COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016: a continuous need for an EU Action Plan on Drugs 2017-2020
Date: 2017-03-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU programme, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, action programme, drug addiction, drug traffic, fight against crime, international cooperation, psychotropic substance

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.3.2017  SWD(2017) 95 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016  Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016: a continuous need for an EU Action Plan on Drugs 2017-2020 {COM(2017) 195 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

6.5. 

7. 

8. 

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

Background to the initiative ......................................................................................... 4 

Evaluation questions .................................................................................................... 8 

Method ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Overview of sources and method ................................................................................. 9 

Methodological challenges: limitations and robustness of findings .......................... 10 

Implementation state of play (results) ........................................................................ 11 

Answers to the evaluation questions .......................................................................... 14 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 14 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 18 

Relevance ................................................................................................................... 19 

Coherence ................................................................................................................... 21 

EU added value .......................................................................................................... 22 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 24 

Annexes ...................................................................................................................... 25 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose of the evaluation 
The  EU's  2013-2020  Drugs  Strategy1  and  the  2013-2016  Action  Plan  on  Drugs2  set  out  the 

EU's political framework and priorities on drugs policy.  

The EU Drugs Strategy requires the Commission to "initiate an external midterm assessment 

of the Strategy by 2016, in view of preparing a second Action Plan for the period 2017-2020".  
The  European  Agenda  on  Security3,  implementing  the  Political  Guidelines  of  President 
Juncker4,  foresees  that  the  Commission  will  assess  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the 

2013-2016 EU Drugs Action Plan and on this basis it will decide whether to propose a new 

EU Action Plan for the period 2017-2020. 
In  this  context,  the  Commission,  with  the  support  of  an  external  contractor5  conducted  the 

mid-term assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and the final evaluation of the 2013-2016 EU 

Action  Plan  on  Drugs.  Due  to  their  complementarity  and  interconnection  the  results  of  the 

mid-term  assessment  and  the  final  evaluation  are  presented  in  the  form  of  a  single, 

comprehensive evaluation report. 

The evaluation has two main objectives: 

 

to allow the assessment of the degree of implementation of the 2013-2020 Drugs Strategy, 
as well as of the 2013-2016 Action Plan in terms of both outputs and their impact6. The 

evaluation  was  expected  to  contribute  to  ensuring  that  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  are  achieved  by  2020,  by  highlighting  the  areas  where  expected  progress  has 

been achieved and those where progress is not sufficiently on track to meet objectives. 

 

to support the Commission's decision on whether to propose a new Action Plan to cover 

the period 2017-2020 and which changes would be needed compared to the current one. 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  will  inform  the  decision-making  regarding  drug  policy  and 

allocation  of  resources  to  this  field.  Members  of  the  civil  society  with  an  interest  in  drug 

policy will be able to use the results of this evaluation for their activity. The evaluation also 

1 OJ C 402, 29.12.2012, p. 1 
2 OJ C 351, 30.11.2013, p. 1 
3 COM(2015) 185 final 
4 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en  
5 The external contractor was a consortium made of Ernst & Young and RAND Europe 
6 In the context of this evaluation, outputs were understood as indicators describing the "physical" product of spending resources through 
policy interventions. Impact is understood as the change that can be credibly attributed to an intervention; i. e. the long-term "effect" of the 
intervention or "contribution to change". Where the impact could not be measured the contractor had to explain why this was the case. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
provides  a comprehensive presentation of the achievements and challenges  of the EU drugs 

policy aimed at the general public. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  2013  up  until  August  2016,  which  is  when  most  data 

collection was completed, and it assesses whether the outputs of the EU Drugs Strategy and 

Action  Plan,  as  well  as  at  their  impact,  have  been  achieved  effectively  and  efficiently,  and 

whether  the  actions  remain  relevant.  In  addition,  it  addresses  the  EU-added  value  and 

coherence with other actions in this area at European, international and national level.   

The  evaluation  addresses  the  main  policy  areas  of  the  Drugs  Strategy,  including  (a)  drug 

demand and (b) drug supply reduction as well as the cross-cutting themes (c) coordination, (d) 

international cooperation, and (e) research, information, monitoring and evaluation.  

Both the internal and the external dimensions have been addressed.  

The evaluation assesses the degree of the implementation of all the 54 actions of the Action 

Plan as well as the impact of their implementation. 

The evaluation covers all 28 Member States and it draws on data from all relevant EU bodies, 

such  as  the  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA),  the 

European  Police  Office  (Europol),  the  EU's  Judicial  Co-operation  Unit  (Eurojust),  the 

European  Medicines  Agency  (EMA),  the  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and 

Control (ECDC), the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS), 

the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union. Civil society organisations and 

selected third countries have been consulted during the evaluation. A public consultation was 
also  held  from  mid-February  until  end  of  May  20167.  More  information  about  the 

stakeholders consultation carried out in the framework of the evaluation is available in annex 

II.  

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 

Drugs are a complex social and health problem that affects millions of people in the EU and 

globally.  The  human  and  social  costs  of  drugs  addiction  are  very  high.  It  incurs  costs  on 

public  health  (related  to  drug  prevention  and  treatment,  health  care  and  hospitals),  public 

safety, the environment and labour productivity, as well as on governance. Drugs are also a 

serious  security  challenge  affecting  the  stability  of  a  number  of  states  around  the  world,  as 

well as the rule of law. 

7 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/public-consultation/2016/consulting_0032_en.htm  

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
At  least  83.2  million  Europeans  report  having  used  cannabis  at  least  once  in  their  lifetime, 

while cocaine and amphetamines have been tried by 17.1 and 12 million people respectively. 

In addition, 1.3 million adults are high-risk opioid users. For 2014, it is estimated that at least 

6 800 overdose deaths occurred in the European Union. This represents an increase compared 

to  the  figures  for  2013.  In  2015,  98  new  psychoactive  substances  (NPS)  were  detected, 

bringing  the  number  of  new  substances  monitored  to  more  than  560,  of  which  70  %  were 
detected  in  the  last  5  years8.  Over  the  last  4  years  new  psychoactive  substances  have  been 

increasingly accessible on the open market and/or online, posing serious health threats. 

Drugs are also a global problem. It is estimated that a quarter of a billion people between the 

ages of 15 and 64 years, used at least one drug in 2014. Over 29 million people who use drugs 
are estimated to suffer from drug use disorders9.   

