Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 567} {SEC(2008) 2454} {SEC(2008) 2456}
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 

Brussels, 18.9.2008 
SEC(2008) 2455 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the  

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

On an EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

{COM(2008) 567} 
{SEC(2008) 2454} 
{SEC(2008) 2456} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Procedural issues and stakeholder consultation ........................................................... 3 

Institutional background............................................................................................... 3 

Methodology for the impact assessment and procedural issues................................... 4 

Dialogue with key stakeholders ................................................................................... 4 

Problem Definition....................................................................................................... 9 

Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008)............ 9 

Current state-of-play .................................................................................................. 13 

Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 19 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 22 

General objectives...................................................................................................... 22 

Specific and Operational objectives........................................................................... 22 

Identification and assessment of policy options......................................................... 32 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 36 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 37 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 39 

Annex 1 - Logical Framework model ...................................................................................... 41 

Annex 2 – Stakeholder consultation reference documents ...................................................... 42 

Annex 3 – The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) ................................................................ 44 

Annex 4 – Provisional overview aggregated objectives Action Plan (2009-2012) ................. 46 

Annex 5 – impact assessment tables and swot analysis ........................................................... 47 

Annex 6 - List of abbreviations................................................................................................ 62 

Annex 7 -Glossary.................................................................................................................... 63 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1.1. 

Institutional background 

Illicit  drugs  are  substances  controlled  by  the  UN  Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs  of 
1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and 
the  1988  Convention  against  Illicit  Traffic  in  Narcotic  Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Substances. 
These  are  the  main  international  legal  instruments  for  addressing  the  global  drugs  problem 
and providing a framework for Member States' drug legislation.  

All EU Member States and Candidate Countries have signed and ratified these Conventions. 
As  a  consequence  Member  States  are  obliged  to  establish  as  criminal  offences  all  activities 
with  regards  to  the  substances  listed  in  the  1961  and  1971  Conventions,  including  their 
cultivation, transport, import, export, distribution, possession and purchasing. Consumption of 
the substances controlled under these Conventions is not explicitly criminalised.  

Member  States  must  guarantee  fundamental  rights,  including  those  of  the  drug  users,  when 
implementing  policies  on  drugs,  as  set  out  in  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union,  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights.  The  UN  Convention  on  the 
Rights of the Child requires that States must protect children from the illicit use of narcotic 
drugs and psychotropic substances and drug production and trafficking1. The EU framework 
for  drug  policy  was  developed  during  the  1990s:  The  importance  of  European  level 
cooperation in the field of drug dependence was reflected in the 1994 Communication from 
the  Commission2.  The  creation  of  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug 
Addiction (EMCDDA) in 1993 and the Drugs Unit of Europol in 1994 were further signs of 
the importance and added value of drug policy at the European level. 

A first EU Drug Strategy (1995-1999) was adopted in 19953, promoting enhanced cooperation 
between  Member  States  with  the  aim  to  reduce  both  the  demand  for  and  supply  of  drugs 
towards  and  within  the  EU.  The  EU  Drug  Strategy  2000-2004  and  the  EU  Action  Plan  on 
Drugs  (2000-2004)4  introduced  new  possibilities  for  cooperation  at  EU  level  that  became 
available in the through the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.  

The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012)5 endorsed in December 2004 by the European Council, 
is an integral part of the multi-annual programme "The Hague Programme' for strengthening 
freedom, security and justice in the EU6". It is  based first and foremost on the fundamental 
principles of EU law and, in every regard, upholds the founding values of the Union: respect 
for  human  dignity,  liberty,  democracy,  equality,  solidarity,  the  rule  of  law  and  fundamental 
rights.  It  aims  to  guarantee  a  high  level  of  security  for  the  general  public,  to  protect  public 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: "States Parties shall take all appropriate 
measures,  including  legislative,  administrative,  social  and  educational  measures,  to  protect  children 
from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international 
treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances." 
COM (1994) 223 final; 21.6.1994 
9012/99 CORDROGUE 33; 
12555/3/99 CORDROGUE 64; 9283/00 CORDROGUE 3 
CORDROGUE 77, 22.11.200 
COM (2005) 184 final, 10.5.200 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
health and to protect and improve the well-being of society and of the individual, by taking a 
balanced, integrated approach to the drugs problem.  

The Strategy sets the framework, objectives and priorities for all drug-related activities in the 
EU by means of two consecutive four-year Drug Action Plans to be brought forward by 
the Commission. The first of these Action Plans, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008), 
was endorsed by the Council on 8 July 20057. The objectives and actions in the Strategy and 
Action Plans are partly structured as a logical framework (see Annex 1).  

The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) stipulates that the Commission is to organise an 
evaluation and calls upon the Commission to organise an impact assessment with a view of 
proposing a new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012)8. The final evaluation has taken place 
largely in parallel with the development of this impact assessment report.  

The new EU Action Plan on Drugs covering the period from 2009 to 2012 together with the 
conclusions  of  the  final  evaluation  are  to  be  presented  in  the  Communication  on  an  EU 
Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012), which is scheduled for adoption in September 2008. The 
full report of the evaluation can be found in the annex to the Communication.  

1.2.  Methodology for the impact assessment and procedural issues 

This impact assessment is based to a great extent on the results of the evaluation of the Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) and on the Annual Progress Reviews of that Action Plan (2006 and 
2007) as well as information provided by the EMCDDA and Europol.  

This Impact Assessment process has been managed internally by DG JLS complemented by 
the  advice  of  an  external  contractor9  that  performed  the  role  of  'critical  friend'  during  the 
analysis and drafting phases of this impact assessment. They  also  provided technical advice 
with regards to the indicators for the monitoring and evaluation of the new EU Action Plan on 
Drugs (2009-2012).  

The Commission also drew on external expertise for the evaluation methodology to improve 
the quality and scope of the work10.  

1.3. 

Dialogue with key stakeholders 

In  order  to  improve  the  quality  and  support  for  the  new  proposal,  the  Commission  has 
consulted  with  different  groups  of  stakeholders  and  experts.  This  consultation  has  provided 
valuable views on the necessity and priorities of the new Action Plan. 

7 
8 

9 
10 

OJ C 168, 8.7.200 
OJ C168, 8.7.2005: Action 45.3; Note: the term impact assessment in this context should be read as an 
ex-post  evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  current  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008) 
implementation  of  the  current  plan,  as  such  different  from  the  technical  term  'Impact  Assessment'  as 
used in the Commission's policy making process. 
Ernst & Young; Multiple Framework Service Contract JLS/2006/A1/004 
GHK Consultants International; Multiple Framework Contract JLS/2006/A1/004 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ongoing dialogue with Member States 

Overseeing the implementation of the current Action Plan on Drugs is one of the key tasks of 
the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs  (HDG)  in  the  Council.  Through  the  Commission's 
annual  Progress  Reviews  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  as  well  as  through  the 
publication  of  the  Annual  Reports  of  EMCDDA  and  Europol,  the  HDG  is  well-informed 
about  the  developments  in  the  drug  situation  and  the  EU  responses  to  it.  The  HDG  and  the 
successive  Council  Presidencies  have  constantly  supported  the  view  expressed  in  the  EU 
Drugs Strategy that the Commission  will not only evaluate  the current Action Plan but also 
propose a new one for 2009-2012. This is of particular and explicit interest of France holding 
the Presidency at the later part of 2008 when the current Action Plan finishes. 

Inter Service Steering Group on the Impact Assessment 

For  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  broad  input  from  Commission  Services  in  this  impact 
assessment  process,  an  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up,  consisting  of 
representatives of 14 Directorate Generals in the Commission11, reflecting the broad range of 
aspects  covered  by  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs.  This  group  met  three  times  and  their 
comments  have  been  included  in  this  report.  Furthermore,  as  the  reporting  on  and 
implementation of a range of actions in the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) is the task of 
several of these Commission departments, many of the DGs represented in the ISSG have also 
actively  contributed  to  the  evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan,  such  in  correspondence  with  the 
implementation road map that was agreed between services in 2005.  

Steering Group for the final Evaluation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs  

The Commission established a Steering Group for the final evaluation of the current Action 
Plan  consisting  of  representatives  from  the  respective  Member  States  holding  the  EU 
Presidency between July 2006 and December 2008, the European Parliament, the EMCDDA 
and  Europol.  The  Steering  Group  had  the  task  to  give  advice  to  the  methodology  for  the 
evaluation,  on  the  evaluation  tools  the  Commission  planned  to  use  and  commented  the 
outcomes resulting from the final evaluation. The Steering Group met four times between in 
2007 and 2008. 

Civil Society Forum on Drugs  

In  2006,  the  Commission  published  a  Green  Paper  on  the  role  of  Civil  Society  in  the 
European  Union12.  The  open  consultation  of  stakeholders  on  the  Green  Paper  yielded  65 
replies  and  there  was  strong  support  for  a  Civil  Society  Forum  on  Drugs,  which  was 
established  by  the  Commission  in  2007.  The  Forum  involves  26  organisations  from  civil 
society  active  in  the  drug  field  across  Europe.  The  Forum  gathered  in  December  2007  and 
May  2008,  during  which  members  of  the  Forum  were  asked  to  provide  their  views  on  the 
evaluation and the assessment of the implementation of the current EU Action Plan as well as 
their  views  regarding  a  new  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2009-2012).  Generally,  there  was  a 
strong  support  for  an  EU  level  approach  among  the  Forum  members,  and  they  saw  added 
value in continuing a European level dialogue. 

11 

12 

SG,  SJ,  ENTR,  EMPL,  TREN,  RTD,  TAXUD,  EAC,  SANCO,  RELEX,  ELARG,  AIDCO,  ESTAT, 
DEV and JLS 
COM (2006) 0316 final; http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/drugs/doc_drugs_intro_en.htm 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 

The  Commission  receives  substantial  support  from  the  EMCDDA  in  Lisbon  for  the 
monitoring and evaluation of the EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) and the current EU Action 
Plan.  Through  the  REITOX  network  of  National  Focal  Points,  the  EMCDDA  monitors  the 
evolution  of  the  drug  situation  and  drug  policy  responses  through  key  epidemiological 
indicators and a variety of additional reporting instruments.  

Europol 

The Drugs Unit of Europol provides information on law enforcement activities carried out in 
the  framework  of  the  Action  Plan.  It  also  reports  on  trends  in  drug  trafficking  routes, 
organised  criminal  groups  involved  in  drug  trafficking,  seizures  and  numbers  of  dismantled 
laboratories  for  the  manufacture  of  illicit  drugs  and  chemical  substances  used  in  their 
manufacture  (precursors).  Europol  assists  Member  States  in  operational  activities  like 
controlled deliveries and joint operations.  

Open consultation 

Due to time constraints, DG JLS did not to organise an open consultation exclusively for this 
impact  assessment  or  on  the  proposal  for  a  new  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2009-2012). 
However, a Youth Eurobarometer on Drugs covering a limited number of policy aspects was 
organised  in  March  2008,  in  which  12.500  respondents  aged  15-24  were  asked  questions 
about how they think governments could best deal with the drug problem, their opinion on the 
legal  status  of  licit  and  illicit  substances  (and  if  changes  are  needed)  and  questions  on  the 
availability of prevention and how easy they would have access to drugs. 

Input from the most relevant organisations and the Member States has been provided through 
the  final  evaluation  process  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  and  through  the 
channels  described  below.  Furthermore,  any  new  Action  Plan  will  be  largely  based  on  the 
overall  aims  and  priorities  of  the  existing  EU  Drug  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  no  major 
changes  in  the  mandates  of  respective  actors  are  foreseen  even  in  the  light  of  the  future 
Lisbon Treaty.  

Table  1.1  presents  some  of  the  main  feedback  received  from  the  stakeholder  consultations. 
References to reports can be found in Annex 2. 

Table 1.1 – Results of the consultation of stakeholders 

Dialogue  with  Member 
States / Horizontal Working 
Party on Drugs (HDG) 

InterService 
Group (ISSG) 

Steering 

Between  2006  and  2008  the  HDG  has  organised  a  great  number  of  thematic 
debates on specific actions from the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) as well 
as  on  emerging  and  relevant  issues,  including  progress  reports  and  studies 
presented  by  the  Commission.  A  considerable  number  of  Presidency  and 
Council  conclusions  have  been  adopted,  relevant  to  the  evaluation  topics  and 
the new Action Plan. 

The InterService Steering Group met on the 14th of February 2008, the 26th of 
February 2008 and 31 March 2008. The Group provided input and advice to the 
Impact  Assessment  Report,  primarily  regarding  the  structure  and  problem 
definition,  but  also  on  potential  policy  options  to  further  implement  the 
Strategy. Overall, the input was consistent with the options chosen. One specific 
proposed  option  was  worked  out  but  deleted  during  the  Impact  Assessment 
process.  This  option  proposed  an  limited  EU  Action  Plan  for  activities  that 
covered  EU  competence  only,  disregarding  actions  that  call  upon  Member 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Steering  Group 
the 
Evaluation of the EU Drugs 
Action Plan (2005-2008) 

for 

Civil  Society  Forum  on 
Drugs 

Europol/ EMCDDA 

States to act but that are not binding.  

This  Steering  Group  was  primarily  established  to  reflect  on  the  methodology 
and outcome of the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008). But as 
one  of  the  key  purposes  of  the  evaluation  was  to  inform  a  future  EU  Drugs 
Action  Plan  as  well,  the  feedback  provided  by  the  Steering  Group  on  the 
conclusions  and  subsequent  recommendations  resulting  from  the  evaluation 
process has had an important impact on the proposed new policy objectives for 
the  new  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan.  The  Steering  Group  stressed  that  a  new  plan 
should  be  improved  in  terms  of  consistency  and  measurability,  and  that 
emphasis  should  be  placed  on  new  trends  and  threats  emerging  in  the field  of 
drugs. Furthermore, the Steering Group stressed the importance of continuation 
and  strengthening  those  objectives  and  actions  that  have  shown  result  and  the 
potential  reformulation  or  shifting  of  focus  in  objectives  that  turned  out  to  be 
difficult to implement (or influence) at the level of Member States. 

The  Civil  Society  Forum  on  Drugs  met  in  December  2007  and  in  May  2008. 
The  meeting  in  December  –  the  first  ever  –  focused  on  the  EU  Drugs  Action 
the 
Plan  Progress  Review  2007,  discussing  potential  difficulties 
implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008).  In  the  meeting  of 
May  2008,  the  first  results  of  the  evaluation  process  were  presented  and 
discussed  and  participants  were  encouraged 
ideas  and 
recommendations for the evaluation and/or for a future Action Plan. Key points 
raised included: 

to  present 

in 

–  EU  Policy  must  be  based  on  the  principles  of  public  health  and  human 

rights.  

–  Coordination between civil society, EU institutions and EU Member States 

should be strengthened and encouraged. 

–  Specific attention should be paid to the needs of vulnerable groups. 
–  A new Action Plan should encourage the development of quality standards 

in the full spectrum of drug demand reduction.  
–  Poly drug use needs to be addressed in more detail 
–  The new Action Plan should advocate alternative development, while taking 

into account local needs.  

–  The  new  Action  Plan  should  address  on  drug-related  harms  in  prison  and 

potential harms that may occur upon release of prisoners. 

–  Drug-related  deaths  should  be  further  reduced  by  further 
implementation of demand reduction measures, including harm 
reduction. 

Many of the issues raised had been discussed before, among others within the 
Council in the past years.  

Input  from  Europol  and  EMCDDA  has  been  instrumental  throughout  the 
evaluation  and  impact  assessment  process.  By  providing  information  on  the 
current  state-of-play,  information  on  trends  and  on  implementation  of  actions 
from  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  in  Member  States  has  been 
essential for the evaluation process and for the formulation of new proposals for 
a new Action Plan.  

Impact Assessment Board opinion 

The  Impact  Assessment  Report  was  submitted  to  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  on  28  May 
2008. On the 13th of June 2008, the IAB provided an Impact Assessment Quality Checklist for 
the IAB Opinion, pointing out a number of key questions and suggestions for adjustment of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
the Impact Assessment Report, for the consideration of the author DG. On the 27th of June, 
the  Impact  Assessment  Board  presented  its  opinion,  in  which  it  called  for  a  number  of 
important changes to the report.  

The general opinion was as follows: "The IA report should focus on the main outcomes of the 
evaluation  of  the  first  Action  Plan  and  the  main  improvements  which  will  consequently  be 
made in the second Action Plan. In addition, the assessment of some impacts and the general 
presentation  of  the  report  should  be  improved.  In  its  written  exchange  with  the  Board,  DG 
JLS  agree  to  change  the  report  on  all  of  these  points.  Given  the  nature  of  the 
recommendations, the Board would like to examine a revised draft IA report on which it will 
issue a new opinion".  

