COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  accompanying the   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION on the Mid-Term Review of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-2012)   COM(2010) 630
Date: 2010-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, cooperation policy, drug addiction, drug traffic, fight against crime, impact study, international cooperation, social problem

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 5.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1321 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the  

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the Mid-Term Review of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-
2012) 

COM(2010) 630 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
accompanying the  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  
on the Mid-Term Review of the implementation of the EU Drugs Action Plan (2009-
2012) 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Coordination (objectives 1-4)....................................................................................... 4 

Drug demand reduction (objectives 5-10).................................................................. 10 

Drug supply reduction (objectives 11-15).................................................................. 23 

International cooperation (objectives 16-20) ............................................................. 37 

Information, research and evaluation (objectives 21-24)........................................... 51 

Appendix 1 - List of abbreviations………………………………………………………61 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 sets out the basic principles for a European model of drugs policy based on the balanced approach to reducing the 
supply of and the demand for drugs. It aims to protect and improve the well-being of society and the individual, to protect public health, to offer a high 
level of security for the general public.  

The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, adopted by the European Council in December 2008, is the last of two Action Plans that aim to implement the 
objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy. The Action Plans help coordinate government interventions in the field of illegal drugs covering public health, law 
enforcement, customs, criminal justice and international cooperation.  

The EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 has five priorities: to strengthen coordination among all drugs policy actors, to reduce drug use and its adverse 
health  and  social  consequences,  to  reduce  drugs  availability,  to  strengthen  international  cooperation  and  to  improve  our  understanding  of  the  drugs 
problem.  

It consists of 24 objectives and 72 actions in total. Its implementation is mainly the responsibility of the Member States with support from the European 
Commission and technical assistance from the EU agencies, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol and 
Eurojust. For each action, the responsible parties and a suggested deadline for its completion have been provided for. Furthermore, for each action an 
objectively verifiable indicator to monitor progress as well as the main documents in which such progress can be assessed, have been identified.  

In the following sections, a mid-term review of the state of play regarding the current EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 is presented. For each action the 
available  information  on  progress  has  been  summarised.  The  output  for  each  action  that  has  reached  its  implementation  deadline  has  been  analysed. 
Ongoing actions are also monitored. For five actions1 the deadline for completion was not yet indicated or no relevant information was available to date. 
In this mid-term review the Commission was assisted by the Member States, the EMCDDA, and Europol. This assessment covers 2009 and the first half 
of 2010 and follows the structure of the Action Plan. 

1 

Actions 16, 28, 32, 55 and 66. 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
2. 

COORDINATION (OBJECTIVES 1-4) 

Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: Coordination and cooperation in the drug field can be strengthened at both European and national 
level so that drug policies are relevant to professionals and civil society, while at the same time enabling these structures to provide feedback to inform 
policy. 

COORDINATION 

Objective / Action 

Responsible 

State of play 

party 

Objective 1. Ensure that a balanced and integrated approach is reflected in national policies and in the EU approach towards third countries and in 
international fora 

1.  Member  States  and  EU  institutions 
to  effectively  coordinate  drugs  policy 
to  reflect  the  objectives  of  the  EU 
Drugs  Strategy  2005-2012  and  this 
Action Plan 

MS 

COM 

Council 

The EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and the EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 are considered to be the main 
policy  documents  providing  guidance  for  the  drugs  policy  of  the  Member  States  and  EU  institutions.  A 
survey  conducted  by  the  Commission  in  preparation  of  this  annual  assessment  showed  that  12  of  the  24 
Member  States  responding  considered  that  the  current  Action  Plan  had  provided  guidance  for  the 
development of new national drugs policies. Eight of these had acceded to the EU in 2004. Ten Member 
States  indicated  that  the  Action  Plan  had  been  discussed  and  assessed  against  the  background  of  their 
existing national policy. The extent to which the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy and current EU Drugs 
Action Plan are actually reflected in national actions on drugs needs to be further assessed.  

Objective 2. Ensure effective coordination at EU level 

Council 

2.  The  Council’s  Horizontal  Drugs 
Group  (HDG),  as  the  working  group 
with leading and steering responsibility 
for  drugs  in  the  Council,  should  pro-
actively  coordinate  EU  drugs  policy. 
identify  specific 
The  HDG  should 

Even  though  the  Horizontal  Drugs  Group  (HDG)  continues  to  be  the  main  coordinating  structure  in  the 
Council dealing with drugs policy, some concerns have been raised about the involvement of the HDG in 
initiatives  addressed  in  the  Multi-Disciplinary  Group  on  Organised  Crime  (MDG)  and  in  the  newly 
established Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI). The European Pact against international drug 
trafficking,  for  instance,  which  was  adopted  in  June  2010,  was  presented  directly  at  political  level  and 

EN 

4 

EN 

 
  
areas of work in other Council working 
groups  and  work  towards  effective 
coordination. 

3.  The  Commission  and  Council  to 
ensure coherence between internal and 
external drugs policy 

COM 

Council 

4. The Council to examine the state of 
the  drug  problem  once  a  year,  on  the 
the  Commission’s  annual 
basis  of 
progress  review,  relevant  reports  from 

Council 

COM 

2 

2009/1: Czech Republic; 2009/2: Sweden; 2010/1: Spain. 

discussed and adopted through COSI. The coordination with the HDG was not always considered adequate. 
The three Presidencies2 in 2009 and the first half of 2010 each presented a specific list of priorities to be 
addressed.  The  Czech  Presidency  placed  emphasis  on  Migration,  Integration  and  Drugs;  Production, 
Trafficking and Use of Methamphetamine; and Evaluation of Supply Reduction Interventions. The Swedish 
Presidency  focused  on  initiatives  to  prevent  or  delay  the  use  of  drugs  among  young  people,  a  more 
effective fight against crime at EU level to reduce drug supply, and a more extensive knowledge base for 
drugs  policy  and  international  cooperation.  Spain’s  priorities  included  the  expansion  of  information  and 
data  in  the  field  of  drugs,  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  the  LAC  countries,  and  law  enforcement 
cooperation  in  particular  on  the  use  of  non-commercial  aviation  by  criminal  organisations  for  drug 
trafficking. 

During the Czech Presidency, the Council adopted Conclusions on the development and implementation of 
indicators in the field of drug supply (9634/09; CORDROGUE 26; 8.5.2009), under Action 67 of the EU 
Drugs  Action  Plan  2009-2012.  During  the  Swedish  Presidency,  the  Council  adopted  Conclusions  on  the 
promotion  of  universal  prevention  programmes  (11818/2/09;  CORDROGUE  48,  4.9.2009),  on 
strengthening  the  fight  against  drug  trafficking  in  Western  Africa  (15248/09;  CORDROGUE  69; 
4.11.2009) and on strengthening EU research capacity on illicit drugs (15594/1/09 Rev1; CORDDROGUE 
78; 26.11.2009). During the Spanish Presidency the Council adopted Conclusions on information systems 
on  drugs  (5876/10Rev1;  CORDROGUE  21;  29.1.2010)  and  on  the  threat  assessment  of  airfields  and 
medium, small-size and light aircrafts that can be used for drug trafficking (10328/10; CORDROGUE 53; 
28.5.2010). The Presidencies regularly ensured feedback to the Horizontal Drugs Group on the drug-related 
activities of other working groups, notably the Multi-Disciplinary Group on Organised Crime (MDG), the 
Customs  Cooperation  Working  Group  (dealing  with  drug  precursors)  and  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Internal Security (COSI).  

Following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  and  the  creation  of  the  European  External  Action 
Service  (EEAS),  the  preparation  of  a  Commission  Communication  on  coherence  between  internal  and 
external drugs policy has been postponed to 2012.  

Presenting  together  the  different  strands  of  information  from  the  Commission,  EMCDDA,  Europol  and 
other  agencies  such  as  Eurojust  enables  the  Council  to  obtain  coherent  and  coordinated  insight  into  the 
main developments and challenges in the field of drugs each year.  

EN 

5 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
MS 

EMCDDA 

Europol 

Eurojust 

PRES 

MS 

the EMCDDA, Europol and Eurojust 

5.  Presidency  to  convene  meetings  of 
the national drugs coordinators or their 
to 
equivalents  on  a  regular  basis 
advance  coordination  on  specific  and 
urgent  issues  requiring  action.  The 
coordinators to be invited to contribute 
to the Council’s annual examination of 
the  state  of  the  drugs  problem  (see 
action 4 above) 

During the Czech, Swedish and Spanish Presidencies, meetings were organised between the national drug 
coordinators (NDC). The Czech Presidency focused on two topics during the NDC meeting in April 2009: 
Drugs  Policy  Coordination  and  Migration,  Integration  and  Drugs.  The  coordinators  concluded  that  the 
exchange of experience and good practices in the field of drugs policy coordination needs to be encouraged 
and  that  action  plans  should  include  a  cost-benefit  analysis  and have  a proper financial  basis.  Moreover, 
they pointed out that migration requires special attention as in several countries specific migrant groups and 
national minority groups run a particular risk of developing drug problems. 

The Swedish Presidency devoted the NDC meeting in November 2009 to the prevention or delay of first 
use of illicit drugs among young people. The Spanish Presidency addressed poly-drug use in the EU, with 
an  emphasis  on  alcohol  use.  The  coordinators  concluded  that  the  EU  should  examine  whether  a  more 
holistic  policy  dealing  with  all  psychoactive  substances  could  be  developed,  taking  into  account  the 
important links between illicit and licit drug use and the related problems related.  

Objective 3. Ensure effective coordination at national level 

MS 

States  made 

6.  Taking  into  account  the  work  on 
Drugs  coordination  mechanisms  in  all 
EU  Member 
by 
EMCDDA, Member States to examine 
coordination  on 
inter-departmental 
drugs 
that  coordinated 
to  ensure 
positions are presented at EU level and 
that  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Action 
Plan  are  relayed  to  the  most  effective 
implementing level 

All  EU  Member  States  have  a  drug  coordination  mechanism  and  most  of  these  have  three  main 
components: 
–  A  strategic  inter-ministerial  board,  commission,  committee,  council  or  coordination  group  on  drugs, 
which defines the general framework for drugs policy and adopts the national drug strategies and action 
plans.  Usually  this  body  includes  all  or  most  ministries  and  government  departments  concerned  with 
drug-related  matters.  Experts  and  regional  authorities  are  in  some  cases  also  members  of  these 
coordination bodies.  

–  An  operative  body,  which  can  be  the  secretariat  of  the  inter-ministerial  body,  a  national  drug 
coordinator,  a  national  drugs  agency  or  drug  strategy  team  and/or  a  department  in  a  given  ministry 
(mostly the Ministry of Health). These bodies perform day-to-day coordination in the drugs policy field 
and oversee the implementation and monitoring of drug strategies and action plans. 

–  Regional  and/or  municipal  bodies,  which  coordinate  at  local  level.  Their  task  is  to  coordinate  the 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
  
implementation of drug-related interventions. 

At EU level, there are several Council working parties and management boards of agencies dealing with 
illicit drugs policies where Member States are represented. In addition, Member States are represented in 
several international structures and platforms (UNODC, CND, UNAIDS) that deal with different aspects of 
the drug phenomenon. For this annual assessment, the Commission asked Member States to report on how 
their  positions  on  drugs  policy  in  international  organisations  and  in  EU  structures  are  coordinated  at 
national level.  
A large number of Member States3 indicated that their positions in different Council Working Parties and 
in UN organisations are coordinated through inter-ministerial structures. Seven Member States4 indicated 
that  one  specific  department  may  be  responsible  for  the  coordination  of  national  drugs  policy  and  that 
positions at EU and international level are coordinated on an ad-hoc basis. In some cases, working groups 
dealing with EU affairs have been set up within such coordinating departments. In Finland, a specific EU 
interdepartmental drug working group has been set up, while the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs may 
set up a specific working group on EU affairs in the field of drugs. In France and Greece, the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs has the leading role in coordinating positions on drugs in the various bodies. In Latvia and 
Lithuania,  specific  mechanisms  have  been  set  up  to  coordinate  positions  in  the  EU,  but  not  specifically 
related to drugs.  

Regarding  coordination  in  international  organisations  such  as  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Pompidou  Group 
and  UN  bodies,  in  most  Member  States,  the  national  drug  coordination  mechanisms  are  in  charge  of 
preparing positions, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is often also structurally part of these mechanisms. 
For  the  coordination  of  positions  in  e.g.  WHO  and  UNAIDS,  the  picture  is  more  fragmented,  as  these 
organisations  address  a  variety  of  issues  other  than  drugs.  In  countries  such  as  France,  the  Ministry  of 
Foreign  Affairs  takes  the  lead,  but  coordinates  positions  with  the  inter-ministerial  drug  coordination 
structure.  In  Germany  and  Hungary,  the  coordination  of  international  positions  involves  government 
agencies and civil society organisations.  

Objective 4. Ensure the participation of civil society in drugs policy 

7.  The  Commission  to  seek  at  least 
once  a  year  feedback  on  drugs  policy 

COM 

The third meeting of the EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs (CSF) was held in Brussels 3-4 March 2009. A 
number  of  issues  were  addressed  at  this  meeting,  including  the  EU  Drugs  Action  Plan  2009-2012, 

3 
4 

Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. 
Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Poland and Sweden. 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
from the Civil Society Forum on Drugs 

to 

civil 

inviting 

8.  The  Commission 
launch  an 
initiative,  'The  European  Alliance  on 
society 
Drugs', 
organisations across the EU (including 
e.g.  schools,  commercial  enterprises, 
public bodies and NGOs) to participate 
in  a  common  framework  designed  to 
create public commitment about and to 
take  action  on  drug  problems 
in 
society. 

negotiations on the new UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action on international cooperation towards 
an integrated and balanced strategy to counter the world drug problem, and a Commission study into the 
global illicit drugs market 1998-20075.  

It was agreed that the CSF members would actively participate in establishing the agenda on drugs policy, 
with  the  help of  a  core group  of  its  members,  which  is  to  meet  in  between  the  official  gatherings  of  the 
Forum.  

The  next  meeting  of  the  CSF  will  be  held  by  the  end  of  2010  and  will  discuss  a  possible  input  to  the 
drafting of the new EU Drugs Strategy. An open call for applications to renew membership of the Forum 
will be launched in the second half of 2010.  

COM 

The title ‘European Alliance on Drugs’ was changed into the ‘European Action on Drugs’ (EAD) to better 
reflect its mission: to engage civil society in concrete action to address illicit drugs and their potential risks.  

The awareness-raising campaign aims to involve individuals and groups, whose commitment to action may 
then  have  a  multiplier  effect  among  other  groups  in  society.  The  actors  involved  include  municipalities, 
media, clubs, schools, parent and youth associations, and companies. The campaign provides a platform6 
and  networking  opportunities  for  civil-society  bodies  in  the  Member  States.  In  addition,  several  events 
bringing together campaign participants are organised each year in the Member States and in Brussels.  

The EAD was launched by Jacques Barrot, Vice-President in charge of Justice, Freedom and Security at a 
high-profile  event  on  26  June  2009  (World  Drugs  Day)  and  national  events  were  held  subsequently  in 
Rome  (2009),  Berlin  (2010)  and  London  (2010).  The  2010  annual  EAD  event  took  place  on  25  June  in 
Brussels,  focusing  on  the  prevention  of  drug-related  crime  among  young  people  and  bringing  together 
personalities  from  the  worlds  of  sports  and  entertainment  to  share  their  experiences  on  drugs.  Viviane 
Reding, Commission Vice-President in charge of justice, opened the event via a pre-recorded speech. 

To date, around 700 individuals and organisations from civil society have engaged in the EAD campaign. 
An independent evaluation of the campaign will be launched towards the end of 2010.  

9.  Member  States  to  involve  civil 
society  at  all  appropriate  levels  of 
in  accordance  with 
drugs  policy, 

COM 

MS 

The  ongoing  reporting  in  this  area  seems  to  suggest  an  increasing  involvement  of  civil  society  in  drugs 
policy  within  the  Member  States  in  recent  years.  In  a  survey  conducted  in  preparation  of  this  annual 
assessment, the Commission asked the Member States about specific aspects of civil society involvement at 

5 
6 

European Commission, A Study on Global Illicit Drug Markets 1998-2007, JLS/2007/C4/005; by Trimbos Institute and RAND. 
Website of the European Action on Drugs: http://ec.europa.eu/ead/html/index.jsp. 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
national practices 

national level. Of the 24 responding Member States, 23 indicated that they involved civil society in drugs 
policy. Non-governmental organisations representing the interests of individual stakeholders in the field of 
drugs  (e.g.  users  and/or  their  families)  participate  in  the  policy  process  in  17  Member  States7.  The  same 
number of Member States8 report the involvement of NGOs that are specifically active in the field of drugs 
policy.  Nineteen  Member  States9  report  the  involvement  of  professional  drug  service  providers  in  the 
development of national drugs policies. In seven Member States10, citizens’ opinion panels and surveys are 
used  as  a  feedback  instrument.  Four  Member  States  report  that  other  specific  groups  are  involved  or 
consulted.  

7 
8 
9 

10 

EN 

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and UK. 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and UK. 
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia 
and UK. 
France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia and UK. 

9 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
3. 

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION (OBJECTIVES 5-10) 

Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need to further improve the effectiveness of measures to reduce drug use and its consequences 
by  improving  the  coverage,  quality  and  effectiveness  of  demand  reduction  interventions,  i.e.  prevention,  treatment  and  harm  reduction.  This  includes 
particular  attention  to  vulnerable  groups  and  the  prevention  of  poly-drug  use  (combined  use  of  illicit  and  licit  substances,  including  alcohol,  volatile 
substances and tobacco). 

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION 

Objective 

Responsible 

State of play 

party 

Objective 5. Prevent the use of drugs and the risks associated with it 

make 

programmes 

10.  To  promote  innovation  in  and 
systematically 
available 
evidence-based and evaluated universal 
prevention 
and 
interventions  in  different  settings  (e.g. 
towards young people in youth centres, 
and  schools  and  towards  adults  in 
workplace  and  prison),  aiming 
to 
prevent  or  delay  first  use  of  drugs. 
Prevention should also cover poly-drug 
use  (combined  use  of  illicit  and  licit 
substances,  in  particular  alcohol)  as 
well as drugs and driving 

MS 

The EMCDDA has recently reviewed current evidence regarding universal prevention in school settings11. 
School-based  programmes  working  with  social  influence  principles  have  been  found  to  have  positive 
effects  on  young  people’s  drug  use.  Life  skills-focused  programmes  also  have  beneficial  effects  on  both 
mediating variables (e.g. self-esteem, peer pressure resistance) and substance use. However, some reviews 
have raised concerns regarding the existing evaluations and concluded that effectiveness may be overstated. 
The  effects  of  knowledge-focused  programmes  on  behaviour  change  are  very  limited.  The  research 
evidence  for  the  effectiveness  of  school-based  programmes  through  the  involvement  of  peers  is 
inconclusive.  Programmes  that  include  booster  sessions  appear  more  effective.  Interactive  programmes 
have preventive effects on consumption behaviour (for tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and other illegal drugs) 
and are ‘statistically superior’ to non-interactive interventions in preventing drug use. 