An EU Drugs Strategy and associated Action Plans for Drugs were also implemented during 
the period 2005 -2012. The final evaluation of these policy initiatives, carried out in 201210, 

showed that cannabis was in 2012 the most widely used illicit drug in Europe, with cocaine on 

second  place.  The  number  of  problem  opioid  users  remained  stable  over  the  course  of  the 

Strategy  but  despite  progressive  trends  in  prevention,  treatment  and  harm  reduction,  drug-

induced  deaths  remained  at  historically  high  levels,  and  accounted  for  the  greatest  share  of 

morbidity and mortality related to drug use in Europe. In 2012 the EMCDDA informed that 

newly reported infections with HIV had declined since the adoption of the Strategy whereas 

the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infections were highly prevalent among injecting users in most 

EU  Member  States.  The  2012  evaluation  reported  that  access  to  treatment  programmes 

improved over the course of the Strategy.  

It was also found that law enforcement cooperation efforts at the EU level had improved from 

2005  and  that  effective  information  sharing  across  country  borders  was  the  most  important 

facilitator  in  effective  supply  reduction.  In  this  framework  the  Strategy  was  credited  with 

having  fostered  frameworks  and  mechanisms  to  facilitate  the  sharing  of  intelligence, 

especially  in  relation  to  Europol  and  the  Council's  Horizontal  Drugs  Group.  The  evaluation 

also  showed,  however,  that  there  was  a  lack  of  progress  in  developing  supply  reduction 

indicators.  The  previous  Strategy  and  Action  Plans  on  Drugs  also  only  addressed  the 

emergence of new technologies in the production, marketing, purchasing and distribution of 

illegal drugs from a research perspective.  

8 European Drug Report 2016, EMCDDA 
9 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2016 
10 Assessment of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and its Action Plans 

5 

 
 
                                                            
The 2012 evaluation also found that the coordinating role of the HDG in the area of supply 

reduction was becoming more complex since law enforcement activities in drugs policy had 

become  a  priority  in  the  EU  internal  security  agenda,  giving  COSI  a  more  active  parallel 

coordination  role.  Nevertheless,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  2009-2012  Strategy  was 

effective in providing guidelines to the Member States for the drafting of their own national 

drugs  policies.  The  role  of  the  HDG  in  coordinating  drugs  policy  was  viewed  largely 

positively although it was found that its effectiveness was highly dependent on the clout and 

capacity  of  the  respective  Council  presidencies.  The  2009-2012  Strategy  was  credited  with 

improving the influence and visibility of the EU on the international stage in terms of the EU 

"speaking with one voice" and of the impact of the EU funding various projects and initiatives 

worldwide.  The  Strategy  was  also  seen  as  influential  especially  in  providing  focus  and 

direction for data collection and it was credited with contributing to the expansion of the EU 

knowledge base on drugs. 

In  December  2012 

the  Council  of 

the  European  Union  adopted,  via  a  Council 

Recommendation,  a  new  EU  Drugs  Strategy  that  provides  the  political  framework  and 

priorities for EU drugs policy for the period 2013-2020. The Drugs Strategy serves as a basis 

for two consecutive 4-year EU Drugs Action Plans. The first Action Plan covered the period 

2013-2016. 

The EU Drugs Strategy has five major objectives: 

1.  To contribute to a measurable reduction of the demand for drugs, of drug dependence and 

of drug-related health and social risks and harms; 

2.  To contribute to a disruption of the illicit drugs market and a measurable reduction of the 

availability of illicit drugs; 

3.  To  encourage  coordination  through  active  discourse  and  analysis  of  developments  and 

challenges in the field of drugs at EU and international level; 

4.  To  further  strengthen  dialogue  and  cooperation  between  the  EU  and  third  countries  and 

international organisations on drug issues; 

5.  To contribute to a better dissemination of monitoring, research and evaluation results and 

a  better  understanding  of  all  aspects  of  the  drugs  phenomenon  and  of  the  impact  of 

interventions in order to provide sound and comprehensive evidence-base for policies and 

actions. 

The EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016 provides further detail on the 5 major objectives in 

the form of 15 more operational objectives to be achieved through a set of actions listed in the 

6 

 
 
 
Action  Plan.  For  each  action  the  responsible  party  for  its  implementation  was  identified. 

Member States, relevant agencies (such as EMCDDA, Europol, Eurojust, the EU Agency for 

Law  Enforcement  Training  (CEPOL)),  the  European  Commission,  the  European  External 

Action Service, the Council of the EU and the rotating EU Presidencies had to join efforts to 

carry  out  the  actions  of  the  Action  Plan.  For  each  action,  indicator(s)  and  data 

collection/assessment mechanisms were also identified. These are all detailed in annex H of 

the contractor's report. 

Three operational objectives are related to specific objective 1 of drug demand reduction and 

aim  at:  1)  preventing  drug  use  and  delaying  the  onset  of  drug  use;  2)  enhancing  the 

effectiveness  of  drug  treatment  and  rehabilitation  including  services  for  people  with  co-

morbidity,  to  reduce  the  use  of  illicit  drugs;  problem  drug  use;  the  incidence  of  drug 

dependency  and  drug-related  health  and  social  risks  and  harms  and  to  support  the  recovery 

and  social  re-integration  of  problematic  and  dependant  drug  users;  and  3)  embedding 

coordinated,  best  practice  and  quality  approaches  in  drug  demand  reduction.  Nine  actions 

were expected to contribute to the implementation of this specific objective. 

Operational objectives 4, 5 and 6 of the Action Plan are in turn related to the second specific 

objective of the Drug Strategy concerning drug supply reduction. These aim at: 4) enhancing 

effective law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU to counter illicit drug 

activity, in coherence, as appropriate, with relevant actions determined through the EU policy 

cycle;  5)  enhancing  effective  judicial  cooperation  and  legislation  within  the  EU;  at  6) 

responding effectively to current and emerging trends in illicit drug activity. Thirteen actions 

were expected to contribute to the implementation of the second objective of the Strategy. 

Operational objectives 7, 8 and 9 of the Action Plan are related to the third specific objective 

of the Strategy concerning coordination. They aim at: 7) ensuring effective EU coordination 

in the drugs field; 8) ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy at national level; 

and 9) ensuring the participation of civil society in drugs policy. Eight actions were expected 

to contribute to the implementation of this specific objective. 

