process.  

The  Commission  also  specifically  asked  for  the  input  of  the  newly  established  Civil 
Society  Forum  on  Drugs,  which  convened  in  December  2007  and  in  May  2008.  The 
members of the Forum were asked to share their thoughts and experiences regarding the 
current  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008),  which  resulted  in  a  number  of  important 
observations being taken on board in this evaluation report.  

23 
24 
25 

Available in print and online: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/online/ar2007/en. 
Available online: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/main. 
Finland, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and France. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
1.4. 

Limitations of the evaluation 

Evaluating the impact of public policy plans such as the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008)  is  by  nature  not  a  simple  exercise.  The  Action  Plan  aims  to  coordinate  and 
influence  major  areas  of  government  intervention  in  the  field  of  drugs  (public  health  / 
security  /  external  relations) at  EU  and  Member  State  level,  targeting  a  complex  social 
phenomenon  that  is  still  insufficiently  understood,  that  largely  takes  place  outside  the 
scope and control of public authorities and that requires a long-term approach.  

At the same time, the policy responses to the drug problem within the Member States are 
heterogeneous. These responses may reinforce each other, interact with or diverge from 
one other (un-)intentionally, and are implemented by a broad range of different actors in 
each  country,  with  specific  interests  and  different  levels  of  intensity  and  efficiency.  As 
with  other  complex  social  problems,  this  environment  makes  the  identification  and 
evaluation of causal relationships between changes in the drug situation and the policy 
responses a complicated exercise, if not impossible.  

1.4.1. 

Inconsistencies of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

As indicated above, one of the evaluation tasks was to analyse the internal consistency of 
the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008).  In  preparing  the  methodology  for  the  final 
evaluation, the external consultants identified the following key inconsistencies:  

•  The coherence of the Action Plan suffers from a large number of objectives, several of 

which seem to overlap with one other. 

•  Most objectives in the Action Plan can be categorised as ‘general’ or ‘specific’, with 
few  operational  objectives.  A  considerable  number  of  general  objectives  are  often 
vaguely formulated, while specific objectives are not specific enough to prevent broad 
interpretation of what is meant and which activities are covered. 

•  No clear hierarchy is provided in the Action Plan. The objectives are indirectly linked 
to  overarching  priorities  in  the  Drugs  Strategy,  but  these  are  rather  broadly 
formulated.  The  priorities  in  the  Drugs  Strategy  are  not  accompanied  by  output  or 
outcome indicators. 

•  The  links  between  objectives  and  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  are  sometimes 
problematic.  Some  actions  restate  the  objective,  making  it  difficult  to  identify 
indicators and assessment criteria. 

•  Some objectives and actions lack (subsidiary) actions that break down implementation 

into clear stages. Progress is difficult to measure in these cases. 

•  Regarding indicators, the Action Plan provides a mix of output, outcome and impact 
indicators, but, in a considerable number of cases, no indicators are provided at all but 
only assessment tools / data sources.  

The problems identified with the internal consistency of the Action Plan may influence 
the implementation of specific objectives and actions or make assessment of the progress 
achieved difficult if not impossible. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

1.4.2.  Other limitations 

A  number  of  further  challenges  have  been  found  to  have  a  specific  impact  on  this 
evaluation.  

•  The  Action  Plan 
recommendations 

is  a 

coordination 

instrument  with  non-binding 

The  Action  Plan  is  primarily  a  non-binding  instrument  for  coordination  among  the 
Member  States,  which  are  autonomous  in  implementing  its  aims  and  objectives.  A 
limited number of objectives and actions are implemented only at EU level, i.e. through 
Commission activities. Most objectives and actions in the Action Plan are implemented 
indirectly:  the  Action  Plan  aims  to  influence  the  actions  of  others.  This  indirect 
implementation  may  be  effective  in  providing  guidance  for  national  policy  level,  but  it 
does make assessment of the direct consequences of the plan more complicated.26  

•  The horizontal nature and broad scope of the Drugs Action Plan 

As the drugs phenomenon is a broad and complex social problem, the Drugs Action Plan 
tries  to  influence  various  fields  of  public  policy  simultaneously  in  a  coherent  and 
coordinated  way.  These  fields  are  all  major  areas  of  public  policy  (e.g.  public  health) 
with existing systems and structures that need to be ‘tempted’ to take action. An in-depth 
ex-ante or ex-post evaluation of the actual impact of the Action Plan on any one of these 
policy fields would already require major resources.  

•  Lack  of  relevant  comparable  and  reliable  data  on  the  drug  phenomenon,  drug 

demand and drug supply reduction 

The annual progress reviews have highlighted that there is a lack of information and data 
to show progress for quite a few indicators in the Action Plan, while there is also little 
information  and  data  available  on  the  outcomes  and  impacts  of  the  Drugs  Action  Plan 
regarding  the  actual  drug  situation.  The  collection  of  data  is  primarily  the  task  of  the 
Member  States.  The  progress  reviews  provide  information  mostly  on  the  results  of  the 
operational objectives and actions, but much less on the outcomes of the implementation 
of  these  specific  objectives  and  their  impact  on  the  global  objectives  of  the  Drugs 
Strategy.  The  lack  of  relevant  data  and  information  applies  to  both  drug  demand 
reduction  and,  in  particular,  drug  supply  reduction,  but  also  concerns  international 
cooperation. 

The information available on the drug situation and the responses to it is still insufficient 
to support a detailed analysis of developments in the illicit drug market and the impact of 
drug policies on this market (see 3.1.5 for further details). 

26 

The Commission is involved in the implementation of 44 of the 86 objectives and actions in the 
EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008, but directly responsible for only 8 of them. Member States are 
involved in the implementation of 64 of the 86 objectives and actions, but directly responsible for 
the implementation of 23. Responsibility for 14 of the 86 is shared between Member States and 
the  Commission.  The  remaining  41  actions  are  the  shared  responsibility  of  the  Member  States, 
limited  number  of  other 
Commission,  Presidency/Council,  Europol,  EMCDDA  and  a 
stakeholders. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Other data limitations 

Obtaining  European  data  depends  on  participating  Member  Sates  having  national  data 
collection  activities  that  conform  to  common  reporting  standards  and  use  appropriately 
robust  methods.  Considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  this  respect,  especially 
regarding  key  epidemiological  indicators.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that 
differences still remain between countries in both the availability and quality of the data. 
Direct comparisons between countries should therefore be made with caution, although 
time series data can point to general changes over time even when reporting systems are 
imperfect. Understanding differences in national data collection systems is a key element 
to understanding the European situation, and sufficient analytical capacity now exists in 
Europe  to  permit  qualified  statements  to  be  made  on  the  overall  situation  with  some 
confidence.  Data  on  drug  responses  are  generally  less  standardised  and  assessment  is 
more reliant on qualitative measures. Even here, however, there has been some progress 
and,  provided  sufficient  caution  is  exercised,  comments  can  be  made  on  the  overall 
situation, although any precise quantification is generally more difficult. 

•  Delays in data collection 

The  collection  of  epidemiological  data  on  the  drug  situation  is  complex  and  time-
consuming. The necessary compiling, reconciling and approving of national statistics and 
the high quality standards needed to ensure the reliability of data mean that international 
public health and law enforcement monitoring systems have a reporting lag. Much of the 
EMCDDA  information  on  drug  trends  and  developments  is  collected  at  national  level, 
often compiled from local and regional data collections within Member States, resulting 
in a time gap between the moment of collection and the report. For this evaluation report, 
epidemiological data are available for the year 2006 at best. EMCDDA national reports 
and  the  narrative  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-
2008) are usually more recent, and will in most cases include information up to the end 
of 2007. However, trends in the drug situation generally unfold over a longer period of 
time.  

•  Timing of this evaluation 

the 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  note  the  actual  period  of  implementation  of  the  current  EU 
two  envisaged  Action  Plans 
Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008).  Originally, 
implementing the Drugs Strategy were supposed to have a 3-year implementation period 
(2005-2007 and 2009-2011, respectively) followed by a 1-year evaluation period (2008 
and 2012). Even though the current Action Plan officially covers the period from 2005 to 
2008,  it  was  adopted  in  mid-2005  and  evaluated  in  the  first  half  of  2008,  resulting 
effectively  in  an  evaluation  of  implementation  in  the  years  2006  and  2007.  As  policy 
needs time to ‘trickle down’, the structural effects of this Action Plan might be difficult 
to  identify.  Furthermore,  the  time  constraints  accompanying  this  evaluation  ruled  out  a 
number of potential evaluation methods, including case studies and interviews at national 
level. 

Taking all these limitations into account, this final evaluation of the EU Action Plan on 
Drugs  focused  on  the  implementation  of  objectives  and  actions  for  which  information 
was  available  and/or  could  be  retrieved  from  existing  sources  of  information,  which 
comprised  mostly  self-reported  information  from  Member  States  gathered  through  the 
EMCDDA’s  Reitox  Network  of  National  Focal  Points  and  the  Europol  National  Units, 
collected  for  monitoring  purposes  or  for  investigations  to  support  ongoing  analysis. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

Information on the implementation of objectives and actions was also collected through 
the Commission services and, where information was insufficient for this evaluation, the 
Commission put specific queries to the Member States, among others. 

Accordingly,  it  is  not  possible  to  assess  in  full  the  impact  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action 
Plan 2005-2008 on the drug situation in the EU.  

1.4.3. 

Structure of this report 

The  report  is  structured  around  the  main  evaluation  questions  identified  in  point  1.2. 
Chapter 2 provides  an  overview  of  the implementation of the  objectives and actions of 
the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008.  Implementation  is  examined  at  the  level  of 
objectives, but a report on each action can be found in Annex 1.  

Chapter  3  provides  an  answer  to  the  question  as  to  the  extent  to  which  Member  States 
have translated the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) into national policy and/or if EU 
policy is reflected in national policy where it predated the Action Plan. Member States’ 
perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan can be found here as well.  

Chapter 4 provides a concise overview of the trends in the EU drug situation — for both 
drug  demand  and  drug  supply  —  including  trends  in  the  adverse  social  and  health 
consequences  of  the  drug  problem.  Where  possible,  a  brief  comparison  with  other 
countries and regions in the world is provided.  

Chapter  5  briefly  reflects  on  the  important  but  difficult  question  as  to  what  impact  the 
Action Plan has had on the drug situation in the EU as well as what added value it has 
achieved. In Chapter 6, the main conclusions and recommendations for the next Action 
Plan are presented.  

Annex  1  includes  the  detailed  reports  for  each  of  the  actions  and  objectives.  Annex  2 
contains  a  list  of  abbreviations.  Annex  3  provides  a  glossary  of  the  terms  used  in  this 
report, while annex 4 provides references on some of the information obtained from the 
EMCDDA.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACTION PLAN AT EU AND NATIONAL LEVEL 

2.1. 

Introduction 

As  an  overall  coordinating  plan,  the  Action  Plan  does  not  have  instruments  to  directly 
influence  the  policy  decisions  of  Member  States.  At  EU  level,  the  Commission  has 
competence  in  the  field  of  precursor  legislation  and  in  the  area  of  international 
cooperation and external relations. The information presented in this chapter is obtained 
from several sources, including the European  Commission,  Europol  and  the  EMCDDA 
but also the Member States directly. The state-of-play is described in Annex 1 in detail, 
with information on implementation and performance per action.  

2.1.1.  Cross-cutting theme: Coordination 

2.1.1.1.  National drug policies (obj. 1) 

For  this  evaluation,  Member  States  were  asked  about  the  existence  of  national  drug 
policy documents. Between 2005 and early 2008, 18 Member States implemented new or 
updated drug strategies and/or action plans. All Member States reported that one or more 
relevant  drug  strategies  or  national  drug  action  plans  were  in  place.  Most  of  these 
documents are recent and/or ongoing. For the majority of Member States, one or more of 
these  existing  policy  documents  will  expire  in  the  period  2008-2009,  after  which  they 
will be renewed or redrafted. Of these Member States, 14 countries stated that their drug 
policy will be subject to evaluation. Table 2 provides an overview of the most important 
policy documents that are currently effective in the Member States, their life-cycle and 
intended follow-up. 

A 2006 data collection exercise showed that the scope of intervention fields (prevention, 
treatment, law enforcement, etc.) covered by national drug strategies and action plans in 
the EU is very wide, reflecting the comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to the 
drugs field in Europe. Convergence can also be seen in the format of drug strategies and 
action  plans.  Fourteen  countries  now  structure  their  national  drug-policy  documents 
along lines similar to those of the current EU drug strategy and action plan. Moreover, 
the  same  number  of  countries  now  organise  their  national  drug  policies  using  two 
complementary instruments: a strategic framework and an action plan. More information 
on national drug policies can be found in the next chapter. 

Most EU Member States have recently produced or plan to produce a progress review of 
the implementation of their drug strategies or action plans, and some might produce more 
in-depth evaluations in 2008. This reflects the growing recognition of the need to include 
monitoring  and  evaluation  as  an  essential  component  in  national  drug  strategies  and 
action  plans.  EU  Member  States  differ,  however,  in  their  methods  and  approaches  for 
evaluating national drug strategies and action plans, and best practices in this field need 
to be identified.  

All EU Member States have a recent and/or updated drug policy. In more than half 
of the countries, these policy plans reflect the structure and set-up of the EU Drugs 
Strategy (2005-2012) and/ or the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

Table 2 — Overview of national drug strategies & national drug action plans in the Member States 

Type 

Current 

Future 

MS 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

DS 
Other28 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 
DS36 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 
Other39 

MS 

LU 

HU 

ongoing 

2004-2007 

2008-2011 

2003-2008 
2003-200829 

2005-2009 
2007-200931 

2009-2012 

2009-2012 

MT 

2010-2012 

2010-2012 

NL 

2003- 

2003- 

2003- 

2003- 

- 

- 
2008-37 

2008-2013 

AT 

PL 

2005-2012 

2013-2025 

PT 

2007-2009 

2010-2012 

2001-2008 

2009-2016 

RO 

2001-2008 

2009-2016 

Type 
DS/AP27 

DS 

AP 
DS30 

AP 
DS32 
Other33 
Other34 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

2006-2012 

2006-2012 

n.a. 

n.a. 

SI 

DS 
Other38 

2000-2008 

2009-2016 

SK 

2005-2008 

2009-2012 

2005-2008 

2008-2011 

FI 

n.a. 

2008 

n.a. 

2009-2012 

2004-2008 

2009-2013 

2004-2008 

2009-2013 

2005-2008 

2010-2013 

SE 

UK 

DS 

AP 

DS 

AP 

AP 

DS 

AP 

Current 

Future 

2005-2009 

2010-2015 

2000-2009 

2010-2015 

2008-2009 

2010-2012 

2007- 

n.a. 

1995- 

n.a. 

n.a. 

2009- 

1998- 

200835 

2005-2010 

2010-2014 

2005-2010 

2010-2014 

2005-2012 

- 

2005-2008 

2009-2012 

2005-2012 

- 

2005-2008 

2009-2012 

2004-2009 

2010- 

- 

2004-2008 

2009-2012 

2005-2008 

2009-2012 

1997- 

2008-2011 

2012-2016 

2006-2010 

2010- 

2008-2018 

2008-2011 

DS 

2004-2008 

2009-2016 

AP 
Other40 

2004-2008 

2009-2016 

2004-2008 

DS = Drug Strategy 
AP = Drug Action Plan 
Other = Other drug-related policy document 
n.a. = Information not available 

27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

40 

The Strategy and Action Plan are one and the same. 
Security Action Plan. 
Updated in 2006 (source: EMCDDA overview). 
Source: EMCDDA overview. 
Previous Action Plan covered 2005-2006. 
Ongoing policy document. 
Specific action papers on: Schiphol Airport, cannabis, XTC and the tackling of organised crime. 
Narcotic Substances Act; the Austrian provinces have their own policy documents. 
Act will be revised. 
The German Laender also have programmes to combat drug addiction. 
Renewal will include concrete actions on licit substances. 
Specific Acts on production & trade and consumption. 
State  programme  for  the  restriction  and  control  of  addiction  and  the  spread  of  narcotic  and 
psychotropic substances. 
National Programme for Drug Control and Prevention. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.1.2.  Coordination at national level (obj. 2) 

All EU Member States have at least one national coordination unit or body in the 
drugs field which coordinates fully or partially the implementation of the national 
drug  strategy/action  plan.  In  most  countries,  the  drug  coordination  mechanism  has 
three  levels.  Firstly,  a  strategic,  often  inter-ministerial,  board,  commission,  committee, 
council or coordination group on drugs defines the general framework for drugs policy 
and adopts the national strategies and action plans. Secondly, an operative body acting as 
e.g.  the  secretariat  of  the  strategic  body,  a  national  drug  coordinator,  a  national  drug 
agency  or  drug  strategy  team  and/or  a  department  in  a  given  ministry  (usually  the 
Ministry of Health) handles day-to-day coordination in the drug policy field and oversees 
the  implementation  and  monitoring  of  the  drug  strategies  and  action  plans.  Finally, 
regional and/or municipal bodies exist to coordinate the implementation of drug-related 
interventions at local level. (Ref. objective 2). 

2.1.1.3.  Coordination at EU level: the Council (obj. 4, 6) 

Overall, the Presidencies of the Horizontal Working Group on Drugs (HDG) have chosen 
policy priorities closely linked to the Action Plan on Drugs; they have liaised well with 
other  relevant  Council  working  parties  and  reported  on  other  drug-related  policy 
discussions in the Council. The participation of other Council working party members at 
HDG  meetings  should  be  encouraged  where  relevant.  Coordination  is  essential,  and 
should remain an objective of the new action plan. 

All  HDG  Presidencies  organise  meetings  of  the  National  Drug  Coordinators. 
However,  consideration  might  be  given  to  ensuring  greater  synergy  between  the 
activities of the HDG and the meetings of the national drug coordinators. 

2.1.1.4.  Coordination at EU level: Commission, Europol & agencies (obj. 1, 2, 6) 

Responsibility  for  implementing  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  shared 
between the Member States, the Council, the Presidencies, the Commission, Europol and 
EU agencies such as the EMCDDA, Eurojust and EMEA. The Commission is involved 
in  the  implementation  of  over  half  of  the  actions  in  the  Action  Plan,  but  is  directly 
responsible for only 8 of them. The Commission’s influence on implementation is strong 
in the field of precursor legislation and where external cooperation is concerned. In the 
field  of  (public)  health,  the  Commission  primarily  has  a  complementary  role  to  the 
Member  States,  while  in  the  field  of  drug  supply  reduction  the  Member  States  are 
relatively  autonomous  (with  the  exception  of  specific  areas  such  as  anti-money 
laundering). 

Within the European Commission, responsibility for the implementation of the EU Drugs 
Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  shared  between  over  thirteen  Directorate  Generals41.  The 
drug policy coordination unit of DG JLS is responsible for the horizontal coordination of 
drug policy within the Commission. Directly after the adoption of the EU Drugs Action 
Plan 2005-2008, an internal roadmap was drawn  up  specifying the services responsible 
for  implementing  the  actions  the  Commission  was  involved  in  and/or  for  reporting  on 
their  progress.  Coordination  clusters  have  been  set  up  in  the  field  of  drug  precursor 

41 

DGs involved include: DG Justice, Freedom & Security; DG Health & Consumers, DG Enterprise 
&  Industry,  DG  Taxation  &  Customs  Union,  DG  External  Relations,  EuropeAid,  DG 
Enlargement, DG Development, DG Research, Eurostat, DG Employment, Social Affairs & Equal 
Opportunities, DG Energy and Transport and DG Education & Culture. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
legislation (Taxation & Customs Union, Enterprise & Industry DGs) and in the area of 
external relations (External Relations, Enlargement, Development and EuropeAid DGs). 
DG External Relations is responsible for coordinating the Commission’s position vis-à-
vis international organisations and third countries.  

As  one  element  in  the  evaluation,  the  Commission  also  decided  to  assess  the 
effectiveness  of  its  own  coordination  structures  for  the  implementation  of  the  Action 
Plan. For this purpose, the external consultant brought in for the evaluation process was 
asked to conduct a limited assessment of the main services involved. 

The consultant came to the following findings: 

•  The implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) in the Commission is 
supported by strong coordinating mechanisms, which results in a unified approach in 
the Council, in particular the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG). Preparatory 
work for the HDG is undertaken by a permanent Inter-Service Group on Drugs (ISG), 
which  brings  together  all  the  relevant  DGs  involved  in  the  implementation  of  drug 
policy within the Commission.  

•  However,  coordination  within  DGs,  or  among  groups  of  DGs  on  sectoral  issues,  is 

mostly informal and not very structured. 

•  Commission  coordination  could  be  strengthened  to  improve  the  coherence  between 
the  principles  and  priorities  of  EU  drugs  policy  and  how  they  are  reflected  in  EU 
funding and external assistance programmes. 

•  The Action Plan itself (or its successor) could contribute more to the implementation 
of  activities  through  better  prioritisation  of  objectives  and  a  more  operationalised 
description of actions.  

•  The non-binding status of the Action Plan has an impact on its implementation by the 
different  Commission  services.  The  absence  of  a  specific  budget  line  for  the 
implementation  of  actions  that  the  Commission  is  (co-)responsible  for  means  that 
Commission  services  have  only 
the 
implementation of objectives42.  

limited  resources  available 

to  support 

•  Furthermore,  as  a  result  of  the  above,  actions  are  often  implemented  by  including 
them under one or other thematic or regional priorities of the Commission. The result 
is that reporting on progress then often relates to these priorities and not specifically to 
the implementation of the actions themselves.  

•  Where  the  Drugs  Action  Plan  relates  to  specific  Community  competences,  more 

resources are available and a more structured approach is visible.  

•  A  clearer  description  of  actions  and  objectives  as  well  as  more  focus  in  the  Action 
Plan  could  strengthen  its  implementation,  as  these  actions  and  objectives  could  then 

42 

The  specific  Programme  for  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  is  the  only  programme  with  a 
budget specifically for supporting the implementation of priorities in the field of prevention, harm 
reduction and information & evaluation as identified in the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012. Other 
funding  programmes  may  support  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan,  but  do  not 
refer  to  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  or  its  Action  Plans  directly,  although  they  do  include  actions  to 
tackle illicit drugs, for example the Community Public Health Programme 2003-2008 (established 
by Decision 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 23.09.2002). 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
be  translated  more  easily  into  specific  activities,  which  may  better  support  the 
achievement of the overall objective.  

Several tasks for the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) also require the involvement of 
EU agencies such as the EMCDDA and intergovernmental structures such as Europol.  

The EMCDDA is a key information source for assessing the drug situation and responses 
to  it  at  the  level  of  the  Member  States.  Cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  the 
EMCDDA  was  assessed  in  2007  as  part  of  the  external  evaluation  of  the  monitoring 
centre.  The  evaluation  showed  that  cooperation  between  the  Commission  and  the 
EMCDDA,  in  particular  with  the  ‘home’  DG,  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,  had  very 
much improved in recent years and was in general considered to be good.  

The cooperation  between the Commission and the Drugs Unit at Europol is considered 
constructive, both inside the HDG and in daily cooperation. However, collaboration is of 
a  slightly  different  character,  as  Europol  activities  are  more  operational  than  policy-  or 
information-oriented and Europol has its own intergovernmental mandate.  

Drug  policy  is  a  horizontal  issue  within  the  European  Commission.  Due  to  its  non-
binding  character,  the acquis  and  consequent  tasks  for  the  Commission  in  this  area  are 
limited.  Overall,  the  Commission  is  well-prepared  and  well-coordinated  where  its 
representation  vis-à-vis  the  Council 
informal 
coordination  structures  within  the  Commission,  especially  between  DGs,  can  be 
improved  by  setting  clearer  priorities  and  by  enhancing  the  flow  of  information. 
The  Commission  may  consider  further  assessing  and  reinforcing  its  coordination  and 
implementation  mechanisms  once  the  next  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  for  (2009-2012)  is 
adopted by the Council.  

is  concerned.  However,  the 

2.1.1.5.  Involvement of civil society (obj. 3) 

As  proposed  in  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008),  the  European  Commission 
established  a  Civil  Society  Forum  on  Drugs  in  2007,  bringing  together  representatives 
from  29  NGOs  and  professionals  in  the  field  of  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction, 
fundamental rights, etc. The Forum gives input to the Commission on EU drug policy as 
set  out  in  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan.  Furthermore,  it  is  a  meeting  place  for  civil 
society  representatives  and  mirrors  the  broad  range  of  interests,  views  and  approaches 
that exist in EU society regarding drugs.  

One  issue  addressed  during  this  evaluation  concerned  the  position  of  civil  society  at 
national level. Member States were asked to reflect on the level of involvement of civil 
society  in  the  formulation  or  implementation  of  national  drug  policy.  In  reply  to  the 
question whether opinion surveys or public consultations had been conducted recently to 
sound out public opinion on national drug policy, twelve Member States responded in the 
affirmative.  

In  Hungary  and  Slovakia,  national  and  smaller-scale  consultation  surveys,  targeted  at 
specific  groups,  are  being  conducted.  In  Ireland,  in  view  of  the  development  of  a  new 
National  Drugs  Strategy,  public  consultation  meetings  are  being  organised  around  the 
country.  Meetings  with  various  sectoral  groups  and  with  community  and  voluntary 
organisations  involved  with  drugs  have  been  organised,  along  with  focus  groups  with 
drug users and immigrants, and Government departments and agencies in the drug field 
meet  on  a  regular  basis.  NGOs  have  also  been  consulted  during  the  development  of 
national drug strategies and/or drug action plans in Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, and 
the UK.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

Civil society — as represented by relevant NGOs in the drug field — is also involved in 
official  structures  dealing  with  drug  issues  at  national  level,  such  as  national  drug 
councils of advisory forums. Such formal involvement exists in Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, 
Germany, Hungary, Portugal and Spain. In Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland and the UK, civil 
society  involvement  is  also  ensured  through  local  coordination  and  cooperation 
mechanisms.  

There  is  informal  consultation  and  involvement  in  drug  policy  development  and 
implementation in France, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Romania. This type of 
consultation  includes  meetings,  NGO  contributions  to  public  debate,  advocacy  through 
EU-funded projects and programmes, informal discussions, websites, surveys, etc. 

In  Member  States  such  as  Ireland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia,  civil  society  also  plays  an 
important role in the delivery of specific activities and services, for example in the field 
of harm reduction.  

In  Estonia,  Finland,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden,  no  specific  options  are 
available for civil society to engage in a dialogue with the public authorities responsible 
for  drug  policy.  Civil  society  involvement  is  through  the  political  system  (parliament), 
public discussions in the media, and bilateral contacts between civil society organisations 
and the public administration. 

Despite the examples reported by the Member States, organisations participating in 
the  Commission’s  Civil  Society  Forum  on  Drugs  have  indicated  that  civil  society 
involvement could be more substantial and also support the collection of qualitative 
information on the delivery of services.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

2.1.2.  Drug demand reduction  

2.1.2.1.  Quality standards for demand reduction (obj. 7) 

In the field of drug demand reduction, the differences between Member States in terms of 
prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation projects are substantial. In recent 
years,  the  evidence  base  underpinning  these  interventions  has  increased.  However,  the 
available  best  evidence  and  practices  are  not always  translated  into  national  policy  and 
service  delivery.  Accurate  and  comparable  information  on  the  coverage  and 
accessibility  of  drug  demand  reduction  facilities  and  measures  is  lacking  at  EU 
level,  and  the  terms  themselves  are  defined  differently  in  each  Member  State. 
However, the EMCDDA does collect information from Member States on whether they 
have  quality-assurance43  mechanisms  in  place  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  drug 
demand  reduction  activities  in  the  areas  of  treatment  and  prevention.  Furthermore,  the 
EMCDDA addresses the issue of the reliability of data and definitions across countries.  

In  the  area  of  treatment,  over  half  of  the  Member  States  report  the  availability  of 
national  quality  standards  for  drug-free  treatment  and  medically  assisted  treatment  (19 
MS). Quality standards for the evaluation of drug treatment exist in 12 Member States. 
Quality  management  systems  using  international  quality  standards  (ISO  9000ff  and 
EFQM44) are available in only 2 countries. In 2008, the Commission published a study 
entitled:  ‘The  quality  of  treatment  services  in  Europe  —  drug  treatment  situation  and 
exchange  of  good  practice’45.  It  includes  country  reports  on  treatments  available  in  the 
Member States as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the treatments most used 
in the EU. 

In  the  area  of  prevention,  quality  standards  for  school-based  prevention  exist  in  10 
Member  States,  for  selective  prevention  in  8  and  for  community-based  prevention  in  6 
countries.  National  standards  for  the  evaluation  of  prevention  seem  to  be  less  common 
and  are  reported  only  by  a  few  Member  States.  The  existing  data  provide  only  a  basic 
and  rather  crude  picture  of  the  availability  of  quality  assurance  mechanisms,  and  the 
content and scope of these mechanisms needs to be further investigated, for instance, the 
concept  of  what  exactly  constitutes  a  ‘standard’  or  a  ’guideline’  seems  to  differ  across 
Member States.  

In  short,  the  existing  data  provide  only  a  basic  picture  of  the  availability  of  quality 
assurance mechanisms among EU Member States in the field of drug demand reduction, 
although they do show  that  efforts  to  develop quality  standards or  guidelines are being 
made  in  most  countries.  The  content  and  scope  of  these  measures  should  be 
investigated further. The development of definitions and quality models at EU level 
could also be further considered.  

43 

44 
45 

Quality assurance can be defined as a system of procedures, checks, audits and corrective actions 
to  ensure  that  a  service  and  reporting  activities  are  of  the  highest  achievable  quality.  Quality 
assurance  can  be  implemented  as  a  more  or  less  formal  control  measure,  and  with  a  higher  or 
lower  level  of  reporting,  through  providers  and  public  control  institutions.  Among  the  most 
traditional measures are quality standards, evaluation, quality management systems and training of 
staff. 
European Foundation for Quality Management. 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_treament_frep_en.pdf. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
2.1.2.2.  Universal prevention (obj. 8) 

interventions  specifically  for  boys,  which  all  aim 

The type of universal school-based drug prevention interventions reported by the largest 
number  of  countries  concerns  mostly  events  for  parents  and  personal  and  social  skills 
training for pupils, followed by merely informative strategies (information days, visits by 
experts  or  police  officers  to  schools  —  see  Figure  1).  These  interventions  are  usually 
also  less  intensive  than  other  kinds.  In  contrast,  standardised  programmes,  peer 
approaches  or 
improve 
communication  skills,  correct  normative  misperceptions  about  drug  use  or  increase  the 
ability to handle conflicts, stress and frustration, are reported in only a few countries. The 
overall  predominance  of  interventions  that  have  no,  or  only  a  relatively  weak  evidence 
base might be due to the fact that they are less demanding in terms of resources, training 
and implementation efforts. Many EU countries run a variety of school-based prevention 
programmes, but a considerable number of these might not be effective at all.  
Figure 1 -Provision of school-based prevention46 

to 

Provision of school-based prevention 2004 - 2007

Full or extensive provision 2007

Full or extensive provision 2004

s
g
u
r
n d
 o
nly
o
n 
io
at
m
r
o
nf
I

s
e
r
tu
c
l le
a
n
r
e
t
x
 e
r
e
h
Ot

ols
o
h
c
s
at
s 
nt
e
g
 a
e
olic
p
 of
Visit

s
g
u
r
 d
ut
o
b
a
s 
y
a
d
n 
io
at
m
r
o
nf
I

s
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
 p
p
ta
s
u
M

ols
o
h
c
s
in 
g 
in
st
te
g 
u
Dr

ol
o
h
c
s
in 
s 
ie
olic
p
g 
u
Dr

ol
o
h
c
 s
s
n
a

in b
g 
kin
o
m
s
al 
ot
T

s
e
h
c
a
o
r
p
p
 a
r
e
e
p
o 
 t
r
e
e
P

d
e
is
d
ar
d
n
a
st
e 
id
uts
 o
g
ainin
kills 
ial s
c
o
d s
n
a
l 
a
n
o
s
r
e
P

ula
ic
r
r
u
 c
in
d 
ate
r
g
e
int
s 
pic
o
 t
n
tio
n
e
v
e
pr
g 
u
r
 d
r
e
h
Ot

r
t

120,0

100,0

80,0

60,0

40,0

20,0

0,0

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c
g
n
i
t
r
o
p
e
r

f
o
%

School  settings  tend  to  match  overall  prevention  policies,  which  now  increasingly 
embrace  stricter  regulations  on  tobacco  and  alcohol  and  aim  to  create  protective  and 
normative social environments to influence young people’s choices regarding drug use. 
Most countries now report total smoking bans in all schools and extensive application of 
drug  policies  in  schools.  Particularly  in  Central  and  Western  Europe,  Member  States 
report  comprehensive  prevention  of  substance  use  at  school,  especially  with  regard  to 
nicotine  and  alcohol,  which  may  also  be  complemented  by  structural  measures  such  as 

46 

Comparisons  between  2004  and  2007  should  be  regarded  with  caution  as  the  data  are  based  on 
expert group ratings and can therefore vary with the composition of these groups. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
improving the design of school buildings and school life. A focus on information remains 
the  most  frequent  approach,  also  in  family-based  prevention.  Despite  demonstrating  a 
consistent  effectiveness  across  studies,  intensive  coaching  and  training  sessions  for 
families remain less common.  

Finally, developing standards for the delivery and content of prevention projects is one 
way  to  improve  the  evidence  base  for  prevention  and  to  reduce  iatrogenic  risks.  The 
number of Member States reporting standards for project design and evaluation increased 
from  three  in  2004  to  nine  in  2007.  The  setting  of  standards  could  be  an  important 
step for the future development of prevention policies at EU level. 

2.1.2.3.  Selective and indicated prevention (obj. 9, 10) 

Selective prevention targets vulnerable groups prone to risk factors that may contribute to 
future problem substance use. Almost half of the EU countries report that their family-
based  prevention  is  mostly  selective.  Across  reporting  countries,  only  a  very  small 
minority  of  Member  States  report  extensive  provision  for  intervention  to  address  e.g. 
substance  abuse  in  the  family,  family  conflict  and  neglect,  social  disadvantage  (e.g. 
unemployment),  criminal  justice  problems,  ethnic  families  subject  to  marginalisation, 
and families with mental health problems.  

Figure 2 — Importance of vulnerable groups within drug policies, percentage of reporting countries 
2004 / 200747 

Importance of target groups in drug policies

% of reporting countries

Priority in written drug policies Mentioned in written drug policies Not explictly mentioned in drug policies Not known

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

2004

4,2

y

l
r
a
E

s

l
i

p
u
P

h
t
i

w

,
l
a

i

c
o
s

l

o
o
h
c
s

i

c
m
e
d
a
c
a

2004

2007

2004

2007

2004

2007

s
r
e
v
a
e

l

l

s
m
e
b
o
r
p
s
t
n
a
r
g
m
m

i

I

s
p
u
o
r
g

h
t
u
o
y

s
r
e
d
n
e
f
f
o

s
n
o
i
t
u
t

i

c
n
h
t

E

l

s
s
e
e
m
o
H

g
n
u
o
Y

i
t
s
n

i

e
r
a
c

n

i

h
t
u
o
Y

i

h
g
e
n

r
u
o
b

s
d
o
o
h

r
o

y
t
r
a
P

l

a
v
i
t
s
e
f

s
r
e
o
g

h
t
u
o
Y

d
a
s
d

i

d
e
g
a
t
n
a
v

2007

2004

2007

2004

2007

2004

2007

2004

2007

12,5

21,4

16,7

17,9

8,3

14,3

14,3

8,3

14,3

12,5

16,7

14,3

8,3

17,9

45,8

21,4

45,8

35,7

29,2

17,9

45,8

32,1

29,2

25,0

29,2

57,1

25,0

42,9

54,2

57,1

37,5

50,0

41,7

20,8

57,1

50,0

28,6

42,9

37,5

8,3

37,5

37,5

28,6

35,7

41,7

32,1

45,8

41,7

50,0

50,0

37,5

60,7

25,0

12,5

12,5

8,3

10,7

12,5

8,3

12,5

0,0

3,6

3,6

3,6

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

2004

4,2

2007

14,3

47 

Comparisons  between  2004  and  2007  should  be  regarded  with  caution  as  the  data  are  based  on 
expert group ratings and can therefore vary with the composition of these groups. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  situation  is  similar  for  the  most  relevant  vulnerable  groups,  such  as,  for 
example,  young  offenders,  the  homeless,  truants,  and  disadvantaged  or  minority 
young  people.  They  have  become  the  priority  target  for  intervention  in  an 
increasing  number  of  drug  policies  since  2004,  but  the  actual  level  of  intervention 
appears not have increased during this period (see Figure 2). 

There  is  no  information  available  on  the  overall  number  and  coverage  of  indicated 
prevention projects in recreational settings, as this indicator was found to be difficult to 
implement  in  practice  and  therefore  was  eliminated.  Information  is  available  about  the 
rated provision of intervention for party/festival goers and the policy importance given to 
work in recreational settings is reported to have increased. 

2.1.2.4.  Treatment and social rehabilitation (obj. 11, 12) 

treatment  for  opioid  dependence. 
All  EU  Member  States  provide  substitution 
Substitution treatment is typically provided at specialised outpatient treatment facilities, 
in shared-care arrangements with office-based general practitioners, and integrated with 
psychosocial care.  

More  than  half  a  million  opioid  users  receive  drug  substitution  treatment  in  the  EU 
countries, with the vast majority reported by the ‘old’ EU Member States. This represents 
more  than  one  third  of  the  total  estimated  number  of  problem  opiate  users  in  the  EU. 
Between  2005  and  2006,  the  number  of  clients  receiving  this  type  of  treatment  saw  an 
overall  increase  of  around  12%  (data  available  for  19  EU  Member  States)  with  the 
strongest  relative  growth  observed  in  some  of  the  ‘new’  Member  States.  Data  from  a 
number  of  individual  EU  countries  —  where  recent  estimates  of  the  prevalence  of 
problem  opiate  use  were  available  —  show  that  the  current  coverage  of  opioid 
substitution treatment varies significantly between countries, with rates ranging from 5% 
to more than 50% of opiate users. 

The  main  drug  used  in  opioid  maintenance  treatment  is  oral  methadone,  but 
buprenorphine  maintenance  treatment  (BMT)  is  steadily  increasing,  especially  among 
clients treated by office-based medical doctors. Compared to methadone, buprenorphine 
is associated with lower rates of mortality. Other substances, like heroin (diamorphine), 
slow-release  morphine  or  codeine,  are  also  used  in  substitution  treatment  in  some 
countries.  

Member  States  have  considerably  developed  their  legal  frameworks  regulating 
substitution  treatment  for  addiction.  National  laws  normally  designate  those  substances 
that  can  be  used,  the  admission  criteria  for  such  programmes,  and  who  is  permitted  to 
prescribe.  

All EU Member States also provide the option of drug-free treatment, and three reported 
in 2005 that the treatment of opioid dependence was predominantly based on drug-free 
approaches.  In  outpatient  care,  traditional  psychotherapeutic  treatment  and  ‘supportive’ 
methods are applied, but Member States differ according to the type or combination of 
methods used. In inpatient care, the 12-step Minnesota model is used in a few countries, 
while others use psychotherapeutic treatment and/or ‘supportive’ methods.  

Following the increase in cocaine use and associated problems in several Member States, 
specialised drug treatment facilities face the difficult task of adapting their services to the 
heterogeneous  cocaine  and  crack-using  populations.  However,  the  latest  available  data 
show  that,  with  the  exception  of  Spain,  Member  States  assessed  the  availability  and 
accessibility of cocaine-specific treatment programmes as low in 2006. However, the 

EN 

27 

   EN 

recent introduction of a cocaine-specific national action plan in Spain is likely to further 
increase the availability of cocaine treatment options in this country.  

A survey commissioned by the EMCDDA on cannabis treatment provision in a sample 
of drug treatment services in 19 Member States showed that half of the services surveyed 
did  not  have  programmes  dedicated  to  cannabis  problems.  This  finding  suggests  that 
numerous  cannabis  users  in  Europe  are  treated  within  the  same  settings  as  other 
drug users with more severe drug problems, which entails a number of difficulties for 
users  (e.g.  stigmatisation,  reluctance  to  seek  help),  but  also  for  staff  (e.g.  lack  of 
experience in adolescent drug and social behaviour). The survey also showed that most 
treatment services surveyed provided no more than 20 sessions for cannabis users. The 
main treatment methods were individual counselling and talk therapy/counselling about 
cannabis  and  about  conditions  of  life.  Longer  residential  care  for  cannabis  problems  is 
generally provided for respite purposes in connection with socio-behavioural problems. 

The  level  of  drug  treatment  provision  in  prison  remains  low,  compared  to  that  in 
the community, though the prevalence of drug use is high among prisoners. In recent 
years,  however,  interventions  targeting  drug-using  prisoners  have  expanded  in  the  EU. 
Compared to five years ago, more countries now report activities in the following areas: 
drug-related 
infectious  diseases  and 
vaccinations;  and  drug  dependence  treatment,  including  substitution  treatment  —  while 
the  provision  of  these  interventions  has  become  more  widespread  within  countries. 
Prison-based  substitution  treatment  is  now  officially  available  in  all  but  six  Member 
States, although with very different levels of availability. 

information  and  prevention;  screening  for 

In  2005,  22  of  the  24  reporting  Member  States  mentioned  that  social  rehabilitation 
programmes (including housing and/or education and/or employment and/or training) for 
problem  drug  users  were  available.  However,  none  of  them  rated  the  availability  of 
these  programmes  as  being  very  good  and  one  third  considered  the  general 
availability  of  such  social  reintegration  services  to  be  low.  The  political  attention 
devoted  to  and  investment  in  the  reintegration  sector  has  nevertheless  risen  in  some 
Member States, and quality standards for drug treatment often stipulate that social care 
and reintegration services should be made available to clients. 

While housing support is provided to drug treatment clients in many countries, shortages 
have also been documented, and four countries report that it is difficult for drug users to 
gain access to the general services for the homeless that are traditionally used by problem 
alcohol users. New measures that can help meet the accommodation needs of drug users 
are  being  undertaken  in  three  countries,  which  report  that  facilities  for  homeless  long-
term addicts are being centralised and specialised care homes are being opened for drug 
users with problem behaviour or co-morbidity. New approaches to helping clients to find 
and hold down employment are also reported to have had success, including: ‘mentoring 
schemes’ subsidised workplaces, and special coaching of employers and employees. 

Overall,  drug  treatment  in  the  EU  has  seen  a  steady  development  in  recent  years. 
However, in terms of accessibility, coverage and the dissemination of evidence and best-
practices  in  treatment,  gains  still  have  to  be  made.  In  2008,  the  Commission  has 
published a report on the quality of treatment services in Europe48.  

48

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_treament_fre

28 

   EN 

                                                 
 
2.1.2.5.  Harm reduction (obj. 14, 15, 16, 17) 
In  2007,  the  Commission  published  a  report49  on  the  implementation  of  the  Council 
Recommendation  of  18  June  2003  on  the  prevention  and  reduction  of  health  harm 
associated with drug dependence50. The study showed that the prevention and reduction 
of drug-related harm is a public health objective in all Member States.  

A  multi-component  response  to  the  prevention  of  infectious  diseases,  combining 
measures to reduce injecting-related harm and effective drug treatment, is common in the 
EU. The main interventions in this field are opioid substitution treatment and needle and 
syringe  exchange  programmes  (NSPs),  which  aim  to  prevent  overdose  deaths  and  the 
spread of infectious diseases. These measures are reported to be available in all countries 
and, while considerable differences exist in the range and levels of service provision, the 
general European trend is one of growth and consolidation in harm reduction measures. 
However,  some  countries  have  recently  reported  that  the  implementation  of  such 
measures has been delayed due to the lack of political support.  

The exchange or distribution of syringes is in general implemented in conjunction with 
information,  education  and  counselling  interventions  and  complemented  by  outreach 
health  education  and,  in  a  few  countries,  by  supervised  drug  consumption  facilities. 
Needle  and  syringe  programmes  are  often  delivered  by  specialist  low-threshold  drugs 
agencies  and  in  eight  countries  through  pharmacy-based  programmes  as  well,  which 
considerably increases the geographical availability of sterile injecting equipment. While 
low-threshold agencies with syringe exchange are continuously expanding in many of the 
countries  where  the  spread  of  problem  heroin  injecting  is  more  recent,  a  stagnation  or 
decrease  in  such  services  is  reported  by  other  countries  in  this  group,  partly  due  to  the 
lack of political support and funding. This raises the concern that decreases in syringe 
turnover  could  result  in  higher  levels  of  risk-taking  among  new,  younger 
generations of heroin injectors, who have not been reached by prevention messages. 
In some of the countries with older heroin epidemics and extensive treatment provision, 
however, a stabilisation and decrease in syringe demand has been noted in recent years.  

The  integration  of  services  and  facilities  that  aim  to  prevent  infectious  diseases  among 
drug  users  (VCT,  vaccination,  infectious  disease  treatment  services)  within  general 
health and social care is current practice in a number of countries, which increases their 
availability and facilitates and promotes drug users’ access to a more complete spectrum 
of care if needed.  

Due  to  the  high  proportion  of  injecting  drug  users  among  prison  inmates  and  the 
potential  for  rapid  spread  of  infections  among  prisoners,  prisons  are  important  settings 
for  interventions  targeting  infectious  disease  related  to  drug  use.  Spain  is,  however, 
currently  the  only  European  country  that  provides  a  wide  range  of  harm-reduction 
measures in prisons.  

p_en.pdfE.g. the Stability instrument has.not been assessed so far, in particular e consequences of 
the ces in EU and background information (SANCO/2006/C4/02) 
COM(2007) 199;  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0199en01.pdf. 
2003/488/EC. 

49 

50 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                 
As Chapter 4 shows, drug-related deaths (DRD), which soared over the 1980s and 1990s, 
showed a decreasing overall trend between 2000 and 2003. The positive trend over 2000-
2003  was  reversed  in  2004  and  2005,  with  increases  observed  again  in  the  majority  of 
countries  (15  out  of  24  with  information),  although  increases  remained  in  general 
moderate.  This  recent  trend  contrasts  with  the  wide  expansion  of  treatment  over  the 
1990s in  particular. The  reduction  of  drug-related deaths  is a goal of most  national 
drug  strategies,  but  few  countries  have  so  far  adopted  concrete  action  plans  or 
provide systematic guidance on measures to be taken.  

All Member States have stepped up their levels of treatment provision, and several have 
removed  access  barriers.  In  so  far  as  information  is  available,  there  are  still  strong 
variations in opioid substitution coverage (between 5% to 54% in 8 EU countries), and 
services are located mainly in metropolitan areas with a bigger than average number of 
users, while in rural areas treatment provision is limited. The past years have also seen 
increased  efforts  to  improve  treatment  standards  and  qualifications  among  providers, 
which  should  also  help  to  reduce  the  risk  of  DRD.  A  wider  choice  of  pharmaceutical 
options  is  available,  including  the  increased  use  of  opiate  substitution  drugs  such  as 
buprenorphine which may have a lower overdose potential if misused. 