In 2007, EU Member States provided qualitative data on universal prevention in their country with expert 
ratings of the level of provision and the policy importance of different types of intervention. Follow-up data 
will  be  collected  in  2010.  According  to  the  2007  data,  a  wide  variety  of  prevention  interventions  were 
implemented in European schools with very different levels of provision. Overall, these data showed that 
most pupils took part in programmes without evidence-based content (information provision and effective 

11 

http://emcdda.europa.eu/themes/best-practice/evidence/universal-prevention. 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Objective 6. Prevent high risk behaviour of drug users — including injecting drug users — through targeted prevention 

education). Information provided by the National Focal Points in 2008 and 2009 mentioned mainly one-off 
and isolated prevention interventions, with few evidence-based and evaluated programmes.  

In  conclusion,  there  seems  to  be  no  indication  that  evidence-based  and  evaluated  programmes  and 
strategies, including those targeting first use, are used more often in Member States. 

techniques 

intervention 

11.  To  further  develop  early  detection 
and 
and 
implement 
evaluated 
effective, 
selective  prevention  for  vulnerable 
groups at high risk of developing drug 
problems, including injecting drug use 

MS 

In  2007,  EU  Member  States  provided  qualitative  data  on  selective  prevention  with  expert  ratings  of  the 
level  of  provision  and  the  policy  importance  of  different  types  of  interventions.  Follow-up  data  will  be 
collected in 2010. According to the 2007 data, there is limited provision of selective prevention in Europe, 
with most interventions targeting young offenders, vulnerable families and ethnic groups. The data indicate 
that the coverage of selective prevention has not increased in recent years.  

Information  provided  by  the  National  Focal  Points  in  2008  and  2009  highlighted  recently  implemented 
selective  prevention  interventions  for  ethnic  groups  in  Belgium,  Luxembourg  and  Hungary.  FRED12,  a 
systematic intervention protocol for young offenders in Germany, is being implemented with EU support in 
15 other Member States13. Interventions based on the Strengthening Families model — an evidence-based 
parenting intervention for vulnerable families — have been implemented and evaluated in Ireland, Spain, 
the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden.  

Overall trends in drug use are unlikely to reflect directly the impact of selective prevention interventions in 
Europe,  as  many  other  factors  influence  the  numbers  and  characteristics  of  (problem)  drug  users. 
Information on the time lag between the age at which drug users enter drug treatment for the first time and 
the age at which they first used drugs might be an indicator of early intervention needs, a measure to assess 
whether early intervention programmes are achieving the objective of bringing (problem) drug users into 
services earlier. For clients who entered treatment for the first time in 2008, around 42 % started to use their 
main drug between the ages of 15 and 19, and 17 % before the age of 15 — regardless of the type of drug. 
For clients with cannabis as their primary drug, 39 % started to use the drug before the age of 15. Currently, 
for new outpatient clients, the average time lag between first use of primary drug and first treatment request 
is  around  9  years14.  This differs  by  main  drug of use  and gender.  A  multiannual dataset,  making  longer-
term trends visible for this indicator, is not yet available.  

12 
13 
14 

EN 

http://www.lwl.org/LWL/Jugend/lwl_ks/Projekte_KS1/Fgn-english/?lang=en. 
Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom. 
The ‘primary drug’ means the drug for which treatment is requested. 

11 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
MS 

12.  To  further  develop  and  implement 
evaluated 
effective, 
indicative 
prevention 
specific  high-risk 
for 
groups  of  (poly-)  drug  users,  by 
low-threshold 
to 
offering 
counselling, 
behaviour 
problem 
management and outreach work where 
relevant 

access 

In 2009, five 15 Member States reported interventions for children with ADHD or disruptive behaviour and 
a third16 of EU countries reported early detection and counselling interventions for individuals who already 
use substances (early intervention). Overall, the number of reported interventions is low but they are more 
often evaluated and evidence-based than is the case in other areas of prevention.  
In 2008, the EMCDDA commissioned a study on indicated prevention17, including a literature review that 
identified  six  programmes  (four  of  which  are  being  assessed  as  ‘best  practice’),  and  a  data  collection 
exercise  in  Member  States  that  identified  23  programmes  (three  of  which  were  ‘best  practice’,  i.e. 
compatible  with  EDDRA18  criteria).  Another  survey  on  internet-based  counselling  and  treatment 
interventions19  found  several  internet-based  drug  treatment  interventions,  designed  for  cannabis,  cocaine 
and  ‘club  drug’  (e.g.  ecstasy)  users.  Four  targeted  young  adults  and  adolescents,  three  were  counsellor-
guided and one was a fully automated self-help programme. Only one programme, ‘Quit the shit’ (QTS) in 
Germany, was evaluated for effectiveness. 

In  the  first  half  of  2010,  an  EU-led  project  targeting  recreational  drug  use  in  nightlife  settings,  ‘Healthy 
Nightlife Toolbox’20, was completed. As part of this project, a website provides information on a range of 
prevention programmes and projects targeting recreational drug use, which have been critically reviewed 
and  classified  according  to  strength  of  evidence  information.  The  project  was  funded  by  the  European 
Commission’s Programme of Community Action in the field of Public Health (2003-2008).  

Objective 7. Enhance the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation by improving the availability, accessibility and quality of services 

of 

the  effectiveness  and 
13.  Increase 
spread 
drug 
evidence-based 
treatment options covering a variety of 
psychosocial 
pharmacological 
approaches, corresponding to the needs 

and 

MS 

Opioid  substitution  treatment,  combined  with  psychosocial  interventions,  has  been  found  to  be  the  most 
effective treatment option for opioid users. As yet, no drug has been found to be effective for treatment of 
cocaine  dependence.  However,  more  than  100  ongoing  randomised  controlled  trials  are  testing  new 
substances,  sometimes  in  association  with  psychological  interventions.  A  number  of  clinical  trials  of 
pharmaceuticals  for  use  in  treating  amphetamine  dependence  have  recently  been  published  or  are  in 

15 
16 
17 

18 
19 
20 

EN 

Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden. 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Norway. 
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2009), Preventing later substance use disorders in at-risk children and adolescents: a review of the theory and 
evidence base of indicated prevention. Thematic papers; http://emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/indicated-prevention. 
Exchange on Drug Demand Reduction Action. 
http://emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index78701EN.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/documents/projects/highlights/2007_5986_EN_85.pdf; project No 2006345; project website: www.hnt-info.eu. 

12 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
relevant 
of  drug  users 
treatment  adapted  to  new  drugs  or 
types of use) 

(including 

progress.  Among  all  studies,  only  naltrexone  was  associated  with  a  significant  benefit  in  terms  of  use 
reduction. In a clinical study, the addition of contingency management improved the results compared to 
treatment alone. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of interventions for cannabis users, despite the 
increase in the demand for treatment.  

According to estimates using information from different sources, at least one million people received drug-
related  treatment  in  Europe  in  2007,  most  receiving  opioid  substitution  treatment.  Opioid  substitution 
treatment was provided to around 670 000 opioid users in 2008. Availability of this type of treatment has 
risen tenfold since 1993 in the EU, an increase which has been facilitated in several countries by involving 
general practitioners, alongside specialist facilities, in delivery.  

As  part  of  the  survey  conducted  in  preparation  of  this  annual  assessment,  the  Commission  asked  the 
Member States what action had been taken to monitor and/ or evaluate the effectiveness of drug treatment 
in the past two to three years. Of the 23 countries that provided information, three21 indicated that no such 
action  had  been  undertaken  recently.  Four22  reported  that  ad-hoc  evaluations  were  being  carried  out  (on 
individual programmes), but not structurally at national level. Ten Member States23 indicated that they had 
conducted evaluation studies to assess the effectiveness of drug treatment, and in almost half of these the 
evaluation specifically targeted substitution treatment. In France, therapeutic communities were evaluated, 
while  Ireland  reported  structural  evaluations  in  the  field  of  drug  treatment  and  the  UK  stated  it  had  a 
national indicator for the delivery of treatment. Three Member States24 reported that they were developing 
indicators  to  better  monitor  the  delivery  of  treatment,  while  four  Member  States25  indicated  that  they 
structurally monitor the delivery and effectiveness of drug treatment services. In Denmark, this is part of a 
national programme to improve quality in the health sector.  

The  survey  also  asked  the  Member  States  whether  they  had  taken  any  specific  measures  since  2008  to 

21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Belgium, Romania and Sweden. 
Austria, Finland, Greece and Poland. 
Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and UK. 
Finland, Denmark and Lithuania. 
Denmark, Germany, Spain and UK. 
Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal and Romania. 
Austria, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain. 
Denmark, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden and UK. 
Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia. 
Austria, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Spain. 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
14.  To  deliver  existing  and  develop 
innovative rehabilitation  and  social  re-
integration  programmes 
that  have 
measurable outcomes 

MS 

implement  evidence-based  drug  treatment  options  on  a  structural  basis.  Of  the  23  Member  States  that 
responded,  eight26  indicated  that  no  specific  measures  had  been  taken,  in  Germany  because  this  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  Länder.  In  Bulgaria  and  Luxembourg  all  services  are  already  evidence-  and  best-
practice-based. Five Member States27 reported that the implementation of evidence-based programmes was 
an ongoing process, but not necessarily based on scientific grounds alone (Austria) and also involved the 
need to convince professionals to pursue an evaluation culture in their work (Italy). Seven Member States28 
reported  that  they  had  undertaken  specific  action  to  implement  evidence-based  treatment,  mostly  by 
developing and implementing treatment guidelines.  

Finally,  the  survey  also  asked  whether  Member  States  had  made  the  application  of  evidence-based 
guidelines for drug treatment a precondition for public funding of treatment services. Of the 20 Member 
States that answered this question, 1329 indicated that this was not a precondition as such. For Germany, 
this  was  because  services  are  often  not  publicly  funded  but  are  financed  by  e.g.  insurance  companies. 
However, Germany did report an increased use of evidence-based guidelines. In Sweden, local authorities 
that purchase drug treatment services will most likely include quality criteria in their orders. In Denmark 
and  the  UK,  evidence-based  drug  treatment  is  not  a  direct  precondition,  but  often  part  of  broader  good 
practice  guidelines  and  rules  for  medical  services.  Finally,  in  five  Member  States30,  the  delivery  of 
evidence-based treatment is a precondition for public funding. 

One way to identify both the need for and impact of rehabilitation and social reintegration programmes is 
to  follow  changes  in  the  demographic  profile  of  clients  entering  treatment.  Treatment  clients  are 
characterised by disadvantaged social conditions. Data on clients entering outpatient drug treatment in the 
EU in 2008 found:  
– 

low  levels  of  education  (only  38 %  had  completed  primary  education  and  2 %  had  not  completed 
obligatory schooling);  

–  precarious living situations (9 % were living in unstable accommodation, most being homeless);  
–  high levels of unemployment (35 % were unemployed and 12 % economically inactive).  

Social  reintegration  programmes  may  include  vocational  counselling,  work  placements  and  housing 
support. Prison-based interventions, which have an impact on relapse and re-offending, may link inmates to 
community-based housing and social support services in preparation for their release.  

Information is scarce on the availability and coverage of social reintegration interventions in the Member 
States,  the  target  groups  they  address  and  their  outcomes.  All  Member  States  report  the  availability  of 
housing, education and employment programmes and services. Often, the educational or vocational training 
interventions  that  specifically  target  drug  users  are  contingent  upon  participants  being  drug-free  for  a 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
of 

treatment 

15. To publicise, where appropriate the 
existence 
and 
rehabilitation  services  and  the  variety 
these  services  offer  at 
of  options 
national,  regional  and  local  level  for 
potential target audiences  

MS 

certain period. Five Member States31 report prioritising employment-related aspects of the recovery process 
through  new  initiatives  and  increased  funding  allocation.  In  most  cases,  these  are  part  of  drug  users’ 
treatment  care  plans  or  contingent  upon  starting  treatment.  More  information  will  be  collected  by  the 
EMCDDA in 2010 with a new questionnaire on social reintegration, with a focus on employability-related 
interventions for drug users in treatment. 

In 2010, the EMCDDA conducted a survey among National Focal Points in order to assess the availability 
of  public  registers  (e.g.  internet  portals)  informing  the  public  of  the  existence  of  treatment  and 
rehabilitation services and the options these services offer at national, regional and local level. The survey 
found that public registers were available in all 25 responding EU Member States. In most countries, they 
provide national coverage of available treatment facilities and programmes, with a regional breakdown. In 
some cases they allow the public to search for specific treatment programmes by drug, target group (e.g. 
gender-specific, age-related), type of programme (e.g. outpatient or residential), costs, etc. 

In all reporting countries, these registers are accessible via the internet and in most cases on the website of 
the  national  treatment  agencies  or  another  relevant  national  health  agency.  In  some  cases,  the  list  of 
facilities  can  be  downloaded.  Almost  half  of  the  countries  also  provide  maps  to  facilitate  geographical 
searching of available treatment and rehabilitation programmes.  

These public registers are also available to the public in the EMCDDA’s national drug treatment profiles 
for  each respective  country. These  are  available  online  and  are  among  the  first hits  in  all  popular  search 
engines (only available in English). (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/responses/treatment-overviews). 

As part of the survey conducted among Member States in preparation of this annual assessment report, the 
Commission  asked  Member  States  about  the  ‘channels’  through  which  potential  users  of  drug  treatment 
services are made aware of the existence and availability of such services, apart from the internet. Nineteen 
out of 24  responding  countries  mention  family  doctors while 21  countries  point  to outreach  services  and 
government information services. In 22 countries, telephone help lines as well as family and friends play an 
important role. In 17 countries, drug treatment service providers advertise their services directly, while in 
14  Member  States  public  awareness  campaigns  draw  attention  to  the  availability  of  services.  In  Cyprus, 
potential  clients  are  also  referred  to  services  by  schools  or  the  army.  In  Denmark  and  Germany,  social 
welfare services play a role, while in Germany and Spain hospital (emergency) departments refer clients to 
services as well. In the UK, referral is often by specialised community drug treatment services. 

31 

Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom. 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Objective 8. Enhance the quality and effectiveness of drug demand reduction activities, taking account of specific needs of drug users according to 
gender, cultural background, age, etc. 

good 

implement  and 
17.  To  develop, 
practice 
exchange 
guidelines/quality 
for 
prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction 
and  rehabilitation  interventions  and 
services 

standards 

and 

services, 

rehabilitation 

to  survey 
effectiveness 

the 
18.  Member  States 
availability 
of 
prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction 
and 
in 
responding  to  specific  needs,  on  the 
basis  of  a  methodological  framework 
to  be  developed  by  the  Commission  - 
with  the  support  of  the  EMCDDA  - 
and  that  is  compatible  with  existing 
methodologies  

MS 

COM 

EMCDDA 

The development,  implementation  and  exchange  of good practice guidelines  and quality  standards  in the 
field of drug demand reduction is primarily a task of national authorities and service providers in this area. 
However, such guidelines and quality standards are not common practice in most Member States.  

A study commissioned by the EMCDDA, aiming to identify existing guidelines in Member States in the 
field  of  drug  treatment,  found  out  that  72  sets  of  guidelines  existed  in  the  27  reporting  countries.  Most 
common  were  guidelines  covering  psychosocial  interventions  (n=29);  substitution  treatment  (n=28),  and 
detoxification (n=22). Countries with higher rates of patients in oral substitution treatment were more likely 
to  have  treatment  guidelines.  Many  guidelines  targeted  professionals  (58),  service  providers  (52)  and 
health-care planners (25) as end users. Seventeen countries involved relevant professionals in expert groups 
to develop the guidelines, nine countries involved a researcher, four countries involved ‘other’ unspecified 
professionals, three countries involved politicians and one country involved clients. The study also found 
that guidelines were usually mandatory for opioid substitution treatment, and in approximately half of the 
responding countries guidelines are required in order to obtain authorisation to operate a treatment centre.  

MS 

COM 

EMCDDA 

Although  the  provision  of  drug  demand  reduction  services  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States, 
EMCDDA reports as well as the final evaluation report on the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005-2008 show that 
the  link  is  often  unclear  between  the  availability,  accessibility  and  delivery  of  drug  demand  reduction 
services and actual needs in society.  

In  preparation  of  this  annual  assessment,  the  Commission  asked  the  Member  States  to  indicate  whether 
they  had  conducted  a  national  survey  to  assess  the  availability,  coverage  and  effectiveness  of  demand 
reduction  services  in  the  past  three  years.  Of  the  24  countries  responding,  eight32  indicated  that  no  such 
survey had been carried out recently. Malta indicated that a survey was underway, while Denmark pointed 
out that the delivery of demand reduction services is decentralised to local social services. Some specific 
areas were surveyed nationally though, e.g. hepatitis C provision. Finland indicated that surveys had been 
carried out to map available services, but this did not necessarily include coverage or the link with potential 
needs. Germany indicated that a central register of all addiction services exists at federal level, but this does 

32 

Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland and Romania. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
not include data on coverage and availability.  
Eleven  Member  States33  indicated  that  surveys  had  been  conducted.  In  Hungary  this  included  ad-hoc 
surveys  into  non-school  prevention,  rehabilitation  and  substitution  treatment.  In  addition,  with  Structural 
Fund support, a pilot project had been launched in four regions to assess the need for and corresponding 
availability of demand reduction services with the aim of improving provision. In Ireland, an inventory for 
needle  and  syringe  exchange  was  conducted,  while  in  Lithuania  an  assessment  of  needs  and  matching 
availability  was  conducted  structurally  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  users  applying  for  services.  In 
Luxembourg  a  dedicated  working  group  had  been  set  up  to  assess  demand-reduction  needs,  while  in 
Portugal a gap analysis had been conducted in 2007. In Sweden, needs assessments primarily covered the 
field  of  prevention,  while  in  the  UK  such  assessments  were  the  task  of  local  services,  supported  by  the 
National Treatment Agency. In the UK, specific attention was devoted to matching the treatment needs of 
young people and available services.  

The Member States were also asked how the planning authorities in their countries allocated resources to 
the  various  drug  treatment  and  harm  reduction  services,  if  surveys  of  coverage  and  availability  were  not 
conducted on a regular basis. Many of the 19 Member States34 that responded to this question indicated that 
national  indicators  were  used,  such  as  the  EMCDDA  Key  Indicators  (e.g.  Treatment  Demand,  Problem 
Drug Use). In Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain and the UK, statistical data are often 
supplemented by expert estimations and needs assessments at local level. In Germany and Poland, services 
are mostly provided by private drug services and/or NGOs who estimate the needs and apply for funding.  

The Commission is actively promoting the development, collection and exchange of quality standards and 
benchmarks in the field of drug demand reduction in the EU. In the field of prevention, the Commission 
funded a project ‘European standards in evidence for drug prevention’35 in 2008, under the Programme of 
Community  Action  in  the  field  of  Public  Health  (2003-2008).  The  project  aims  to  produce  a  set  of 
evidence-based drug prevention standards for use in the EU.  

In  2010,  the  Commission  made  funding  available  for  the  study  ‘EU  Consensus  on  minimum  quality 
standards and benchmarks in drug demand reduction36, as preparatory work for a Commission proposal for 
a Council Recommendation in this field by 2012. The proposal will aim to help bring about a measurable 

MS 

Council 

COM 

EMCDDA 

quality 

standards 

reduction  and 

19.  To  develop  an  EU  consensus  on 
and 
minimum 
benchmarks  for  prevention,  treatment, 
harm 
rehabilitation 
interventions  and  services  taking  into 
account  needs  of  specific  groups  and 
the  work  done  at  national  and 
international level  

33 
34 
35 
36 

EN 

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and UK. 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and UK. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html; Project No 2007304; project website: http://www.cph.org.uk/drugprevention/. 
Call for tender: JLS/2009/DPIP/PR/1023. 