Operational  objectives  10,  11  and  12  of  the  Action  Plan  are  related  to  the  fourth  specific 

objective of the Strategy concerning international cooperation and aim at: 10) integrating the 

EU  Drugs  Strategy  within  the  EU's  overall  foreign  policy  framework  as  part  of  a 

comprehensive approach that makes full use of the variety of policies and diplomatic, political 

and financial instruments at the EU's disposal in a coherence and coordinated manner; 11) at 

improving cohesiveness of EU approach  and EU visibility in  the United National  (UN) and 

strengthen  EU  coordination  with  international  bodies  related  to  the  drugs  field;  and  12) 

7 

 
 
supporting  the  process  for  acceding  countries,  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidate 

countries  to  adapt  to  and  align  with  the  EU  acquis  in  the  drugs  field,  through  targeted 

assistance  and  monitoring.  Fourteen  actions  were  expected 

to  contribute 

to 

the 

implementation of the fourth objective of the Strategy. 

Finally,  objectives  13,  14  and  15  are  related  to  the  fifth  specific  objective  concerning 

information,  research,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  and  they  aim  at:  13)  ensuring  adequate 

investment in research, data collection, monitoring, evaluation and information exchange on 

all  aspects  of  the  drug  phenomenon;  14)  maintaining  networking  and  cooperation  and 

developing  capacity  within  and  across  the  EU's  knowledge  infrastructure  for  information, 

research,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  drugs,  particularly  illicit  drugs;  and  15)  enhancing 

dissemination  of  monitoring,  research  and  evaluation  results  at  EU  and  national  level.  10 

actions were expected to contribute to the implementation of the fifth objective. 

The graphic representation below illustrates the intervention logic of the EU Drugs Strategy, 

summarising in a schematic way how its different elements were expected to interact. 

Figure 1 Intervention logic11  

11 A more detailed version can be found in the contractor's evaluation report 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
3. 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

In accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation looked at 

the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence of the actions undertaken on basis of 

the Action Plan, as well as at the achieved EU added-value of these actions.  

The following questions were addressed during the evaluation: 

Effectiveness:  

(1) 

To  what  extent  have  the  objectives  and  actions  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs 

2013-2016 been implemented? 

(2) 

What  have  been  the  results  of  the  actions  implemented  in  relation  to  the  specific 

objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan? 

(3) 

To what extent have the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy been achieved and what 

have been the impacts of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan?  

Efficiency: 

(4) 

To  what  extent  have  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  had  an  impact  on  the  Member 

States' budgetary resources? 

(5) 

Were sufficient resources allocated throughout the years 2013-2016 for reaching the 

objectives of the EU Strategy and Action Plan?  

(6) 

Would  additional  resources  be  necessary  for  the  remaining  years  of  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy? If yes, where should these additional resources come from? 

Relevance: 

(7) 

(8) 

To what extent has the EU Drugs Strategy been relevant in view of the EU needs?  

Is the EU Drugs Strategy relevant in view of current needs? 

Coherence: 

(9) 

To what extent are the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan coherent with other EU 

policies, as well as with Member States drugs policies? 

(10) 

To  what  extent  are  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  coherent  with  the 

developments in the international fora and with the EU external action? 

(11) 

To  what  extent  is  the  EU  cooperation  with  third  countries  and  international 

organisations coherent with the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy? 

EU added value 

9 

 
 
 
 
(12)  What is the additional value resulting from the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan, 

compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States  at  national  and/or  regional 

level? 

(13)  Would  a  new  Action  Plan  for  the  period  2017-2020,  as  foreseen  in  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy, be useful and necessary? If so, is there anything to be changed (beyond the 

actual actions) in the new Action Plan compared to the current one? What would be 

the most urgent issues to be tackled by the new Action Plan?  

4. 

METHOD 

4.1. 

Overview of sources and method 

The evaluation was conducted through a mixed-methods approach and was informed by the 

triangulation of a variety of sources as shown in this section and more in detail in annex III.  

An evaluation framework has been built to guide the evaluation. For each evaluation question, 

an  ‘evaluation  grid’  was  developed.  The  evaluation  grids  provided  an  overview  of  the 

approach used to tackle the evaluation criteria and explained the links between the evaluation 

questions; 

they 

identified 

risks 

and 

challenges; 

they  detailed 

the  proposed 

evaluation/judgment  criteria;  they  presented  the  indicators  and  descriptors  i.e.  the  pieces  of 

information  needed  to  conduct  the  analysis;  and  they  identified  for  each  judgment  criterion 

the  source(s)  of  information  to  be  used  during  data  collection.  Two  types  of  data  were 

collected:  secondary  data  (existing  data)  and  primary  data  in  order  to  fill  gaps  in  the 

secondary data and generate a more detailed understanding.  

The  secondary  data  were  collected  via  desk  research  which  focused  on  reviewing 

contributions from EU Agencies and Member States to the 2015 Commission Progress Report 
on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-201612 as well as other relevant 

documentation, including general market data and trends and Member States' drugs strategies. 

Primary data collection was done through interviews or roundtable discussions with Member 

States  and  third  countries'  representatives,  EU  institutions  and  bodies,  industry  and  civil 

society representatives, experts in the field, a survey of the European External Action Service 

(EEAS) representatives in third countries, and an analysis of the results of 121 contributions 

12 COM(2015) 584 final 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
to  the  public  consultation  run  by  the  Commission.  More  details  on  the  stakeholder 

consultation are available in annex II. 

The  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  was  synthesised  in  a  "traffic  light"  assessment 

(annexed  to  the  main  evaluation  report).  For  each  action  an  assessment  was  provided, 

considering  the  available  evidence  for  all  indicators  associated  with  this  given  action.  The 

evidence  underpinning  the  assessment  is  also  provided.  The  actions  and  the  operational 

objectives are assessed as green (completed, in progress, or ongoing but on target); amber (in 

progress or some progress, but behind plan) or red (deterioration, no progress, little progress 

or considerably behind plan) depending on the extent of progress achieved. 