Reasons for the recent stabilisation in DRD (see Chapter 4) are unclear but it could be 
influenced by a combination of factors, which may include an further increase in poly-
drug  use  (including  alcohol  and  cocaine)51  among  opiate  users,  increased  heroin 
availability (UNODC)52, aging of opiate users, or treatment possibly not reaching some 
of the more excluded groups of users. Another possibility, which will be analysed by the 
EMCDDA  in  the  near  future,  is  a  more  risky  lifestyle  amongst  a  new  generation  of 
intravenous drug users who are not reached by harm reduction measures and messages in 
the same way as older users. 

Despite  the  known  connection  between  release  from  prison  and  drug-induced 
deaths, few countries are systematically investing in educating prisoners on the risk 
of overdose on release from custody. The period after release from prison or treatment 
is  especially  critical,  and  research  shows  that  the  risk  of  drug-induced  death  is 
substantially higher for the first two to  four weeks. The  number of  people with past or 
current  drug  experience  passing  through  European  prisons  each  year  is  estimated  to  be 
607 000  (stock)  with  an  estimated  turnover  of  860 000  prisoners  —  among  them  many 
problem  drug  users.  Continuity  of  care  and  rehabilitation  of  drug  users  released  from 
prison require serious attention, as they are important in preventing drug-related deaths.  

2.1.3.  Drug supply reduction 

2.1.3.1.  Introduction 

Drugs  and  precursor  trafficking  routes  have  become  more  diversified,  and  criminal 
groups  are  becoming  increasingly  cooperative  with  the  formation  of  large  international 
coalitions, which are constantly searching for loopholes in the international drug control 
system.  In  order  to  tackle  international  organised  crime,  the  Member  States  have 
established Europol, Eurojust and the Police Chiefs Task Force (EPCTF), the European 

51 

52 

A field trial conducted by the EMCDDA in 2006 on substances involved in drug-related deaths 
observed  that  in  a  high  proportion  of  cases  several  substances  were  found  in  the  toxicological 
examinations. However, this is a cross-sectional study and trends cannot be assessed yet. 
The United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has issued a warning on this possible 
effect, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_2006_10_05.html. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP), Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) and regional initiatives 
such as the Maritime Analysis and Operational Centre on Narcotics (MAOC-N).  

To strengthen their law enforcement capacities, Member States are developing the model 
of  intelligence-led  law  enforcement,  which  aims  to  make  the  exchange  of  information 
more  efficient  and  effective  by  selecting  the  most  appropriate  targets  for  police 
investigation  based  on  the  assessment  of  their  roles,  their  impact  on  society  and  the 
environment  in  which  they  operate.  The  concept  also  permits  a  more  efficient  use  of 
human and financial resources. 

The  main  tool  for  implementing  the  concept  of  intelligence-led  law  enforcement  is  the 
European  Criminal  Intelligence  Model  (ECIM),  a  cyclical  process  that  starts  with  the 
Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), produced by Europol in close cooperation 
with  the  Member  States.  The  OCTA  is  designed  to  identify  current  and  future  trends, 
knowledge  gaps  and  intelligence  requirements  for  data  collection  programmes  in 
Member States and at European Union level. The aim is to develop intelligence products 
that  provide  the  basis  for  targeting  top  criminal  organisations  in  the  Member  States, 
where appropriate with the support of Europol and Eurojust and by making use, where 
feasible, of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs). 

This concept is supported at the highest level by the Police Chiefs Task Force through its 
COSPOL  Projects.53  The  objective  of  COSPOL  projects  is  to  facilitate  best  use  of 
information, to identify opportunities for operational projects and to solve constraints in 
day-to-day  cooperation,  by  making  use  of  existing  tools,  in  particular  Europol’s 
analytical capacities. There are COSPOL projects on cocaine, heroin and synthetic drugs.  

2.1.3.2.  Cooperation between Member States and at EU level (obj. 18, 19) 

Europol  runs  drug-related  projects,  implementing  joint  multidisciplinary  intelligence 
gathering  and  operational  initiatives.  It  provides  operational  and  strategic  reports  and 
expertise to Member States. In addition to the OCTA, situation reports and ad hoc reports 
on specific crime phenomena are provided to enhance the intelligence picture of Member 
States  and  support  their  investigations.  The  drug-related  projects  include  Project 
MUSTARD  (heroin  trafficking),  Project  COLA  (cocaine  trafficking)  and  Project 
SYNERGY  (production  and  trafficking  of  synthetic  drugs,  chemical  precursors  and 
production equipment).  

Joint  Investigation  Teams  (JIT)  and  Joint  Customs  Cooperation  (JCOs)  could  be 
used to a greater extent by the Member States in collaboration with Europol.  

At national level, Member States carry out various investigations and projects annually to 
stem the flow of drugs into the EU through its external borders, including land borders, 
sea  ports  and  airports.  These  projects  include  several  Joint  Customs  Cooperation 
activities.  

Regional  drug  enforcement  initiatives,  involving  several  Member  States,  focus  on 
intelligence sharing, and operational cooperation has evolved in the maritime sphere. In 
2007,  an  informal  working  group  working  in  close  cooperation  with  Europol  prepared 
the  ground  for  the  Maritime  Analysis  and  Operations  Centre  —  Narcotics  (MAOC-N), 
which focuses on cocaine trafficking by air and sea in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean region. 
In  2008,  the  ‘Centre  de  Coordination  et  de  Lutte  Antidrogue  pour  la  Mediterranée’ 

53 

Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
(CECLAD-M)  is  to  be  set  up  to  counter  drug  trafficking  in  the  Mediterranean.  The 
Bucharest-based  Southeast  European  Cooperation  Initiative  (SECI)  also  includes  a 
specialised  task  force  on  illegal  drugs  trafficking.  In  the  Baltic  region,  cooperation  is 
through the Baltic Sea Task Force.  

The  results  of  the  various  cross-border  operational  and  intelligence  law-enforcement 
projects  in  the  EU,  in  particular  the  success  of  MAOC-N  with  almost  27  tonnes  of 
cocaine seized in one year, show the importance of strengthening intelligence gathering 
and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence-led law enforcement by land, sea and air.  

Moreover,  to  effectively  address  the  threat  of  international  drug  trafficking,  EU-based 
counter-narcotics  efforts  must  be  accompanied  by  enhanced  inter-regional  drug 
enforcement  cooperation,  such  as  the  EU-LAC  intelligence  sharing  network.  In  this 
context,  the  setting  up  of  an  EU  model  platform  for  intelligence  sharing  and  capacity 
building  is  being  explored  by  some  Member  States  in  cooperation  with  (and 
complementing) Europol and the European Commission, together with increased use of 
EU  funding  instruments  such  as  the  Stability  Instrument  and  the  Fight  Against  and 
Prevention of Crime Programme54.  

An indicator identified in the Action Plan for the outcome of law enforcement activities 
comprises  the  number  and  quantities  of  drugs  seized.  The  data  available  for  the  period 
2004-2006  (see  Table  3)  show  that  the  number  of  cocaine  seizures  and  the  quantity  of 
cocaine seized are increasing.  

Table 3 — Estimated number of seizures and quantities seized in the EU 

Year 

Type of substance 
Cannabis resin  
Herbal cannabis  
Cocaine  
Heroin  
Amphetamines  
Ecstasy  (tablets  x 
millions) 

2004 
Seizures 
x1000 
270 
136 
55 
42 
36 
21 

Quantity 
x1000 kg 
1 080 
55 
72 
10 
7 
19 

2005 
Seizures 
x1000 
292 
159 
66 
48 
34 
20 

Quantity 
x 1000 kg 
890 
54 
106 
8 
7 
13 

2006 
Seizures 
x1000 
314 
167 
72 
46 
33 
19 

Quantity 
x1000 kg 
709 
64 
121 
9 
6 
12 

Source: EMCDDA 

It must be noted that the registration of drug seizures is not standardised and that there 
are  differences  in  calculation  and  registration  methods  between  Member  States. 
Furthermore,  seizure  statistics  are  not  always  easy  to  obtain  as  some  major 
destination  countries  accounting  for  large  proportion  of  total  EU  seizures  do  not 
report at all or report with a delay of over two years55.  
Figures 3 and 4 reflect longer-term trends in drug seizures over the period 2000–200656. 
As  Figure  3  shows,  the  number  of  seizures  grew  for  both  types  of  cannabis,  while  the 
quantities seized were stable overall (resin) or declined (herbal cannabis) over the same 
period. The most recent data, however, show a decrease in the quantities of resin seized 

54 

55 

56 

OJ L 58, 24.02.2007. 
E.g. Europol has not received seizure statistics from one specific Member State since 2003, while 
the EMCDDA receives seizure statistics from this country with a delay of two years or more. 
Note to Figures 3 and 4: The total amounts seized are based on data from all EMCDDA reporting 
countries (27 EU Member States). For countries included in the totals per year, missing data have 
been extrapolated from adjacent years. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  a  small  increase  in  quantities  of  herbal  cannabis  and  number  of  plants  seized, 
indicating  a  possible  increase  in  local  cannabis  production  (hydroponics)  and  shifts  in 
cannabis markets. 

Furthermore,  a  decline  in  ecstasy  seizures  was  seen.  For  amphetamines,  the  number  of 
seizures and quantities seized increased, but, in the last years of this period, these figures 
were stable or declining. 

Figure  3  —  Trends  in  quantities  of  seizures  (cannabis  resin,  cannabis  herbs,  amphetamines  and 
ecstasy) 

As Figure 4 shows, there was a considerable increase of over 350% in cocaine seizures 
over  the  period  2000–2006,  both  in  numbers  and  in  quantity.  Finally,  heroin  seizures 
were relatively stable during the same period, with a slightly declining trend. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 4 — Trend in quantities of seizures of cocaine and heroin 

As the price and purity data in chapter 4 shows, the increase in seizures of e.g. cannabis 
and cocaine has not resulted in higher prices or in major changes in the potency of these 
substances on the illicit market. In fact, prices have fallen sharply, especially for ecstasy. 

2.1.3.3.  Reducing the manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs (obj. 20) 

Europol’s Project SYNERGY — which gathers and exploits information, knowledge and 
experience in the area of synthetic drugs, related precursors and equipment — supported 
various  major  criminal  investigations  carried  out  by  law  enforcement  agencies  in  the 
Member States during the reporting period. The quality and quantity of the data supplied 
for the Analysis Work Files and the EILCS by several Member States remains high. This 
cooperation  is  an  indicator  of  satisfaction  among  operational  partners  regarding 
SYNERGY  and  its  added  value.  However,  not  all  crucial  Member  States  are  fully 
contributing. Table 4 presents an overview of dismantled illicit synthetic drug facilities 
in the years 2005-2007.  

Project  SYNERGY  supports,  and  is  supported  by,  the  activities  of  the  European  Joint 
Unit  on  Precursors  (EJUP)  and  the  European  Police  Chiefs  Task  Force’s  COSPOL 
initiative  on  synthetic  drugs.  During  the  reporting  period,  several  meetings  were 
organised by the European Commission to develop a long-term solution for the forensic 
profiling of synthetic drugs, involving representatives of forensic laboratories as well as 
law enforcement agencies, EUROPOL and the Commission. It has been agreed that any 
future European long-term solution should build on the experience of projects co-funded 
by  the  European  Commission  (mainly  SYNERGY  and  CHAIN).  A  European  structure 
available  to  all  Member  States,  with  the  potential  to  cover  all  drugs,  synthetic  or  non-
synthetic, and catering to national or regional needs, is to be set up. Decisions on a final 
structure are expected to be taken in the second half of 2008 or early 2009.  

The Council Decision on information exchange, risk assessment and control of new 
psychoactive  substances57  has  been  fully  implemented  in  the  reporting  period,  but 
might  require  amendment  to  improve  information  collection  and  to  align  the  Decision 
with existing EU legislation, e.g. with the EU pharmacovigilance system.  

57 

2005/387/JHA, 10.5.2005. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 4 — Overview of the number of dismantled illicit synthetic drug facilities58 
Member State59 

2006 

2007 

2005 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Spain 

United Kingdom 

Total 

2.1.3.4.   

- 

11 

n.a. 

6 

- 

3 

6 

2 

1 

1 

35 

23 

- 

n.a. 

1 

1 

90 

3 

4 

n.a. 

- 

1 

3 

7 

- 

- 

1 

47 

9 

- 

n.a. 

- 

- 

75 

- 

8 

1 

10 

- 

2 

10 

- 

1 

- 

41 

16 

2 

- 

- 

- 

91 

2.1.3.5.  Drug precursor legislation (obj. 22) 

In August 2005, new Community legislation on drug precursor control came into force. 
The main aim of this new legislation was to introduce specific import controls for drug 
precursors in order to address the heightened concern about synthetic drug manufacture 
in the European Union. The precursors required to produce such drugs are generally not 
available  in  the  EU  and  must  be  sourced  outside.  The  new  legislation  further 
strengthened  export  controls,  introduced  Community  rules  for  the  authorisation  of 
operators engaged in the trading of sensitive precursors, and strengthened common rules 
for  monitoring  the  intra-Community  trade  in  drug  precursors.  In  order  to  measure  the 
results  of  the  monitoring  activities  and  to  enable  competent  authorities  to  react  to 
changing patterns in the diversion and trafficking of drug precursors, Member States are 
further required to report seizures and stopped shipments on a quarterly basis  

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  Member  States’  competent  authorities  on 
drug precursors, the Commission issued the first annual report on drug precursor seizures 
in the EU for the year 200660. This stated that the seizures in 2006 for just two key 

58 

59 

60 

This overview includes major storage sites, synthesis production facilities and tableting units, but 
not  small-scale  or  kitchen-type  production  facilities.  Countries  that  reported  no  dismantled  sites 
have not been included. 
Note: data for Bulgaria and Romania in 2005 and 2006 are not available. 
2006 annual report on EU drug precursor seizure, 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/drugs_precursors/seizures/index_
en.htm. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
 
synthetic  drug  precursors  would  be  enough  to  produce  drugs  with  an  estimated 
street value of more than EUR 2.5 billion. 
Furthermore, an external consultancy61 report on customs controls of drug precursors in 
the EU, which was prepared at the request of the Commission, shows that Member State 
customs  administrations  still  have  important  steps  to  take  to  ensure  effective  customs 
control  of  drug  precursors.  The  report  concludes  that  in  almost  all  Member  States 
drug precursor control  lacks  priority for national Customs organisations  either at 
national,  regional  or  local  level  due  to  a  lack  of  legitimacy  and  support  from  the 
authorising  environment  at  Member  State  level.  Furthermore,  specific  problems  are 
mentioned,  including  a  lack  of  focus  and  expertise  at  operational  level,  as  well  as 
insufficient  resources  (equipment),  monitoring  and  operational  capacity.  Customs 
officials often also lack the knowledge and equipment to recognise and detect suspicious 
precursor consignments. Information from European level is not always considered to be 
specific enough, even though it should be noted that EU-level information depends to a 
great extent on the input provided by Member States. A Community- wide approach in 
addressing  these  challenges  is  recommended  in  order  to  reduce  the  capacity  to 
manufacture and supply synthetic drugs. 

Under  the  new  Community  drug  precursor  legislation,  new  ‘Guidelines  for  operators’ 
were  adopted  in  2006  with  the  aim  of  further  exploiting  the  potential  benefits  of 
cooperation with the private sector by structuring the procedures used for the notification 
of suspicious orders and transactions to the competent authorities. A specific list of non-
controlled substances is reviewed on a regular basis to allow the competent authorities to 
draw  industry’s  attention  to  the  risk  of  the  diversion  of  non-controlled  substances.  In 
2006,  more  than  30%  of  EU  precursor  seizures  were  thanks  to  cooperation  with  the 
private sector. Member States have subsequently adopted Memoranda of Understanding 
and  Codes  of  Conduct  in  conjunction  with  their  operators.  In  2007,  the  EU  tabled  a 
resolution  on  drug  precursor  control  to  the  United  Nations’  Commission  on  Narcotic 
Drugs, specifically to promote the principle of cooperation. 

2.1.3.6.  Money laundering and asset confiscation (obj. 23) 

The  European  Criminal  Assets  Bureau  (ECAB),  launched  by  Europol  under  its  Money 
Laundering  Action  Plan,  handles  the  work  carried  out  by  Europol  on  asset  recovery, 
including  operational  support  for  Member  States’  investigations  (including  drugs 
investigations)  to  trace  criminal  proceeds,  managing  the  Financial  Crime  Information 
Centre’s  website  and  acting  as  the  CARIN  permanent  secretariat.  ECAB  provides 
operational support to Member States in identifying criminal proceeds where the assets 
are  located  outside  their  jurisdictional  area  and  the  investigation  falls  within  Europol’s 
mandate. From 2005 to 2007, the ECAB supported a total of 244 investigations in the 
Member States concerned with asset tracing and identification62.  

The  Europol  Money  Laundering  Project,  SUSTRANS,  supports  Europol  projects, 
including drugs projects, in gathering and analysing financial data on criminal activities 
through which substantial illegal profits are generated. As part of SUSTRANS, a project 
on  the  intra-Community  cross-border  movement  of  cash  is  being  developed,  reflecting 
the fact that a cross-border reporting system is in place. It addresses the emerging trend 

61 

62 

Matrix  Knowledge  Group,  Fact  Finding  Study  on  Customs  Controls  of  Drugs  Precursors  in  the 
European Union, Final Report, December 2007. 
Investigations supported in 2005: 57, 2006: 53 and 2007: 134. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

                                                 
of  cash  being  moved  in  bulk  throughout  Europe  without  being  detected.  The  use  of 
money couriers is still a growing phenomenon in money laundering operations within the 
European  Union.  A  questionnaire  has  been  sent  to  Member  States  to  gain  a  better 
understanding of cash smuggling routes and features. 

The  Financial  Intelligence  Units  (FIUs)  of  18  Member  States  are  connected  to  the 
FIU.NET  system.  The  ultimate  objective  of  this  project  is  to  establish  a  secure  and 
complete computer network for the exchange of financial intelligence among the 27 EU 
FIUs in combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism.  

The Council Decision on cooperation between the asset recovery offices of the Member 
States63  was  adopted  on  6  December  2007.  It  aims  to  have  Member  States  set  up  or 
designate, by 18 December 2008, national asset recovery offices to act as national contact 
points  for  confiscation-related  activities.  In  particular,  they  will  promote,  through 
enhanced cooperation, speedy EU-wide tracing of assets derived from crime.  

2.1.3.7.  Drug-related crime (obj. 25) 

The  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  2005-2008  proposes  developing  an  EU-wide  definition  of 
drug-related crime, by analogy with the EU definition of organised crime. The evaluation 
has shown that only few Member States have definitions of drug-related crime at national 
level,  and  those  that  do  exist  differ  widely.  In  2007,  the  EMCDDA  presented  a 
publication  setting  out  a  broad  definition  of  the  term  ‘drug-related  crime’,  with  four 
crime categories: psychopharmacological crimes, economic-compulsive crimes, systemic 
crimes and drug law offences.  

As similar breakdown of the term had already been proposed in 2003, following which 
the  Council  asked  for  simplification.  The  Commission  is  preparing  a  paper  on  further 
steps regarding this definition and intends to link this exercise to a broader assessment of 
policy  needs  for  drug-related  crime  information  and  statistics  at  EU  level.  A  study  on 
drug-related crime statistics and law enforcement information has been launched and will 
be finalised in the first half of 2009. The outcomes of the study should form the basis of a 
broader  proposal  concerning  drug-related  crime  and  indicators  to  measure  it,  based  on 
policy needs at EU level. 

Drug-related arrests represent an important part of all police arrests in the EU. The data 
currently  available  on  drug-related  offences  at  EU  level  is  not  very  differentiated,  but 
does  show  certain  specific  trends.  Data  exists  on  drug-related  arrests,  collected  by 
EMCDDA and data on drug-trafficking, collected by Eurostat. 

Figure  5  shows  that  the  total  number  of  arrest-reports  for  drug  use/  possession  has 
increased with almost 75% in the period to over 600.000 in 2006, while the total number 
of  arrest-reports  for  supply-related  offences  has  marginally  increased  with  11%  in  the 
same period to a reported total of over 134.000 in 2006 and seems to be levelling off. As  

Figure  6  shows,  with  over  440.000  arrests,  cannabis  use/possession  accounts  for  over 
70% of the total number of arrests for drug use/ possession. The largest increase in arrest 
reports  in  recent  years  can  be  seen  for  the  use/  possession  of  cannabis  and  cocaine. 
Despite  a  trend  in  some  EU  Member  States  towards  decriminalisation  and/  or  the 
differentiation between drug (dependent) users and drug traffickers in terms of penalties, 
this does not seem to lead to fewer arrests.  

63 

2007/845/JHA, 6.12.2007. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure  5  —  Indexed  trends  in  reports  of  drug-related  offences  by  broad  type  of  offence  in  EU 
member states 2000-2006 64 

200

150

100

50

0

Use-related reports (613 130)

Supply-related reports (134 251)

175

111

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Figure  6  —  Indexed  trends  in  reports  of  offences  related  to  drug  use/possession  for  use  in  EU 
Member States 2000-200665 

64 

65 

Notes  to  Figure  6:  1.  The  trends  represent  the  available  information  on  the  national  number  of 
drug-related  offences  reported  by  all  law  enforcement  agencies  in  the  EU  Member  States;  all 
series are indexed to a base of 100 in 2000 and weighted by country population sizes to form an 
overall  EU  trend;  the  figures  between brackets  refer  to  the  total  number  of  offences  reported  in 
2006  (before  weighting).  2.  The  general  term  ‘reports  of  drug-law  offences’  is  used  since 
definitions  and  study  units  differ  widely  between  countries.  3.  Both  trends  are  based  on  17 
countries. 4. Additionally, where 2000 data are missing (3 cases for both use-related and supply-
related reports) 2001 data are used. Sources: Reitox national focal points and, for population data, 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. 
Notes  to  Figure  7:  1.  The  trends  represent  the  available  information  on  the  national  number  of 
drug-law offences (criminal and non-criminal) reported by all law enforcement agencies in the EU 
Member  States;  all  series  are  indexed  to  a  base  of  100  in  2000  and  weighted  by  country 
population  sizes  to  form  an  overall  EU  trend;  the  figures  between  brackets  refer  to  the  total 
number of offences related to drug use/possession as reported in 2006 in countries included in the 
trends  (before  weighting).  2.  The  general  term  ‘reports  of  drug-law  offences’  is  used  since 
definitions  and  study  units  differ  widely  between  countries.  3.  The  overall  trend  is  based  on  13 
countries, the trend for heroin, cocaine and cannabis on 11. 4. Additionally, where 2000 data are 
missing  (3  cases  for  all  use  reports,  cannabis,  heroin  and  cocaine)  2001  data  are  used,  and  for 
missing  2002  data  (1  case  for  cannabis,  heroin  and  cocaine)  data  have  been  interpolated  from 
adjacent years. 5. The Czech Republic was not included in the trend calculation for cocaine due to 
the small number of cases reported. Sources: Reitox national focal points and, for population data, 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
200

150

100

50

0

Use-reports (613 130)

Cannabis use (440 338)

Heroin use (42 222)

Cocaine use (66 036)

184
175

141

86

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
2.1.4.  Cross cutting theme: International cooperation 

2.1.4.1.  Promoting the EU approach to drugs (obj. 29) 

The  EU  is  a  key  actor  in  the  field  of  international  cooperation  on  illicit  drugs.  It  is 
engaged in active dialogue with the key production and trafficking countries affected by 
the drug problem and plays a major role in supporting them with financial and technical 
assistance.  The  EU’s  commitment  to  promoting  the  balanced  approach,  whereby  drug 
demand and supply reduction need to be addressed in tandem, reflects the fundamental 
values and principles of the Union and is seen as an example of good practice for other 
countries in the world. The action taken by the EU Presidencies and the Commission to 
promote the EU approach is reflected in statements in international fora such as the UN 
Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  (CND),  and  in  cooperation  agreements  with  third 
countries, which generally include provisions on illegal drugs. Increasing attention, albeit 
starting from a very low level, is being devoted to funding projects in the field of demand 
reduction  in  third  countries  to  address  drug  use  as  well  as  drug  trafficking  and  drug 
production.  The  results  of  such  activities  are  mainly  quantitative.  However,  a  detailed 
assessment of the policy outcomes of these activities is lacking.  

2.1.4.2.  EU drug policy at international and UN level (obj. 28, 30, 31) 

The EU is increasingly speaking with one voice in international fora, notably in the UN 
Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs.  During  the  period  under  review,  the  EU  maintained  a 
unified position in the UNGASS review process. During the CND Working Sessions in 
2006-2008, the successive EU Presidencies (AT, DE, SI) delivered joint EU statements 
on the follow-up to UNGASS, drug demand reduction, illicit drug trafficking and supply, 
the INCB and policy directives to strengthen the UNODC Drug Programme and the role 
of  the  CND  as  its  governing  body.  The  Commission,  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Community,  delivered  its  traditional  statement  on  precursors  at  each  CND  session. 
However,  a  harmonised  approach  among  EU  actors  during  the  plenary  meetings 
should be agreed to ensure the EU speaks with one voice.  

With regard to its collaboration with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), 
the  Community  is  active  in  the  international  initiatives  ‘Project  Prism’  (addressing  the 
diversion and trafficking of synthetic drug precursors) and ‘Project Cohesion’ (diversion 
and  trafficking  of  heroin  and  cocaine  chemicals).  Successful  operations  have  been 
launched,  which  have  yielded  tangible  results.  Especially  under  Project  Prism,  large 
amounts of synthetic drug precursors have been stopped or seized, thereby preventing the 
illicit production of more than 50 tonnes of amphetamines. Most EU Member States have 
actively participated in these operations. The role of the INCB as the global focal point 
for the exchange of information has been vital in achieving this success.  

2.1.4.3.  Support  for  candidate,  stabilisation  and  association  process  countries  (obj.  32, 

33) 

Action to tackle drugs is regularly discussed in the meetings with candidate and potential 
candidate  countries  and  with  the  European  Neighbourhood  partners.  The  candidate 
countries  are  increasingly  participating  in  the  work  of  the  EMCDDA,  Europol  and 
Eurojust and the EU provides support to these countries to develop their capacity to 
implement  the  acquis  and  related  action,  e.g.  developing  national  drug  action  plans 
and strategies. 

Negotiations are still under way between the Commission and Croatia on its participation 
in the EMCDDA, and  ratification  of the agreement with Turkey is expected shortly. In 

EN 

40 

   EN 

2007,  Romania  and  Bulgaria  became  full  members  of  the  EMCDDA  with  their 
accession to the EU. Operational agreements were signed between Europol and Croatia 
in  2006.  A  strategic  agreement  between  Europol  and  Turkey  was  signed  in  2004  and 
strategic  agreements  between  Europol  and  Albania  and  between  Europol  and  Bosnia-
Herzegovina  entered  into  force  in  2007.  This  was  followed  by  a  strategic  agreement 
between Europol and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2008. Agreements 
on  strategic  cooperation  between  Europol  and  Montenegro  and  between  Europol  and 
Serbia are currently being negotiated.  

Eurojust has concluded a formal third country agreement with Romania, while Turkey 
and Croatia have appointed contact points for cooperation with Eurojust. Furthermore, 
Eurojust  signed  a  cooperation  agreement  with  Croatia  in  2007  and  concluded  a  draft 
cooperation agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 2008.  

2.1.4.4.  Assistance to European neighbours and cooperation with Russia (obj. 34) 

The European Neighbourhood Policy has paved the way towards closer cooperation on 
drugs with the ENP partners, based on regular dialogue coupled with dedicated financial 
instruments. A drugs ‘Troika’ with Ukraine took place in 2007 and 2008, while the first 
EU-Morocco ‘Troika’ was held in 2008. Enhanced dialogue with Morocco is envisaged 
as  part  of  this  country’s  ‘Statut  Avancé’.  More  impetus  is  needed  to  cooperate  with 
those  ENP  countries  which  are  major  drug  producers  and/or  affected  by  drug 
trafficking  to  and  from  Europe.  Developing  regional  approaches  between  ENP 
countries  (East  European  ENP  countries  such  as  Ukraine  and  Russia  and  those  of  the 
Mediterranean) could be considered in future.  

Since  the  Warsaw  Conference  of  EU/Russian  drugs  experts  in  November  2006,  EU-
Russia cooperation in the field of drugs has made some progress at operational level with 
the creation of an EU-Russia liaison officers’ network, an expert meeting on precursors, 
and  progress  on  the  operational  agreement  between  the  Federal  Russian  Drugs  Control 
Service  (FDCS)  and  Europol.  A  Memorandum  of  Understanding  has  been  signed  with 
the  FDCS  and  the  EMCDDA.  There  is  considerable  interest  in  a  strategic  partnership 
involving countries on the trafficking routes and a possible dialogue on drug enforcement 
cooperation  in  the  Black  Sea  region.  The  negotiation  mandate  for  a  new  cooperation 
agreement  between  the  EU  and  Russia  could  also  provide  a  political  framework  to 
reinforce cooperation in the drugs field.  

2.1.4.5.  Cooperation with third countries 

At  the  end  of  2007,  the  Commission  published  an  update  of  EU  assistance  to  third 
countries. As Table 5 shows, EU international cooperation projects in the area of drugs 
accounted for over EUR 760 million in 2005, making the EU one of the strongest players 
in the global effort against drugs. Most funding was provided for alternative development 
(66%),  institution  building  (17%,  mostly  law  enforcement),  supply  reduction  and  law 
enforcement  cooperation  (11.4%),  and  demand  reduction,  including  harm  reduction 
(5%). Of the total spending, two thirds was allocated to activities in Afghanistan (EUR 
452 million) and almost one third to the three main coca growing countries, Colombia, 
Bolivia and Peru (EUR 220 million).  

EN 

41 

   EN 

Table 5 – Projects funded by the European Union as of December 2005 

Themes 

Institution  
Building 

Alternative  
Development 

Anti Precursor  
Diversion 

Anti Money  
Laundering 

Other Supply  
Reduction 

Summary — Thematic Distribution of Funds 

No of 
Projects 

Amount 
in Euros 

Beneficiary  
countries & regions 

42 

70 

6 

17 

58 

131 023 909 
(17.3%) 

Afghanistan  (16),  Central  Asia  (1),  Southern  Caucasus  (1), 
Eastern  Europe  (1),  SADC  (1),  Mediterranean  region  (1), 
former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  (1),  Bulgaria  & 
Romania  (1),  Turkey  (1),  Global  (8),  West  Africa  (1),  Middle 
East (1), Laos (4), Peru (1), Myanmar (1), Belarus (1), Burma 
(1), Peru & Bolivia (1), Trinidad & Tobago (1) 

503 109 797 
(66.4%) 

Bolivia  (12),  Colombia  (14),  Peru  (10),  Afghanistan  (23), 
Global  (3),  Morocco  (1),  Laos  (3),  Vietnam  (1),  Thailand  & 
Burma (1), South-East Asia (1), Paraguay (1) 

3 203 024 
(0.4%) 

7 303 499 
(1%) 

76 339 605 
(10%) 

Afghanistan  (1),  Andean  Region  (1),  Central  Asia  (2),  Latin 
America (2) 

CARDS (1), ASEM Region (2), Global (2), Zambia (1), AML 
(1),  Iran  (1),  Latin  America  (1),  China  (1),  Nigeria  (4),  UAE 
(1), East/Southern Africa (1), COT/other Caribbean States (1) 

Afghanistan (13), Southern Caucasus (1), Western Balkans and 
Mediterranean  Region  (1),  LAC  (2),  BIH  (1),  Global  (1), 
Central  Asia  (2),  Venezuela  (1),  AMLAT  (1),  Iran  (2),  China 
(1),  Eastern  Europe  (1),  Russia  (2),  Tajikistan  (3),  Africa  (1), 
Eastern & South Eastern Africa (1), Palestinian Territories (1), 
West and Central Asia (1), Cape Verde (4), Colombia (3), Latin 
America  (1),  Barbados  (1),  Brazil  (2),  Iraq  (1),  Jamaica  (3), 
Pakistan (2), Turkey (3), UAE (1), Ukraine/Poland (1) 

Harm Reduction 

11 

4 876 054 
(0.6%) 

Global  (1),  Eastern  Europe  (1),  South-Eastern  Europe  (1), 
South  East  Asia  (1),  Global  (3),  Ukraine  (1),  Belarus  (1), 
Europe / Central Asia (1), Eastern Europe (1) 

Demand Reduction 

59 

32 343 660 
(4.3%) 

Latin America — Caribbean (1), Asia-Caribbean (2), Caribbean 
(1),  Dominican  Republic  (1),  Surinam  (1),  Afghanistan  (4), 
Russia  (12),  Myanmar  (1),  Pakistan  (1),  Iran  (40),  Venezuela 
(1), Montenegro (1), Serbia (2), KOS (1), Global (6), Peru (3), 
Central  Asia  (2),  South  Africa  (1),  Lebanon  (1),  Cape  Verde 
(1),  Laos  (2),  Central  America  (1),  Chile  (1),  Zambia  (1), 
Bolivia (1), LAC (1), Andean Countries (1), South America (1), 
Honduras (1), Thailand & Burma (2) 

Total  

263 

758 199 548 

Source: Progress Review 2007 

The  remainder  was  spread  throughout  the  rest  of  the  world,  particularly  in  the 
Mediterranean/Balkan region, South-East Asia, South Caucasus and Central Asia. More 
than  half  of  the  EU  Member  States  plus  the  European  Commission  had  international 
cooperation projects in the area of drugs.  

Despite the considerable amount of funding provided by the Commission to drug-related 
assistance  projects  in  third  countries  until  end  2006,  the  consequences  of  the  lack  of  a 
thematic budget line for drugs under the new EC external funding instruments for project 
funding in 2007 and 2008 has not been assessed so far . 

In the drug precursor area, the Community has concluded several bilateral drug precursor 
cooperation agreements with major players (Andean Countries, USA, Mexico, Chile, and 
Turkey) and has embarked on negotiating a bilateral precursor agreement with China in 
order  to  strengthen  controls  over  synthetic  drug  precursors.  During  the  period  under 
review, key milestones included the first meeting of experts in the field of both demand 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
reduction and supply reduction as part of the ‘Paris Pact’ process on heroin trafficking, 
and  an  agreement  on  the  review  of  the  1999  Panama  Action  Plan  between  the  EU  and 
Latin America and the Caribbean, which identified new priorities for cooperation. 

Looking  to  the  future,  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  should  work  towards 
improving the link between political priorities in the drugs field and the funding available 
to  support  the  implementation  of  the  political  objectives  in  order  to  secure  funding  to 
address, for example, the growing problem of illicit drug trafficking in West Africa and 
other  new  emerging  routes,  but  also  to  actively  support  third  countries  in  tackling  the 
adverse consequences of drugs in their society through demand reduction activities.  

2.1.4.6.  Member State donations to international organisations (obj. 37) 

The  Member  States  were  asked  to  report  on  their  donations  and  contributions  to 
international organisations for drug-related activities in the years 2005 to 2007. Of the 24 
Member  States  that  participated  in  the  survey,  19  reported  donations  to  UNODC,  the 
WHO, UNAIDS, the Pompidou Group (Council of Europe) and other organisations.  

Table 6 — Donations to international organisations for drug-related activities per MS 2005-2007 

UK67 
FI68 
SE 
FR 
BE 
DE 
EL 
NL 
IE 
DK 
ES 
LU 
AT 
CZ 
PL 
LT 
PT 
HU 
SI 
CY 

WHO 
(EUR) 

5 400 000 

100 000 

UNAIDS 
(EUR) 
65 440 000 
21 520 000 

6 325 080 

6 341 30069 

650 000 

PG 
(EUR) 

725 716 

Other66 
(EUR) 
13 452 200 

113 575 
60 000 
116 940 

71 000 
135 000 
55 356 
79 517 

262 000 

5 000 000 

600 000 

223 128 

15 000 

76 600 

50 000 

UNODC 
(EUR) 
5 810 000 
2 400 000 
24 770 000 
8 300 000 
1 157 457 
2 110 000 
566 350 
6 355 356 
3 540 000 
2 680 964 
1 720 000 
1 989 900 
1 372 095 
329 326 
177 500 

48 231 
50 000 
13 000 

63 390 179 

12 064 428 

93 935 080 

1 422 104 

6 322 
19 397 122 

Total 
(EUR) 
85 427 916 
29 320 000 
24 883 575 
8 722 000 
7 599 477 
7 462 000 
6 143 650 
6 490 356 
3 595 356 
2 760 481 
2 320 000 
1 989 900 
1 372 095 
329 326 
269 100 
223 128 
98 231 
50 000 
13 000 
6 322 
188 723 913 

66 

67 

68 

69 

Contributions were made to UNDP, OAS/CICAD, UNICEF, ARTF and CNTF. 
The  UK  contributions  for  2005  are  not  available  except  for  the  contribution  to  the  Pompidou 
Group.  The  UK  contribution  to  UNAIDS  for  2006  and  2007  is  generic  and  not  specifically  for 
drug-related activities. The amount reported is the overall contribution of the UK to UNAIDS. 
The  Finnish  contributions  to  UNODC,  UNAIDS  and  WHO  are  generic  and  therefore  not 
specifically for drug-related activities. The amounts reported comprise the overall contributions of 
Finland to these organisations. 
The  Greek  contribution  to  WHO  is  generic  and  therefore  not  specifically  for  drug-related 
activities. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 6 provides an overview of the information provided by the Member States for the 
period  2005-2007.  The  overall  amount  of  funds  donated  in  these  years  adds  up  to 
approximately EUR 182.5 million, or EUR 61 million on average per year.  

The  largest  donors  are  the  UK  and  Finland,  although  it  must  be  noted  that  the 
contributions  of  these  countries  to  UNODC,  WHO  and  UNAIDS  are  not  specified  and 
comprise the overall amounts given to these organisations.  

Between 2004 and 2008 the European Commission has made financial pledges towards 
UNODC's  Drugs  Programme  with  an  estimated  total  of  EUR  13.5  million.  Financial 
support  to  several  other  projects  is  expected  to  be  approved  in  2008,  with  a  potential 
value of over EUR 2 million. The table shows furthermore that, between 2005 and 2007, 
UNODC received EUR 62.8 million from 17 Member States for activities in the field of 
drug-supply  reduction,  but  also  for  specific  activities  in  the  field  of  demand  reduction, 
including the prevention of HIV infections among injecting drug users. Of the reporting 
Member  States,  Sweden  is  the  largest  donor  to  UNODC,  followed  by  France  and  the 
Netherlands. The UK and Germany donated over EUR 18 million to the United Nations 
Development  Programme  (UNDP)  for  institution  building  and  alternative  development 
activities.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

2.1.5.  Cross-cutting theme: Information, research and evaluation 

2.1.5.1.  Introduction 

The cross-cutting theme ‘information, research and evaluation’ is a fundamental part of 
the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008. The activities covered under this heading provide 
information on the implementation of other objectives and actions in the Action Plan or 
are instrumental for the development of indicators to measure the Action Plan’s impact. 

2.1.5.2.  Providing reliable information on the drug situation (obj. 40) 

In  the  period  covered  by  the  Action  Plan,  both  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol  have 
published  information  on  the  drug  situation.  The  EMCDDA  has  been  publishing  an 
increasing number of reports and publications covering a wide variety of issues relating 
to  the  drug  phenomenon.  Europol  contributes  specific  analysis  reports  on  drug-related 
organised crime and the Organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA). 

The  EMCDDA  plays  a  central  role  in  the  collection  and  interpretation  of  drug-related 
data and information at EU level. This role is recognised by the European Commission 
and the Member States. Between 2005 and 2008, the EMCDDA received over EUR 50.5 
million  in  Commission  funding70  for  the  collection  and  analysis  of  (national)  data  and 
information.  As  the  EMCDDA  relies  heavily  on  the  information  collected  through  its 
Reitox  network  of  National  Focal  Points  (NFP),  approximately  20%  of  the  EMCDDA 
budget is allocated to these 27 National Focal Points. Each National Focal Point receives 
a  maximum  grant  from  the  EMCDDA  every  year71. National governments co-fund this 
grant,  in  most  cases  on  a  50-50  basis.  Due  to  the  enlargement  of  the  EU,  the  total 
available budget for the National Focal Points has remained relatively stable compared to 
the situation before 2004, while the number of countries receiving funding has increased.  

In recent years, some Member States have reduced their national funding for the National 
Focal  Points.  The  EMCDDA  grant  provides  a  maximum  of  50%  to  match  the  grant 
provided  by  the  national  government.  However,  not  every  NFP  can  apply  for  the 
maximum  grant,  as  the  national  funding  is  less.  In  some  Member  States,  the  national 
funding  for  the  NFP  has  faced  serious  difficulties  in  recent  times.  Member  States 
should realise that a coherent and overall picture of the EU drugs situation cannot 
be  maintained  without  making  available  adequate  resources  to  the  National  Focal 
Points.  If  this  tendency  to  reduce  funding  persists,  the  EMCDDA  will  not  be  able  to 
continue its EU-wide data collection and analysis of the drug problem.  

2.1.5.3.  Monitoring of drug trends and markets (obj. 39, 41, 42) 

Information  on  the  drug  situation  is  mainly  available  through  the  EMCDDA  key 
epidemiological indicators72 and data collections on drug production73, retail prices, and 
potency  of  drugs  and  composition  of  tablets74.  Europol  draws  its  data  from  the  three 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

2005: EUR 12.0 million; 2006: EUR 12.1 million; 2007: 13.0 million and 2008: 13.4 million. 
In 2004 the ceiling for the EMCDDA contribution was approx. EUR 115 000 per year; following 
EU enlargement, this ceiling was reduced to approx. EUR 97 000 per year in 2007. 
The  five  EMCDDA  key  epidemiological  indicators  are:  drug  use  in  the  general  population, 
problem drug use, drug-related infectious diseases, drug-related deaths & mortality, and demand 
for treatment. 
This primarily concerns production estimates by UNODC. 
Information  on  price  and  purity  is  collected  by  the  EMCDDA,  but  from  a  limited  number  of 
Member States and using non-standardised collection methods. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

                                                 
drug-related projects, incorporating Analysis Work Files and related expert systems, for 
which data are provided by the Member States and third parties.  

In the field of drug demand reduction, information is also available from the EMCDDA 
(prevention, treatment, drug-related harm, social reintegration, new and emerging trends, 
etc.)  in  the  form  of  a  variety  of  standard  tables  and  structured  questionnaires  put  to 
Member  States  to  obtain  information  on  e.g.  the  availability  of  demand  reduction 
interventions  in  Member  States,  the  demand  for  drug  treatment,  types  of  treatment 
interventions,  harm  reduction  interventions,  etc.  In  recent  years,  major  investments 
have  been  made  to  increase  the  reliability,  comparability  and  availability  of  these 
data. 

In the past 3 years, a steady improvement can be observed in the implementation of the 
key  indicators  (KIs)  by  Member  States.  Moreover,  these  indicators  are  increasingly 
viewed as global standards for information collection in these areas. Nearly all Member 
States  now  collect  some  information  in  each  indicator  area,  although  the  quality  of 
information varies. For assessing implementation levels, three key dimensions have now 
been  formalised:  a) 
to  which  national  approaches  meet  accepted 
methodological  standards;  b)  the  extent  to  which  reporting  can  be  carried  out  using 
agreed  common  categories;  c)  the  availability  of  contemporary  information  (timeliness 
— i.e. availability of recent data within a reasonable time limit). As of 2009, minimum 
implementation  targets  will  be  available  to  facilitate  future  dialogue  on  the  progress 
made by Member States in each information domain and to provide policy-makers with a 
clearer understanding of the resource implications of KI implementation.  

the  extent 

Nevertheless, a clear problem area is that many countries have not invested in recent 
estimates of problem drug use (PDU indicator).  

In the field of drug supply reduction, the situation is more problematic as data are often 
not  available,  not  consistent  and/or  not  comparable.  Both  Europol  and  the  EMCDDA 
collect data on drug seizures in the Member States. However, discrepancies between the 
two  data  collections  can  be  substantial,  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  Europol  does  not 
receive  information  from  one  or  more  key  destination  countries.  Data  on  drug-related 
arrest  reports  are  collected  by  the  EMCDDA,  while  EUROSTAT  collects  statistics  on 
reported drug trafficking crimes, which include a broad range of offences. Information on 
the outcome of arrests (e.g. sentences) is not available on a structural basis.  

Data  on  drug  precursor  seizures  and  stopped  shipments  have  been  collected  by  the 
Commission since 2005. Member States are legally bound to provide the necessary data 
in  a  standardised  format75.  However,  the  collection  of  much  of  the  other  data 
available in the field of supply reduction is not standardised, not always reliable and 
often  difficult  to  compare.  Furthermore,  not  every  EU  Member  State  collects  the 
necessary information. 

It is very important to have the collection, processing and analysis of data in the field of 
drug  supply  (the  market)  and  supply  reduction  (incl.  law  enforcement)  standardised  in 
the  next  few  years.  The  available  information  does  not  offer  enough  evidence  to 
monitor  trends,  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  law  enforcement  interventions  or  to 
analyse  the  impact  of  this  part  of  drug  policy  on  the  EU  drug  situation.  The 

75 

Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005 (OJ L 202, 3.8.2005, p. 7). 

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
development  of  a  number  of  key  indicators  in  this  field  should  therefore  be 
considered. 

In  2007,  the  Commission  called  for  a  major  study  on  the  characteristics  and  operating 
mechanisms  of  the  global  illicit  drug  market.  This  study  is  expected  to  provide  more 
reliable data on the size of the market, main trafficking routes, the characteristics of drug 
policies in different parts of the world, and estimations of the costs to society.  

As indicated in 2.1.3, the Commission has also called for a study on existing drug market 
and  law  enforcement  data  in  the  EU,  which  —  when  linked  to  the  need  to  formulate  a 
operational and measurable definition of drug-related crime — will hopefully provide the 
basis for developing a limited set of key indicators over the next few years. Europol and 
the EMCDDA will be closely involved in this process.  

As  regards  the  estimation  of  public  expenditure  by  Member  States  on  drug  issues, 
progress has been made using estimation techniques developed by the EMCDDA. In its 
most recent work, the EMCDDA estimates that Member State spending on drug-related 
issues represents on average 0.15% of GDP76, which — when extrapolated to the EU-27 
countries — would represent a total sum of EUR 13 to 36 billion annually. However, in 
this area too, there are major difficulties in identifying and making available reliable and 
standardised information on direct and indirect public expenditure in the field of drugs. 
In addition to the efforts by the EMCDDA, the Commission is funding a project under 
the  Sixth  RTD  Framework  Programme  which  focuses  on  the  development  of  a 
methodology  for  the  estimation  of  the  costs  of  crimes,  including  certain  elements  of 
drug-related  crimes.  Finally,  in  the  area  of  freedom,  justice  and  home  affairs,  the 
Commission  is  also  working  on  improving  the  measurability  of  crime  and  law 
enforcement. One activity in this field is the development of methods to estimate the cost 
of law enforcement.  