On  the  18th  of  July  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  resubmitted  its  opinion  on  this  Impact 
Assessment. The revised opinion asked for a further clarification of the importance of the ten 
problem-objective  combinations  identified  in  Chapters  3  and  further  analysis  of  each  of  the 
problems  against  three  options  examined.  Furthermore,  the  Impact  Assessment  Board 
recommended  that  results  of  stakeholder  consultation  be  included  in  the  main  body  of  this 
report, with references in annex. 

The issues identified by the Impact Assessment Board have been incorporated in this report. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  are 
developed around the two main dimensions of drug policy, drug demand reduction and drug 
supply  reduction.  The  European  approach  takes  these  as  equally  important  and  mutually 
reinforcing  each  other  when  implemented  as  parts  of  integrated  drug  policy.  These  two 
'pillars'  are  complemented  by  three  cross  cutting  themes,  coordination,  international 
cooperation and information, research and evaluation. The Drug Strategy and Action Plans 
have  been  designed  in  the  format  of  a  Logical  Framework,  identifying  Strategy  objectives, 
Strategy priorities, Action Plan objectives and actions13.  

2.1.1.  Main conclusions from the evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

Evaluating the impact of public policy plans such as the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008 
is  by  nature  a  very  complicated  exercise.  The  Action  Plan  had  the  aim  to  coordinate  and 
influence  major  areas  of  government  interventions  in  the  field  of  drugs  (public  health/ 
security/ external relations) targeting a complex social phenomenon that is still insufficiently 
understood, that largely takes place outside the scope and control of public authorities and that 
requires a coherent long-term approach.  

The Action Plan is a non-binding coordination instrument primarily for Member States, who 
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.  This  indirect 
implementation may be effective in providing guidance for national policy level, but it does 
make  assessment  of  direct  consequences  of  the  plan  more  complicated.  An  additional 
complicating  factor  is  that  most  objectives  and  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  are  implemented 
indirectly: the Action Plan aims to influence the actions of others14.  

Information  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  at  EU  level  is  gathered  from  several 
Commission services and agencies. Information on the implementation of the Action Plan at 
the level of Member States is mainly provided through the EMCDDA and Europol. For the 
evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  has  also  conducted  a  written  survey  among 
Member  States  and  a  limited  evaluation  survey  on  intra-institutional  cooperation  and 
coordination conducted by an external evaluator. 

2.1.1.1.  Overall conclusions of the evaluation 

(1) 

13 
14 

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

See Annex 1 for a brief overview of the key objectives of the current EU Drugs Action Plan 
The  Commission  is  involved  in  the  implementation  of  44  of  the  86  objectives  and  actions  in  the  EU 
Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008),  but  directly  responsible  for  only  8  of  them.  Member  States  are 
involved  in  the  implementation  of  64  of  86  objectives  and  actions,  but  directly  responsible  for  the 
implementation  of  23  of  them.  14  of  86  are  a  shared  responsibility  between  Member  States  and  the 
Commission.  The  remaining  41  actions  are  the  shared  responsibility  of  the  Member  States, 
Commission, Presidency/ Council, Europol, EMCDDA and a limited number of other stakeholders.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

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 paper plan: on practically all specific objectives and actions progress 
has been made, with varying degrees of success.  

(3) 

The Action Plan suffers from a number of internal inconsistencies as well as from the 
large number of objectives and actions, and the lack of prioritisation between them. 

2.1.1.2.  Cross cutting theme: coordination 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  evaluation  shows  that  the  HDG  is  the  main  forum  of  drug  coordination  at  EU 
level  and  that  the  European  Commission  is  well  coordinated  in  the  Council.  At  the 
same time, coordination within the Commission regarding the implementation of 
the Action Plan could be improved, among others by setting clearer priorities and 
by  improving  the  communication  on  EU  drug  policy  objectives  across  policy 
fields.  

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.  

In all agreements the EU has finalised with third countries/ regions, a specific clause 
on drugs has been included. However, the impact of these clauses still needs to be 
examined and more information on their follow up is needed. 

Annually, a rich body of monitoring information and situation reports are published on 
the  drug  situation.  However,  the  utilisation  of  these  reports  by  EU  policymakers, 
linking  the  phenomena  described  in  them  need  for  further  policy  analysis  needs 
improvement. 

2.1.1.3.  Drug demand reduction 

(1)  Member  States  have  invested  in  universal,  selective  and  indicated  prevention 
programmes across the board, but the evidence-base underpinning these programmes 
is  still  insufficient  as  they  are  seldom  evaluated.  Only  a  few  Member  States  have 
introduced general quality guidelines for prevention.  

(2) 

(3) 

The  level  of  availability,  coverage  and  accessibility  of  prevention  programmes  is 
unclear.  Overall,  according  to  the  EMCDDA  the  quality  of  selective  prevention 
programmes is not regarded highly by experts and in the field of indicated prevention 
– covering among others drug use in recreational settings – not enough information is 
available on such programmes in Member States.  

A  majority  of  Member  States  report  that  they  offer  a  variation  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 these programmes, but their applicability is still 
unclear.  Further  improvements  are  needed  in  improving  the  effectiveness, 
accessibility,  availability  and  coverage  of  treatment  services  and  for  developing 
quality guidelines.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

New treatment options and/ or settings are required for new types of drug problems, 
e.g.  problematic  cannabis  use  requires  a  different  treatment  response  than  opioid 
dependence. Member States need to invest in adapting/ adjusting to new trends in 
treatment demand.  

In the field of harm reduction, major progress has been achieved in recent years. All 
EU  Member  States  run  harm  reduction  programmes.  However,  the  effective 
coverage,  availability  and  accessibility  of  these  programmes  in  Member  States 
are still a cause of concern. Furthermore, in some Member States an increasing lack 
of  political  support  for  harm  reduction  can  potentially  result  in  higher  levels  of  risk 
taking among new, younger generations of heroin injectors. 

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

The provision of continued and equal care for inmates in prison as compared to care 
available  in  society  in  general  is  of  great  importance  to  reduce  drug-related  harms. 
The  infection  rates  for  drug-related  infectious  diseases  as  well  as  the  mortality 
rates  for  drug-related  deaths  are  considerably  higher  inside  prison  (and 
immediately after release from prison).  

Treatment  and  harm  reduction  programmes  are  often  not  tailor  made  to  address 
specific  needs  and  problems  of  different  groups  of  problematic  or  dependent 
drug  users,  e.g.  women,  minors,  migrants,  specific  ethnic  groups  and  vulnerable 
groups. This conclusion is confirmed by civil society organisations.  

2.1.1.4.  Drug supply reduction 

(1) 

Law enforcement cooperation in the field of drugs between Member States shows and 
increasing trend. However, existing instruments such as Joint Investigation Teams and 
Joint Customs Organisations are not used to the full extent.  

(2)  Member States overall contribute well to the activities of Europol and are – in return – 
supported  in  investigations  involving  internationally  operating  organised  crime 
groups.  However,  there  is  still  substantial  room  for  improvement,  e.g.  in 
information  sharing  and  intelligence  gathering  through  closer  coordination 
between law enforcement services at national level. 

(3) 

(4) 

The  results  of  various  operational  and  intelligence  law  enforcement  cross-border 
projects in the EU, e.g. MAOC-N, show the importance of strengthening intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced intelligence led law enforcement. 

The  Drug  Strategy  objective  to  make  supply  reduction  and  law  enforcement  output 
better  measurable  and  therefore  more  accountable,  is  complicated  by  a  lack  of 
availability  of  standardised  key  indicators  in  this  area.  Drug  seizures  are  collected 
through different methods and channels. 

(5) 

A long-term solution on forensic profiling for synthetic drugs is not yet in place, but 
considerable progress was made in 2007 and 2008. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(6) 

(7) 

The number of arrests for drug related offences has risen considerably. In most cases 
the rise is due to arrests for consumption of drugs. It is unclear to which extent these 
arrests result in actual sentences. 

In  almost  all  Member  States,  there  is  a  lack  of  priority  in  national  Customs 
organisations when drug precursor control is concerned. 

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

2.1.1.5.  Cross cutting theme: International Cooperation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

According  to  the  Member  States,  the  Action  Plan  has  been  important  for  achieving 
coherence  and  consensus  between  EU  Member  States  at  international  level. 
Increasingly, the Action Plan is considered as a 'model' of EU drugs policy.  

The  EU's  has  increasingly  acted  coherently,  in  particular  in  the  Commission  of 
Narcotic Drugs (CND) of the United Nations. However, a systematic procedure should 
be  developed  to  ensure  that  the  EU  speaks  with  one  voice  in  the  CND  plenary 
meetings. .  

A  great  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  finalised  with  many  of  the  countries  involved,  in 
particular regarding their participation in the EMCDDA and cooperation with Europol 
and Eurojust. However, the outcome of assistance projects is difficult to assess due 
to a lack of assessment tools and indicators.  

External funding programmes and projects of both EC and the Member States should 
be linked more explicitly to the priorities of EU drug policy. 

The  EU  integrated  and  balanced  approach  on  drugs  has  served  as  a  model  for 
Candidate Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in developing 
their national drug strategies and action plans.  

The  EU  is  a  major  player  when  assistance  to  third  countries  in  the  field  of  drugs  is 
concerned.  Afghanistan  and  the  Andean  countries  are  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the 
EUR 760 Million the EU spent in 2005 on drug-related projects, two-thirds of which 
was  allocated  to  alternative  development.  With  approximately  5%  of  overall 
external  funding,  the  area  of  demand  reduction  is  not  well-represented  in 
international assistance projects.  

New drug trafficking routes, especially for heroin and cocaine, emerge on the Eastern 
border of the EU and through West-Africa. The diversification of routes suggests that 
anti-trafficking measures may be effective on traditional routes, but at the same time 
the number of routes increases and asks for flexible and broad cooperation with 
countries in this region. 

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

major contributors to UNODC (EC contributions not included).  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
2.1.1.6.  Cross cutting theme: Information, Research and Evaluation 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  quality  of  information  that  is  available  on  the  drug  situation  in  Europe  has 
improved in recent years, mostly due to the work of Europol and EMCDDA.  

Further  steps  might  be  considered  to  contribute  to  greater  coordination  and 
complementarity between research and funding structures at national and EU level.  

Diminishing  support  from  national  governments  to  National  Focal  Points  is  an 
increasing  cause  for  concern  as  National  Focal  Points  are  an  essential  part  of  the 
information infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  

(4)  Monitoring in the field of drug demand reduction is improving but requires continued 
attention  and  support  for  implementation  of  data  collection  at  the  level  of  Member 
States.  

(5) 

The availability of reliable, comparable and usable information and data in the field of 
drug  supply  and  supply  reduction  is  an  ongoing  cause  of  concern,  as  the  lack  of  it 
does not allow for a proper analysis of the EU drug market and the effectiveness 
of law enforcement interventions.  

(6) 

The  need  for  evaluation  of  drug  policies  continues  to  be  of  great  importance. 
Improvements are required in order to better assess policy impacts. 

2.2. 

Current state-of-play 

As such, the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is the most specific and best-monitored 
EU Action Plan so far. However, as the evaluation above also shows, there is still room for 
improvement  and  new  trends  in  the  drug  situation  also  require  new  or  further  measures. 
Despite the results of the implementation of the current Action Plan as presented above, it is 
clear that the scale and seriousness of the drug problem in the EU remains considerable.  

2.2.1.  Trends in the demand for drugs and adverse health and social problems 

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

Cannabis  remains  the  most  commonly  consumed  illicit  drug  and  with  17.5  million 
Europeans  using  the  substance  last  year,  prevalence  estimates  are  high  by  historical 
standards, but again the available trend data points overall to a stabilisation or even to some 
limited  decline  in  the  popularity  of  cannabis.  Stimulant  use  patterns  are  more  difficult  to 
summarise.  Cocaine  was  used  by  4.5  million  Europeans  last  year  and  has  grown 
dramatically in some Member States although not in all, while ecstasy use seems to have 
moderately decreased overall and amphetamine use remains an important element in the drug 
problem  in  some  Nordic  countries.  The  use  of  heroin  and  drug  injecting  appear  generally 
stable 

A decreasing age of first use among young people as well as the increase in poly-drug use, 
especially  also  involving  licit  substances  such  as  alcohol,  poses  major  challenges  to 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
prevention and treatment and there is a need to develop evaluated best practises, benchmarks 
and guidelines in these fields. 

In  the  EU  between  1  and  8  people  on  1.000  inhabitants  classify  as  problem  drug  user. 
Around 1.1 million people in the EU inject drugs, mainly opiates15. These problem drug users 
are at risk of death by overdose and/ or at risk of developing serious drug-related infectious 
diseases.  Drug  related  deaths,  mainly  overdose  deaths,  currently  more  than  7.500  cases 
annually  in  the  EU16,  constitute  a  significant  cause  of  avoidable  mortality  among  young 
adults. The downward trend in the EU in drug related deaths that was visible for several years 
tailed off between 2004 and 2005, in order to drop again in 2006.  

EMCDDA reports that between 100.000 – 200.000 Europeans who have ever injected drugs 
live with HIV and around one million with Hepatitis C. Injecting drug use still accounts for 
3.500  newly  diagnosed  cases  of  HIV  in  the  EU  every  year.  The  risk  of  infection  is 
particularly high in exceptional circumstances, where needle sharing is common e.g. in 
prisons,  with  infection  rates  up  to  80%.  Harm  reduction  policies  (e.g.  providing  clean 
syringes and needles), when implemented as part of a coordinated and coherent public health 
policy  approach,  can  be  effective  in  reducing  risk  behaviours  and  as  a  result  the  spread  of 
infectious diseases among drug users.  

In  2005,  21  EU  countries  have  reported  information  on  326.000  new  drug  treatment  clients 
attending  outpatient  centres.  Approximately  40% of  these  new  clients  are  treated  for  opioid 
use, 20% for cannabis use, and 13% for cocaine use and the remaining clients for other drug 
use. In 2005, it is estimated that 585.000 dependent drug users received substitution treatment 
in the EU  and Norway. In recent years, the share of clients seeking treatment for other 
than opioid addiction is increasing.  

Negative social consequences are reported to be generally linked with problem drug use. For 
instance,  homelessness,  together  with  living  in  unstable  accommodation,  was  affecting 
about  10%  of  drug  users  entering  treatment  in  2006,  while  one  in  every  two  clients 
entering treatment was unemployed. 

2.2.2. 

Supply of drugs, related crime and law enforcement 

Production,  manufacture  and  trafficking  of  drugs  remain  amongst  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 
principle  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 a large-scale intra-EU trafficking. Criminal networks no longer limit their activities to 
one type of drug as reflected in the prevalence of 'cocktail' or 'poly-drug' seizures.  

According  to  the  United  Nations,  most  of  the  world’s  illicit  heroin  comes  from  only  three 
countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar and Laos. Afghanistan continues to be the major supplier of 

15 
16 

EMCDDA Annual Report 2007 
EMCDDA Annual Report 2007, 2004 data; in 70% of drug-related death cases opioids are involved. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
heroin,  accounting  for  over  90%  of  global  opium  production.  In  2007,  the  estimated  opium 
output increased 34 % to 8,200 tonnes17.  

Regarding  the  manufacturing  of  cocaine,  the  Andean  region  remains  the  major  cocaine 
producing  area  in  the  world,  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).  

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

Two key corridors are used for the trafficking of opiates. Significant heroin trafficking takes 
place  along  the  Northern  Route,  which  starts  in  Afghanistan  and  crosses  the  central  Asian 
States  of  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  Tajikistan,  Turkmenistan  and  Uzbekistan.  It  is  estimated 
that some 25% of smuggled heroin stays in central Asia for domestic consumption, while the 
remaining 75% is smuggled onward to Russia and Europe18  

Most heroin reaches Western Europe via the Balkan Routes, starting in Turkey, facilitated by 
Turkey’s  geographical  position  in  handling  extensive  commercial  trade  between  Asia  and 
Europe  and  good  transport  infrastructure.  There  is  an  increased  use  of  the  central  Balkan 
Route from Turkey, via Bulgaria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and  Croatia  into  Italy  or  Slovenia  and  from  FYROM  via  Kosovo 
under  UNSC  Resolution  1244  and/or  Albania  into  Greece.  The  route  via  Ukraine  and 
Romania is also gaining importance. 

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

In  recent  years,  West  Africa  has  emerged  as  a  transit  and  storage  zone  for  Maritime 
trafficking  of  cocaine  from  South  America  to  Europe.  At  least  33  tons  of  cocaine  has  been 
seized  en  route  to  Europe  via  West  Africa  between  2005  and  2007.  Prior  to  this,  the  entire 
continent rarely seized more than a ton per year. This criminal development poses a further 
threat to the fragile stability of the region, exploiting, inter-alia, the capacity of West African 
law enforcement agencies, high levels of corruption and the lack of port / coastline controls. 