4.2.  Methodological challenges: limitations and robustness of findings 

One of the main challenges arising during the evaluation is the availability of comparable data 

from all Member States, as well as a lack of baseline measures for all actions and objectives 

against  which  to  compare  outcomes  of  the  period  covered  by  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and 

Action Plan. Therefore, the attribution and assessment of possible trends and developments to 

the Strategy and the Action Plan is made difficult, which has had an impact on the analysis of 

the effectiveness of the Strategy and Action Plan in terms of quantifying the quantitative and 

qualitative effects and crediting changes corresponding to the objectives solely to the Strategy 

and  Action  Plan.  To  address  these  limitations  the  evaluation  collected  the  best  possible 

statistical data available (in terms of its relevance and timeliness), and interpreted this in light 

of  the  extensive  qualitative  data  collected.  Using  evidence  from  different  sources  provided 

opportunities to triangulate data and thereby to validate the information and build up a picture 

about the weight of evidence.   

The same difficulty was encountered when assessing the efficiency criterion where available 

data  were  subject  to  considerable  caveats.  As  there  was  no  comprehensive  and  up-to-date 

overview  of  drug-related  expenditure,  due  to  differences  in  attribution  and  inconsistent 

classification  of  expenses  among  Member  States,  the  evaluation  was  not  able  to  draw  firm 

conclusions about the efficiency of the actions implemented as part of the EU Drugs Strategy. 

Instead,  the  available  data  and  particularly  the  consultation  of  stakeholders  provided 

indications  of  the  extent  to  which  the  allocation  of  financial  resources  at  EU  and  Member 

State level was sufficient. 

Caveats  and  limitations  related  to  data  availability  and  to  each  method  used  during  the 

evaluation  process  are  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  evaluation  report.  For  example,  in  some 

11 

 
 
 
 
cases available data  do not allow for a measurement of a trend in a given indicator because 

there is only one data point available. In other cases the baseline precedes the current Strategy 

and  Action  Plan,  which  therefore  precludes  a  trend  assessment  pertaining  strictly  to  the 

reference period for this evaluation.   

With  some  indicators,  the  available  data  did  not  allow  for  a  conclusion  of  whether  the 

observed  trend  represents  an  improvement  or  deterioration.  This  is  due  to  the  lack  of 

indicators that accurately measure the phenomena of interest, and/or the absence of contextual 

information  that  would  enable  an  identification  of  underlying  drivers.  The  evaluation 

recommends  that  data  collection  to  inform  the  supply  reduction  activity  indicators  be 

complemented  with  qualitative,  contextual  information  to  obtain  a  more  comprehensive 

picture of the impact of supply reduction efforts. 

Triangulating the findings from each data source has contributed to enhancing the weight of 

evidence  behind  the  conclusions  of  the  report.  While  for  some  research  questions,  the 

conclusions  are  more  tentative  (e.g.  evaluation  question  3  on  impact),  on  the  whole,  the 

evaluation presents a coherent and robust set of answers to the evaluation questions. 

At the same time, the main method for collecting primary data was via interviews.  The use of 

this method was requested by the Commission in order to maximise the participation of the 

stakeholders in the evaluation process, which would not have been guaranteed by the use of 

surveys. The relatively low participation of the EU Delegations in the online survey that was 

created to gather their input supports this point. 

However, interviews covered a wide range of topics and did not often discuss specific actions 

in  detail,  which  may  have  an  impact  on  the  quality  and  comprehensiveness  of  the  data 

collected. To mitigate this risk the evaluation looked at contributions received from relevant 

EU agencies such as the EMCDDA, Europol and CEPOL and at desk research, triangulating 

data and findings. 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) 

As explained in section 4 the assessment of the implementation of the Action Plan’s actions 

was conducted in the form of a traffic light assessment. The full assessment can be found in 

Annex A of the evaluation report. 

Overall,  the  majority  of  the  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  have  been  implemented  and 

considerable progress has been made with regard to the 15 objectives referred to in section 2. 

12 

 
 
 
 
A  slight  majority  of  objectives  (8  out  of  15)  were  assessed  as  “green,”  (completed,  in 

progress, or ongoing but on target) with the remaining seven objectives assessed as “amber,” 

(in progress, but behind plan).  

Under  the  drug  demand  reduction  pillar  the  operational  objective  aimed  at  preventing  drug 

use and delaying the onset of drug use was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent 

to  which  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  preventing 

drug use and delaying the onset of drug use has been addressed through four actions (from 1 

to 4, three of which were assessed as "amber" and one "green"). It was found that there has 

been no recorded decrease in the proportion of the population using drugs but the data that are 

available  have  limitations  (see  section  4  of  this  document  and  the  full  evaluation  report). 

However,  it  is  unclear  how  overarching  trends  are  connected  to  the  implementation  of  the 

Action  Plan.  Available  evidence  shows  that  there  has  been  some  progress  in  three  actions 

aimed at preventing drug use and delaying the onset of drug use, with one assessed as "green" 

(on target). 

The  drug  demand  reduction  objective  of  enhancing  the  effectiveness  of  drug  treatment  and 

rehabilitation,  including  services  for  people  with  co-morbidity,  to  reduce  the  use  of  illicit 

drugs, problem drug use, the incidence of drug dependency and drug-related health and social 

risks  and  harms,  and  to  support  the  recovery  and  social  re-integration  of  problematic  and 

dependent drug users, was also assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the 

implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  achieving  this  objective 

has been addressed through four actions (from 5 to 8, all of which were assessed as "amber" 

(some progress)). The trends in relevant variables of interest (e.g. drug-related deaths, high-

risk  opioid  use,  infectious  diseases  attributable  to  drugs,  treatment  uptake)  appear  mixed. 

Nevertheless, available evidence from the Commission’s 2015 Progress Report and interviews 

suggests that there has been some progress in enhancing the effectiveness of drug treatment 

and  rehabilitation.  Drug  users  in  Europe  are  offered  a  wide  range  of  services,  although  this 

varies  by  treatment  type  and  context  and  stakeholders  disagree  about  the  recent  trend  in 

availability of these services.  

The  third  objective  under  the  drug  demand  reduction  pillar  aims  at  embedding  coordinated, 

best practice and quality approaches in drug demand reduction and it was assessed as "green" 

(on  target).The  extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has 

contributed  to  this  objective  has  been  addressed  through  one  action  (action  9,  which  was 

assessed  as  "green"  (completed)).  It  was  found  that  the  adoption  and  the  beginning  of  the 

13 

 
 
implementation  of  common  European  Minimum  Quality  Standards  has  contributed  to 

improving quality approaches in demand reduction.  