These activities will yield results during the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 
2009-2012.  

In May 2008, a new Flash Eurobarometer on ‘Young People and Drugs’ was conducted 
at  the  request  of  the  European  Commission.  Over  12 500  randomly  selected  young 
people  (15-24  years  of  age)  were  interviewed  across  the  27  EU  Member  States.  The 
objective  was  to  examine  the  attitudes  and  perceptions  of  young  EU  citizens  regarding 
drug-related issues and policies.  

Young people seem to support the EU’s balanced approach to drug policy by advocating 
‘tough’  measures  against  drug  dealers  and  traffickers  (63%)  but  ‘soft’  measures  to  be 
used  against  drug  users,  e.g.  information  and  prevention  campaigns  (47%)  and  the 
treatment and rehabilitation of offenders (33%).  

Young  people  increasingly  seem  to  make  a  distinction  between  substances  in  their 
perception  of  risks,  since  81%  and  96%  of  respondents  thought  heroin,  cocaine  and 
ecstasy pose a high risk to users, while only 41% thought that of cannabis. As regards the 
risks  of  licit  substances,  70%  of  respondents  thought  that  tobacco  smoking  posed  a 
medium to low health risk, while 75% thought alcohol posed a medium to low risk. 

When asked about possible options for government control of licit and illicit substances, 
almost  all  respondents  thought  heroin  (97%),  cocaine  (95%)  and  ecstasy  (94%)  should 

76 

Data from six Member States only; variation from 0.05% to 0.46%. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

                                                 
remain under strict control. Regarding cannabis, one third (31%) of respondents thought 
a  regulation  model  similar  to  that  for  alcohol  and  tobacco  could  be  introduced,  while 
67% thought that controls should remain unchanged.  

Among  all  respondents,  heroin  was  seen  to  be  the  most  difficult  illicit  drug  to  obtain, 
followed by cocaine, ecstasy and cannabis. Cocaine was considered to be easily or very 
easily available by 35% of respondents aged 15-24. Cannabis was considered fairly easy 
or very easy to obtain by almost 63% of respondents aged 15-24. Where licit substances 
are concerned, 72% of 15-18 year-olds thought it would be easy or very easy for them to 
get hold of tobacco as against 87% of those aged 22-24. Over 90% of respondents in all 
Member  States  but  one  indicated  that  it  would  be  fairly  easy  or  very  easy  for  them  to 
obtain alcohol.  

2.1.5.4.  Promoting drug-related research (obj. 43, 44) 

One of the cornerstones of EU drugs policy is development of the knowledge base on the 
drug phenomenon, as a crucial element to support drug policy.  

During the meeting of the National Drug Coordinators in Berlin in March 2007, the issue 
of drug-related research within the EU and compared to other regions in the world was 
discussed,  highlighting  the  importance  for  the  EU  to  make  the  best  use  of  available 
research  capacity  and  knowledge  in  the  field  of  drugs.  The  Commission  presented  a 
‘non-paper’ on this issue for the HDG at the end of 2007, when it also launched a study 
entitled  ‘A  comparative  analysis  of  research  into  illicit  drugs  in  the  European  Union,’ 
which will provide an overview of the research areas, trends and infrastructures in the EU 
and  make  recommendations  on  how  to  encourage  the  development  of  networks  of 
excellence  in  the  field  of  drug-related  research,  with  a  possible  emphasis  on  increased 
coordination and prioritisation at EU level. The final report will be available in 2009. 
The  EU  Research  Programmes77  increasingly  provide  opportunities  for  EU  research 
organisations  and  networks  in  the  field  of  drugs  to  collaborate  at  European  level.  The 
Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) provides researchers and their networks in 
the EU with opportunities to submit proposals on a variety of research topics under the 
programmes on health, socio-economic sciences and humanities, and security research.  

However, the first results of the Seventh RTD Framework Programme reveal a very 
limited  number  of  projects  of  only  indirect  interest  to  the  drug-related  research 
field.  

The  Commission  also  launches  several  calls  for  tender  every  year  with  the  aim  of 
obtaining  an  overview  and/or  exploring  further  specific  elements  of  the  drug  problem. 
Table  7  presents  an  overview  of  Commission  drug-related  studies  that  have  been 
conducted in recent years or are still ongoing.  

77 

Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes, run by the European Commission. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 7 — European Commission Calls for Tender for specific studies and reports 

Study or evaluation 
title / contents 

Relevance 
objective/ 
action 

Date 
issued 

Date 
(to be) 
published 

European 
Commission 
DG 

Commission  study  on  the  influence  of  alcohol,  drugs  and 
medicines on driving, by 2008 

Commission  work  on  drugs  policy  and  harm  reduction, 
including a report on drug treatment and good practices in 
EU and background information on health issues related to 
drug use in prison 

Background  document  on  prevention  and  reduction  of 
health-related  harm  associated  with  drug-dependence  in 
the  EU 
the 
implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  of  18 
June 2003 (2003/488/EC) 

in  view  of  a  Commission  report  on 

Commission  report  on  the  creation  of  national  multi-
disciplinary  units  for  the  detection  and  investigation  of 
criminals’ finances and assets  

Commission  study  on  best  practices  in  Member  States 
which have established and implemented a national fund to 
provide funding for projects in the drug field and financed 
from  the  confiscation  of  assets  earned  through  drug 
production and trafficking 

Commission  study  on  drug-related  crime  prevention 
practices in third countries  

9 

2006 

2010 

12/13 

2006 

2008  

14 & 15 

2004 

2007 

23.3 

2007 

2008 

23.5 

2007 

2008 

25.3 

2008 

2009 

Commission  report  on  the  level  of  networking  and 
acquired funding in research  

44 

2007 

2008 

Review  of  the  Panama  Action  Plan  and  Harm  Reduction 
(cost efficiency of harm reduction on third countries) 

29/34/35/37  2006 

2008 

Assessment  of  the  characteristics  and  mechanisms  of  the 
Global Illicit Drug Market 

Overall 

2007 

2008 

Fact  Finding  Study  on  Customs  Control  of  Drug 
Precursors in the EU 

22/36 

2007 

2007 

Evaluation of the Community drug precursor legislation 

22 

2008 

2009 

Evaluation of the EMCDDA 

41 

2006 

2007 

2.1.5.5.   

DG  Energy  & 
Transport 

DG  Health  & 
Consumers 

DG  Health  & 
Consumers 

Justice, 
DG 
Freedom  & 
Security 

DG 
Justice, 
Freedom  & 
Security 

Justice, 
DG 
Freedom  & 
Security 

DG 
Justice, 
Freedom  & 
Security 

DG  External 
Relations 

Justice, 
Freedom  & 
Security 

DG  Taxation 
& 
Customs 
Union 

DG  Enterprise 
Industry; 
& 
DG  Taxation 
& 
Customs 
Union 

Justice, 
Freedom  & 
Security 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
2.1.5.6.  Continuous evaluation (obj. 45) 

The final evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 demonstrates that the EU is 
resolved to base its policies increasingly on information obtained through evaluation. The 
annual progress reviews published in 2006 and 2007 have provided the Commission and 
Member  States  with  up-to-date 
the 
implementation of the Action Plan. The final evaluation provides further insight into the 
extent to which objectives and actions have been realised.  

the  progress  made  with 

information  on 

At national level, an increasing number of Member States have conducted evaluations of 
their national drug policies in recent years78. The survey of Member States conducted for 
this  evaluation  reveals  that  at  least  15  countries  expect  to  conduct  some  type  of 
evaluation of their national drug policy in the next few years.  

The  quality  and  the  comprehensiveness  of  evaluations  at  national  level  differ 
considerably,  and  most  Member  States  end  up with a  process evaluation  rather  than an 
outcome  evaluation.  Further  research  and  exchange  of  best  evaluation  practices  could 
support Member States in improving the quality of evaluation.  

In  2004,  the  EU  Member  States  decided  to  adopt  an  EU  Drugs  Strategy  to  be 
implemented  over  a  total  period  of  8  years.  This  relatively  long  implementation  period 
was considered necessary to ensure that measures adopted and implemented through the 
Action Plans could be put into practice.  

This  evaluation  examines  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  and  actions  in  the  Action 
Plan have been implemented. For the final evaluation of the next EU Drugs Plan (2009-
2012) and the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 at the end of the implementation period, it 
might be useful for the EU to have a reflection period of at least one year during which 
the evaluation results can be analysed and discussed and the challenges for future action 
can be properly assessed,  as  in  the case of the reflection period the EU has intensively 
supported for the UNGASS 1998 evaluation and follow-up.  

78 

E.g. Spain, Portugal, Hungary, United Kingdom, France. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

                                                 
3. 

IMPACT OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN ON MEMBER STATES' DRUG POLICY 

As part of this evaluation, Member States were sent a survey containing questions on the 
consistency and relevance of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) with their national 
policy.  Member  States  were  also  asked  to  provide  details  on  how  the  Action  Plan  has 
played a role in activities at national level. Of the 27 Member States, 25 responded to the 
survey79. 

All Member States that participated in the evaluation survey were able to report clearly 
on who was responsible for the implementation of those objectives and actions under 
the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) that are the responsibility of the Member States. 
In  general,  this  task  is  the  responsibility  of  the  National  Drugs  Coordinator  and/or  the 
national  coordination  body  for  drug  policy.  In  some  Member  States  this  task  is  shared 
through interdepartmental coordination structures and working groups80.  

3.1.1. 

Incorporation of EU Action Plan objectives in national drug policy 

Member  States  were  also  asked  whether  and  how  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) have been incorporated in these national policy documents. 
Objectives are often not directly incorporated in national policy, but 'translated' to make 
them relevant for the national level.  

In  Estonia,  Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  Romania,  the 
development  of  the  national  drug  action  plan  took  place  almost  in  parallel  with  the 
development  of  the  EU  Drug  Action  Plan  (2005-2008),  allowing  optimal  alignment 
between  national  and  EU  priorities  and  actions,  where  relevant.  In  several  other  EU 
Member States, national drug policy documents were developed prior to the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008). This was the case for Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, 
France, Ireland, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, 
Finland, Sweden and the UK. However, the EU Drugs Action has played a role in these 
countries too.  

In Bulgaria, the National Anti-Drugs Action Plan 2003-2008 was amended in 2006 and 
aligned  with  the  EU  Action  Plan.  The  Danish  Action  Plan  is  subject  to  an  ongoing 
evaluation  and,  as  a  result,  insights  from  the  EU  Action  Plan  have  been  taken  into 
consideration where relevant. In Austria and the Netherlands, the implementation of drug 
policy  is  an  ongoing  process  and  can  be  adapted  to  new  trends  and  developments, 
including the requirements of the EU Drug Action Plan. In Austria, the Länder have also 
been  informed  about  the  EU  Drug  Action  Plan  and have incorporated  elements of it in 
their  particular  drug  strategies  and  action  plans.  For  the  development  of  the  Czech 
National  Drug  Action  Plan  2007-2009,  the  EU  Drug  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  was 
assessed  and  elements  were  incorporated,  complemented  by  the  inclusion  of  priorities 
that were relevant for the national level.  

The new Security Action Plan (2008-2011) in Belgium will take into account objectives 
from the EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008). France, the UK and Slovenia reported that 
their  existing  national  policies  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  EU  Drug  Action  Plan 
(2005-2008) were highly consistent with its objectives. An external mid-term evaluation 

79 
80 

At the time of drafting of this report, Italy and Malta had not responded to the survey. 
e.g. France, Netherlands and Hungary 

EN 

51 

   EN 

                                                 
of the Hungarian National Drug Strategy (2000-2009) revealed that it was consistent with 
both the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008).  

Practically all of the reporting Member States stated that the current and next EU Drugs 
Action  Plans  (2009-2012)  will  be  taken  into  consideration  when  a  new  national  drug 
strategy  or  national  drug  action  plan  is  developed.  For  some  countries,  the  EU  Action 
Plans  will  form  a  framework  for  their  new  policies;  other  Member  States  will  ensure 
coherence and coordination between national and EU priorities.  

Table 8 presents a brief overview of the number of Member States indicating that one or 
more of the key priorities from the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) which form the basis 
for the specific objectives in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) have been reflected 
in their national policy. The priorities seem to be well represented 

Table 8 – Reflection of EU Drug Strategy and EU Drugs Action Plan priorities in national 
drug policy  
Priority objective 

Nr. MS  
Reflected 
25 

including 

rehabilitation  programmes, 

1.  Improving  access  to  and  effectiveness  of  a  broad  range  of  prevention  programmes  and 
raising  awareness  about  the  risk  of  the  use  of  psychoactive  substances  and  related 
consequences.  
2.  Development  and  improvement  of  access  to  and  effectiveness  of  selective  and  indicated 
prevention programmes, including early detection and early intervention.  
3.  Improving  coverage,  access  to,  quality  and  effectiveness  of  targeted  and  diversified 
treatment  and 
integrated  psychosocial  and 
pharmacological care and integrating these in general public health policies.  
4.  Improving  access  to  harm  reduction  services  for  the  prevention  and  reduction  of  drug-
related  health  and  social  damage,  including  drug-related  infectious  diseases  such  as  HIV/ 
AIDS, hepatitis C and other blood borne diseases. 
5. Reduction of drug related deaths.  
6.  Further  develop  alternatives  to  imprisonment  for  drug  abusers  and  making  available  drug 
services for people in prison. 
7.  Strengthening  EU  law  enforcement  cooperation  on  both  strategic  and  crime  prevention 
levels,  in  order  to  enhance  operational  activities  in  the  field  of  drugs  and  the  diversion  of 
precursors  production  and (intra-EU)  cross-border  trafficking  of  drugs and precursors,  while 
respecting the principle of subsidiarity.  
8.  Intensifying  effective  (bi-  and  multilateral)  law  enforcement  cooperation,  criminal 
investigation  and  forensic  science  cooperation  between  Member  States  ,  within  an  EU 
Framework, that have common interests and/ or face the same drug problems by using existing 
instruments and frameworks. 
9.  Intensifying  law  enforcement  efforts  directed  at  non-EU  Countries,  especially  producing 
countries and those along trafficking routes, including the strengthening of external borders of 
the EU, with the aim to stem the flow of drugs from these third countries. 
10.  Target  money  laundering  and  seizure  of  accumulated  assets  in  relation  to  drug-related 
crime. 
11.  Support  the  candidate  and  stabilisation  and  association  process  countries  with  technical 
and other assistance to familiarise them with the EU acquis and to assist them in carrying out 
the required actions.  
12.  Assisting  third  countries,  including  European  Neighbourhood  countries,  and  key  drug 
producing  and  transit  countries  to  be  more  effective  in  both  drug  demand  and  drug  supply 
reduction, among others through closer cooperation among EU-Member States. 

13. Provide reliable information on the drug situation, both on drug demand and drug supply, 
among  others  by  implementing  the  five  key  epidemiological  indicators  and  by  ensuring  the 
continued work of the Reitox national focal points and Europol National Drugs Units.  
14. Reinforcing the knowledge infrastructure in the field of drugs by fostering monitoring and 
evaluation. 

24 

25 

25 

25 
22 

23 

24 

21 

23 

12 

15 

24 

25 

EN 

52 

   EN 

3.1.2.  Coherence between the Action Plan and national policy objectives 

Member States were also asked whether they had made an assessment of which of the 
specific objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) were part 
of  their  national  drug  policy  and  which  of  the  EU  specific  objectives  and  actions 
required  further  action  at  national  level.  This  was  especially  relevant  to  those 
objectives for which the Member States are responsible.  

Most Member States reported that no such an assessment had been made on a one-on-one 
basis.  Poland,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  UK  reported  that  their  national  drug  policy 
reflected  all  the  relevant  objectives  and  actions  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-
2008).  

Estonia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuania and Slovakia reported that an analysis of 
this  kind  will  be  conducted  when  they  draft  their  new  national  action  plan  on  drugs. 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia and Romania reported that such an assessment will be taken on 
board during the evaluation of their existing action plans. The Netherlands reported that 
it has introduced  specific  national  policy measures (as part of an ongoing process) that 
contribute  to  specific  objectives  and  actions  in  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008) 
and that were not previously covered. This includes, for example, specific actions on law 
enforcement  cooperation  with  other  Member  States,  a  strong  emphasis  on  reducing  the 
production of synthetic drugs, etc. 

All Member States that participated in the survey say that the Action Plan is consistent 
with and relevant to national drug policy. The main dimensions, objectives and actions 
will  form  an  important  basis  for  the  upcoming  implementation  of  Austria's  National 
Drugs Strategy. For Belgium, the section of the Action Plan concerning supply reduction 
is  consistent  with  and  relevant  to  national  drug  policy.  The  main  aims  of  the  EU  Drug 
Strategy are also reflected in the Cypriot National Drug Strategy, but the implementation 
of  these  aims  is  restricted  by  available  financial  and  other  resources.  For  France,  a 
reference in the national drug policy to the EU Drug Action Plan is crucial for specific 
policy fields, such as harm reduction.  

However,  the  EU  Drug  Action  Plan  would  be  more  consistent  with  French  policy  if  a 
clear  link  were  established  with  licit  substances,  including  alcohol  and  tobacco.  As  the 
EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008) was developed during the Luxembourg Presidency, at 
the same time as the National Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2009), there is a high level of 
consistency between the two plans. For the purposes of evaluating the EU Drug Action 
Plan (2005-2008), Portugal developed its National Drug Action Plan (2005-2008) which 
closely follows the structure of the EU Action Plan, while reflecting Portugal's needs and 
reality. The broad scope and detail of the EU Drug Action Plan has been instrumental for 
Slovakia by providing guidance for national activities.  

3.1.3.  National priorities not covered by the Action Plan 

As table 2 in Chapter 2 showed, a number of countries adopted the EU Drug Action Plan 
after they had adopted their national drug strategy and/or nation drug action plans. Some 
divergence between national policies and the Action Plan was therefore to be expected. 
Furthermore,  most  national  action  plans  take  account  of  national  priorities,  needs  and 
realities.  The  EU  Drug  Action  Plan  may  function  as  a  supporting  document  in  those 
cases.  

Member  States  were  asked  which  specific  national  priorities  were  relevant  but  not 
covered  by  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan.  Belgium's  drug  policy  places  emphasis  on 

EN 

53 

   EN 

synthetic  drugs,  street  dealing  and  the  cultivation  of  cannabis.  Estonia  places  greater 
emphasis  on  drugs  and  drug-related  harms  in  prison,  while  in  the  Czech  Republic 
emphasis  is  placed  on  the  development  of  quality  standards  and  cost-effectiveness  of 
drug services. In France and Germany, licit drugs – mainly alcohol and tobacco - are also 
part  of  overall  drug  policy.  In  both  of  these  countries  and  the  Netherlands,  greater 
emphasis is also placed on prevention and harm reduction81. For Luxembourg, risk and 
harm reduction is a cross-cutting theme for reducing both demand and supply. The UK, 
Hungary  and  Ireland  report  that  the  cornerstone  of  their  national  policy  is  the 
involvement of civil society82 through community and local cooperation as well as in the 
planning and delivery of services.  

In  Ireland  and  the  UK,  priority  is  given  to  the  rehabilitation  and  reintegration  of  drug 
users  (e.g.  through  public  services).  Portugal  reports  on  its  Dissuasion  Policy,  which 
includes the decriminalisation of consumption and possession of drugs for personal use. 
Ireland, furthermore, reports priorities being given to community policing and the use of 
awareness  campaigns.  Finally,  Slovakia  reports  that  the  EU  Action  Plan  could  place 
more emphasis on the control of drug-trafficking at the external borders of the EU with 
Eastern Europe, including the Ukraine. 

3.1.4.  Action Plan objectives covered by national drug policies 

Most Member States report that the objectives and actions in the EU Drug Action Plan 
(2005-2008) are covered by their national drug strategy and/ or action plans. For obvious 
reasons,  objectives  and  actions  that  are  implemented  at  EU  level  are  not  included.  A 
number  of  countries  reported  on  some  substantial  differences.  In  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Ireland  and  Slovenia,  the  national  drug  strategy  and/or  action  plan  neither 
specifies  nor  addresses  the  cross-cutting  theme  of  international  cooperation  and 
assistance. 

Some  detailed  actions  under  the  various  chapters  are  not  always  covered  in  Member 
State  policies.  For  example,  early  detection  and  intervention  is  not  covered  in  Estonia. 
Poland  and  Romania  highlight  the  fact  that  their  national  policy  does  not  include  the 
'efficient  utilisation  and  development  of  alternatives  to  imprisonment'.  Romania  also 
reported  that  some  specific  actions  in  the  field  of  supply  reduction  were  not  covered, 
including  the  forensic  profiling  of  heroin  and  cocaine83,  cooperation  under  Project 
Synergy and the forensic profiling of synthetic drugs84. In Bulgaria, there is no coverage 
of  objectives  on  anti-money  laundering85,  the  link  between  drug  production  and  the 
financing of terrorism 86 and drug-related crimes and precursor diversion committed with 
the aid of information technology87, although these will be included in the next national 
action plan.  

As the Danish national drug strategy is universal, it does not specifically include any of 
the  EU  drug  policy  objectives,  although  all  aspects  of  the  drug  problem  are  covered  in 
both  policies.  The  same  is  the  case  with  Latvia's  State  Programme  on  drugs,  which 

81 

82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

In  Germany,  harm  reduction  (survival  assistance)  is  one  of  the  four  pillars  of  drug  policy: 
prevention, treatment, repression and survival assistance 
The community and voluntary sector 
EU Drug Action Plan (2005-2008); objective 18.5 
Ibid.; objective 20.1, 20.2 
Ibid.; objective 23 
Ibid.; objective 24 
Ibid.; objective 26 

EN 

54 

   EN 

                                                 
despite its different structure does cover many of the EU Action Plan objectives. France, 
Spain and Slovenia reported that coordination aspects were not (always) included in their 
national  policy.  In  Slovenia  this  specifically  concerns  coordination  at  national  level. 
Ireland,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia  reported  that  specific  actions  in  the  field  of 
information, research and evaluation were not covered.  

Most  of  the  Member  States  that  reported  differences  between  national  and  EU  drug 
policy indicated that these issues would be addressed when renewing and/ or re-drafting 
new national drug policy documents in the next years. 

3.1.5. 

Strengths and weaknesses of the Action Plan 

The Member States were asked to report on the weaknesses of the EU Drug Action Plan 
(2005-2008).  Several  Member  States  report  that  the  current  Action  Plan  is  too  long  in 
their  view,  that  it  has  too  many  actions  and  that  it  is  difficult  to  read  or  translate  into 
policy discussions at national level. At the same time, other Member States indicate that 
they think that important issues have been omitted.  

Examples include greater attention to illicit crop production and alternative development 
and the inclusion of cooperation with South East Asia. Licit drugs, such as alcohol and 
tobacco, are also not properly covered by the Action Plan. Some Member States mention 
that there is no overall threat assessment for the objectives in the Action Plan, while at 
the  same  time  the  plan  is  not  flexible  enough  to  address  new  trends  and  developments 
that  may  occur  during  the  four-year  implementation  period.  The  need  for  closer  links 
with  other  policy  fields,  such  as  employment  (rehabilitation  of  drug  users)  and  mental 
health,  was  also  mentioned.  The  Action  Plan  ought  to  have  placed  more  emphasis  on 
cooperation between the drug demand and drug supply sector, and thus concentrate more 
on an integrated approach to drug policy.  

Furthermore, even though the definition of objectives, actions, indicators and assessment 
tools  has  enhanced  the  measurability  of  the  outcomes  of  the  Action  Plan,  some  of  the 
objectives  and  actions  are  considered  too  vague  or  not  relevant.  Several  indicators  and 
assessment tools are not adequately calibrated, with the result that these do not provide a 
satisfactory picture of the achievement of objectives.  

Some  Member  States  also  point  out  that  the  Action  Plan  has  a  limited  impact  in  the 
Member  States  because  it  is  non-binding  and  that  a  large  number  of  objectives  and 
actions have to be implemented by Member States.  

A  number  of  Member  States  also  mention  the  lack  of  financial  resources  for  the 
implementation of the Action Plan. It is unclear whether these countries are referring to 
national  or  EC  level  funding,  which  is  available  through  a  number  of  specific  funding 
programmes, although not in the form of a specific budget line for the implementation of 
the Action Plan.  

As to the strengths of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008), Member States also had 
strong opinions. The EU Action Plan reflects the key principles of the EU model of drug 
policy,  fostering  an  integrated  and  balanced  approach  to  the  drug  problem.  It  also 
strengthens  coordination  of  drug  policy  within  the  EU  and  reinforces  EU  participation 
and coherence at international level and within the UN in particular.  

The  EU  Action  Plan  provides  a  comprehensive  framework  for  EU  drug  policy  and  – 
despite  some  of  its  shortcomings  –  sets  priorities  and  provides  indicators  for  each 
objective  and  action.  As  such,  the  Action  Plan  facilitates  a  process  in  which  similar 
policy measures are introduced in all EU Member States. As such, it supports a process 

EN 

55 

   EN 

of  convergence  between  Member  States'  drug  policies  and  helps  to  achieve  policy 
consistency between these countries. For some Member States, the Action Plan functions 
as a useful 'benchmark' against which to compare their national drug policies.  

Another  strong  point  that  was  mentioned  was  the  Action  Plan's  focus  on  strengthening 
the knowledge base underpinning drugs policy through research and monitoring.  

EN 

56 

   EN 

4. 

4.1. 

TRENDS IN THE DRUG SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 

Drug use in the European Union 

In many respects, the European drug situation appears to have moved into a more stable 
period after the sometimes dramatic increases that were witnessed in the 1990s and early 
part  of  the  current  decade.  Levels  of  drug  use  remain  high  by  historical  standards  and, 
although there are considerable differences between Member States, to some extent these 
are less pronounced than in the past. 

Heroin use and drug injecting appear to be generally stable. Cannabis remains the most 
commonly  consumed  illicit  drug,  and  prevalence  estimates  are  high  by  historical 
standards;  but  again  the  available  trend  data  point  overall  to  a  stabilisation  or  even 
possibly to a limited decline in the popularity of cannabis. Patterns of stimulant use are 
more  difficult  to  summarise.  Cocaine  use  has  increased  dramatically  in  some  Member 
States  -  although  not  in  all  -  while  ecstasy  use  seems  to  have  moderately  decreased 
overall and amphetamine use remains an important aspect of the drug problem in some 
Nordic  countries.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  Slovakia, 
methamphetamine  problems  have  been  observed,  but  elsewhere 
in  Europe 
methamphetamine use remains rare.  

Finally, polydrug use is increasingly found to be a dominant pattern of use among many 
populations  of  drug  users,  and  problematic  use  of  illicit  drugs  often  overlaps  with 
concurrent  problems  of  alcohol  use.  This  kind  of  drug  consumption  pattern  is  poorly 
understood and presents a challenge to conventional monitoring approaches.  

4.1.1.  Drug use among school students (15-16 years) 

After  tobacco  and  alcohol,  cannabis  continues  to  be  the  psychoactive  substance  most 
commonly used by school pupils. According to the 2003 ESPAD88 survey, between 1% 
and  13  %  (on  average  4  %)  of  pupils  reported  having  tried  cannabis  for  the  first  time 
when they were 13 years old or younger. Among 15–16 year olds, lifetime cannabis use 
ranges from more than 40 % in some European countries to below 10 % in others89.  

It is estimated that, in 2003, in the EU Member States around 3.5 million (or 22.1%) 15-
16  year  old  students  had  used  cannabis  at  least  once  in  their  lifetime,  and  around  1.7 
million (11%) had used cannabis during the month prior to the survey. On average, about 
4 % of 15–16 year olds report having used the drug 40 or more times in their lives the 
range in prevalence by country is between 0 and 10 %), thereby reflecting the existence 
of a group of regular cannabis users among school students.  

Data  from  the  ESPAD  survey  show  an  overall  increase  in  prevalence  of  cannabis  use 
among  pupils  in  the  period  between  1995  and  2003,  with  a  more  marked  increase 
between  1995  and  1999.  There  are,  however,  pronounced  geographical  differences  in 
trends.  

88 

89 

European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs, a 4-yearly survey in 35 countries 
aimed at pupils that turn 16 during the calendar year. The survey is coordinated by the Swedish 
Council for Information on Alcohol and other Drugs (CAN). 
Countries with high prevalence rates include the UK and Ireland; countries with lower prevalence 
rates  include  Finland,  Sweden,  Greece,  Cyprus  and  Malta.  Source:  EMCDDA  Annual  Report 
2007. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

                                                 
At  the  time  of  this  evaluation,  the  2007  ESPAD  data  were  not  available.  However,  a 
more recent comparison of HBSC90 data for 2001–2002 and 2005–2006 shows a stable 
or decreasing trend in both lifetime and other more frequent cannabis use among 15 year 
olds.  Other  recent  national  school  surveys  conducted  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Slovakia, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom also report stable or decreasing trends.  

Overall prevalence rates for use of other illicit drugs are much lower than for cannabis 
among  15–16  year  olds.  In  most  countries,  lifetime  prevalence  of  cocaine  use  in  2003 
was 2 % or lower, but rising to 4% in Spain and 5%  in the  United Kingdom. Lifetime 
ecstasy use was reported by 0 to 8% of school students, with six EU countries reaching a 
prevalence of 5 % or more. Between 0 and 7% of amphetamines had been used by pupils, 
with four EU countries having a prevalence of 5 % or more. There was an increase in the 
lifetime prevalence of the use of drugs other than cannabis between 1995 and 2003, but 
the newly available national school surveys in 2007 (Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, 
the  United  Kingdom)  reported  either  no  change,  or  even  a  slight  decrease  in  ever-in-
lifetime use of amphetamines and ecstasy. 

4.1.2.  Drug use among young adults (15–34 years) 

Most  drug  use  occurs  among  15–34  year  olds,  and  lifetime  prevalence  usually  grows 
dramatically in the early part of this age range (15–24 year olds).  

On average, it is estimated that about one in eight (or 13%) young European adults aged 
15-34  have  used  cannabis  during  the  past  year  (range  at  national  level:  1.9–20.3%). 
Among the youngest in this age group (15-24 year olds), the estimated average is higher 
at  16.7%  (range  3.6–28.2%),  which  translates  into  one  in  six  of  them  reporting  having 
used cannabis in the past year. 

Comparing EU data with other regions of the world is made difficult by methodological 
differences  in  surveys.  However,  based  on  available  data,  the  prevalence  levels  among 
young European adults aged 15-34 appear to be generally lower than those observed in 
Australia, USA or Canada91. Figure 7 presents an overview of last-year prevalence of 
cannabis use in EU countries, the USA, Australia and Canada. 
After having shown a marked increase in almost all EU countries during the 1990s92 and 
around the year 2000, with last-year prevalence of cannabis use among young adults in 
the 15-34 age group reaching 15-20% in seven countries, cannabis use in Europe seems 
to have recently stabilised at a historically high level. Information from the most recent 
national surveys currently shows a stabilisation of cannabis use in most EU countries93.  

Australia and the USA also report stabilising or declining trends in cannabis use among 
young people, while Canada’s last survey dates back to 2004, thus making it difficult to 
interpret recent trends. 

90 

91 

92 

93 

Health Behaviour among School Children: a WHO collaborative survey which investigates school 
children’s  health  and  health  behaviour  and  has  included  since  2001  mandatory  questions  about 
cannabis use among 15-year-old students. 
Important  differences  exist  among  Member  States.  Some  countries  have  similar  prevalence 
compared to Australia or the USA average. 
EMCDDA Annual Report, 2007 
If  an  upward  or  downward  change  of  20%  or  more  from  the  baseline  figure  is  considered  as  a 
significant difference, there was an increase in cannabis use in five countries, a decrease in two 
countries and a stable situation in nine countries between 2001 and 2006. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 7 - Cannabis use among young adults (aged 15-34): last year prevalence of use. EU by country 
including USA, Canada and Australia 

30,0

25,0

20,0

15,0

10,0

5,0

0,0

)
4
0
0
2
(
L
E

)
6
0
0
2
(

Y
C

)
5
0
0
2
(
G 
B

)
4
0
0
2
(
T
L

)
6
0
0
2
(

E
S

)
6
0
0
2
(
L
P

)
7
0
0
2
(
T
P

)
3
0
0
2
(
U
H

)
6
0
0
2
(
I

F

)
3
0
0
2
(

V
L

)
5
0
0
2
(
L
N

)
4
0
0
2
(
O 
N

)
3
0
0
2
(

E
E

)
4
0
0
2
(

E
B

)
6
0
0
2
(

E
D

)
4
0
0
2
(
T
A

)
5
0
0
2
(

K
D

U
E

)
6
0
0
2
(

K
S

/

)
7
0
6
0
0
2
(

E

I

)
5
0
0
2
(
T

I

)
5
0
0
2
(
R
F

)
4
0
0
2
(
Z
C

/

)
7
0
6
0
0
2
(
W)
&
E

(

)
4
0
0
2
(
a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

)
6
0
0
2
(

A
S
U

/

)
6
0
5
0
0
2
(

S
E

)
4
0
0
2
(
a
d
a
n
a
C

K
U

Last-year prevalence of amphetamine use among young adults in the EU is estimated at 
1.3%  (range  0.1%  to  2.9%),  while  the  equivalent  figure  for  the  use  of  ecstasy  is  1.8% 
(range 0.4% to 7.7 %).  

Figure 8 presents an overview of last-year prevalence of ecstasy use in EU countries, 
USA,  Canada  and  Australia94.  The  EU  average  figure  is  similar  to  the  US  figure  but 
much  lower  than  Australia95.  After  general  increases  in  the  1990s,  last-year  prevalence 
indicates  stabilisation  or  even  moderate  decreases  in  amphetamine  and  ecstasy 
consumption  in  Europe96.  Data  from  some  countries  suggest  that  cocaine  could  be 
replacing amphetamines and ecstasy among some sectors of the drug-using population. 

Australia  and  the  USA  report  similar  trends,  with  a  stabilisation  or  small  decreases/ 
increases in ecstasy use among young people in recent years.  

On average, 2.3% of young European adults report having used cocaine in the past year 
(range).  This  figure  is  highest  among  the  15–24  age  group  (2.6%),  although  the 
difference is less marked than in the case of cannabis or ecstasy. 

94 

95 

96 

See sources of data in annex 4.1 
Five EU Member States report higher last year prevalence of ecstasy use than the USA average 
and one Member State has a higher last year prevalence than Australia. 
During the period 2001–2006, of the 15 countries with sufficient data on last-year prevalence of 
amphetamine  use  among  young  adults,  five  report  a  decrease,  four  report  stabilisation  and  six 
report  an  increase.  For  last-year  ecstasy  use,  seven  of  these  countries  report  a  decrease,  five 
countries reported a stable situation and three countries reported an increase. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 8 - Ecstasy use among young adults (aged 15-34): last year prevalence of use. EU by country, 
including USA, Canada and Australia 

10,0

9,0

8,0

7,0

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

)
4
0
0
2
(
L
E

)
6
0
0
2
(
L
P

)
5
0
0
2
(
T

I

)
5
0
0
2
(

K
D

)
4
0
0
2
(
T
L

)
7
0
0
2
(
T
P

)
5
0
0
2
(

R
F

)
5
0
0
2
(
G 
B

)
6
0
0
2
(

E
D

)
4
0
0
2
(
O 
N

)
6
0
0
2
(
I

F

)
6
0
0
2
(

Y
C

)
4
0
0
2
(
T
A

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
U
E

)
3
0
0
2
(

V
L

)
7
0
/
6
0
0
2
(

E

I

)
6
0
0
2
(

A
S
U

)
6
0
/
5
0
0
2
(

S
E

)
3
0
0
2
(

U
H

)
5
0
0
2
(
L
N

)
6
0
0
2
(

K
S

)
3
0
0
2
(

E
E

)
7
0
/
6
0
0
2
(
W)
&
E

(

K
U

)
4
0
0
2
(
Z
C

)
4
0
0
2
(
a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

Figure 9 presents an overview of last-year prevalence of cocaine use among young adults 
(15-34)  in  EU  countries,  the  USA,  Canada  and  Australia.  The  average  last-year 
prevalence of cocaine use in young European adults97 is less than half that reported by 
young American adults, and similar to that of young Australian adults. 

Data  from  general  population  surveys  show  that  there  was  an  upward  trend  in  cocaine 
use among young adults during the 1990s and the early years of the new Millennium in 
many  European  countries.  New  data  (2005-2007  surveys)  show  that  this  trend  is 
continuing in most reporting countries98. 

Data from Australia and the USA reveal a more fluctuating trend in recent years, with the 
latest data showing an increase in Australia and a stable situation in the USA.  

97 

98 

There are big differences between EU Member States. On one hand, there are many EU countries 
where  the  prevalence  of  cocaine  use  remains  relatively  low  (e.g.  Greece,  Finland),  while  others 
are up to the levels of prevalence observed in the US (UK, Spain, Germany). Source: EMCDDA 
Annual Report, 2007. 
Last year, prevalence increased in seven countries, remained stable in four countries and declined 
in one country. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  9  -  Cocaine  use  among  young  adults  (aged  15  to  34):  last  year  prevalence  of  use.  EU  by 
country, including Australia and the USA - last survey available for each country 

6,0

5,0

4,0

3,0

2,0

1,0

0,0

l

e
c
n
e
a
v
e
r
p
r
a
e
y
t
s
a
L

)
6
0
0
2
(

A
S
U

i

a
v
t
a
L

i

a
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

s
u
r
p
y
C

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
i
r
a
g
u
B

l

e
c
e
e
r
G

d
n
a
o
P

l

c

i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

d
n
a
n
F

i

l

l

a
g
u
t
r
o
P

e
c
n
a
r
F

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

i

a
k
a
v
o
S

l

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

y
a
w
r
o
N

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

e
g
a
r
e
v
a
U
E

)
4
0
0
2
(
a

i
l

a
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

l

y
a
t
I

i

n
a
p
S

)

W
&
E

(

K
U

4.1.3.  Drug use among older adults (35–64 years) 

General population surveys show that recent drug use is declining among all successive 
age groups, and particularly rapidly after 35 years. Last-year prevalence of cannabis use, 
which is 13 % on average among young adults aged 15–34, is below 3 % among 35–44 
year-olds in most EU countries and exceeds 7 % in only two countries. In the next age 
group (45–54), all countries report last-year cannabis use prevalence rates of under 3 %. 
Cocaine  use  is  also  mainly  concentrated  among  young  adults  aged  15–34,  with  about 
seven out of eight last-year users being young adults. 

Overall, it can be roughly estimated that 5.5 million European adults aged 35–64 years 
have used cannabis in the last year and about 0.5 million have used cocaine during the 
same period. The use of ecstasy is confined almost entirely to younger age groups. 

Current data therefore do not confirm ongoing drug use among generations which have 
been confronted with earlier drug use trends in the 1960s and 1970s. However, data show 
the existence of some groups of users aged over 35 which are typically located in high-
prevalence countries. 

4.2. 

Problem drug use 

Problem  drug  use  is  defined  by  the  EMCDDA  as  ‘injecting  drug  use  or  long 
duration/regular use of opioids, cocaine and/or amphetamines’99. It is usually estimated 
as  the  yearly  prevalence  rate  per  inhabitant  aged  15–64  and  is  calculated  by  indirect 
statistical methods. Cannabis use is not included in this definition because of difficulties 

99 

Note: the EMCDDA definition of problem use is somewhat different from international standards 
as adopted in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the 
WHO  International  Classification  of  Diseases  (ICD-10),  which  include  a  broader  definition  of 
problem use, which - for example - also includes social aspects of problem use.  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in defining what problem use is. However, based on a recent study in Europe, it can be 
estimated  that  2  to  2.5%  of  all  young  adults  aged  15-34  are  using  cannabis  daily  or 
almost daily (20 days or more in the last 30 days).  

4.2.1.  Problem opioid use 
Recent  estimates100  of  the  prevalence  of  problem  opioid  use  at  national  level  range 
roughly between one and six cases per 1,000 inhabitants aged 15–64. From the limited 
data available, an average annual prevalence of between four and five cases per 1,000 of 
the population aged 15–64  can  be derived. This translates into some 1.5 million (range 
1.3-1.7) problem opioid users in the EU and Norway.  

Time trends in the prevalence of problem opioid use should be interpreted with caution 
because  of  the  limited  number  of  repeated  estimates  and  the  uncertainty  surrounding 
individual estimates. Data from 10 European countries with repeated estimates during the 
period 2001–2006, point to diverse developments, with six countries showing a relatively 
stable prevalence, one showing a clear increase and three showing unclear trends. Other 
data  from  police  seizures,  drug-related  deaths  and  treatment  demand  indicate  that  there 
might be a recent increase in problem opioid use in some EU countries. This is related 
not  only  to  problem  heroin  use,  but  increasingly  also  to  the  use  of  illicitly  produced 
opioids  (e.g.  fentanyl)  and  the  diversion  of  substitution  medications,  in  particular  of 
buprenorphine. 

Injecting  drug  users  (IDUs)  run  a  high  risk  of  experiencing  health  problems,  such  as 
infection with HIV or hepatitis, or drug overdose. National estimates of IDUs typically 
range between 0.5 and 6 cases per year per 1,000 inhabitants aged 15–64 in the period 
2001  to  2005.  Extrapolation  from  the  limited  data  available  suggests  an  average 
prevalence  of  IDU  (current  injectors)  of  between  3  and  4  cases  per  1,000  of  the  adult 
population. This would translate into around 1.1 million (0.9–1.3 million) injectors in the 
EU and Norway. These are predominantly problem opioid injectors, although they may 
inject other drugs as well. 

Overall, 43% of all opioid users entering outpatient drug treatment reported injecting the 
drug, and among clients in long-term treatment the proportion is higher. Around 40% of 
opioid  users  entering  treatment  for  the  first  time  in  2006  report  injecting  the  drug. 
Looking at time trends, the proportion of injectors among new opioid clients decreased 
from 43% in 2003 to 35% in 2006 in the 13 countries where sufficient data are available, 
which may indicate a slight decreasing trend in heroin injection. However, studies among 
injecting drug users show differences between European countries with high proportions 
of new IDUs (injecting for less than two years) and young IDUs (under 25) in some of 
the new Member States.  

4.2.2.  Problem cocaine use  

National  estimates  of  problem  cocaine  use  (injection  or  long  duration/regular  use)  are 
available  only  for  Spain  and  Italy.  According  to  the  most  recent  data  for  Spain,  there 
were between 4.5 and 6 problem cocaine users per 1,000 adult inhabitants (aged 15–64 
years) in 2002. Similarly, in Italy, in 2006, there were estimated to be between 3.7 and 
4.5 problem cocaine users per 1 000 adults. 

100 

Opioid use  cannot be reliably  understood by  general  population  survey  data due  to  its  very  low 
prevalence,  lack  of  suitable  frame  and  likely  denials  of  socially  undesirable  and  even  illegal 
behaviours. Therefore, indirect estimates are considered as 'the gold standard'.  

EN 

62 

   EN 

                                                 
Cocaine  -  mainly  in  powder  form  -  was  cited  as  the  principal  reason  for  entering  drug 
treatment  in  Europe  in  2006  by  about  16%  of  all  treatment  clients  and  24%  of  those 
entering  drug  treatment  for  the  first  time  (against  13%  in  2002).  There  is,  however,  a 
wide variation between countries: only in Spain (47%), the Netherlands (35%) and Italy 
(25%)  do  cocaine  users  make  up  a  high  proportion  of  treatment  clients.  Elsewhere  in 
Europe, cocaine accounts in general for less than 10% of all treatment demands, and in 
many  Member  States  only  negligible  proportions  of  treated  drug  users  report  having 
cocaine problems. 

4.2.3.  Problem amphetamine/methamphetamine use 

Only  one  Member  State  (Finland)  provided  a  recent  national  estimate  of  problem 
amphetamine use, which in 2005 was estimated to amount to between 12,000 and 22,000 
problem amphetamine users (4.3 to 7.9 cases per 1,000, aged 15–64 years). 

Treatment for the use of amphetamines accounts for a sizeable proportion of the overall 
reported treatment demand in Latvia, Sweden and Finland, where between 25% and 35% 
of drug clients entering treatment mention it as their primary drug. From 2001 to 2006, 
the proportion of new clients entering treatment for primary amphetamine use has been 
relatively stable in Europe as a whole. 

By  comparison  with  other  parts  of  the  world,  where  the  use  of  methamphetamine  has 
increased  in  recent  years,  its  levels  of  use  in  Europe  seem  to  be  limited.  Historically, 
methamphetamine  use  in  Europe  has  been  concentrated  in  the  Czech  Republic  and,  to 
some  extent,  Slovakia.  In  2006,  in  the  Czech  Republic  there  were  estimated  to  be 
17,500–22,500  methamphetamine  users  (2.4  to  3.9  cases  per  1,000  aged  15–64  years) 
and in Slovakia 6,200–15,500 methamphetamine users (1.6 to 4.0 cases per 1,000 aged 
15–64  years).  In  the  last  five  years,  the  reported  demand  for  treatment  related  to 
methamphetamine use has increased in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Clients in 
treatment for methamphetamine also report high rates of injecting drug use: around 45 % 
in Slovakia and 80 % in the Czech Republic. 

4.3. 

Health and social consequences of drug use 

4.3.1.  Drug-related infectious diseases 

Data  on  newly-diagnosed  cases  of  HIV  related  to  injecting  drug  use  for  2006  suggest 
that  infection  rates  are  still  falling  overall  in  the  EU,  following  the  peak  in  2001–2002 
that was due  to outbreaks in Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania. In 2006, the overall rate of 
newly-diagnosed  infections  among  IDUs  in  the  25  EU  Member  States  for  which 
national data are available has decreased. Between 2001 and 2006, no strong increases 
were observed in the rate per million inhabitants in any country. 

The  high  annual  rate  of  new  HIV  diagnoses  related  to  injecting  drug  use  in  Estonia, 
Latvia  and  Portugal  suggests  that  transmission  is  still  occurring  in  these  countries  at  a 
high  level,  although  there  has  been  a  gradual  improvement  in  the  situation  in  all  three 
countries. 

Figure  10  presents  a  comparison  of  the  2005  data  on  newly  reported  HIV  cases  in 
injecting  drug  users  in  the  EU,  USA,  Canada  and  Australia101.  The  incidence  rate  of 
newly diagnosed cases per million inhabitants is higher than in Australia, comparable to 
Canada but considerably lower than in the USA.  

101 

See sources of data in annex 4.2 

EN 

63 

   EN 

                                                 
Trend  data  from  HIV  prevalence  monitoring in  samples  of  IDUs  are  available  from  25 
countries  over  the  period  2002–2006.  In  15  countries,  HIV  prevalence  remained 
unchanged  during  the  period,  while  prevalence  in  three  countries  showed  statistically 
significant decreases. In two countries, however, decreasing trends at national level were 
contradicted by reports of some regional increases. Finally, in five countries, at least one 
sample indicated an increasing trend, even if this was for the most part still at low levels.  