An  estimated  100  tons  of  heroin  are  needed  annually  to  supply  European  Union  heroin 
markets19.  There  is  large-scale  secondary  or  intra-European  Union  trafficking,  particularly 
from the Netherlands and Belgium.  

17 

18 

19 

UNODC,  Afghan  Survey,  Winter  2007;  as  presented  during  the  EU  Troika  with  Western  Balkans, 
Brussels, April 2008.  
Council  document  11159/07  CORDROGUE  40:  Regional  report  on  Central  Asia.  Brussels,  20  June 
2007. 
UNODC World Drug Report, 2006 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The European Union remains, next to the United States, the second largest cocaine consumer 
market in the world. An estimated 250 tons of cocaine enter the Union annually via maritime 
shipments,  air  freight  and  couriers.  In  2006,  almost  120  tons  of  cocaine  was  seized  in  the 
Member States.  

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

The  European  Union  is  a  major  production  region  for  synthetic  drugs,  in  particular 
amphetamine and MDMA (ecstasy). Annually, some 70 to 90 significant scale synthetic drug 
production  and  storage  sites  are  seized,  with  the  vast  majority  in  the  Netherlands  and,  to  a 
lesser extent, Belgium. In addition, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania have played important roles 
especially in supplying Germany and Nordic Member States.  

A relatively recent phenomenon in the European Union is the increased transit/transhipment 
of  suspicious  large  scale  consignments  of  ephedrine  and  pseudo-ephedrine,  the  principal 
precursors  for  methamphetamine  manufacture,  mostly  en  route  from  Asia  with  final 
destination to the Americas.  

Despite  the  measures  implemented  through  the  Action  Plan,  the  global  illicit  drugs  market 
seems  to  have  its  own  dynamics.  Based  on  data  available  from  a  limited  number  of  EU 
countries, the street prices corrected for inflation declined for all drugs mentioned above over 
the period 2000–2006. Most reported decreases are in a range of 10–30%, but street prices for 
ecstasy seem to have declined even more. 

A second indicator for developments on the illicit drug market concerns the potency/ purity 
of substances purchased or seized in a number of EU Member States20. In 2006, reported THC 
content of cannabis resin samples ranged from 2.3% to 18.4%, while that of herbal cannabis 
ranged from under 1% to 13%. In most 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 ranged between considerably, with most countries reporting values between 25% and 
55%.  

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

Drug  use  and  drug  trafficking  continue  to  pose  an  important  burden  on  the  criminal  justice 
system. With almost 740.000 arrests for drug-related offenses in 2006, 80% of which for use-
related  offences  and  20%  for  drug  trafficking,  drugs  are  a  major  concern  for  police  and 
prosecution.  

20 

It should be recognised that purity levels will invariably reflect the stage at which the drug is taken out 
of the illicit market i.e. from higher purity bulk quantities to lower purity consumer doses. The available 
data  should  reflect  street  level  prices,  but  not  all  countries  make  this  distinction  with  good  precision. 
Furthermore,  the  sampling  is  biased  towards  which  samples  get  tested  in  forensic  laboratories  as 
considerable inter-sampling differences exist.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
And according to the 2003 European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics21, 
covering statistical information from over 35 Member States of the Council of Europe, drug 
trafficking  offences22  accounted  for  10%  of  all  detainees  in  penitentiaries.  However, 
considerable variations exist between countries and depending on the method of registration 
of  convictions  in  each  reporting  country,  the  share  of  drug-related  offences  may  be  higher 
than reported23. 

2.2.3.  Economic and social burden of the drug problem 

The  abuse  of  illicit  drugs  results  in  considerable social  costs  for  EU  Member  States.  In  the 
field of drugs, 'social costs' are defined as the total of all of the costs to society, direct and 
indirect caused by drug use24. The output, expressed in monetary terms, is an estimate of the 
total burden that drug use places on society25.  

Recently, the EMCDDA has made efforts to make an estimation of the social costs of the drug 
phenomenon  to  society.  Due  to  a  lack  of  definitions  and  data,  this  exercise  is  difficult  to 
achieve and only a few European countries have made rough estimations of the social costs of 
drug use to society.  

One  of  the  more  visible  elements  of  social  costs  related  to  drug  use,  concerns  public 
expenditures on the drug phenomenon. Six EU Member States26 reported on their direct and 
labelled  drug-related  public  expenditure  regarding  drugs.  These  countries  estimated  this 
expenditure to represent – on average – 0.32% of the total annual government spending, with 
variations from 0.11% to 0.96%. In terms of GDP, public expenditure on drugs represents a 
median of 0.15% of these countries, with variations from 0.05% to 0.46%27. This expenditure 
includes – in most cases – a variety of drug policy responses. In the six countries, 40-60% of 
the  direct  public  expenditures  concern  prevention,  treatment  and  harm  reduction  measures. 
The  remaining  expenditure  concerns  the  costs  of  law  enforcement  and  e.g.  imprisonment. 
However,  when  indirect  and/  or  non-labelled  public  expenditure  is  taken  into  account,  the 
balance between the different types of drug policy will look very different (e.g. incorporating 
drug-related costs of policing, prosecution, etc.). 

21 
22 
23 

24 

25 
26 

27 

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. 
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. 
Single  et.al.  [2001];  Direct  social  costs  include  e.g.  public  expenditures  on  prevention  of  drug  abuse, 
treatment  and rehabilitation of drug  addiction but  also  law  enforcement  costs  aimed  at  tackling drug-
related crime, prosecution and the costs of imprisonment of drug offenders. Indirect social costs include 
–  among  others  –  the  loss  of  productivity  due  to  drug-related  death  and  drug-related  (infectious) 
diseases, imprisonment and indirect costs of social marginalisation of drug offenders or drug users, but 
also indirect costs related to a lack of public safety through fraud and corruption. 
EMCDDA Annual Report 2007, p.21 
Belgium, Hungary, The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and the UK; Source: EMCDDA Annual Report 
2007, p.21 
Overall, the amounts of public expenditure related to drug-related issues in the reporting Member States 
ranges from EUR 200 000 to EUR 2 290 Million. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Based  on  reports  from  these  Member  States  and  Norway,  the  EMCDDA  estimates  that  the 
total  drug-related  public  expenditure  in  these  28  countries  lays  between  13  and  36  billion 
EUR  annually,  representing  up  to  0.33%  of  the  GDP  of  EU  Member  States28.  Taking  into 
account  that  public  expenditure  only  represents  a  proportion  of  the  overall  social  costs,  the 
conclusion  is  justified  that  the  drug  phenomenon  has  a  considerable  social  and  monetary 
impact on European societies. 

28 

EMCDDA Annual Report 2007 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3. 

Subsidiarity 

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 the EU level, in particular on justice and home affairs29 and in public 
health30.  

The  Community  competence  covers  the  control  of  the  trade  in  chemical  precursors31,  the 
prevention of money laundering32 and the assessment of emerging psychoactive substances33. 
In  the  field  of  drug  trafficking,  a  Council  Framework  Decision  laying  down  minimum 
provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug 
trafficking34 has been adopted, while the Council Decision on the Information Exchange, Risk 
Assessment  and  Control  on  new  Psychoactive  Substances35  provides  the  EU  with  an 
instrument to act on new drugs emerging in the market. The Community role in many fields 
like research, social policy, education and youth also covers drug related actions even if not 
specifically mentioned in the Treaty.  

The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) was drafted within the current legal framework of the EU 
and  EC  Treaties  and  based  on  the  respective  competences  of  the  Union,  Community  and 
individual Member States, with due regard to subsidiarity and proportionality 

2.3.1.  The need for EU action 

The  complexity  and  global  dimension  of  the  world  drug  problem  requires  policy  action  at 
supra  national  level  for  reasons  of  efficiency  (shared  efforts),  effectiveness  (exchange  of 
know-how and best practice), policy impact (avoiding displacement and spill over effects) and 
political influence in the international (UN) drug policy arena.  

Even  if  detailed  characteristics  of  drugs  scenes  are  different  from  one  Member  State  to 
another  and  inside  Member  States,  all  EU  Member  States  are  affected  by  the  adverse 
consequences  of  drug  abuse  and  drug-related  crime  to  more  or  lesser  extent.  In  a  Europe 
without borders, drugs and drug users can move rather freely and more sophisticated methods 
need  to  be  developed  to  detect  illicit  drugs  as  well  as  providing  services  for  drug  users.  As 
indicated  above,  organised  crime  groups  increasingly  organise  themselves  at  through 
international  crime  consortiums.  Cooperation  on  law  enforcement,  agreed  procedures,  joint 
investigative  teams  and  effective  sharing  of  intelligence  e.g.  through  Europol  all  contribute 
towards  creating  and  area  of  Freedom  Security  and  Justice  while  at  the  same  time 
guaranteeing full respect of fundamental rights. 

29 
30 
31 

32 

33 

34 
35 

Title VI articles 29 and 31(1)e TEU 
Article 152 TEC 
Community  Precursor  Legislation  (Regulation  (EC)  no.  273/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors 
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 
Council  Decision  on  the  Information  Exchange,  Risk  Assessment  and  Control  of  new  Psychoactive 
Substances (2005/387/JHA) 
2004/757/JHA 
2005/387/JHA 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Isolated policy initiatives by one Member State have often resulted in displacing the problem 
to neighbouring countries (shift or diversion of production, drug tourism, cross-border crime 
& trafficking). Efficiency, effectiveness and transparency in drug policy requires exchange of 
best  practices,  common  approaches  and  definitions  and  joint  actions  in  order  to  detect  the 
"loopholes" that are utilised by drug traffickers. 

In the field of international cooperation, the EU Member States pursue the principle of shared 
responsibility and are increasingly aware that the European drug problem is part of a global 
context with patterns in drug production and trafficking reflecting to the EU drug scene. Over 
the past ten years, EU has developed into a major actor at international level providing at least 
EUR  760  million  for  demand  and  supply  reduction  activities  in  third  countries.  Further 
assistance  is  provided  for  Candidate  Countries  and  European  Neighbourhood  Policy 
countries.  

2.3.2.  Added value of the EU Drugs Action Plan 

The  evaluation  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  shows  that  practically  all 
Member States consider that there is an added value of having an Action Plan on Drugs at EU 
level. The key features of the added value can be listed as follows; 

•  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. 

•  Action Plan provides guidance for sharing of best practise and development of common 

standards on many key areas both on drug demand and drug supply reduction. 

•  Member States share the view that the Action Plan provides a comprehensive drug policy 
framework,  and  that  it  has  encouraged  the  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 
due to the fact that it could 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  large  number  of  objectives  and 
actions provide priorities, 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 national level, the evaluation shows that the 
Action Plan is seen as a catalyst for the development of national policies and that it helped to 
raise  debate  on  sensitive  policy  issues  at  national  level,  for  example  on  the  introduction  of 
harm reduction as part of drug demand reduction policies.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Member States referred to the EU Action Plan as being generally consistent and relevant for 
national  drug  policy  by  providing  recommendations  and  argumentation  for  national  policy 
discussions and developments in legislation. The Action Plan has encouraged initiating 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 policy making, monitoring, evaluation and information 
has been an important added value for national drug policies, resulting in greater attention for 
effectiveness and efficiency at national level and in identifying and comparing trends.  

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

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General objectives 

This  impact  assessment  has  as  its  main  purpose  to  assess  the  most  appropriate  policy 
instrument  to  implement  the  EU  Drug  Strategy  (2005-2012).  As  presented  before,  the 
Strategy is to be implemented through two consecutive EU Drugs Action Plans. The general 
policy aims of the Strategy are as follows: 

•  The  EU  aims  at  attainment  of  high  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  Member  States  aim  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  security  for  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 joint approach. 

The  Strategy  clearly  states  that  the  integrated,  multidisciplinary  and  balanced  approach  of 
combining  demand  and  supply  reduction  is  the  basis  of  the  Union's  answer  to  the  drugs 
problem.  This  approach  requires  cooperation  and  coordination  and  further  development  not 
only in numerous sectors, including welfare, health, education and justice and home affairs, 
but also in relation with non-Member States and relevant international forums. 

3.2. 

Specific and Operational objectives 

As the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) remains the overarching policy for the development of 
any  new  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs,  the  objectives  and  priorities  as  defined  in  the  Strategy 
remain valid.  

As the problem definition showed, the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008) has seen progress in quite a few areas, there is also room for further improvement and 
amendments.  

The overall conclusions on the evaluation showed that the current Action Plan has a number 
of  internal  consistency  problems,  which  have  resulted  in  some  cases  in  confusion  about 
objectives and actions (e.g. unspecific formulation; definition problems, etc.), the availability 
of  relevant  indicators  to  measure  progress  (sometimes  indicators  were  assessment  tools  and 
vice versa). A future policy plan should aim to avoid these problems.  

At  the  same  time,  for  each  of  the  five  constituting  policy  elements  in  the  Action  Plan,  the 
conclusions  also  reflected  shortcomings.  These  shortcomings  are  important  for  the 
development of a new EU Action Plan on Drugs. Such a plan would on the one hand have to 
reflect  the  broad  range  of  priorities  as  identified  in  the  Drugs  Strategy,  at  the  same  time 
lessons  learnt  from  the  evaluation  and  the  experience  gained  through  the  past  five  years 
should be taken on board.  

Annex 3 presents a schematic overview of the (provisionally) proposed objectives for a new 
Action Plan. It would go beyond the possibilities and restraints of this impact assessment to 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
include all potential new objectives and actions in a new Action Plan or reflect on each of the 
30 or more conclusions as identified in the problem definition.  

As  an  alternative,  for  each  of  the  five  key  policy  fields  in  the  Strategy,  two  important 
problems identified by the evaluation have been matched with an example for an operational 
objective for a new EU Drugs Action Plan in this section. These examples of new objectives 
might still change as the final drafting of a possible new Action Plan is ongoing and part of a 
political  process.  The  ten  examples  for  each  of  the  policy  fields  can  be  considered  key 
problems  following  the  evaluation  process.  As  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plans  aim  to  foster 
progress and synergy across the board of EU drug policy, no hierarchy in importance has been 
given between the policy fields.  

The overall impacts of the policy options are still based on the whole framework of an Action 
Plan, but each of the policy option will also be analysed against the operational objectives. A 
focus on the examples only would ignore the synergies created through the multidisciplinary, 
balanced and integrated approach which the whole constellation of Drug Strategy and Action 
Plan objectives represent. 

3.2.1. 

Specific Objective Enhancing Coordination 

The  Strategy  states  that  "the  Action  Plans  should  include  actions  that  will  contribute  to  the 
further development of a European coordination mechanism".  

Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Horizontal  Drugs  Group  is  the  main  forum  of  drug 
coordination  at EU  level. The European  Commission is well coordinated in  the Council. At 
the  same  time,  coordination  within  the  Commission  regarding  the  implementation  of  the 
Action Plan can be improved, among others by setting clearer priorities and by improving the 
communication on EU drug policy objectives across policy fields.  
Proposed action according option 1 
As  there  is  no  guiding  Action  Plan  and  the  Drugs,  Commission  coordination  is  limited  to 
possible tasks identified through the Drugs Strategy, which have no operational character 
Proposed action according option 2 
Commission  coordination  in  the  field  of  drugs  is  not  specifically  addressed  in  the  current 
Action Plan 2005-2008. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
The  Commission  will  ensure  coherence  between  the  internal  and  external  aspects  of  its 
involvement in drug policy, including the management of relevant funding mechanisms.  
Motivation:  
The evaluation has showed that the coordination of drug policy within Commission services 
needs further clarification, clearer prioritisation and task-division. This includes the input of 
drug issues into annual work planning of the existing available funding programmes. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Annually,  a  rich  body  of  monitoring  information  and  situation  reports  are  published  on  the 
drug  situation.  However,  the  utilisation  of  these  reports  by  EU  policymakers,  linking  the 
phenomena described in them for further policy analysis needs improvement.  
Proposed action according option 1 
Monitoring reports of e.g. EMCDDA and Europol will continue to be published as these are 
based on specific founding regulations. However, the Commission will not produce progress 
reviews under this option.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan only refers to the general role of the Council to implement the Action 
Plan. This problem focuses on an annual reporting and reflection cycle, which is not explicitly 
foreseen  in  the  current  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan.  The  publication  of  Commissions  Annual 
Progress Reviews and EMCDDA/ Europol monitoring reports is foreseen in objectives 40 and 
45 of the current Action Plan. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
The Council to critically examine the state-of-the-drug problem once a year, on the basis of 
the relevant annual reports from EMCDDA, EUROPOL, EUROJUST and the annual review 
of the Commission 
Motivation: 
So  far,  the  EMCDDA  annual  report  is  primarily  presented  in  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Commission  annual  progress  review  in  the  Horizontal  Drugs  Group  in  the  Council  and 
Europol's Organised Crime Threat Analyses on drugs in the Police Chiefs Task Force in the 
Council.  A  more  comprehensive  discussion,  bringing  together  trends  in  demand  and  supply 
reduction can strengthen the analytical work in the HDG.  