Under  the  drug  supply  reduction  pillar  the  operational  objective  aimed  at  enhancing  the 

effective law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU to counter illicit drug 

activity, in coherence, as appropriate, with relevant actions determined through the EU Policy 

Cycle, was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the implementation of 

the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  enhancing  effective  law  enforcement 

coordination and cooperation within the EU has been addressed through seven actions (from 

10 to 16). Law enforcement coordination and cooperation in the field of drugs within the EU 

have visibly improved in recent years. While not necessarily accompanied by positive trends 

in relevant outcome indicators, progress has been made in implementing all seven actions in 

this  area,  five  of  which  are  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target)  and  two  as  "amber"  (some 

progress). 

The  drug  supply  reduction  objective  aimed  at  enhancing  effective  judicial  cooperation  and 

legislation within the EU was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the 

implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  achieving  this  objective 

has  been  addressed  through  five  actions  (from  17  to  21,  three  assessed  "amber"  and  two 

"green"). Progress has been achieved in enhancing judicial cooperation and legislation within 

the EU in all areas covered by these five actions, in particular with respect to drug precursors 

and alternatives to coercive sanctions. 

The  third  objective  in  the  area  of  drug  supply  reduction  aimed  at  responding  effectively  to 

current  and  emerging  trends  in  illicit  drug  activity  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target).  The 

extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to 

achieving  this  objective  has  been  addressed  through  action  22.  It  was  found  that  there  are 

indications  that  the  relevant  law  enforcement  agencies  have  set  up  mechanisms  to  respond 

quickly to emerging developments. 

Under  the  coordination  pillar,  the  objective  aimed  at  ensuring  effective  EU  coordination  in 

the drugs field was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of 

the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to encouraging effective EU coordination in the 

drugs  field  has  been  addressed  through  six  actions  (from  23  to  28).  Progress  has  been 

achieved in all relevant areas related to EU coordination in the drugs field. All actions in this 

category are assessed as on target with the exception of financial coordination. 

The objective aimed at ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy at national level 

was  also  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target).  The  extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the 

14 

 
 
Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  encouraging  effective  coordination  in  drug-

related policy at the national  level has  been addressed through Action 29. It was found that 

coordinating mechanisms typically exist in and are routinely used by Member States. 

The  third  objective  of  the  coordination  pillar  aimed  at  ensuring  the  participation  of  civil 

society in the drugs policy was also assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the 

implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  encouraging  the 

participation  of  civil  society  has  been  addressed  through  Action  30.  It  was  found  that  civil 

society  organisations  are  closely  involved  in  drug  policy  dialogues  both  at  national  and  EU 

level. 

Under  the  international  cooperation  pillar  the  objective  aimed  at  integrating  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  within  the  EU's  overall  foreign  policy  framework  as  part  of  the  comprehensive 

approach that makes full use of the variety of policies and diplomatic, political and financial 

instruments  at  the  EU's  disposal  in  a  coherent  and  coordinated  manner  was  assessed  as 

"amber"  (some  progress).  The  extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and 

Strategy  has  contributed  to  integrating  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  within  the  overall  foreign 

policy framework has been addressed through eleven actions (from 31 to 41, five assessed as 

"amber" (some progress), five as "green" (on target) and one as "red" (no progress)). On the 

whole,  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  can  be  considered  well  integrated  within  the  EU's  overall 

foreign policy framework as part of a comprehensive approach. The EU has continued to use 

a  range  of  policies  and  diplomatic,  political  and  financial  instruments,  although  some  areas 

with room for improvement persist.  

The objective aimed at improving cohesiveness of the EU approach and EU visibility in the 

United Nations and at strengthening EU coordination with international bodies related to the 

drugs field was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of the 

Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has  contributed  to  achieving  this  objective  has  been  addressed 

through  two  actions  (42-43).  There  has  been  strong  progress  in  the  Action  Plan’s 

implementation in this area, with all relevant actions assessed as on target. 

The third objective of the international cooperation pillar aimed at supporting the process for 

acceding countries, candidate countries, and potential candidates to adapt to and align with the 

EU acquis in the drugs field, through targeted assistance and monitoring was also assessed as 

"green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy 

has  contributed  to  achieving  this  objective  has  been  addressed  through  Action  44.  It  was 

found  that  this  action  is  on  target,  with  EU  and  Member  States  providing  assistance  to 

candidate countries in order to facilitate their compliance with the EU acquis. 

15 

 
 
Under  the  information,  research,  monitoring  and  evaluation  pillar  the  objective  aimed  at 

ensuring  adequate  investment  in  research,  data  collection,  monitoring,  evaluation  and 

information exchange on all aspects of the drug phenomenon was assessed as "amber" (some 

progress).  The  extent  to  which  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  Strategy  has 

contributed to adequate investment in research and data collection has been addressed through 

three actions. Overall, there is progress in this area, with two actions being on target (actions 

45 and 47) and one with some progress (action 46).  

The  objective  aimed  at  maintaining  networking  and  cooperation  and  developing  capacity 

within and across the EU's knowledge infrastructure for information, research, monitoring and 

evaluation of drugs, particularly illicit drugs was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to 

which the implementation  of the Action Plan and Strategy has  contributed to achieving  this 

objective  has  been  addressed  through  six  actions  (from  48  to  53,  all  assessed  as  "green"). 

Overall  it  was  found  that  different  parties  (Europol,  EMCDDA  and  CEPOL)  all  have 

contributed to maintaining networking and cooperation within and across the EU’s knowledge 

infrastructure. 

The  objective  aimed  at  enhancing  dissemination  of  monitoring,  research  and  evaluation 

results at EU and national level was also assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to 

which the implementation  of the Action Plan and Strategy has  contributed to achieving  this 

objective  has  been  addressed  through  action  54.  According  to  available  evidence,  efforts  in 

disseminating the results of monitoring, research and evaluation activities have continued to 

be implemented. Some results of EU-funded research projects are also available through open 

access portals.  However, budget  constraints  at  national level have  reduced  financial  support 

for REITOX focal points, which may have had some negative implications on their operations 

and capability to deploy dissemination activities. 

In terms of individual actions, 33 out of the total of 54 actions were assessed as "green" (on 

target); 20 actions were assessed as "amber" (some progress, but behind plan) and one action 

registered no progress.  

A detailed overview of the assessment of each action and objective can be found in annex A 

of the contractor's report. 

Figure 1: Summary of traffic light assessment: number of actions implemented per 

pillar 

16 

 
 
 
 
6. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1. 