From the available data and estimates of the number of IDUs and problem drug users, it 
is estimated that there might be between 100 000 and 200 000 people living with HIV in 
the EU, who have ever in their lives been drug injectors. 

Figure  10  -  Newly  diagnosed  HIV  infections  in  IDU  per  million  population:  2005  rates  for  the 
Australia, the EU, Canada and USA 

Newly reported HIV cases in IDUs per million population. 2005 data.

s
t
n
a
t
i
b
a
h
n

i

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

r
e
p
e
a
r

t

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Australia

EU

Canada

US (HIV data are for 
38 states and
dependent areas)

While  high  prevalence  levels  of  HIV  infection  are  found  only  in  some  EU  Member 
States, viral hepatitis, and in particular infection caused by the hepatitis C virus (HCV), 
is  more  highly  prevalent  in  IDUs  across  Europe.  HCV  antibody  levels  among  national 
samples  of  IDUs  in  2005-2006  vary  from  around  15%  to  90%,  with  most  countries 
typically reporting levels in excess of 40%.  

The prevalence of antibodies to HBV infection varies to an even greater extent than that 
of  HCV  antibodies,  due  to  differences  in  vaccination  levels  and  many  other  possible 
factors. The most complete data set available is for the antibody to the hepatitis B core 
antigen (anti-HBc), which indicates a history of infection (or vaccination). In 2005–2006, 
prevalence  levels  for  anti-HBc  of  over  40%  were  reported  from  six  out  of  the  11 
countries where data were available. 

Trends  over  time  in  notified  cases  of  hepatitis  B  and  C  show  a  different  picture.  The 
proportion of IDUs among all notified cases of hepatitis B may have declined slightly in 
some countries. In the case of hepatitis C, the proportion of IDUs among notified cases 
has declined in five countries, but has increased in five other countries. For both hepatitis 
B  and  hepatitis  C,  the  proportion  of  IDUs  among  the  notified  cases  continued  to  differ 
markedly  between  countries  in  2006,  suggesting  geographic  differences  in  the 
epidemiology of these infections. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
From the available data and estimates of the number of IDUs and problem drug users, it 
is estimated that there are around one million people living with an HCV infection in 
the EU who have ever in their lives been drug injectors. 

4.3.2.  Drug-related deaths 
During  the  period  1990–2005,  between  6,500  and  over  8,500  drug-induced  deaths102 
were reported each  year by EU Member States, totalling  around  130,000 deaths  during 
this  period.  These  figures  should  be  considered  as  a  minimum  estimate,  given  data 
limitations and under-reporting in Member States.  

Average population mortality due to drug-induced death in the EU is 21 deaths aged 15 
to 64 per million inhabitants (range 3-5 to over 70) deaths. This rate is more than doubled 
(44  deaths  per  million)  among  males  aged  15-39  years.  In  2005-2006,  drug-induced 
deaths accounted for 3.5% of all deaths among Europeans aged 13 to 39. 

Opioids,  mainly  heroin  or  its  metabolites,  are  present  in  the  majority  of  drug-induced 
deaths reported in the EU, accounting for between 55% and almost 100% of all cases. A 
recent EMCDDA data collection also found that more than one drug was mentioned in 
the toxicological results of between 60% and 90% of opioid-induced deaths.  

Most cocaine deaths seem to be the result of the chronic toxicity of the drug, which leads 
to cardiovascular and neurological complications, some of which may not be identified in 
existing  reporting  systems  as  being  related  to  cocaine.  Deaths  actually  recorded  as 
attributable to cocaine usually also mention  the presence of  other  substances.  Allowing 
for the likely under-reporting of cocaine-induced deaths in the EU, the most recent data 
reported from 14 Member States identified over 450 cocaine deaths. 

Deaths  in  which  ecstasy  is  present  continue  to  be  rare,  according  to  the  limited 
information  available.  Amphetamine  deaths  are  also  infrequently  reported  in  most 
countries,  although  in  the  Czech  Republic  a  substantial  number  of  drug-induced  deaths 
have been attributed to pervitin (methamphetamine). 

Drug-induced  deaths  increased  sharply  in  Europe  during  the  1980s  and  early  1990s, 
possibly paralleling the expansion of heroin use and injection, and have remained at high 
levels  up  to  the  present  day.  Figure  11  presents  the  indexed  long-term  trend  in  drug-
induced deaths in the EU Member States and Norway in the period 2000-2006103. 

Trends over the period 2001 to 2005/2006 show a more mixed picture. In the first years 
of  the  period  (2000–2003),  many  EU  countries  reported  decreases  in  the  numbers  of 
drug-induced  deaths,  which  fell  overall  in  Europe.  However,  in  2004  and  2005,  small 
increases in reported deaths were observed in most European countries, which could be 
linked  with  growing  polydrug  use  by  opioid  users  and  a  possible  increase  in  the 
availability of heroin. 
Figure 11- Indexed long term trend in drug-induced deaths in the EU Member States and Norway104 
- 2000 to 2006 

102 

103 

104 

Deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drugs and that occur, generally, shortly 
after the consumption of the substance(s). 
For 2006 data for Denmark, Spain, France, Poland, Slovenia, United Kingdom and Norway have 
been extrapolated from 2005. 
Note to Figure 11: A few countries did not provide data for some years. To correct this situation, 
the computation method defined in the following report was used: 'European Monitoring Centre 
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2001). Coordination of the implementation of EMCDDA standard 

EN 

65 

   EN 

                                                 
)

%
0
0
1
=
0
0
0
2
(

%
x
e
d
n
I

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

INDEX

2000

100,00

2001

96,83

2002

83,12

2003

76,51

2004

81,24

2005

85,47

2006*

82,19

4.3.3. 

Social consequences of drug use 

The availability of standardised data on the social consequences of drug use is still very 
limited, but adverse social consequences are reported to be generally linked with problem 
drug  use.  For  instance,  homelessness,  together  with  living  in  unstable  accommodation, 
was  affecting  about  10 %  of  drug  users  entering  treatment  in  2006,  while  one  in  every 
two clients entering treatment was unemployed.  

guidelines  on  drug-related  deaths  in  the  EU  Member  States,  and  the  collection  and  analysis  of 
information on drug-related deaths', Project CT.99.RTX.04, coordinated by the Trimbos Institute, 
Lisbon, EMCDDA. Sources: Reitox National Focal Points. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
4.4. 

Drug supply to the European Union 

4.4.1. 

Introduction 

Production  and  trafficking  of  drugs  remains  one  of  the  primary  activities  of  organised 
crime  networks  operating  towards  and  within  the  European  Union,  posing  serious 
challenges  for  EU  policies,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  justice,  freedom  and  security. 
Whilst  the  principal  drug  trafficking  routes  remain  prominent,  there  is  a  growing 
diversification  of  trafficking  patterns.  Also,  with  a  variety  of  European  Union  drug 
production and entry points, there is large-scale intra-EU trafficking. Criminal networks 
no  longer  confine  their  activities  to  one  type  of  drug,  as  reflected  in  the  prevalence  of 
'cocktail' or 'poly-drug' seizures.  

The  single  market  and  free  movement  of  goods,  services,  people  and  capital  have  not 
only brought benefits, but have also increased possibilities for organised crime to move 
people and/ or goods across and beyond national borders within the EU.  

4.4.2. 

Source countries of heroin, cocaine and cannabis  

According  to  the  United  Nations,  most  of  the  world’s  illicit  heroin  comes  from  only 
three countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar and Laos. Afghanistan continues to be the major 
supplier  of  heroin,  accounting  for  over  90%  of  global  opium  production.  In  2007  the 
estimated opium output increased by 34 % to 8,200 tons105.  

The United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime estimates that a considerable amount of 
Afghan  opium  is  converted  into  morphine  base  or  heroin  in  the  country  itself,  in  areas 
with  limited  governmental  control.  Such  processing  requires  some  10 000  tons  of 
chemicals  per  year,  including  more  than  1 000  tons  of  the  principal  precursor,  acetic 
anhydride. 

The  National  Drug  Control  Strategy  of  Afghanistan  was  adopted  in  January  2006.  It 
identified  four  priority  areas:  the  targeting  of  drug  traffickers  and  the  drugs  trade; 
treatment of drug users and reduction of demand; strengthening of alternative livelihoods 
and  institution  building.  However,  particularly  in  the  Helmand  province,  where  more 
than  50%  of  Afghan  poppy  cultivation  takes  place,  drugs  and  insecurity  are  self-
reinforcing.  Alternative  development  and  commercial  trading  is  difficult  during  the 
conflicts106.  

Regarding  the  manufacture  of  cocaine,  the  Andean  region  remains  the  major  cocaine 
producing  area  in  the  world,  with  an  estimated  output  in  2006  of  910  tons  of  cocaine. 
Colombia accounts for 70% of global production (640 tons), Peru for 20% (180 tons) and 
Bolivia for 10% (90 tons).  

Cocaine processing is controlled by Colombian, Peruvian and Bolivian organised crime 
groups.  They  pressurise  farmers  to  grow  coca  bush  and  use  violence  to  protect  their 
laboratories against other groups or law enforcement officials.  

Cannabis  continues  to  be  the  most  widely  produced,  trafficked  and  consumed  plant-
based drug worldwide. In the absence of cultivation monitoring systems and surveys, the 
UNODC estimates that in 2006 there were 231,000 hectares of illicit cannabis cultivation 

105 

106 

UNODC, Afghan Survey, Winter 2007; as presented during the EU Troika with Western Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008.  
UNODC, Afghan Survey, Winter 2007; as presented during the EU Troika with Western Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008. . 

EN 

67 

   EN 

                                                 
in the world, capable of producing 45,000 tons of herbal cannabis. The plant is grown in 
176 countries around the world, particularly in the Americas (54%), Africa (26%), Asia 
(15%), Europe (4%) and Oceania (1%).  

Morocco continues to be the main global source of cannabis resin with an estimated 80% 
of global production taking place in the country; most of this is for European and North 
African  markets.  Herbal  cannabis  is  supplied  to  the  Member  States  mainly  from 
Colombia,  Jamaica,  South  Africa  and  Nigeria,  with  Egypt  as  an  additional  notable 
source.  

Albania has also developed into a major source of herbal cannabis, which is grown over 
large  areas;  most  of  the  product  is  destined  for  Greece  and  Italy.  Cannabis  cultivation 
also takes place in Bulgaria and Poland with some 50% destined for export.  

4.4.3.  Transit routes of heroin, cocaine and cannabis into Europe 

Two key corridors are used for the trafficking of opiates. Significant heroin trafficking 
takes place along the Northern Route, which starts in Afghanistan and crosses the central 
Asian States of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. It is 
estimated  that  some  25%  of  smuggled  heroin  stays  in  central  Asia  for  domestic 
consumption, while the remaining 75% is smuggled onward to Russia and Europe107  

Most  heroin  reaches  Western  Europe  via  the  Balkan  Routes,  starting  in  Turkey, 
facilitated  by  Turkey’s  geographical  position  in  handling  extensive  commercial  trade 
between  Asia  and  Europe  and  its  good  transport  infrastructure.  Increasing  use  is  being 
made  of  the  central  Balkan  Route  from  Turkey,  via  Bulgaria,  the  former  Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia into Italy or 
Slovenia and from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia via Kosovo under UNSC 
Resolution 1244 and/or Albania into Greece. The route via Ukraine and Romania is also 
gaining in importance. Furthermore, of additional note is the use of the ‘roll-on, roll-off’ 
transport of trucks on trains along the Balkan Routes, in particular from Hungary, Italy 
and Slovenia into Austria.  

Whilst awaiting onward transportation into Western Europe, heroin is often stockpiled in 
countries  such  as  Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Serbia,  Kosovo  under  UNSC 
Resolution 1244, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. The dual use of the Balkan Routes for 
smuggling heroin to and ecstasy from the European Union is a noteworthy feature. The 
Northern Black Sea route is also prominent, while Africa is turning into a crossroads for 
heroin  trafficking.  Heroin  is  also  trafficked  from  Afghanistan  to  Pakistan  and  onwards 
from there.  

Three main cocaine sea routes to Europe have been identified. The Northern route runs 
from the Caribbean via the Azores to Portugal and Galicia in Spain. The Central route 
runs from South America via Cape Verde or Madeira and the Canary Islands to Europe. 
More  recently,  the  African  route  has  evolved,  which  runs  from  South  America  to 
Western Africa and from there to Portugal and Spain. 

Huge  amounts  of  cocaine  are  transported  from  South  America  to  the  European  Union 
across the Atlantic Ocean, mainly via maritime routes. Multi-tonne shipments take place 
from Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina and Suriname to the coasts 

107 

Council  document  11159/07  CORDROGUE  40:  Regional  report  on  Central  Asia.  Brussels,  20 
June 2007. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

                                                 
of Spain and Portugal and major ports of Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy. Historical 
and linguistic ties with Latin America influence the role of Spain and Portugal. 

Significant  amounts  of  cocaine  are  smuggled  from  South  America  to  Europe  via  the 
Caribbean, aided by the region’s geographical proximity to cocaine source countries and 
cultural  links  with  some  Member  States,  for  example  between  Curacao  and  the 
Netherlands  and  between  Jamaica  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The  French  overseas 
territories  of  Martinique  and  Guadeloupe  are  also  becoming  increasingly  important  as 
transit  areas.  Fast  boats,  cargo  freighters  and  container  ships  remain  the  most  common 
means of moving the drug through the region, but traffickers also use aircraft for drops in 
international waters.  

In  recent  years,  West  Africa  has  emerged  as  a  transit  and  storage  zone  for  maritime 
trafficking  of  cocaine  from  South  America  to  Europe.  This  is  controlled  by  South 
American  and  European  criminals,  the  former  having  established  businesses  in  West-
Africa to cover their illicit activities and justify their presence. Subsequent transportation 
by sea to Europe takes place in fishing boats, from where the drugs are often unloaded on 
the northern coast of Portugal or in Galicia in Spain. Again, cultural ties (e.g. Ghana and 
Nigeria with the United Kingdom and Cape Verde with Portugal) facilitate this kind of 
trafficking.  At  least  33  tons  of  cocaine  was  seized  en  route  to  Europe  via  West  Africa 
between 2005 and 2007. Prior to this, the entire continent rarely seized more than a ton 
per year. This criminal development poses a further threat to the fragile stability of the 
region,  exploiting,  inter  alia,  the  capacity  of  West  African  law  enforcement  agencies, 
high levels of corruption and the lack of port / coastline controls. 

Colombian  criminal  groups  have  also  established  alliances  with  Moroccan  networks  to 
set up smuggling routes from Western to Northern Africa. These link up with cannabis 
smuggling  routes  into  the  European  Union  and  utilise  the  logistics  and  know-how  of 
well-established  cannabis  trafficking  groups.  Cocaine  is  also  transported  by  air  from 
West African countries to European airports. To avoid controls, couriers frequently use 
indirect flights via Morocco or Libya.  

4.4.4.  The EU illicit drug market 

An estimated 100 tons of heroin are needed annually to supply European Union heroin 
markets108.  There  is  large-scale  secondary  or  intra-European  Union  trafficking, 
particularly  from  the  Netherlands  and  Belgium.  Most  heroin  destined  for  the  major 
market of United Kingdom, as well to France, Germany and Spain, is supplied via these 
two countries. Heroin is often transported from the Netherlands by trucks, sometimes in 
multi-drug consignments, which may include synthetic drugs, cocaine and cannabis.  

Trafficking of heroin towards and within the European Union continues to be dominated 
by  Turkish  criminal  groups,  with  a  significant  and  increasing  involvement  of  Albanian 
criminal  networks.  Turkish  groups  make  use  of  facilitators  in  Southwest  Asia  to  liaise 
with domestic criminals or brokers, who can purchase large quantities of heroin directly 
from the source region. Very rarely do heroin consignments travel to Europe in a single 
journey; they are bought and sold by different criminal groups along the route. 

The presence of large Turkish or Kurdish communities in Belgium, France, Germany, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom facilitates the activities of Turkish organised crime, 
with increased involvement of third generation Turks. Ethnic Albanian groups control the 

108 

UNODC World Drug Report, 2006 

EN 

69 

   EN 

                                                 
wholesale  markets  for  heroin  in  several  Member  States,  particular  in  the  northern  and 
eastern  parts  of  the  European  Union.  The  drugs  are  obtained  from  depots  located  in 
Central and Eastern Europe.  

The  European  Union  remains,  next  to  the  United  States,  the  second  largest  cocaine 
consumer  market  in  the  world.  An  estimated  250  tons  of  cocaine  enter  the  Union 
annually  via  maritime  shipments,  air  freight  and  couriers.  In  2006,  almost  120  tons  of 
cocaine was seized in the Member States. According to the 2007 World Drug Report of 
UNODC, more than 45% of produced cocaine is intercepted worldwide. 

Spain,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  Italy  continue  to  be  the  principal  entry 
points  of  maritime  cocaine  shipments  into  the  European  Union.  In  2006,  Spanish  law 
enforcement  agencies  seized  49,650  kg  of  cocaine,  with  66%  being  seized  on  the  high 
seas and another 11% in sea-container traffic. Trafficking towards the Iberian Peninsula 
is  dominated  by  the  Colombian-Galician  connection.  In  2006,  Portuguese  and  Spanish 
authorities  dismantled  several  cocaine  processing  laboratories  operated  by  criminal 
groups comprising Spanish, Colombian, Venezuelan and Ecuadorian nationals. Cocaine 
base  was  being  transformed  into  cocaine  hydrochloride  or  extracted  from  clothes  or 
liquids. 

Considerable  amounts  of  cocaine  are  trafficked  from  depots  in  Spain  to  other  Member 
States, with France being an important transit country. The Netherlands is another nexus 
point from where cocaine is distributed. Although large amounts of cocaine are smuggled 
to Europe in sea freight, the role of couriers and air freight is also significant. Each year, 
about  30  tons  of  cocaine  is  transported  by  couriers  from  South  America  and  the 
Caribbean  to  airports  in  the  Netherlands,  Spain,  Portugal,  the  United  Kingdom  and 
France.  

Colombian  groups  operating  in  the  Netherlands  are  almost  exclusively  engaged  in  the 
importation  of  cocaine,  with  subsequent  wholesale  distribution  being  carried  out  by 
Dutch, Surinamese and Antillean groups. However, distribution to the United Kingdom 
is mainly organised by British criminals, often based in the Netherlands. Colombians also 
control the importation of cocaine into Italy with the actual smuggling being carried out 
by Italian-based groups, in particular Calabrians and Albanians. According to the Italian 
authorities,  illicit  cocaine  processing  facilities  are  also  located  in  Albania,  from  where 
cocaine is transported to Italy by powerful speedboats that cross the Adriatic Sea in less 
than one hour.  

Criminal coalitions involved in international cocaine trafficking are increasingly diverse 
in their make-up. For example, Russian criminals in the United States organise cocaine 
importations  from  South  America  to  Austria  in  close  association  with  Slovenians, 
Croatians and Montenegrans.  

Due  to  its  proximity  to  Morocco,  most  cannabis  resin  enters  the  European  Union 
through Spain, with the vast majority destined for other Member States.  

The  Netherlands  is  another  major  nexus  point  for  Moroccan-sourced  cannabis  resin, 
which is largely trafficked overland, through Spain, France and Belgium. Large amounts 
of  Moroccan  cannabis  resin  are  for  secondary  distribution  to  other  Member  States, 
predominantly to the United Kingdom, Germany and Denmark. 

Over recent years, Albania has become a considerable source country of herbal cannabis 
which  is  smuggled,  not  only  into  Greece  and  Italy,  but  also  through  former  Yugoslav 

EN 

70 

   EN 

Republic  of  Macedonia  and  Bulgaria  into  Turkey  and  to  Croatia,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.  

Spanish organised crime groups, in addition to Moroccan groups, are heavily involved in 
the  trafficking  of  cannabis  resin  into  Spain  and  its  subsequent  distribution  to  other 
Member  States,  closely  co-operating  with  other  indigenous  groups,  such  as  British, 
Dutch  and  Scandinavians.  Some  of  these  groups  have  established  bases  in  Spain  to 
facilitate  such  trafficking.  French  criminal  groups,  in  co-operation  with  Spanish, 
Moroccan  and  Algerian  nationals,  are  also  involved  in  large-scale  cannabis  trafficking 
from Spain to their country. 

Hydroponic  cannabis  cultivation  takes  place  in  many  Member  States.  Whilst  home-
grown cultivation for personal use is frequently discovered, sophisticated higher capacity 
facilities  are  commonplace  in  the  Netherlands,  and  to  a  lesser  extent  Belgium  and  the 
United  Kingdom.  Germany  has  also  reported  an  increasing  prevalence  of  professional 
indoor cannabis cultivation. 

4.4.5. 

Synthetic Drugs and drug precursors 

The  European  Union  is  a  major  production  region  for  synthetic  drugs,  in  particular 
amphetamine and MDMA (ecstasy). Annually, some 70 to 90 sites for drug production 
and  storage  on  a  significant  scale  are  seized,  the  vast  majority  of  them  being  in  the 
Netherlands  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  Belgium109.  In  addition,  Poland,  Estonia  and 
Lithuania have played important roles, especially in supplying Germany and the Nordic 
Member States. Furthermore, amphetamine tableted with the 'captagon' logo is produced 
on  a  substantial  scale  in  Bulgaria  for  the  domestic  market  as  well  as  for  the  export  to 
Turkey and Middle Eastern countries.  

Since  2002,  large-scale  facilities,  i.e.  sophisticated  laboratories  of  MDMA,  were  only 
seized in Belgium and the Netherlands. However, dismantling of small-scale production 
units of various sizes and stages of development have also been reported in many other 
Member States.  

As  higher-capacity  production  spreads,  legitimate  chemical  companies  are  likely  to  be 
exploited for the acquisition of chemicals, industrial equipment, specialist glassware and 
other materials. Increased and pro-active law enforcement co-operation with industry will 
be necessary.  

Whilst synthetic drugs are trafficked from the Netherlands and Belgium throughout the 
European  Union,  the  main  European  market  for  both  MDMA  and  amphetamine  is  the 
United  Kingdom.  Many  consignments  to  the  country  have  been  part  of  so-called 
‘cocktail’  loads,  involving  substantial  quantities  of  amphetamine,  MDMA,  cannabis, 
cocaine and heroin. This highlights the need to target facilitating transport organisations, 
where  illicit  loads  for  different  criminal  groups  may  merge.  Other  significant  or 
emerging markets include Germany, Scandinavian countries, Spain and Italy.  

The  processing  of  synthetic  drugs,  in  particular  the  tableting  and  packing  phases  is 
spreading gradually, reducing the risk of an inclusive production criminal network being 
dismantled.  For  instance,  amphetamine  is  often  exported  in  wet  form  from  the 
Netherlands  and  Belgium  to  the  United  Kingdom,  where  it  is  dried  and  re-packed  for 
subsequent distribution. Furthermore, MDMA has been trafficked to the United Kingdom 

109 

Source: Europol data on dismantled sites; see table 4 

EN 

71 

   EN 

                                                 
in  powder  form  which,  together  with  the  seizure  of  tableting  machines,  indicates  the 
existence  of  tableting  facilities  in  that  country.  With  regard  to  MDMA,  this  is 
symptomatic  of  the  trafficking  trends  to  Australia  and  Canada  before  these  countries 
started seizing large scale production facilities.  

MDMA is smuggled to global markets, with large amounts being trafficked via various 
European  ports  and  airports.  This  may  decrease  in  frequency  and  volume  due  to 
increasing  production  capacities  in  Asia,  North  America  and  Oceania,  in  particular  in 
Indonesia, Canada and Australia, where there is sometimes a Dutch connection. In view 
of  this  development,  it  is  believed  that  these  regions  will  eventually  become  self-
sufficient  in  MDMA  production  and  distribution.  Whilst  production  of  MDMA  and 
amphetamine in the European Union is under the control of indigenous organised crime 
groups,  there  is  an  increase  in  the  involvement  of  other  domiciled  or  part-domiciled 
ethnic groups in synthetic drug production i.e. Turks, Moroccans and Chinese.  

As  Dutch  and  Belgian  criminality  continues  to  maintain  its  advantage  with  regard  to 
logistics,  expertise,  use  of  technology,  improved  methodology,  professionalism  and 
production capacity, it is unlikely that their dominance, at least in the short to medium-
term, will diminish significantly on the European Union level.  

Major synthetic drug production in the European Union requires the global diversion of 
(3,4-
(1-Phenyl-2-Propanone)  and  PMK 
drug  precursors, 
Methylenedixoyphenyl-2-propanone), and regional trafficking of other chemicals.  

in  particular  BMK 

Illicit traffic in drug precursors is based on the source and existence of legal manufacture, 
geography,  availability,  demand,  regular  trade  routes,  ease  of  initial  diversion  and 
communication between organised crime in both source and trafficking regions and their 
domiciled counterparts in the European Union.  

In the European Union there is limited legal use of BMK and no legal use of PMK. Both 
are thus sourced from outside the region, mainly from China where they are legitimately 
and  heavily  used  in  the  polymer,  pharmaceutical  and  cosmetic  industries.  Since  2004, 
legitimate industries in the Russian Federation have been identified as sources of diverted 
BMK. Drug precursors that are traded legitimately within these countries are exported to 
Western Europe via legitimate intermediary companies and brokers or (cover) companies 
that  have  been  infiltrated,  established  or  corrupted  by  organised  crime.  Equally, 
companies  are  established  by  synthetic  drug  producers  to  ‘legitimise’  the  acquisition 
and/or  trade  in  chemicals  and  thus  conceal  their  subsequent  diversion  from  the 
authorities.  

A relatively recent phenomenon in the European Union is the increased transhipment of 
suspicious  large-scale  consignments  of  ephedrine  and  pseudo-ephedrine,  the  principal 
precursors for methamphetamine manufacture, mostly en route from Asia with their final 
destination  the  Americas.  This  includes  (wrongly  labelled)  air  cargo  transhipments  of 
pseudo-ephedrine  shipped  from  Congo  to  Belgium  for  onward  transfer  to  Mexico  and 
from Iran to France destined for Congo; of ephedrine consignments from the Balkans to 
the  Czech  Republic  for  methamphetamine  production  and  from  Pakistan  to  Greece 
ultimately bound for the Netherlands; of ephedrine tablets from Pakistan directly to the 
United Kingdom, as well as attempted ephedrine export to Mexico from Belgium.  

In  the  light  of  recent  discoveries  in  the  European  Union  of  recipes  for  large-scale 
methamphetamine  production,  methamphetamine  production  facilities  and  increasing 
seizures,  the  movement  and  potential  diversion  of  (pseudo)ephedrine  should  be  closely 
monitored.  

EN 

72 

   EN 

4.4.6.  New psychoactive substances on the EU drug market 

A significant development in recent years is the spread of various piperazine derivatives. 
This group of synthetic substances includes BZP (1-benzylpiperazine) and mCPP (1-(3-
chlorophenyl) piperazine). BZP has been found in a majority of EU Member States and, 
in March 2008, the Council adopted a Decision110 defining BZP as a new psychoactive 
substance which is to be made subject to control measures and criminal sanctions in the 
EU. 

The  substance  mCPP  has  been  found  in  almost  all  Member  States  and  is  described  as 
producing stimulant and hallucinogenic effects similar to those of ecstasy (MDMA). In 
March 2007, the EMCDDA and Europol submitted to the Commission a concise report 
on the active monitoring of mCPP which concluded that ‘mCPP is unlikely to establish 
itself as a recreational drug in its own right’, due to its indistinct psychoactive properties 
and some adverse effects. Since mCPP has no particular appeal to users, it seems that its 
market in the EU is driven by a supply push rather than a demand pull. 

4.4.7.  Measuring trends in the drug market 

The annual monetary value of the global illicit drug market is estimated at between EUR 
160-200 billion111, making it one of the largest informal economic markets in the world, 
operating  beyond  the  control  and  supervision  of  governments  and  feeding  into  illegal 
organised  crime  activities,  including  money-laundering.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  the 
global illicit drug market is influenced by changes in market conditions, as for any other 
group of commodities. But due to a lack of precise information on the global production 
of illicit drugs, as well as due to a lack of precise information on drug consumption and 
reliable and comparable information on drug seizures, more precise details on the volume 
and  other  key  characteristics  of  the  market  are  still  unknown.  The  lack  of  this 
information makes law enforcement impact difficult to assess.  

A limited number of market indicators are available in a number of EU countries that can 
provide some detail on the drug market. Drug retail prices are available from a limited 
number of Member States, even though these need to be interpreted with caution due to 
reliability and comparability problems and non-standardised methods of calculation and 
collection. Furthermore, prices may be influenced by 'normal' economic factors such as 
exchange  rate developments  between  e.g. the US  dollar and the Euro. Table 9 presents 
the typical retail prices (range of most frequent (modal) prices in most reporting Member 
States) in Europe reported to the EMCDDA. However, the variability of prices is much 
greater, for instance, in the case of heroin, with prices ranging from EUR 15 to EUR 110 
per gram depending on the country of purchase.  

110 

111 

Based  on  the  Council  Decision  on  the  Information  Exchange,  Risk  Assessment  and  Control  of 
new Psychoactive Substances (2005/387/JHA) 
US$ 250-320; source: UNODC 

EN 

73 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 9 – Typical retail prices (range of most frequent (modal) prices in reporting MS) 
Substance 

Unit 

Herbal cannabis/ cannabis resin 
Cocaine 
Ecstasy 
Amphetamines 
Brown heroin 

Typical retail price in 
EUR 
4-10 
50-75 
3-9 
10-15 
30-45 

Gram 
Gram 
Tablet 
Gram 
Gram 

Figure 12 presents an overview of the indexed trends in EU retail prices for major drug 
types in the period from 2000 to 2006112. Based on data available from a limited number 
of EU countries, the street prices corrected for inflation declined for all drugs mentioned 
above over the period 2000–2006. Most reported decreases are in a range of 10–30%, but 
street prices for ecstasy seem to have declined even more. 

Figure 12 - Indexed trends in EU retail prices for major drug types, adjusting for inflation, 2000-
2006 

120 

110 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

)
0
0
1

=

0
0
0
2
(

x
e
d
n

I

Cannabis resin

Herbal cannabis

Cocaine

Heroin brow n

A mphetamines

Ecstasy

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

A  second  indicator  for  developments  on  the  illicit  drug  market  concerns  the  potency/ 
purity of substances purchased or seized in a number of EU Member States113. In 2006, 

112 

113 

Notes  to  Figure  12:  1.  The  trends  represent  the  available  information  on  national  street-level 
prices for each drug in the EU Member States and Norway, weighted by country population sizes 
to form an overall EU trend. Prices have been adjusted for national inflation rates (base year 2000) 
and all series indexed to a base of 100 in 2000. 2. Countries missing drug price information for 
two or more consecutive years are not included in the trend calculations for the drug: the trend for 
heroin brown on 6 (40% of the EU population), amphetamine on 8 (55% of the EU population), 
cocaine  on  9  (58%  of  the  EU  population),  ecstasy  on  10  (58%  of  the  EU  population),  herbal 
cannabis on 10 (61% of the EU population), and cannabis resin on 12 (67% of the EU population). 
3. 3. Additionally, where 2006 data are missing (6 cases) 2005 prices are used; for missing 2001 
data (3 cases) 2002 prices are used; data missing for other years (14 cases) have been interpolated 
from adjacent years. Sources: Price data: Reitox National Focal Points 
It  should  be  recognised  that  purity  levels  will  invariably  reflect  the  stage  at  which  the  drug  is 
taken  out  of  the  illicit  market  i.e.  from  higher  purity  bulk  quantities  to  lower  purity  consumer 
doses.  The  available  data  should  reflect  street  level  prices,  but  not  all  countries  make  this 
distinction very precisely. Furthermore, the sampling is biased towards which samples are tested 
in forensic laboratories, as there are considerable inter-sampling differences.  

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
the reported THC content of cannabis resin samples ranged from 2.3% to 18.4%, while 
that  of  herbal  cannabis  ranged  from  less  than  1%  to  13%.  For  amphetamines,  major 
variations  in  purity  were  observed:  several  countries  reported  purities  of  10%  or  less, 
while others reported levels between 25% and 47%.  

In most reporting countries, the typical MDMA content of an ecstasy tablet was between 
25 and 65 mg in 2006, and high-dose tablets (containing over 130 mg of MDMA) were 
reported  in  some  European  countries.  The  typical  purity  of  cocaine  in  Europe  varied 
considerably,  with  most  countries  reporting  values  between  25%  and  55%.  The  typical 
purity of brown heroin ranged between 15% and 25% in most reporting countries. 

Trends  in  potency  are  difficult  to  establish  because  of  the  considerable  variability  in 
purity  levels.  Furthermore,  there  are  reliability  and  comparability  problems  as  well  as 
non-standardised  methods  of  sample  strategies  and  calculation.  However,  from  the 
available  data  it  can  be  estimated  that  potency  levels  remained  stable  or  declined  for 
cannabis resin and herbal cannabis, for amphetamine and for cocaine. No clear European 
trend is apparent in the data on the MDMA content of ecstasy tablets or in the data on 
heroin. 

4.4.8.  Trends in national drug laws  

Over the past 10 years, most European countries have adopted an approach in their legal 
system that distinguishes between the drug trafficker, who is considered as an operator in 
the  drug  market,  and  drug  (dependent)  users,  who  are  considered  as  consumers  and/or 
victims possibly in need of treatment. However, individual Member States draw different 
distinctions  between  trafficker  and  user,  and  ‘threshold  quantities’  for  personal 
possession has been one of the key issues in this area. Maximum or  probable penalties 
for use or possession for personal use, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, have 
been reduced in various European countries since 2001.  

Member States have introduced or widened options for drug users to undergo treatment 
or  counselling,  instead  of  punishment.  Nevertheless,  these  options  are  overwhelmingly 
conditional; breach of the treatment order will restart the procedure of criminal charge, 
prosecution or punishment.  

A general trend can be observed in Europe in the development of alternatives to criminal 
conviction  for  cases  of  use  and  possession  of  small  quantities  of  cannabis  for  personal 
use  without  aggravating  circumstances.  Cannabis  is  now  frequently  distinguished  from 
other  illicit  substances  either  in  the  law,  by  prosecutorial  directive,  or  by  judiciary 
practice.  For  those  suspected  of  drug  trafficking,  the  trend  is  to  increase  the  possible 
penalty. In addition, there has been an increased emphasis in recent years on penalising 
the specific offence of distributing to young people. 
According to the 2003 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics114, 
covering statistical information  from  over 35 Member States of the Council of  Europe, 
drug  trafficking  offences115  accounted  for  10%  of  all  detainees  in  penitentiaries. 
However, considerable variations exist between countries and, depending on the method 

114 
115 

European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics [2003] 2nd ed., WODC, The Hague 
The category 'drug trafficking offences' may also possession of drugs for own consumption. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

                                                 
of registration of convictions in each reporting country, the share of drug-related offences 
may be higher than reported116. 

Drugs and road transport are an issue that has seen considerable legislative developments 
in recent years. Yet there is a great variation in the individual countries’ legal responses 
to drug-driving, between zero tolerance or impairment laws, and in the range of penalties 
available.  To  facilitate  rapid  detection,  several  countries  have  recently  passed  laws  to 
permit  or  define  roadside  drug  testing,  often  using  on-site  rapid  testing  devices.  Three 
countries have also specifically legislated on testing for drugs in the workplace, while in 
other countries there are new laws to regulate drug testing of drivers, arrestees, prisoners 
or employees in different situations.  

A large Commission project on the influence of alcohol, drugs and medicines on driving, 
funded  by  the  6th  Framework  Programme  and  involving  19  Member  States,  will  be 
finalised  in  2010117.  The  project  will  –  among  others  –  examine  legislative  options  to 
cover the use of illicit and medical substances in traffic legislation, examine possibilities 
and  techniques  for  road-side  screening  and  provide  further  estimates  of  road  accidents 
related to substance use. 

116 

117 

Certain crimes may not be registered as a drug-related offence, but according to the primary act, 
e.g. theft, assault, rape or unintended homicide. 
http://www.druid-
project.eu/cln_007/nn_107542/Druid/EN/home/homepage__node.html?__nnn=true  

EN 

76 

   EN 

                                                 
5. 

5.1. 

IMPACT AND ADDED VALUE OF THE EU DRUGS ACTION PLAN (2005-2008) 

Impact of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) on the drug situation 

As  indicated  at  the  beginning  of  this  report,  the  limitations  that  accompany  this 
evaluation in particular, and evaluation of public policy in general, makes it very difficult 
to  identify  direct  causal  relationships  between  the  impact  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Action Plan and the drugs situation in the EU.  

Nonetheless, this evaluation process carried out by the Commission is relatively unique 
compared  to  other  regions  in  the  world.  Through  the  evaluation  exercise  and  the 
continuing  monitoring  of  the  drug  situation,  EU  policymakers  have  a  wealth  of 
information to their disposal for further analysis.  

As already indicated in Chapter 1, the Action Plan should primarily be considered as a 
coordination  instrument  and  a  'guidance  document'  for  EU  level  and  Member  States 
where drugs policy is concerned. The Action Plan covers a wide range of initiatives and 
activities – some of which have  been in existence for quite a long time – and add new 
priorities.  The  potential  impact  of  the  Action  Plan  –  and  for  that  matter  –  of  the  Drug 
Strategy (2005-2012) lies in the comprehensive and simultaneous implementation of its 
objectives and actions, reflected in the integrated and balanced approach which has been 
embraced by the Member States.  

The vast majority of the objectives in the Action Plan do not have a single significant and 
direct  effect  on  the  drug  situation,  which  includes  drug  use,  adverse  consequences  of 
drug  use  and  drug-related  crimes.  The  rationale  of  intervention  that  underpins  the 
Strategy and Action Plan is that when the different policy elements are implemented in 
conjunction with each other, synergies can emerge that influence drug demand on the one 
hand and drug supply on the other.  

The information gathered through this report is detailed, but in most cases it is the output 
of  specific  objectives  and  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  that  is  presented  and  not  the 
outcome  of  those  actions.  For  example,  if  all  Member  States  had  adopted  the  aim  of 
implementing specific selective prevention programmes for vulnerable groups in society, 
this could be considered as an output. But the available information would not reveal the 
content and quality of these programmes or their accessibility to the target groups. The 
outcome  of  these  interventions,  when  fully  implemented,  would  be  such  that  fewer 
people  who  belong  to  vulnerable  groups  would  develop  a  drug  problem,  ultimately 
resulting in a visible impact on the drug situation, i.e. a reduced demand for drugs from 
these groups and a reduction of the adverse consequences of drug use. Often information 
on output is available, but not information on outcome, let alone on impact. 

The Action Plan states that "the ultimate aim of the Action Plan is to significantly reduce 
the  prevalence  of  drug  use  among  the  population  and  to  reduce  the  social  harm  and 
health damage caused by the use of and trade in illicit drugs".  

This is an ambitious aim given the relatively short period for the implementation of the 
actions  and  objectives.  On  the  basis  of  this  report's  findings,  we  can  conclude  that  the 
aim has, at best, been partly achieved, even though it must be noted that some measures 
have been in place for a longer period of time. When taking the information in this report 
into account, the conclusion can be drawn that the ultimate aim of the Action Plan has at 
best been partly achieved. The prevalence of drug use among the population has not 
been  significantly  reduced,  but  has  stabilised  at  a  historically  high  level  (possibly 

EN 

77 

   EN 

reflecting  a  global  trend),  while  cocaine  use  has  increased  considerably  in  a  growing 
number  of  Member  States.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  Member  States  report  that  they 
have  increasingly  implemented  a  wide  range  of  drug  prevention  programmes  (see 
objectives  8,  9  and  10).  Nevertheless,  the  prevalence  rates  of  drug  use  in  the  EU  are 
modest when put beside other comparable regions and countries in the world where such 
information is available. 

As  regards  the  damage  to  the  health  of  the  population  caused  by  drug  use,  some 
positive signs can be identified. An increasing number of problematic or dependent drug 
users are receiving treatment (obj. 11, 12). However, not much is known about treatment 
outcome,  while  treatment  demand  is  increasing  for  non-opioid  type  drug  users  (e.g. 
cannabis  and  cocaine).  Furthermore,  the  interaction  between  licit  drug  use,  especially 
alcohol, and illicit drug use (cocaine, cannabis) has become an important concern. As a 
consequence,  it  is  not  possible  to  assess  whether  the  Action  Plan  has  had  a  positive 
impact  on  reducing  the  adverse  consequences  of  drug  use  through  the  availability  of 
more treatment. The available indicators do not explain whether an increase in treatment 
demand is the result of an increase in the scale of the problem or in dependent drug use, 
or that treatment services are better equipped to reach out to people who need treatment. 
Probably both are true.  

Nonetheless, a positive impact on reducing the adverse consequences of drug use can be 
seen if we look at the rates of HIV/ AIDS infections among injecting drug users in the 
EU, which have fallen steadily in recent years. In this area, the broad implementation of 
harm reduction measures (obj. 14, 15, 16, 17) and in the HIV/AIDS infection rates seem 
to be linked, even though scientific validation is needed in order to establish a conclusive 
direct relationship. The same is true for the reduction of drug-related deaths and mortality 
among  drug  users,  even  though  the  downward  trend  appeared  to  tail  off  in  2004  and 
2005.  

In relation to the drugs-crime nexus, the social harm caused by the use of and trade in 
illicit drugs has not diminished. As indicated above, the level of drug use prevalence has 
stabilised  or  increased  in  the  past  years.  At  the  same  time,  EU  law  enforcement  has 
produced  an  overall  stable  output  in  the  number  and  quantities  of  seizures  of  the  most 
prevalent  illicit  drugs  throughout  the  EU  and  a  marked  increase  in  cocaine  seizures  in 
recent years. The number of arrests for possession of drugs for personal use has increased 
by 75% since 2000 and the number of arrests for trafficking by 11%. At the same time, 
prices  for  most  illicit  drugs  have  fallen,  some  sharply.  The  purity  of  seized  drugs  has 
remained relatively stable. These data – of imperfect quality – suggest that drug supply to 
the EU has not been affected. Furthermore, there are no signs that drug-related crime in 
the EU has diminished.  

The EU's activities in curbing drug trafficking from e.g. South America towards the EU 
might  have  had  an  impact  on  traditional  trafficking  routes  (obj.  35,  36,  37),  but  this 
conclusion  is  not  supported  by  evidence.  At  the  same  time,  trafficking  routes  are 
becoming  increasingly  divergent  and  a  growing  number  of  neighbouring  countries 
surrounding the EU seem to be targeted by organised crime groups. Furthermore, some 
neighbouring  countries,  in  particular  Eastern  European  neighbours  that  have  a  serious 
HIV/ AIDS epidemic among injecting drug users, may increasingly pose a serious public 
health threat to Member States in the EU.  

EN 

78 

   EN 

5.2. 

Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

5.2.1.  Added value of the Action Plan according to Member States 

As  already  described  in  Chapter  1,  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  emphasises  the  requirement 
that  drug  policy  at  EU  level  should  have  added  value  for  Member  States,  by  creating 
synergies between Member States' drug policies and by tackling the drug problem at EU 
level, if it has the potential to achieve better results.  

The  survey  conducted  for  the  purpose  of  this  evaluation  showed  that  practically  all 
Member States consider that there is an added value in having an Action Plan on Drugs 
at EU level. The key features of the added value can be listed as follows: 

•  An  Action  Plan  provides  clear  European-level  objectives  and  guidance  for  setting 
national  priorities,  resulting  in  greater  coherence  and  convergence  of  drug  policies 
between countries on a voluntary basis. 

•  An Action Plan provides guidance for sharing of best practice and development of 
common  standards  in  many  key  areas  on  both  drug  demand  and  drug  supply 
reduction. 

•  Member States share the view that the Action Plan provides a comprehensive drug 
policy framework, and that it has encouraged the development of high quality, broad 
national strategies and action plans across the EU. 

•  Many  Member  States  indicated  that  the  EU  Action  Plan  was  important  for 
international cooperation. The EU has gained influence in the international arena in 
the  field  of  drugs,  because  it  has  been  able  to  work  on  the  basis  of  the  consensus 
reflected in the Strategy and Action Plan.  

•  The  EU  Action  Plan  plays  an  important  role  in  presenting  the  European  model  of 
drug policy, with the balanced approach and Fundamental Rights as its cornerstones.  

Synergies  created  by  the  Action  Plan  help  to  avoid  displacement  effects  caused  by 
diverging policies among Member States. The Action Plan and its objectives and actions 
provide priorities and indicators, and clarify responsibilities between EU institutions and 
Member  States.  The  Action  Plan  is  also  seen  as  an  instrument  to  promote  cooperation 
among Member States and between Member States and third countries and regions.  

Regarding  the  added  value  of  the  Action  Plan  for  the  national  level,  the  evaluation 
shows that the Action Plan is seen as a catalyst for the development of national policies 
and  that  it  has  helped  to  raise  the  level  of  debate  on  sensitive  policy  issues  at  national 
level,  for  example  on  the  introduction  of  harm  reduction  as  part  of  drug  demand 
reduction policies.  

Member  States  still  consider  national  policy  documents  as  the  primary  source  of 
reference  for  national  drug  policy.  Nevertheless,  all  Member  States  referred  to  the  EU 
Action  Plan  as  being  generally  consistent  and  relevant  for  national  drug  policy  by 
providing  recommendations  and  arguments  for  national  policy  discussions  and 
developments  in  legislation.  The  Action  Plan  has  encouraged  the  initiation  of  joint 
activities  and  operations  in  the  field  of  law  enforcement,  both  within  the  EU  but  also 
towards the main producing countries.  

Finally,  the  focus  on  evidence-based  policymaking,  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
information has provided important added value for national drug policies, resulting in 
greater attention being paid to effectiveness and efficiency at national level.  

EN 

79 

   EN 

So, overall, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is considered by Member States 
as  an  important  policy  instrument,  with  a  clear  added  value  for  both  EU  and 
international cooperation in the field of drugs, but also for the development of national 
drug policies.  

The  Action  Plan  offers  guidance  for  coordination  between  Member  States,  without 
which the EU's representation in international forums would be fragmented and less 
influential.  Given  the  fact  that  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  is  based  upon  a  broad 
consensus  among  Member  States  and  in  fact  reflects  to  a  great  extent  the  existing 
political reality in the Member States, it functions as a representative model of EU drug 
policy  in  international  settings,  something  which  is  impossible  for  individual  EU 
Member States.  

5.2.2.  Added value of the Action Plan 

What  the  Member  States  have  to  say  about  the  added  value  of  the  Action  Plan  has 
already revealed many of its strengths. The fact that so many Member States consider the 
Action  Plan  positively  is  one  example  of  the  growing  convergence  between  drugs 
policies in the Member States. As Chapter 3 shows, Member State drug policy to a large 
extent reflects EU drug policy and vice versa.  

For  the  new  Member  States,  the  (previous)  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  set  a 
benchmark for overarching drug policy during the accession process.  