17 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
20.  To  develop,  as  appropriate, 
services  for  minorities,  including,  for 
example, migrants 

MS 

improvement in minimum quality standards and benchmarks covering all components in the field of drug 
demand  reduction:  prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction,  and  rehabilitation  and  reintegration  in  the  EU 
Member States.  

The project will:  
–  Conduct an inventory of existing (minimum) quality standards and benchmarks at national, EU and — 

where relevant — international level for the various types of demand-reduction interventions; 

–  Develop a workable design for a realistic, feasible and scientifically robust framework for EU minimum 

quality standards and benchmarks;  

–  Establish  a  framework  for  effective  consultation  and  an  advisory  mechanism  for  consensus  building 
among experts and relevant stakeholders in the Member States and the EU institutions. The final report 
will  set  out  options  for  EU  minimum  quality  standards  and  benchmarks  in  the  field  of  drug  demand 
reduction. 

In  2007,  EU  Member  States  provided  qualitative  data  on  selective  prevention  with  expert  ratings  of  the 
level of provision and the policy importance of different types of interventions, including those targeting 
specific minority groups in society. Follow-up data will be collected in 2011. According to the 2007 data, 
three  countries  reported  the  provision  of  prevention  interventions  for  immigrants,  in  locations  with 
sufficient numbers of the target population, while 11 countries reported no or rare provision or did not have 
information.  Four  countries  reported  provision  for  ethnic  groups,  while  ten  countries  reported  no  or  rare 
provision or did not have information.  

More recent information provided by the National Focal Points in 2008 and 2009 mentioned interventions 
for  ethnic  groups  in  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Romania  (low  coverage)  and  Italy.  No  evaluated 
interventions for ethnic groups have been recorded in the EMCDDA’s EDDRA database since 2008. 
In 2008,  eight  countries37  reported  specific drug  treatment  programmes  for  minorities  and  ethnic  groups, 
with  different  levels  of  provision.  Only  Greece  reported  that  specialised  programmes  were  available  to 
nearly  all  drug-using  members  of  ethnic  groups  who  actively  seek  treatment.  In  three  countries,  national 
experts estimated that specialist treatment for these groups is available to less than half of users seeking it, 
while  in  four  countries  only  a  few  could  obtain  treatment.  National  experts  from  17  Member  States 

37 

Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Finland and UK. 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
reported  that  specific  treatment  services  for  ethnic  groups  did  not  exist  in  their  country.  Denmark  and 
Ireland  had  no  information  and  two  countries38  did  not  respond  to  the  survey.  Only  Italy  and  Greece 
reported that treatment programmes were available for undocumented migrants.  

In  2008  gender-specific  treatment  programmes  were  reported  in  16  EU  Member  States,  and  in  four 
countries  such  programmes  specifically  targeted  addicted  pregnant  women  and  their  children.  However, 
national experts rated the availability of these programmes as ‘limited to rare’ in most countries, i.e. only a 
minority  of  women  in  need  would  actually  obtain  treatment.  Nine  countries  had  no  gender-specific 
treatment programmes. 

Children  and  adolescents  are  the  most  common  target  groups  addressed  by  specialised  treatment 
programmes in Europe. In 24 EU Member States, a variety of interventions are being implemented at both 
outpatient  and  inpatient  level.  National  experts  in  six  countries  considered  the  provision  of  these 
programmes as extensive to full, i.e. the majority of children or adolescents in need would obtain treatment. 
In the remaining 18 countries, however, only a minority of the target group have access to treatment. Only 
one country reported no specific treatment programmes for children/adolescents. 

Objective 9. Provide access to health care for drug users in prison to prevent and reduce health-related harm associated with drug abuse 

and 

implement 
21.  To  develop 
prevention,  treatment,  harm  reduction 
and  rehabilitation  services  for  people 
in  prison,  equivalent 
services 
available  outside  prison.  Particular 
emphasis  to  be  placed  on  follow-up 
care after release from prison. 

to 

MS 

The general principle of equivalence of care for prisoners compared to services for people outside prison is 
widely  recognised  by  EU  Member  States.  Objectives  for  drug-related  services  in  prison  are  part  of  an 
increasing  number  of  national  drug  strategies  and  drug  action  plans,  targeting  among  other  things  the 
improvement of the quality and continuity of prison treatment and care. Some Member States have specific 
health and drug strategies for the prison system39.  

Information  about  the  availability  and  level  of  provision  of  specific  health  measures,  based  on  expert 
sources, shows that services for inmates with drug problems are provided in all Member States in at least 
some prisons, but they generally reach few prisoners. 

On  the  basis  of  data  available  to  the  EMCDDA,  commonly  available  interventions  include  infectious-
disease risk counselling (in all EU prison systems), and hepatitis C testing, which is routinely offered upon 
prison  entry  in  at  least  22  countries.  Thirteen  countries  report  that  prison  staff  receive  drug-specific 
training, twelve countries provide hepatitis B vaccination programmes and seven countries have developed 

38 
39 

Malta and Sweden. 
Spain and Luxembourg. 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
information material on drug overdoses and emergencies for the prison setting.  

The  provision  of  information  material  on  drugs  and  health  issues  and  the  treatment  of  drug  dependence, 
including detoxification, drug-free treatment as well as opioid substitution treatment, are widespread across 
the EU.  
Since 2006, opioid substitution treatment has been introduced in prison in another six European countries40. 
In most countries, official regulations allow both the continuation in prison of opioid substitution treatment 
started  in  the  community  and  the  initiation  of  treatment  inside  prison.  In  five  EU  countries,  substitution 
treatment is currently not available to prisoners. The level of provision of opioid substitution treatment is 
variable and often depends on local conditions, but a link seems to exist between coverage in prisons and 
the scaling up of treatment in the community.  

Drug use continues to be more prevalent among prisoners than among the general population. Drug use and 
regular drug use in the month before imprisonment was reported by small proportions of respondents (1 % 
and 3 %,  respectively)  in  some  countries  and by  a  clear majority  in  others (58 %  and  77 %).  Studies  also 
indicate that the most harmful forms of drug use may be more frequent among prisoners, with between 6 % 
and 38 % of those surveyed reported having injected drugs at some time.  

On admission to prison, most users reduce or stop consuming drugs, mainly due to problems in acquiring 
the  substances.  However,  experts  and  policymakers  in  the EU  admit  that  illicit  drugs  find  their way  into 
most prisons, despite all the measures taken to reduce their supply. Studies carried out since 2003 show that 
drug use in prison is reported by 1 % to 56 % of inmates. Injecting drug users in custody appear to share 
their  equipment  more  often  than  users  not  in  prison.  This  raises  questions  about  the  potential  spread  of 
infectious diseases among the prison population.  

MS 

COM 

EMCDDA 

In many European countries the number of prisoners has dramatically increased over the past two decades. 
More than 600 000 people are incarcerated41 in the 27 EU Member States on a given day. At the same time, 
only limited information is available on drug use, drug-related health problems and drug services delivery 
in the EU Member States.  

Over the years, the EMCDDA has developed a number of instruments to provide information on drug use 
in prison. These include specific sections in the National Reports, but also standard tables and structured 
questionnaires  to  collect  data  on  prevalence  of  drug  use  and  drug  use  patterns  among  prisoners,  data  on 

22.  Member  States  to  endorse  and 
implement in prison settings indicators 
to  monitor  drug  use,  drug-related 
health  problems  and  drug  services 
delivery 
a 
the 
methodological  framework  developed 
by the Commission – with the support 

basis 

on 

of 

40 
41 

EN 

In 2006 in prisons in Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, and in 2008 in Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania. 
European Commission (EUROSTAT) — Statistics in Focus — Crime and Criminal Justice, 36/2009; total prison population in the EU27 in 2006. 

20 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
of  the  EMCDDA  that  is  compatible 
with  existing  methodologies,  and 
taking  into  account  the  work  done  by 
the  UNODC  (in  the  project  area  of 
HIV/AIDS and treat.net) and by WHO 
(Health in prisons) 

infectious  diseases  with  information  on  the  health  status  (serological  status)  of  drug  users  in  several 
settings,  including  prisons,  data  on  patients  entering  drug  treatment  in  prison,  information  on  health  and 
social responses to drug users in prison, including data on substitution treatment, data on harm reduction 
interventions  in  several  settings,  including  prison,  and  data  on  syringe  availability  in  several  settings, 
including prison. Despite this broad range of data sources, the reported information is often still scarce and 
fragmented, among other things due to a lack of uniform monitoring mechanisms in prison settings within 
Member States and at EU level.  

As  part  of  this  Drugs  Action  Plan,  the  EMCDDA  will  work  on  the  definition  and  implementation  of  a 
prison  monitoring  strategy  with  the  aim  of  filling  information  gaps,  harmonising  the  existing  data 
collection tools, and improving data and information comparability. An additional objective is to identify 
experts  in  the  field  of  drugs  and  prison,  making  potential  use  of  existing  networks  (e.g.  the  Council  of 
Europe annual survey on penal statistics) in consultation with the National Focal Points. 

Objective 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 of drug-related deaths in the EU 

MS 

23. To provide access to, and improve 
coverage  of,  harm  reduction  services 
and 
these 
the  variety  of  options 
services  offer  options  as  an  integral 
part of drug demand reduction, making 
interventions  of  proven 
use  of 
effectiveness where available 

The prevention and reduction of drug-related harm is a public health objective in all Member States42. A 
range  of  health  and  social  services  to  prevent  and  reduce  harm  associated  with  drug  dependence  are 
recommended  in  the  Council  Recommendation  of  18  June  200343,  including  those  suggested  by  WHO, 
UNODC  and  UNAIDS  (2009),  as  part  of  a  ‘comprehensive  package’  for  HIV  prevention  among  drug 
injectors.  Among  the  main  interventions  with  proven  effectiveness  in  preventing  drug-related  harm  are 
opioid substitution treatment and needle and syringe exchange programmes.  

Responses  to  the  spread  of  infectious  diseases  among  drug  users  include:  drug  treatment,  particularly 
opioid substitution treatment; the provision of sterile injection equipment; community-based activities that 
provide  information  and  safer-use  education;  condom  promotion  among  injecting  drug  users;  infectious 
disease testing and counselling; antiretroviral treatment; and vaccination against viral hepatitis. 

Around 40 million syringes per year are distributed through specialised programmes. This is equivalent to 
an average of 80 syringes per injecting drug user in the 25 countries reporting syringe data.  

The information available indicates a scarcity of specific harm-reduction responses to prevent drug-induced 

42 

43 

EN 

European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Council recommendation of 18 June 2003 on 
the prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence’, COM(2007)199 final. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:165:0031:0033:EN:PDF. 

21 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
deaths  and  overdose-related  morbidity,  despite  the  fact  that  the  reduction  of  drug-related  deaths  is  an 
explicit  policy  objective  in  16  countries.  In  general,  harm  reduction policies  and  interventions  in  the EU 
have progressed, but major differences exist between countries in the level of implementation of specific 
measures, reflecting their individual drug situation as well as policy priorities.  

HIV  infection  rates  are  generally  falling  in  the  EU,  following  a  peak  in  2001-2002.  HIV  prevalence 
monitoring data in samples of injecting drug users are available from 23 countries over the period 2003–
2008.  In  16  countries,  HIV  prevalence  remained  unchanged,  while  in  six  countries  it  decreased.  HCV 
prevalence is reported to be declining in nine countries and increasing in three others.  

During  the  period  1995–2007,  between  6 400  and  8 500  drug-induced  deaths  were  reported  each  year  in 
Europe. Among Europeans aged 15–39 years, drug overdoses accounted for 4 % of all deaths. Areas with a 
higher prevalence of problem drug use can be disproportionally affected. Between 2000 and 2003, most EU 
Member  States  reported  a  decrease  in  drug-induced  deaths  —  the  total  number  declined  by  23 %.  In 
subsequent  years,  the  number  stabilised  at  6 500  to  7 000  per  year.  Preliminary  data  available  for  2008 
suggest an overall figure at least equal to that for the previous year and possibly a rise of as much as 5 %, 
with  increases  reported by  12  out  of 19  countries  where a  comparison was  possible.  Indications  seem  to 
suggest that more overdose deaths are occurring because of cocaine use. Mortality rates for drug users are 
roughly 10 to 20 times higher than those of same age group in the general population. Generally, the main 
cause of death among problem drug users is drug overdose, accounting for up to 50–60 % of deaths among 
injectors in countries with a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS. 

In 2009, the Commission published a Communication on combating HIV/AIDS in the European Union and 
neighbouring  countries  2009-201344.  In  this  Communication  the  Commission  proposes  a  number  of 
specific measures to scale up the implementation of prevention strategies, support an effective response to 
HIV/AIDS in priority regions, such as the most affected EU Member States, the Russian Federation and the 
most affected neighbouring countries, and develop means to reach and support the populations most at risk 
and most vulnerable to HIV/AIDS across Europe. 

44 

COM(2009) 569 final, 26.10.2009. 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
4. 

DRUG SUPPLY REDUCTION (OBJECTIVES 11-15) 

Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need more effective law enforcement at EU level to counter drug production and trafficking, 
making  full  use  of  the  capacities  of  Europol  and  other  EU  structures.  Actions  should  be  based  on  an  intelligence-led  approach  that  systematically 
prioritises  the  suppliers  causing  the  most  harm  or  posing  the  most  serious  threat.  The  work  currently  being  undertaken  to  strengthen  the  links  and 
coherence between the data used by the various  EU JHA  entities will  be necessary to support this. More coordinated operations via regional security 
platforms should be supported. The new platforms should be set up without overlapping and be compatible with existing structures. 

DRUG SUPPLY REDUCTION 

Objective 

Responsible 

State of play 

party 

Objective 11. Enhance effective law enforcement cooperation in the EU to counter drug production and trafficking 

emerging 

threats,  using 

24.  To  target  criminal  organisations 
and 
an 
intelligence-led approach (based on the 
European  Criminal  Intelligence  Model 
(ECIM)  methodology)  that  prioritises 
the criminal networks and markets that 
pose the most serious threats 

MS 

Europol 

Eurojust 

Council 

Every year, the Council adopts Conclusions regarding the priorities for the fight against organised crime. 
These  priorities  are  largely  based  on  the  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  (OCTA)  published  by 
Europol.  According  to  the  European  Criminal  Intelligence  Model  (ECIM),  the  OCTA  findings  should 
inform the Intelligence Requirement (IR) for the next OCTA. The IR directs intelligence data collection in 
the  Member  States.  Apart  from  the  OCTA  findings,  the IR  should  also  take  into  consideration  emerging 
threats that are based on criminal environment scans.  

The data collected through the IR are submitted to Europol, which acts as the central analysis capability in 
the  EU,  enabling  it  to  produce  more  specific,  regional  or  commodity-oriented  Threat  Assessments,  and 
identify top-level criminal networks in the EU, in line with the priorities set by the Council. These top-level 
criminal networks are then targeted with EU-level resources such as COSPOL45, Joint Investigation Teams 
(JITs), Joint Customs Operations (JCOs), with the support of Eurojust where necessary. Information from 
investigations  and  operations  should  be  submitted  to  Europol  to  feed  into  the  next  OCTA  and  for  other 

45 

EN 

Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police; the objective of COSPOL projects is to facilitate best use of information at EU level, to identify opportunities 
for operational projects and to solve barriers in day-to-day cooperation by making use of existing tools, in particular Europol’s analytical capacities. In the field of drugs, there 
are COSPOL projects on cocaine (COLA), heroin (MUSTARD) and synthetic drugs (SYNERGY). 

23 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
MS 

Europol 

Eurojust 

to  a  greater  extent 

25.  Multidisciplinary  law  enforcement 
operations, 
involving  Europol  and 
Eurojust,  as  well  as  police,  customs 
and  border  control  services,  will  be 
used 
through 
bilateral  and  multilateral  cooperation 
initiatives,  joint  investigation  teams 
(JIT)  and  joint  customs  operations 
(JCO).  Member  States  will  examine 
which  measures  are  possible 
to 
facilitate and speed up the process and 
these 
encourage  greater  use  of 
instruments in drugs cases 

analysis purposes.  

So  far,  the  COSPOL  projects  run  by  the  European  Police  Chiefs  Task  Force  (ECPTF)  are  not  fully 
intelligence-led. The ECPTF checks ex-post whether existing projects correspond with OCTA priorities. In 
future, the aim is for the priorities to be set by the Council on the basis of the OCTA, which will influence 
more directly the planning of operational cooperation in the area of justice, freedom and home affairs in the 
EU.  The  establishment  of  COSI  may  help  achieve  this  objective,  as  COSI  will  set  the  priorities  for 
COSPOL,  which  is  to  become  an  operational  arm  of  COSI.  The  OCTA  priorities  and  Europol’s 
identification of top-level criminal networks based on these priorities should in the future inform COSI’s 
planning of operational cooperation. 

Europol, in cooperation with Eurojust, has continued to support the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) experts 
network. In 2009 the experts network focused, among other things, on updating the JIT model agreement46, 
which was approved by the Council in early 2010. The new model agreement now includes a JIT model 
arrangement for cooperation with Europol and a new operational action plan. 

The 2010 meeting of the experts network will focus on funding possibilities for EU Member States to set 
up JITs and exchange best practices on how to reduce the costs of JITs. Europol has continued to provide 
training for its staff and for Member State liaison officers involved in setting up and running JITs. Eurojust 
was invited to the training to present its support functionalities for JITs. 

Europol has continued to provide support for JIT courses based on CEPOL learning tools. In addition to 
practical  support  (analysis,  expertise  and  on-the-spot  support  for  Member  States)  Europol  also  provides 
support,  via  its  legal  service,  in  the  drafting  of  JIT  agreements  and  assesses  JIT  arrangements.  JITs  are 
supposed to provide a suitable tool to combat serious international crime at Member State level. Europol 
encourages Member States to set up JITs at awareness events and in its day-to-day dealings with national 
experts. However, the final decision to set up a JIT remains the responsibility of the Member States.  

Member  States  work  together  in  multidisciplinary  law  enforcement  operations.  They  contribute  to 
Europol’s  activities  in  the  field  of  drugs,  among  other  things  by  contributing  to  Analysis  Work  Files 
(AWFs).  In  2010,  Europol  started  a  new  drug-related  project  on  cannabis  (Project  Cannabis),  which 
includes an AWF on cannabis. One objective of the project is to support multidisciplinary law enforcement 
operations,  including  JITs  and  JCOs.  Cocaine  investigations  are  supported  by  Europol’s  Project  COLA, 
where  appropriate  under  the  umbrella  of  a  JIT.  Project  COLA  also  provides  support  for  JCOs  and  is 

46 

2010/C70/01 — Council Resolution of 26 February 2010 on a Model Agreement for Joint Investigation Teams. 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
currently involved in the planning of the Joint Customs and Police Operation Radar, which focuses on the 
smuggling of cocaine entering Europe from South America via Africa.  