3.2.2. 

Specific Objective Drug Demand Reduction 

In the policy field of drug demand reduction, the Strategy aims for the following identifiable 
result by 2012: "A measurable reduction of the use of  drugs, of  dependence and of drug-
related health and social risks36".  

36 

EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 3, article 22. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Member  States  have  invested  in  universal,  selective  and  indicated  prevention  programmes 
across the board, but the evidence-base underpinning these programmes is still weak as they 
are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member States have introduced general quality guidelines 
for prevention.  
Proposed action according option 1 
No  further  impetus  is  given  in  the  field  of  drug  demand  reduction.  The  establishment  of 
quality  standards  is  not  mentioned  as  such  in  the  Strategy  and  will  therefore  not  be  further 
encouraged.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan calls for the implementation of effective prevention programmes at 
MS  level.  However,  indicators  are  geared  towards  measuring  outputs  while  this  info  is  not 
available.  Objectives  7,  8,  9  and  10  of  the  current  Action  Plan  call  upon  Member  States  to 
improve the availability, accessibility, coverage and effectiveness of prevention activities, but 
do not call for the establishment of quality standards.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Develop  and  implement  at  national  level  quality  standards  for  prevention,  treatment,  harm 
reduction and rehabilitation  
Motivation: 
In recent years, Member States have been encouraged to implement prevention programmes 
where these did not exist. However, effective prevention programmes are based on evaluation 
and specific quality criteria derived from research. As it is impossible to assess the availability 
of effective programmes in schools and other settings in Member States, it is more efficient to 
assess  whether  Member  States  have  set  quality  standards,  which  elements  are  part  of  these 
standards and how these are implemented (e.g. as funding condition). 

Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The  provision  of  continued  and  equal  care  for  inmates  in  prison  as  compared  to  care 
available  in  society  in  general  is  of  great  importance  to  reduce  drug-related  harms.  The 
infection  rates  for  drug-related  infectious  diseases  as  well  as  the  mortality  rates  for  drug-
related  deaths  are  considerably  higher  inside  prison  (and  immediately  after  release  from 
prison).  
Proposed action according option 1 
Harm reduction and health care for people in prisons is not specifically covered by the Drugs 
Strategy.  No  further  steps  will  be  undertaken  other  than  potential  –  ad-hoc  –  follows  ups 
related to the 2003 Council Recommendation (2003/488/EC).  
Proposed action according option 2 
The  health  situation  in  prisons  is  indirectly  covered  in  the  current  action  plan  through  the 
implementation  of  the  Council  Recommendation  from  2003  (2003/488/EC).  The  current 
Action Plan places specific emphasis for additional focus on the drug-related health situation 
in prisons (objective 13). However, the implementation of the Action Plan in the past 3 years 
shows that more specific activities are required which are not specified in the plan.. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Develop  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction  and  reintegration  services  for  people  in  or 
released  from  prison.  Develop  methods  to  monitor/  analyse  prison  drug  use  and  service 
delivery, in line with the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of health 
related harm associated with drug dependence. 
Motivation:  
Prisons remain among the most important settings where drug-related infectious diseases but 
also drug-related deaths occur, despite existing evidence and best-practices to avoid them. As 
over  600.000  people  are  detained  in  a  prison  every  year,  the  great  majority  for  a  relatively 
short period of time, the risk of infection for society outside prison is an important cause for 
concern. Furthermore, the fundamental right of inmates to health care facilities and treatment 
are concerned here as well. 

3.2.3. 

Specific Objective Drug Supply Reduction 

In the policy field of drug supply reduction, the Strategy aims for the following identifiable 
result by 2012: "A measurable improvement in the effectiveness, efficiency and knowledge 
base  of  law  enforcement  interventions  and  actions  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States 
targeting  production,  trafficking  of  drugs,  the  diversion  of  precursor,  including  the 
diversion  of  synthetic  drug  precursors  imported  into  the  EU,  drug  trafficking  and  the 
financing of terrorism, money laundering in relation to drug crime.37

 ". 

Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The results of various operational and intelligence law enforcement cross-border projects in 
the  EU,  e.g.  MAOC-N,  show  the  importance  of  strengthening  intelligence  gathering  and 
sharing  as  a  basis  for  enhanced  intelligence  led  law  enforcement  along  air,  sea  and  land 
vectors. 
Proposed action according option 1 
The possibility exists that Member States set up collaborative platforms, but the involvement 
of  EU  structures  is  not  arranged  and  therefore  not  required,  with  potential  adverse 
consequences on coordination and cooperation in the field of intelligence sharing. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The  current  Action  Plan  allows  for  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  the  basis  of 
existing instruments (objective 18). In recent years a number of Member States have taken the 
initiative  to  set  up  long-lasting  collaborations  to  tackle  emerging  trends  in  drug  trafficking. 
However,  as  the  current  plan  provides  no  guidance  on  the  interaction  between  MS  and  EU 
level  as  well  as  towards  the  role  of  EU  structures  such  as  Europol  in  these  initiatives, 
fragmentation  of  intelligence  collection  and  sharing  continues  to  pose  a  potential  risk  to 
success and efficacy. 

37 

EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 4, article 26. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
To set up, where necessary, regional security platforms to counter emerging threats by means 
of coordinated operational responses. Such action to be compatible with existing operational 
arrangements at EU level and based on specific threat assessments, using existing resources 
where possible (e.g. MAOC-N, Baltic Sea Task Force, etc.). 
Motivation: 
Diverging trends in drug trafficking routes make a swift response to new threats essential, so 
that preventive measures to pro-actively handle risks and the minimisation of threats can be 
put in place. The focus on making use of existing operational arrangements at EU level is key 
to avoid an emerging spectrum of individual initiatives from several Member  States that  do 
not  fit  in  with  intelligence  sharing  practices,  jeopardising  the  exchange  of  information 
between initiatives and this rendering these initiatives less effective. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
In almost all Member States, there is a lack of priority among national Customs organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned. 
Proposed action according option 1 
The existing precursor legislation remains unchanged, but the prioritisation at Strategic level 
among Customs organisations is not a specific aim in this legislation or in the Drugs Strategy. 
The status-quo will continue. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The  current  Action  Plan  calls  upon  Member  States  to  strengthen  drug  precursor  controls  at 
their borders (objective 21), however, the Plan does not give details at which level specifically 
initiatives need to be taken. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Effective  and  uniform  external  border  control  management.  Customs  services  to  integrate 
precursor  controls  at  a  strategic  level  and  to  coordinate  more  closely  with  other  law 
enforcement agencies engaged in anti-drug operations (mutual support). 
Motivation: 
The  conclusion  was  partly  based  on  a  Commission  survey  in  2007,  identifying  a  lack  of 
political  priority  setting  in  drug  precursor  control  at  strategic  level  within  Customs 
organisations. Without such a strategic notion, a coherent drug precursor control on external 
EU borders is not feasible.  

3.2.4. 

Specific Objective International Cooperation 

Regarding  the  cross-cutting  theme  of  International  Cooperation,  the  Strategy  aims  for  the 
following  result  by  2012:  "A  measurable  improvement  in  effective  and  more  visible 
coordination between Member States and between them and the Commission in promoting 
and furthering a balanced approach to the drugs and precursor problem in dealings with 
international organisations, in international fora and with third countries38".  

Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The  priorities  of  EU  drug  policy  are  not  well  translated  into  external  funding  programmes 
and projects in third countries 
Proposed action according option 1 
Without specific priorities for external agreements coherence will be difficult to achieve. 
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan already asked for the integration of the balanced approach in external 
agreements  and  programmes  (objective  5).  This  objective  needs  to  be  reiterated  and 
formalised  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Ensure the integration of projects in the drugs field into the EU's cooperation and assistance 
programmes with third countries/ regions. This should cover demand and supply reduction, as 
well as alternative development in producer and transit countries. 

38 

EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 4, article 28. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Motivation: 
EU assistance to third countries has been increasingly decentralised and a direct translation of 
the  horizontal  policy  aspects  in  EU  drug  policy  is  not  automatically  translated  into  funding 
priorities.  As  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  does  not  have  its  own  budgetary  resources,  a 
proper 
is  essential  for 
implementation.  

into  existing  funding  sources 

translation  of 

its  objectives 

Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The  EU  integrated  and  balanced  approach  on  drugs  has  served  as  a  model  for  Candidate 
Countries as well as many Neighbourhood Policy Countries in developing their national drug 
strategies and action plans.  
Proposed action according option 1 
As the funding programmes exist independently from the Action Plans, project funding in the 
field of drugs may continue, but coherence and integration of policy issues in funding will be 
extremely difficult due to a lack of a coordination mechanism and due to a lack of priorities.  
Proposed action according option 2 
The current Action Plan already asked for a coherent approach, linking EU drug policy to EU 
funding  mechanisms  towards  third  countries  (objective  35).  This  objective  needs  to  be 
reiterated and strengthened through the Commission's coordination mechanism as mentioned 
under section coordination. 
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Further  develop  regional  cooperation  initiatives  and  assistance  programs  to  address  demand 
and  supply  reduction  to  be  strengthen  with  countries  covered  by  Development  Cooperation 
Instruments (DCI) and European Development Fund (EDF), with a particular attention to new 
regions that are in the front line, such as in Africa and in Asia.  
Motivation: 
Continue  support  to  these  countries  by  providing  technical  and  other  assistance  for  their 
alignment with and implementation of the EU acquis. 

3.2.5. 

Information, research and evaluation 

Regarding  the  cross-cutting  theme  of  information  and  research,  the  Strategy  aims  for  the 
following  result  by  2012:  "A  better  understanding  of  the  drugs  problem  and  the 
development  of  an  optimal  response  to  it  through  a  measurable  and  sustainable 
improvement in the knowledge base and knowledge infrastructure39".  

Regarding the cross-cutting theme of evaluation, the Strategy aims for the following result by 
2012: "To give clear indications about the merits and shortcoming of current actions and 
activities on EU level, evaluation should continue to be an integral part of an EU approach 
to drugs policy40". 

39 
40 

EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 6, article 31. 
EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012); § 6, article 32. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
Diminishing  support  from  national  governments  to  National  Focal  Points  is  an  increasing 
cause  for  concern.  National  Focal  Points  are  an  essential  part  of  the  information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  
Proposed action according option 1 
Without  an  EU  Action  Plan,  the  EMCDDA  will  continue  to  collect  data  on  key  indicators. 
However, no new or additional policy relevant information is identified that could feed into 
the  EU  policy  process.  A  framework  for  the  utilisation  of  monitoring  data  will  not  be 
available.  
Proposed action according option 2 
This is primarily a political objective, reiterating the importance of data collection at national 
level.  The  current  Action  Plan  calls  upon  on the  EMCDDA  to  produce  timely  and  accurate 
data on the drug situation (objectives 39, 40); however, the indispensible support of Member 
States to National Focal Points is not stressed.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Member States to continue to support the EMCDDA Reitox National Focal Points 
Motivation: 
National  Focal  Points  report  national  data  to  the  EMCDDA.  Without  the  data  from  all 
Member  states,  an  EU  wide  standardised  comparison  and  trend  analysis  is  virtually 
impossible.  The  evaluation  report  showed  that  two  Member  States  have  stopped  national 
funding  of  their  NFP's.  Other  Member  States  have  reduced  funding  in  recent  years  (or  not 
adjusted  to  inflation).  The  result  is  that  the  Reitox  network  becomes  more  vulnerable  and 
ultimately, EU wide monitoring of the drug situation is placed at risk. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
Example: Conclusion from the evaluation 
The availability of reliable, comparable and usable information and data in the field of drug 
supply and supply reduction is an ongoing cause of concern, as the lack of it does not allow 
for  a  proper  analysis  of  the  EU  drug  market  and  the  effectiveness  of  law  enforcement 
interventions. 
Proposed action according option 1 
This objective will not be achieved due to a lack of agreement and prioritisation. The status 
quo will continue. 
Proposed action according option 2 
Strengthening  information  and  data  collection  in  the  field  of  supply  reduction  is  not  and 
objective in the current Action Plan and therefore the status quo would continue to exist.  
Proposed action according option 3.2 
Development  of  policy  relevant  data  on  the  illicit  drug  market,  supply  reduction  and  law 
enforcement and the structures required for their collection. 
Motivation: 
As  the  annual  reviews  and  the  evaluation  report  show,  the  data  collection  in  the  field  of 
supply  reduction  is  often  incomplete,  not  standardised  and  difficult  to  compare.  No  key 
indicators  have  been  identified.  Without  improved  data  on  supply  reduction,  the  Drug 
Strategy  objectives  of  attaining  'measurable  reductions  in  drug  supply  to  the  EU'  cannot  be 
assessed due to a lack of data. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
4. 

IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS 

The  European  Commission  has  the  following  options  at  its  disposal  when  determining  the 
need for policy development in the field of drug policy. These options are: 

Option 1  Do nothing. No new Action Plan is proposed (baseline scenario) 

Option 2 

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  is  renewed  for  another  four  year 
period 

Option 3  A new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented 

3.1  An EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented that is limited to 

the Commission competences in the field of drugs  

3.2  A detailed EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented, covering 
operational objectives and actions for EU and Member State level 

3.3  A Binding EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is proposed 

Option 4 

Spend EU resources 

For  this  impact  assessment,  option  3.1  is  not  explored  further,  since  it  is  inconsistent  with 
clear objectives on coordination as presented in the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012). Option 
3.3 on a binding EU action plan (i.e. through legislation) is also not explored further, as there 
is  no  specific  legal  base  for  the  Commission  to  propose  an  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  that 
would be legally binding on the Member States and constitute 'de jure' common drugs policy 
in  the  EU.  Member  States  remain  the  main  actors  in  the  drugs  field  with  the  Community 
having a competence in money laundering and precursors and complementing competence in 
some other areas.  

The  current  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  does  make  reference  to  existing  legal 
instruments such as Council Decisions and Council Framework Decisions and promotes the 
development  of  a  Council  Recommendation  on  drug  services  in  custodial  settings.  Possible 
future legislative proposals have not been included in the EU Action Plan on Drugs as each of 
them will be subject to a separate impact assessment.  

Option  4  of  spending  EU  resources  is  also  ruled  out  as  there  is  no  specific  budget  line 
committed to the implementation of the EU Drug Strategy and its Action Plans on Drugs. A 
specific budget-line for this purpose – if it is to have any impact – would involve extensive 
financial  resources.  As  section  2.3  shows,  the  direct  annual  spending  of  Member  State  in 
tackling  the  drug  problem  at  national  level  is  estimated  at  app.  EUR  13  to  36  billion. 
Nonetheless there are several EU funding instruments available which support the objectives 
of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  of  which  one  programme  explicitly  aims  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  and  the  activities  of  the  EU  Action 
Plan. The Commission funding in these cases is mostly limited to the funding of innovation 
and the exchange of best-practices.  

With  a  total  budget  of  EUR  21.35  million,  the  objectives  of  the  Drug  Prevention  and 
Information  Programme  2007-2013  are  to  prevent  and  reduce  drug  use,  dependence  and 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
drug-related  harms;  to  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  information  on  drug  use;  and  to 
support the work on the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012). The programme highlights under its 
specific objective "monitor, implement and evaluate the implementation and development of 
the EU Drugs Strategy and EU Action Plans (2005-2008) and (2009-2012)"41

 . 

Other budgetary resources are available that can be indirectly used to fund specific elements 
of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  EU  Action  Plans  on  Drugs,  especially  in  the  field  of  public 
health and in the relations with Candidate, Associated and third countries42.  

The introduction – under this option – of a specific EU budget-line for the implementation of 
the  EU  Drug  Strategy  and/  or  its  Action  Plans  would  require  considerably  higher  resources 
and a specific legal basis and is highly unlikely during the remaining implementation period 
of the EU Drug Strategy.  

The remaining alternative options are being explored further in this impact assessment and 
will be compared with option one – do nothing, considered here as the baseline scenario. 