Effectiveness 

The extent to which the objectives and, linked to them, the actions of the EU Action Plan on 

Drugs have been implemented has been presented in section 5.  

As  already  shown  in  section  4,  the  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Strategy  and  Action 

Plan  in  terms  of  quantifying  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  effects  and  crediting  changes 

corresponding to the objectives solely to the Strategy and Action Plan was made difficult by 

the lack of availability of comparable data from all Member States, as well as by the lack of a 

baseline for all actions and objectives. 

In the area of drug demand reduction the three actions linked to the operational objective of 

preventing  drug  use  and  delaying  the  onset  of  drug  use  were  assessed  as  "amber"  (some 

progress)  and  one  as  "green"  (on  target).  The  objective  was    assessed  as  "amber"  (some 

progress)  because  prevention  measures  have  been  implemented  in  all  Member  States,  and, 

according to the majority of Member States, the availability of such measures has remained 

stable  or  improved  over  2013-14.  But  evidence  of  their  effectiveness  is  limited  and  key 

evidence-based elements of such programmes (such as social and personal skills training) are 

not widely available. There is extensive or full provision of targeted prevention measures for 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
groups  such  as  pupils  with  social  and  academic  problems,  young  offenders  and  families  – 

including in a range of settings, but no information is available on whether the provision of 

these  services  has  increased  since  2013.  Most  progress  has  been  achieved  in  the  area  of 

awareness raising. Initiatives to communicate the risks and consequences associated with the 

use of illicit drugs have been reported by a large majority of Member States and a majority of 

NGOs. The ECMDDA and other agencies have also produced a range of outputs and activity 

in this area was acknowledged by a large number of interviewees. 

Still in the area of drug demand reduction, the four actions linked to the operational objective 

of  enhancing  the  effectiveness  of  drug  treatment  and  rehabilitation  including  services  for 

people with co-morbidity, to reduce the use of illicit drugs; problem drug use; the incidence of 

drug  dependency  and  drug-related  health  and  social  risks  and  harms  and  to  support  the 

recovery and social re-integration of problematic and dependent drug users were assessed as 

"amber"  (some  progress).  The  objective  itself  was  assessed  as  "amber"  (some  progress) 

because  integrated  treatment  services  are  available  in  all  Member  States  with  good  cross-

country coverage in the majority of countries. Overall, the availability of treatment has been 

stable  or  expanded  since  2013,  and  the  number  of  people  entering  treatment  has  remained 

stable.  There  has  been  a  decrease,  however,  in  the  number  of  first-time  users  seeking 

treatment.  While  there  is  considerable  variety  between  Member  States,  EMCDDA  data 

indicate that more than half of problem drug users have access to treatment. The majority of 

Member States also claim to make some provision for after-care on release from prison.  

Stakeholders  disagree  however  about  the  recent  trend  in  availability  of  these  services.  The 

majority of Member States reported some expansion in at least one type of treatment services, 

while a large number of NGOs reported no expansion of rehabilitation/recovery services.  A 

large  majority  of  Member  States  reported  that  they  have  taken  specific  measures  to  ensure 

availability of and access to evidence-based risk and harm reduction measures in 2013-2014. 

Respondents to the public consultation and the evaluation working group of the Civil Society 

Forum  on  Drugs,  however,  argue  that  harm  reduction  programs  remain  largely  under-

implemented. 

Action 9 linked to objective 3 referring to embedding coordinated, best practice and quality 

approaches  in  drug  demand  reduction  was  assessed  as  "green"  (completed).  Objective  three 

was also assessed as "green" because the adoption and the beginning of the implementation of 

common  European  Minimum  Quality  Standards  has  contributed  to  improving  quality 

approaches in demand reduction.  

18 

 
 
In  the  area  of  drug  supply  reduction  of  the  seven  actions  linked  to  the  objective  aimed  at 

enhancing  the  effective  law  enforcement  coordination  and  cooperation  within  the  EU  to 

counter  illicit  drug  activity,  in  coherence,  as  appropriate,  with  relevant  actions  determined 

through the EU Policy Cycle, five were assessed as "green" (on target) and two were assessed 

as  "amber"  (some  progress).  The  objective  itself  was  assessed  as  "amber"  (some  progress). 

Law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU have visibly improved in recent 

years. Actions have been taken to improve information flows between relevant agencies and 

Member  States,  and  to  improve  the  coordination  of  their  actions.  This  has  resulted  in 

measurable  increases  in  the  use  and  in  the  quality  of  existing  mechanisms.  Nonetheless,  as 

with  Europol’s  role  more  broadly,  interviewees  noted  continuing  obstacles  to  information 

sharing  related  to  tackling  drug  trafficking  stemming  from  Europol’s  legal  framework. 

Europol  and  Eurojust  demonstrate  extensive  operational  activity  to  tackle  organised  drug 

trafficking  and  support  Member  State  law  enforcement  agencies.  And  CEPOL  activities 

contribute  to  capacity  building  in  Member  States,  as  the  number  of  courses  offered  and 

attending  participants  have  increased.  Whether  these  activities  have  had  an  impact  on  the 

supply and availability of illicit drugs remains to be seen. There are no indications that these 

have reduced in recent years. And available information does not allow for measurement of 

activities suppressing drug trafficking routes, although the EMCDDA has been improving its 

analysis  of  drug  trafficking  routes.  The  traffic  light  assessment  of  this  objective  reflects  the 

improvements in law enforcement cooperation rather than their impact on illicit drug markets. 

Still in the area of drug supply reduction, of the five actions linked to the objective aimed at 

enhancing effective judicial cooperation and legislation within the EU, three were assessed as 

"amber" (some progress) and two as "green" (on target). The objective itself was assessed as 

"amber"  (some  progress)  because  progress  has  been  achieved  in  the  area  of  EU  legislation 

with the adoption of the Directive on freezing and confiscation and with the amendments to 

the  EU  legislation  on  trade  in  drug  precursors.  The  regulatory  framework  for  active 

pharmacological substances had been strengthened. However, the new legislative package on 

NPS has yet to be adopted, and therefore has not been implemented by Member States.  

Action  22  linked  to  objective  6  of  the  drug  supply  pillar  aimed  at  responding  effectively  to 

current  and  emerging  trends  in  illicit  drug  activity  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target). 