Regarding cooperation in tackling heroin trafficking, in 2009 Eurojust and Europol prepared and published 
a  Joint  Investigation  Team  Manual47  under  the  JITs  Project.  The  Manual  supplements  the  existing 
Eurojust/Europol  document  ‘Guide  to  EU Member  States  Legislation on  Joint  Investigation  Teams’.  The 
main goal of the manual is to inform practitioners about the legal basis and requirements for setting up a 
JIT  and  to  provide  advice  on  when  a  JIT  can  be  usefully  employed.  Member  States  increasingly  use 
Europol as a facilitator/coordinator in ongoing intelligence projects for combating drug/heroin trafficking 
and its illegal production. 

AWF  Heroin  was  not  involved  in  any  JCO  or  JIT  during  the  reporting  period,  although  the  project  has 
supported a number of live investigations run by Member States’ law enforcement teams, such as the West 
African anti-drugs trafficking network initiative, operations against trafficking in acetic anhydride (a key 
precursor  for  the  manufacturing  of  heroin),  and  the  COSPOL  Project  on  heroin  trafficking  (high-value 
targets). Overall, the quantity and quality of contributions has improved notably since the Opening Order 
was amended in December 2008. However, there is still room for improvement in the area of cooperation 
with Europol: in particular, the Member States need to be more pro-active in initiating new sub-projects, 
sharing live intelligence and involving Europol in JITs. 

Synthetic drug investigations are supported by Europol’s Project SYNERGY. In 2009 and 2010, no JITs or 
JCOs were supported by SYNERGY. In general, the involvement of Member States in the project varies. 
While  several  key  partners  participate  in  most  large-scale  multilateral  cases,  the  involvement  of  other 
countries is limited to a few specific cases. 

There  are  three  drugs-related  COSPOL  projects:  COLA,  MUSTARD  and  SYNERGY.  These  ongoing 
projects provided support for Member State investigations in 2009 and the first half of 2010.  

Project  COLA  has  made  important  progress  in  the  past  two  years,  even  though  it  has  also  encountered 
problems. Several bilateral operations are underway, although none have yet progressed to JIT status. The 
identification of criminal high-value targets (HVT) engaged in trafficking cocaine to the EU has been less 
than  effective,  as  only  10  of  the  12  forerunner  Member  States  reported  HVT  targets  and  the  required 
investigation  intelligence  to  AWF  COLA.  Nevertheless,  the  number  of  HVTs  identified  by  contributing 
Member States has reached 63, which is too much to handle and should be limited to high-value upstream 

27.  Implementation  of  drugs-related 
COSPOL  projects,  paying 
special 
attention to 

MS 

Europol 

-  the  input  of  appropriate  levels  of 
expertise in COSPOL meetings 

the  value  added 

- 
terms  of 
and 
appropriate 
investigation  capacity,  and  making 

intelligence 

in 

47 

13598/09; Enfopol 218. 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
appropriate  use  to  this  end  of  already 
existing  or  future  Analytical  Work 
Files (AWF) 

traffickers. The COLA working group has joined with the COSPOL Heroin and Synthetic drugs projects 
and revised the approach to identification of HVTs, providing a more prescriptive approach to follow and a 
limit of five targets (those that cause the most harm) for each forerunner Member State.  

Furthermore,  some  lead  Member  States  have  failed  to  devote  resources  or  planning  to  the  COSPOL 
Cocaine  project,  hampering  the  development  of  key  intelligence  lines  and  the  targeting  of  upstream 
traffickers.  In  addition,  many  of  the  forerunner  Member  States  have  indicated  that  prosecutors  in  their 
countries refuse to share information collected during investigations. In order for AWF COLA to function 
properly, the data provided to it need to be up-to-date and include information on ongoing investigations, 
otherwise the AWF is at risk of becoming obsolete. Finally, awareness needs to be raised that major drug 
seizure  locations  in  the  EU  should  be  considered  as  normal  crime  scenes  and  made  subject  to  forensic 
examination.  

The  COSPOL  project  on  heroin  trafficking  aims  to  identify  and  dismantle  transnational  criminal 
organisations involved in international heroin trafficking from Afghanistan to the EU, in particular Turkish 
organisations and associated groups, using existing instruments, e.g. Europol analytical support for Project 
Heroin.  COSPOL  was  initially  set  up  to  encourage  support  for  the  AWFs.  Participation  in  the  COSPOL 
project  on  heroin  should  be  aligned  with  Member  States’  participation  in  Europol  AWFs  that  support 
developing investigations. In 2010 there was an increase in the number of contributions under the COSPOL 
umbrella to AWF Heroin, offering the possibility of meaningful intelligence developments.  

HVTs engaged in trafficking heroin to the European illegal drugs market have been identified in the AWF. 
Details of more than 80 HVTs have been submitted to AWF Heroin by five COSPOL Member States. A 
number  of  match  reports  were  generated,  and  the  project  team  maintains  close  cooperation  with  the 
COSPOL Driver and Co-Driver on this.  
The COSPOL Synthetic Drugs Group comprises 12 Member States48 and Europol. The Action Plan 2009-
2010 for the COSPOL Synthetic Drugs project has three main objectives:  
- controlled delivery of BMK and disrupting identified criminal groups along the trafficking chain  
-  thematic  approach:  barrier  model  —  tackling  synthetic  drugs  by  creating  sub-action  plans  within  each 
identified phase of the logistic supply chain 
- subject approach: overview of top criminals in Europe — listing and targeting HVTs in Europe that are 
active in the field of synthetic drugs. 

48 

EN 

Belgium (Co-driver), Finland, France, Germany, Italy (joined in November 2009), Lithuania, the Netherlands (Driver), Poland, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom. 

26 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
The first objective was removed from the action plan as it had been pending for a few years without any 
results.  The  second  objective  has  been  more  successful.  A  barrier  model  is  under  development  in  which 
Member  States  and  Europol  work  together  to  create  so-called  barriers  in  the  drug-supply  logistic  chain 
targeting  the  acquisition  of  precursors  and  other  chemicals,  hardware  and  production  or  storage  places, 
along with the production of drugs, the dumping of waste, and retail sales.  

The third objective is ongoing and has already achieved significant operational results. On the basis of the 
information submitted by the Member States, Europol has introduced a methodology and ranked 64 HVTs. 
Based on the Europol ranking and ongoing inquiries in several Member States, one HVT was selected for 
joint investigation and subsequently arrested with six other associates. Four other HVTs were selected for 
potential targeting. 

While the overall intelligence contributions by COSPOL members to AWF Synergy need to be improved, 
particularly  from  crucial  key  partners  (e.g.  LT,  PL  and  UK),  in  the  case  of  specific  operations,  Europol 
appreciates the high-level commitment from concerned MS (e.g. BE, DE and NL).  

Project Cannabis was established in March 2010. In parallel, the European Expert Group on Cannabis has 
been  created  to  provide  expertise  to  the  Project.  The  experts  have  therefore  concluded  that  no  COSPOL 
project is necessary to support this drug-related project.  

Specific  liaison  officer  meetings  took  place  in  2009  and  in  the  first  half  of  2010,  some  of  which  also 
concerned  cooperation  in  the  field of  drugs.  In  March 2009  a bilateral  liaison officers  meeting  in  Russia 
focused on the outcomes of work conducted by three working groups, namely on drugs, on cybercrime and 
on  counterfeit  goods.  These  groups  aim  to  enhance  cooperation  with  the  Russian  authorities,  share 
technical or operational information and exchange plans for strategic cooperation.  

In  November  2009,  at  another  bilateral  liaison  officers  meeting  in  Russia,  the  Russian  delegates  made 
several positive comments on the improved cooperation with Europol via EU Member States with regard to 
money  counterfeiting  cases  and drugs investigations.  The limitations  of a  pending operational  agreement 
with  Europol  were  also  discussed.  Europol  praised  the  good  cooperation  with  Russia  under  the  existing 
strategic agreement (limited to training, awareness and exchange of non-personal information).  

In March 2010, a liaison officers meeting took place in Bogotá, Colombia. EU liaison officers participated 
and discussed the enhancement of cooperation with Colombia, with reference to the upcoming signature of 
an operational cooperation agreement and the possibility of using Colombia as a gateway for the exchange 
of information with Latin America via Ameripol. 

MS 

Europol 

Eurojust 

29.  To  make  more  systematic  use  of 
Member  State 
liaison  officers  and 
liaison  magistrates,  where  appropriate, 
in  third  countries  for  the  exchange  of 
information  and  intelligence  between 
MS  law  enforcement  agencies  and 
Europol 
the 
Council Decision 2003/170/JHA of the 
27th  February  2003  on  the  common 
use of liaison officers posted abroad by 
the  law  enforcement  agencies  of  the 
Member  States  in  the  version  of  24th 
Decision 
2006, 
July 
2006/560/JHA 

into  account 

Council 

taking 

30.  To  adopt  and  implement  an  EU- MS 

The European Drug Profiling System, which is co-financed by the Commission and driven by the Dutch 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
COM  

EUROPOL 

wide  system  for  the  forensic  profiling 
in  relation  to  drugs  law  enforcement 
for synthetic drugs and for other drugs, 
where  appropriate,  drawing  on,  inter 
alia,  the  experience  gained  through 
projects  such  as  SYNERGY  and 
CHAIN,  the  structure  and  expertise  of 
Europol  and  the  Commission's  Joint 
Research Centre, and ongoing MS law 
enforcement  activities  and  experiences 
in this area  

Police  Agency  and  the  Dutch  Forensic  Institute,  in  partnership  with  other  European  law  enforcement 
agencies  and  forensic  laboratories49,  Europol  and  the  Commission,  was  launched  in  February  2010  in 
Stockholm. EDPS, as a law enforcement-led project, is expected to provide an extra tool for strengthening 
drug  enforcement  abilities  to  curb  drug  trafficking  in  Europe.  With  an  initial  focus  on  amphetamines 
profiling,  which  was  the  main  focus  of  the  forerunner  projects  CHAIN  and  SYNERGY,  EDPS  has  the 
ambition to expand its range to the profiling of other synthetic drugs. Furthermore, EDPS countries have 
started working on a feasibility study to profile heroin and cocaine, which they expect to conclude in March 
2011.  

In order  to  make  good use of  the  EDPS,  it  is  essential  for  the  amphetamine  profiling  standards  acquired 
within  the  CHAIN  and  SYNERGY  projects  to  be  applied  to  other  drugs  at  EU  level.  The  Western 
Australian  Chemistry  Centre  owns  the  copyright  on  the  profiling  database,  which  is  to  be  hosted  by 
Europol according to the Council Conclusions on a European system for forensic drug profiling adopted in 
200950. The project has a budget of €
 3.2 million for a duration of 36 months. Annual assessments are to 
provide a clear vision of the state of the project. 

Objective 12. Enhance effective judicial cooperation in the area of combating drug trafficking and law enforcement as regards production, trafficking 
of drugs and/or precursors, and money laundering related to this traffic 

31.  To  encourage  the  full  use  of  the 
existing  EU  instruments  on  mutual 
assistance requests in criminal matters, 
of  European  arrest  warrants,  and  of 
sanctions issued by MS jurisdictions 

MS 

COM 

Eurojust 

In  2009,  the  Commission  published  its  report  on  the  implementation  of  Framework  Decision 
2004/757/JHA  of  25  October  2004  laying  down  minimum  provisions  on  the  constituent  elements  of 
criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Eurojust contributed to the Commission’s 
report as regards judicial cooperation in the field of drugs. Eurojust’s input was based on data from 2004 to 
2008. During that period, 771 drug trafficking cases were submitted to Eurojust, rising from 77 in 2004 to 
207  in  2007.  As  a  consequence,  the  conclusion  seems  to  be  justified  that  judicial  cooperation  through 
Eurojust in the field of drug trafficking has improved. 

the  cooperation 
33.  To  strengthen 
among  EU  Member  States  in  order  to 
achieve the full application of the legal 

MS 

COM 

At EU level, there are two legal instruments to which the principle of mutual recognition of confiscation 
orders seems to apply. These instruments concern a) the freezing orders issued by a judicial authority for 
the purpose of securing evidence or subsequent confiscation of property51 and b) confiscation orders issued 

49 
50 
51 

Sweden, Finland, Belgium, France, UK and Switzerland. 
17024/09 CO EUR-PREP 3 JAI 896 POLGEN 229. 
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
relating 
instruments 
recognition of confiscation of orders  

to  mutual 

Council 

Eurojust 

Europol 

34.  To  support  the  establishment  of 
effective Asset Recovery Offices in the 
Member  States  in  accordance  with  the 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA and to 
further  support  the  Member  States 
involved through the CARIN network. 
To  support 
through 
Europol and related Europol AWFs 

investigations 

COM 

MS 

Europol 

Eurojust 

by  a  court  competent  in  criminal  matters  concerning  either  an  amount  of  money  or  specific  items  of 
property52. 

Both  Council  Framework  Decisions  provide  for  the  Commission  to  produce  a  written  report  on  the 
measures  taken  by  Member  States  to  comply  with  their  provisions.  The  Commission  adopted  the 
implementation report on the first Framework Decision in December 200853 and the implementation report 
on the second Framework Decision is due in 2010. 

Both reports show that the implementation of these Framework Decisions adopted under the former ‘third 
pillar’ is not satisfactory. In regard to the Framework Decision on freezing orders, four Member States are 
yet to transpose it into national law while regarding the Framework Decision on confiscation orders, only 
13 Member States have notified the Commission on implementation. 

Since  January  2009  the  Commission  has  organised  five  meetings  of  an  informal  EU  Asset  Recovery 
Offices  (ARO)  Platform  in  order  to  enhance  their  cooperation  and  coordination  at  EU  level.  So  far  23 
Member States have established or designated Asset Recovery Offices54. While there are differences in the 
AROs’ structure, mandate and access to information, asset tracing requests from Member States seem to 
have generally increased and response times seem to have shortened.  

Progress has also been made in the deployment of a secure channel of communication for the exchange of 
information  between  AROs.  Twelve  AROs  have  agreed  to  participate  in  a  pilot  project  using  Europol’s 
Siena  system.  The  pilot  will  end  in  September  2010.  The  Commission  will  adopt  a  report  on  the 
implementation of Council Decision 2007/845/JHA55 by the end of 2010. Extensive use has been made of 
Commission  funding  programmes  in  this  area,  in  particular  the  Specific  Programme  ‘Prevention  of  and 
Fight against Crime56. The Commission has co-financed the activities of the CARIN Network in 2010 as 
well  as  the  development  of  investigation  methods  and  techniques  in  the  field  of  asset  recovery. 
Furthermore, a high-level pan-European conference on Asset Recovery Offices in the EU Member States 
will take place in December 2010. 

52 
53 
54 
55 

56 

EN 

Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders. 
COM(2008) 885 final. 
The Commission has received 20 official notifications. 
Council Decision 2007/845/JHA of 6 December 2007 concerning cooperation between Asset Recovery Offices of the Member States in the field of tracing and identification 
of proceeds from, or other property related to, crime. 
Council  Decision  of  12  February  2007  establishing  for  the  period  2007  to  2013,  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties,  the  Specific 
Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’. 

29 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Objective 13. Respond rapidly and effectively at operational, policy and political levels to emerging threats (e.g. emerging drugs, new routes) 

One problem identified in the implementation of this action concerns the lack of statistical information. For 
the  years  2009  and  2009,  no  statistical  data  are  available  on  investigations  supported  by  the  Europol 
Criminal  Asset  Bureau  on  drug-related  criminal  activities.  Furthermore,  not  all  Member  States  have 
statistics  on  the  value  of  assets  confiscated  and  recovered  in  connection  with  drug-related  criminal 
activities, information which is crucial for assessing the added value of these cooperation instruments.  

threats 

security 

platforms 

by  means 

35.  To  set  up,  where  necessary, 
(e.g. 
regional 
MAOC-N,  Baltic  Sea  TF)  to  counter 
emerging 
of 
coordinated  operational 
responses. 
Such  action  to  be  compatible  with 
existing 
operational 
arrangements at EU level and based on 
specific  threat  assessments  (see  also 
action  42).  New  platforms  should  be 
set  up  without  overlapping  and  be 
compatible with existing structures. 

legal 

and 

MS 

Council 

Europol 

COM  

Following the model of MAOC-N and seeking to replicate its success in interdicting drugs in the Atlantic 
Ocean, ten Mediterranean Member States (including five EU Member States) have launched the Centre de 
Coordination  pour  la  lutte  anti-drogue  en  Méditerranée  (CeCLAD-M),  which  focuses  on  interdiction  in 
the  Mediterranean  Sea.  Based  in  Toulon,  CeCLAD-M  has  been  active  in  the  Western  Mediterranean 
mainly by targeting the smuggling of cannabis resin from Morocco.  

At  the  end  of  2009,  MAOC-N  became  a  legal  entity  after  its  founding  treaty  was  ratified  by  three 
contracting parties (Ireland, Portugal and France). An independent evaluation, presented in October 2009, 
concluded that over the past two years MAOC has had considerable success. Its achievements, in particular 
the coordination of drugs interdiction operations in the Atlantic, which led to the seizure of more than 43 
tonnes  of  cocaine,  illustrate  the  added  value  of  sharing  information  and  pooling  assets  to  prevent  drugs 
from reaching Europe. However, the evaluation pointed out that the sharing of information with Europol 
had to be improved. 

During  the  period  under  review  for  this  annual  assessment,  MAOC-N  has  continued  to  hamper  the 
shipment  of  cocaine  from  Latin  America  to  Europe.  However,  seizures  of  illicit  drugs  in  operations 
coordinated by MAOC-N and CeCLAD-M have declined over the past months. The main reason seems to 
be  the  high  versatility  of  criminal  networks,  which  have  already  established  new  trafficking  routes  to 
circumvent the law enforcement platforms. MAOC-N is now seeking to become active in West Africa, in 
order  to  gather  more  and  better  intelligence  about  traffickers’  activities  in  this  transit  zone  for  Latin 
American cocaine bound for Europe.  

In  2010,  under  the  Spanish  Presidency,  the  JHA  Council  adopted  two  initiatives  to  improve  the 
coordination  of  actions  undertaken  by  Member  States,  the  Commission,  international  organisations  and 
third  countries  to  fight  illegal  drug  trafficking.  In  April,  the  JHA  Council  adopted  the  Action  Oriented 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
Paper:  Strategic  and  concerted  action  to  improve  cooperation  in  combating  organised  crime,  especially 
drug trafficking, originating in West Africa57 and in June 2010 it endorsed the  European Pact to combat 
international  drug  trafficking  —  disrupting  cocaine  and  heroin  routes58.  The  pact  proposes  a  pragmatic 
division of tasks between Member States, as each can make a different contribution depending on what it is 
best  equipped  for.  The  pact  has  three  parts,  focusing  on  cocaine  (in  particular  trafficking  through  WA), 
heroin (Western Balkans) and countering the proceeds of crime. Similar pacts covering synthetic drugs and 
cannabis are planned over the coming years. 

The practical implementation of the pact will follow a methodology based on the ‘project-based approach’ 
proposed by the Belgian Presidency. Under this approach, groups of volunteer countries should coordinate 
the implementation of the three parts of the pact. These groups will inform COSI about their work at least 
twice  during  each  presidency  and  will  inform  the  HDG  as  appropriate.  COSI  will  report  to  the  JHA 
Council once per presidency.  