41 

42 

OJ L 257, 3.10.2007, Art. 3c; Specific Programme on 'Drug Prevention and Information' (2007-2013), 
as part of the General Programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' 
Funding for drug-related activities is furthermore available through the Programme for the Prevention 
of  and  Fight  against  Crime  (2007-2013),  the  Public  Health  Programme  (2008-2013),  the  European 
Neighbourhood  Policy  Instrument  (2007-2013),  the  European  Development  Fund  (2008-2013),  the 
Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (2007-2013),  the  7th  Research  Framework  Programme  (2007-
2013) and the Stability Instrument (2007-2013). 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 1 

Do nothing. No new Action Plan is proposed (baseline scenario) 

According to this option, no Action Plan for the implementation of the latter half of the EU 
Drugs  Strategy  (2005-2012)  is  proposed.  The  Strategy  will  continue  to  provide  a  general 
framework  for  drug  related  activities  in  the  EU  but  no  operational  objectives  or  actions  are 
identified,  no  indicators  for  implementation  are  developed  and  no  deadlines  for  actions  are 
set. The responsible partners for achieving the targets set in the Strategy are not specified on a 
more detailed level than is already done in the Strategy.  

The EU Drug Strategy becomes a 'declaration of intent' rather than a 'Strategy' and as a result, 
actions  in  the  field  of  drugs  are  left  almost  exclusively  to  the  Member  States.  The 
Commission will continue to work with precursors and money laundering in accordance with 
its legal mandate and complement Member States' actions in the field of public health and in 
justice and home affairs. 

Member States will continue to coordinate their policies in the Horizontal Drugs Group of the 
Council within the framework provided by the EU Drugs Strategy and actions needed for its 
implementation  are  discussed  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  and  probably  in  the  form  of  informal 
'progress  reviews'  by  each  Presidency  to  which  the  Commission  is  likely  to  be  asked  to 
'contribute' as it does for similar Presidency reports.  

The  Commission,  Europol  and  the  EMCDDA  will  continue  working  with  their  respective 
mandates. Different Community Programs continue to complement Member States activities 
in the drugs field, in particular in research and prevention according to the program guidelines 
and annual work programs discussed according to the comitology procedure. Member States 
will revert to acting more individually in international fora, especially in more sensitive policy 
areas where the Strategy is not explicit. 

Option 2 
year period 

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  is  renewed  for  another  four 

This  option  includes  that  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)43  will  be  renewed. 
Ongoing actions will be continued. Completed actions will be removed.  

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  is  considered  to  be  a  'living'  document'  in  the 
sense that those operational objectives or actions that are no longer considered relevant or that 
have been completed  can be removed upon recommendation  from  the  Commission's  annual 
progress review.  

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  includes  assessment  tools  and  indicators  for 
measuring the implementation of each action. Developing measurable indicators for some of 
the objectives of the Action Plan has been very difficult and according to the final evaluation 
of  the  current  Action  Plan  problems  remain,  previously  already  highlighted  in  the  annual 
Progress Reviews.  

The EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) is not a legally binding document but having been 
unanimously approved by the European Council, it does provide the framework for all drug 
related activities in the EU. As the subsidiarity test clarified, it has added value for Member 

43 

See Annex 3 for an overview of objectives 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States  and  it  functions  as  a  model  for  e.g.  the  Candidate  Countries  and  the  Neighbourhood 
Policy Countries in developing their national strategies and action plans. 

Option 3.2  A new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is presented 

This option builds on the main lessons from the final evaluation of the EU Action Plan (2005-
2008) as requested in the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012). No new budgetary resources are 
foreseen for the new Action Plan.  

The  evaluation  has  provided  some  important  elements  for  this  policy  option  which  aims  to 
provide guidance for EU and Member State level. As the overarching specific objectives from 
the  EU  Drug  Strategy  (2005-2012)  continue  for  another  four  years,  quite  a  few  of  the 
operational objectives of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) as presented in Table 1.1 
will return in the new Action Plan, possibly in a revised and reworded format. In Annex 4, a 
provisional  overview  is  presented  of  reformulated  operational  objectives  for  a  new 
comprehensive Action Plan foreseen in this option.  

The evaluation revealed that there is a certain level of overlap between specific objectives and 
actions in the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) and some actions are too detailed or not 
detailed  enough  for  implementation,  while  others  did  not  seem  to  contribute  enough  to  the 
specific  objectives  in  the  Strategy.  Furthermore,  certain  indicators  and  assessment  tools  as 
presented in the current Action Plan need to be corrected or adapted. Operational objectives 
will  be  revised  accordingly.  Most  changes  in  the  actual  plan  as  pursued  in  this  option  will 
concern  the  specific  actions.  Any  new  operational  objectives  and  actions  will  'screened' 
against the criteria for objectives and actions44 as identified in the EU Drug Strategy (2005-
2012).  

A  proposal  for  a  new  and  detailed  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2009-2012)  for  both  EU  and 
Member State will take on board evaluation findings and can adapt to the most recent changes 
in the drug situation and the most recent insights in the responses to it. 

44 

Criteria  include:  actions  must  offer  EU  added  value  and  be  measurable  and  realistic,  include  a  clear 
timeframe  and  reference  to  a  responsible  party,  must  contribute  directly  to  the  achievement  of  the 
Strategy goals & priorities, be cost-effective. Finally, the number of actions should be limited. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

As for most complex social problems, government interventions require a long-term planning, 
investment  and  implementation.  It  is  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  establish  the  direct 
impact of any particular policy option on the drug situation. External factors other than drug 
policies,  such  as  economic  and  social  change,  the  level  of  employment  or  changes  in  the 
youth culture clearly also have a major impact.  

The International Drug Conventions limit the use of drugs to scientific and medical purposes.. 
There is a substantial law enforcement mechanism to control the supply of drugs (production, 
trade  and  trafficking).  The  evaluation  of  the  current  Action  Plan  shows  that  the  indicators 
developed so far on the supply side mainly provide information  on the  output of  operations 
(e.g.  drug  seizures,  number  of  operations)  but  little  on  the  impact  on  the  drug  situation,  in 
particular  the  availability  of  drugs.  Under  the  new  Action  Plan,  shared  EU  indicators  and 
parameters  will  need  to  be  developed  to  improve  the  monitoring  of  law  enforcement 
interventions.  

Given  the  complexity  of  conceiving  an  impact  evaluation  of  drug  policies  at  the  European 
level  and  the  difficulties  of  estimating  drug  related  expenses  and  of  cost  benefit  analysis  of 
drug related actions at any level, it is currently not possible to make more than an educated 
guess of the monetary impact in this field. 

A  comprehensive  Action  Plan  –  when  implemented  -  will  ideally  have  impact  on  the 
amelioration  of  the  many  areas  in  society  affected  by  the  drug  problem  and  on  the  policies 
dealing  with  them.  These  areas  cover  the  security  of  the  citizen  in  its  widest  sense:  public 
health  and  social  wellbeing,  security,  safety  and  public  order,  economic  and  social  costs, 
fundamental rights and environmental impacts. Annex 5 includes the tables with the potential 
impacts of the three policy options.  

Table  A5.1  is  the  baseline  scenario.  Tables  A5.2  and  A5.4  reflect  the  impacts  of  the 
alternative  options.  Tables  A5.3  and  A5.5  include  an  assessment  of  strengths,  weaknesses, 
opportunities  and  threats  of  the  two  alternative  options  2  and  3.2.  The  rating  of  impacts  is 
done against the baseline scenario ('0' impact).  

The  overall  rating  per  impact  has  been  done  taking  into  account  the  impacts  of  the  whole 
Action Plan and not the specific objectives used as an example in Chapter 3. The ratings in 
the 'relevance sections' in tables A4.1, A4.2 and A4.4 reflect the relevance of the options in 
addressing the problems identified by means of example in Section 3.  

The rating exercise shows that option 3.2 scores the more positively when compared to option 
2 and especially when compared to option 1.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Due to the presence of an overarching and continuing EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012), none of 
the options presented will lead to major policy shifts. However, as the overview of impacts 
shows,  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  and  a  potential  new  EU  Action  Plan  on 
Drugs (2009-2012) have the function of translating the objectives and priorities of the Drug 
Strategy so that these can be implemented.  

Table 6.1 presents the rating of the four different policy options for which impacts have been 
identified  in  section  5.  As  indicated  above,  it  is  very  difficult  to  assess  impacts  of  a  broad 
action plan that aims to influence a very broad range of government activities and activities in 
civil society. The comparison between option 1 and option 2, and between option 1 and option 
3.2  is  therefore  somewhat  artificial.  Again,  the  Action  Plan  is  a  non-binding  coordination 
instrument!  Therefore  impacts  depend  on  the  extent  of  transposition  and  adaptation  by 
Member States of the objectives in the plan. This can not be pre-assessed. The Action Plan in 
option  3.2  places  more  emphasis  on  coordinative  instruments  and  indicators  through  which 
compliance  and  progress  become  better  measurable.  Overall,  the  expectation  is  that  by 
building on the lessons of the first Action Plan (option 2), a new Action Plan (option 3.2) will 
have greater impact in specific areas. But both option 2 and 3.2 are strongly preferred when 
compared to the baseline.  

Table 6.1 

Comparison table policy impacts  

Impact 

Health impact 

Security impact 

Other social impacts 

Fundamental rights impact 

Environmental impact 

Economic impact 

Social costs 

Impact  on  (informal)  political  influence  of  Commission  in  drug 
policy 

Impact on EU coordination 

Impact on third countries and organisations 

Relevance 

Coordination 

Demand reduction 

Supply reduction 

International cooperation 

Information, research, evaluation  

Option 
1 

Option 
2 

Option 
3.2 

Rating 

Rating 

Rating 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

0 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

++ 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The EU Drug Strategy (2005-2012) clearly states that the Commission is asked to present two 
consecutive EU Action Plans on Drugs with the aim to translate and implement the specific 
objectives of the Strategy.  

All  proposed  policy  options  have  something  positive  to  offer  in  terms  of  impact  but  the 
evaluation of the current Action Plan clearly shows that Member States recognise the added 
value of an EU level Action Plan. Option 1 would, in effect, represent a step backwards and 
one  that  is  not  supported  by  the  main  stakeholders,  namely  the  Member  States  and  by 
secondary stakeholders such as civil society. In fact, a failure of the Commission to come up 
with a proposal for a full fledged new Action Plan will lead to a proposal from the Presidency 
reflecting  -  at  least  in  part  -  priorities,  which  in  turn  may  jeopardise  the  consensus  on  and 
convergence of policies noted by the evaluation(s).  

The evaluation of the current Action Plan also clearly shows that there is a need for a more 
concise,  prioritised  Action  Plan  that  takes  on  board  new  insights  and  challenges  that  have 
emerged and that ask for a rethinking and especially rewording of the existing EU Action Plan 
on Drugs. This is one of the reasons why option 2 is not recommendable.  

A new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) as presented in option 3 will allow the EU and 
Member States the broadest and most efficient instrument to implement the Strategy. It should 
consolidate  the  balanced  and  integrated  approach  as  a  European  drug  policy  model  and 
develop the knowledge and evidence base to support the policy and be open to adjustments, 
when necessary and justified. Option 3 is therefore the preferred option.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

An action plan is a tool for turning a strategy into concrete, measurable actions and objectives. 
The  progress  reviews  and  evaluation  on  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  (2005-2008)  showed 
clearly  that  it  is  not  always  possible  to  identify  causal  relationships  between  policy  actions 
and interventions in practice, let alone on the drug situation. 

Despite  all  the  difficulties  in  defining  the  impact  and  as  already  indicated  in  the  current 
Action  Plan,  the  ultimate  goal  of  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plans  by  2012  should  be  a 
measurable reduction of drug related problems in our societies. Much of this can be measured 
with  already  existing  epidemiological  indicators,  including  the  five  EMCDDA  key 
epidemiological indicators, or with their slight improvement. Key impacts would then be: 

•  Reduction in the availability of illicit drugs at the local level and of drug related nuisance 

and increased feeling of security of EU citizens45 

•  Reduction on the prevalence of drug use, in particular problematic use and of drug related 

deaths. 

•  Reduction of the spread of drug related infectious diseases46  

•  Increase of the age of onset of first drug use47. 

Even if indicators and assessment tools in many cases, in the case of the current Action Plan, 
have  turned  out  to  measure  mainly  progress  made,  the  work  done  so  far  in  elaborating  and 
refining them will continue with the assistance of the EMCDDA and Europol. Indicators will 
be  developed  in  such  a  way  that  information  and  data  needed  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
proposed  Action  Plan  will  mostly  be  collected  as  part  of  the  standardized  information 
collection process and less questionnaires would be used. 

The Action Plan will continue to seek to provide for each action an indicator, a timeframe and 
assign  the  responsible  parties  for  its  implementation.  The  Commission  will  continue  to 
prepare annual Progress Reviews and present these to the Horizontal Drugs Group and to the 
European  Parliament48.  The  Commission  will  carry  out  an  overall  evaluation  of  the  Action 
Plan and the EU Drugs Strategy in 2012. 

The EMCDDA and Europol will continue producing Annual Reports on the state of the drugs 
problem for their areas of competence. An important part of evaluation and monitoring will be 
to develop indicators for the supply side that measure the impact especially on the availability 
of  drugs  but  also  on  the  level  of  drug  related  crime,  illicit  trade  in  precursors  and  money 
laundering.  

45 
46 

47 
48 

To be measured using Eurostat Crime data (e.g. victimisation survey – under development) 
In  coherence  with  policy  of  combating  HIV/AIDS;  See  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Council and the European Parliament on combating HIV/AIDS within the European Union and in the 
neighbouring countries, 2006-2009, COM/2005/0654 final 
To be measured using HBSC and ESPAD data and other surveys available through the EMCDDA 
A new practise in line with the Lisbon Treaty on enhancing the role of the European Parliament 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
By  the  end  of  2008,  the  Commission  will  publish  the  results  of  a  major  study49  into  the 
evolution of the global drug problem and the characteristics of the global illicit drug market. It 
should help to provide tools for developing policy impact indicators for the evaluation of the 
Strategy in 2012.  

Evidence  based  policy  can  only  be  established  as  a  result  of  a  long  process  including 
continuous evaluation but a major impact of the new Action Plan would be to further develop 
the evidence base for the future Strategy. 

49 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/tenders/funding_calls_en.htm 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 1 - Logical Framework model 

Intervention logic 

Objectively  Verifiable 
Indicators 

Means  of  verification/ 
assessment tools 

Assumptions,  risks  & 
conditions 

Global  objectives  of  the 
EU Drug Strategy 2005-
2012 (long-term impact) 

(direct 
to  prove 
to  which 

or 
Measures 
the 
indirect) 
extent 
the 
overall  objectives  are 
fulfilled 

sources 

Data 
methods  used 
fulfillment 
of 
objectives 

and 
to  show 
overall 

Identifiable  result  per 
strategy  policy 
field 
(envisaged  outcome  of 
the policy) 

(direct 

Measures 
or 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent the policy result is 
achieved 

Information  sources  and 
methods  used 
to  show 
achievement  of  strategy 
goal 

beyond 

events  & 
Conditions, 
decisions 
the 
policies  control  relevant 
to 
the  achievement  of 
goal 

Specific 
strategy priorities 

objectives/ 

(direct 

Measures 
or 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent 
are 
achieved 

objectives 

Operational  objectives 
in  Action  Plan  (building 
blocks for results) 

(direct 

or 
Measures 
indirect) to verify to what 
extent  the  priorities  have 
been realised 

Actions 

Measures 
indirect) 
realisation of actions 

(direct 
to 

or 
show 

Information  sources  and 
to  show 
methods  used 
achievement  of  specific 
objectives 

Information  sources  and 
methods  used 
to  show 
realisation of priorities 

Information  sources  and 
methods  used 
to  show 
delivery of outputs 

Conditions, 
decisions 
policies  control  key 
achievement of result 

events  & 
the 
to 

beyond 

Conditions, 
decisions 
policies  control  key 
realisation of priorities 

events  & 
the 
to 

beyond 

Conditions, 
decisions 
policies  control  key 
realisation of outputs 

events  & 
the 
to 

beyond 

Policy inputs 

Instruments to implement the policy, e.g.: 

Type and level of resources needed to implement the actions 
Budget 
Time 
Legislation 
Actors and stakeholders 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 2 – Stakeholder consultation reference documents 

As explained in section 1.3, a wide range of stakeholders have been consulted in preparation 
of  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  and  this  Impact  Assessment. 
Underneath a range of reference documents is provided, relevant for the consultation process.  

Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (2007-2008) – relevant documents  

•  Council Conclusions on the 2006 Progress Review on the Implementation of the EU Drugs 

Action Plan (2005-2008); 10301/07 CORDROGUE 32, 4.6.2007 

•  Reducing  the  production  and  cross-border  trafficking  of  heroin,  cocaine  and  cannabis 
(action 19 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008); Conclusions on the thematic debate 
within the meeting of 20 June 2007; 12540/07 CORDROGUE 58, 3.9.2007 

•  Conference  on  Evaluation  of  Public  Policies  and  Programmes  on  Drugs,  19  and  20 
September,  Lisbon,  Portugal  –  Conclusions  of  the  Presidency;  13493/07  CORDROGUE 
70, 4.10.2007 

•  Conclusions by the Presidency on the Thematic debate of 11 July 2007 – Cooperation with 
West Africa in the field of Drugs (actions 35 and 36.4 of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-
2008)); 13620/07 CORDROGUE 71, 8.10.2007 

•  Council Conclusions on drug trafficking along the cocaine route; 15483/07 CORDROGUE 

82, 20.11.2007 

•  Conclusions of the thematic  debate  - Interventions in  prisons: the  role  of  harm reduction 
measures  (actions  13.2  and  15  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008));  5609/08 
CORDROGUE 13, 23.01.2008 

•  Conclusions  of  the  thematic  debate  -  Information  exchange  mechanisms  in  the  field  of 
drugs  (actions  18.1  and  19  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008);  5641/08 
CORDROGUE 15, 23.1.2008 

•  Conclusions of the thematic debate – Preventing the Distribution of Drugs at Street Level 
(action  25.2  of  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008));  5615/08  CORDROGUE  14, 
23.1.2008 

•  Conclusions on Afghanistan; 8273/1/08 CORDROGUE 33, 11.4.2008 

InterService Steering Group on the Impact Assessment for a new EU Drugs Action Plan 
(2009-2012) 

•  Report of the meeting of 26 Febr/uary 2008/ 

•  Report of the meeting of 31 March 2008 

•  Report of the meeting of 19 May 2008 

Steering Group for the Evaluation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2012) 

•  Terms of reference 

•  Report of the Steering Group meeting of 14 February 2007 

•  Report of the Steering Group meeting of 17 January 2008 

Civil Society Forum on Drugs in the European Union 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
•  Final Report of the meeting on 13 and 14 December 2007 

•  Final Report of the meeting on 20 and 21 May 2008 

Europol/ EMCDDA 

•  Several  technical  reports,  Annual  Reports,  contributions  to  the  evaluation  and  impact 

assessment 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Annex 3 – The EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) 

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 drug policy and unanimously endorsed 
by  the  Council,  reflecting  the  broad  consensus  between  Member  States  on  this  issue.  The 
Action  Plan  proposes  policy  action  at  national,  EU  and  international  level  and  asks  for  the 
commitment of the 27 Member States to work more closely together, to share information and 
best-practices,  to  jointly  promote  the  EU  model  in  drugs  policy  and  to  base  drug  policy  on 
scientific facts and evidence.  

A  global  overview  of  the  structure  and  key  objectives  in  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-
2008) can be found in Table 1. The EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012), as an overarching and 
balanced  coordination  document  for  EU  drug  policy,  reflecting  concerns,  priorities  and 
consensus  of  27  Member  States,  has  been  translated  into  a  large  number  of  objectives  (46) 
and actions (86) in the current Action Plan.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

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

Coordination 
(1) MS adopting national strategies and action plans in line with the EU Drug Strategy/ Action Plan to ensure the 
integrated, balanced approach in drug policy 
(2) Coordination at national and EU level 
(3) Strengthen involvement of civil society 
(4, 6) Effective coordination in the Council 
(5) Systematic mainstreaming of drugs policy in relations and agreements with 3rd countries 

Encouraging 

Drug Demand Reduction 
(7)  Encouraging  improvement  of  coverage  of,  access 
to and effectiveness of demand reduction measures in 
Member States 
(8-10)  Encouraging  implementation  of  prevention  in 
Member  States  (universal,  selective,  indicative,  early 
detection) 
(11-12) 
and 
implementation  of  treatment  and  rehabilitation  in 
Member  States  (early  intervention,  brief  treatment, 
long-term treatment, etc.) 
(13)  Encouraging  development  of  alternatives  to 
imprisonment  and  of  drug  services  in  prisons  in 
Member States 
(14-17)  Encouraging 
implementation  of  harm 
reduction  in  Member  States  (reducing  drug  related 
deaths, drug-related infectious diseases) 

improvement 

Drug Supply Reduction & security 
(18)  Improve  law  enforcement  cooperation  between 
Member States, Europol, Eurojust, third countries and 
international organisations 
(19) Reducing production and cross border trafficking 
of heroin, cocaine and cannabis 
(20) Reducing the manufacture and supply of synthetic 
drugs (ATS) 
(21)  Combat  serious  criminal  activity  in  chemical 
precursors  diversion  and  smuggling 
law 
enforcement  cooperation  between  Member  States, 
Europol,  Eurojust,  third  countries  and  international 
organisations 
(22)  Preventing 
the  diversion  of  precursors, 
particular synthetic precursors imported into the EU 
(23)  Reducing  money  laundering  and  increasing  the 
seizure of accumulated assets in relation to drug crime 
(24)  Exploring  links  between  drug  production  and 
trafficking and the financing of terrorism 
(25-26)  Improving  the  prevention  of  drug-related 
crime  and  developments  of  new  methods  and  best 
practices to curtail it 
(27) Increasing training for law enforcement agencies 

through 

in 

International Cooperation 
(28, 31) Adopting EU common positions on drugs in international for a, including on UNGASS 
(29) Articulation and promotion of the EU approach on drugs 
(30) Bringing forward joint EU resolutions and co-sponsor others 
(32) Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries 
(33) Enable candidate countries to participate in the work of EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust 
(34) Assist European neighbours 
(35) Ensure that drugs concerns are taken on board in priority setting of EU versus 3rd countries/ regions and 
continue and develop an active engagement with them 
(36) Intensify law enforcement efforts directed at non-EU countries, especially producer countries and regions 
along trafficking routes 
(37) Continue to develop an active political engagement by the EU with third countries 
(38) Improve the coherence, visibility and efficiency of the assistance to candidate countries and 3rd countries/ 
regions 
Information, evaluation and research 
(39) Provide reliable and comparable data on key epidemiological indicators 
(40) Provide reliable information on the drug situation 
(41) Develop clear information on emerging trends and patterns of drug use and drug markets 
(42) Produce estimates on public expenditures on drug issues 
(43, 44) Promote research in the field of drugs and create networks of excellence in research 
(45) Continuous and overall evaluation 
(46) Follow up of the mutual evaluation of drug law enforcement systems in the Member States 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
8. 

ANNEX  4  –  PROVISIONAL  OVERVIEW  AGGREGATED  OBJECTIVES  ACTION  PLAN 
(2009-2012) 

Coordination (provisional) 
(1) Ensure that a balanced and integrated approach, with due regard for fundamental rights, is reflected in 
national policies and in the EU approach towards 3rd countries and in international fora 
(2) Ensuring effective coordination at EU level 
(3) Ensuring effective coordination at national level 
(4) Ensure the participation of civil society in drug policy 

Drug Supply Reduction & security 
(11) Enhance effective law enforcement cooperation in 
the EU to counter drug production and trafficking 
(12) To respond rapidly and effectively to emerging 
threats  
(13) To reduce the manufacture and supply of 
synthetic drugs 
(14) Reduce the diversion and trafficking in the EU of 
chemical precursors used for the manufacturing of 
illicit drugs, in particular synthetic drug precursors 
(15) To reduce the impact on society of organised 
crime active in drug production and trafficking 

Drug Demand Reduction 
(5) Prevent the use of drugs and the risks associated 
with it 
(6) Prevent problem use of drugs - including injecting 
drug use - through targeted prevention 
(7) Enhance the effectiveness of drug treatment and 
rehabilitation by improving the availability, 
accessibility and quality of services 
(8) Enhance quality and effectiveness of drug demand 
reduction activities, taking account of specific needs of 
drug users according to e.g. gender, cultural 
background, age, etc. 
(9) Ensure health care to drug users in prison to 
prevent and reduce health-harms associated with drug 
use 
(10) Ensure access to harm reduction services, in order 
to reduce the spread of HIV/ AIDS, hepatitis C and 
other drug-related blood-borne infectious diseases and 
to reduce the number drug-related deaths in the EU 

International Cooperation 
(16) To include systematically EU drug concerns in relations with third countries where appropriate. To do so on 
the basis of strategic planning and coordination between all actors concerned 
(17) To strengthen EU coordination in the multilateral context and promote an integrated and balanced approach 
(18) Improve cooperation with Candidate, Stabilisation and Association Process and European Neighbourhood 
Policy countries (ENP) 
(19) Improve cooperation at regional and/ or inter-regional level 
Information, evaluation and research 
(20) To expand the knowledge base in the field of drugs by promoting research 
(21) To ensure the exchange of accurate and policy relevant information in the field of illicit drugs 
(22) To further develop instruments to monitor the drug situation and the effectiveness of responses to it 
(23) To ensure ongoing evaluation of drug policy 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
9. 

ANNEX 5 – IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLES AND SWOT ANALYSIS 

Underneath,  the  three  policy  options  are  compared,  in  which  option  1  is  the  'Do  nothing' 
option  in  which  no  new  action  plan  is  proposed  (baseline  scenario),  option  2  involves  the 
extension  (without  modification)  of  the  current  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2005-2008)  and 
option  3.2  the  option  proposing  a  new  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  (2009-2012).  The  impacts  of 
options 2 and 3.2 are always rated against the baseline scenario (option 1).  

Explanation of ratings 

0 

+/- 

++/-- 

+++/--- 

= 

= 

= 

= 

baseline (no change in impact) 

small positive or negative impact compared to baseline 

medium positive or negative impact compared to baseline 

big positive or negative impact compared to baseline 

Table A5.1 - Impacts relative to the scenario of option 1 

Option 1 – Do Nothing! No action plan proposed 

Assessment Criteria 
Impacts 
Health impact 

Rating 

0 

Security impact 

Other social impacts 

0 

0 

Motivation 

•  Member States continue to provide a high level 
of health protection but mutual cooperation and 
the sharing of best practise may be hampered by 
the lack of an overall policy framework and the 
resulting  lack  of  priorities  in  the  EU  drug 
policies 

•  The complementary nature of EU public health 
policies 
implementation  of 
through 
Community  Programs)  is  more  difficult  to 
ensure. 

(e.g. 

•  No  intensifying  of  support  to  reduce  drug-
related harms and no focus on emerging health 
problems such as co-occurring health problems 
•  The  EU  Drug  Strategy  reflects  priorities  to 
enhance  safety  and  security.  These  are  not 
operationalised  and  depend  completely  on  the 
question if and how MS implement them. 

•  Without  a  policy  and  cooperation  framework, 
Member  States  are  not  encouraged  to  work 
together to tackle cross-border trafficking  

•  Exchange of best practice, information and data 
collection  (e.g.  on  effective  treatment;  know-
how  on  safe  dismantling  of 
illegal  drug 
laboratories)  increasingly  difficult  due  to  the 
lack of common framework 

Fundamental rights impact 

0 

•  Member  States  and 

the  EC  continue 

to 

guarantee Fundamental Rights 

•  Social inclusion, non-discrimination, and access 
to  treatment  are  defined  at  national  level. 
(comment: there are two EU Directives on non-
discrimination,  and  also  on  access  to  services, 
which includes health care) 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
Environmental impact 

Economic impact 

Social costs50 

0 

0 

0 

Impact  on  (informal)  political  influence  of 
Commission in drug policy 

0 

•  Potential environment impacts of reducing drug 
production  are  not  taken  into  consideration  in 
Strategy 

•  No  additional  financial  cost  for  EU  budget  is 
foreseen  as  existing  resources  are  in  place  and 
will continue until 2012/2013 

•  Less efficient spending of EU funds may occur 
because  of  the  difficulty  in  ensuring  coherence 
between national and Community Programs but 
also  due  to  the  doubling  of  investments  in 
knowledge  infrastructure,  in  law  enforcement 
capacity and in international assistance 

•  No extra administrative costs for the EU or for 

the Member States 

• 

•  Potential  increase  in  costs  (burden  of  crime  to 
society)  as  Member  States  have  no  shared 
framework  to  tackle  cross-border  drug-related 
crime 
Increased  costs  because  of  the  difficulties  in 
tackling  drug  related  crime,  in  particular  cross 
border crime 
Increased  costs  because  of  the  problems  in 
controlling  illegal  drug  trafficking,  and  illegal 
trafficking in precursors and money laundering 
Increased costs because of a lack of cooperation 
and coordination in reducing drug-related harms 
with  cross-border  spill  over  effects 
(e.g. 
infectious diseases) 

• 

• 

•  The  Commission  retreats  from  its  "acquis"  of 
proposing  drug  policies  from  a  neutral  and 
professional perspective, which has come to be 
accepted by the Member States.  
In  this  option,  the  Commission's  (informal) 
political 
is 
compromised.  

in  EU  drug  policy 

influence 

• 

•  The  participation  of  the  Commission  in  the 
Council  coordination  structures  will  be  mainly 
passive due to a lack of a clear working agenda.  
in  drugs  will 

•  The  Commission's  visibility 

decline. 

Impact on EU coordination 

0 

•  MS  policies  may  drift  apart  with  potential 

effects for neighbouring countries 

Impact on third countries and organisations 

0 

•  Potential  diminishing  attention  for  the  need  to 
situation 

collectively  monitor 
(diminishing support for EMCDDA activities)  
•  The  impact  of  this  policy  option  on  third 
countries and organisations will be limited from 
the perspective of formal cooperation. 

drug 

the 

•  However, due to the absence of an actual policy 
plan  that  offers  guidance  for  cooperation  with 
third countries and organisations, the quality of 
cooperation  will  not  benefit  and  will  retain  a 
bilateral and fragmented nature.  

50 

See section 2.2.3 for an explanation of social costs in the drug field. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Potential action based on this policy option 

. 

0 

0 

.  

0 

the  board,  but 

Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 
Problem identified in evaluation 
Coordination  
The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Horizontal 
Drugs  Group  is  the  main  forum  of  drug 
coordination  at  EU 
level.  The  European 
Commission is well coordinated in the Council. 
At  the  same  time,  coordination  within  the 
Commission  regarding  the  implementation  of 
the Action Plan can be improved, among others 
by  setting  clearer  priorities  and  by  improving 
the  communication  on  EU  drug  policy 
objectives across policy fields.  
Annually,  a 
rich  body  of  monitoring 
information and situation reports are published 
on  the  drug  situation.  However,  the  utilisation 
of  these  reports  by  EU  policymakers,  linking 
the  phenomena  described  in  them  for  further 
policy analysis needs improvement.  
Demand reduction 
Member  States  have  invested  in  universal, 
selective and indicated prevention programmes 
across 
the  evidence-base 
underpinning these programmes is still weak as 
they are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member 
States  have 
introduced  general  quality 
guidelines for prevention.  
The  provision  of  continued  and  equal  care  for 
inmates 
to  care 
in  prison  as  compared 
available  in  society  in  general  is  of  great 
importance  to  reduce  drug-related  harms.  The 
infection  rates 
infectious 
diseases as well as the mortality rates for drug-
related  deaths  are  considerably  higher  inside 
prison  (and  immediately  after  release  from 
prison).  
Supply reduction 
The  results  of  various  operational  and 
intelligence 
law  enforcement  cross-border 
projects  in  the  EU,  e.g.  MAOC-N,  show  the 
importance  of 
intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced 
intelligence led law enforcement along air, sea 
and land vectors. 
In almost all Member States, there is a lack of 
priority among national Customs organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned. 
International cooperation 
The  priorities  of  EU  drug  policy  are  not  well 
translated  into  external  funding  programmes 
and projects in third countries 
The  EU  integrated  and  balanced  approach  on 
drugs  has  served  as  a  model  for  Candidate 
Countries  as  well  as  many  Neighbourhood 
Policy  Countries  in  developing  their  national 
drug strategies and action plans.  

for  drug-related 

strengthening 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
from 

support 

Information, research, evaluation  
Diminishing 
national 
governments  to  National  Focal  Points  is  an 
increasing  cause  for  concern.  National  Focal 
Points are  an essential  part of  the  information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  
The  availability  of  reliable,  comparable  and 
usable information and data in the field of drug 
supply  and  supply  reduction  is  an  ongoing 
cause  of  concern,  as  the  lack  of  it  does  not 
allow  for  a  proper  analysis  of  the  EU  drug 
market and the effectiveness of law enforcement 
interventions. 