Objective  6  was  also  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target)  because  relevant  law  enforcement 

agencies  have  set  up  mechanisms  to  respond  quickly  to  emerging  developments.  Examples 

include  regular  production  of  the  Internet  Organised  Crime  Threat  Assessment  (iOCTA)  or 

specific operational actions as part of the EU Organised Crime Policy Cycle. 

19 

 
 
In the area of coordination, of the six actions linked to objective 7 aimed at ensuring effective 

coordination  at  EU  and  national  level  in  the  drugs  field,  five  were  assessed  as  "green"  (on 

target)  and  one  as  "amber"  (some  progress).  Objective  seven  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on 

target)  because  the  European  Commission,  EU  Agencies,  Council  working  groups  and 

Member States are involved in EU coordination in the field of drugs. The mechanisms at EU 

level, most of which pre-date the current Strategy, are effective in this coordination. Its most 

prominent  coordination  body,  the  EU  Council's  Horizontal  Drugs  Group,  is  considered 

effective  by  many  in  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  and  facilitating 

dialogue  on the state  of the drugs phenomenon  in  Europe. There is  evidence of consistency 

over time and continuity across presidencies, with positive feedback from interviewees.  

Action 29 linked to objective 8 aimed at ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy 

at  national  level  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target),  just  like  objective  8  itself.  This  is 

because coordinating mechanisms typically exist in and are routinely used by Member States.  

Action 30 linked to objective 9 aimed at ensuring the participation of civil society in the drugs 

policy  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target),  just  like  objective  9  itself.  This  is  because  all 

Member  States  reported  that  civil  society  organisations  were  involved  in  the  development, 

monitoring  and/or  evaluation  of  their  national  drugs  policy  in  2013-2014.  Civil  society 

organisations agreed, although some reported that there was no structured dialogue for doing 

so. Several interviewees also indicated an improvement in the involvement of civil society.  

In the field of international cooperation out of the 11 actions linked to objective 10 aimed at 

integrating the EU Drugs Strategy within the EU's overall foreign policy framework as part of 

the  comprehensive  approach  that  makes  full  use  of  the  variety  of  policies  and  diplomatic, 

political and financial instruments at the EU's disposal in a coherent and coordinated manner, 

five were assessed  as "green" (on target), five as "amber" (some progress) and one as "red" 

(no  progress).  Objective  10  was  assessed  as  "amber"  (some  progress)  because  drug-related 

priorities  have  been  incorporated  into  the  EU’s  external  policies,  strategies  and  actions 

targeting  third  countries  and  regions.  EU  policies,  implemented  programmes  and  other 

external assistance in third countries were in line with the balanced approach across demand 

and supply reduction. And EU external cooperation programmes  also incorporated a human 

rights perspective. The EU supports a wide range of programmes in third countries, some of 

which have also supported civil society capacity building in the reduction of drug demand and 

supply. The annual dialogue on the EU' and Member States' drugs-related assistance to third 

countries, however did not take place. 

20 

 
 
The two actions linked to objective 11 aimed at improving cohesiveness of the EU approach 

and  EU  visibility  in  the  United  Nations  and  at  strengthening  EU  coordination  with 

international bodies related to the drugs field were assessed as "green" (on target). Objective 

11  was  also  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target)  because  the  EU  has  been  effective  in  its 

contribution  at  the  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  and  UNGASS  sessions  over  the  current 

Strategy’s  period.  The  approach  has  been  cohesive  and  it  improved  EU  visibility  in 

international  fora.    Interviewees  mostly  agreed  that  that  the  EU  speaks  as  one  voice  in 

international  fora.  In  this  context,  the  preparations  for  UNGASS  2016  in  which  countries 

worked  together  to  develop  a  common  and  coherent  position,  could  be  considered  a 

successful endeavour.  

Action  44  linked  to  objective  12  aimed  at  supporting  the  process  for  acceding  countries, 

candidate countries, and potential candidates to adapt to and align with the EU acquis in the 

drugs  field,  through  targeted  assistance  and  monitoring  was  assessed  as  "green"  (on  target). 

Objective  12  was  also  assessed  as  "green"  because  the  EU  and  Member  States  provide 

assistance to candidate countries in order to facilitate their compliance with the EU acquis.  

In  the  field  of  information,  research,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  out  of  the  three  actions 

linked  to  objective  13  aimed  at  ensuring  adequate  investment  in  research,  data  collection, 

monitoring, evaluation and information exchange on all aspects of the drug phenomenon, two 

were assessed as "green" (on target) and one as "amber" (some progress). Objective 13 was 

assessed as "amber" (some progress) because the EU has provided support to several research 

projects  under  a  variety  of  funding  mechanisms  (including  FP7,  Horizon  2020  and  Health 

Programme  2014-2020)  spanning  various  aspects  of  the  drug  issue  and  related  disciplines. 

However,  more  could  be  done  to  reflect  the  priorities  of  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  in 

research calls, and to ensure coherence between calls. At EU, national and international levels 

there  are  various  evaluations  of  policies  and  interventions.  Whether  the  investment  in  the 

areas  of  research,  data  collection,  monitoring,  evaluation,  and  information  exchange  is 

adequate remains uncertain.  

Still  in  the  field  of  information,  research,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  all  6  actions  linked  to 

objective  14  aimed  at  maintaining  networking  and  cooperation  and  developing  capacity 

within and across the EU's knowledge infrastructure for information, research, monitoring and 

evaluation of drugs, particularly illicit drugs, were assessed as "green" (on target). Objective 

14  was  also  assessed  as  "green"  because  the  evidence  collected  shows  that  Europol, 

EMCDDA  and  CEPOL  have  all  contributed  to  maintaining  networking  and  cooperation 

within and across the EU’s knowledge infrastructure. The EMCDDA has made considerable 

21 

 
 
efforts  towards  enhancing data collection  on various aspects of drugs and drug  markets, for 

example  on  new  psychoactive  substances  (NPS).  The  existence  and  operation  of  the  Early 

Warning  System  for  NPS  is  a  reflection  of  improved  sharing  of  forensic  and  toxicological 

data  at  EU  level  over  the  past  years.  This  early  warning  activity  seems  to  allow  the  EU  to 

swiftly identify and assess changes in drug consumption. 

Action  54  linked  to  objective  15  aimed  at  enhancing  dissemination  of  monitoring,  research 

and  evaluation  results  at  EU  and  national  level  was  assessed  as  "amber"  (some  progress). 