While  this  approach  is  likely  to  enable  flexible  and  speedy  action  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of  the 
pact, it does pose challenges. From a political point of view, the risk of fragmentation should be avoided by 
carefully drafting the mandate of these project groups, which should not be able to pre-empt EU decisions. 
In addition, there is a coordination challenge that must be addressed, in order to ensure coherence between 
the work of these groups and that of Council working parties dealing with drugs matters. 

EU Member States have stepped up their efforts to coordinate anti-trafficking actions within and outside 
Europe.  The  setting  up  of  MAOC-N  in  2007  and  then  CeCLAD-M,  which  aim  to  stop  drugs  shipments 
before they reach European shores, marked a turning point in these efforts. In addition, groups of Member 
States  set  up  in  2009  two  intelligence-led  cooperation  platforms  in  Ghana  (UK-led)  and  Senegal  (led  by 
France).  These  bring  together  law  enforcement  officers posted  in  the  region  by  EU  Member  States,  who 
share intelligence and/or coordinate operational and capacity-building activities. 

Under  French  leadership,  Member  States  have  created  the  Fontanot  Group,  which  is  an  informal  group 
gathering  the  heads  of  Police  services  in  charge  of  technical  cooperation,  to  coordinate  non-operational 
cooperation  (capacity  building  and  training)  in  West  Africa.  A  similar  development  is  envisaged  for  the 
Western Balkan region.  

Europol is associated with these developments. It participates in MAOC-N Management Board meetings as 

MS 

Europol 

Eurojust  

Council 

36.  The  EU  to  focus  on  coordinated 
and  joint  efforts  between  the  Member 
States and regions most highly exposed 
drug 
to 
production/trafficking  phenomena,  in 
cooperation 
as 
appropriate 

particular 

Europol 

with 

57 
58 

5069/3/10 CORDROGUE 4 
8495/10 COR 1 CORDROGUE 38 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Objective 14. Reduce the manufacture and supply of synthetic drugs 

an observer and is regularly invited to attend CeCLAD-M and the Fontanot Group meetings. However, the 
intensity and quality of information exchange between MAOC-N and Europol (in particular post-operation 
debriefings) must be improved.  

enforcement 

37. Member States to actively maintain 
law 
cooperation/joint 
operations  in  this  area  and  to  share 
intelligence and best practices. Optimal 
use to be made of Europol’s Analytical 
Work 
its 
components59 and the associated EJUP 
and COSPOL initiatives 

SYNERGY, 

File 

MS 

Europol 

Eurojust 

Project  Synergy  includes  the  Europol  Illicit  Laboratory  Comparison  System  (EILCS)  and  the  Europol 
Ecstasy  Logo  System  (EELS),  the  latter  incorporated  within  the  general  Europol  Synthetic  Drug  System 
(ESDS). The EILCS collates detailed photographic and technical information on synthetic drug production, 
storage  and  dump  sites,  enabling  the  identification  of  matches  between  seized  equipment,  materials  and 
chemicals,  and  the  initiation  of  information  exchange,  backtracking  investigations  and  forensic 
examination for the targeting of facilitators and criminal groups.  

The ESDS collates modus operandi, photographic information and basic forensic information on significant 
seizures,  enabling  the  identification  of  matches  between  seizures  or  seized  punches,  and  the  initiation  of 
information  exchange,  further  investigations  and  forensic  profiling  for  the  targeting  of  criminal  groups. 
Related criminal data arising from the findings of the ESDS and EILCS may be analysed within the AWF 
component.  

In 2009, 130 contributions were submitted by Member States to the EILCS (2008: 128 contributions). To 
date  in  2010,  46  contributions  have  been  received.  This  generated  five  Synergy  technical/operational 
reports in 2009 and seven reports in 2010. Member States dismantled 96 illicit synthetic drug production 
sites in 2009. In previous years these numbers were relatively stable (2005: 90; 2006: 75; 2007: 91; 2008: 
83).  In  2010,  Member  States  have  so  far  reported  the  dismantling  of  11  illicit  synthetic  drug  production 
sites, but there may be a delay in reporting. 

In 2009, Project Synergy supported 244 bilateral and/or multilateral court cases, while in 2010 it has so far 
supported 120 cases. In 2009, 136 Synergy operational reports were delivered to support Member States, 
and 41 reports have so far been delivered in 2010. Twenty-one Member States in total cooperated in Project 
Synergy in 2009. So far in 2010, 17 Member States have been cooperating.  

Objective 15. Reduce the diversion and trafficking in/via the EU of drug precursors used for the manufacturing of illicit drugs 

59 

EN 

Project Synergy includes the Analysis Work File (AWF), the Europol Illicit Laboratory Comparison System (EILCS) and the Ecstasy Logo System, the latter incorporated 
within the general Europol Synthetic Drugs Seizure System (ESDSS). 

32 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
38.  The  EU  to  develop  a  clear  and 
unified  position  on 
this  matter  at 
international  level  and  in  the  relevant 
international  fora,  based  on  existing 
legislation  and  cooperative  practices 
through 
with 
effective  coordination 
the 
relevant Council committees 

the  private 

through 

sector, 

of 

border 

39.  Customs  and  border  control 
services to integrate precursor controls 
at  a  strategic  level,  enhancing  the 
effectiveness 
control 
management through implementing the 
Community  Risk  Management,  and  to 
coordinate more closely with other law 
enforcement  agencies  engaged 
in 
and 
combating 
trafficking  

production 

drug 

40.  The  EU  to  give  full  support  to 
international  operational  cooperation 
aimed  at  preventing  the  diversion  of 
drug  precursors,  such  as  the INCB-led 
projects PRISM and COHESION. The 
operational  cooperation  among 
the 
investigation authorities within the EU 
the  EJUP 
is 
the 
cooperation 
and 
co-operation 
Europol-AWF 
cooperation 
framework. 

to  be  supported  by 
framework 

This 

COM 

Council 

MS 

The  EU  acted  in  a  coordinated  fashion  on  drug-precursor  matters  at  the  53rd  Commission  on  Narcotic 
Drugs.  This  included  a  proposal  to  reschedule  phenylacetic  acid  under  the  1988  UN  Convention  against 
illicit  traffic  in  narcotic  drugs  and  psychotropic  substances.  The  EU  also  reached  a  joint  position  on  a 
Russian-Argentinean draft Resolution60 as well as on joint statements delivered on behalf of the EU.  

MS 

Drug precursors have been selected as a priority control area for EU customs. This calls for EU-wide risk 
criteria to be developed for targeting and selection and applied uniformly along EU borders.  

Moreover, several activities have been undertaken to ensure EU-level customs control of drug precursors 
under the Customs 2013 Programme. 

COM 

MS 

The EU strongly supports and actively participates in international operational cooperation, i.e. the INCB-
led projects Cohesion and Prism. It is an active member of the Task Forces for both projects (DG TAXUD 
and OLAF).  It  has  taken  part  in  the  voluntary  international  time-bound operations  launched within  these 
projects,  i.e.  Operations  ‘Crystal  Flow’  and  ‘PILA’  under  Project  Prism,  and  Operation  ‘DICE’  under 
Project Cohesion. These operations provide a strong and flexible approach to counter the ever-changing use 
of substitute/non-controlled substances and modus operandi of diversion techniques. 

During operations there has been an intense exchange of information between the INCB and the members 
of the Task Force. This has helped to identify a substantial number of diversion attempts, prevent deliveries 
and/or enable seizures of drug precursors. For specific figures, see the INCB annual reports on precursors 
for 2008 and 2009. 

60 

EN 

E/CN.7/2010/L.19 — Strengthening international cooperation and regulatory and institutional frameworks for the control of substances frequently used in the manufacture of 
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 

33 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
framework 
intensified/utilised. 

should 

be 

further 

41.  From  a 
law  enforcement  and 
intelligence-led  perspective,  the  EU 
and  Members  States  to  fully  support 
Europol's  drug  related  projects  and 
to  combating 
EJUP,  with  a  view 
criminal 
in 
involved 
networks 
precursor trafficking 

MS 

EJUP 

Europol 

42.  To  evaluate  EU  drug  precursor 
control 
its 
implementation 

legislation 

and 

COM 

MS 

Since 2004, Project Synergy has supported the activities of the European Joint Unit on Precursors (EJUP), 
a joint multinational, multi-disciplinary unit consisting of law enforcement national experts from Austria, 
Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands (lead country) and the United Kingdom. Since 2009, however, 
EJUP’s  activities  have  significantly  decreased  and  Project  Synergy  support  has  been  requested  on  few 
occasions. Only seven EJUP contributions by two Member States were submitted to AWF Synergy in 2009 
and  one  so  far  in  2010.  Project  Synergy  focuses  on  criminal  networks  involved  in  precursor  trafficking. 
This  is  implemented  via  two  ongoing  Sub-Projects  (BMK  trafficking  from  the  Russian  Federation  and 
precursor  trafficking  from  Asia  incl.  China).  The  first  project  strongly  depends  on  the  involvement  of 
crucial Member States61. However, submissions from Lithuania and Poland decreased in the second half of 
2009 and in 2010.  

The  European  Commission  now  participates  in  EJUP  meetings.  Furthermore,  there  has  been  a  regular 
exchange of information between Europol and OLAF. Exchange visits have been arranged between OLAF 
and  Europol  and  initial  steps  have  been  taken  to  prepare  an  operational  working  arrangement.  This  will 
facilitate a more in-depth exchange of data. 

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the European drug precursors legislation. The European 
legislation  (Regulation  (EC)  No  273/2004  and  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  111/2005)  establishes 
harmonised rules for the control and monitoring of the trade in drug precursors, which have licit uses in a 
broad  range  of  products  (e.g.  chemicals,  pharmaceuticals,  plastics)  but  are  also  frequently  used  for  the 
illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with a view to preventing their diversion 
from  the  legal  trade.  The  results  of  the  Commission’s  evaluation  are  summarised  in  a  report  from  the 
Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the 
European legislation on drug precursors62, which was published on 7 January 2010. 

The Commission’s report was prepared under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 and Article 32 of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005. It describes the state of implementation of the European legislation, 
including  the  actions  undertaken  by  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  industry  to  facilitate 

61 
62 

EN 

e.g. Lithuania, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and Belgium. 
COM(2009)  709 final;  7.1.2010;  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  pursuant  to  Article  16  of  Regulation  (EC) No 273/2004  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  February  2004  and  to  Article  32  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  111/2005  on  the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the 
Community legislation on monitoring and control of trade in drug precursors. 

34 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
43.  The  EU  to  develop  and  exploit, 
where  possible  in  consultation  with 
Europol,  cooperation  agreements  with 
principal identified source countries of 
main synthetic drug precursors 

COM 

44.  The  Commission, OLAF,  Europol, 
EJUP  and  COSPOL  to  enhance  inter-
disciplinary  cooperation,  with  a  view 
to establishing joint initiatives 

COM 

MS/EJUP 

Europol 

implementation, as well as the strengths and weaknesses identified during the evaluation. It also reports the 
main trends in the diversion of drug precursors.  

The report makes recommendations for improving the current framework. These primarily involve support 
measures to improve the implementation of the existing legislation in order to gain from established best 
practices.  Furthermore,  the  recommendations  set  out  possible  modifications  of  the  legislation,  subject  to 
further analysis of the impacts of various options for both competent authorities and economic operators. 

Based  on  the  Commission’s  report,  the  Council  adopted  conclusions  on  the  functioning  and 
implementation of the European legislation on drug precursors 63 on 25 May 2010. The Council recognises 
the  importance  of  the  achievements  in  drug  precursor  control  and  underlines  the  need  to  continue  these 
activities, in particular to improve the implementation of the existing legislation. Furthermore, the Council 
invites the Commission to propose legislative amendments after carefully assessing their potential impacts 
on Member State authorities and economic operators. 

An agreement has been concluded with the People’s Republic of China, which can be considered a major 
step as China plays an important role in the production of drug precursors. An EU-China Technical Best 
Practice  Expert  Workshop  on  Drug  Precursors  was  held  in  October  2009  to  facilitate  the  practical 
implementation of the agreement, and other practical activities to implement it are planned. 

Furthermore, agreement was reached in 2010 with the Russian Federation to start negotiations on an EU-
Russia agreement on precursors. 

A  number  of  steps  have  been  taken  to  improve  inter-agency  cooperation.  Since  2009  Europol  has  been 
invited to participate in the European Commission’s Drug Precursors Control Committee as an observer. 
The European Commission has been invited to participate in meetings of Europol’s European Joint Unit on 
Precursors  (EJUP).  Cooperation  with  OLAF  has  also  been  developed  under  one  specific  AWF  Synergy 
Sub-Project regarding precursor trafficking from China.  

Project Cannabis has established the European Expert Group on Cannabis (EEGC). The aim of the EEGC 
is  to  improve  the  collective  operational  response  to  the  cannabis  problem  in  the  European  Union.  This 
group  will  provide  expertise  in  the  area  of  cannabis  production/cultivation  (detection,  dismantling  and 
registration  of  plantations,  definitions,  security  matters,  techniques,  manual)  and  trafficking,  including 
modus operandi, e.g. concealment methods, financial investigation information, gathering and exchange of 
additional investigation information (apart from already used intelligence and information for operational 

63 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/intm/114613.pdf. 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
analysis  within  AWF  Cannabis),  exchange  of  expertise,  best  practices  and  networking.  Being  Member 
State-led, the EEGC provides additional expertise and may advise Project Cannabis.  

Project Heroin has recently been in contact with the Commission in the field of precursor chemicals, more 
specifically  acetic  anhydride,  the  key  chemical  diverted  from  international  trade  and  smuggled  to 
Afghanistan for use in the illicit production of heroin. COSPOL has raised the matter of criminal activity in 
the EU concerning the trafficking of acetic anhydride, and joint initiatives have been discussed. A number 
of significant acetic anhydride data / case investigation contributions were forwarded to AWF Heroin in the 
first half of the year, and this work is increasingly being taken forward with LE agencies in the MS most 
affected. Europol and the Commission intend to work closely in this field. 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
5. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION (OBJECTIVES 16-20) 

Priority as defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: The effectiveness of EU, the world's major donor in the struggle for sustainable solutions to the 
global drug problem, would benefit greatly from better coordination of national and Community policies. We are ready to intensify our commitment in 
the field of international cooperation to this end, while reaffirming that effective drug control must be based on the concept of a ‘balanced approach’ — 
emphasizing that illicit drug cultivation is an important component of drug supply. 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

Objective 

Responsible 

State of play 

party 

Objective 16. Systematically include EU drug policy concerns in relations with third countries and regions where appropriate and within the broader 
development and security agenda. To do so on the basis of strategic planning and coordination between all actors concerned 

45.  To  ensure  that  EU  relations  with 
third countries reflect the objectives of 
the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action 
Plans 

MS 

COM 

Agreements concluded by the EU with third countries in the reporting period also cover cooperation in the 
field of drugs and seek to reflect the balanced approach.  

In the period under review, 15 Member States concluded bilateral agreements with third countries which 
also address cooperation in the field of drugs. Such agreements were concluded with countries in Eastern 
Europe / Central Asia (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia) and the Western Balkans 
(Macedonia,  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Kosovo  and  Albania),  and  with  third  countries 
elsewhere, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, 
the  USA  and  Japan.  The  majority  concerned  cooperation  in  the  field  of  drug  supply  reduction.  Two 
Member  States,  Germany  and  Portugal,  mentioned  that  they  had  also  signed  bilateral  cooperation 
documents  that  also  covered  drug  demand  reduction  and/or  alternative  development.  In  the  case  of 
Germany,  this  concerned  agreements  with  the  government  of  Afghanistan  (alternative  development)  and 
with Peru (demand reduction & alternative development). Portugal has signed a bilateral protocol (2006-
2008) to foster cooperation between researchers.  

46.  To  improve  the  effectiveness  of 
existing  frameworks  on  drugs  such  as 
the  Cooperation  and  Coordination 

Council 

COM 

Bi-regional  dialogue  on  drugs  is  via  the  EU-LAC  Cooperation  and  Coordination  Mechanism  on  Drugs, 
which  is  prepared  by  the  EU-LAC  Technical  Committee  on  Drugs.  The  added  value  of  the  EU-LAC 
dialogue  on  drugs  was  recognised  at  the  EU-LAC  Summit  in  Lima  in  May  2008,  which  called  for  the 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
Mechanism between the EU and LAC, 
the  EU-Andean  Specialised  Dialogue 
and  of 
third 
countries  and  regions,  by  identifying 
specific  areas  of  cooperation  and 
establishing outcome indicators 

'Drug  Troikas’  with 

COM 

MS 

(emerging) 

47.  In  line  with  the  EU’s  political 
decisions  and  strategies  and  with  the 
support  of  the  MS  and  EC  assistance 
programmes,  to  address  drug-related 
concerns  in  producer  countries  and 
trafficking 
those  along 
routes,  such  as  West  Africa,  through 
projects aimed at reducing the demand 
for  and  the  supply  of  drugs,  including 
measures  of  alternative  development, 
and  preventing 
the  diversion  of 
chemical  precursors.  The  assistance  is 
to  be  coordinated,  where  appropriate, 
to  the  drug  action  plans  between  the 
EU and third countries and regions (see 
Actions 46 and 50) 

strengthening of the Mechanism. New working procedures for the Mechanism were subsequently endorsed 
by  the  XIth  High  Level  Meeting on 26-27 May  2009  in Quito.  The XII  High  Level  Meeting  of  the  EU-
LAC  Mechanism  on  Drugs,  held  in  Madrid  on  26-27  April  2010,  emphasised  the  use  of  evidence-based 
criteria, joint evaluation processes and impact assessments in the development of new initiatives. 

A number of meetings with third countries with a special (shared) interest in the field of drugs took place 
over the past period. During the Czech Presidency in 2009, ‘Drug Troikas’64 were organised with Ukraine, 
Central  Asia,  the  Western  Balkans,  the  United  States  and  the  EU-West-Africa  Dialogue  on  Drugs 
(ECOWAS).  During  the  Swedish  Presidency  in  the  second  half  of  2009,  Drugs  Troikas  were  held  with 
Russia,  with  the  United  States  and  with  Pakistan.  The  Spanish  Presidency  organised  Political  Dialogue 
meetings with the Western Balkans, the United States and a meeting under the EU West-Africa Dialogue 
(ECOWAS).  

As EU external aid funding decisions are generally taken at the end of year, the reporting covers the years 
2008 (as this year was not covered under the previous reporting exercise) and 2009 (as no funding decision 
was taken in the first half of 2010). The Commission continued to provide funding in 2008 and 2009 for 
actions in priority regions and countries in the field of drug supply and demand reduction, covering strategy 
development,  institution  and  capacity  building  and  alternative  development,  thus  reflecting  the 
comprehensive and balanced approach of the EU Drug Strategy.  

In 2008, the fifth phase of the Central Asia Drug Programme (CADAP 5) with a budget of €
 5 million 
was  approved  under  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI).  This  consolidates  the  previous 
phases  and  supports  new  areas  in  the  field  of  drug  demand  reduction.  On  the  law  enforcement  side, 
capacity-building  measures  in  Central  Asian  countries  continue  to  be  supported  under  the  Border 
Management Programme in Central Asia (BOMCA), whose eighth phase was approved in 2009. 