As the Action Plan brings together many different policy initiatives to deal with the drug 
problem across the board, it encourages coherence and fosters bilateral and multilateral 
cooperation between Member States.  

As  indicated  above,  at  UN  level  the  EU  increasingly  speaks  with  one  voice,  which 
strengthens the position of the EU as a region in UN cooperation.  

In  the  field  of  monitoring  and  evaluation,  the  attention  being  directed  at  these 
cornerstones  of  policy  making  has  helped  to  consolidate  the  ongoing  and  expanding 
collection  of  information  and  data  on  the  drug  situation  through  structures  such  as  the 
EMCDDA.  

Although  one  cannot  conclude  that  some  of  these  developments  might  not  have  taken 
place without the Action Plan, it does still provide the framework and policy agenda for 
cooperation.  

EN 

80 

   EN 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DRUG POLICY 

6.1.1. 

Introduction 

The  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  generally  regarded  as  an  important 
coordination  instrument  for  drug  policy  at  EU  level,  enhancing  cooperation  and 
coordination between Member States, and resulting in a broad variety of activities carried 
out at all levels of drug policy. The Action Plan has not remained a 'dead letter'.  

The  EU's  resolve  to  base  drug  policy  on  scientific  information  and  best  available 
evidence and to foster the monitoring and evaluation of these policies remains strong. In 
practice,  such  an  approach  involves  bringing  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  these 
policies into the open. This makes the EU vulnerable to criticism from other structures, 
countries  and  regions  that  do  not  pursue  the  same  level  of  transparency.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  the  process  of  "trial  and  error"  that  provides  the  impetus  for  innovation  and 
effectiveness.  

Evaluating the impact of public policy plans such as the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-
2008  is  by  nature  not  a  simple  exercise.  The  aim  of  the  Action  Plan  was  to  coordinate 
and  influence  major  areas  of  government  interventions  in  the  field  of  drugs  (public 
health/  security/  external  relations),  targeting  a  complex  social  phenomenon  that  is  still 
insufficiently  understood,  which  largely  takes  place  outside  the  scope  and  control  of 
public authorities and which demands a long-term approach.  

The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) and the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) pay a 
great  deal  of  attention  to  the  important  role  of  coordination  at  EU  level  as  a  pre-
condition  for  the  implementation  of  the  drug  policy  objectives  and  priorities. 
Overall, the evaluation suggests that the current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) 
has initiated a broad range of activities and cooperation. The Action Plan has been more 
than  a  plan  on  paper:  progress  has  been  made  on  nearly  all  specific  objectives  and 
actions, with varying degrees of success.  

6.1.2.  To  what  extent  have  the  operational  objectives  and  actions  in  the  current  EU 
Action Plan on Drugs been implemented and what have been the main outputs?  

6.1.2.1.  Overall conclusions 

The  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  is  mainly  a  coordination  instrument,  pulling 
together the main strands of drug policy. The Action Plan is a non-binding coordination 
document  for  Member  States,  who  are  autonomous  in  implementing  its  aims  and 
objectives.  

(1) 

(2) 

This indirect implementation may be effective in providing guidance for national 
policy level, but it does make assessment of the direct consequences of the plan 
more complicated. 

The Action Plan suffers from a number of internal inconsistencies as well as from 
the large number of objectives and actions, and the lack of prioritisation between 
them.  These  inconsistencies  need  to  be  avoided  when  drafting  the  next  Action 
Plan. 

6.1.2.2.  Coordination 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Horizontal  Drugs  Group  is  the  main  forum  of  drug 
coordination at EU level. The European Commission is well coordinated in the Council. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

At the same time, coordination within the Commission regarding the implementation of 
the  Action  Plan  can  be  improved,  among  others  by  setting  clearer  priorities  and  by 
improving the communication on EU drug policy objectives across policy fields.  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

All  EU  Member  States  have  a  national  drug  strategy,  action  plan  and/or  other 
overarching  drug  policy  in  place.  In  over  half  of  the  countries,  these  policy 
documents reflect the structure and set-up of the EU Drug Strategy or EU Action 
Plan  on  Drugs.  Most  Member  States  have  also  appointed  a  central  coordinating 
body  for  the  coordination  of  drug  policy,  but  the  form  and  shape  of  these 
structures may vary.  

In all agreements that the EU has finalised with third countries/ regions, a specific 
clause  on  drugs  has  been  included.  However,  the  exact  value  of  having  these 
clauses on drugs has yet to be examined, as no information is available on their 
follow-up.  

Furthermore,  there  is  a  lack  of  strategic  coordination  of  EU  assistance  to  third 
countries,  in  particular  between  Member  States  and  between  national  and  EU 
level. 

In a large number of EU Member States, civil society is actively involved in drug 
policy-making at national level. In some Member States, active involvement also 
includes the local level and/ or involvement in delivery of services. 

The feedback and interpretation of drug-related data by policy makers needs to be 
improved. The annual reports of the Commission, EMCDDA and Europol are not 
presented together and analysed in coherence and the results are seldom translated 
into new insights or policy proposals.  

6.1.2.3.  Drug demand reduction 

invested 

indicated  prevention 
Member  States  have 
programmes across the board, but the evidence base underpinning these programmes is 
still weak and they are seldom evaluated, and therefore often not evidence-based. Only a 
handful of Member States have introduced general quality guidelines for prevention.  

in  universal,  selective  and 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  coverage,  content  and  effectiveness  of  these  prevention  programmes  is 
unclear.  Overall,  the  quality  of  selective  prevention  programmes  is  not  highly 
regarded  by  experts.  In  the  field  of  indicated  prevention  –  covering,  among 
others,  drug  use  in  recreational  settings  –  there  is  very  little  information  on  the 
existence of such programmes in Member States.  

A  majority  of  Member  States  report  that  they  offer  a  variety  of  treatment 
programmes to dependent drug users, including drug-free treatment, psychosocial 
treatment  and  substitution  treatment.  An  increasing  number  of  Member  States 
have also developed quality guidelines for treatment programmes, but the level of 
application is still unclear. Further improvements are also needed in accessibility, 
availability and coverage of treatment services.  

New treatment options and/or settings are required for new or emerging types of 
drug  problems,  including  polydrug  use,  intensive  cannabis  use  or  crack  cocaine 
addiction.  Member  States  need  to  invest  in  adapting/adjusting  to  new  trends  in 
demand for treatment.  

(4) 

In the field of harm reduction, major progress has been achieved in recent years. 
In all EU Member States the prevention and reduction of drug-related harm is a 

EN 

82 

   EN 

defined  public  health  objective  at  national  level.  Among  the  most  prevalent 
interventions are needle and syringe exchange programmes, combined with health 
education  and  advice,  outreach  workers  and  opioid  substitution  treatment 
combined  with  psycho-social  assistance.  However,  availability  and  accessibility 
of  these  programmes  are  variable  among  the  Member  States  and  in  some 
countries with low coverage there are signs of higher levels of risk-taking among 
new, younger generations of – in particular - heroin injectors, who have not been 
reached by prevention and harm reduction messages. 

(5) 

The availability of standardised information and data on the social consequences 
of drug use is very limited. This also includes information on the efforts made by 
Member States to rehabilitate and reintegrate (problematic) drug users in society.  

(6)  Many countries have acknowledged the major importance of equivalence of care 
between  prison  and  community  and  the  continuity  of  services  for  released 
prisoners  with  drug-use  related  problems.  However,  drug  services  in  prison  and 
other  custodial  settings  still  need  to  be  improved  so  as  to  prevent  and  reduce 
infectious  diseases  and  to  reduce  the  risks  of  drug-related  deaths,  which  are 
increasing (in the period immediately after release from prison). 

(7) 

Treatment  and  harm  reduction  programmes  are  often  not  tailored  to  address  the 
specific  needs  and  problems  of  different  groups  of  problem  or  dependent  drug 
users, e.g. women, under-aged young people, migrants, specific ethnic groups and 
vulnerable groups. This conclusion was confirmed by civil society organisations 
represented in the Commission's Civil Society Forum on Drugs.  

6.1.2.4.  Reduction of drug supply 

Law enforcement cooperation between Member States through existing instruments is on 
the increase, even though the existing instruments such as JITs and JCOs are not being 
used to the full extent.  

(1)  Whilst Member State support to Europol has been enhanced, in particular in the 
area of synthetic drugs and related precursors, there remains substantial room for 
improvement  in  all  areas.  This  requires,  inter  alia,  enhanced  information  and 
intelligence  collation  and  coordination  between  law  enforcement  services  at  the 
national level.  

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The results of various operational and intelligence law enforcement cross-border 
projects  in  the  EU  highlight  the  importance  of  strengthening  intelligence 
gathering  and  sharing  as  a  basis  for  enhanced,  intelligence-led  law  enforcement 
along air, sea and land routes.  

Nevertheless,  despite  the  increased  investment  in  law  enforcement  cooperation, 
arrests  and  seizures,  the  overall  drug  market  is  stable,  and  prices  have  fallen  in 
recent years. 

The Drug Strategy's objective of making it easier to measure supply reduction and 
law enforcement output more effectively and therefore make it more accountable, 
is complicated by a lack of availability of standardised key indicators in this area. 
Various different methods and channels are used to collect data on drug seizures. 
Furthermore, not all Member States contribute actively to this data collection, and 
these include some major destination countries.  

EN 

83 

   EN 

(5) 

(6) 

A long-term solution on forensic profiling for synthetic drugs is not yet in place, 
but considerable progress has been made.  

The number of arrests for drug related offences rose considerably between 2000 
and  2006,  although  in  most  cases  the  rise  is  due  to  arrests  for  consumption  of 
drugs.  It  is  unclear  to  what  extent  these  arrests  result  in  actual  sentences.  The 
number  of  arrests  for  drug-trafficking  has  increased  marginally  in  the  same 
period. 

(7) 

In almost all Member States, there is a lack of priority accorded to drug precursor 
control by national Customs organisations.  

(8)  Member  States'  cooperation  in  the  field  of  combating  money  laundering  and 
confiscation  of  assets  has  progressed  in  recent  years,  and  the  number  of 
investigations is increasing.  

6.1.2.5.  International cooperation 

According  to  the  Member  States,  the  Action  Plan  has  been  important  in  terms  of 
achieving  coherence  and  consensus  between  EU  Member  States  at  international  level. 
Increasingly,  the  Action  Plan  is  regarded  as  the  "showcase"  of  the  EU  drugs  policy 
outside the EU.  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  EU  has  increasingly  taken  a  consistent  position,  in  particular  in  the  United 
Nations  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  (CND).  However,  in  the  Plenary 
Sessions, the EU does not yet always speak with one voice.  

A large number of assistance projects with candidate, stabilisation and association 
process countries have been supported in recent years. Furthermore, (negotiations 
on) agreements have started or already been finalised with many of the countries 
involved,  in  particular  regarding  their  participation  in  the  EMCDDA  and 
cooperation with Europol and Eurojust.  

The  EU's  integrated  and  balanced  approach  on  drugs  has  served  as  a  model  for 
Candidate  Countries,  Stabilisation  and  Association  Process  countries,  as  well  as 
many  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  Countries  in  developing  their  national 
drug strategies and action plans.  

The EU is a major player where assistance to third countries in the field of drugs 
is  concerned.  Based  on  the  total  stock  of  drug-related  projects  in  2005, 
Afghanistan and the Andean countries are the main beneficiaries of the EUR 760 
million spent by the EU in 2005, two-thirds of which was allocated to alternative 
development.  With  5%  of  the  overall  external  funding,  current  spending  on 
demand reduction is not well-balanced in international assistance projects, but it 
is increasing slightly.  

(5) 

The  priorities  of  EU  drug  policy  are  not  always  explicitly  linked  into  external 
funding programmes and projects in third countries.  

(6)  With  specific  donations  of  over  EUR  20  Million  a  year,  the  EU  Member  States 

are major contributors to UNODC (excluding EC contributions).  

EN 

84 

   EN 

6.1.2.6.  Information, research and evaluation 

The quality of information that is available on the drug situation in Europe has improved 
in recent years, with the support for the activities of Europol and the EMCDDA, assisted 
and enabled through enhanced Member State provision.  

(1) 

(2) 

Research  cooperation  in  the  field  of  illegal  drugs  needs  more  stimulation.  A 
Commission study launched in 2008 will provide insight into research in the field 
of illicit drugs in the EU, and the results of its findings in 2009 will pave the way 
for  greater  coordination  between  researchers  in  the  EU,  as  well  as  identifying 
future priorities to bridge the knowledge gaps in the field of drugs research.  

The  Commission  acknowledges  the  importance  of  monitoring  and  information 
sharing in the drugs field through its funding programmes and the funding of the 
EMCDDA.  Diminishing  support  from  national  governments  to  National  Focal 
Points is giving increasing cause for concern, as they are an essential part of the 
information infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  

(3)  Monitoring  of  drug  demand  reduction  is  improving,  but  demands  continued 
attention  and  support  for  implementation  of  common  data  collection  standards 
and methodologies at the level of the Member States.  

(4) 

(5) 

The  availability  of  reliable,  comparable  and  usable  information  and  data  in  the 
field  of  drug  supply  and  supply  reduction  is  an  ongoing  cause  for  concern, 
preventing a proper analysis of the EU drug market and the effectiveness of law 
enforcement actions.  

The need for evaluation of drug policies continues to be very important. The final 
evaluation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  can  be  considered  as  the 
most detailed evaluation of EU drug policy ever. But improvements are required 
in order to better assess policy impacts. 

6.1.3.  Have the specific priorities in the Strategy and the operational objectives in the 

Action Plan been adopted by Member States? 

The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are suitably reflected in national policies. The 
evaluation  shows  that  Member  States  have  translated  the  objectives  of  the  Action  Plan 
into  national  policy,  and/or  that  these  objectives  were  already  reflected  in  existing 
documents. 

(1)  Member  States  report  that  the  Action  Plan  reflects  the  main  policy  fields  at 
national  level.  Some  national  priorities  are  not  covered,  mostly  owing  to 
differences in the drug situations in Member States.  

(2) 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Action  Plan  supports  a  process  of  convergence 
between  Member  States'  drug  policies  and  helps  to  achieve  policy  consistency 
between countries. 

6.1.4.  What have been the overall changes in the drug situation in recent years?  

Although there has not been a significant reduction in the prevalence of drug use, the use 
of  the  most  prevalent  drugs  seems  to  have  stabilised  and/or  fallen  slightly.  The  use  of 
cocaine is showing an upward trend in some Member States.  

(1) 

The  long-term  trend  in  the  EU  in  the  prevalence  of  drug-related  infectious 
diseases,  especially  HIV/  AIDS  infections,  is  that  these  have  been  reduced  in 

EN 

85 

   EN 

(2) 

(3) 

recent  years,  as  have  drug-related  deaths  (except  for  the  years  2004  and  2005). 
Nevertheless, major efforts still have to be made. 

New trends in drug use, especially poly-drug use, have emerged in recent years. 
This  involves  in  particular  the  combined  use  of  illicit  and  licit  substances, 
including alcohol.  

The  number  and  size  of  cocaine  seizures  are  rising,  while  for  herbal  cannabis, 
heroin  and  amphetamines  seizures  appear  to  be  stabilising.  The  number  of 
seizures of cannabis resin has increased, while the quantity seized has decreased. 
Prices for illicit substances in general have fallen, while purity levels seem to be 
fairly stable. As a result, it is difficult to draw conclusions about whether seizure 
levels  have  an  effect  on  the  availability  of  drugs  and/or  on  the  organised  crime 
groups involved. 

(4) 

In  the  light  of  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  the  scale  and  seriousness  of  the  drug 
problem in the EU continues to be considerable, in terms of both health and social 
costs.  

6.1.5.  To what extent can these changes be associated with the implementation of the 

EU Action Plan on Drugs?  

The stabilisation in prevalence levels of most illicit drugs except for cocaine cannot be 
linked to specific interventions implemented through the Action Plan. 

(1) 

(2) 

At  the  same  time,  the  ongoing  reduction  in  drug-related  infectious  diseases  and 
drug-related  deaths,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  EU  wide  implementation  of  harm 
reduction measures, on the other, suggests a correlation, even though such a link 
cannot  be  proven.  However,  some  Member  States  have  achieved  dramatic 
reductions  in  drug-related  health  harms  after  the  introduction  of  harm  reduction 
measures.  

The  ongoing  and  apparently  stable  supply  of  illicit  drugs  into  Europe  does  not 
seem  to  be  affected  by  existing  interventions,  including  those  implemented 
through the Action Plan. Whilst it may be suggested that the changing trafficking 
routes  are  a  consequence  of  law  enforcement  operations,  such  actions  do  not 
appear  to  have  had  any  effect  on  supply,  price  or  purity.  However,  the  lack  of 
reliable  statistical  information  and  data  prevents  any  credible  conclusions  being 
drawn.  

6.1.6.  What is the overall EU added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008? 

Member  States  consider  that  the  Action  Plan  has  added  value  at  both  EU  level  as  for 
national policy, where the Action Plan functions as a guiding document.  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Furthermore,  the  current  Action  Plan  represents  a  European  added  value  in 
committing the Member States, the Commission and other relevant actors - albeit 
not in a mandatory form - to achieving commonly agreed objectives. 

The Action Plan provides a framework for strengthening coordination structures 
at the EU level and for a coherent approach on drugs. 

The Action Plan has a specific added value at international level, where the EU's 
integrated,  balanced  approach  between  demand  and  supply  reduction,  with  due 
respect for Fundamental Rights, is seen as the EU model of drug policy. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

6.2. 

Recommendations for the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) 

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  was  the  most  detailed  Action  Plan  to  date, 
constructed to implement the objectives of the Strategy. The final evaluation showed that 
progress  has  been  made  on  many  operational  objectives  defined  in  the  Action  Plan. 
However, there are also a number of important lessons to be learned for the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2009-2012).  

The implementation  of  the EU Action Plan will  continue to face significant difficulties 
due  to  the  non-binding  nature  of  the  plan.  The  Action  Plan  can  only  have  an  indirect 
effect on the implementation of drug policies in Member States.  

(1) 

(2) 

The next EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) may benefit from a reduced number 
of objectives and actions and the formulation of a limited number of priorities. It 
is  also  important  to  identify  responsibilities  for  implementing  the  specific 
activities more closely and following up on them.  

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  important  to  note  that  the  next  Action  Plan  will 
continue to be based on the Strategy and on the EU  model  of an integrated and 
balanced  approach.  An  Action  Plan  that  aims  to  function  as  a  coordinating  and 
guiding  document  in  all  key  areas  of  drug  policy,  that  requires  the  participation 
and involvement of 27 Member States with different drug problems and different 
responses  to  them,  will  by  its  very  nature  not  have  to  be  too  detailed  nor  too 
concise and limited in scope and size if it is to appeal to all stakeholders.  

6.2.1.  Recommendations in the field of coordination 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Initiatives  by  EU  Member  States  can  be  further  supported,  where  necessary,  by 
the Commission using existing budgetary resources and technical support in order 
to foster EU coherence of such initiatives. 

Greater emphasis could be placed on the cycle of reporting on the drug situation 
in  Europe.  The  current  annual  reports  of  Commission,  EMCDDA  and  Europol 
could be analysed in more detail, when necessary culminating in specific Council 
conclusions.  

The role of the National Drug Coordinators could be enhanced and brought into 
line with the work of the HDG, and a review could be conducted of the extent to 
which Member States' drug policies are consistent with the EU Action Plan.  

6.2.2.  Recommendations in the field of drug demand reduction 

(1) 

(2) 

Greater attention should be paid to the development and actual implementation of 
quality guidelines and benchmarks for effective interventions in the field of drug 
demand. There are no interventions at EU level.  

Greater  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  roll-out  and  dissemination  of  effective 
interventions.  The  knowledge  base  in  the  field  of  drugs  is  expanding  and 
improving,  but  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  at  the  professional  level  is  still 
inadequate.  

(3)  More attention should be focused on objectives in the field of drug prevention, for 
example by emphasising the importance of delaying first use and by focusing on 
poly drug use, including licit substances such as alcohol.  

EN 

87 

   EN 

(4)  Member  States  should  develop  the  availability  of  treatment  options  for  non-
traditional types of problematic drug use, such as cannabis use and amphetamine 
use.  

(5) 

(6) 

The Member States should invest more efforts in reducing avoidable drug-related 
infectious diseases, in particular HIV/ AIDS and Hepatitis C.  

The Member States should invest more efforts in reducing avoidable drug-related 
deaths – currently around 7.500 per year - by investing in prison health-care and 
after care and by further rolling out harm reduction interventions.  

(7)  More  attention  should  be  given  to  the  needs  of  specific  groups  in  prevention, 
treatment  and  rehabilitation,  e.g.  drug  dependent  (pregnant)  women,  under-aged 
children, ethnic groups, etc. 

6.2.3.  Recommendations in the field of drug supply reduction 

(1) 

Greater  attention  should  be  given  to  the  development  of  quality  guidelines  and 
benchmarks  for  measuring  effective  interventions  in  the  field  of  drug  supply 
reduction,  both  at  national  level  –  with  due  regard  to  national  practices  and 
legislation – and at EU level.  

(2)  More  and  better  use  should  be  made  of  existing  instruments  in  the  field  of  law 

enforcement cooperation between Member States.  

(3)  More emphasis should be placed on identifying and reporting new trends in drug 
trafficking routes with a view to analysing related data and developing rapid and 
effective responses, by exploiting Europol capacity as appropriate. 

(4)  With regard to multilateral cooperation, in particular in the framework of Europol 
activities,  the  focus  should  be  on  the  coordinated  efforts  and  contributions  of 
those  Member  States  most  highly  exposed  to  or  impacting  on  a  particular  drug 
production / trafficking phenomenon.  

(5) 

EU  activities  in  the  field  of  supply  reduction  should  increasingly  be  based  on  a 
proper  analysis  of  the  mechanisms  that  govern  the  illicit  drug  market  and  be 
based on the principle of intelligence-led law enforcement.  

(6)  More emphasis could be placed on law enforcement objectives that aim to reduce 
the negative consequences of the drug trade and the impact of organised crime on 
society  at  relevant  phases  in  the  chain  from  drug  production  to  retail,  including 
anti-fraud  and  anti-money  laundering  activities  and  the  confiscation  of  financial 
assets.  

(7) 

The evidence base for supply reduction measures should be  strengthened. Often 
the  complexity  of  the  law  enforcement  system,  its  operational  character  and  the 
need  for  confidentiality  in  operations  are  mentioned  as  significant  obstacles  to 
achieving  greater  transparency  and  insight  on  the  impact  of  law  enforcement 
activities. Such a lack of transparency in unsatisfactory and cannot continue. By 
placing  greater  emphasis  on  monitoring,  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
evaluation and research can be enhanced, which is essential when allocating finite 
resources. 

6.2.4.  Recommendations in the field of international cooperation 

(1) 

The  balanced  approach,  reflecting  a  proportionate  response  in  drug  demand  and 
drug  supply  reduction  while  respecting  EU  fundamental  rights,  should  be 

EN 

88 

   EN 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

emphasised more strongly in the EU's cooperation with third countries, including 
those along trafficking routes. 

This  involves  identifying  complementarities  and  coherence  between  the  funding 
instruments at EU level and national level through explicit policy priorities during 
the present funding period and in preparing for the next funding period from 2013 
onwards.  

The  coherence  between  political  decisions/strategies  taken,  for  example,  in 
Troikas, political dialogues and mechanisms such as EU-LAC and in the funding 
of  drug-related  projects  through  regionally  oriented  EC  funding  programmes 
should be improved 

International cooperation should monitor and – if possible – anticipate new drug 
trafficking  routes,  which  can  help  prioritise  EU  assistance  to  countries  and 
regions  along  these  routes,  to  support  law  enforcement  cooperation  and  address 
emerging drug-related health and social problems. 

Alternative  livelihoods,  taking  into  account  specific  economic  and  social 
problems  of  local  crop  producers,  has  become  a  major  tool  for  the  EU  in  its 
Strategy  to  reduce  the  growing  of  coca,  opium  poppy  and  cannabis  in  producer 
countries, and might be further strengthened in the new Action Plan.  

Existing cooperation mechanisms, such as EU-LAC Mechanism for Cooperation 
and  Coordination,  should  be  further  supported  and  developed,  and  action  plans 
need to be implemented.  

The Action Plans on Drugs (Central Asia, Western Balkans, Afghanistan) and the 
drug-related  provisions  in  the  action  plans  with  the  European  Neighbourhood 
countries and third country cooperation agreements need to be fully implemented 
with financial assistance from the Member States and the EU 

6.2.5.  Recommendations in the field of information, research and evaluation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  quality  and  availability  at  EU  level  of  relevant  data  and  information  in  the 
field of drug supply reduction and drug-related crime should be improved, while 
comparable  indicators  in  the  field  of  drug  demand  reduction  should  be  further 
developed and implemented.  

Research  into  the  evidence  base  underpinning  drug  demand  and  drug  supply 
reduction  policies  should  be  further  developed  through  better  coordination  and 
cooperation  between  Member  States  and  at  EU  level.  An  effective  research 
priority  identification  and  setting  should  be  ensured  by  a  coordinated  approach 
between  stakeholders  and  the  relevant  Commission  services.  Drug  related 
research  priorities  should  be 
future  Community  Research 
included 
Programmes. All Presidencies during the current EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-
2008) have made a strong case for enhanced coordination. 

in 

There is a need for further consolidation of information structures at national and 
EU  levels,  in  particular  those  of  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol,  so  that  the 
information needed for the monitoring and evaluation of the EU Action Plans is 
provided  and  collected  in  a  systematic  and  comparable  manner.  Work  towards 
measuring drug policy impacts at national and EU level should continue. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

To support collation at EU-level, the data collection and information gathering via 
National Focal Points of the Reitox network and through Europol National Units 
should be maintained and, where necessary, strengthened.  

Information  exchange  mechanisms  could  be  developed  to  measure  practical 
delivery  of  policy  outputs  against  political  commitment,  in  particular  regarding 
key conditions for the implementation and effectiveness of objectives and actions 
in the Action Plan. 

The  integrated,  balanced  approach  should  be  further  strengthened  by  closer 
collaboration between the demand reduction and supply reduction sectors, the aim 
being to identify possible unintended consequences of one policy on another and 
to  better  understand  the  (local)  drugs  phenomenon  and  related  market,  allowing 
the identification of and effective response to new trends and to health and social 
threats. 

Evaluation of drug policies at national and EU level, and the exchange of related 
best  practices,  should  be  further  encouraged  as  a  way  of  providing  a  solid 
foundation for an evidence-based EU drug policy. 

By the end of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) and 
the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012), the outcomes  of  EU  drug policy should be 
evaluated. On the basis of the evaluation, a reflection period of at least one year 
should take place to allow for a proper analysis of achievements and follow-up. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

Annex 1 — Overview of objectives and actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

This  is  a  simplified  table  compared  to  the  progress  reviews  2006/2007.  No  indicators  are  mentioned  (though  progress  reporting  will  involve  the 
indicator and assessment tool).  

Number 

Objective/ action 

Respon- 
sible 

MS 

Ensure a balanced, multidisciplinary 
approach. 
Member States, with due regard to their 
national legislation and administrative 
structures, to adopt an overall national 
strategy and one or more action plans on 
drugs and to ensure that national 
strategies/action plans are in line with the 
EU Strategy/Action Plans. 

Effective coordination at EU and national 
level 
Member States and the Commission to 
have a fully operational drugs 
coordination mechanism and to designate 
a person, department or body to act as 
drugs coordinator. 

MS 
COM 

Level of achievement 

This objective has been partly achieved 
In  early  2008,  all  EU  Member  States  except  Austria118  had  a  national  drug  strategy  and/or  a  national 
drug action plan. During the period 2005-2008, two countries which had previously no such documents 
adopted one: Italy (action plan) and Malta (drug policy document). 
The United Kingdom, in 2008, adopted for the first time both a drug strategy and an action plan. This 
approach to planning exists now in almost half of EU Member States. 
Overall, between 2005 and early 2008, 18 Member States implemented new or updated drug strategies 
and/or action plans119. In addition, nine Member States120 have drug policy documents which are due to 
end in 2008, and these policies are likely to be revised shortly. 
The average duration of national drug strategies or single policy documents (programme, action plan) in 
the EU is currently around seven years, while the average duration of complementary action plans tends 
to be about four years. Exceptions to this include the Dutch drug policy document, which dates back to 
1995, and the new 2008 drug action plan for Italy, which has a duration of only one year.  

This objective has been achieved 
Information on this action was reported by the Member States’ National Focal Points to the EMCDDA. 
Member  States  were  also  asked  to  confirm  their  coordination  structure  through  the  Commission’s 
survey.  Drug  coordination  mechanisms  exist  in  all  EU  Member  States.  However,  their  characteristics 
vary  as  they  reflect  the  political  structure,  administrative  culture  and  size  of  each  country.  The  most 
frequent mechanism (20 Member States) has three components to it: 
an inter-ministerial body which defines the drug policy and adopts the national strategies and action 
plans; 

Austria has a regional drug or addiction strategy in all its nine Provinces. 
Bulgaria  (updated  action  plan),  Czech  Republic  (strategy  and  two  successive  action  plans),  Estonia  (action  plan),  Greece  (strategy),  Spain  (action  plan),  France  (plan 
addiction), Italy (action plan), Latvia (programme), Luxembourg (strategy and action plan), Hungary (action plan), Malta (policy document), Poland (programme), Portugal 
(action plan), Romania (action plan), Finland (programme), Slovakia (action plans), Sweden (action plan), United Kingdom (strategy and action plan) 
Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia 

EN 

91 

EN 

1 

2 

118 
119 

120 

 
  
                                                 
an operational body which does the day-to-day coordination in the drug policy field; 
regional and/or municipal bodies which coordinate drug-related measures at the local level 
Twenty-five  Member  States  have  one  or  more  designated  coordinators  or  coordination  bodies  in  the 
drugs field: eleven report that they have one (or two) specialised agency(ies) or department(s), five that 
they  have  a  national  drug  coordinator  and  nine  that  they  have  both.  In  the  two  remaining  Member 
States, the responsibility lies with one (or more) member(s) of the government.  
The current drug coordination mechanisms were implemented before 2005. However, a few changes at 
national and regional/local level have occurred since then. 
At EU level, all Member States participate in the meetings of the National Drug Coordinators, though 
the representation in these meetings is not always consistent for each country.  
Conclusions  
Drug  policy  coordination  mechanisms  are  in  place  in  every  Member  States,  but  the  available 
information  does  not  indicate  whether  these  mechanisms  are  ‘fully  operational’  and  whether  they  are 
influential  enough  to  have  a  coordinated  impact  on  the  policies  of  the  Member  States.  The  impact 
depends on the policy implementation mechanisms available to the coordination structure as well as on 
the  quality  of  information  and  feedback  on  achievements  and  the  extent  to  which  implementation  of 
drug policy is a shared concern within governments. The presence of a coordinating entity at national 
level is in itself an acknowledgement of the crosscutting nature of drugs as a policy area and the need 
for  a  balanced  approach  in  this  field.  It  is  recommendable  to  include  the  issue  of  coordination  and 
implementation in national drug policy evaluations.  

This objective has been achieved 
In 2006 the Commission published a Green Paper on the role of Civil Society in Drugs Policy in the 
European Union.  After  a  wide—ranging  consultation on  how  to  organise  a  structured  and  continuous 
dialogue between the Commission and Civil Society, 26 organisations were selected as Members of the 
Forum  out  of  75  on  the  basis  of  the  conditions  set  out  in  a  report  published  in  June  2007.  The  first 
meeting  of  the  Civil  Society  Forum  was  held  in December  2007,  with  informal  exchanges  and views 
between  the  Commission  and  the  Civil  Society  on  the 2007  Progress Review  of  the  EU  Action  Plan. 
Moreover,  as  part  of  the  work  of  the  Final  Evaluation  and  the  new  action  plan,  the  Commission 
consulted  civil  society  in  the  2nd  Forum  in  May  2008,  generating  constructive  suggestions  and 
recommendations on the part of the civil society.  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Thus far, no debate has been organised in Council on the involvement of Civil Society in the Horizontal 
Drugs Group. Nevertheless, with a view to this present evaluation, the Commission asked the Member 

3 

3.1 

Strengthen the involvement of civil 
society 

The Commission to issue a Green Paper on 
ways of cooperating effectively with civil 
society. 

COM 

3.2 

Member States to give the opportunity to 
civil society to present their opinion. 

MS 

EN 

92 

EN 

 
  
 
 
4 

4.1 

Effective coordination in the Council 

The HDG to focus its activities on 
monitoring implementation of the EU 
Action Plan. 

Council 

States to report on the existence of public consultation mechanisms and the involvement of civil society 
in national (or regional/ local) drug policy. Responses varied as to whether civil society is consulted by 
authorities and institutions at national level. Civil society was consulted at national level by 13 Member 
States during the process of formulation and adoption of (re-) newed national drug policy. The majority 
of  countries  reported  frequent  consultation  between  national  institutions  and  NGOs  through  informal 
discussions, websites and surveys. Six countries reported that a representative from civil society takes 
part  in  meetings  of  the  central  authorities  and/  or  national  drug  coordinating  mechanism  on  drugs 
related matters.  
In  Estonia,  Finland,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands  and  Sweden,  no  specific  options  are  available  for  civil 
society to have a dialogue with public authorities on drug policy. Involvement takes place through the 
political system, public debate and contacts between NGOs and government. 
Conclusion 
A  majority  of  Member  States  have  developed  consultation  mechanisms  for  the  involvement  of  civil 
society  in  drug  policy.  Some  Member  States  have  also  introduced  such  mechanisms  at  local  level. 
However,  organisations  that  participate  in  the  Commission’s  Civil  Society  Forum  on  Drugs  have 
indicated  that  civil  society  involvement  could  be  more  substantial  and  also  support  the  collection  of 
qualitative information on the delivery of services.  

This objective has been achieved 
The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) has played a consistent role in the agenda planning of HDG 
Presidencies between 2005 and 2008. Most Presidencies identified current or upcoming actions under 
the  Action  Plan  timetable.  The  HDG  Presidencies  managed  specific  priorities  or  profiles  during  their 
term.  After  the  adoption  of  the  Action  Plan  during  the  UK  Presidency,  the  Austrian  Presidency 
stressed  International  Cooperation  (UN),  while  the  Finnish  Presidency  emphasised  EU  research  and 
the  involvement  of  Civil  Society  and  organised  a  conference  in  the  2nd  half  of  2006.  The  German 
Presidency placed  much  emphasis  on  drug  demand  reduction,  in  particular  on  harm  reduction  (drug-
related  infectious  diseases)  but  also  on  drug  prevention  programmes,  early  detection  and  early 
intervention121.  In  supply  reduction,  the  Germans  stressed  the  control  of  cross-border  trafficking, 
including joint interdisciplinary operation projects, etc. The German Presidency was also very active in 
the field of international cooperation, especially cooperation with Latin America.  
The agenda of the Portuguese Presidency focused on two main objectives: responding to the changing 
dynamics  of  drug  supply  and  drug  demand  and  proposing  future  actions  to  take  forward  the  Action 
Plan. The Presidency placed West Africa — a rapidly growing platform for the redistribution to Europe 

121 

This priority was discussed during the meeting of National Drug Coordinators. 

EN 

93 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
4.2 

5 

5.1 

PRES 
Council 

The HDG to be the leading forum in the 
Council for EU coordination on drugs. 
Effective coordination between it and other 
Council Working Parties dealing with drug 
issues, including external relations (e.g. 
police cooperation WG, customs 
cooperation WG, Multidisciplinary Group 
on organised crime, public health WG, etc.). 

Systematic mainstreaming of drugs policy 
into relations and agreements with 
relevant third countries 

Ensure that EU action plans for various 
regions are only adopted if adequate 
resources for their implementation are 
allocated. 

Council 

of cocaine produced in South America — on the top of the Group’s agenda. The Portuguese Presidency 
also highlighted the importance of high quality evaluation of drug policies and organised a conference 
around  this  theme.  One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  Slovenian  Presidency’s  agenda  was  enhancing 
relations with the Western Balkans, third countries and international organisations, including the work 
for the UNGASS assessment process and preparation of the 51st session of the CND, while gradually 
launching preparations for the 52nd session of the CND. The French Presidency has indicated that it 
will place emphasis on the adoption of the new EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012) by December 2008, 
on  enhanced  cooperation  between  Member  States  to  enhance  the  EU  external  security  in  the  field  of 
drugs. 

This objective has been achieved 
Over the years, presidencies have regularly ensured feedback from and interaction with other relevant 
Council  working  parties,  providing  key  input  to  drug-related  activities  and  strengthening  its 
coordination and leading role within the Council on drugs. The item “coordination with other Council 
working  groups”  was  systematically  on  the  agenda;  sometimes,  a  room  document  describing  drug-
related  activities  in  other  Council  working  groups  was  distributed.  The  HDG  was  involved  in 
discussions  on  drugs  in  external  relations  geographical  groups  which  have  been  reported  (by  the 
Council  and  the  Commission)  to  main  meetings  on  drugs.  Reporting  on  external  relations,  however, 
should  be  more  systematic  and  generalised  as  a  regular  practice.  Other  then  geographic  WGs,  the 
Customs  Cooperation  WG  is  particularly  concerned,  because  of  precursors.  A  thematic  debate  on 
improving cooperation between these two groups took place in December 2005.  
Conclusions 
Coordination  through  the  HDG  remains  an  essential  condition  for  the  coherence  of  EU  drug  policy. 
Overall, the HDG Presidencies have chosen priorities closely connected to the Action Plan on Drugs, 
and  they  have  liaised  well  with  other  relevant  Council  working  parties.  Reporting  on  different 
meetings/actions  on  drugs  should  be  generalised.  The  participation  of  other  WG  members  at  HDG 
meetings should be encouraged when necessary.  

This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
With the exception of the new action-oriented paper on Afghanistan adopted in 2006, there were no new 
action  plans  on  drugs  with  a  country/  region  during  the  2005-2008  reporting  period.  However,  the 
Panama Action Plan within the EU-LAC coordination and cooperation framework was revised in 2007 
and the review of the Action Plan on Drugs with the Western Balkans was launched in 2008. Within the 
framework  of  an  EU-Brazil  Strategic  Partnership,  an  EU-Brazil  Action  Plan  was  agreed  in  2008, 
including a chapter on illicit drugs and related crime. In 2008, the action-oriented paper on Afghanistan 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
 
 
will  be  reviewed  but  the  results  of  this  assessment  are  not  available  so  far.  Under  the  European 
Neighbourhood  Policy122,  a  large  number  of  the  Action  Plans  adopted  so  far  contain  provisions  on 
drugs. Drugs cooperation is also extensively addressed in the EU-Russia Action Plan against organised 
crime and Common Space on Justice, Freedom and Security (cf. Action 34.2). 
Conclusions 
Activities  undertaken  under  the  Action  Plans  on  Drugs  have  no  dedicated  budgets,  but  can  receive 
budget  allocations  via  national  and  EU  assistance  programmes.  With  regard  to  the  ENP  action  plans, 
drug-related activities can be financed through the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument. The EU 
should  adopt  new  action  plans  with  third  countries  only  if  dedicated  funding  is  available.  Third 
countries should be encouraged to assume ownership of collaborative activities by taking responsibility 
for their own policies and for collaborative projects.  

This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
In  general,  agreements  with  third  countries  —  under  negotiation  or  signed/  concluded  —  include  a 
substantive article on drugs cooperation. Negotiations on Justice and Home Affairs provisions are not 
yet  final  with  Serbia.  Negotiations  with Ukraine  are well  advanced  while  those  with  China  are  at  the 
initial phase. Negotiations with Russia are expected to start soon. Negotiations with ASEAN countries 
are  at  different  stages:  with  Indonesia  (not  yet  signed),  with  Singapore  (to  be  concluded)  and  with 
Vietnam,  Malaysia,  the  Philippines  and  Brunei  (not  yet  formally  started).  Negotiations  with  South 
Africa have been concluded. Negotiations with the Andean Community and Central American Republic 
made  progress  in  2007  and  2008.  The  Commission  has  proposed  negotiating  directives  as  regards 
Libya.  Negotiations  with  Iraq  are  in  their  initial  phase.  All  cooperation  and  association  agreements 
between  the  EU  and  third  countries  and  regions  incorporate  drug  related  elements.  These  agreements 
need to be concluded/ ratified and fully implemented. 

This objective has been achieved 
Within the lifetime of the current EU Action Plan, all so far HDG Presidencies have held a meeting of 
the National Drugs Coordinators. Some of these were open to external parties, such as representatives of 
civil  society,  to  UN  organisations  or  the  Pompidou  Group.  The  meetings  of  the  National  Drug 
Coordinators in general offer an opportunity for sharing best practices at EU level and for focusing on 
specific  concerns.  Nevertheless,  the  HDG  meetings  seem  somewhat  distanced  from  the  work  that  is 
done in the horizontal working group. 
Conclusions 
All  HDG  Presidencies  organise  meetings  of  the  National  Drug  Coordinators.  These  might  be  seen  as 
creating  more  synergy  between  the  activities  of  the  HDG  and  the  meetings  of  the  national  drug 

Include a specific provision on drugs 
cooperation in new agreements with third 
countries/regions. HDG should be informed 
of the opening of relevant negotiations. 

Council 
COM 

PRES 
MS 
COM 

Maintain a regular forum for EU 
coordination. 
The Presidency to provide the 
opportunity to those responsible for drug 
coordination to meet to exchange 
information on national developments, to 
review the scope for greater cooperation 
and to focus on the implementation of the 
EU Action Plan. 

ENP countries: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia, Ukraine. 

95 

EN 

5.2 

6 

122 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
7 

MS 
EMCDDA 

Improve coverage of, access to and 
effectiveness of drug demand reduction 
measures. 
Improve coverage of, access to, quality 
and evaluation of drug demand reduction 
programmes and ensure effective 
dissemination of evaluated best practices. 
More effective use and regular updating 
of the EMCDDA based EDDRA 
(Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction 
Action) and other databases. 

coordinators. 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed through this evaluation 
In the field of drug demand reduction, the differences between Member States in terms of prevention, 
treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation projects are substantial. In recent years, the evidence base 
underpinning  these  interventions  has  increased.  However,  available  best-evidence  and  best-practice  is 
not always translated into national policy and service delivery. Accurate and comparable information on 
the coverage and accessibility of drug demand reduction facilities and measures is lacking at EU level, 
and the terms themselves are defined differently in each Member State. The EMCDDA does, however, 
collect information from Member States on whether they have quality-assurance123 mechanisms in place 
to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  drug  demand  reduction  activities  in  the  areas  of  treatment  and 
prevention. Furthermore, the EMCDDA addresses the issue of reliability of data and definitions across 
countries.  
In  the  area  of  treatment,  over  half  of  the  Member  States  report  the  availability  of  national  quality 
standards for drug-free treatment (16 MS); medically-assisted treatment (19 MS); and the evaluation of 
drug  treatment  at  national  level  (12  MS).  Quality-management  systems  using  international  quality 
standards  (ISO  9000ff  and  EFQM)  are  available  in  only  two  countries.  In  the  area  of  prevention, 
quality standards for school-based prevention by ten Member States; for selective prevention by eight; 
and community-based prevention by six. National standards for the evaluation of prevention seem to be 
less common and are only reported by a few Member States. The existing data provide only a basic and 
rather  crude  picture  of  the  availability  of  quality-assurance  mechanisms  and  the  content  and  scope  of 
these measures has to be further investigated as, for instance, the concept of what exactly and correctly 
constitutes  a  ‘standard’  or  a  ’guideline’  seems  to  differ  across  Member  States.  There  are  also 
considerable  methodological  difficulties  associated  with  measuring  the  effectiveness  of  drug  demand 
reduction activities at population level, taking into account the level of drug use and risk perception.  
Conclusions  
The  existing  data  provide  only  a  basic  picture  of  the  availability  of  quality  assurance  mechanisms 
among  EU  Member  States  in  the  field  of  drug  demand  reduction,  but  show  that  efforts  to  develop 
quality standards or guidelines exist in most countries. The content and scope of these measures have 
however to be investigated further. The development of definitions and quality models at EU level may 
be further considered.  

123 

EN 

Quality  assurance  can  be  defined  as  a  system  of  procedures,  checks,  audits  and  corrective  actions  to  ensure  that  service  and  reporting  activities  are  of  the  highest 
achievable  quality.  Quality  assurance  can  be  a  more  or  less  formal  control  measure,  and  with  a  higher  or  lower  level  of  reporting,  by  providers  and  public  control 
institutions. Among the most traditional measures are quality standards, evaluation, quality management systems and training of staff.  

96 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
8 

8.1 

Improve access to and effectiveness of 
school-based prevention programmes, in 
accordance with national legislation. 

Improve access to and effectiveness of 
school-based prevention programmes, in 
accordance with national legislation. 

MS 

8.2 

Support implementation and development of 
joint prevention programmes of public 
services, school communities and NGOs. 

MS 

This objective has been partly achieved 
The  evidence-base  for  effective  school-based  drug  prevention  programmes  is  expanding,  but  most 
research has been done in the United States or — on smaller scale — within a limited number of EU 
Member  States.  The  effectiveness  of  programmes  can  be  assessed  through  systematic  and  long-term 
randomised controlled trials. At EU level such research is rare, and EU funded projects do not always fit 
in  well  with  existing  prevention  practices  in  Member  States.  Research  shows  that  programmes  that 
delay the age of first use of licit and illicit substances and/ or that reduce the frequency of use may have 
health benefits as younger adolescents may be more vulnerable to the adverse consequences of drug use 
and only a limited group of adolescents continue to use at a later age. Where the direct assessment of 
intervention  effects  is  lacking,  as  an  alternative,  effectiveness  can  be  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the 
quality of its components. Here life-skills approaches and the correction of normative beliefs have been 
found to be relatively effective, while information provision alone is considered ineffective.  
In 2007 58% of the programmes had process and outcome evaluation, compared to 32% in 2004. This 
partly reflects a reduction in the number of reported programmes following a more strict application of 
the  definitions  provided  and  may  not  mean  that  evaluation  has  become  a  standard  component  of 
prevention programmes in general. 

This objective has been achieved, but nothing can be said about its outcomes 
As  indicated  in  action  7,  the  lack  of  shared  definitions  between  Member  States  sometimes  makes 
comparison  difficult.  In  some  reports  from  Member  States,  manuals  or  isolated  interventions  are 
considered  as  “programme”.  For  monitoring  purposes  (EMCDDA),  the  concept  of  “programme”  has 
been applied here in the more strict sense as comprehensive, multi-session, standardised and manualised 
interventions,  content-defined  for  each  session  and  with  printed  material  (so-called  MUSTAP)  that 
provide a defined and sequenced protocol of interconnected activities. These elements do not reflect a 
quality standard as such, but interventions that lack these elements are generally too ad-hoc based and 
difficult to evaluate and therefore often not consistent. Data provided by the EU Member States through 
their National Focal Points shows that ‘programmes’ in a more strict sense (as mentioned above) still 
remain  rare  in  Europe  and  no  information  exists  to  suggest  that  the  situation  has  improved  since 
2004124.  
In order to respond to the prevailing broader interpretations of the term “programme” in Member States, 
EMCDDA  data  collection  also  covers  the  provision  of  other  kinds  of  drug  prevention  activities  in 

124 

EN 

Findings have to be treated with caution due to the limited number of Focal Points reporting (2004: 13; 2007:9) and the small number of programmes covered.  