0 

0 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A5.2 - Impacts relative to the scenario of option 2 

Option 2 – Action Plan on Drugs (2005-2008) extended with 4 years 

Assessment Criteria 

Rating 

Motivation 

Impacts 

Health impact 

Security impact 

Other social impacts 

Fundamental rights impact 

Environmental impact 

Economic impact 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 

•  Overall,  the  measures  in  the  current  AP 
cover  a  general  and  broad  range  of  drug 
demand  reduction  objectives.  However, 
recent  changes  in  drug  use  patterns  are  not 
properly addressed.  
Increasing  drug-related  public  health  threat 
on  EU's  borders  are  not  addressed(Africa, 
Eastern Europe) 

• 

•  No  intensifying  of  support  to  reduce  drug-
related  harms  and  no  focus  on  emerging 
health  problems  such  as  co-occurring 
disorders 

•  Overall,  the  measures  in  the  current  AP 
cover  traditional  supply  reduction  as  a 
whole and will continue to do so. However, 
recent trends in drug-related security issues 
are not covered well.  

•  Exchange  of  best  practice,  information  and 
data collection difficult due to the lack of an 
updated  common  framework  and  priority 
setting 
•  Social 

rehabilitation 
receives  no  further  attention  in  the  AP  and 
continues to be underdeveloped in Member 
States  

reintegration  and 

•  The  prevention  of  social  exclusion  (and 
poverty)  among  drug  dependent  users  is 
addressed  by  the  existing  programmes  but 
does not receive additional attention.  

•  Fundamental  Rights  are  taken  as  a  starting 
point for drug policies at the European level 
•  Access to services is part of the Action Plan 
social 

while  non  discrimination  and 
inclusion are not. 

•  The 

current  Action  Plan  prioritises 
collaboration  at  UN  level  and  towards  3rd 
countries,  allowing  the  EU  to  promote  the 
balanced  and  also  proportionate  approach, 
which does not support aggressive chemical 
eradication policies as pursued by some 3rd 
countries and international organisations 

•  Exchange  of  best-practice 

in  drug-lab 
dismantling  techniques  can  help  identify 
environmental 
reduce 
spills 
environmental risks during operations 

and/  or 

•  No  additional  financial  cost  for  EU  budget 
is foreseen as existing resources are in place 
and will continue until 2012/2013 
•  No impact on Member States' budget 
•  The  are  financial  advantages  (efficiency, 
effectiveness)  possible  due  to  a  commonly 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Social costs 

+ 

Impact  on  (informal)  political 
Commission in drug policy 

influence  of 

+ 

Impact on EU coordination 

+ 

Impact on third countries and organisations 

++ 

agreed  framework  but,  due  to  lack  of 
priority  setting  and  duplication,  these  are 
rather limited  

• 

•  Provides  a  framework  for  coherent  action 
against  organised  drug  related  crime  but 
increased  costs  if  this  framework  is  not 
updated  according  to  the  evaluation  and  if 
no clear priorities are set 
Increased  costs  because  of  the  problems  in 
controlling  illegal  drug  trafficking,  and 
illegal  trafficking  in  precursors  and  money 
laundering unless clear priorities are set 
•  Provides  a  framework  for  coherent  action 
against public health threats in and between 
Member States 

•  The  Commission  is  considered  by  Member 
States as a neutral and expert 'broker' in the 
field  of  drugs,  entrusted  with  the  political 
task of drafting a new Action Plan.  

•  The  Commission  has  fulfilled  most  tasks 
assigned  to  her  in  the  current  Action  Plan. 
The role of the Commission would become 
technical-
initiating 
less 
administrative. 

and  more 

not 

•  The  convergence  of  policies  between 
change 
States  will 
Member 
that 
immediately.  But 
there 
is  a  risk 
the 
'weary'  of 
Member  States  become 
existing  Action  Plan  and  continue 
to 
develop  their  own  (and  possibly  diverging) 
policies 
trends  and 
developments.  

to  address  new 

•  The contribution to the further development 
of  a  European  coordination  mechanism  in 
the  field  of  drugs  is  not  strengthened  and 
lessons  learned  through  the  evaluation  not 
taken on board. 

•  The  collaboration  and  assistance  to  3rd 
countries  and  regions  (as  well  as 
to 
Candidate  and  Associated  countries)  will 
continue. But new trends in drug trafficking 
routes  and  consumption  patters,  with 
adverse  consequences  on  safety  &  security 
as well as on Fundamental rights, social and 
health problems, will not be addressed 

Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 

Problem identified in evaluation 

Coordination 
The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Horizontal  Drugs 
Group is the main forum of drug coordination at EU 
level.  The  European  Commission 
is  well 
coordinated  in  the  Council.  At  the  same  time, 
coordination  within  the  Commission  regarding  the 
implementation of the Action Plan can be improved, 
among  others  by  setting  clearer  priorities  and  by 
improving  the  communication  on  EU  drug  policy 
objectives across policy fields.  

+ 

52 

EN 

Potential  action  based  on  this  policy 
option 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
linking 

Annually,  a  rich  body  of  monitoring  information 
and  situation  reports  are  published  on  the  drug 
situation.  However,  the  utilisation  of  these  reports 
by  EU  policymakers, 
the  phenomena 
described  in  them  for  further  policy  analysis  needs 
improvement.  
Demand reduction 
Member States have invested in universal, selective 
and  indicated  prevention  programmes  across  the 
board,  but  the  evidence-base  underpinning  these 
programmes  is  still  weak  as  they  are  seldom 
few  Member  States  have 
evaluated.  Only  a 
introduced 
for 
general 
prevention.  

guidelines 

quality 

The  provision  of  continued  and  equal  care  for 
inmates in prison as compared to care available in 
society  in  general  is  of  great  importance  to  reduce 
drug-related  harms.  The  infection  rates  for  drug-
related  infectious  diseases  as  well  as  the  mortality 
rates  for  drug-related  deaths  are  considerably 
higher inside prison (and immediately after release 
from prison).  
Supply reduction 

The  results  of  various  operational  and  intelligence 
law  enforcement  cross-border  projects  in  the  EU, 
of 
e.g.  MAOC-N, 
strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing as 
a  basis 
law 
enforcement along air, sea and land vectors. 

for  enhanced 

intelligence 

importance 

show 

led 

the 

In  almost  all  Member  States,  there  is  a  lack  of 
priority  among  national  Customs  organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned. 
International cooperation 

The  priorities  of  EU  drug  policy  are  not  well 
translated  into  external  funding  programmes  and 
projects in third countries 

The EU integrated and balanced approach on drugs 
has  served  as  a  model  for  Candidate  Countries  as 
well  as  many  Neighbourhood  Policy  Countries  in 
developing their national drug strategies and action 
plans.  
Information, research, evaluation  
Diminishing  support  from  national  governments  to 
National  Focal  Points  is  an  increasing  cause  for 
concern.  National  Focal  Points  are  an  essential 
the 
part  of 
EMCDDA.  

infrastructure  of 

information 

the 

The availability of reliable, comparable and usable 
information and data in the field of drug supply and 
supply reduction is an ongoing cause of concern, as 
the lack of it does not allow for a proper analysis of 
the  EU  drug  market  and  the  effectiveness  of  law 
enforcement interventions. 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

0 

+ 

0 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In addition to the impact assessment above, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and 
threats can be assessed for option 2.  

Table A5.3  SWOT analysis of option 2 
Strengths 
–  The  current  Action  Plan  represents  a  European 
added  value  in  committing,  albeit  not  legally, 
the  Member  States,  the  Commission  and  other 
relevant  actors  towards  achieving  commonly 
agreed objectives. 

–  The current Action Plan is a tool for developing 
and Area for Freedom Security and Justice and 
explicitly  confirms  the  commitment  in  having 
full respect for fundamental rights. 

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

–  The  coherence  of  drugs  related  actions  and  the 
complementarity  between  different  Community 
Programs  and  action  at  the  national  level  is 
partly ensured.  

–  Provides  a  framework  for  coordination  but  no 

new policy incentives 

–  The  ongoing  objectives  in  the  current  Action 
Plan can be implemented in full, allowing for a 
larger implementation period and therefore for a 
potential more rigorous evaluation by 2012.  

Opportunities 
–  Indicators  for  the  evaluation  of  the  current 
Action  Plan  can  be  further  elaborated 
to 
improve further on the final evaluation of 2008.  
–  The  objectives  and  actions  as  implemented 
through the current Action Plan will have more 
time  to  'trickle'  down  to  national  level.  As  a 
result, implementation results may be enhanced 
over time.  

Weaknesses 
–  The  Implementation  of  the  current  Action  Plan  is  a 
particularly  difficult  process  due  to  the  non-binding 
character of the plan. The Action Plan has an indirect 
implementation effect on MS policies.  

–  A  further  prioritisation  inside  the  Action  Plan  would 
be beneficial for it to have a more explicit input in the 
planning  and  implementation  of  the  Community 
Programs.  

and/or 

–  Information  and  data  available  are  not  always 
the 
available 
relevant 
achievements  of  the  objectives.  There  is  an  overall 
lack of information on if and to what extent the actions 
have an impact on the drug situation.  

in  measuring 

–  A  more  effective  implementation  of  the  EU  Drug 
Strategy  requires  a  revision  of  operational  objectives 
specific  actions  and  indicators  in  the  EU  Action  Plan 
on  Drugs,  acceptable  to  all  Member  States  and  the 
Commission.  

Threats 
–  The current Action Plan does not establish a hierarchy 
of  new  priorities.  It  risks  becoming  only  a  list  of 
ongoing activities if not updated. 

–  The full impact of the expansion of the EU since 2004 
can  not  be  assessed,  with  its  impact  on  trafficking 
routes  of  (illegal)  goods,  intra-EU  migration,  the 
spread  of  drug-related 
infectious  diseases,  new 
neighbouring countries (Ukraine, Russia).  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
Table A5.4 - Impacts relative to the scenario of option 3.2 

Option 3.2 – A complete new EU Action Plan on Drugs (2009-2012) is proposed 

Assessment Criteria 
Impact 
Health impact 

Rating 

Motivation 

+++ 

•  Recent  changes  in  the  drug  situation  can  be 

taken on board 

•  A  more  proactive  AP  can  be  more  sensitive  in 

emerging trends  

•  New  insights  can  be  translated  in  quality 
increasing  effectiveness  and 

requirements, 
efficiency 

•  More  ambitious  action  can  be  taken  to  reduce 

avoidable drug-related harms 

•  Assistance  to  neighbouring  and  third  countries 
reducing  drug-related  harms  can  be 

in 
prioritised 

Security impact 

+++ 

•  A  new  Action  Plan  can  take  on  board  recent 
trends in drug-related security issues, including: 
through 
trafficking 
Western  Africa  and  Balkans:  impact 
on  societies  concerned, 
including 
some Member States. 

•  New 

routes 

Other social impacts 

++ 

•  Broad  security  issues  e.g.  increasing 
opium production in Afghanistan 
•  Drugs  and  driving;  drugs  in  the 

workplace  

•  Funding of terrorism 

•  Exchange of best practice, information and data 
collection  enhanced  through  updated  common 
framework and priority setting 

•  Social  reintegration  and  rehabilitation  can  be 

improved  

•  The  prevention  of  social  exclusion 

(and 
poverty)  among  drug  dependent  users  is  better 
addressed  by  placing  emphasis  on  fundamental 
rehabilitation  and  on  a  broader 
rights, 
implementation 
reduction 
interventions,  including  early  intervention  and 
harm reduction. 

demand 

of 

Fundamental rights impact 

++ 

Environmental impact 

+ 

•  Fundamental Rights are taken as a starting point 
at  European  level  and  more  strongly  promoted 
in cooperation with 3rd countries. 

•  An updated  EU  model,  based on  an  integrated, 
balanced  approach  and  on  Fundamental  Rights 
would  not  be  available  to  civil  society  in 
countries with very restrictive policies 

•  Access 

to  services,  non-discrimination  and 

social inclusion part of the new AP 

•  Prioritising alternative development, taking into 
concern  social  and  environmental  aspects  of 
local populations in production countries can be 
better prioritised 

•  Promoting exchange of best-practice in drug-lab 
identify 
reduce 

techniques  can  help 
dismantling 
environmental 
or 
environmental risks during operations 

spills 

and/ 

Economic impact 

0 

•  No  additional  financial  cost  for  EU  budget  is 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Social costs 

+ 

Impact  on  (informal)  political  influence  of 
Commission in drug policy 

++ 

foreseen  as  existing  resources  are  in  place  and 
will continue until 2012/2013. 

•  Potential  voluntary  extra  spending  on  priorities 

and cooperation by Member States 

•  Financial  advantages  both  for  the  EU  budget 
and  for  the  Member  States  because  of  the 
enhanced  complementarity  as  a  result  of  clear 
priority  setting  (e.g.  EU  spends  EUR  760 
million  annually  on  international  cooperation 
and coordination) 

•  Reduced  costs,  since  provides  an  updated 
framework  and  clear  priorities  in  tackling 
organised crime 

•  Reduced costs because an updated approach e.g. 
on  exchange  of  best  practice  in  tackling  drug 
related crime 

•  Decreased  costs  because  of  the  problems  in 
controlling  illegal  drug  trafficking,  and  illegal 
trafficking  in  precursors  and  money  laundering 
unless clear priorities are set 

•  Greater focus on public health threats  
•  The  Commission's  position  as  a  neutral  and 
expert broker in the EU drug policy field can be 
further reinforced.  

•  The  Commission,  supported  by  EMCDDA  and 
Europol  can  actively  work  to  help  create 
improved  conditions  for  policy  analysis  and 
information collection, necessary for the further 
development of EU drug policy.  

Impact on EU coordination 

++ 

•  New  Action  Plan  will  reiterate  commitment  of 

Member States to policy objectives 

•  New  policy  insights  in  Member  States  can  be 

Impact on third countries and organisations 

++ 

included within framework of Strategy 
•  The  collaboration  and  assistance 

to  3rd 
countries  and  regions  (as  well  as  to  Candidate 
and  Associated  countries)  will  continue.  New 
trends 
and 
consumption 
adverse 
consequences on safety & security as well as on 
Fundamental rights, social and health problems, 
can be taken on board 

trafficking 

in  drug 

patters, 

routes 

with 

•  The  EU  model  of  drug  policy  will  be  further 
enhanced  based  on  new  insights  and  evidence 
and can continue to function as a model for the 
rest of the world. This is also very relevant and 
important in the upcoming UNGASS evaluation 
and follow up discussion in 2009.  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
Relevance of the options for the achievement of the objectives 

Coordination 
The  evaluation  shows  that  the  Horizontal 
Drugs  Group  is  the  main  forum  of  drug 
coordination  at  EU 
level.  The  European 
Commission is well coordinated in the Council. 
At  the  same  time,  coordination  within  the 
Commission  regarding  the  implementation  of 
the Action Plan can be improved, among others 
by  setting  clearer  priorities  and  by  improving 
the  communication  on  EU  drug  policy 
objectives across policy fields.  

Annually,  a 
rich  body  of  monitoring 
information and situation reports are published 
on  the  drug  situation.  However,  the  utilisation 
of  these  reports  by  EU  policymakers,  linking 
the  phenomena  described  in  them  for  further 
policy analysis needs improvement.  