With regard to projects along the cocaine trafficking routes at bilateral level the Commission approved in 
2008  a  €
 3.3  million  project  under  the  DCI  to  support  the  Venezuelan  anti-drug  agency,  in  addition  to 
bilateral anti-drug actions financed by the Commission in the three cocaine-producing countries (Colombia, 
Peru and Bolivia). For the new trafficking route of West Africa, the Commission approved in 2008 a €
 2 
million project under the 9th European Development Fund to strengthen drug law enforcement capacities in 
Guinea-Bissau.  

At  regional  level,  the  Commission  approved  in  2008  under  the  DCI  a  new  drugs  programme  (€

 3.25 

64 

With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in November 2009, the term ‘Troika’ is replaced by ‘Political Dialogue’. 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
million)  to  be  implemented  by  the  Secretariat  General  of  the  Andean  Community  in  Colombia,  Peru, 
Bolivia and Ecuador, which covers drug monitoring, exchange of experiences in alternative development 
and  demand  reduction,  precursor  control  and  capacity-building  in  forensics.  In  2009,  a  new  regional 
programme with €
 6 million for drugs policies (COPOLAD) was approved and funded by the DCI under 
the Regional Indicative Programme for Latin America. It is based on a balanced approach to drug demand 
and drug supply reduction and aims to support concrete anti-drug cooperation activities complementing the 
coordination efforts under the EU-LAC Mechanism.  

At  trans-regional  level,  the  Commission  approved  under  the  Instrument  for  Stability  (IfS)  the  PRELAC 
project in 2008, which aims to help prevent the diversion of drugs precursors in the Latin American and 
Caribbean  region.  In  2009  €
 6.5  million  were  allocated  under  the  IfS  for  capacity-building  measures  to 
strengthen  law  enforcement,  in  particular  information  and  intelligence  sharing,  along  the  cocaine  route, 
with several components in West Africa as well as Latin America and the Caribbean.  

In 2009, France and the UK established anti-drugs intelligence-driven platforms in West Africa in order 
to try to anticipate smuggling bound for Europe. France set up a platform in the French Embassy in Dakar, 
where liaison officers (LOs) from the UK, France, Spain and Portugal meet to coordinate law enforcement 
activities. The UK established a platform in Accra’s British High Commission, which hosts LOs from the 
UK, Germany, France, Spain and also the US.  

Interpol  is  implementing  Project  OASIS  (Africa  Operational  Assistance  Services  and  Infrastructure 
Support to Africa Police Forces) with the aim of strengthening African law enforcement capabilities to 
combat organised crime, including narcotic smuggling. OASIS, funded by Germany, has a budget of €
 20 
million for five years (2008-2012).  

In addition, the Commission is co-financing the Maritime Analysis Operation and Coordination Centre 
—  Narcotics  (MAOC-N).  The  Commission  has  also financed  an  initiative  by  the UK,  France, Italy  and 
Spain to carry out a feasibility study in order to agree a methodology and rules for sharing intelligence in 
the context of EU-led security operations against drug trafficking in West Africa.  

In order to improve the effectiveness of EU cooperation with third countries, the EU has provided financial 
support  (more  than  €
 2.5  million  up  to  01/01/2013)  to  the  Westbridge  II  project,  led  by  the  UK  in 
partnership  with  the  Netherlands  and  Germany.  This  project  financed  under  the  Instrument  for  Stability 
aims to disrupt and prevent the use of West African airports and ports as a transit route for drugs, especially 
cocaine originating in South America. Cooperation with host agencies (capacity building) in selected West 
African countries and intelligence-sharing with EU Member States are integral parts of this project 

48.  To  step  up  regional  and  intra- COM  

As  described  under  Action  47,  the  Commission  has  stepped  up  efforts  to  develop  regional  and  inter-

EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
regional  cooperation  to  reduce  the 
demand  for  and  supply  of  drugs  in 
third countries with the support of MS 
and  EC  funding  programmes,  such  as 
Cooperation 
the 
Instrument 
European 
Development  Fund,  the  Instrument  for 
Stability 
European 
Neighbourhood Policy Instrument 

Development 

and 

and 

the 

the 

MS 

regional cooperation. One of the main initiatives in 2009-2010 was COPOLAD (Cooperation programme 
between Latin America and the EU on anti-drugs policies). 

For the Caribbean region, the Commission makes funds available for Caricom’s Implementation Agency 
for Crime and Security to promote cooperation between the Caribbean countries in the fight against drugs.  
The Commission envisages providing financial support for ECOWAS’s65 Action Plan to combat drugs and 
organised crime under the European Development Fund’s Regional indicative programme for West Africa 
to the tune of €
 16 million. It would cover support for ECOWAS’s drugs unit, data collection and analysis, 
exchange of good practices on drug prevention and treatment, law enforcement coordination, strengthening 
the legal framework, and measures against money laundering. Negotiations with ECOWAS in view of the 
adoption of the programme were ongoing at the time the mid-term review was published.  

Major inter-regional initiatives have been launched under the Instrument for Stability to combat organised 
crime and drug trafficking along the cocaine and heroine route, notably: 

- The Cocaine Route Programme (€19 million — 2009-2011): The objective is to enhance the cooperation 
capacity  of  law  enforcement  and  judicial  authorities  in  beneficiary  countries  to  contribute  to  the  fight 
against international criminal networks, while fully respecting human rights.  

-  The  Heroin  Route  Programme:  A  €
 9.5  million  project  focusing  on  the  fight  against  the  trafficking  of 
drugs  and  precursors  and  organised  crime  by  setting  up  secured  networks  of  national  intelligence  units 
covering the ten countries of the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO). The project involves cross-
border cooperation between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan and will aim to strengthen the Drugs Control 
Coordination Unit of the ECO Secretariat. It complements other efforts in the region, in particular in the 
Central Asian countries (BOMCA, CADAP and CARICC) by extending their achievements throughout the 
region, enhancing their internal capacities and fostering trans-regional cooperation. 

The  Commission  is  also  envisaging  further  support  for  possible  follow-up  activities  of  the  UNODC 
TARCET programme in Afghanistan, which has targeted the movement of precursors through the regional 
DCI Programme.  

Finally,  the  mid-term  review  of  cooperation  assistance  under  DCI  and  ENPI  carried  out  in  2009-2010 
reaffirmed the priority of this field for allocations at regional, sub-regional and national level. 

49.  In  the  interest  of  coordination,  to  Council 

Recognising the risk of duplication and the need to bridge gaps, EU Member States drew up in 2008 an 

65 

EU Cooperation with Western African States in the field of drugs. 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
establish  a  monitoring  mechanism  on 
EU  drug-related  assistance  given  to 
third countries 

MS 

COM 

50. To carry out a survey of the scope 
and  outcome  of  EC  drug-related 
projects in 3rd countries 

COM 

51.  To  update  and  implement  the  EU 
Drug  Action  Plans  for  the  Central 
Asian  Republics66;  Latin  America  and 
the  Caribbean67;  and  Western  Balkans 
and Candidate Countries68 

52.  Utilise 
the  Dublin  Group 
consultative  mechanism  and  maintain 
an active dialogue with third countries 
for the implementation of Mini Dublin 
Groups’ recommendations 

MS 

COM 

MS 

COM 

Dublin Group 

inventory,  or  matrix,  of  EU  activities  (national  and  Commission)  in  West  Africa.  The  Member  States 
decided to update the matrix twice a year. However, few Member States have so far sent information on 
time to the Council’s General Secretariat on their updated lists of projects. In addition, the matrix has so far 
failed to deliver its full potential because it has been used only as a source of information on projects and 
not  as  a  tool  to  help  identify  future  funding  priorities.  Since  2009,  the  EU  and  the  US  are,  in  addition, 
exchanging  information  on  their  respective  projects  in  the  region  and  have  created  a  joint  matrix  of 
activities in West Africa.  

The overall matrix on EU external assistance was published for the last time in 2008, covering information 
on  Member  State  and  EU  expenditure  on  drug-related  external  assistance  until  2006.  These  data  are  no 
longer  collected  as  no  proper  reporting  mechanism  has  been  found  to  ensure  timely,  standardised  and 
accurate reporting. 

In  the  beginning  of  2010,  the  Commission  launched  a  call  for  tender  for  a  qualitative  evaluation  of  a 
number  of  external  relations  projects  funded  by  the  EU.  The  evaluation  is  underway  and  will  examine  a 
selection of 20 projects, some of which will be assessed on the ground. The report on this evaluation is due 
after summer 2010. 

New Action Plans on drugs (2009-2013) between the EU and the Central Asian States and between the EU 
and  Western  Balkan  countries  were  adopted  during  the  Czech  Presidency.  The  Commission  devoted  a 
considerable amount of work to the preparation of these Action Plans.  

Last year, the Dublin Group continued to perform its informal consultative and coordination tasks in drug 
supply  and  demand  reduction,  at  regional  and  country  level,  along  the  guidelines  established  by  the 
contracting parties  (7641/1/06).  Regional Dublin  Group  chairs,  in  cooperation  with  Mini  Dublin Groups, 
provided detailed and extensive reports on the state of the drugs problem, focusing on selected countries. 
Regional chairs recommended actions to be implemented and evaluated those already in place. However, 
the  recommendations  of  the  regional  chairs  are  not  always  precise  enough,  which  hampers  the 
implementation of concrete actions. Furthermore, no overall assessment tool has been made available for 

66 
67 
68 

12353/02 CORDROGUE 78 CORDROGUE 78 CODRO 1 NIS 107. 
7163/1/99 REV 1 CORDROGUE 19 CODRO 2; Port of Spain Declaration — 10451/07 CORDROGUE 34 COLAT 9 AMLAT 54. 
5062/2/03 REV 2 CORDROGUE 3 COWEB 76 + COR 1. 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
this exercise.  

As  part  of  a  broader  debate  on  expanding  the  drugs  issue  to  a  broader  security  dimension,  the  current 
French  Chair  has  proposed  to  extend  the  Group’s  mission  to  all  forms  of  serious  crime,  not  only  those 
involving drugs. This may cause some difficulty for other areas of the drugs issue, in particular the Group’s 
work in the field of drug demand reduction.  

Objective  17.  Promote  and  implement  the  EU  approach  to  alternative  development  (as  defined  in  document  9597/06  CORDROGUE  44  and 
UNODC/CND/2008/WG.3/CRP.4)  in  cooperation  with  third  countries,  taking  into  account  human  rights,  human  security  and  specific  framework 
conditions 

53.  To  intensify  the  financial  support 
for  the  implementation  of  alternative 
development projects and programmes, 
making  certain  that  interventions  are 
that 
properly 
development 
not 
conditional on reductions of illicit drug 
crop  cultivation  and  finance  initiatives 
for  the  prevention  of  illicit  drug  crop 
cultivation 

and 
is 

sequenced 

assistance 

MS 

COM 

Of the EU Member States, the United Kingdom reports that it runs a €
 12 million alternative development 
project  in  Afghanistan,  which  started  in  2008.  Finland  also  reports  a  long-term  alternative  development 
project with Peru (€

 750 000), but this will end in 2010.  

The Commission has acquired experience with alternative development in Latin America and Afghanistan, 
by  mainstreaming the EU approach to alternative development in its development agenda — no (forced) 
eradication, no conditionality, respect for human rights, and market access. Projects are based on the notion 
of correct sequencing, with eradication possible only when alternative livelihoods are in place. The ultimate 
goal is to address poverty. 

Regarding  the  Andean  Countries,  the  Commission  is  funding  alternative  development  programmes  in 
Bolivia to the tune of €
 56 million, supporting sustainable livelihoods and social infrastructure in regions 
from which people migrate to coca-growing areas, strengthening local authorities and ‘rationalisation’ of 
the  production  of  coca  leaves,  through  the  implementation  of  mechanisms  of  community  control  and 
capacity strengthening of local institutions and organisations of coca producers, also with a sector budget 
support programme. The Commission delegation in Bolivia has commissioned an evaluation of the EU’s 
alternative development programmes, which will be finalised by the end of this year. 

Several programmes in Colombia have components for alternative development, including the €
 92 million 
Laboratorio  de  PAZ,  Regional  development  for  peace  and  stability  (€
 26  million)  and  Regional 
development  for  peace  and  stability  II  (€
 4.2  million  for  the  alternative  development 
component), which aims to support vulnerable populations that cultivate illicit crops in developing legal, 
sustainable  livelihood  alternatives.  In  Peru,  a  project  for  supporting  modernisation  of  the  state  and 
strengthening good governance and social inclusion (€
 6 million) includes support to the Peruvian anti-drug 
agency). A new alternative development programme is being formulated (€
 8 million), which aims to help 
reduce poverty, promote social integration and prevent the illegal cultivation of coca.  

 8.4  million,  with  €

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
The  mid-term  review  of  the  cooperation  assistance  reaffirmed  the  priority  of  this  field  for  allocations  at 
regional, sub-regional and national level. 

Regarding  Afghanistan,  the  European  Commission’s  strategy  associates  the  rural  economy  and  the 
creation  of  alternative  livelihoods  with  production  and  productivity  gains  in  the  rural  economy  and 
improved  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources.  This  PAL  Strategy  (programme  for  alternative 
development)  in  Afghanistan  has  two  major  functions:  investment,  by  channelling  resources  to 
communities in the three provinces (Nangarhar, Laghman and Kunar) where it is being implemented, and a 
laboratory function (for identifying best practices in the development of alternative livelihood options and 
channelling lessons learned to appropriate partners). The Commission has invested in a number of strategic 
rural development sub-sectors such as irrigation and water resources management, horticulture, or livestock 
to stimulate the rural economy and help create licit employment opportunities. 

In  addition  to  the  alternative  development  projects  targeting  the  Andean  Countries  and  Afghanistan,  the 
Commission  has  also  completed  a  horizontal  project:  Importance  of  mainstreaming  alternative 
development underlined by programmes/projects. 

The  project,  which  was  completed  in  August  2008,  provided  a  platform  for  debate  and  information  on 
mainstreaming  alternative  development  in  ideas,  programmes,  communities,  governments  and  agencies 
across the globe. The focus was on the countries of South-East Asia and the Andean region/Latin America 
in which the main agro-narcotic crops are grown.  

In  preparation  of  this  assessment,  the  Commission  conducted  a  survey  among  Member  States  to  obtain 
insight into the extent to which alternative development programmes with the aim of replacing drug crop 
production constitute a structural element of a broader development policy agenda. 
Four Member States69 reported that alternative development is part of such a broader development policy, 
although not always directly. Italy supported alternative development projects in the Andean region until 
2007,  but  this  support  was  cut  for  budgetary  reasons.  Germany  reported  that  alternative  development 
projects in the field of drugs are only supported in exceptional cases as part of overall development policy. 

No  information  was  available  from  the  remaining  22  Member  States,  which  suggests  that  alternative 
development  is  integrated  in  broader  development  policy  in  only  a  handful  of  Member  States  and  is 
supported — primarily — at EU level through EU funding programmes.  

MS 

COM 

54. To include alternative development 
in  the  broader  development  agenda  of 
Member  States  and  encourage  third 
countries 
alternative 
development in their national policies 

integrate 

to 

69 

Belgium, France, Italy and UK. 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Objective 18. Strengthen EU coordination in the multilateral context and promote an integrated and balanced approach 

to 

56.  To  ensure  better  coordination  and 
continuity  between  the  HDG  and  MS 
the  United  Nations 
delegations 
on  Narcotic  Drugs 
Commission 
the 
(CND), 
through 
appropriate 
among 
Member  States  on  the  initiative  of  the 
Presidency 

burden-sharing 

including 

Council 

PRES 

MS 

The  rotating  EU  Presidencies  are  responsible  for  preparing  and  coordinating  EU  positions  ahead  of  and 
during  the  CND.  When  relevant  for  this  preparation  and  coordination,  representatives  from  the  EU 
Representations  and  the  EC/EU  Delegation  in  Vienna  participate  in  meetings  of  the  Horizontal  Drugs 
Group  in  Brussels.  In  general,  EU  Statements  during  the  CND  are  prepared  and  negotiated  by  the  EU 
delegations in Vienna, while resolutions are either drafted (in the case of EU initiatives) or discussed in the 
HDG prior to the CND. At their request, the EU Presidencies are supported by other EU Member States 
and by the EC/EU Delegation Vienna during these proceedings.  
The preparation and coordination for the 52nd Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its related High Level 
Segment  in  2009,  regarding  the  follow-up  of  the  1998  UNGASS  Political  Declaration70,  showed  to  be  a 
true  test  case  for  EU  coordination  and  continuity  at  UN  level.  Subsequently,  the  negotiations  on  a  new 
Political Declaration and Plan of Action took place between October 2008 and March 2009. The EU was 
strongly guided by  an official  EU position paper prepared  in  advance of  these  negotiations71.  The  Czech 
EU  Presidency  had  a  lead  role  in  the  negotiations,  closely  supported  by  the  European  Commission’s 
Delegation  in  Vienna  (as  of  01/12/2009:  European  Union  Delegation)  as  well  as  by  the  Commission’s 
drugs policy coordination department. 

Although  the  EU  negotiating  strategy  was  considered  solid  and  unified  until  a  very  late  stage  in  the 
negotiation process, some difficulties were encountered in the guidance provided by the Horizontal Drugs 
Group on political choices and decisions that needed to be made, mainly for the preparation of unified EU 
statements and negotiation positions where in some cases a lack of consensus between EU Member States 
resulted in stalemate situations in which the EU Presidency could not take a strong stance in negotiations 
with third countries. This problem recurred in 2010. Another factor that may have had a detrimental impact 
on  the  EU’s  capability  to  negotiate  at  UN  level  was  that  in  cases  of  disagreement,  reaching  consensus 
among  the  EU-27  consumed  much  energy  and  time,  which  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  active 
participation,  support  and  burden-sharing  of  Member  States  in  the  subsequent  negotiations  with  third 
countries.  

57.  To  prepare,  coordinate  and  adopt 
joint 
EU  common  positions  and 

PRES 

The  preparation  of  an  EU  response  to  the  evaluation  report  and  follow-up  of  the  1998  UNGASS 
Declaration  was  the  most  important  preparatory  work  for  the  EU  in  2008  and  2009  regarding  the  CND. 

70 
71 

Political Declaration of the Twentieth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution S-20/2, annex). 
13501/1/08 REV1 CORDROGUE 71. 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
resolutions in the CND 

MS 

COM 

Council  

58.  To  present  an  EU  position  in  the 
high-level segment of the 52nd CND on 
the  evaluation  of  and  follow-up  to 
UNGASS 
the 
fundamental  principles  of  EU  drugs 
policy 

reflecting 

'9874, 

Council 

MS 

COM 

During  the  Portuguese  and  Slovene  EU  Presidencies  a  first  attempt  was  made  to  develop  a  joint  EU 
position, which included the formation of specific working groups on key topics relating to the UNGASS 
evaluation  report.  These  working  groups  produced  a  number  of  principal  findings,  which  were  further 
developed  and  finalised  during  the  French  Presidency  in  the  second  half  of  2008.  The  final  document 
consisted of a number of key principles, priorities and negotiation ‘red lines’. This EU Position Paper on 
UNGASS72 was unanimously adopted by COREPER in October 2008. During the High Level Segment and 
52nd CND and during the 53rd CND, the EU delivered common (opening) statements on the various agenda 
items as well as on the UNGASS review.  