97 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
9 

MS 
COM 

Set up, develop and improve selective 
prevention and new ways of reaching 
target groups, e.g. by using different 
media and new information 
methodologies.  
Develop and improve prevention 
programmes for selected target groups 
(e.g. street operators, socially 
disadvantaged groups, socially excluded 
children and families at risk, young 
people in the out of school sector) and 
specific settings (e.g. drugs and driving, 
drugs in the work place, drugs in 
recreational settings), taking into account 
gender differences. 

school.  The  analysis  shows  an  overall  stable  situation:  some  types  of  interventions  (e.g.  peer 
approaches) decreased between 2004 and 2007, while others increased and the rest remained stable. 
The  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme125  (2007-2013)  co-fund  initiatives  from  Member 
States in which collaboration between varieties of stakeholders is made possible.  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Research  findings  and  reviews  have  identified  a  number  of  particularly  vulnerable  groups  for 
increased use of drugs, the development of drug problems or rapid progression into dependency. These 
include:  young  offenders,  early  school  leavers  and  pupils  with  social  or  academic  problems,  young 
people  in  socially  disadvantaged  neighbourhoods,  and  party  or  festival  goers.  Also  some  living 
conditions and family situations are known to increase the risk of problem drug use for children. These 
include:  parental  or  sibling  drug  and/  or  mental  health  problems,  conflict,  neglect,  and  social 
disadvantage.  
In a majority of Member States (between 17 and 25) these types of vulnerable families are not explicitly 
mentioned in drug policies. This does not however rule out generic programmes — not related to drug 
prevention policies — might be in place for these groups or that drug issues might not be addressed in 
more generic practice. 
Overall since 2004, some relevant vulnerable groups, especially young offenders, the homeless, truant, 
disadvantaged  and  minority  youth  groups,  became  priority  groups  in  an  increasing  number  of  drug 
policies.  The  level  of  provision  of  interventions  to  vulnerable  groups,  however,  did  not  consistently 
increase since 2004 if judged on the basis of Member States’ reports. It only increased for young 
people in care institutions and immigrants, whereas for some other groups the number decreased126.  
The  approaches  used  in  selective  prevention  range  from  structural  improvements  for  social  inclusion 
(providing  opportunities  to  young  people  in  deprived  neighbourhoods)  to  intensive  personalised 
interventions (e.g. courses for young drug law offenders).  
There  is  no  information  in  2007  about  the  overall  number  and  coverage  of  prevention  projects  in 
recreational  settings  as  this  indicator  was  found  to  be  difficult  to  implement  in  practice  and  was 
therefore eliminated from the questionnaire after discussions with REITOX focal points. Information is 
available about the rated provision of interventions for party/ festival goers and the policy importance 
given to working in recreational settings is reported to have increased. 

125 
126 

EN 

OJ L 257, 03.10.2007 
Note:  percentage  changes  reporting  in  this  data  need  to  be  interpreted  with  caution  as  the  number  of  countries  reporting  or  not  reporting  in  each  wave  is  different  and 
therefore reporting artefacts cannot be ruled out. All data presented on importance of vulnerable groups in drug policies and the level of provision of interventions has been 
obtained through qualitative ratings by experts or expert panels from each Member State. As rating categories have slightly changed since 2004 and countries reporting are 
not exactly the same in 2007 as in 2004 results have to be interpreted with caution. 

98 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
10 

Improve methods for early detection of 
risk factors and early intervention. 

10.1 

10.2 

Detection of risk factors related to 
experimental use by different target groups, 
especially by young people, and the 
dissemination thereof for the benefit of early 
intervention programmes and the training of 
professionals. 

Ensure the provision of training for relevant 
professionals who come into contact with 
potential drug users, especially young 
people. 

MS 

MS 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
This  objective  is  difficult  to  implement  and  compliance  is  difficult  to  assess  due  to  a  lack  of  clear 
formulation of the actions and a lack of definition of the concepts ‘early detection, early intervention’ 
and of the specific groups involved.  
The  EMCDDA  has  made  use  of  the  age  of  first  use/  first  treatment  demand  indicator  as  an  indirect 
measure  for  the  effectiveness  of  early  detection  and  early  intervention  programmes.  As  the  indicator 
does not cover the background of drug users seeking treatment in the context of risk factors relevant for 
early detection, and drug problems may develop over time due to changes in personal situation, it is an 
imperfect measure. However, the indicator may provide trend information on changes in the age of first 
use and possible correlation with increased needs for treatment.  
The  figures  reported  last  year  are  confirmed  in  this  year's  new  reporting.  According  to  the  treatment 
demand indicator (TDI), among the entire treated population in the European countries in 2005 around 
half of the clients started to use their main drug between the age of 15 and 19, and 15% before the age 
of  15  —  regardless  of  the  type  of  drug.  Among  new  outpatient  clients  with  volatile  substances  and 
cannabis as primary substances for entering treatment, 51% and 33% respectively started to use the drug 
before  the  age  of  15.  The  mean  age  of  new  drug  clients  is  28.5  years  and  the  time  lag  between  first 
‘primary drug use’ and first treatment request is around 8 years (127). However, differences are found in 
this time lag according to the main drug of use. Among new outpatient clients, it is around 7 years for 
cannabis (7.4) and more than 9 for opiates and cocaine. 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
All  Member  States  have  been  reporting  on  national  studies  and,  to  a  more  limited  extent,  on  the 
corresponding  interventions  that  address  risk  factors  and  predictors  for  drug  use  among  minors.  In 
particular, children from families with substance use problems are targeted by research or intervention 
programmes and services.  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
No  structured  information  is  provided  on  ‘training  for  professionals  who  come  into  contact  with 
potential  drug  users,  especially  young  people’.  However,  some  ad-hoc  information  is  collected  in  the 
EMCDDA’s data gathering process. For example, in Germany, Italy and Poland, teaching packages or 
intensive  training  courses  for  teachers  on  motivational  short  interventions  are  provided.  These 
packages/courses aim to assist schools in setting their own rules and help teachers to know how to deal 
with  pupils  displaying  conspicuous behaviour,  or  are  designed  to provide  support  to  teachers  in  early 
identification,  intervention  or  transferral  to  specialised  services.  However,  it  is  clear  that  there  is  an 

127 

The ‘primary drug’ means the drug for which treatment is requested. 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
10.3 

11 

11.1 

Implementation of the early intervention 
programmes, including measures especially 
related to experimental use of psychoactive 
substances. 

MS 

Ensure the availability of and access to 
targeted and diversified treatment and 
rehabilitation programmes. 

Evidence based treatment options covering a 
variety of psychosocial and pharmacological 
approaches to be available and correspond 
to demand for treatment. 

MS 

insufficient level of data available to respond to this action.  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
An  account  of  developments  in  early  intervention  programmes  will  be  provided  by  an  upcoming 
EMCDDA  publication.  Some  information  is  available  for  this  update.  For  example,  in  Germany, 
Greece, and the Netherlands, some specialised facilities exist that offer counselling and care to children 
and teenagers with drug problems. In Denmark and Ireland, SMS messaging services are being used for 
interactive  counselling  and  for  support  to  stop  cannabis  smoking.  Overall,  it  is  important  to  point out 
that  many  facilities  combine  inpatient  and  outpatient  measures  and  include  key  elements  from  both 
addiction therapy and youth welfare. Early intervention is also provided by specialised centres for drug 
treatment.  

This action has been partially, but not sufficiently, achieved as quality of services can be improved 
Data on clients who entered drug treatment (due to any illicit drug) in the course of 2006 are available 
from  22  EU  countries128.  Coverage  data  show  that  among  the  355 000,  clients  who  entered  drug 
treatment,  around  186 000  reported  heroin  as  the  primary  drug  for  which  they  were  seeking 
assistance129. Around 30% of clients entering the facilities received treatment for the first time in their 
life. While rates vary between countries, and data mainly reflect the situation in specialised outpatient 
and  inpatient  drug  treatment  services,  it  is  important  to  note  that  in  these  22  countries  alone  at  least 
178 000  drug  users  are  newly  being  reached  by  structured  treatment  services  in  one  year.  It  is  also 
important  to  note  that  the  percentage  of  clients  entering  treatment  for  cocaine  or  cannabis-related 
problems has been increasing in recent years, with cannabis seeing a slight increase from 2005 to 2006.  
In 2006 for the first time ever all EU Member States provided opioid substitution treatment, even if 
levels  of  provision  and  coverage  clearly  differ.  More  than  half  a  million  opioid  users  receive  drug 
substitution  treatment  in  the  EU  countries,  the  vast  majority  of  cases  reported  from  the  ‘old’  EU 
Member  States.  This  represents  more  than  one  third  of  the  total  estimated  number  of  problem  opiate 
users  in  the  EU.  Between  2005  and  2006,  the  number  of  clients  receiving  this  type  of  treatment 
increased overall by around 12%130.  

128 
129 

130 

EN 

No data were available from: Belgium, Estonia, Spain, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia. 
According  to  the  available  coverage  information,  the  data  cover  approximately  60%  of  the  specialised  inpatient  and  80%  of  outpatient  drug  treatment  units  in  these 
countries, but only a minor proportion of other treatment facilities or of general practitioners (GPs) providing treatment. 
Data available from 19 Member States 

100 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
11.2 

Establish strategies and guidelines for 
increasing availability of and access to 
services for drug users not reached by 
existing services. 

MS 

The substance predominantly used was methadone (70% of all substitution treatment), but the share of 
buprenorphine has increased quickly over the past few years, especially among clients treated by office-
based  medical  doctors.  Other  substances  —  especially  buprenorphine  —  have  become  equally 
important  or  even  more  important  in  the  maintenance  treatment  of  opioid  dependence  in  a  growing 
number  of  European  countries.  Prescription  of  medical  heroin  (diamorphine),  which  showed  positive 
results  among  chronic  treatment-resistant  opioid  users,  is  a  treatment  option  in  the  Netherlands,  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Germany  partly  making  use  of  special  regulations.  Additionally,  a  randomised 
trial of injectable opioids (RIOTT) started in 2005 in the United Kingdom comparing the effectiveness 
of injectable diamorphine, injectable methadone and oral methadone, and the results are expected at the 
end of 2008. A concept for a heroin prescription pilot project was submitted to the Minister of Health of 
Luxembourg  in  April  2008  while,  in  February  2008,  the  Danish  parliament  approved  a  diamorphine 
prescription pilot project. 
Data from a number of individual EU countries — where recent estimates of the prevalence of problem 
opiate  use  were  available  —  show  that  the  current  coverage  of  opioid  substitution  treatment  varies 
between countries with an in-treatment-rate of 5% to about 54% of all current opiate users.  

This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
Findings from a survey commissioned by the EMCDDA on cannabis treatment provision in a sample 
of  drug  treatment  services  in  19  Member  States  revealed  a  relative  lack  of  treatment  programmes 
dedicated to problem cannabis users. To overcome this, four Member States131 report concrete efforts to 
develop  treatment  offers  specifically  for  young  cannabis  users,  collaborating  in  a  study  on  the 
effectiveness  of  a  comprehensive  family-based  treatment  focusing  on  problematic  cannabis  use 
(INCANT). Promising results have been observed in a German randomised control study examining a 
treatment program for adolescents with cannabis disorder (CANDIS), showing that half of the patients 
had  stopped  their  cannabis  use  by  the  end  of  the  treatment,  while  another  30%  reduced  their 
consumption. 
The latest available data show that, with the exception of Spain, Member States assessed the availability 
and  accessibility  of  cocaine  specific  treatment  programmes  as  low.  The  recent  introduction  of  a 
cocaine-specific national action plan in Spain and Ireland is likely to further increase the availability of 
cocaine treatment options in these two countries. Little evidence has so far been found of psychosocial 
treatment  interventions  being  effective  in  treating  cocaine  dependence,  although  a  combination  with 
contingency management approaches has shown promise in reducing cocaine use. To date, no effective 
pharmacological treatment options for cocaine dependence are available, but several therapeutic drugs 
(e.g. Modafinil, Topiramate) have shown potential in clinical trials. The results from clinical trials of a 
vaccine  for  immunotherapy  of  cocaine  dependence  (TA-CD)  are  keenly  awaited.  However,  the 

131 

France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
11.3 

Improve access to and coverage of 
rehabilitation and social reintegration 
programmes, paying special attention to 
specialised (social, psychological, medical) 
services for young people who use drugs. 

MS 

11.4 

Organise and promote dissemination of 
information on the availability of treatment 
and rehabilitation programmes. 

MS 

effectiveness of such an approach is uncertain and even if successful; it would raise a number of ethical 
concerns. 

This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
Political  attention  and  investment  in  the  reintegration  sector  has  risen  in  some  Member  States  and 
quality  standards  in  drug  treatment  provide  for  social  care  and  reintegration  services  to  be  made 
available  to  clients.  The  socio-demographic  profile  of  clients  entering  treatment  reveals  their  specific 
needs: they are characterised by disadvantaged social conditions, a low level of school and professional 
education and often an unstable living situation.  
Homelessness,  together  with  living  in  unstable  accommodation,  is  one  of  the  most  serious  forms  of 
social exclusion facing drug users, affecting about 10% of drug users entering treatment in 2006. While 
housing  support  is  provided  to  drug  treatment  clients  in  many  countries,  shortages  have  also  been 
documented,  and  four  countries  report  that  it  is  difficult  for  drug  users  to  gain  access  to  the  general 
services for the homeless that are traditionally used by problem alcohol users (Ireland, Italy, Hungary, 
and Austria). New centralised facilities for homeless chronic addicts or alternative care homes for drug 
users  with  problem  behaviour  or  mental  illness  have  been  established  in  Denmark,  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands. 
Programmes and actions in many countries do not aim at drug users alone but address vulnerable social 
groups in general and are typically run at local or regional level. While the creation of new opportunities 
for training and access to education is reported as common in many countries, waged work is harder to 
obtain for the target group. A number of projects have been developed in some Member States under 
the EU Commission’s EQUAL initiative in the area of employment and social inclusion.  
Helping drug treatment clients find employment is a key element in social reintegration, as one in every 
two clients entering treatment is unemployed. New approaches to helping clients to find and hold down 
employment  are  reported  to  have  shown  success,  These  include:  ‘mentoring  schemes’,  subsidised 
workplaces  and  the  coaching  of  employers  and  employees  during  the  first  months  by  specifically 
assigned social reintegration workers. 

This action is partially but not sufficiently achieved 
The  use  of  information,  education  and  communication  techniques  with  regard  to  drug  prevention  and 
risk reduction is a common approach in all Member States and specific educational materials, telephone 
help lines and websites exist in all, or most, countries.  
In 22 Member States, online inventories of national treatment and rehabilitation resources are available. 
Innovative  internet-based  and  SMS-based  initiatives  in  counselling,  support  and  dissemination  of 
information — especially dedicated to problem cannabis use — have also been reported by Denmark, 
Germany and Ireland. 
The EMCDDA launched in May 2008 the first module of its Internet portal on best practice in the fields 
of  drug-related  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction  and  social  reintegration.  The  portal  provides  an 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
12 

Improve the quality of treatment services 
Support development of know-how on 
drug treatment while continuing to 
develop and support the exchange of best 
practices in this field. 

Council 
COM 

13 

13.1 

Further develop alternatives to 
imprisonment for drug abusers and drug 
services for people in prisons, with due 
regard to national legislation. 

Make effective use of and develop further 
alternatives to prison for drug abusers. 

MS 

overview on the latest evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of different interventions, presenting 
tools and standards aimed at improving the quality of interventions, as well as highlighting examples of 
evaluated practice from across Europe. It is aimed at professionals, policy-makers and researchers in the 
drugs field.  

Objective achieved — report published 
To  complement  Member  States’  activities  in  this  field,  the  Programme  for  Community  Action  in  the 
field  of  Public  Health132  (2003-2008)  continues  to  support  a  range  of  projects  in  the  field  of  drug 
demand  reduction,  including  prevention,  harm  reduction  and  treatment.  Other  projects  funded  by  the 
Programme  and  dealing  with  health  determinants  (e.g.  mental  health,  alcohol  and  tobacco)  and  drug-
related  infectious  diseases  (in  particular  HIV/AIDS)  are  often  linked  to  drug  demand  reduction 
activities.  Funding  for  these  kinds  of  activities  will  continue  under  the  second  Community  action 
Programme  for  Public  Health  2008-2013  and  will  be  enhanced  by  the  new  Drug  Prevention  and 
Information  Programme133  (2007-2013)  and  the  7th  Research,  Technological  and  Development 
Framework Programme134 (2007-2013).  
In 2006, the Commission launched preparatory work on drugs policy and harm reduction, including a 
report on drug treatment and good practices across Europe135. The tender called for a study providing an 
overview and analysis of available drug treatment options in the Member States, including efficacy of 
treatment  in  EU,  types,  characteristics,  level  of  provision  and  models  of  transfer  of  know  how.  The 
results of the study and the country profiles have been double checked with the Reitox Network. The 
final report has been published.136 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Available  data  on  Alternatives  to  prison  need  to  be  interpreted  with  caution.  Alternatives  to  prison 
(ATP) are provisionally defined as therapeutic measures or treatment for adult drug-using offenders that 
take place outside prison. Alternatives can include therapeutic measures where no prison sentence may 
be given under the law.  

132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

OJ L 271, 09.10.2002 
OJ L 257, 03.10.2007 
OJ L 412/1, 30.12.2006 
Call for tender published on 10/05/2006 — ref: 2006-92638. 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/drug_call_en.htm 

EN 

103 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
A wide variety of alternatives to prison are available in almost all the EU Member States, for different 
types of user and for different types of offence. In 14 EU Member States, the concept of alternatives to 
prison  is  supported  in  national  drug  strategies  or  action  plans,  with  the  primary  aim  being  to  prevent 
future  use,  reduce  crime  and  prevent  infectious  diseases,  rather  than  to  cut  the  prison  population  or 
public  expenditure.  In  thirteen  countries,  standards  for  delivery  of  treatment  as  an  alternative  are 
available.  
Member States, through the Reitox network, were asked what proportion of drug-using offenders might 
have faced a prison sentence under national law but were diverted to treatment. No country could give 
exact  percentages  for  all  its  ATPs.  Details  of  completion  rates  were  available  for  some  of  the  ATP 
options  in  some  countries,  ranging  from  approximately  30%  in  Ireland  (graduations  from  the  Drug 
Court) to 70% or 80% for Spain and Italy (prison terms served outside prison). The majority of Member 
States  had no information  on  this  matter.  Few  countries  have  a  tracking  system  in  place  to follow  all 
those who have been diverted to various treatment options. There have been developments in legislation 
in various countries during the period of the EU Action Plan. Legislation has brought new possibilities 
for  ATPs,  including  suspension  of  custodial  sentences  (for  treatment)  in  Spain  and  Hungary; 
encouragement  of  probation  with  treatment  in  Hungary;  and  educational  measures  in  an  outpatient 
facility in Slovakia. A further four countries have passed laws to widen the scope of existing ATPs. In 
Italy, eligibility for ATPs has been extended to those convicted of an offence punishable by up to six 
years  in  prison  (previously  it  was  four  years);  in  Poland,  the  new  limit  is  five  years.  In  the  United 
Kingdom, testing on arrest is now permitted, with those testing positive being required to undergo an 
assessment. 
There  were  also  developments  in  terms  of  law  enforcement.  In  Belgium,  public  prosecutors  are 
developing  closer  cooperation  with  treatment  organisations.  In  the  Netherlands,  a  more  stringent 
selection of offenders for treatment is seeking to make the system more efficient, and there are efforts to 
increase the use of ‘conditional release’ (release conditional on treatment) after prison.  

This action has been (partially) achieved 
In  2006,  the  Commission  launched  a  call  for  tenders  for  work  on  drug  policy  and  harm  reduction, 
including a study on the status quo of prevention, treatment and harm reduction services for people in 
prisons  and  in  reintegration  services  for  persons  on  release  from  prisons,  and  for  approaches  to 
monitoring/analysing the situation.  
In November 2007 a debate on interventions in prisons and the role of harm reduction was held in the 
Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs  (HDG).  The  Member  States  concluded  that  there  is  a  need  to 
implement  the  same  standards  on  the  prevention  of  infectious  diseases  and  treatment  of  drug-related 
diseases across Europe as well as improve the information at EU level on the prevalence of infectious 
diseases  in  prisons  and  ways  of  preventing  them.  Member  States  recommended  the  introduction  of 
specific harm reduction measures, including substitution treatment, drug free treatment and the creation 
of  drug  free  units  within  prisons.  The  need  to  develop  a  common  methodology  and  terminology  for 

13.2 

Develop prevention, treatment and harm 
reduction services for people in prison, 
reintegration services on release from prison 
and methods to monitor/ analyse drug use 
among prisoners. 

MS 
COM 

EN 

104 

EN 

 
  
14 

Prevention of health risks related to drug 
use 
Implementation of the Council 
Recommendation on the prevention and 
reduction of health related harm 
associated with drug dependence 

MS 

collecting  data,  having  comparable  EU  data  and  subsequently  defining  and  exchanging  best  practices 
was  also  identified.  To  ensure  coherence  and  sustainability  of  interventions  before,  during  and  after 
imprisonment,  excellent  networking  is  required.  This  should  include,  in  particular,  helpers  in  prisons 
and,  institutions  and  NGOs  involved  in  reintegration  after  release,  for  example  ensuring  the 
continuation of methadone maintenance programmes that started in prison. It was concluded that there 
should be equitable delivery and availability of prevention tools and therapeutic possibilities offered to 
inmates  in  comparison  to  the  general  population.  Finally,  the  Presidency  conclusions137  of  the  HDG 
debate called on the Commission to put forward a proposal for a Council Recommendation on drugs in 
prison. 

This objective has been achieved (but still ongoing for MS), Commission report was published 
On  18  April  2007,  the  Commission  adopted  and  published  the  final  report138  of  a  study  into  the 
implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  of  18  June  2003,  presenting  key  conclusions  and 
recommendations  on  the  implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation,  based  on  a  background 
study139  that  included  a  comprehensive  overview  of  the  situation  in  each  of  the  Member  States.  The 
report  concluded  that  25  EU  Member  States  have  defined  prevention  and  reduction  of  health-related 
harm associated with drug dependence as a national public health objective and as part of the national 
response  to  the  drug  problem.  Harm  reduction  facilities  and  services  are  available  in  all  EU  Member 
States, although they vary widely between Member States.  
The  Commission  report  was  discussed  in  the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs  (HDG).  The 
conclusions  of  the  report  were  endorsed  by  the  HDG  and  it  was  agreed  that  this  reporting  exercise 
should be repeated under the next EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012). The Council debate resulted in 
Member  States'  conclusions140  in  particular  on  harm  reduction  constituting  an  essential  component  of 
demand reduction, on the need for improving the knowledge and understanding on the impact of harm 
reduction  measures,  on  the  attention  to  be  given  to  areas  of  harm  reduction  where  a  need  for 
improvement  is  identified  (such  as  the  prevention  of  hepatitis  B  and  C  infections).  An  important 
conclusion  was  that  the  improved  response  to  drug-related  health  issues  in  custodial  settings  could 
prevent and limit drug-related health damage among those in prison especially when supported by post 
release care. There is therefore a strong need to improve harm reduction measures in prisons as well as 
reintegration services. 

137 
138 
139 

140 

CORDROGUE 13, 23/01/2008 
COM (2007) 199 final; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0199en01.pdf 
Gouwe, et al. [2006]. ‘Prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence — an inventory of policies, evidence and practices in the EU 
relevant to the implementation of the Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003’, Trimbos Institute; 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/drug/documents/drug_report_en.pdf  
CORDROGUE 43, 02/07/2007 

EN 

105 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
15 

Availability and access to harm reduction 
services 
Improve access for addicts to all relevant 
services and treatment options designed 
to reduce harm, with due regard to 
national legislation. 

MS 

16 

Prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS, 
hepatitis C, other blood-borne infections 
and diseases 
Ensure the implementation of 
comprehensive and coordinated national 

MS 
COM 

This objective has been partly achieved, but requires further implementation 
Needle  and  syringe  programmes  (NSPs)  and  opioid  substitution  treatment  is  available  in  all  EU 
Member States. They can be effective in reducing risk behaviour (needle sharing) and of drug-related 
infectious diseases. They are usually delivered by specialist low-threshold drugs agencies, and in eight 
countries  also  through  pharmacy-based  programmes,  which  considerably  increases  the  geographical 
availability  of  sterile  injecting  equipment.  While  the  continuous  expansion  of  low-threshold  agencies 
with syringe exchange can be documented for many of the countries where the spread of problem heroin 
injecting is more recent, a stagnation or decrease of such services was reported by other countries in this 
group (Bulgaria, Poland and Romania), partly due to lack of support and funding. While overall levels 
of  drug  maintenance  treatment  and  harm  reduction  service  provision  in  the  EU  have  increased 
considerably over the past decades, coverage of these interventions is limited in some countries.  
In  some  of  the  countries  with  older  heroin  epidemics  and  extensive  treatment  provision,  however,  a 
stabilisation and decrease of syringe demand can be noted over the past years. Specialist drugs agencies 
with syringe programmes have low access barriers, work with peer educators and outreach teams, and 
increasingly offer basic medical care services, thus functioning as street-hospitals, mobile surgeries, and 
field nursing stations, health suites or health counselling centres for the broader target group of socially 
marginalised, excluded or homeless people. 
With  regard  to  recreational  drug  use,  harm  reduction  is  a  common  approach  in  European  nightlife 
settings (clubs, raves, festivals) and consists in providing users with information (via leaflets, websites) 
on  the potential  harm  associated  with  recreational drug use. Safedance  guidelines  are  implemented  in 
the  UK  and  locally  in  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Hungary  and  the 
Netherlands.  Two  Member  States  officially  provide  on-site  pill  testing  (Austria  and  Spain)  at  large 
festivals or rave parties, while this harm reduction approach has been discontinued for legal reasons in 
France, Germany and the Czech Republic or due to a lack of funds in Belgium. An important role in 
raising  awareness  of  risks  and  providing  support  to  drug  users  in  crisis  is  furthermore  played  by 
telephone and internet-based drug help lines in a majority of Member States. 
In  the  vast  majority  of  countries,  the  level  of  provision  of  and  access  to  services  for  preventing  and 
reducing health-related harm associated with drug use in prisons cannot be considered as equivalent to 
the  community.  Spain  is  currently  the  only  European  country  that  provides  a  wide  range  of  harm-
reduction measures in prisons. 

This objective is partly achieved but requires further implementation 
Recent data on newly diagnosed cases of HIV related to injecting drug use (IDU) suggest that, in most 
EU  countries,  infection  rates  are  low  (under  5  cases  per  million  inhabitants  in  2006).  Case  reporting 
data for IDUs are not available for two countries, both with high levels of HIV infection among IDUs. 
Complementary  surveillance  of  HIV  prevalence  among  samples  of  IDUs  confirms  an  overall  stable 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
  
and/or regional programmes on HIV/ 
AIDS, hepatitis C and other blood-borne 
diseases. These programmes should be 
integrated into general social and health 
care services. 

17 

Reduction of drug related deaths 
Reduction of drug related deaths to be 
included as a specific target at all levels 
with interventions specifically designed 
for this purpose, such as promoting 
outreach work, e.g. the work of street 

MS 

situation  in  most  regions  although  among  the  minority  of  regions  showing  changes  in  prevalence 
between  2002  and  2006  more  are  increasing  (16  MS)  than  declining  (12  MS),  though  changes  are 
generally not pronounced. 
Six new Member States report a consistently low prevalence of less than 1% in all studies carried out 
since 2002. This may be at least partly due to prevention measures for IDUs but other factors may also 
play a role. Nonetheless, complacency concerning the provision of prevention measures to IDUs should 
be  avoided.  In  the  EU,  since  2002,  increases  in  HIV  prevalence  among  IDUs  have  been  observed  in 
repeated  regional  or  national  studies  across  seven  countries,  albeit  in  some  cases  alongside  stable  or 
declining trends in other regions of the same country.  
Furthermore, the incidence of AIDS related to injecting drug use is high in five countries (over 5 cases 
per million in 2006), suggesting the need for continued alertness regarding the timely access of infected 
drug users to diagnosis and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).  
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody levels of over 60% in at least one sample of IDUs are reported from 
18 countries. It is estimated that there may be around one million people living in the EU with an HCV 
infection who have been drug injectors at some point in their lives.  
A  multi-component  response  to  the  prevention  of  infectious  diseases,  combining  measures  to  reduce 
injecting-related harm and effective drug treatment, is common in the EU.  
The  integration  of  services  and  facilities  that  aim  to  prevent  infectious  diseases  for  drug  users  (VCT, 
vaccination,  infectious  disease  treatment  services)  within  general  health  and  social  care  is  current 
practice  in  a  number  of  countries,  increases  the  availability  and  facilitates  and  promotes  drug  users’ 
access to a more complete spectrum of care if needed.  
Between 2005 and 2006, many countries with recent heroin epidemics reported increasing numbers of 
syringes  exchanged  or  distributed  through  specialised  NSPs,  but  there  is  a  large  group  of  countries 
where  syringe  exchange  is  now  stable  or  has  been  declining  (see  also  thematic  paper  15).  While 
decreasing syringe trends in countries with older heroin epidemics might be due to higher availability of 
effective  drug  treatment,  there  are  some  countries  where  decreases  are  attributed  to  a  lack  of  support 
and/or funding. This raises the concern that decreases in syringe turnover could result in higher levels of 
risk  taking  among new,  younger generations  of  heroin  injectors,  who  not  been reached  by  prevention 
messages. 

This objective has been partly achieved, but requires further priority 
Drug-related deaths (overdoses) are one of the major causes of death among young people in Europe. 
Even with a likely underestimation, they account for 3.5% of all deaths among Europeans aged 15-39 
years;  in  eight  Member  States  this  rate  reaches  7%.  Over  the  past  15  years,  there  have  been  yearly 
between 6 500 to 8 500 overdose deaths, totalling some 130 000 cases over that period. The scale of the 
problem  of  overdose  deaths  can  be  illustrated  by  comparing  it  to  AIDS  mortality  related  to  injection 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
units, through well-trained healthcare 
operators. 

drug use, which was estimated to be around 2 600 cases in 2003141.  
Drug-related  deaths  soared over  the 1980s and 1990s  and  showed  a decreasing overall  trend  between 
2000 and 2003. The positive 2000-2003 trend was reverted in 2004 and 2005 with increases observed 
again  in  the  majority  of  countries  (15  out  of  24  with  information),  although  increases  remained  in 
general moderate.  
This  recent  trend  contrasts  with  the  wide  expansion  of  treatment  that  took  place  over  the  1990s  in 
particular.  The  reduction  of  drug-related  deaths  is  a  goal  of  most  national  drug  strategies,  but  few 
countries have so far adopted concrete action plans or provide systematic guidance on measures to be 
taken. All Member States have stepped up their levels of treatment provision, and several have removed 
access barriers. As far as information is available, there are still strong variations in opioid substitution 
coverage (between 5% and 54% in 8 EU countries) and services are located especially in metropolitan 
areas with a bigger than average number of users, while in rural areas, treatment provision is limited.  
The past years have also seen increased efforts to improve treatment standards and qualifications among 
providers, which should also help to reduce the risk for DRD. A wider choice of pharmaceutical options 
are available, including the increased use of opiate substitution drugs such as buprenorphine, that may 
have a lower overdose potential if misused. 
Reasons  for  the  recent  stabilisation  in  DRD  are  unclear  but  could  be  influenced  by  a  combination  of 
factors, e.g. an increase in polydrug use (including alcohol and cocaine) (142) among opiate users, and 
increased  heroin  availability  (UNODC)  (143),  aging  of  opiate  users,  eventually  treatment  not  reaching 
some  of  the  more  excluded  groups  of  users.  Another  possibility,  which  will  be  analysed  by  the 
EMCDDA  in  the  near  future,  is  a  more  risky  lifestyle  amongst  a  new  generation  of  intravenous  drug 
users which are not reached by harm reduction measures and messages in the same way as older ones. 
Data on other ways of reducing drug-related deaths, e.g. information dissemination, awareness raising, 
individual  risk  assessment  and  counselling,  training  in  overdose  management  and  prison  pre-release 
counselling, are limited in Europe.  
The time after release from prison or treatment is especially critical, and research shows that the risk of 
drug-induced death is substantially higher for the first two to four weeks. The number of people with 
past or current drug experience passing through European prisons each year is estimated to be 607 000 
(stock)  with  an  estimated  turnover  of  860 000  prisoners  —  among  them  many  problem  drug  users. 
Considering  research  results  on  drug-induced  mortality  in  the  year  following  release,  a  considerable 

141 

142 

143 

EN 

EMCDDA, draft 2008 AR, based on data from Eurostat and EuroHIV 
A field trial conducted by the EMCDDA in 2006 on substances involved in drug-related deaths observed that in a high proportion of cases several substances were found in 
the toxicological examinations. However, this is a cross-sectional study and trends cannot be assessed yet. 
UNODC issued a warning on this possible effect http://www.unodc.org/unodc/press_release_2006_10_05.html 

108 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
MS 
Europol 
Eurojust 

18 

Step up and develop law enforcement 
cooperation between Member States and, 
where appropriate, with Europol, 
Eurojust and third countries and 
international organisations, against 
international organised drug production 
and trafficking. 

18.1/ 18.4  Member States, where appropriate with 

Europol and Eurojust, third countries and 
international organisations, shall carry out 
specific actions in the fight against 
organised international drug production and 
trafficking and cross-border drug trafficking 
and criminal networks engaged in these 
activities inside the EU, by implementing:  
Operational law enforcement projects, such 
as joint investigation teams, joint customs 
operations and joint investigations. 
Law enforcement intelligence projects to 
improve both the intelligence picture and 
interventions made. These projects should 
involve at least two MS and should be 
focused on production, illicit cross border 
trafficking and criminal networks engaged 
in these activities. 

proportion of drug-related deaths in the EU could happen around prison release.  
Despite  the  obvious  connection  between  prison  release  and  drug-induced  deaths,  few  countries  are 
systematically investing in educating prisoners about the risk of overdose on release from custody. Also 
the continuity of care and rehabilitation of drug users released from prison require serious attention. The 
differential rate of drug related deaths reported by MS suggests that even when reporting artefacts are 
considered,  considerable  potential  exists  to  share  experiences  on  what  measures  may  impact  on  this 
problem.  

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In line with its mandate, Europol contributed through drug-related projects to joint multidisciplinary 
operational  and  intelligence  gathering  projects.  Europol  runs  Project  MUSTARD  on  heroin 
trafficking with an emphasis on Turkish criminal and associated groups, Project COLA on cocaine with 
an emphasis on Latin American criminal organisations and Project SYNERGY on the production and 
trafficking  of  synthetic  drugs,  chemical  precursors  and  production  equipment  with  a  focus  on 
indigenous criminal organisations. In addition to the central AWF components, Project COLA includes 
the Europol Cocaine Logo System (ECLS) whilst Project Synergy includes the Europol Ecstasy Logo 
System (EELS) and the Europol Illicit Laboratory Comparison System (EILCS). These make it possible 
to  achieve  a  match  between  seizures  with  a  view  to  promoting  international  law  enforcement 
cooperation and exchange of information. Further details under Action 18.2. 
As reported in 2007, Joint Investigation Teams (JIT) and Joint Customs Cooperation (JCOs) could 
be  used  more  by  the  Member  States  in  collaboration  with  Europol.  Information  on  the  quantities  of 
precursors and drugs seized in the framework of sub-projects, JITs and JCOs is only partially provided 
to Europol by the Member States and therefore not available.  
Other cooperation mechanisms comprise: COSPOL (Comprehensive Operational Strategy Planning 
for  Police),  the  European  Joint  Unit  on  Precursors  (EJUP),  an  inter-disciplinary  law  enforcement 
coordination  mechanism  to  tackle  drug  precursors  smuggling,  using  the  auspices  of  Europol,  and  the 
Bucharest based Southeast European Cooperation Initiative (SECI), which includes a specialised task 
force on illegal drugs trafficking. The Baltic Sea Task Force has been set up.  
Regional  drug  enforcement  initiatives  focusing  on  intelligence  sharing  and  operational  cooperation 
have evolved in the maritime sphere. In 2007, an informal working group working in close cooperation 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
 
 
with  Europol  prepared  the  Maritime  Analysis  and  Operations  Centre  —  Narcotics  (MAOC-N), 
focusing on cocaine trafficking by air and sea in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean region. In 2008 the ‘Centre 
de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Mediterranée’ (CECLAD-M) is expected to be set up, 
aimed at drug trafficking in the Mediterranean Sea.  
With regard to drug trafficking by air, the UNODC led Airport Communication Project (Aircop) aims at 
improving controls, particularly at airports, through enhanced inter-agency and regional cooperation. In 
parallel,  MAOC-N  has  launched  an  analysis  on  possible  operational  measures  to  curb  or  interdict 
uncanalised flights trafficking bulk cocaine. The work of the Airports Platform of the Pompidou Group 
is being taken into consideration.  
With regard to inter-regional cooperation on intelligence sharing and capacity building, the EU-LAC 
Intelligence  Sharing Working  Group (ISWG) was  set up in  2007,  supported by  7  Member  States  and 
Europol.  Under  the  EC’s  Stability  Instrument,  dedicated  projects  will  address  the  inter-regional 
challenges of heroin trafficking (project set up in 2007) and cocaine trafficking (being set up in 2008).  
The  Portuguese  Presidency  of  the  Council  HDG  established  an  inventory  of  information  exchange 
mechanisms  in  the  field  of  drugs  to  provide  guidance  for  further  policy  development  and  strengthen 
operational effectiveness in intelligence-led law enforcement. 
Conclusions 
The results of the various operational and intelligence law enforcement cross-border projects in the EU, 
in  particular  the  success  of  MAOC-N  with  almost  27  tons  of  cocaine  seized  in  one  year,  show  the 
importance of strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led 
law enforcement along air, sea and land vectors.  
Moreover, to address the threats from international drug trafficking, EU based counter narcotics efforts 
must  be  accompanied  by  enhanced  inter-regional  drug  enforcement  cooperation  such  as  the  EU-LAC 
intelligence  sharing  network.  In  this  context,  the  EU  model  platform  for  intelligence  sharing  and 
capacity  building  is  being  explored  by  some  Member  States  in  cooperation  with  Europol  and  the 
European  Commission  together  with  increased  use  of  EU  funding  instruments  such  as  the  Stability 
Instrument and the Fight Against and Prevention of Crime Programme.  

This action has been partly achieved 
The Europol Drugs Unit provides operational and strategic reports (over 400 in 2007) and expertise 
to the Member States in the framework of three drug related projects supported by analysis work files 
(AWFs) and expert systems. In addition to the Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), situation 
reports and ad hoc reports on specific crime phenomena are provided to enhance the intelligence picture 
of the Member States and support their investigations. 
More  input  by  the  Member  States  to  the  AWFs  of  the  Europol  projects  COLA,  MUSTARD  and 
SYNERGY  should  be  noted  over  the  reporting  period:  In  2007  —  there  were  a  total  of  1950 
contributions from the Member States compared to 1461 in 2006  

18.2 

MS 
Europol 

Seek to exploit to the full the operational 
and strategic potential of Europol, building 
on existing collaboration between Europol 
and the Europol National Units and 
improving the intelligence picture of supply 
and distribution, by: 
Member States improving the consistency 
with which live information (information as 
specified in the opening orders of Analysis 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
  
Work Files) on drug trafficking groups and 
routes is forwarded to the agency in 
accordance with the Europol Convention for 
such exchange of information; 
Member States improving the consistency 
with which they forward seizure data to 
Europol; 
Europol ensuring that the accumulated 
information is available for Member States’ 
operational and strategic use; 
Europol providing periodic strategic threat 
assessments based on this data; 
Evaluating the success and operational 
impact of the cycle of intelligence gathering, 
analysis, distribution and consequent 
operational action, and making systematic 
improvements. 

Strengthen controls at the external borders 
of the EU to stem the flow of drugs from 
third countries. 

MS 

See 18.1 

Assess the feasibility of developing a 
strategy for the use of heroin and cocaine 
forensic profiling results for law 
enforcement strategic and operational 
purposes and make recommendations 
regarding same. 

MS 

MS 

With the odd exception, the Member States generally provide seizure data to Europol on request only. 
However, not all data is comprehensive and received in time. Complete seizure statistics for 2007 are 
not yet available. 
The  registration  and  reporting  of  seizures  is  not  standardised  in  the  Member  States,  resulting  in 
variances in registration and reporting and thus difficulties in EU. The 2001 Council Recommendation 
on the alignment of statistics on seizures of drugs and diverted precursors,144 which provides detailed 
guidelines for collection of this type of data at national level, has not been implemented. 

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In 2007, a greater number of Member States provided information regarding this action for the present 
Progress Review than in 2006. However, the information provided does not reveal the impact of these 
efforts on the flow of drugs from third countries into the EU. Due to the fact that there are no agreed 
standards  and  rules  at  EU  level  for  registering  and  differentiating  drugs  seizures  made  at  external 
borders,  data  provided  by  Member  States  are  difficult  to  interpret.  Furthermore,  the  information 
obtained does not show which operations have led to what kind of seizures.  

See 18.1 

This action has not been achieved 
No  assessment  has  taken  place  for  developing  a  strategy  for  the  use  of  heroin  and  cocaine  forensic 
profiling results. However, such a strategy may be addressed in the future within the context of the on-
going cooperation on the long-term solution at EU level for the forensic profiling of synthetic drugs (see 
Action 20.2) 

Implement joint multidisciplinary 

MS 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 

Decision of 707/12/01; 13618/01 STUP 29 / 12411/01 STUP 26 ADD 1 & ADD 1 COR 1 (NL, EN) & ADD 1 COR 2 (FR, EN, DK) / 12411/1/01 REV 1 STUP 26. 

111 

EN 

18.3 

18.4 

18.5 

19 

144 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Europol 

operational and intelligence gathering 
projects, share best practice, and increase 
counter narcotics work. Focus this work 
on external countries and regions 
associated with the production of and 
cross-border trafficking in heroin, 
cocaine and cannabis into the EU. 

Reduce the manufacture and supply of 
synthetic drugs (ATS). 

Develop operations and intelligence 
gathering projects to prevent and combat 
synthetic drug manufacture and trafficking. 
These operations should involve at least 2 
Member States. In this regard full use 
should be made of the Synergy Project. 

MS 
Europol 

Develop a long term solution at EU level for 
the use of synthetic drug forensic profiling 
results for law enforcement strategic and 
operational purposes. The development of 
such a solution should be done by law 
enforcement agencies and forensic 
authorities working together and building 

MS  
COM 
Europol 

20 

20.1 

20.2 

As noted under Action 18.1/ 18.4, there are a growing number of joint multidisciplinary operational and 
intelligence  gathering  networks.  Whilst  Europol-led  Projects  COLA  and  MUSTARD  have  supported 
many investigations, including via JITs and JCOs, contributions from the Member States most affected 
by  these  phenomena  are  generally  insufficient.  The  European  Police  Chiefs  Task  Force  COSPOL 
initiatives (the Comprehensive Operational Strategy Planning for Police) on heroin and cocaine provide 
platforms to address this concern. 
As indicated under action 18.1, in 2007 and 2008 a number of law enforcement projects involving at 
least  two  Member  States  have been or  are  about  to  be  established,  including  MAOC-N,  CECLAD-M 
and the Baltic Sea Task Force Cooperation. 

This action has been partly achieved 
Europol’s  Project  SYNERGY  —  which  gathers  and  uses  information,  knowledge  and  experience  in 
the  area  of  synthetic  drugs,  related  precursors  and  equipment  —  supported  various  major  criminal 
investigations carried out by law enforcement in the Member States during the reporting period.  
Project  Synergy  also  includes  the  Europol  Illicit  Laboratory  Comparison  System  (EILCS),  which 
collates  technical  information  on  synthetic  drug  production,  and  the  Europol  Ecstasy  Logo  System 
(EELS)  —  the  latter  incorporated  within  the  general  Europol  Synthetic  Drug  Seizure  System 
(ESDSS).  
The  quality  and  quantity  of  data  supplied  for  the  Analysis  Work  Files  and  the  EILCS  from  several 
Member States remains high. This cooperation is an indicator of satisfaction among operational partners 
concerning  their  relationship  with  SYNERGY  and  its  added  value.  However,  not  all  crucial  Member 
States are contributing fully.  
Project  SYNERGY  supports,  and  is  supported  by,  the  activities  of  the  European  Joint  Unit  on 
Precursors  (EJUP)  and  the  European  Police  Chiefs  Task  Force’s  COSPOL  initiative  on  synthetic 
drugs. SYNERGY also supports and is supported by the CHAIN Project, a European Union initiative on 
the  profiling  of  amphetamine  for  law  enforcement  purposes,  whereby  significant  seizures  may  be 
forensically matched, leading to or supporting ongoing intelligence analysis. 

This action has not yet been achieved, but results are expected shortly 
Several meetings have been organised by the European Commission on a long term solution on forensic 
profiling of synthetic drugs. The meetings were attended by representatives of forensic laboratories and 
law enforcement agencies, mainly of those Member States that are involved in a series of projects aimed 
at developing reliable methods of profiling of amphetamines. Other participants were representatives of 
EUROPOL  and  the  Commission  (Joint  Research  Centre  and  DG  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,  DG 
Research).  

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
 
 
upon experiences in this field. 

20.3 

Implement fully the Council Decision on 
information exchange, risk assessment and 
control of new psychoactive substances. 

Council 
MS 
COM 
Europol 
EMCDDA 
EMEA 

MS 
Europol 
Eurojust 

Combat serious criminal activity in the 
field of chemical precursor diversion and 
smuggling by stepping up law 
enforcement cooperation between 
Member States and, as appropriate, with 
Europol, Eurojust, and third countries 
and international organisations. 
Implement law enforcement projects such 
as the European Joint Unit on 
Precursors. These projects should involve 

21 

EN 

It is agreed that any future European long term solution should built on the experience of Projects co-
funded by the European Commission (mainly SYNERGY and CHAIN). The role of Europol and JRC 
Ispra has been recognised. The European structure available to all MS, with the potential to cover all 
drugs, synthetics or otherwise — depending on national or regional needs — should be set up. The idea 
is that the exact form will be decided by the Council on a proposal from the COM. 
The  Commission  will  inform  the  Council  (HDG)  of  the  conclusions  reached  when  operational,  legal, 
and budgetary aspects have been clarified with Europol and the JRC. 