Demand reduction 
Member  States  have  invested  in  universal, 
selective and indicated prevention programmes 
across 
the  evidence-base 
underpinning these programmes is still weak as 
they are seldom evaluated. Only a few Member 
introduced  general  quality 
States  have 
guidelines for prevention.  

the  board,  but 

The  provision  of  continued  and  equal  care  for 
inmates 
to  care 
in  prison  as  compared 
available  in  society  in  general  is  of  great 
importance  to  reduce  drug-related  harms.  The 
infection  rates 
infectious 
diseases as well as the mortality rates for drug-
related  deaths  are  considerably  higher  inside 
prison  (and  immediately  after  release  from 
prison).  

for  drug-related 

EN 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

57 

Proposed objective:  
The  Commission  will  ensure  coherence  between 
its 
internal  and  external  aspects  of 
the 
involvement 
the 
including 
in  drug  policy, 
management of relevant funding mechanisms.  
Motivation: 
The evaluation has showed that the coordination of 
drug  policy  within  Commission  services  needs 
further clarification, clearer prioritisation and task-
division. This includes the input of drug issues into 
annual  work  planning  of  the  existing  available 
funding programmes. 
Proposed objective:  
The Council to critically examine the state-of-the-
drug  problem  once  a  year,  on  the  basis  of  the 
relevant 
from  EMCDDA, 
reports 
EUROPOL,  EUROJUST  and  the  annual  review 
of the Commission 
Motivation: 
So  far,  the  EMCDDA  annual  report  is  primarily 
the 
presented 
Commission  annual  progress 
the 
the  Council  and 
Horizontal  Drugs  Group 
Europol's  Organised  Crime  Threat  Analyses  on 
drugs  in  the  Police  Chiefs  Task  Force  in  the 
Council.  A  more  comprehensive  discussion, 
bringing  together  trends  in  demand  and  supply 
reduction can strengthen the analytical work in the 
HDG.  

the  European  Parliament, 
in 

annual 

review 

in 

in 

Proposed objective:  
Develop  and  implement  at  national  level  quality 
standards 
treatment,  harm 
for  prevention, 
reduction and rehabilitation  
Motivation: 
recent  years,  Member  States  have  been 
In 
encouraged  to  implement  prevention  programmes 
where  these  did  not  exist.  However,  effective 
prevention  programmes  are  based  on  evaluation 
and  specific  quality  criteria  derived  from  research. 
As  it  is  impossible  to  assess  the  availability  of 
effective programmes in schools and other settings 
in  Member  States,  it  is  more  efficient  to  assess 
whether Member States have set quality standards, 
which elements are part of these standards and how 
these are implemented (e.g. as funding condition). 
Proposed objective:  
Develop  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction 
in  or 
and  reintegration  services  for  people 
released 
to 
monitor/  analyse  prison  drug  use  and  service 
delivery, 
Council 
Recommendation on the prevention and reduction 
of  health  related  harm  associated  with  drug 
dependence. 

from  prison.  Develop  methods 

with 

line 

the 

in 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Supply reduction 
The  results  of  various  operational  and 
intelligence 
law  enforcement  cross-border 
projects  in  the  EU,  e.g.  MAOC-N,  show  the 
importance  of 
intelligence 
gathering and sharing as a basis for enhanced 
intelligence led law enforcement along air, sea 
and land vectors. 

strengthening 

+++ 

In almost all Member States, there is a lack of 
priority among national Customs organisations 
when drug precursor control is concerned. 

++ 

International cooperation 
The  priorities  of  EU  drug  policy  are  not  well 
translated  into  external  funding  programmes 
and projects in third countries 

+ 

Motivation: 
Prisons  remain  among  the  most  important  settings 
where  drug-related  infectious  diseases  but  also 
drug-related deaths occur, despite existing evidence 
and best-practices  to  avoid  them.  As  over 600.000 
people are detained in a prison every year, the great 
majority  for  a  relatively  short  period  of  time,  the 
risk  of  infection  for  society  outside  prison  is  an 
important  cause  for  concern.  Furthermore,  the 
fundamental  right  of 
to  health  care 
facilities and treatment are concerned here as well. 

inmates 

existing 

compatible  with 

Proposed objective:  
To  set  up,  where  necessary,  regional  security 
platforms to counter emerging threats by means of 
coordinated operational responses. Such action to 
be 
operational 
arrangements  at  EU  level  and  based  on  specific 
threat  assessments,  using  existing  resources 
where  possible  (e.g.  MAOC-N,  Baltic  Sea  Task 
Force, etc.). 
Motivation: 
Diverging trends in drug trafficking routes make a 
swift  response  to  new  threats  essential,  so  that 
preventive  measures  to  pro-actively  handle  risks 
and the minimisation of threats can be put in place. 
The  focus  on  making  use  of  existing  operational 
arrangements  at  EU  level  is  key  to  avoid  an 
emerging  spectrum  of  individual  initiatives  from 
several  Member  States  that  do  not  fit  in  with 
intelligence  sharing  practices, 
the 
exchange  of  information  between  initiatives  and 
this rendering these initiatives less effective. 
Proposed objective:  
Effective  and  uniform  external  border  control 
management.  Customs  services 
integrate 
precursor  controls  at  a  strategic  level  and  to 
coordinate  more 
law 
enforcement  agencies  engaged 
in  anti-drug 
operations (mutual support). 
Motivation: 
The conclusion was partly based on a Commission 
survey  in  2007,  identifying  a  lack  of  political 
priority setting in drug precursor control at strategic 
level within Customs organisations. Without such a 
strategic  notion,  a  coherent  drug  precursor  control 
on external EU borders is not feasible.  

closely  with  other 

jeopardising 

to 

Proposed objective:  
Ensure  the  integration  of  projects  in  the  drugs 
field  into  the  EU's  cooperation  and  assistance 
programmes  with  third  countries/  regions.  This 
should  cover  demand  and  supply  reduction,  as 
well  as  alternative  development  in  producer  and 
transit countries. 
Motivation: 
EU  assistance 
third  countries  has  been 
increasingly  decentralised  and  a  direct  translation 
of  the  horizontal  policy  aspects  in  EU  drug  policy 
funding 
is  not  automatically 

translated 

into 

to 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The  EU  integrated  and  balanced  approach  on 
drugs  has  served  as  a  model  for  Candidate 
Countries  as  well  as  many  Neighbourhood 
Policy  Countries  in  developing  their  national 
drug strategies and action plans.  

support 

Information, research, evaluation  
Diminishing 
national 
governments  to  National  Focal  Points  is  an 
increasing  cause  for  concern.  National  Focal 
Points are  an essential  part of  the  information 
infrastructure of the EMCDDA.  

from 

+ 

+ 

The  availability  of  reliable,  comparable  and 
usable information and data in the field of drug 
supply  and  supply  reduction  is  an  ongoing 
cause  of  concern,  as  the  lack  of  it  does  not 
allow  for  a  proper  analysis  of  the  EU  drug 
market and the effectiveness of law enforcement 
interventions. 

++ 

priorities.  As  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  does 
not  have  its  own  budgetary  resources,  a  proper 
translation  of  its  objectives  into  existing  funding 
sources is essential for implementation.  
Proposed objective:  
Further  develop  regional  cooperation  initiatives 
and  assistance  programs  to  address  demand  and 
supply  reduction  to  be  strengthen  with  countries 
covered by Development Cooperation Instruments 
(DCI)  and  European  Development  Fund  (EDF), 
with a particular attention to new regions that are 
in the front line, such as in Africa and in Asia.  
Motivation: 
Continue  support  to  these  countries  by  providing 
technical  and  other  assistance  for  their  alignment 
with and implementation of the EU acquis. 

the 

to  support 

to  continue 

Proposed objective:  
Member  States 
EMCDDA Reitox National Focal Points. 
Motivation: 
National  Focal  Points  report  national  data  to  the 
EMCDDA.  Without  the  data  from  all  Member 
states,  an  EU  wide  standardised  comparison  and 
trend  analysis  is  virtually  impossible  to  make,  as 
secondary  data  sources  are  often  not  available  and 
no  quality  check  is  conducted.  As  the  evaluation 
report showed, two out of 27 National Focal Points 
have  stopped  their  funding  of  their  NFP's.  Other 
Member  States  have  reduced  funding  in  recent 
years  (or  not  adjusted  to  inflation).  The  result  is 
that  the  Reitox  network  becomes  more  vulnerable 
and  ultimately,  EU  wide  monitoring  of  the  drug 
situation is placed at risk. 
Proposed objective:  
Development of policy relevant data on the illicit 
law 
drug  market, 
enforcement  and  the  structures  required  for 
their collection. 
Motivation: 
As  the  annual  reviews  and  the  evaluation  report 
show,  the  data  collection  in  the  field  of  supply 
reduction is often incomplete, not standardised and 
difficult  to  compare.  No  key  indicators  have  been 
improved  data  on  supply 
identified.  Without 
reduction, the Drug Strategy objectives of attaining 
'measurable  reductions  in  drug  supply  to  the  EU' 
cannot be assessed due to a lack of data. 

supply  reduction  and 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
In addition to the impact assessment above, strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and 
threats can be assessed for option 3.2.  

Table A5.5  SWOT analysis of option 3.2 
Strengths 
•  This  option  allows  for  the  defining  of  a  smaller 
number  of  objectives  and  actions  within  the 
framework  provided  by  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy 
and  for  development  of  improved  indicators  to 
assess  the  extent  to  which  the  Action  Plan 
achieved its aims. 

•  Further consolidating the balanced approach as an 

EU approach on drugs. 

•  Complementarity  between  policies  and  funding 
instruments  at  the  EU  level  during  the  present 
funding  period  and  in  preparing  for  the  next 
funding period from 2013 onwards.  

•  Coordination  mechanisms  are  consolidated  based 
on  the  evaluation,  new  policy  incentives  are 
introduced within a coherent framework 

•  The work towards measuring drug policy impacts 

and national and EU level can continue. 

Opportunities 
•  A new Action Plan can take on board key findings 
from the evaluation of the current Action Plan on 
Drugs,  including  a  focus  on  setting  quality 
standards, taking on board new insights, evidence 
and  know-how  regarding  effective  responses  to 
the drug phenomenon. 

•  Flaws  and  shortcomings  from  the  current  Action 
Plan  can  be  avoided  while  formulating  new 
objectives. 

Weaknesses 
• 

Implementation  of 
the  new  Action  Plan  will 
continue  to  be  particularly  difficult  process  due  to 
the  non-binding  character  of  the  plan.  The  Action 
Plan  has  an  indirect  implementation  effect  on  MS 
policies.  

•  A  new  Action  Plan  may 

terminate  existing 
initiatives that are still developing, causing upheaval 
and an inefficient use of resources.  

Threats 
•  A  very  specific  new  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  may 
cause  disagreement  among  Member  States  due  to  a 
changed political situation.  

•  Some  key  achievements/  principles  of  the  current 
EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  may  be  seriously 
scrutinised due to changing political perspectives in 
some  Member  States  on  e.g.  prevention  and  harm 
reduction, but also on the importance of monitoring 
and evaluation.  

•  Emphasis  can  be  placed  on  new  developments, 
trends and patterns in the field of drug supply and 
drug demand, including new drug use trends, new 
trafficking 
international 
and 
developments  e.g.  a  greater  focus  on  alternative 
development and security.  

routes 

new 

•  Taking into account the developments in the drug 
situation,  as  reported  by  the  EMCDDA  and 
Europol,  as  well  as  lessons  learned  from  the 
evaluation, 
the  new  Action  Plan  would 
concentrate on the most relevant ways of moving 
towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 
The  starting  point  of 
this  approach  would 
continue  to  be  the  relevant  Treaties  and  the 
respect  of  fundamental  rights  and  other  basic 
European values.  

•  Developing  and  improving,  together  with  the 
and  Europol, 
and 
EMCDDA 
assessment 
tools  providing  for  a  systematic 
collection  of  information  and  data  supporting  the 
evaluation  of  the  Action  Plan  especially  in  the 
area of supply reduction. 

indicators 

•  Some  of  the  key  objectives  and  actions  as 
implemented through the current Action Plan will 
be continued in the new Action Plan and will have 
more time to 'trickle' down to national level. As a 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
result,  implementation  results  may  be  enhanced 
over time.  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
10. 

ANNEX 6 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AIDS 
EMCDDA 
ESPAD 
HBSC 
HDG 
HIV 
IDU 
INCB 
MAOC - N 
MS 
NFP 
NGO 
REITOX 
UNODC 
UNAIDS 
WHO 

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs 
Health Behaviour in School Children (WHO) 
Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (Council) 
Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
Intravenous Drug User 
International Narcotics Control Board 
Maritime Analysis Operations Centre - Narcotics 
Member State 
National Focal Point  
Non Governmental Organization 
Réseau Européen d'Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime  
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 
World Health Organisation 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
11. 

ANNEX 7 -GLOSSARY 

A 

Amphetamine Type Stimulants 

The term of amphetamine-type stimulants is used to refer to amphetamines (amphetamine,  meth-amphetamine 
and related  substances)  and ecstasy  (MDMA  and related analogues).  Amphetamine  and  methamphetamine  are 
central  nervous  system  stimulants.  Ecstasy  refers  to  synthetic  substances  that  are  chemically  related  to 
amphetamines but which differ to some extent in their effects. The best-known member of the ecstasy group of 
drugs  is  3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine  (MDMA),  but  other  analogues  are  also  occasionally  found  in 
ecstasy tablets (MDA, MDEA).  

Assessment tool 

An assessment tool is a means by which this progress or achievement of the implementation of an action can be 
verified. 

C 

CND 

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is the central policy-making body within the United Nations system 
dealing with drug-related matters. It analyses the world drug situation and develops proposals to strengthen the 
international  drug  control  system  to  combat  the  world  drug  problem.  In  1991,  the  UN  General  Assembly 
established the Fund of the United Nations 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 administered 
as part of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). 

D 

Drug dependence 

Drug  dependence  is  often  defined  as:  a  maladaptive  pattern  of  substance  use,  leading  to  clinically  significant 
impairment  or  distress,  as  manifested  by  three  (or  more)  of  the  following,  occurring  at  any  time  within  a  12-
month period. (1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the 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). 

Drug-related death 

Drug-related death is defined in this report as: deaths caused directly by the consumption of one or more drug 
and  generally  occurring  shortly  after  the  consumption  of  the  substance(s).  These  deaths  are  known  as 
‘overdoses’, ‘poisonings’ or drug-induced deaths. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
Drug-related infectious diseases 

The  most  prevalent  types  of  drug-related  infectious  diseases  are  Hepatitis  B  and  C,  HIV/  AIDS  and 
Tuberculosis.  

H 

Harm Reduction 

There  is  no  universal  definition  of  the  term  harm  reduction.  For  this  report  the  definition  of  the  International 
Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) is used: “policies and programmes which attempt primarily to reduce the 
adverse  health,  social  and  economic  consequences  of  mood  altering  substances  to  individual  drug  users,  their 
families and their communities” 

Hepatitis B  

Hepatitis  B  is  a  virus  spread  through  the  blood  and  bodily  fluids  of  an  infected  person.  Many  people  do  not 
realise they have been infected with the virus, because symptoms may not develop immediately, or at all. The 
hepatitis B virus can then go on to cause a chronic (long-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.  

I 

Injecting Drug User (IDU) 

Injections are usually intravenous, but may also be intramuscular, subcutaneous.  

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
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 stabilizing opiate users medically and socially 
allowing  for  genuine  social  re-integration.  To  avoid  criminal  activity  when  acquiring  the  illicit  drugs  and 
eliminating high risk situation when administrating the drug via injecting, the treatment provides the patient with 
a  substitution  drug,  mostly  orally  administered  methadone  or  buprenorphine.  Often  maintenance  treatment  is 
provided as DOT (Daily Observed Therapy) which allows for thorough monitoring of the effects of the provision 
of  substitution  drugs  in  every  patient.  Furthermore  patients  are  supported  by  medical  and  social  service 
professionals to guarantee beneficial long-term effects on social re-integration of the individual patient. 

Medically assisted treatment 

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). 

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 

Problem use 

In  its  'Methodological  guidelines  to  estimate  the  prevalence  of  problem  use  at  national  level  (1999),  the 
EMCDDA defines problem drug use as "injecting drug use" or "long duration/ regular use of opiates, cocaine 
and/ or amphetamines". At international level, the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders 
(DSM-IV) and the WHO International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) use a somewhat broader definition of 
problem use, which also includes social aspects of problem use.  

Prevalence 

Prevalence is a statistic of 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  prevention  generally  covers  three  different  types  of  drug  prevention,  each  with  distinctive 
characteristics.  Universal  prevention  used  to  be  referred  to  as  primary  prevention.  This  type  of  prevention  is 
aimed at the general population or parts of it (e.g. young people) that is not identified on the basis of individual 
risk  factors.  Selective  prevention  aims  at  specific  groups  of  individuals  who  have  an  increased  risk  of 
developing drug problems (e.g. children of alcoholics or drug addicts, socially deprived youth, etc.). Indicated 
prevention  aims  at  individuals  who  do  not  have  drug  or  addiction  problems  according  to  the  international 
diagnostic  criteria  for  substance  use  disorders,  but  who  do  have  some  early  characteristics  of  problematic  use 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
(e.g.  young  people  using  drugs  with  high  frequency).  Practically  all  prevention  programmes  (school-based, 
family-oriented, mass media, community) cover one or more of these types of prevention.  

R 

Risk factors 

Risk  factors  are  personal  or  social  conditions  that  are  considered  mediating  factors  to  increase  the  probability 
that  an  individual  develops  problem  drug  use  or  drug  dependence.  Scientific  literature  roughly  differentiates 
between  early  childhood  risk  factors  (e.g.  lack  of  social  skills,  lack  of  social  support  in  families)  and  late 
childhood risk factors (lack of problem solving skills, dysfunctional families, mental health/ addiction problems 
in  family,  lack  of  self-esteem)  and  adolescent  risk  factors  (negative  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  e.g.  public  expenditures  on  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction,  law 
enforcement & prosecution, penitentiaries, etc. Indirect social costs include e.g. loss of life (drug-related death), 
loss of productivity due to drug-related infectious diseases or imprisonment, social marginalisation of drug users, 
the indirect economic impact of open drug scenes, fraud and corruption. 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 

66 

   EN