However,  due  to  the  disagreement  of  one  EU  Member  State  with  one  of  the  core  aspects  of  EU  drugs 
policy, the process of reaching consensus has become more difficult, in particular as regards the opening 
statements and statements on drug demand reduction. During the 52nd CND, the EU did not initiate any EU 
resolution,  although  one  resolution  was  tabled  during  the  meeting  by  one  EU  Member  State  and 
subsequently co-sponsored by the other EU Member States. Of the 14 resolutions adopted during the 52nd 
CND,  the  EU  as  a  whole  co-sponsored  11  while  3  resolutions  were  co-sponsored  by  individual  Member 
States  on  a national basis. At  the 53rd  CND,  the EU  tabled 3 resolutions  (2  initiated by  France, 1 by  the 
UK),  which  were  all  adopted.  Of  the  16  resolutions  that  were  adopted  during  the  53rd  CND,  the  EU  co-
sponsored  7  (in  addition  to  the  3  tabled),  while  4  resolutions  were  co-sponsored  by  individual  Member 
States on a national basis.  
The convergence indicator for EU input in the UN drug control system73, which showed 99 % convergence 
of national positions towards CND resolutions in 2007, saw a decline to 79 % in 2009 and 69 % in 2010. 

An important issue that may require further debate concerns clarification of the criteria by which the EU 
decides to co-sponsor resolutions of third countries during the CND. 

The cooperation and coordination of the EU within the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs has 
shown  a  mixed  picture  in  recent  years.  Since  2006  the  EU  had  been  the  main  advocate  of  a  thorough 
evaluation of and reflection on the Political Declaration of the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session 
on Drugs. In 2009, the negotiations for a new UN Political Declaration and Plan of Action took place. The 
EU adopted a united position in preparation of these negotiations, which included a number of important 
red  lines,  including  the  balanced  approach,  respect  for  human  rights,  harm  reduction,  non-sequential 

72 
73 
74 

13501/1/08 REV1 CORDROGUE 71. 
9099/05, CORDROGUE 27, 30.5.2005. 
Political Declaration (resolution S-20/2, annex) of the Twentieth Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
59.  To  coordinate  activities  with  other 
international  fora  or  programmes,  in 
particular  UNODC,  Pompidou  Group, 
WHO, UNAIDS, WCO and Interpol 

MS 

COM 

alternative development, and the need for monitoring and supporting evidence-based policies.  

The EU managed relatively well to maintain its position during the first part of the negotiations, which is 
one of the reasons why some of the more progressive elements from the 1998 UNGASS declaration were 
not reversed. Nevertheless, during the final stage of negotiations, disagreement emerged on support for the 
term ‘harm reduction’ in the negotiations. As a result, the EU Presidency could not finalise the negotiations 
on  this  issue  and  the  disagreement  between  some  Member  States  was  openly  displayed  during  the  High 
Level Segment of the CND, where a considerable number of EU Member States supported an interpretative 
statement on harm reduction. 

The EU has many dealings with international organisations. However, despite the adoption of the Lisbon 
Treaty, the EU is not recognised as an official representative entity in e.g. the UN system, as negotiations 
on its status continue.  

In different international organisations, the EU is coordinated through the Presidency or through one of its 
Member  States  that  acts  as  coordinator.  For  example,  within  the  United  Nationals  Office  for  Drug  and 
Crime  (UNODC),  Germany  currently  represents  the  EU  in  the  Working  Group  on  Finance  and 
Governance. At the same time, in the UNODC Major Donor Group, only those EU Member States that are 
considered major donors participate without specific representation.  

Currently there exists no clear coordination role for the EU Presidency or EU delegation at the Council of 
Europe  where  the  work  of  the  Pompidou  Group  is  concerned.  All  Member  States  of  the  EU  are  also 
Members of the PG and represent themselves through the Permanent Correspondents Meetings.  

Objective 19. Support the candidate and stabilisation and association process countries 

60. To provide the necessary technical 
and  other  assistance  to  these  countries 
to familiarise them with the EU acquis 
in the field of drugs and to assist them 
in  carrying  out  the  required  actions, 
including  those  adopted  in  the  drug 
action plan with the Western Balkans75 

MS 

COM 

Council 

EMCDDA 

Europol 

Cooperation  between  the  EU  and  the  countries  of  the  Western  Balkan  region  on  drug  supply  and  drug 
demand reduction has continued over the period under review. The issue of drug trafficking is monitored 
through the Progress Report (opinion for candidate countries), but is also part of the regular political and 
technical dialogue with all the countries of the region.  

Substantial  increases  in  the  capacities  of  law  enforcement  agencies  in  the  Western  Balkans  countries  to 
counter transnational organised crime were guaranteed in the course of the dialogue on visa liberalisation, 
which required the development of tailor-made roadmaps. Each roadmap has a strong focus on measures to 
increase the effective fight against organised crime and corruption. The strengthening of border control was 

75 

5062/2/03 REV 2 CORDROGUE 3 COWEB 76 + COR 1. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
also  an  issue  incorporated  in  the  road  maps,  which  has  indirectly  helped  to  weaken  some  of  the  transit 
routes used by drug traffickers.  

Through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) the Commission has promoted both regional 
and country-specific projects on counter-narcotics. These initiatives have also guaranteed continuity with 
some projects previously launched within the CARDS assistance framework. For instance, €
 2.5 million of 
IPA funds have been secured to finance a multi-beneficiary project on ‘Fight against organised crime, in 
particular illicit drug trafficking, and the prevention of terrorism’, which was launched in February 2010 
and  covered  the  whole Western  Balkans  region  and  Turkey.  This project  is  led by  Austria  and  Germany 
and aims to bring existing regional mechanisms into line with EU acquis, standards and best practices. It 
promotes  cooperation  for  the  further  development  of  the  International  Law  Enforcement  Coordination 
Units  (ILECUs),  thus  leading  to  a  consolidation  of  the  strategic  and  institutional  basic  structure 
implemented within the ILECUs. Ongoing national initiatives include: a €2.2 million IPA 2007 project to 
strengthen the capacities of the Ministry of the Interior of Croatia to combat narcotic drugs trafficking and 
drug  abuse,  an  IPA  2007  project  to  strengthen  the  Turkish  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug 
Addiction.  The  following  actions  are  under  preparation:  an  IPA  2007  project  to  support  Serbia  in  the 
implementation of the national strategy for the fight against drug abuse, an IPA 2010 project to strengthen 
the capacity of the Police in Montenegro to fight against drugs. 

Several projects have been financed or are under preparation in the field of fighting transnational crimes, 
including  drug  trafficking.  These  include a  €5  million  regional  project  which  is  in  the  process  of  being 
launched  under  IPA  2010  with  the  aim  of  strengthening  the  operational  capacity  and  capabilities  of  the 
Public/State  Prosecutors'  Offices  in the  Western  Balkan  region,  to  enable  them  better  to  prosecute  and 
investigate cross-border organised crime. 

The Commission is also supporting short-term targeted activities (study seminars, education and awareness 
initiatives, expert meetings, and conferences) under TAIEX and TWINNING programmes.  

The  EU  is  systematically  encouraging  regional  cooperation,  especially  on  tackling  transnational  threats 
such as drug trafficking. In this regard, increased operational cooperation within the SECI/SELEC centre is 
a positive development. The Commission is supporting the strengthening of SECI/SELEC capacities with 
an IPA 2008 project (€

 1.5 million). 

The EMCDDA initiated its technical cooperation with the Western Balkans countries through the CARDS 

76 

EN 

Turkey has signed an agreement with the European Commission on its membership of the EMCDDA. This agreement now needs to be ratified by the national parliament. An 
agreement on Croatia's cooperation with the EMCDDA is expected to be signed in 2010. 

47 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
project  (December  2007  —  October  2009),  which  involved  Albania,  Bosnia-Herzegovina,  the  Former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. The main objective of the project was to assess 
the capacity of the Western Balkans to establish drug information systems compatible with the EMCDDA. 
The  main  outcomes  included  a  comprehensive  needs  assessment  report,  information  maps  detailing  the 
different  national  information  sources  and  experts,  country  overviews  providing  a  structured  synopsis  of 
the  trends  and  characteristics  of  the  national  drugs  problem,  and  participation  in  the  survey  for  the 
European Study on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD). 
The participation of Croatia and Turkey 76
 in EMCDDA activities was supported by the Instrument for Pre-
Accession  (IPA), from  March  2008  to November  2009. In  November  2009,  the  EMCDDA  organised  — 
with IPA funding — a conference to share experience and best practice on technical cooperation between 
IPA beneficiaries and EU agencies. 

Objective 20. To improve cooperation with European Neighbourhood Policy countries 

61.  To  improve  the  dialogue  on  drugs 
with  European  Neighbourhood  Policy 
countries  in  a  bilateral  or  regional 
context,  in  particular  through  existing 
subcommittees 

MS 

COM 

The dialogue on drugs with European Neighbourhood Policy countries focused on the implementation of 
ENP partners’ obligations under the 1988 UN Convention on Illicit Traffic in Narcotic and Psychotropic 
Substances  as  well  as  other  international  instruments.  Assistance  for  capacity  building  within  designated 
national authorities and law enforcement bodies for both repressive and preventive measures also figured 
prominently  in  the  dialogue  as  well  as  support  for  designing  or  updating  comprehensive  and  holistic 
national  drug  strategies.  Emphasis  was  also  placed  on  the  need  to  improve  intelligence-sharing  on  drugs 
production and trafficking routes with geographical neighbours and at regional level. Equal importance was 
given  to  improving  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  civil  society  groups  on  the  development  and 
implementation  of  effective  harm-reduction  initiatives  and  programmes  for  high-risk  groups  and  to  the 
need  for  continued  public  investment  in  rehabilitation  programmes  and  publicly  accessible  curative 
facilities.  

Nevertheless, some aspects of cooperation require further attention. The degree of intelligence-sharing on 
drugs  production  and  trafficking  supply  routes  at  regional  level  is  overshadowed  by  ongoing  political 
tensions  in  the  Middle  East  and  South  Caucasus.  At  the  same  time,  the  underinvestment  in  human 
resources within law enforcement agencies to tackle drugs issues remains a constraint for all ENP partners. 
A  dialogue  on  drugs  has  furthermore  not  yet  been  initiated  with  all  relevant  countries.  This  concerns  — 
among others — Armenia and Azerbaijan. Finally, initiatives by the EU to upgrade cooperation on drugs 
with  other  important  ENP  partners  (notably  Morocco)  through  the  organisation  of  Troika  meetings  were 
frustrated by the countries concerned.  

62.  The  Commission  to  encourage  COM 

The various ENP Action Plans place drugs cooperation within the framework of regional cooperation and 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
these  countries  to  use  the  European 
Neighbourhood  Policy  Instrument  to 
implement  the  drug  sections  of  the 
ENP Action Plans 

the fight against organised crime as well as national efforts to develop adequate prevention, treatment and 
rehabilitation  programmes.  The  TAIEX  instrument  was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  ENP  partners  in 
particular  to  help  in  building  capacity  in  formulating  national  strategies  and  improving  coordination 
between national agencies and stakeholders. However, take-up of the TAIEX instrument has been limited, 
with only 3 study visits completed in 2009 involving Israel and Morocco. One Twinning action on drugs is 
under preparation with Morocco.  

Under  bilateral  cooperation,  identification  work  began  on  a  rural  development  programme  to  mitigate 
cannabis  cultivation  in  Morocco  (Rif  area)  for  the  programming  period  2011-13,  while  discussions  were 
initiated on a similar future programme in the Lebanon (Beka’a Valley). At regional level, all ENP South 
partners  participated  in  the  Euro  Med  Police  II  programme  prioritising  drugs  cooperation  while  support 
was extended to improving border management, including anti-drugs surveillance, in ENP East through the 
EUBAM, SCIBM (South Caucasus Integrated Border Management) and SCAD V programmes.  

As  part  of  the  multilateral  activities  of  the  Eastern  Partnership,  an  expert  panel  on  Integrated  Border 
Management (IBM) was established under Platform 1 to encourage expert dialogue and to accompany the 
implementation  of  the  Eastern  Partnership’s  €
 44.5  million  Flagship  Initiative  on  IBM,  which  includes 
among  its  priorities  effective  cooperation  against  drug  trafficking,  particularly  along  major  regional 
transport corridors.  

Ukraine concluded a Memorandum of Understanding on technical cooperation with EMCDDA in January 
2010, while Europol established formal contacts with Israel, Jordan, Moldova and Ukraine, concluding a 
Strategic  Agreement  including  drugs  cooperation  with  the  latter  two.  With  TAIEX  support,  EMCDDA 
plans  to  hold  a  regional  seminar  on  the  EU  Drugs  monitoring  system  with  all  ENP  partners  in  October 
2010.  

Some difficulties need to be overcome in this area of cooperation as well. For example, low ENP partner 
interest is reported in using bilateral cooperation funding under the ENPI for drug-related programmes. The 
relevant countries have a strong preference for using these means to advance convergence and economic 
integration. In this regard, the possibility of incorporating drug-specific regional activities in revised ENPI 
Regional  East  and  Inter-Regional  Strategy  Papers  for  2010-13  is  limited  due  to  intense  prioritisation  of 
enhanced  support  for  economic  integration  and  policy  convergence  in  the  key  areas  of  energy,  the 
environment  and  SME  development.  Available  funding  opportunities  for  expertise  under  TAIEX  and 
Twinning are also not yet fully exploited by ENP partners.  

Most ENP partner countries prioritise supply reduction measures over demand reduction, with few having 
an interest in investing in harm reduction, prevention and rehabilitation programmes, and prefer to invest in 
repressive measures, including stricter drug legislation and drug crop eradication measures.  

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 3.7 million has been allocated to facilitate cooperation between interested ENP partners and 
A budget of €
EU agencies (incl. EMCDDA) under the revised Inter-Regional Strategy Paper and Indicative Programme 
for  2011-13.  Finally,  interest  in  drugs  cooperation under  the  multilateral  track of  the  Eastern Partnership 
seems limited to date within the Panel on IBM under Platform 1 (Flagship Initiative on IBM). 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
6. 

INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (OBJECTIVES 21-24) 

Priority defined in the Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012: We need to increase our knowledge of all aspects of drug use through more and better coordinated 
research and data, including data on drug-related crime and on the way the illicit drug supply market works. 

INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION 

Objective 

Responsible 

State of play 

party 

Objective 21. Expand the knowledge base in the field of drugs by promoting research 

63. The Council and Commission to: 

MS 

- identify future EU research priorities 
in  the  field  of  illicit  drugs  and  the 
mechanisms  needed 
to 
generate new knowledge; 

in  order 

COM 

EMCDDA 

Council 

-  develop  new 
technologies; 

approaches 

and 

-  strengthen  research  capability  by 
developing  and  focusing  its  strategic 
direction  and  taking  steps  to  improve 
cooperation in the EU 

In  the  course  of  2009  and  the  first  half  of  2010,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  with  the  support  of 
EMCDDA developed an EU strategic framework in the field of drugs-related research. In June 2009 the 
Commission published the report on a study77 taking stock of illicit drugs research in all 27 EU countries 
and  at  EU  level  as  well  as  making  comparisons  with  research  in  the  drugs  field  in  the  US,  Canada  and 
Australia.  In  September  2009  the  Commission  organised  a  conference  bringing  together  policy-makers, 
programme  managers  from  research  funding  organisations,  and  leading  researchers  from  the  EU,  to 
examine the study findings and to debate possible mechanisms to engage researchers at both national and 
European level to improve research capability and cooperation. Following these events, in November 2009 
the  Commission  presented  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper78  to  the  Council  in  which  it  made 
recommendations to strengthen research capacity and stimulate research cooperation in the field of drugs 
across the EU. The Council adopted these recommendations in its Conclusions79 of 7 December 2009 and 
also  identified  a  number  of drug-related  research priorities  in  the  field  of drug demand,  drug  supply  and 
policy evaluation. The Council also stressed the need to improve coordination between policy, research and 
practice.  Finally,  the  Conclusions  invited  the  Member  States  to  strengthen  national  coordination 
mechanisms,  to  maximise  the  use  of  EU  funding  instruments,  and  in  particular  to  consider  the 
establishment of a European Research Area Network (ERA-NET) in the field of illicit drugs. By the end of 

77 
78 
79 

Call for Tender JLS/2007/C4/006; Study: ‘A Comparative Analysis of Research in the field of Illicit Drugs in the EU’. 
Commission Staff Working Paper: Strengthening EU Research Capacity on Illicit Drugs; SEC(2009) 1631 final, 23.11.2009. 
17177/09; CORDROGUE 78; 7.12.2009. 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
2009, the Netherlands had indicated it could coordinate the establishment of such a structure. In 2009 the 
Commission  also  launched  a  call  for  proposals  for  a  €
 6.5  million  grant  on  ‘Addictions’,  as  part  of  the 
Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research  (FP7)  under  the  Socio-Economic  and  Humanities 
Programme (SSH). In 2010, a call with an amount of €
 2 million was launched in support of the ERA-NET 
in the field of drugs (SSH Programme). In addition, a call for proposals for large collaborative projects (€6 
to €12 million) in the field of 'addictive disorders’ was published under the FP7 Health Theme.  

In a survey conducted in preparation of this annual assessment, the Commission asked Member States for 
updated information on national research funding programmes that specifically target drug-related research. 
Of the twenty Member States responding, ten countries reported that dedicated funding was available for 
drug-related  research,  either directly  from  drug-coordinating  structures  through  open calls  for  tender80  or 
through national research funding structures81. In Germany, a specific budget for drug-related research was 
available  from  2001  to  2008.  In  Luxembourg,  drug-related  research  is  funded  from  a  national  fund  to 
combat  drug  trafficking,  in  which  confiscated  assets  from  drug  crimes  are  deposited.  From  the  other  ten 
responding countries, five countries said they did not have any funding programme specifically targeting 
drug-related  research82,  while  the  remaining  five83  indicated  that  funds  for  drug-related  research  are 
available from a variety of general research funding programmes.  

One of the recommendations in the Council Conclusions on drug-related research therefore also concerned 
the  need  to  improve  coordination  between  national  representatives  in  drug-coordination  mechanisms  and 
those  representing  their  Member  States  in  programming  committees,  for  example  for  the  EU’s  7th  RTD 
Framework  Programme,  but  also  in  the  Public  Health  Programme  and  Drug  Prevention  and  Information 
Programme.  

In the survey, the Commission also asked Member States how they coordinated their input in these specific 
programmes.  Of  the  twenty  countries  responding  to  this  question,  seven  Member  States84  indicated  that 
their  national  drug  coordination  mechanism  played  an  active  role  in  disseminating  information  about 

80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Spain. 
Belgium, Finland and Sweden. 
Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta and Romania. 
Austria, France, Portugal, Slovakia and UK. 
Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Spain. 
Austria, Denmark, Cyprus and Greece. 
Belgium, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and UK. 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/research. 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
funding opportunities. It remained unclear how these countries coordinate their input within the different 
programming  and  advisory  committees  of  the  EU  funding  programmes.  Four  Member  States85  indicated 
they do not coordinate such input. Finland and Malta are currently examining a coordination structure for 
this  purpose.  Seven  Member  States86  reported  that  they  do  coordinate  their  input  for  the  EU  funding 
programmes,  either  through  their  national  research  structures  or  through  their  drug  coordination 
mechanisms. The results show that funding for drug-related research at EU level could be boosted further if 
more  Member  States  ensured  that  information  on  research  priorities  is  exchanged  between  their  drug 
coordination mechanisms and government representatives in the relevant programming committees for the 
EU funding programmes. 