This objective has been achieved 
The implementation of the Council Decision in 2005, 2006 and 2007 is described in the corresponding 
EMCDDA-Europol Annual Reports on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA. In 2007 
the  Commission  decided  not  to  take  further  steps  regarding  1-(3-chlorophenyl)  piperazine  (mCPP)  as 
the substance was not eligible for a risk assessment, being used as an intermediate in the manufacturing 
of  a  medicinal  product.  However,  in  2006  and  2007  EMCDDA  and  Europol  actively  monitored  and 
assessed  the  available  data  on  mCPP.  The  Council  Decision  has  been  fully  implemented  in  2007 
through the risk assessment procedure on 1-Benzylpiperazine, resulting in a Decision of the Council in 
March 2008 to control the substance. The final decision-making procedure took as much time as the risk 
assessment process. 
Conclusions  
The  Council  Decision  has  proven  to  be  a  rapid  and  effective  instrument  in  identifying  and  assessing 
new  psychoactive  substances  that  appear  on  the  market.  Some  issues  need  further  consideration.  The 
deadlines  as  adopted  in  the  Council  Decision  may  need  to  be  reconsidered,  allowing  more  time  for 
information  collection  and  risk  assessment.  An  active  monitoring  component  may  be  formally 
introduced in the mechanism, allowing more information to be collected before a risk assessment takes 
place  or  where  assessment  cannot  be  requested  for  legal  reasons.  And  finally,  the  link  between  the 
Council Decision and the EU Pharmacovigilance system might be further explored for those substances 
that also have medical purposes.  

This objective has been partly achieved 
Supported  by  Europol  Project  Synergy,  the  European  Joint  Unit  on  Precursors  (EJUP),  a 
multinational, multi-disciplinary joint unit consisting of law enforcement national experts from Austria, 
Belgium,  France,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom,  continues  to  be  a  significant 
supportive tool for the numerous investigations in the Member States on precursor chemicals trafficking 
from  the source countries to the large scale synthetic drug production sites. No new law enforcement 
projects such as the EJUP have been set up since January 2005.  
In addition, Project SYNERGY reports, in the framework of COSPOL activities, have led to enhanced 
awareness and cooperation with industry in relation to scheduled and non-scheduled chemicals used in 
synthetic drug production, diverted from particular companies. This has led to increased Member States 

113 

EN 

 
  
at least 2 Member States. 

cooperation with industry. 

22 

22.1 

Prevent the diversion of precursors, in 
particular synthetic drug precursors 
imported into the EU. 

Implement the Community drug precursor 
legislation, in particular the cooperation 
between MS in relation to controls of 
imports of synthetic drug precursors. 
Strengthen external border controls by 
customs or other competent authorities and 
strengthen intra-Community controls. 

MS 
COM 

22.2 

22.3 

Support international operations of the UN 
INCB (International Narcotics Control 
Board), in particular Project Prism. 

Develop cooperation between Member 
States’ authorities competent for precursor 
control and Industry. 

MS 
COM 
Europol 

MS 
COM 

This action has been partly achieved 
EU  law  enforcement  authorities  continue  to  be  active  in  detecting  suspicious  consignments  of  drug 
precursors.  In  2006,  the  number  of  cases  increased  further.  These  cases  involve  higher  quantities  of 
ephedrines  stopped  or  seized,  while  the  quantities  of  P-2-P  (the  key  amphetamine  precursor  which  is 
now also increasingly found being diverted for use in illicit methamphetamine manufacture) seem to be 
stable in comparison with 2005. In turn, seizures of 3, 4 MdP-2-P have decreased. Acetic anhydride (the 
key heroin precursor) and potassium permanganate (the key precursor for making cocaine) continue to 
be seized or stopped, but have decreased in comparison with 2005. In 2006, there were no further cases 
reported with regard to Ephedra.  
Moreover,  suspicious  consignments  of  a  relatively high  number  of  pharmaceutical  preparations  under 
transhipment through the EU were stopped. As in 2005, GBL and BDO (precursors used to make GHB) 
continue to be seized by using the EU voluntary monitoring control mechanisms, based on the voluntary 
partnership with industrial sectors.  
See EU drug Precursors seizures in 2006: 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/drugs_precursors/
seizures/report_2006_en.pdf 

This action has been achieved 
The  Commission  is  directly  supporting  INCB-led  operations,  including  Operation  Transhipment  and 
Operation Target, via its UNODC-implemented project to strengthen efforts against drug precursors in 
Afghanistan, and between Afghanistan and its neighbours. 

This action has been achieved 
The Commission, together with a group of experts from Member States and from Industry, has drafted a 
guidance document “Drug precursors’ control in the EU — guidelines for operators” which has been 
distributed  among  operators 
in  drug  precursors.  This  document  sets  out 
recommendations  to  help  operators  detect  and  report  suspicious  transactions  and  orders  of  so-called 
scheduled  drug  precursors.  It  also  provides  them  with  an  updated  list  of  “non-scheduled  substances”, 
where operators have agreed to collaborate actively and voluntarily with Member States to notify any 
suspicious  transactions  with  non-scheduled  substances,  as  they  can  nevertheless  be  used  in  the  illicit 
manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.  
Both  mandatory  (scheduled  drug  precursors)  and  voluntary  (non-scheduled  drug  precursor)  systems 

trading 

legally 

EN 

114 

EN 

 
  
 
 
allow continuous and increased number of seizures and stopped shipments. 
The systems in place fully reflect and acknowledge the vital nature of the principle of co-operation with 
industry  and  prove  to  be  very  effective  in  combating  the  diversion  of  drug  precursors  for  illicit  drug 
manufacturing,  while  offering  the  necessary  flexibility  to  respond  quickly  to  changing  trends  and 
patterns of diversion. 
The  Commission  and  the  national  competent  authorities  took  part  in  various  seminars  aimed  at 
facilitating  implementation  of  the  legislation  in  the  new  Member  States.  The  Commission  has  further 
undertaken to provide an “e-learning” tool to trained operators on their responsibilities and duties in the 
field of drug precursor's control. This eLearning will be ready by end 2008. At international level, the 
EU  proposal  for  a  United  Nations  Resolution145  adopted  by  the  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs 
(CND)  invited  UN  Contracting  Parties  to  set  up  guidelines  for  operators  and  to  set  up  guidelines  at 
international levels.  

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
Number of operational law enforcement projects initiated or completed:  
The Criminal Assets Bureau (ECAB), launched by Europol under its Money Laundering Action Plan, 
encompasses  the  work  carried  out  by  Europol  on  asset  recovery,  including  operational  support  for 
Member States’ investigations (including drugs investigations) to trace criminal proceeds, managing the 
Financial  Crime  Information  Centre  Website  and  acting  as  the  CARIN  permanent  secretariat.  The 
Europol Criminal Assets Bureau provides operational support to MS in identifying criminal proceeds, 
when the assets are located outside their jurisdictional area and the investigation falls within Europol’s 
mandate. In 2007, the ECAB supported a total of 134 investigations in the Member States relating to 
asset tracing and identification (2005: 57; 2006: 53).  
The  Europol  Money  Laundering  Project,  SUSTRANS,  supports  the  drug  related  Project  Synergy  in 
gathering and analysing financial related data, where substantial illegal profits were generated. Within 
Project SUSTRANS, a project on intra-Community cross-border movement of cash is being developed, 
reflecting the presence of a cross-border reporting system. It addresses the emerging trend of cash being 
moved in bulk throughout Europe without being detected. The use of money couriers is still a growing 
phenomenon in money laundering operations within the European Union. A questionnaire has been sent 
to Member States to gain a better understanding of cash smuggling routes and features. 

23 

23.1 

MS 
Europol 
Eurojust 

Target money laundering and seizure of 
accumulated assets in relation to drug 
crime. 

Implement operational law enforcement 
projects such as 
Projects to pursue drug trafficking 
organisations, including concurrent and in 
depth investigation of the criminals’ 
finances and assets (of whatever kind) 
aimed at maximising recovery of assets and 
the compilation/sharing of associated 
intelligence; and 
Projects aimed at detecting and disrupting 
criminal cash flows within the EU and from 
the EU to specific high-risk destinations 
outside the EU and source countries. 
These operational law enforcement projects 
should involve at least two Member States. 

145 

50th CND (March 2007), Resolution 50/10 

EN 

115 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
23.2 

23.3 

23.4 

23.5 

Develop cooperation in the exchange of 
information between Financial Intelligence 
Units (FIUs) by utilising FIU-Net as a 
means of exchanging information between 
them. 

MS 

Consider the possibility of creating national 
multi-disciplinary Units for the detection 
and investigation of criminals’ finances and 
assets. 

MS 
COM 

Identify and evaluate best practice in 
criminal asset confiscation legislation and 
procedures of the Member States, taking 
into account all relevant EU instruments. 

COM 

Explore best practice in Member States 
which have established and implemented a 
national fund used to provide funding for 
projects in the drugs field and financed from 

COM 

Cash and assets seized as a result of drug related investigations: 
In 2007, the ECAB helped in 48 cases to identify criminal proceeds originating specifically from drug 
trafficking investigations. In 2005, there were 20 such cases, and in 2006 15 cases were dealt with. 
In conclusion, cross-cutting cooperation between Europol’s drugs, money laundering and assests tracing 
projects  has  led  to  enhanced  support  to  Member  States.  In  this  regard  and  in  the  framework  of  the 
COSPOL-Synergy partnership a major new initiative has started involving several Member States. 

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The  Financial  Intelligence  Units  (FIUs)  of  18  Member  States  are  connected  to  the  FIU.NET  system. 
The  ultimate  objective  of  the  project  is  to  establish  a  secure  and  complete  computer  network  for  the 
exchange  of  financial  intelligence  among  the  27  EU  FIUs  in  combating  money  laundering  and  the 
financing of terrorism.  
It  is  expected  that  the  Commission  will  provide  co-financing  to  the  project  for  the  period  2007-2009 
under the financial programme “Prevention of and Fight against Crime”. 

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The  Council  Decision  on  cooperation  between  Asset  Recovery  Offices  of  the  Member  States146  was 
adopted on 6 December 2007 to ensure that Member States set up or designate, by 18 December 2008, 
national  Asset  Recovery  Offices  which  will  act  as  national  contact  points  for  confiscation-related 
activities.  They  will  notably  promote,  through  enhanced  cooperation,  the  fastest  possible  EU-wide 
tracing of assets derived from crime.  
A  Europol  project  to  support  this  instrument  has  been  launched  for  the  period  2008-2010.  It  will 
coordinate expert onsite support missions, on the request of MS, to provide advice and guidance on the 
establishment and effective operation of national Asset Recovery Offices.  

This objective has not been achieved, but results are expected shortly 
The  Commission  signed  a  contract  for  a  study  analysing  Member  States’  legislation  and  practices  in 
criminal confiscation. The study will focus on what has proven to be effective at national level with a 
view to promoting and exchanging best practice. The results of this study are expected to be available 
by end 2008. 

This action has not been achieved 
The  Commission  is  not  planning  to  contract  out  a  specific  study  on  the  use  of  confiscated  funds  for 
police/community  drugs projects.  Information  on best practice  related  to  the use of  confiscated  assets 
may become available through the Commission study on Member States’ best practices in confiscation 

146 

2007/845/JHA, 6.12.2007 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
24 

25 

25.1 

the confiscation of assets earned through 
drug production and trafficking. 

Explore possible links between drug 
production and trafficking and financing 
of terrorism. 
Identify possible links between drug 
production and trafficking and financing 
of terrorism and use this information to 
support or initiate investigations and/or 
actions. 

COM 
Europol 
MS 

Step up work on prevention of drug 
related crime. 

Adopting a common definition of the term 
‘drug-related crime’. 

Council 
COM 

25.2 

Share experiences and best practices in 
preventing the distribution of drugs at street 
level and present the results. 

MS 
Council 

and asset recovery. The results are expected to be available by end 2008. 

This objective has not been achieved 
To  date  no  major  project  or  programmes  investigating  the  links  between  drug  production  and  the 
financing  of  terrorism  are  running  at  EU  level.  However,  the  Council’s  working  party  on  terrorism 
concluded  in  March  2008  that  the  links  between  drug  trafficking  and  terrorism  should  be  explored 
further at EU level, including action to draw up a list of major drug traffickers.  
Links between drug trafficking and terrorism are most evident in certain parts of Afghanistan. Although 
evidence is hard to find, the EU should be vigilant about a possible occurrence of similar trends closer 
to  the  EU.  Member  States  could  make  better  use  of  existing  financing  programmes  at  EU  level  to 
initiate, develop and support activities in this field with a view to reflection and dialogue at European 
level.  

6.2.5.1.  This action has not yet been achieved, but will see further work in 2008 and 2009 

6.2.5.2. 

In 2007, the EMCDDA presented in a publication a broad definition of the term ‘drug-related 
crime’, identifying 4 crime categories: psychopharmacological crimes, economic-compulsive 
crimes,  systemic  crimes  and  drug  law  offences.  A  similar  breakdown  of  the  term  had  been 
proposed in 2003, and is still relevant when taking the international scientific literature into 
account. The Commission is preparing a paper on further steps regarding this definition, but 
intends  to  link  this  exercise  to  a  broader  debate  on  policy  needs  for  drug-related  crime 
information and statistics at EU level.  

6.2.5.3.  The  evaluation  showed  that  only  few  Member  States  have  defined  drug-related  crime  at 
national level. A study on drug-related crime statistics and law enforcement information has 
been  launched  and  will  be  finalised  in  the  first  half  of  2009.  The  outcomes  of  the  study 
should form the basis of a broader proposal on drug-related crime and indicators, based on 
policy needs at EU level. 

This action has been partly achieved 
The Portuguese Presidency of the HDG instigated a debate on “Preventing the distribution of drugs at 
street level” in December 2007, which concluded that  
•  There is added value in a European common approach to preventing the distribution at street level 

although the national and local particularities have to be taken into account. 

•  The information exchange and sharing of best practices is crucial. The work already developed by 

EN 

117 

EN 

 
  
 
 
26 

27 

28 

Develop new methods and best practice to 
combat drug-related crimes and to 
prevent the diversion of precursors 
committed with the aid of information 
technology. 
MS to collect data on drug-related crime 
and precursor diversion committed with 
the aid of information technology with a 
view to developing new methods and best 
practice to combat these phenomena. 

Increase training for law enforcement 
agencies. 
MS and CEPOL, within their respective 
competences, to include in their annual 
work (training) programmes more 
training courses for law enforcement 
officers specifically relating to combating 
drug production and trafficking. 

Adopt EU common positions on drugs in 
international fora. 
EU positions at international meetings 
dealing with drugs issues to be prepared 
in the HDG and other coordination fora. 
EU coordination meetings to take place in 
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND) and other meetings. 

MS 
Council 

MS 
CEPOL 

PRES 
MS 
COM 

some organisations in this field (like the Pompidou Group, the European Forum for Urban Security 
and the European Crime Prevention Network) should be considered. 

•  There is a need to develop synergies between law enforcement authorities and social/health services. 

As it is a local problem, all the stakeholders should be involved. 

This objective has not been achieved 
The  collection  of  data  on  drug-related  crime  and  precursor  diversion  committed  with  the  aid  of 
information technology differs from one Member State to the other. Nine Member States indicate that 
they collect this type of data. Belgium and the UK specify that they collect data on suspicious activities 
of internet-based companies (precursors). Sweden only collects such data on drug offences. The Czech 
Republic  and  Slovakia  indicate  that  this  task  is  currently  being  implemented.  Estonia  and  Lithuania 
state  that  this  type  of  data  collection  exists,  but do  not  specify  its  contents.  In  Latvia, the  Register of 
Criminal  Offences  includes  a  codification  for  ‘crimes  committed  with  the  aid  of  information 
technologies'.  In  Denmark,  there  are  cases  reported  of  drug-related  crimes  in  which  the  internet  was 
used as a communication tool, but no details are given about specific data collections.  

This objective has been partly achieved 
CEPOL organised for the first time two specific training courses (in Slovakia and Greece) in the field of 
fighting drug related crime in 2008. The latter course will help develop a common curriculum.  
As drug crime cannot be isolated from the overall phenomenon of organised crime, there are two other 
courses on Northeast Europe and Southeast Europe Organised Crime Organisations foreseen by CEPOL 
in 2008. All courses are supported by Europol.  

This objective has been achieved 
The  role  played  by  the  EU  in  international  fora,  in  particular  in  the  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs 
(CND), has proved to be increasingly important over the years.  
Over  the  past  three  years  the  HDG  has  proven  its  worth  as  the  prime  forum  for  prior  coordination 
between  Member  States  —  and  Commission  —  positions.  In  particular,  common  EU  positions  were 
defined during HDG meetings for the annual sessions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs with regard 
to  draft  resolutions,  EU  statements  and  other  important  drug-related  issues,  like  the  follow-up  to  the 
UNGASS or the Second Ministerial Conference on Drug Trafficking Routes from Afghanistan (“Paris 2 
—  Moscow  1”)  in  June  2006  in  the  framework  of  the  Paris  Pact  Initiative.  Supplementing  the  HDG, 
preparatory  EU  Coordination  meetings  also  took  place  regularly  in  Vienna  and  were  organised  on  a 
daily basis during the CND sessions, as well as on an ad hoc basis when needed. 
During  the  CND  Sessions  in  2006-2008,  the  respective  EU  Presidencies  (AT,  DE,  SI)  delivered  EU 
Statements on the follow up to UNGASS, drug demand reduction, illicit drug trafficking and supply, the 

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
 
INCB and policy directives to strengthen the Drug Programme of UNODC and the role of the CND as 
its governing body. The EC, on behalf of the European Community, delivered its traditional statement 
on precursors during each CND session. However, a harmonised approach among EU actors during the 
plenary meetings should be agreed to ensure the EU speaks with one voice.  
Conclusions 

•  To remain a major world player on drugs issues, it is of paramount importance that the EU maintains 
common  positions  and  speaks  with  one  voice  in  international  fora,  and  in  particular  during  the 
annual sessions of the CND. It is, therefore, fundamental to continue the trend towards a reinforced, 
unified role for the EU and to reaffirm the coordinating role of the HDG. 

This objective has been achieved 
See  also  Actions  28  and  30.  The  EU  statements  and  positions  in  all  external  fora  have  promoted  the 
EU’s  balanced  approach.  Furthermore,  statements  on  drugs  issues  by  the  Commissioners  and 
Commission  officials  have  consistently  referred  to  the  balanced  approach  on  drugs.  The  balanced 
approach is the guideline of the EU and Commission dialogues with third countries; troika agendas are 
built up around this concept and action plans for cooperation are structured as such. The Commission is 
increasingly assisting third countries on demand reduction, in parallel with more traditional assistance 
concerning alternative development and supply reduction. The balanced approach seems to be reflected 
in national strategies of many of the third countries with which the EU has established dialogues. 
Conclusions  
The activities undertaken by the EU Presidencies and Commission for this objective mainly reflect the 
policy  outputs  as  the  quantitative  expression  of  success.  However,  for  an  assessment  of  the  policy 
outcomes  of  this  action,  it  is  important  to  assess  the  scope  and  level  of  detail  of  these  EU  sponsored 
statements, the extent to which they actually reflect the balanced approach between supply and demand 
reduction, and their follow-up in practice. 

This objective has been achieved (to a great extent) 
During the 51st session of the CND147, the EU played an active role in the negotiation of resolutions and 
tabled two resolutions, on the “Preparations for the high-level segment of the 52nd session relating to the 
UNGASS20 follow-up” and together with Nigeria on “Strengthening international support to countries 
of W-Africa in their efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking”. 
Furthermore, the following resolutions were co-sponsored by the EU: 
–  “Follow-up to the 2nd Ministerial Conference on Drug Trafficking Routes from Afghanistan” 

29 

30 

Articulate and promote the EU approach 
on drugs. 
The Presidency and/or Commission to 
take the lead role in articulating and 
promoting the EU’s balanced approach. 

PRES 
MS 
COM 

Bring forward EU joint resolutions and 
co-sponsor other resolutions. 
At the UN, in particular the CND, the 
Presidency to endeavour to have 
resolutions brought forward as EU joint 
resolutions and/or EU co-sponsoring of 
other resolutions. 

PRES 
MS 
COM 

147 

The 51st CND took place from 10-14 March 2008. 

EN 

119 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
–  “Marking the Centennial of the convening of the International Opium Commission” 

–  “Provision  of  International  Assistance  to  States  neighbouring  Afghanistan  based  on  their 

performance” 

–  “Strengthening  International  Cooperation  for  the  control  of  precursor  chemicals  used  for  the 

manufacture of synthetic drugs” 

–  “Strengthening cooperation between the UNODC and other UN bodies for the promotion of human 

rights it the implementation of the international drug control treaties” 

–  “Responding  to  the  threat  posed  by  the  distribution  of  internationally  controlled  drugs  on  the 

unregulated market” 

–  “Promoting  coordination  and  alignment  of  decisions  between  the  CND  and  the  Programme 

Coordinating Board of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS” 

–  Sharing of information regarding the use of non-scheduled substances as substitutes for scheduled 
substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances 
and new methods of manufacture of illicit drugs” 

–  “Strengthening  international  support  for  States  in  West  Africa  and  their  efforts  to  combat  drug 

trafficking” 

–  “Improving the governance and financial situation of the UNODC” 

No  individual  EU  MS  tabled  a  resolution.  However,  Sweden  co-sponsored  the  resolution  on  “The 
consequences of cannabis use” (tabled by the US), while Spain and France co-sponsored the resolution 
on  “Control  of  international  movement  of  poppy  seeds  obtained  from  illicitly  grown  opium  poppy 
plants” (tabled by India), and the resolution tabled by the Arab Group on “Reducing the demand for and 
abuse of cannabis” was co-sponsored by France. 
The  EC  conducted  the  negotiations  on  behalf  of  the  EU  on  the  two  resolutions  on  precursors.  In 
addition, the EU spoke with one voice during the negotiations of the 2 US resolutions on Cannabis and 
Early Detection (former SBIRT). 

31 

31.1 

EN 

Formulate an EU contribution to the final 
evaluation of the implementation of the 
results of the 1998 UN General Assembly 
Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS). 

Take an initiative to propose common EU 
criteria, in the framework of the 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, for the final 

COM  
Council 
PRES 

This action has been achieved 
In 2006, the CND adopted the EU-tabled Resolution (49/1), based on a Commission initiative, on the 
assessment  of  the  ten-year  review  of  the  UNGASS  1998  process.  As  provided  for  in  the  resolution, 

120 

EN 

 
  
 
 
evaluation of the implementation of the 
Political Declaration, the Declaration on the 
guiding principles of drug demand reduction 
and the Measures to enhance international 
cooperation to counter the world drug 
problem adopted at UNGASS 1998. 

MS 

31.2 

Support an EU common position on the 
results of the final evaluation of the 
implementation of the Political Declaration, 
the Declaration on the guiding principles of 
drug demand reduction and the Measures to 
enhance international cooperation to counter 
the world drug problem adopted at 
UNGASS 1998. 

COM 
Council 
PRES 
MS 

32 

Support the candidate and stabilisation 
and association process countries.  
Provide the necessary technical and other 
assistance to these countries to familiarise 

MS 
COM  
EMCDDA 

UNODC  engaged  with  experts  from  all  geographical  regions  and  international  organisations,  for  the 
collection of supplementary data and expertise to support the global assessment by Member States. In 
2007, the Commission financed this expert working group. 
In  2008,  the  CND  adopted  the  EU-tabled  Resolution  (51/4)  on  the  preparations  for  the  high-level 
segment  of  the  52nd  CND  in  2009,  relating  to  the  follow-up  to  the  UNGASS  1998  process.  The 
resolution decided to establish open-ended expert working groups to work on the following UNGASS-
related  topics:  (a)  Drug  demand  reduction;  (b)  Supply  reduction  (manufacture  and  trafficking);  (c) 
Countering money-laundering and promoting judicial cooperation; (d) International cooperation on the 
eradication  of  illicit  drug  crops  and  on  alternative  development;  (e)  Control  of  precursors  and  of 
amphetamine-type stimulants. 
The  objective  of  the  working  group  was  to  assess  progress  achieved  and  difficulties  encountered  by 
Member States in meeting the goals set out in the UNGASS Political Declaration, and to identify areas 
requiring  further  action.  The  conclusions  of  the  expert  working  groups  feed  into  the  intersessional 
meetings  of  the  CND  which  prepare  recommendations  for  decisions  to  be  adopted  by  the  CND  at  its 
52nd session in 2009. 
Conclusion 
By proposing the resolutions, providing funding and by active participation in the working groups, the 
EU  confirmed  its  commitment  to  help  improve  the  evidence  base  that  supports  drug  policies  at  UN 
level.  

This objective has been partly achieved, work is ongoing 
Since 2006 the EU has worked on an EU position on UNGASS on the basis of a Commission initiative.  
The common position refers both to a global assessment of the declarations and Action Plans adopted 
by UNGASS 1998 and the identification of future action: what should be the final outcome of the high-
level segment in 2009 and what elements should guide future UN drug policy? 
Concerning  the  future,  the  common  position  emphasises  the  main  elements  of  EU  drugs  policy  — 
compliance  with  international  drug  control  and  human  rights  instruments,  the  balanced  and 
multidisciplinary approach, policies based on monitoring and scientific evidence, cooperation, strategic 
coherence across UN bodies — to address future challenges in an efficient and cost effective way.  
Conclusion 
The  EU  has  participated  constructively  in  the  UNGASS  debate,  speaking,  based  on  the  common 
position, with one voice. 

This objective has been achieved 
Candidate countries (Croatia, Turkey and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) 
Technical  cooperation  with  Croatia  started  in  June  2006  and  is  currently  continuing  under  the  IPA 
project.  The  objective  of  this  project  is  to  strengthen  the  activities  launched  under  Phare  IV.  Croatia 

EN 

121 

EN 

 
  
them with the EU acquis and to assist 
them in carrying out the required actions. 

Europol 

Enable candidate countries to participate 
in the work of EMCDDA, Europol and 
Eurojust.148 
Conclude agreements with candidate 
countries. 

Council 
COM 

provided  the  EMCDDA  with  a  national  report,  statistical  tables  and  structured  questionnaires  for  the 
first  time  in  2007  and  delivered  its  2008  national  report.  Croatia  is  currently  negotiating  with  the 
Commission an agreement on its participation in the work of the EMCDDA.  
The  progress  made  by  Turkey  on  setting  up  its  national  focal  point  and  its  national  data-collection 
system on drugs was maintained in 2007, and Turkey published for the second time its national report to 
the EMCDDA. While the joint work programme was officially endorsed by the national authorities in 
March 2007 and was implemented smoothly, some obstacles have appeared for the implementation of 
the  ESPAD  school  survey  in  the  country.  Technical  cooperation  with  Turkey  is  currently  continuing 
under  the  IPA  project, which  aims  at  strengthening  the  activities  under Phare IV.  Turkey  is  currently 
ratifying the agreement on its participation in the EMCDDA. 
The  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia  and  the  EMCDDA  are  currently  cooperating  under  the 
CARDS project, described below. So far, this country has not yet applied officially for membership in 
the EMCDDA.  
Potential candidate countries 
Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Serbia and Kosovo under UNSC Resolution 1244) 
Direct  cooperation  between  the  EMCDDA  and  the  Western  Balkans  started  at  the  end  of  November 
2007 under the CARDS–EMCDDA project, aimed at assessing the capacity of the countries to establish 
a  drug  information  system  compatible  with  the  EMCDDA.  It  is  expected  that  they  will  be  able  to 
provide  a  first  Country  Situation  Summary  (CSS)  on  the  respective  drugs  situation  on  the  basis  of 
existing  information  and  will  have  received  targeted  support  for  that  purpose.  A  second  result  of  the 
project will be the assessment of the potential for the creation and/or strengthening of a National Focal 
Point  in  the  Western  Balkans  countries  with  a  view  to  their  possible  participation  in  the  work  of  the 
EMCDDA.  

This objective has been largely achieved 
In  July  2006,  the  Council  adopted  a  mandate  authorising  the  Commission  to  open  negotiations  with 
Croatia  with  a  view  to  its  participation  in  the  EMCDDA.  Turkey  has  initialled  agreements  with  the 
European  Community.  These  agreements  have  yet  to  be  formally  signed  and  concluded  before  they 
enter into force. In January 2007 Romania and Bulgaria became full members of the EMCDDA with 
their  accession  to  the  EU.  An  operational  agreement  between  Croatia  and  Europol  was  signed  on 
16.01.2006 and entered into force on 16.08.2006. Croatia now has a liaison officer in The Hague (since 
March 2008).  

Eurojust to cooperate with the candidate countries through nomination of contact points and consideration of cooperation agreements in line with the Council conclusions on 
Eurojust of 2 December 2004. 

122 

EN 

33 

148 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
34 

34.1 

Assist European neighbours. 

Implement drugs sections of European 
Neighbourhood Policy Action Plans. 

MS 
COM 

A strategic agreement between Europol and former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was signed on 
16.01.2007 and entered into force on 14.03.2008. A strategic agreement between Europol and Turkey 
was  signed  in  May  2004.  A  decision  on  extending  this  agreement  to  operational  status  is  still  under 
negotiation.  A  strategic  agreement  between  Europol  and  Albania  was  signed  on  26.03.2007  and 
entered  into  force  on  10.05.2007.  A  strategic  agreement  between  Europol  and  Bosnia-Herzegovina 
was  signed  and  entered  into  force  on  26.01.2007.  Montenegro  was  added  to  the  Council  list  of  third 
countries with which European sign a cooperation agreement in February 2007. Negotiations on a draft 
Agreement  on  Strategic  Co-operation  were  finalised  at  working  level  on  24  April  2008  and  will  be 
submitted  to  the  Europol  MB  in  May,  after  which  it  will  be  submitted  to  the  Council  for  approval. 
Finally,  Serbia  was  added  to  the  Council  list  in  June  2002.  Negotiations  of  a  draft  Agreement  on 
Strategic Co-operation were finalised at working level on 24 April 2008 and will be submitted to the 
Europol Management Board in May 2008, after which it will be submitted to the Council for approval. 
Eurojust  has  concluded  a  formal  third  country  agreement  with  Romania.  Turkey  and  Croatia  have 
appointed  contact  points  for  cooperation  with  Eurojust.  Eurojust  and  Croatia  signed  a  cooperation 
agreement on 8 November 2007. Preparations for the entry into force of the cooperation agreement are 
on-going.  Eurojust  concluded  a  draft  cooperation  agreement  with  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia  on  10  April  2008.  Preparations  for  formal  approval  by  the  Council  and  the  subsequent 
signature of the agreement are on-going. Turkey has appointed two contact points for Eurojust.  

This action has been achieved, but the outcome cannot be assessed 
The  Commission  published  progress  reports  on  the  European  Neighbourhood  Policy  Action  Plans  in 
2008. These and other sources demonstrate progress, but more effort is needed.  
Armenia  needs  to  develop  a  comprehensive  and  balanced  national  anti-drugs  strategy.  It  is  fully 
engaged  in  the  SCAD  programme  (Southern  Caucasus  Anti-Drug)  at  regional  level.  Azerbaijan  has 
made improvements. It formulated its national strategy in June 2007, and approved a five year action 
programme  to  combat  drug  addiction.  Legislation  has  been  adopted  to  implement  the  1988  UN 
Convention, and a State Commission on antinarcotics has been established. Azerbaijan is fully engaged 
in the SCAD (Southern Caucasus Anti–Drugs) programme. 
Georgia adopted, but has not yet implemented, a concept paper for a national drugs strategy in February 
2007. It is fully engaged in the SCAD programme. Moldova adopted in March 2007 an AP on “fighting 
the  use  of  drugs  and  drug  business”  for  the  years  2007-2009.  Although  Moldova  participates  in 
BUMAD  (Belarus,  Ukraine,  Moldova  Anti-Drugs)  and  EUBAM  (EU  Border  Assistance  in  Moldova 
and Ukraine), but still needs support in implementing its strategy.  
Concerning Ukraine, the EU-Ukraine JHA Action Plan was streamlined in 2006 and cooperation in the 
field  of  drugs  updated.  This  country’s  work  in  the  fight  against  drugs  continued  in  line  with 
international  commitments,  with  an  additional  focus  on  cooperation with  other  countries  in  the  Black 

EN 

123 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Sea region. It actively participated in BUMAD and EUBAM.  
Egypt’s  legislation  is  in  compliance  with  UN  conventions.  It  has  a  coordinating  “Anti-Narcotics 
General  Authority”.  Drugs  were  discussed  in  the  EU-Egypt  JLS  subcommittee  late  2007.  The  years 
2006-2008  show  that  Israel  intensified  its  fight  against  drug  abuse,  through  the  establishment  of  a 
special Knesset committee on drugs and the implementation of a comprehensive set of measures. 
No progress is noted for Jordan, apart from new money laundering legislation endorsed in May 2007, 
which is in line with the 1988 UN Convention. Lebanon’s efforts should be intensified and sustained. 
No  progress  is  registered  in  the  implementation  of  the  National  Drugs  Action  Plan.  A  Mini-Dublin 
Group took place in December 2007. The internal security forces postponed the eradication of hashish 
in the Beqaa scheduled for the second half of 2007 due to violence by drug growers.  
Cooperation with Morocco has improved. This country has had a National Drugs Strategy since 2006 
and  in  the  JLS  subcommittee,  which  took  place  in  April  2008,  requested  EU  assistance  for  its 
implementation. The establishment of a dialogue/operational cooperation with Morocco is a priority for 
the  EU,  which  organised  the  first  TROIKA  on  drugs  in  2008  and  supports  its  full  involvement  in 
operational anti-drugs activities in the Mediterranean. Although Tunisia is not a producing country, it is 
increasingly  a  transit  country  and  should  therefore  be  fully  involved  in  operational  activities  in  the 
Mediterranean. 
Conclusions 
The European Neighbourhood Policy has paved the way towards closer cooperation on drugs with the 
ENP  partners,  based  on  regular  dialogue  (via  subcommittees)  coupled  with  dedicated  financial 
instruments.  A  specific  drug  Troika  with  the  Ukraine  took  place  in  2007  and  in  2008,  while  the  first 
Troika  with  Morocco  was  held  in  2008.  More  impetus  is  needed,  however,  regarding  other  cannabis 
producing countries (particularly Lebanon) as well as countries affected by trafficking towards and from 
Europe.  Furthermore,  the  principle  of  the  EU  balanced  approach  requires  further  strengthening  and 
prioritisation  in  the  funding  of  ENP  programmes.  Developing  regional  approaches  between  ENP 
countries,  East  European  countries  including  Russia  and  the  Mediterranean  is  an  important  issue  for 
future policy consideration.  

This action has been partly achieved 
EU-Russia cooperation on drugs fits in the framework established by the Road Map for the Common 
Space of Freedom, Security and Justice, adopted by the EU-Russia Summit in May 2005, and the EU-
Russia Action Plan against Organised Crime.  
In October 2005 the JHA Permanent Partnership Council endorsed broad areas of cooperation to take 
forward EU/Russia cooperation on drugs. Several activities have since been undertaken, including:  
•  An EU-Russia conference on drugs that helped to identify joint initiatives and actions to complete 
key elements of the Road Map. In 2007, further initiatives in the field of drugs were recommended. 
•  An Action–Oriented Paper on Russia to implement aspects of the EU-Russia Road Map, including 

34.2 

MS  
COM 

Implement the drugs section of the EU-
Russia Action Plan against organised crime 
and of the Roadmap to the Common Space 
of Freedom, Security and Justice; explore 
scope for enhanced action with Russia, 
especially in this roadmap, and other 
neighbouring countries to reduce the drug-
related risk. 

EN 

124 

EN 

 
  
drugs, was adopted at the end of 2006, with a progress report adopted in 2008.  

•  A  training  course  on  synthetic  drugs  was  organised  by  Poland  in  2007,  involving  Russian  law 

• 

enforcement officers.  
In May 2007 the Russian Advanced Training Police Academy (VIPK) hosted an EU-Russia expert 
meeting  on  controlled  delivery  of  synthetic  drugs  precursors  from  Russia  to  Belgium  and  the 
Netherlands, with a follow-up meeting held in 2008.  

•  The  EMCDDA  and  the  Russian  Federal  Drug  Control  Service  (FDCS)  signed  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding  in  2007,  enabling  the  FDCS  to  participate  in  EMCDDA  activities  and  to  foster 
exchanges, gatherings and analysis of information on drug use.  

•  Contacts were established between the FDCS and the Maritime Analysis and Cooperation Centre — 
Narcotics (MAOC-N) with a view to cooperating and/or drawing inspiration for future cooperation 
arrangements, in particular as regard the Black Sea region.  

•  EU-Russia focal points on drugs were established, in the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in 
the  European  Commission,  to  facilitate  informal  contacts  and  exchange  of  information.  An  EU-
Russia  liaison  officers’  network  was  created,  which  met  4  times,  with  a  widespread  exchange  of 
information and enhanced networking at experts level. Other meetings were organised on synthetic 
drugs and precursors, on the Black Sea region cooperation and on drugs from Afghanistan.  

•  Finally, work on an operational agreement between FDCS and Europol has progressed, in particular 

following Europol’s assessment on Russia’s data protection system. 

A negotiating mandate for a new agreement on a comprehensive framework for EU/Russia relations, 
including drugs, has been adopted by the Council, and the negotiations with Russia are to commence. 
Conclusion 
Russia  is  an  important  partner  with  whom  there  is  considerable  interest  to  engage  and  reinforce  a 
strategic partnership on drugs, both at bilateral basis and vis-à-vis other third countries and regions as 
well as in the relevant international organisations and fora. EU support for the enhancement of Russian 
law  enforcement  capacities  in  Central  Asia  was  specifically  requested  by  Russia.  The EU  and  Russia 
should  also  pursue  the  idea  of  a  dialogue on  enhanced  maritime  drug  enforcement  cooperation  in  the 
Black  Sea  region,  drawing  inspiration  from  MAOC-N  and  the  respective  operational  cooperation 
arrangements being set up for the Atlantic Ocean.  
Cooperation between EU and Russia in the field of drug demand reduction, reflecting the EU’s balanced 
approach to drugs, should be highlighted in future developments of the partnership, e.g. regarding the 
drug-related  HIV/  AIDS  epidemic  in  the  Russian  Federation.  Russia  should  be  encouraged  to  make 
more use of the instruments at its disposal, including under the ENP-I regime (see also Action 34.1) like 
TAIEX or Twinnings or the new “Common Space Facility”. 

EN 

125 

EN 

 
  
 
35 

• 
•  Afghanistan 

Ensure that drugs concerns are taken on 
board when establishing priorities in the 
EU’s cooperation with third 
countries/regions. 
Mainstream projects in the drugs field 
into the EU’s cooperation with third 
countries/regions, especially those 
affected by drug problems. Particular 
attention should be paid to providing 
assistance to and cooperating with: 
• 

the countries on the Eastern border of 
the EU 
the Balkan States 

• 

in 

future 

(particularly 

the 
context  of  the  delivery  of  its  2005 
Implementation 
Counter-Narcotics 
Plan  and 
implementation 
plans) and its neighbours; the EU and 
Member States should aim to increase 
their assistance 
the  Latin  American  and  Caribbean 
countries 
•  Morocco 
•  countries on other drug routes 
This assistance and cooperation to be 
linked to the drugs action plans adopted 
by the EU with various regions and the 
drug sections of other action plans with 
EU partners, where applicable. 

MS 
COM 

This objective has been partly achieved 
The EC’s external funding priorities as set out in the country and regional strategy papers for the period 
2007-2013 continue to make provision for EC external assistance in third countries particularly affected 
by drug problems, such as the Andean Region and Afghanistan.  
With regard to the countries at the Eastern border of the EU, the BUMAD (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova 
Anti-Drug  Programme),  SCAD  (South  Caucasus  Anti-Drug  Programme)  and  EUBAM  (EU  Border 
Assistance Mission Moldova/Ukraine) continue to be implemented. A Border Management programme 
in the South Caucasus region (SCIBM) has been launched, and will be implemented as of the beginning 
of 2009. As  explained under  Objective 32,  the  general  capacity  building  efforts  in  the area  of  Justice 
and  Home  Affairs  in  the  Western  Balkans  have  been  complemented  with  drug  specific  initiatives, 
including  three  TAIEX  regional  workshops.  For  the  Western  Balkans  and  Turkey,  CARDS  and  IPA 
assistance  helps  strengthen  police  and  judicial  capacities  against  OC,  including  drug  trafficking. 
Various  projects  on demand reduction,  including  harm  reduction or  combating  illicit  drug  trafficking, 
are being implemented, as well as with the EMCDDA to establish drug compatible information systems 
in  the  region.  Under  IPA,  the  EU  is  programming  regional  support  to  the  Western  Balkans  for  an 
amount  of  EUR  2,5  million  to  improve,  inter  alia,  their  capacities  to  prevent  and  combat  organised 
crime and drug trafficking. (Please refer to objective 32 for more information). 
In Afghanistan, the EC has made a multi-annual commitment of EUR 200 million to the rule of law 
sector, which now represents 40% of the EC’s total assistance to Afghanistan. In parallel, a new police 
mission, EUPOL, was sent to Afghanistan with 200 police officers on the ground to give training and 
mentoring  to  the  Afghan  National  Police  (ANP).  In  terms  of  strengthening  the  state,  the  EC  is  a  key 
donor to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA), funding the Afghan National Police 
(EUR  200  million  since  2002),  making  the  EU  the  biggest  donor  to  LOTFA)  with  a  further  EUR  15 
million into the new Counter-Narcotics Trust Fund. In terms of the rural economy,  the EC has so far 
committed EUR 280 million for rural development, food security and alternative livelihoods since 2002. 
Concerning  other  assistance  in  the  region,  the  assistance  to  Pakistan  targets  rural  development  in 
provinces bordering Afghanistan. The Commission also supports regional cooperation between Pakistan 
and Afghanistan, addressing border management. In Central Asia, the programmes BOMCA (Border 
Management for Central Asia) and CADAP (Central Asia Drugs Programme) are being implemented. 
Work  for  the  Afghani  borders  with  Tajikistan  is  underway  (EUR  18  million).  In  2007,  an  additional 
EUR 19.7 million for construction of two further Border Crossing Points (Afghanistan- Uzbekistan and 
Afghanistan-Turkmenistan borders) has been made available. With effect from 2008, the Instrument for 
Stability  is  supporting  trans-regional  co-operation  in  the  countries  of  the  Economic  Cooperation 
Organisation (ECO) with EUR 9.5 million for the fight against trafficking from/to Afghanistan. 
LAC countries are the second largest beneficiary of all the EU international assistance against drugs. 
The EC funding has mainly been targeted at alternative development projects.  
In the area of demand reduction and harm reduction, an initiative to support twinning between LAC and 

EN 

126 

EN 

 
  
European  cities  was  launched  in  April  2008.  For  the  Andean  Community,  an  EC-financed  regional 
project  is  aimed  at  addressing  the  emerging  and  growing  problem  of  synthetic  drugs  in  the  Andean 
countries.  On  supply  reduction,  a  project  to  promote  intelligence  exchange  between  law  enforcement 
representatives from the LAC region and European Drug Liaison Officers posted in the region has been 
launched, an initiative to tackle the growing trend of cocaine trafficking from Latin America to and via 
West  Africa.  A  supply  and  demand  reduction  programme  focusing  on  the  Caribbean  was  financed 
through  the  EDF  funded  regional  programme.  The  programme  includes  a  component  aimed  at 
enhancing  law  enforcement  capacity  in  the  region.  The  Suriname  “Drug  Demand  Reduction 
Programme” was completed successfully in 2007. 
Concerning precursors, the PRECAN project, for the Andean Region, reached its conclusion in April 
2007; a follow-up a project against precursor's diversion will be launched at the end of 2008 under the 
Stability  Instrument,  extending  its  scope  to  other  Latin  America  and  Caribbean  countries.  In  2008, 
finally,  the  Commission  has  started  working  on  the  identification  of  a  large-scale  project  under  the 
Instrument for Stability to address the cocaine route passing through West Africa. 
Conclusions 
Drug-related projects have remained a priority in EU cooperation with countries which are particularly 
affected  by  the  cultivation,  transit,  trafficking  and  use  of  drugs149.  Consideration  should  be  given  to 
devoting more resources to strengthening cooperation with countries in the frontline of trafficking, such 
as Iran, Pakistan and the Caribbean, as well as to emerging routes such as West Africa. It is important 
that EC funded activities in these regions and countries consistently reflect the priorities and principles 
of the EU’s balanced approach. 

This action has been partly achieved 
This  action  aims  to  monitor  the  application  by  customs  administrations  of  the  Council  Decision  on 
Common  Use  of  Liaison  Officers  (LO),  which  includes  the  network  of  Liaison  Officers  on  drugs 
trafficking. 
During  the  reporting period, four  EU-Russia  Liaison  Officers  Meetings took place  in 2006, 2007  and 
2008. In September 2006, a first meeting of senior level officials took place. Furthermore, two Western 
Balkan  Lead  Liaison  Officers  Meetings  took  place  in  2006  and  2007,  focusing  on  cooperation  in  the 
field  of  drugs.  Spain  ran  an  AGIS  funded  project  from  January  2006  to  March  2007  to  establish  a 

36 

36.1 

Intensify law enforcement efforts directed 
at non-EU countries, especially producer 
countries and regions along trafficking 
routes. 

Create and/or further develop MS liaison 
officers’ networks. Each network to meet, at 
least on a six monthly basis, to improve 
operational cooperation and coordination of 
MS action in third countries. 

MS 

149 

Under Action 38.2 details are given of anti-drugs projects funded by the EU and EC (data from 2005).  

EN 

127 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
36.2 

Provide relevant training to MS liaison 
officers. 

MS 

36.3 

36.4 

37 

37.1 

Implement or support, as appropriate, 
operational law enforcement projects, share 
best practice and increase counter narcotics 
work in the countries/ regions listed in 
Action 35. 

Provide assistance to the law enforcement 
agencies of the countries/regions listed in 
Action 35, in the field of counteracting the 
production and trafficking of drugs and 
diversion of precursors. This assistance 
should include assistance in the field of 
training. 

MS 

MS 
COM 

Continue and develop an active political 
engagement by the EU with third 
countries/regions. 

Use mechanisms, such as the Coordination 
and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs 
between the EU/ Latin America and the 
Caribbean, EU specialised dialogue on 
drugs with the Andean community and Drug 
Troika meetings to pursue an active political 
dialogue with the countries and regions 
concerned. 

Council 
COM 

network in Latin America (ELON-LAC), the main aim of which is to exchange information on drugs 
within the network of Liaison Officers posted in Latin America and the Caribbean.  