To provide and disseminate drug-related research information and drug-related research findings from the 
EMCDDA and the EU, the EMCDDA has enhanced its thematic website on research87 to include a section 
on EC funding available for research, information on research at national level, and links to relevant EC, 
national and EMCDDA resources.  

22. Ensure the exchange of accurate and policy-relevant information in the field of illicit drugs 

resources 

to  meet 

64. Member States to provide Reitox88 
National  Focal  Points  (NFP)  with  the 
necessary 
the 
obligations  and  quality  standards  of 
EMCDDA  membership.  NFPs 
to 
contribute  to  the  EMCDDA  on  the 
basis  of  annual  agreements  and  with 
appropriate 
the 
support 
EMCDDA 

from 

MS 

EMCDDA 

In 2009, 26 Member States signed a grant agreement with the EMCDDA. One country (Malta) did not have 
an operational focal point and therefore was not in a position to fulfil the contractual obligations linked to 
the  grant  agreement.  The  national  focal  point  (NFP)  of  another  Member  State  was  relocated  to  another 
public entity at national level and became temporarily inoperative, so the grant agreement was cancelled. 
Out of the 25 remaining NFPs, three countries did not request the maximum amount available per country. 
Two of these NFPs had to request a further reduction during the year as matching national resources were 
cut due to the financial crisis. Apart from the above-mentioned individual cases the REITOX co-financing 
system seemed to have provided sufficient resources for effective functioning of the NFPs. 

National  reports  and  standardised  tables  are  two  key  areas  where  the  EMCDDA  collects  monitoring 
information  from  the  Reitox  NFPs.  In  2008,  NFPs  adopted  new  guidelines  for  national  reporting,  which 
were used as a reference document for the first time in 2009. The new guidelines made changes primarily 
to  the  structure  of  the  report  and  not  so  much  the  content.  In  2009,  all  NFPs  complied  with  the  new 
reporting  guidelines  and  delivered  a  national  report.  The  exception  was  Malta,  which  has  had  no 
operational FP since 2008 and did not deliver any kind of data to the EMCDDA. Out of the 26 countries, 
the deadline was observed by 12 and a further 10 sent reports one month after the deadline.  

88 

Réseau Européen d’Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies (REITOX). 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
In 2009, 16 mandatory and 5 voluntary standard tables were due to be delivered by the NFPs by the end of 
September.  In  total,  the  EMCDDA  received  990  datasets,  of  which  136  (13.7 %)  were  received  after  the 
deadline.  Of  the  990  reported  datasets,  139  (14 %)  were  tables  without  data.  Depending  on  the  country, 
reasons for empty submission varied significantly, e.g. new data not yet accessible at the NFPs, lack of data 
collection for a particular issue at national or regional level, or survey not carried out annually.  

The quality of the national reports and the reported datasets has been increasing over recent years, although 
the availability of new information varies greatly between countries and the topic addressed. With regard to 
quality control, the EMCDDA has identified limitations and weaknesses in data and data collection systems 
and is seeking options for overcoming them together with NFPs. Due to the varying situations in different 
NFPs, bilateral discussions have proved to be useful, and training and technical support is tailored to and 
focused on the needs of those countries where problems have been identified.  

Objective 23. Further develop instruments to monitor the drug situation and the effectiveness of responses to it 

65.  To  further 
improve  and  fully 
implement  the  five  EMCDDA  key 
epidemiological 
the 
development  of  new  indicators  and 
measures in drug demand reduction 

indicators  and 

MS 

EMCDDA 

COM 

The 5 Key Epidemiological Indicators (Prevalence and patterns of drug use, Problem drug use, Treatment 
demand, Drug-related deaths, and Drug-related infectious diseases) are a core task of the EMCDDA; they 
were  politically  endorsed  by  a  Council  Resolution  in  2001.  An  assessment  of  the  progress  by  Member 
States  in  implementing  the  Key  Indicators  (KI)  was  first  performed  in  2002.  In  2009,  a  new  assessment 
approach was developed in order to measure the level of implementation of the KIs and the progress made 
to date, and to identify the main obstacles to full implementation.  

The new implementation assessment conducted in 2009 included both a description of the activities carried 
out  at  national  level  to  implement  the  KIs  and  an  analysis  of  the  quality  of  the  information  held  in  the 
Member  States,  and  was  delivered  to  the  EMCDDA  against  a  set  of  detailed  criteria  developed  in  close 
consultation with National Focal Points. Findings from the assessment reflect the stage of development of 
the indicators in a country. The results of the assessment indicate that the level of implementation of the 
indicators  and  the  quality  of the  data  have considerably  improved  in  most  of  the  countries  since  the  KIs 
were implemented. However, some methodological aspects still need fine-tuning, especially with regard to 
the  timeliness  of  data  delivered  to  the  EMCDDA.  A  limited  number  of  countries  still  face  structural 
problems  preventing  the  implementation  of  several  indicators  and  need  to  make  a  special  effort  to 
overcome these obstacles.  

Currently,  the  Treatment  Demand  Indicator  (TDI)  is  undergoing  revision  in  response  to  changes  in  the 
treatment  field  and  in  the  profile  of  problem  drug  users.  The  full  revision  of  the  TDI  protocol  and  data 
management issues should be concluded in 2011 and will include simplified data reporting methods. 

The  Problem  Drug  Use  Indicator  (PDU),  as  it  has  been  defined  until  now,  has  been  most  suitable  for 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
estimating the size of populations of heavy, chronic heroin users. However, the changing drug situation in 
Europe  (i.e.  emergence  of  new  populations  like  dependent  cocaine  users  or  cannabis  users  in  need  of 
treatment) required rethinking of the entire area. This was also supported by demands from National Focal 
Points, policy  makers and the EU Drug Action Plan. Elements of the PDU revision planned for the near 
future include: review of the conceptual basis of the current definition (e.g. operationalisation of definition 
elements  —  ‘regular’  and  ‘long-term’,  bringing  the  area  more  into  line  with  international  classifications, 
flexibility  of  the  definition  in  changing  conditions,  the  possibility  of  defining  harm  thresholds,  etc.).  A 
multidisciplinary  approach  is  to  be  taken  and  the  revision  is  intended  to  be  a  long-term  process  with  a 
strong research stimulation component.  

The instruments used to assess drug demand reduction responses have been revised over recent years, in 
accordance with experiences and changes in the environment. A first overall scheme for demand reduction 
indicators has been developed, based on an analysis of existing instruments and the items and categories 
used. Future work will focus on a restructuring of data management and presentation of interventions. Core 
elements will include: conceptual framework, policy relevance, current availability (including accessibility, 
access and coverage issues), quality measures and best practice. Cost-related aspects of interventions will 
be integrated where possible as data become available. 

All Member States provided data to the EMCDDA in 2009, according to the TDI Protocol and Guidelines. 
In  Poland  the  process  of  adapting  the  national  reporting  system  on  treatment  demand  will  be  finalised 
shortly.  There  remain  differences  between  Member  States  with  regard  to  data  quality  and  coverage  in 
respect of TDI implementation.  

A number of bodies are collecting data in the field of drug supply in the EU and at international level, with 
the EMCDDA being the main such collector.  

While making use of the wealth of information and expertise available the European Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol and other bodies, the Commission also solicited external 
technical advice on a strategy to develop key indicators in the field of drug markets, drug-related crime and 
supply  reduction  by  commissioning  a  study89  in  2008  and  organising  two  expert  meetings  in  2009.  The 
meetings  brought  together  a  panel  of  law  enforcement  officers,  drug-policy  analysts,  policy-makers  and 
scientists. The Council reaffirmed the importance of this issue in its Conclusions of 28 May 200990.  

67.  To  develop  key  indicators  for  the 
collection  of  policy-relevant  data  on 
drug-related  crime,  illegal  cultivation, 
drug  markets  and  supply  reduction 
interventions and to develop a strategy 
to collect them 

COM 

EMCDDA 

Europol 

MS 

89 
90 

EN 

Tender JLS/2008/C2/001 — Study on policy-relevant information and data in the field of drug-supply reduction and drug-related crime in the EU and third countries. 
9634/09; CORDROGUE 26, 8.5.2009. 

55 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Based on these activities and inputs, the Commission considered it important for progress to be made on 
developing  drug  supply  indicators  during  the  lifetime  of  the  current  EU  Drugs  Strategy.  In  order  to 
facilitate this, it published a Commission Staff Working Paper with the aim of — among other things — 
providing a framework and setting out actions for developing key indicators in the field of drug supply at 
EU level. 

The  paper  proposed  measures  for  enhancing  the  availability  of  information  and  data  on  drug  supply,  by 
developing  key  indicators  on  drug  markets,  drug-related  crime  and  drug-supply  reduction  and  by 
improving existing data collection systems in this field.  

As the lead agency in developing this area of data collection in the EU, the EMCDDA in 2010 also started 
a  number  of  projects  concerned  with  the  conceptualisation,  development  and  implementation  of  new 
indicators in the field of drug supply, this in addition to the data routinely collected and analysed on supply 
and  supply  reduction.  These  new  indicators  concern  —  among  others  —  the  area  of  ‘drug  prices  and 
purity’, in which data on drug prices in the retail and wholesale market are to be collected and analysed, 
and different options are to be reviewed for developing purity-adjusted price series in Europe, together with 
an analysis of the respective data requirements. Regarding purity, in 2010 the EMCDDA intends to develop 
its  reporting  tools  on  drug  purity.  This  should  allow  reporting  countries  to  distinguish  between  different 
levels of the market (retail, wholesale, undifferentiated) in their submitted data. 

68.  To  develop  analytical  instruments 
to  better  assess  the  effectiveness  and 
impact  of  drug  policy  (e.g.  model 
evaluation  tools,  policy  effectiveness 
indices,  public  expenditure  analysis 
etc.) 

COM 

EMCDDA 

MS 

The European Commission is supporting the development of new analytical instruments to better assess the 
effectiveness and impact of drugs policy in the EU by funding initiatives through — among others — the 
Specific  Programmes  on  Drug  Prevention  and  Information91  and  on  the  Prevention  of  and  Fight  Against 
Crime as well as through the Public Health Programme and the 7th RTD Framework Programme. €
 7 
million is allocated every year to projects under these programmes. In addition, the Commission has issued 
calls for studies in the field of drugs to meet specific needs for EU drugs policy92. 

 5 to €

91 

92 

EN 

Decision  No 1150/2007/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  September  2007  establishing  for  the  period  2007-2013  the  Specific  Programme  ‘Drug 
prevention  and  information’  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  Fundamental  Rights  and  Justice,  OJ  L  257,  03.10.2007,  p.  23;  Council  Decision  of  12  February  2007 
establishing  for  the  period  2007  to  2013,  as  part  of  General  Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties,  the  Specific  Programme  ‘Prevention  of  and  Fight  against 
Crime’ (2007/125/JHA); OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 7. 
2007: JLS/2007/C4/005 — Detailed analysis of the operation of the world market in illicit drugs and of policy measures to curtail it (€
Comparative Analysis of Research into Illicit Drugs in the European Union (€
supply  reduction  and  drug-related  crime  in  the  EU  and  third  countries  (€
minimum quality standards and benchmarks in drug demand reduction (€

 469.958); 2008: JLS/2007/C4/006 — A 
 247.400); JLS/2008/C2/001 — Study on policy-relevant information and data in the field of drug 
 165.065);  2009:  JLS/2010/DPIP/PR/1023  —  Study  on  the  development  of  an  EU  framework  for 

 225.700). 

56 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
In addition, the EMCDDA is supporting the development of drugs policy assessment instruments through a 
number of projects and tools. At the end of 2009, the Agency published a Selected Issue on ‘Drug offences: 
sentencing  and  other  outcomes’,  which  analysed  the  implementation  of  drug  control  systems  within  the 
European  Union  —  the  outcome  of  each  process,  rather  than  a  more  restricted  account  of  national  laws. 
Individual countries have already used data on drug sentencing to inform or evaluate legal frameworks or 
policies, but this is the first time such data have been collected EU-wide. 

At the beginning of 2010, the EMCDDA released a short technical report that reviewed the methodologies 
used to evaluate the effects of drug-related changes to legislation. Some 36 studies that evaluated aspects of 
legislative  changes  regarding  illegal  use  and  possession,  regulations  permitting  use  and  possession,  and 
enforcement strategies were reviewed. Evaluations may highlight the intended effects of a legal change, but 
there  can  also  be  unintended  consequences,  and  a  full  picture  will  describe  all  of  these,  perhaps  by 
combining  different  indicator  types.  In  mid-2010,  the  EMCDDA  organised  a  Reitox  Academy  on  the 
evaluation of national drug strategies and action plans. The meeting focused on reviewing current national 
activities  regarding  the  design  of  evaluation  studies,  the  collection  and  interpretation  of  data  for  such 
studies, and the use of their results. 

In the Annual Report on the implementation of the Council Decision93, EMCDDA and Europol indicated 
that,  during  2009,  24  new  psychoactive  substances  were  officially  notified  for  the  first  time  in  the  EU 
through information exchange via the Early Warning System (EWS) set up by the Decision. The number of 
new compounds reported in 2009 was higher than ever; all were synthetic, including two substances with 
medicinal properties. In the first half of 2010, the number of notified substances increased at an even faster 
rate.  

In  the  past  five  years,  the  Council  Decision  has  been  implemented  fully  on  a  number  of  occasions. 
Throughout the different stages of the implementation process, specific problems emerged both in terms of 
interpretation  of  specific  paragraphs  and  regarding  the  timeliness  of  the  procedure.  Furthermore,  the 
question has been raised whether the scope and procedure of the Council Decision is still fit for purpose, 
given  the  fast-changing  trends  in  the  market  for  new  psychoactive  substances.  These  trends  include  for 
example: 

-  The  number  of  —  mostly  synthetic  —  substances  on  sale  in  the  market  for  ‘legal’  drugs  seems  to  be 
increasing.  Not  all  of  these  substances  may  have  a  serious  risk  potential  for  human  health,  but  their 

69.  To  assess 
the  functioning  of 
Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the 
information  exchange,  risk  assessment 
and  control  of  new  psychoactive 
substances, and amend, if necessary 

COM 

Council 

EMCDDA 

Europol 

EMEA 

93 

EN 

EMCDDA–Europol 2009 Annual Report on the implementation of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA - in accordance with Article 10 of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA on the 
information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances. 

57 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
consequences are often unknown due to a lack of research. 

- Substances that have been brought under control at national or at EU level are often easily replaced by 
new substances, often by making simple changes at the molecular level. The Council Decision can address 
one individual substance at a time only. 

-  Some  substances  are  sold with  the  label ‘not  for  human  consumption’.  However,  for  user  communities 
their use as psychoactive substances is clear (e.g. mephedrone); 

Many  of  the  new,  ‘legal’  psychoactive  substances  are  sold  over  the  internet,  which  makes  control  at 
national level complicated and occasionally leads to ‘media hypes’; 

In  several  Member  States  there  are  ‘smart  shops’  or  ‘head  shops’  which  may  sell  all  kinds  of  products, 
varying from herbal teas to psychoactive plant leafs and synthetic psychoactive substances. These shops are 
often not regulated. 

Taking into account the above, by the end of 2010, the Commission will present an assessment report on 
the functioning of Council Decision 20058/387/JHA94. The assessment will — among other things — look 
into  how  Member  States  control  new  psychoactive  substances,  draw  up  an  inventory  of  relevant  EU 
legislation  (e.g.  food  law)  that  may  be  of  use  in  addressing new psychoactive  substances,  and  assess  the 
functioning of the Council Decision from a procedural and practical perspective.  

Objective 24. Ensure the ongoing evaluation of drug policy  

70.  Member  States  to  evaluate  and 
fine-tune  national  drug  policies  on  a 
regular or ongoing basis 

MS 

Six  EU  Member  States  adopted  new  drug  strategies  and/or  action  plans  in  200995  and  five  others96  had 
drugs policy documents ending in 2008 but had not renewed them at the end of 2009. Among these eleven 
countries, eight have reported evaluations of their former drugs policy documents and only three97 have not 
done such an evaluation. Ireland has assessed its strategy against predefined key performance indicators. 

Completed  final  drug  strategy  evaluations  have  also  been  reported  by  Luxembourg,  Slovenia  and  the 
Netherlands,  and  their  results  should  be  or  have  already  been  used  for  the  development  of  new  national 
drug  strategies  or  action  plans  to  be  adopted  in  2010.  Current  final  evaluations  are  also  reported  by  the 

94 
95 
96 
97 

OJ L 127, 20.5.2005; pp. 32-37. 
Bulgaria, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Hungary and Slovakia. 
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania. 
Bulgaria, Ireland and Lithuania. 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Czech Republic, Sweden and Poland. 

The  number  of  evaluations  of  national  drug  strategies  or  action  plans  in  Europe  is  rapidly  growing,  and 
evaluations are progressively becoming a standard tool in this area. However, the approaches and methods 
used differ between countries. Some countries, for example, use external evaluators while others produce 
evaluations internally. Some only consider implementation, while others also address impact — some rely 
only on routine data while others also use ad hoc data, etc. 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
Appendix 1 — List of abbreviations  

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome 
Analysis Work File 
1-Phenyl-2-propanone  
Border Management for Central Asia 
Byelorussia, Ukraine, Moldova Anti-Drug Programme 
Central Asia Drug Programme 

European Police College 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
Comprehensive Operational Strategic Planning for the Police 
Drug-Related Deaths 
Drug-Related Infectious Diseases 
European Criminal Assets Bureau 
European Development Fund 
European Joint Unit on Precursors 
European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction  
European Neighbourhood Policy 
European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument 
European Police Chiefs Task Force 
EU – Latin American Cooperation 
Hepatitis B virus 
Hepatitis C virus 
Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (Council) 
Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
Injecting Drug User 
International Narcotics Control Board 
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 
Joint Customs Cooperation 
Joint Investigation Team 

AIDS 
AWF 
BMK 
BOMCA 
BUMAD 
CADAP 
CECLAD-M  Centre de Coordination et de Lutte Antidrogue pour la Méditerranée 
CEPOL 
CND 
COSPOL 
DRD 
DRID 
ECAB 
EDF 
EJUP 
EMCDDA 
ENP 
ENPI 
EPCTF 
EU LAC 
HBV 
HCV 
HDG 
HIV 
IDU 
INCB 
IPA 
JCO 
JIT 
MAOC – N  Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics 
MS 
NFP 
NSP 
NGO 
PMK 
REITOX 
SCAD 
TAIEX 
UNODC 
UNAIDS 
UNGASS 
WHO 

Member State 
National Focal Point  
Needle and Syringe Exchange Programmes 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
3,4 Methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one  
Réseau Européen d’Information sur les Drogues et les Toxicomanies 
South Caucasus Anti-Drug Programme 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime  
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 
United Nations General Assembly Special Session 
World Health Organisation 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
EN 

61 

   EN