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
Training  for  Liaison  Officers  is  mainly  at  national  level  by  their  national  administration.  However 
training carried out at EU level by CEPOL could be of benefit to Liaison Officers also, along with one-
off  seminars  organised  by  Europol  and  the  Member  States.  CEPOL  does  not,  however,  organise  any 
specific training course just for Liaison officers. Such specific training is hardly feasible since Liaison 
officers  normally  cover  a  wide  array  of  crimes  (if  not  all)  and  are  not  employed  as  specialists  for  a 
particular type of crime when posted abroad. 
Training  for  liaison  officers  is  normally  delivered  at  MS  level.  In  general,  only  highly  trained  and 
experienced officers are taken into consideration for liaison officer posts. 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Member  States  implement  a  broad  variety  of  activities  and  cooperations  with  countries  and  regions 
listed under action 35. The results are unknown and have not been evaluated.  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
Law  enforcement  cooperation  with  third  countries  is  included  in  the  drug  cooperation  chapters  in  all 
association  and  cooperation  agreements  with  non-EU  countries  in  the  field  of  drugs.  The  feedback 
received  from  the  Member  States  in  this  specific  field  prompted  practical  information  on  activities 
carried  out  in  the  past  year  and  —  in  one  or  two  cases  —  on  seizures.  Unfortunately,  reports  on 
activities and data on numbers and quantities do not reveal much about the success of the action. It is 
recommended  to  amend  the  first  and  delete  the  second  and  third  indicators  for  this  action  in  future 
progress reports.  

This action has been partly achieved, but its outcome cannot be assessed 
The  EU-LAC  Drugs  Coordination  and  Cooperation  Mechanism  met  regularly  during  the  reporting 
period,  both  at  Technical  and  High  levels.  In  2006,  the  May  EU-LAC  Summit  reiterated  the 
commitment to cooperate, in accordance with the principle of shared responsibility, in tackling the illicit 
drugs  problem  and  endorsed  the  proposal  of  the  High  Level  Meeting  of  the  Mechanism  that  a  full 
review be conducted of the 1999 Panama Action Plan and the Lisbon areas for action. 
In 2007, the High Level Meeting of the Mechanism that took place in Trinidad and Tobago concluded 
with the Port of Spain Declaration, which identified new priorities for future cooperation in the field of 

EN 

128 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
drugs (see action 37.2). The High Level meeting that took place in Vienna in March 2008 resulted in the 
adoption  of  the  ‘Hofburg  Declaration’,  in  which  the  parties  identified  the  next  steps  towards  the 
implementation  of  the  revised  Panama  Action  Plan.  The  LAC  side  proposed  Rules  of  Procedure. 
Concerning  the  EU-CAN  Specialised  High  Level  Dialogue  on  Drugs,  there  were  constructive  and 
fruitful meetings in June 2005 and in September 2006. The latest High Level Specialised Dialogue was 
held  in  Bogota  on  1  and  2  November  2007,  allowing  for  a  most  fruitful  exchange  of  views  both  on 
demand and supply reduction. 
Between 2005 and 2008, regular bilateral and regional Troika meetings have been organised, involving 
the  main  producer  and  transit  countries  (like  Afghanistan,  Western  Balkans,  ECOWAS,  Russia, 
Morocco, etc.) and main partners such as the United States.  
Conclusion 
Over the years, the EU-LAC Drugs Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism have played a significant 
role  in  highlighting  the  drugs  issue  on  the  EU/LAC  agenda.  The  Mechanism  facilitated  and 
strengthened coordination between both regions in UN fora, in particular during annual CND meetings 
and by the co-sponsoring or supporting of resolutions. The Mechanism has helped to bring out regions’ 
efforts in the field of drugs and to pinpoint the needs for mutual cooperation. However, the mechanism 
has  experienced  operational  and  procedural  difficulties  that  have  prevented  better  results  being 
achieved.  This  is  why  Rules  of  Procedure  for  the  Mechanism  were  proposed  and  a  reflection  period 
initiated during the High Level Dialogue in 2008. This process will focus on how to review procedures 
and establish new instruments/tools. The rules of procedure should be endorsed by the next High-Level 
meeting in 2009.  

This action has been partly achieved, but its outcome cannot be assessed 
The  review  of  the  Panama  Action  Plan,  agreed  with  Latin  American  and  Caribbean  countries,  was 
launched in Cartagena in 2007 and concluded in May 2007 at the High Level Meeting of the EU-LAC 
Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism in Trinidad and Tobago. The Port of Spain Declaration sets 
out future priorities for cooperation in the fields of demand and supply reduction and other areas related 
to drugs, such as money laundering, customs, police and judicial cooperation. During the last meeting of 
the EU-LAC High-level meeting, in Vienna on 4-5 March, the Hofburg Declaration identified the next 
steps towards the implementation of the revised Panama Action Plan.  
The review of the action plan with the Western Balkans took place in 2008. Concerning Central Asia, 
the review will start and be based on the evaluation of the two main programmes in the region, BOMCA 
and CADAP. 

This action has been achieved 
The  Member  States  and  European  Commission  participated  in  the  meetings  of  the  Permanent 
Representatives  of  the  Pompidou  Group.  Member  States  and  the  European  Commission  (observer) 
actively participate in the work of the UNODC, as well as in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) 

37.2 

Council 
COM 

Review the activities and measures and, 
where appropriate, establish new priorities 
in the drugs action plans the EU has adopted 
with: 
•  Latin America and the Caribbean 
•  Central Asia  
Western Balkan countries. 

37.3 

Participate fully in the work of international 
organisations and fora concerned with the 
drugs problem, such as the Council of 
Europe (Pompidou Group), UNODC, WHO 

Council 
MS 
COM 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
  
37.4 

37.5 

38 

38.1 

and UNAIDS. 

Utilise fully the Dublin Group as a flexible, 
informal consultation and coordination 
mechanism for global, regional and country-
specific problems of illicit drugs production, 
trafficking and demand. 

Council 
MS 
COM 

Maintain an active dialogue with third 
countries for the implementation of the Mini 
Dublin Group’s recommendations. 

Council 
Dublin Group 

Improve the coherence, visibility and 
efficiency of the assistance to candidate 
countries and third countries/ regions. 

Exchange information on drug related 
technical assistance projects and operational 
activities in candidate countries and third 
countries/regions, in particular to identify 
duplication and gaps in technical assistance 
and operational activities. 

Council 
COM 

and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) and the Paris Pact. Several EU 
Member States are major donors of the activities of WHO and UNAIDS, which include activities in the 
field of drugs. 

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
In the period 2005-2008, the regional chairs of the Dublin Group (mostly EU Member States) produced 
regular  detailed  reports  on  the  drugs  situation  in  the  Caribbean,  North,  East,  West  and  South  Africa, 
Central  America  and  Mexico,  and  South  America,  the  Balkans,  Eastern  Europe,  Central  Asia,  South 
East Asia and China and South West Asia. These provide a lot of on-site information. Nevertheless, the 
follow-up of the recommendations in countries concerned made through the Dublin Group mechanism 
needs further attention as these are often rather extensive and detailed and it is unclear if they are being 
implemented.  

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The  Dublin  Group  remains  a  very  valuable  instrument  for  Member  States  and  the  Commission  for 
consultations  and  inspiring  cooperation  activities.  The  Group’s  reports  are  detailed  and  informative. 
Nevertheless,  the  follow-up  of  the  recommendations  through  the  Dublin  Group  mechanism  needs 
further attention as these are often rather extensive and detailed and it is unclear to what extent they are 
being  implemented.  It  may  be  suggested  that  the  regional  chairs  of  the  Dublin  Group  monitor  the 
implementation of these recommendations as well. 

This objective has been partly achieved 
In June 2006, the HDG agreed on a set of conclusions and recommendations on the level and nature of 
Member States’ and the Commission’s external assistance in the area of drugs. The conclusions were 
based on a 2004 Commission report. At the end of 2007, the Commission published an update of this 
‘Drug Matrix’ table for the year 2005. The exercise revealed that nearly EUR 760 million, the stock of 
EU  international  cooperation  projects  in  the  area  of drugs  in 2005,  made  the  EU one  of  the  strongest 
players in the global efforts against drugs. Of the total spending, two-thirds was allocated to activities in 
Afghanistan  and  almost  one  third  to  the  three  main  coca  growing  countries  (Colombia,  Bolivia  and 
Peru). Most funding was provided for alternative development (66%), institution building (17%, mostly 
law  enforcement),  supply  reduction  and  law  enforcement  cooperation  (11.4%)  and  demand  reduction 
including harm  reduction  (5%). In 2005, more  than  half  of  the  EU  Member  States  plus  the  European 
Commission  had  international  cooperation projects  in  the  area  of drugs. This includes fourteen of the 
fifteen countries that were members of the EU before January 2005 and one of the twelve new Member 
States since that date. Approximately 80% of the value of the stock of projects is accounted for by the 
EC and one Member State; seven Member States account for another 15%. The collection of data for 

EN 

130 

EN 

 
  
 
 
38.2 

39 

Evaluate EC and Member States drug 
projects included in cooperation 
programmes. 

Provide reliable and comparable data on 
key epidemiological indicators. 
Full implementation of the five key 
epidemiological indicators and, as 
appropriate, fine tuning of these 
indicators. 

MS 
COM 

MS 
EMCDDA 

the  2006  Drugs  Matrix  was  launched  in  September  2007  and  had  not  been  completed  at  the  time  of 
finalisation of this evaluation.  
Conclusions 
With EUR 760 million in 2005, the EU is one of the major funders of drug-related assistance projects in 
the world, with major contributions allocated to alternative development, institution building and supply 
reduction  activities  in  mainly  Afghanistan  and  the  Andean  Region.  Notwithstanding  the  above,  the 
projects to which these figures correspond reflect only the most visible and easily measurable part of the 
efforts  undertaken  by  the  EU  There  are  other  cooperation  and  coordination  initiatives  that,  by  their 
nature, are confidential, do not take the form of projects and/ or are part of continuous undertakings the 
cost of which is difficult to ascertain. Furthermore, the data collection process is very complicated and 
time  consuming,  in  terms  of  identifying  Member  State  projects  and  funding,  and  of  retrieving  EC 
funded projects, as drug projects are not registered as such and much of the expenditure is decentralised.  

This objective has not been achieved 
No evaluation has taken place 

This objective has been achieved, but requires ongoing investment and attention 
In the past 3 years, a steady improvement can be observed in the implementation of the Key indicators 
(KIs)  by  Member  States.  Moreover,  these  measures  are  increasingly  viewed  as  global  standards  for 
information collection in these areas. Nearly all Member States now collect some information in each 
indicator  area,  although  the quality  varies. For  assessing  implementation  levels,  three key  dimensions 
have now been formalised:  a) the extent to which national approaches meet accepted methodological 
standards;  b)  the  extent  to  which  reporting  can  be  made  using  agreed  common  categories;  c)  the 
availability  of  fresh  information  (timeliness  —  i.e.  availability  of  recent  data  within  reasonable  time 
limit).  As  of  2009,  minimum  implementation  targets  will  be  available  for  progress  made  by  Member 
States  in  each  information  domain  and  provide  policymakers  with  a  clearer  understanding  of  the 
resource implications of KI implementation.  
It  is  clear  that  Member  States  must  try  to  meet  minimum  implementation  criteria  of  each  KI.  These 
criteria  need  to  be  drawn  up  and  subsequently  interpreted  with  due  regard  for  different  national 
contexts.  As  the  number  of  countries  participating  in  the  European  system  has  now  grown  to  30,  the 
need for a common, transparent and simple system has become ever clearer. 
The  overall  picture  of  the  implementation  level  of  the  KIs  is  relatively  positive  with  the  majority  of 
countries  reporting  both  recent  and  compliant  data.  However,  a  clear  problem  area  is  that  many 
countries  have  not  invested  in  recent  estimates  of  problem  drug  use  (PDU  indicator).  A  project 
assessing  and  improving  data  coverage  in  the  area  of  treatment  demand  showed  that  the  treatment 
demand  indicator  currently  has  good  data  coverage  on  outpatient  and  inpatient  treatment  centres,  but 
that data coverage remains quite limited in low threshold agencies, treatment units in prison and general 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
  
practitioners  treating  drug  users.  A  related  project  focusing  on  ‘prevalence’  is  looking  at  the  total 
number  of  drug  patients  attending  treatment  centres,  including  clients  in  continuous  treatment.  The 
study shows that a significant proportion (around 65%) of the treatment population in Europe are now 
long-stayers (one year and more) and do not therefore feature among those entering treatment. Changes 
in data collection, following new trends in the treatment sector (new patterns of drug use, expansion and 
diversification of drug treatment availability) has shown the need for a revision of the EMCDDA data 
collection tools in the area of drug treatment. For this purpose, two main activities will be developed in 
the field of data collection on drug treatment in the following period: 
•  a revision of the TDI over the next two years  
•  a  more  integrated  approach  to  information  collected  at  European  level  on  treatment  clients  and 

treatment organisation 

During  2007,  the  component  of  DRD  indicator  based  on  population  statistics  on  poisonings  or 
overdoses  (drug-induced  deaths)  continued  its  consolidation.  Considerable  work  to  improve  quality, 
validity and comparability were carried out in several countries, although further improvements are still 
needed,  in  particular  cross  validation  studies  between  different  mortality  registries,  with  mortality 
cohorts and with other indicators such as problem drug use estimations. New data collection started in 
2007 to assess in more detail the combinations of substances involved in drug-induced deaths, following 
a first data collection in which eight countries participated. These two data collections aimed to obtain 
more information on the role of poly drug use in these deaths.  
Conclusions 
MS  and  the  Commission  to  consider  how  best  to  obtain  reliable  and  comparable  data  on  key 
epidemiological indicators. 

This action has been achieved 
Quality management procedures are constantly being improved by the EMCDDA, in close collaboration 
with the Reitox national focal points, in order to fulfil the objective of ‘providing reliable information 
on the drug situation’. The quality of the Reitox national reports has been continuously improving over 
the last year, although the quality of single chapters can vary. In 2007, improvements were also related 
to adherence to guidelines, layout rules and the common referencing of sources. Regarding timeliness in 
national report deliveries, in 2007 only 50% of the countries met the deadline (14 countries), compared 
to 61% in 2005 (17 countries). The EMCDDA is currently taking measures in close collaboration with 
the Reitox network to improve the timeliness of reports. The description of trends plays a major role in 
national reports, but in some countries reliable quantitative data are still missing to base this information 

40 

40.1 

Provide reliable information on the drug 
situation. 

Reitox National Focal Points and Europol 
National Drugs Units to pursue their work to 
ensure their annual and standardised 
reporting on national drugs situations. 

MS 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
40.2 

41 

41.1 

EMCDDA and Europol to pursue annual 
reporting on the drug phenomenon at EU 
scale. 

EMCDDA 
Europol 

Develop clear information on emerging 
trends and patterns of drug use and drug 
markets. 

Achieve an agreement on EU guidelines and 
mechanisms on detecting, monitoring and 
responding to emerging trends. 

Council 
COM 

COM 

on.  Some  reports  are  oriented  towards  scientific  standards,  but  in  the  majority  of  cases  a  more 
comprehensive  analysis  and  interpretation  of  data  is  still  lacking.  In  line  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
Reitox Head of focal points meeting in May 2007, and also as a result of the current reflection carried 
out at the EMCDDA in close collaboration with the Reitox NFPs, the national reporting system and the 
quality criteria will be revised in 2008-2009.  
Europol  reports  have  different  levels  of  detail,  depending  on  relevant  target  groups  and  sensitivity. 
Europol  contributes  to  the  EU’s  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  Reports.  In  2007,  Europol  and 
EMCDDA also contributed to the UNGASS assessment expert group of UNODC.  

This action has been achieved 
Overall,  in  2006  and  2007  both  EMCDDA  (including  the  Reitox  Network)  and  Europol  delivered  a 
series of reports on the drug demand and drug supply situation in Europe, providing policy makers and 
implementing agencies with up-to-date information on the drug situation and the responses to it. 

This action has not been achieved, but progress was made 
The Commission intends to present a Commission Services Working Paper to the Council in the second 
half  of  2008.  It  will  identify  the  possibilities  and  relevance  of  EU  guidelines  and  mechanisms  for 
detecting,  monitoring  and  responding  to  emerging  trends  in  drug  users  and  the  drug  market, 
complementary to the existing systems such as the Early Warning System and the Council Decision on 
the Information Exchange, Risk Assessment and Control of new Psychoactive Substances150. The paper 
will  address  the  importance  of  national  and  local  information  exchange  on  new  trends  and  the 
difficulties accompanying early detection of new trends at EU level.  
In  the  field  of  monitoring  new  trends,  the  EMCDDA  has  set  up  the  E-POD  project  (European 
the  Early  Warning  System  and  Council  Decision 
Perspectives  on  Drugs),  which 
implementation  and  through  which  case  studies  —  based  on  qualitative  review  techniques  —  on 
specific types of substances or trends are being developed. A study on hallucinogenic mushrooms and 
on  GHB/  GBL  has  been  published,  while  a  factsheet  on  Methamphetamine  is  being  developed.  In 
November 2007 the EMCDDA also held an expert meeting to explore the use of health emergency data 
to  help  detect,  track  and  understand  emerging  drug  trends.  In  2008  the  EMCDDA  is  launching  a 
feasibility  study  to  explore  the  potential  for  collecting  hospital  emergencies  data,  with  a  view  to 
understanding and responding to emerging drug trends.  

includes 

150 

2005/JHA/387 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
41.2 

MS 

The Commission to provide for a 
Eurobarometer survey on youth attitude 
regarding drugs. The results of the 
Eurobarometer should be analysed in 
conjunction with the data from the 
EMCDDA ‘Population survey’ key 
indicator.  

This action has been achieved 
A  Flash  Eurobarometer  on  “Young  People  and  Drugs”  was  conducted  between  in  May  2008.  Over 
12 500  randomly  selected  young  people  (15-24  years-of-age)  were  interviewed  across  the  27  EU 
Member  States.  The  objective  was  to  study  young  EU  citizens’  attitudes  and  perceptions  about  drug-
related issues and policies. 
Young  people  seem  to  support  the  EU’s  balanced  approach  in  drug  policy  by  advocating  ‘‘tough’’ 
measures to be taken against drug dealers and traffickers (63%) but also advocating ‘‘soft’’ measures to 
be used against drug users, e.g. through information and prevention campaigns (47%) and the treatment 
and rehabilitation of offenders (33%). 
Young people increasingly seem to  make a distinction in risk perception between substances, as 81% 
and 96% of respondents thought heroin, cocaine and ecstasy pose a high risk for users, while only 41% 
thought that of cannabis. When compared to the risks of licit substances, 70% of respondents thought 
the smoking of tobacco posed a medium to low health risk, while 75% thought alcohol posed a medium 
to low risk. 
When  asked  about  possible  options  for  government  control  of  licit  and  illicit  substances,  almost  all 
respondents thought heroin (97%), cocaine (95%) and ecstasy (94%) should remain under strict control. 
Regarding  cannabis,  one-third  (31%)  of  respondents  thought  a  model  similar  to  alcohol  and  tobacco 
could be introduced, while 67% thought that controls should remain unchanged.  
Among  all  respondents,  heroin  was  seen  to  be  the  most  difficult  illicit  drug  to  obtain,  followed  by 
cocaine,  ecstasy  and  cannabis.  Cocaine  was  considered  to  be  easy  or  very  available  to  35%  of  the 
respondents aged 15-24. Cannabis was considered fairly easy or very easy to obtain by almost 63% of 
respondents aged 15-24. 72% of 15-18 year-olds thought it would be easy to very easy for them to get 
hold of tobacco against 87% of those aged 22-24. Over 90% of respondents in all Member States but 
one indicated that it would be fairly easy to very easy for them to obtain alcohol.  

This objective has not been achieved 
Estimates of public expenditures on drug issues can provide important information to policy makers on 
how to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their interventions in demand and supply reduction. 
In  recent  years,  research  on  drug-related  expenditure  has  been  undertaken  in  some  EU  countries  and 
internationally151, resulting in different approaches regarding methodology and quality.  
Under the 6th RTD Framework Programme, the Commission is funding a project which aims to develop 
ways of estimating the cost of crime, including a number of drug-related offences. In 2008 and 2009 the 
Commission will invest in developing ways of measuring the costs of law enforcement. Finally, in 2008 

Produce estimates on public expenditures 
on drug issues. 
Member States and Commission to 
consider the development of compatible 
methodologies on direct and indirect 
expenditure on drug-related measures, 
with the support of the EMCDDA. 

MS 
COM 
EMCDDA 

42 

151 

EN 

Kopp P., Fenoglio P. (2003), Public spending on drugs in the European Union during the 1990s.; http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=1357; Postma M. (2004). Public 
expenditure on drugs in the European Union 2000-2004.; http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/?nnodeid=1357;  

134 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
the Commission is funding a study that will provide estimates on social costs of the drug problem in a 
number of countries worldwide and produce estimates on the size of the global drug market.  
Recently,  the  EMCDDA  considered  setting  up  a  common  methodology  to  collect  details  of  public 
expenditure by Member States.  
The  methodology  proposes  a  unified  and  standardised  approach  that  maximises  the  validity  and  the 
cross-country comparability of the results on the basis of labelled and non-labelled expenditures. Public 
expenditures  explicitly  “labelled”  as  drug-related  must  be  traced  back  by  exhaustively  reviewing 
official  accountancy  documents  in  MS,  in  accordance  with  a  classification  on  the  basis  of  the 
COFOG152,  the  International  Classification  of  the  Functions  of  Government  and  Reuter’s153  drug 
programs division (i.e. Prevention Treatment, Enforcement, or Harm reduction). “Non-labelled” drug-
related expenditures should be estimated through a modelling top-down approach. Starting from overall 
aggregated  expenditures,  this  procedure  will  estimate  the  proportion  causally  attributable  to  drug use. 
As a first step in exploring a broader scope of drug-related expenditures, efforts are proposed to focus 
initially on two government functions as defined by COFOG: Public order and safety, and Health.  
Within EMCDDA reflection on the feasibility of setting up a common methodology to collect details of 
public expenditure at EU level, a test has been conducted involving 30 European countries. Its results 
and  opinions  of  experts  suggest  that  the  twofold  strategy  proposed  could  be  subject  to  regular 
monitoring by the EMCDDA.  
Therefore,  and  as  a  fundamental  prerequisite,  the  implementation  should  follow  a  progressive  and 
incremental approach in those MS which have shown interest and have the analytical capacity to do so. 
The EMCDDA will be able to offer technical and operational counselling on the topic aimed at keeping 
the cross-country comparability of the results provided by MS.  

The achievement of this action ca not be assessed 
The EU Research Programmes154 increasingly provide opportunities for EU research organisations and 
networks in the field of drugs to collaborate at international level.  
Activities in these fields have previously received support from the 6th Research Framework Programme 
(2002-2006)  and  earlier  Framework  Programmes.  For  example,  research  carried  out  under  the  6th 
Research Framework Programme included the development of methods for profiling amphetamines155, 

43 

43.1 

Promote research in the field of drugs. 

Promote research in the context of the 
Community Programme for Research and 
Development and of Member States’ 
research programmes  
•  on  biomedical,  psychosocial  and  other 
factors  contributing  to  drug  use  and 

MS 
COM 

152 
153 
154 
155 

United Nations (2008) COFOG Detailed structure and explanatory notes.; http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=4  
Reuter, P. (2006). What drug policies cost. Estimating government drug policy expenditures. In: Addiction, 101: 315-322;  
5th, 6th and 7th Framework Programmes run by the European Commission. 
CHAMP project (http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/ssp/champ_en.htm)  

EN 

135 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
addiction, and; 

•  on  other  relevant  issues,  such  as  the 
effectiveness  of  primary  awareness 
campaigns,  effective 
to 
prevent  HIV/AIDS  and  hepatitis  C,  and 
the long term effects of Ecstasy use. 

interventions 

43.2 

Promote research on identifying protective 
factors in countries with low HIV/AIDS 
prevalence rates in drug users. 

MS 
Support 
EMCDDA 

research into organised crime (Assessing Organised Crime)156 and Increased Knowledge on Organised 
Crime,157 and underlined the usefulness of such research.  

The 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013) provides the opportunity to researchers and their networks 
in the EU to submit proposals on a variety of research topics under the programmes on health, socio-
economic sciences and humanities and security research.  
However,  the  first  results  of  the  7th  RTD  Framework  Programme  show  a  very  limited  number  of 
projects of only indirect interest to the drug-related research field. 

of 

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
The preliminary work undertaken so far demonstrates that research activities into protective factors in 
countries  with  low  HIV/  AIDS  prevalence  rates  in  drug  users  are  relatively  scarce.  Considerable 
potential  exists  for  further  studies  in  this  area.  Any  future  research  will  need  to  be  sensitive  to 
ethnographic and social risk factors in IDUs, population dynamics and service utilisation issues.  

An EMCDDA study from 2007 included a literature review of protective factors for HIV infection and 
brought together mathematical modellers and epidemiologists to develop new analysis of existing data 
sets  that  may  give  some  further  insights  into  this  issue.  The  literature  review  itself  has  not  identified 
individual  factors  that  could  easily  explain  persistent  low  HIV  prevalence  in  IDUs  in  some  EU 
countries.  Early  intervention  is  likely  to  have  had  a  protective  effect  in  at  least  some  low  prevalence 
countries. Furthermore: 
–  Estimates have been developed for the level of infection of HIV, HCV and HBV in IDUs depending 
on duration of exposure for various EU countries. These methods may be used for monitoring the 
incidence of infection from repeated cross-sectional studies in IDUs.  

–  The  association  between  HIV  and  HCV  prevalence  in  IDU  populations  reveals  a  threshold  effect, 
where  under  a  certain  HCV  prevalence  HIV  prevalence  is  likely  to  be  around  zero.  This  may  be 
further developed towards using HCV data as an indicator of the risk of HIV outbreaks.  

–  Estimates  of  the  heterogeneity  in  risk  of  infection  among  IDU  populations  have  been  developed 
based  on  different  statistical  approaches  which  may  be  developed  into  proxy  indicators  of  risk 
behaviour distribution, as a complement to data on self-reported behaviour and potentially as a tool 
to evaluate the effect of prevention efforts. 

–  An exploratory  model of drug users moving in and out of drug treatment has been developed that 

156 
157 

Assessing Organised Crime (http://www.assessingorganised crime.net) 
Increased Knowledge on Organised Crime (http://ikoc.unicatt.it) 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
43.3 

44 

45 

45.1 

45.2 

45.3 

46 

Make full use of the research capacity of the 
Council of Europe (Pompidou Group). 

MS 
COM 

Create networks of excellence in drug 
research. 
Encourage research networks, 
universities and professionals to 
develop/create networks of excellence for 
the optimal use of resources and effective 
dissemination of results. 

Continuous and overall evaluation 

Establish a consolidated list of indicators 
and assessment tools for the evaluation of 
the EU Drug Strategy and Action Plans. 

Commission to present progress reviews to 
the Council and the European Parliament on 
the implementation of the Action Plan and 
proposals to deal with identified gaps and 
possible new challenges. 

COM 

COM 
EMCDDA 
Europol 

COM 

Commission to organise an impact 
assessment with a view of proposing a new 
Action Plan for 2009-2012. 

COM 

Follow-up of the mutual evaluation of 
drug law enforcement systems in the 
Member States. 

Council 

can be used for analyses on the effects of HIV testing and other interventions. 

–  Two  additional  literature  reviews  have  been  done:  1)  on  mathematical  modelling  of  HIV  and 
hepatitis  in  IDUs  (AIDS,  in  press),  2)  An  analysis  of  published  data  on  IDU  risk  behaviour  in 
Europe 

The achievement of this action cannot be assessed 
The  Council  of  Europe  (Pompidou  Group)  has  established  a  collaboration  platform  on  drug-related 
research in which experts explore gaps and priorities in this field. The platform works together with the 
Commission and EMCDDA on setting up a database on existing EU drug-related research.  

This objective has not yet been achieved, but results are expected in 2008 and 2009 
The Commission has launched a study on “A comparative analysis of research into illicit drugs in the 
European Union” which will provide an overview of the research areas, trends and infrastructures in the 
EU and make recommendations on how to encourage networks of excellence in the field of drug-related 
research. The final report will be available in 2009.  

This action has been achieved, but is ongoing 
With  a  view  to  the  final  evaluation  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008),  the  Commission 
developed  an  evaluation  methodology  based  on  the  advice  of  an  external  contractor  and  a  Steering 
Group,  consisting  of  representatives  of  the  HDG  Presidencies  (2nd  half  2005  to  end  2007),  the 
EMCDDA, Europol and the European Parliament.  

This action has been achieved 
As the current EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) was adopted by the European Council in July 2005, a 
first progress review was published in December 2006, covering activities in the second half of 2005 
and  the  first  half  of  2006.  The  2007  progress  review  was  published  in  December  2007,  covering 
activities in the second half of 2006 to the first half of 2007. The 2007 progress review was presented as 
a Commission Communication with detailed information annexed to it. 

This action has been achieved 
This  evaluation  report  presents  the  state  of  play  on  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2009)  and  is 
annexed to the Commission’s proposal for the new EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012).  

The achievement of this objective cannot be assessed 
In 1999 and 2000 the Council conducted an evaluation of drug law enforcement systems in the Member 
States  (ref.).  This  resulted  in  a  number  of  recommendations  to  the  Member  States  for  improvement. 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Extent of implementation of 
recommendations for best practices. 

There is no information available about the extent to which these recommendations have been followed 
up by the Member States. The implementation of this objective cannot be held to be satisfactory.  

EN 

138 

EN 

 
  
Annex 2 — List of abbreviations 

European Police College 
Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police 
Customs Working Party 
Drug-related Deaths 
Drug-related Infectious Diseases 
European Criminal Assets Bureau 
European Joint Unit on Precursors 
European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
European Neighbourhood Policy 
European Police Chiefs Task Force 
EU — Latin American Cooperation 
Hepatitis B virus 
Hepatitis C virus 
Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (Council) 
Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
Injecting Drug User 
International Narcotics Control Board 
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 
Joint Customs Cooperation 
Joint Investigation Team 
Joint Research Centre 

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
AIDS 
Analysis Work Files 
AWF 
1 Phenyl 2 propanone  
BMK 
Border Management for Central Asia 
BOMCA 
Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova Anti-Drug Programme 
BUMAD 
Central Asia Drug Programme 
CADAP 
CCPCJ 
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice 
CECLAD-M  Centre de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Méditerranée 
CEPOL 
CICAD 
CND 
COSPOL 
CWP 
DRD 
DRID 
ECAB 
EJUP 
EMCDDA 
ENP 
EPCTF 
EU LAC 
HBV 
HCV 
HDG 
HIV 
IDU 
INCB 
IPA 
JCO 
JIT 
JRC 
MAOC — N  Maritime Analysis Operations Centre — Narcotics 
Member State 
MS 
National Focal Point  
NFP 
Needle and Syringe exchange Programmes 
NSP 
Non Governmental Organisation 
NGO 
3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan 2 one  
PMK 
Prevention of Precursor Diversion in the Andean Region Project 
PRECAN 
Réseau Européen d’Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
REITOX 
South Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme 
SCAD 
SECI 
Southeast European Cooperation Initiative 
SUSTRANS  Suspicious Transactions Project (Europol) 
TAIEX 
UNODC 
UNAIDS 
UNGASS 
WHO 

Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime  
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 
United Nations General Assembly Special Session 
World Health Organisation 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
Annex 3 — Glossary of terms  

A 
Amphetamine Type Stimulants 

The term amphetamine-type stimulants is used to refer to amphetamines (amphetamine, meth-amphetamine and 
related  substances)  and  ecstasy  (MDMA  and  related  analogues).  Amphetamine  and  methamphetamine  are 
central  nervous  system  stimulants.  Ecstasy  refers  to  synthetic  substances  that  are  chemically  related  to 
amphetamines but which differ to some extent in their effects. The best-known member of the ecstasy group of 
drugs  is  3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine  (MDMA),  but  other  analogues  are  also  occasionally  found  in 
ecstasy tablets (MDA, MDEA).  

Assessment tool 

An assessment tool is a means of verifying progress on or achievement of an action. 

B 
Buprenorphine 

Buprenorphine  is  a  mixed  opioid  agonist/  antagonist  which  can  be  used  in  substitution  treatment.  It  has  been 
used extensively in many countries for the short term treatment of moderate to severe pain. The mixed opioid-
action/  blocking-action  appears  to  make  buprenorphine  safe  in  overdose.  It  may  also  provide  an  easier 
withdrawal  phase,  and  due  to  a  longer  action,  may  allow  for  alternate  day  dosing.  Buprenorphine  is  also 
available under the brand name Subutex ®. See also: Methadone, Maintenance treatment. 

C 
CND 

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is the central policy-making body within the United Nations system 
dealing with drug-related matters. It analyses the world drug situation and develops proposals to strengthen the 
international  drug  control  system  and  combat  the  world  drug  problem.  In  1991,  the  UN  General  Assembly 
established the Fund of the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) and expanded the 
mandate of the Commission to enable it to function as the governing body of UNDCP. UNDCP is part of the 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 

D 
Drug dependence 

Drug  dependence  is  often  defined  as:  a  maladaptive  pattern  of  substance  use,  leading  to  clinically  significant 
impairment  or  distress,  as  manifested  by  three  (or  more)  of  the  following,  occurring  at  any  time  within  a  12-
month period. (1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following: (a) need for markedly increased amounts of 
the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect; (b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the 
same  amount  of  the  substance.  (2)  Withdrawal,  as  manifested  by  either  of  the  following:  (a)  the  withdrawal 
characteristic for the substance (refers to Criteria A and B of the criteria sets for withdrawal from the specific 
substances; (b) the same (or closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms; (3) the 
substance  is  often  taken  in  larger  amounts  or  over  a  longer  period  than  was  intended; (4)  there  is  a  persistent 
desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control substance use; (5) a great deal of time is spent in activities 
necessary to obtain the substance (e.g. visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use of the substance 
(e.g. chain-smoking), or recovering from its effects; (6) Important social, occupational or recreational activities 
are  given  up  or  reduced  because  of  substance  use;  (7)  the  substance  use  is  continued  despite  knowledge  of 
having  a  persistent  or  recurrent  physical  or  psychological  problem  that  is  likely  to  have  been  caused  or 
exacerbated  by  the  substance  (e.g.  current  cocaine  use  despite  recognition  of  cocaine-induced  depression,  or 
continued  drinking  despite  recognition  that  an  ulcer  was  made  worse  by  alcohol  consumption)  (source:  DSM 
IV). 

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
Drug free treatment 

Drug  free  treatment  involves  the  application  of  psychosocial  and  educational  techniques  to  achieve  long-term 
abstinence from drugs. Traditionally, drug-free treatment has been residential and long term, e.g. in therapeutic 
communities. Today, it is also offered in community-based settings. 

Drug-related death 

Drug-related death is defined in this report as: deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drugs 
and  generally  occurring  shortly  after  the  consumption  of  the  substance(s).  These  deaths  are  known  as 
‘overdoses’, ‘poisonings’ or drug-induced deaths. 

Drug-related infectious diseases 

The  most  prevalent  types  of  drug-related  infectious  diseases  are  Hepatitis  B  and  C,  HIV/  AIDS  and 
Tuberculosis.  

H 
Harm Reduction 

There  is  no  universal  definition  of  the  term  harm  reduction.  For  this  report  the  definition  of  the  International 
Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) is used: “policies and programmes which attempt primarily to reduce the 
adverse  health,  social  and  economic  consequences  of  mood  altering  substances  to  individual  drug  users,  their 
families and their communities”. 

Hepatitis B  

Hepatitis  B  is  a  virus  spread  through  the  blood  and  bodily  fluids  of  an  infected  person.  Many  people  do  not 
realise they have been infected with the virus, because symptoms may not develop immediately, or at all. The 
hepatitis B virus can then go on to cause a chronic (long-term) illness, which follows the acute infection. This is 
very common if babies or children contract the virus, but can also occur in adults. The virus is present in body 
fluids  such  as  blood,  saliva,  semen  and  vaginal  fluid.  It  can  be  passed  from  person  to  person,  through 
unprotected sex (without using a condom) and sharing needles to inject drugs. Infected mothers can also transmit 
the virus to their baby during the delivery process (often without the woman being aware that she is infected). 
The  incubation  period  (i.e.  the  time  from  coming  into  contact  with  the  virus  to  developing  the  infection)  is 
between  one  and  six  months.  There  is  a  blood  test  to  detect  the  virus.  There  is  also  a  vaccine  to  protect  you 
against hepatitis B.  

Hepatitis C  

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne viral infection. At times it is also passed on through other body fluids. Drug users 
sharing needles are particularly at risk. Anyone whose blood has come into contact with the blood of someone 
infected  with  the  hepatitis  C  virus  is  also  at  risk.  Approximately  20%  of  people  will  fight  the  infection  and 
naturally  clear  it  from  their  bodies  within  two  to  six  months.  Of  the  rest  some  will  remain  well,  and  never 
develop  liver  damage  but  many  will  develop  mild  to  moderate  liver  damage  (with  or  without  symptoms).  A 
further 20% will progress to cirrhosis of the liver over a period of 20- 30 years. Excessive drinking of alcohol is 
often associated with increased likelihood of progression to severe liver complications. There is no vaccine to 
prevent hepatitis C but treatment can clear the infection in approximately half those infected. 

HIV/ AIDS 

AIDS  was  first  recognised  as  a  new  condition  in  1981.  Since  then  around  40  million  people  worldwide  have 
been  infected  with  HIV,  the  virus  which  can  lead  to  AIDS.  About  a  third  of  them  have  died.  However, 
developments  in  treatment  since  the  mid-nineties  have  dramatically  improved  the  life  expectancy  for  those 
diagnosed  with  HIV.  People  with  HIV  may  not  have  any  symptoms  at  all  while  they  are  in  the  latent  phase. 
However,  many  people  experience  symptoms  in  the  first  couple  of  months  after  getting  infected.  These 
symptoms may include high temperature and fever, fatigue, skin rash, muscle pains, headache, nausea, vomiting 
and  diarrhoea.  Once  someone  becomes  ill  with  HIV,  they  are  open  to  many  infections.  These  can  include 
infections  of  the  mouth,  such  as  thrush  (oral  candidiasis),  unusual  types  of  pneumonia,  tuberculosis  (TB), 
infections  of  the  brain  and  eyes,  unusual  skin  problems  and  odd  infections  of  the  gastrointestinal  tract.  Most 
people with severe HIV infection also experience weight loss, enlargement of their lymph glands and persistent 
diarrhoea.  

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
I 
Injecting Drug User (IDU) 

Injections are usually intravenous, but may also be intramuscular, subcutaneous.  

Indicator 

An indicator is a tool by which the progress or achievement of an action or objective can be measured. 

M 
Maintenance treatment 

Maintenance treatment is a harm reduction intervention aiming at stabilising opiate users medically and socially 
allowing  for  genuine  social  re-integration.  To  avoid  criminal  activity  when  acquiring  the  illicit  drugs  and 
eliminating high risk situation when administrating the drug via injecting, the treatment provides the patient with 
a  substitution  drug,  mostly  orally  administered  methadone  or  buprenorphine.  Often  maintenance  treatment  is 
provided as DOT (Daily Observed Therapy) which allows for thorough monitoring of the effects of substitution 
drugs  in  every  patient.  Furthermore  patients  are  supported  by  medical  and  social  service  professionals  to 
guarantee beneficial long-term effects on social re-integration. 

Medically assisted treatment 

treatment  (MAT)  covers  both  substitution 

Medically  assisted 
treatment  with  agonists  (methadone, 
buprenorphine, dihydrocodeine, heroin, slow-release morphine) and other pharmacological treatments (e.g. with 
antagonists  such  as  naltrexone)  which  is  targeted  at  the  drug  use  itself  (not  anti-depressives  and 
benzodiazepines). 

Methadone 

A synthetic opiate drug used in maintenance therapy for those dependent on opioids. It has a long half-life, and 
can be given orally once daily with supervision. Methadone acts as a replacement for opiates in the body and 
thus can lessen withdrawal symptoms and cravings. At higher doses, it can also reduce the euphoric effects of 
opiates, thereby further protecting opiate users from relapse. Methadone is provided under several brand names. 

N 
Needle and syringe exchange 

An intervention in which needles, syringes, other injecting equipment (such as alcohol swabs to clean injecting 
sites,  and  water  with  which  to  mix  powdered  drugs)  are  provided  to  IDUs  through  outreach,  drop-in  centres, 
clinics  or  shop  fronts,  mobile  units  such  as  vans  and  buses  and/  or  vending  machines.  Most  NSPs  include  a 
retrieval service for used syringes. 

P 
Prevalence 

Prevalence is a statistic of primary interest in public health because it identifies the level of burden of disease or 
health-related events on the population and health care system. Prevalence represents new and pre-existing cases 
alive on a certain date, in contrast to incidence, which reflects new cases of a condition diagnosed during a given 
period of time. Prevalence is a function of both the incidence of the disease and survival.  

Prevention 

The  term  generally  covers  three  different  types  of  drug  prevention,  each  with  distinctive  characteristics. 
Universal prevention used to be referred to as primary prevention. This is aimed at the general population or 
parts of it (e.g. young people) that are not identified on the basis of individual risk factors. Selective prevention 
aims at specific groups of individuals who have an increased risk of developing drug problems (e.g. children of 
alcoholics or drug addicts, socially deprived young people, etc.). Indicated prevention aims at individuals who 
do  not  have  drug  or  addiction  problems  according  to  the  international  diagnostic  criteria  for  substance  use 
disorders, but  who  do have  some  early  characteristics  of problematic  use  (e.g.  young people  using drugs  with 

EN 

142 

   EN 

 
high frequency). Practically all prevention programmes (school-based, family-oriented, mass media, community) 
cover one or more of these types of prevention.  

Problem use 

In  its  ‘Methodological  guidelines  to  estimate  the  prevalence  of  problem  use  at  national  level  (1999),  the 
EMCDDA defines problem drug use as “injecting drug use” or “long duration/ regular use of opiates, cocaine 
and/ or amphetamines”. At international level, the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders 
(DSM-IV) and the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) use a somewhat broader definition of 
problem use, which also includes social aspects of problem use.  

R 
Risk factors 

Risk factors are personal or social conditions that are considered mediating factors in increasing the probability 
that an individual will develop problem drug use or drug dependence. Scientific literature roughly differentiates 
between  early  childhood  risk  factors  (e.g.  lack  of  social  skills,  lack  of  social  support  in  families)  and  late 
childhood risk factors (lack of problem solving skills, dysfunctional families, mental health/ addiction problems 
in  family,  lack  of  self-esteem)  and  adolescent  risk  factors  (negative  influence  of  peers,  lowered  self-esteem 
during adolescence). 

S 
Social costs 

In  the  scientific  literature  on  drug  policy,  social  costs  related  to  drugs  include  both  direct  and  indirect  social 
costs. Direct social costs include public expenditures on prevention, treatment, harm reduction, law enforcement 
&  prosecution,  penitentiaries,  etc.  Indirect  social  costs  include  loss  of  life  (drug-related  death),  loss  of 
productivity  due  to  drug-related  infectious  diseases  or  imprisonment,  social  marginalisation  of  drug  users,  the 
indirect  economic  impact  of  open  drug  scenes,  fraud  and  corruption.  Social  costs  can  be  both  material  and 
immaterial, but the social cost model aims to estimate the economic value of both types of costs. 

Substitution treatment 

Substitution treatment is a form of medical care offered to opiate addicts (primarily heroin addicts) based on a 
similar or identical substance to the drug normally used. It is offered in two forms: maintenance — providing the 
user with enough of the substance to reduce risky or harmful behaviour; or detoxification — gradually cutting 
the quantity of the drug to zero. Treatment comes either with or without psycho-social support. 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
Annex 4 — EMCDDA data sources international comparison 

4.1. General population surveys (Prevalence and trends). 

Comment  on  methodology:  The  basic  behavioural  concepts  asked  in  different  general  population 
surveys  are  roughly  comparable  (lifetime,  last  year  or  last  month  use).  However,  sample  selection, 
data collection method (e.g. face to face interview or computer-assisted questionnaire) as well as the 
survey and social context (e.g. social disapproval) can differ and can have some effect on the resulting 
figures. 

European Union — European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
•  Reitox National reports. General population surveys indicator. See tables GPS-2 and GPS-4 in the 

EMCDDA Statistical Bulletin. 

Australia — Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
•  For  prevalence  data:  2004  National  Drug  Strategy  Household  Survey:  Detailed  Findings.  AIHW 

cat. no. PHE 66. Canberra, 2005. AIHW (Drug Statistics Series No.16).  

•  For  trends  information:  2007  National  Drug  Strategy  Household  Survey:  First  results.  Canberra, 

April 2008. Cat. no. PHE 98 (Drug Statistics Series No.20). 

United States — Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 
•  Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug use and Health, 2006; http://www.samhsa.gov; 

http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm#NHSDA.info; 

•  For trends information: results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National 

Findings; http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.cfm#Ch9) 

Canada 
•  Adlaf, E.M., Begin, P., & Sawka, E. (Eds.). (2005). Canadian Addiction Survey (CAS): A national 
survey of Canadians’ use of alcohol and other drugs: Prevalence of use and related harms: Detailed 
report. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. 

4.2. HIV infections in injecting drug users 

A) Numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infections: 

European Union — European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
•  Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe. EMCDDA, 2007 

Australia — National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research 
•  HIV/AIDS,  viral  hepatitis  and  sexually  transmissible  infections  in  Australia  Annual  Surveillance 
p42.; 

Report 
http://www.nchecr.unsw.edu.au/NCECRweb.nsf/resources/SurvRep07/$file/ASR2007.pdf 

2007, 

United States -- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
•  HIV/AIDS 
Report, 

Surveillance 

2005, 

p37; 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/#surveillance 

Canada 
•  Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada. Surveillance Report to December 31, 

2006, p17; http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/survreport/index-eng.html. 

B) Population sizes: 

European Union — Eurostat 
•  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu  

Australia, United States and Canada and USA  
•  US Census Bureau; http://www.census.gov 

4.3. Direct drug-related mortality 

European Union — European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
•  Reitox National reports. 

EN 

144 

   EN 

 
Australia  
•  Degenhardt,  L.,  and  Roxburgh,  A.  (2007).  Accidental  drug-induced  deaths  due  to  opioids  in 

Australia, 2005. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. 

United States — Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
•  Office  of  Applied  Studies.  Drug  Abuse  Warning  Network,  2003:  Area  Profiles  of  Drug-Related 
Mortality. DAWN Series D-27, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05-4023. Rockville, MD, 2005. 

Canada  
•  Popova S, Rehm J and Fischer B: An overview of illegal opioid use and health services utilisation 

in Canada. Public Health. Vol. 120, Issue 4, 2006, pp. 320-328. 

Population sizes: 

European Union — Eurostat 
•  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu  

Australia — Australian Bureau of Statistics  

•  estimated resident population on 30 June 2005; 

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/1F51406DCEEBAC14CA256EC
7007B5B4E?OpenDocument 

Canada — Statistics Canada 
•  population on 1 July 2007 aged 15-64; http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo31a.htm  

EN 

145 

   EN