Objective 15 was also assessed as "amber" because the EMCDDA continues to play a crucial 

role  in  the  dissemination  of  monitoring,  research  and  evaluation  results  at  EU  level, 

complemented  by  open  access  publications  produced  through  EU-funded  research  projects.  

However, there are concerns about the capacity and resources available to maintain the Reitox 
network13. Budget constraints may have hampered the dissemination of monitoring, research 

and evaluation results at national level.  

6.2. 

Efficiency  

Efficiency  measures  the  relationship  between  the  resources  used  by  an  intervention  and  the 

changes  brought  about  by  it.  The  evaluation  could  not  conclude  on  the  efficiency  of  the 

intervention as insufficient quantitative data was available as regards the costs and benefits of 

the intervention. 

First,  no  systematic  or  comparable  information  is  available  regarding  the  budgets  for  drug-

related  activities  at  Member  State  level.  Difficulties  exist  in  identifying  the  resources 

allocated  to  addressing  drugs  issues  within  Member  States  due  to  the  wide  range  of  policy 

areas  in  which  there  is  government  spending  relevant  to  drugs,  as  well  as  the  diversity  of 

possible funding sources at national and EU levels.   

The  evaluation  found  that  the  level  of  budgetary  resources  in  the  Member  States  is  not 

influenced  directly  by  the  need  to  implement  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan,  with  Member 

States placing priority on the implementation of their own national objectives and priorities. 

In addition, there appears to be a decrease in budget allocations to drug-related issues within a 

majority  of  Member  States  due  to  the  economic  crisis  and  because  priorities  are  placed  on 

other  policy  areas.  In  at  least  some  instances  this  decrease  has  impacted  on  the 

implementation  of  Actions.  However,  promising  practices  have  been  identified  where 

13 Reitox is the European information network on drugs and drug addiction created at the same time as the EMCDDA. Members of the 
Reitox network are designated national institutions or agencies responsible for data collection and reporting on drugs and drug addiction. 
These institutions are called ‘national focal points’ or ‘national drug observatories’. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Member  States  have  been  able  to  implement  national  programmes  that  are  in  line  with  the 

Action Plan, even in a climate of financial austerity. Overall, despite some recent decreases in 

budget  allocations  resources  for  drug-related  activities  within  most  Member  States  are 

sufficient  to  implement  the  Action  Plan,  but  it  was  necessary  for  Member  States  to  make 

compromises and prioritise to ensure activities could be conducted within available resources. 

At EU level drug-related expenditure comes mainly from a number of financial programmes 

managed  by  the  Commission.  While  this  provides  a  fragmented  picture,  there  are  data 

available  on  the  spending  of  EU-funded  projects  and  programmes.  Based  on  the  evidence 

about the results and impacts of these programmes – across the five pillars of the Strategy – it 

can be concluded that the expenditure contributed to the implementation of the actions in the 

Action Plan.  

There  is  a  need  to  ensure  EU  Agencies  are  provided  with  adequate  resources  to  undertake 

work  to  implement  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  in  addition  to  their  core  tasks,  taking  into 

account the increase in cases and training with regard to drugs issues.  

International development activities and cooperation with third countries was the aspect of the 

Strategy  in  relation  to  which  resources  were  most  often  mentioned  by  interviewees  to  be 

insufficient.  The  need  to  ensure  appropriate  funding  for  alternative  development  was 

identified by stakeholders as there is increasingly a focus on such programmes in relation to 

international development. 

The  resources  allocated  to  the  implementation  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  were  not 

considered as sufficient in some Member States thus impacting on the efficiency of effective 

implementation  of  this  pillar  in  Member  States.  The  lack  of  resources  at  national  level  for 

evaluating existing drugs policies can lead to the inefficient implementation of the measures 

overall.  

Overall,  resources  were  considered  to  be  sufficient  for  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  by 

relevant  stakeholders,  particularly  with  regard  to  drug  demand  and  supply.  Stakeholders 

consulted,  however,  acknowledged  the  benefit  of  increasing  resources  to  ensure  better 

implementation of the actions in the Action Plan (e.g. development of preventive measures at 

national level).  

Overall,  the  evaluation  found  that  stakeholders  were  positive  about  the  availability  of 

resources,  although  many  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  indicated  that  the 

effectiveness of drug demand and supply reduction policies could be improved in the EU by 

increasing  resources  at  Member  State  level.  There  was  consensus  that  increased  resources 

should be ring-fenced to achieve the objectives set by the Strategy.  

23 

 
 
While it was acknowledged that additional resources would provide added value and increase 

the  implementation  of  priorities  and  actions,  views  on  the  areas  where  additional  funding 

should be provided differed, depending on the stakeholder interests.  

6.3. 

Relevance  

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  were considered as  relevant as  at  the  time  of  their 

adoption  by  stakeholders  consulted  through  interviews  at  both  EU  and  national  level.  Data 

about trends in the drug situation at national level at the time of the adoption of the Strategy 

and  Action  Plan  generally  confirmed  this  feedback  on  the  relevance  received  through 

interviews.  

Whilst the Action Plan can be characterised as slightly more streamlined than its predecessors 

(it has fewer actions), its relevance and that of the Strategy can largely be attributed to their 

broad scope.  

Concerning  demand  reduction,  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  address  the  need, 

confirmed  by  all  groups  of  stakeholders interviewed,  for  information-sharing  at  EU  level  to 

support the ongoing push towards evidence-based policy-making (e.g. sharing best practices, 

developing  guidelines).  The  actions  relating  to  drug  demand  reduction  are  principally 

implemented  at  a  Member  State  level.  On  this  level  as  well,  both  documentary  data  on 

national needs and challenges and feedback from interviewees confirmed that the Action Plan 

was  relevant  to  the  need  to  continue  to  provide  and  expand  a  range  of  demand  reduction 

activities. 

With regard to supply reduction, the priorities and actions set out in the Strategy and Action 

Plan were considered to be highly relevant by stakeholders interviewed (law enforcement and 

judicial  authorities  at  EU  and  national  level).  At  EU  level,  the  general  focus  on  law 

enforcement  and  judicial  cooperation,  as  well  as  specific  objectives  and  actions  relating  to 

combatting NPS and the diversion of precursors were considered by interviewees to respond 

to  well-identified  needs.  On  the  national  level,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  and  Action  Plan  can  be  considered  to  be  broadly  aligned  to  the  diverse  needs  of 

Member States. 

Characterised  by  their  continuity  from  the  previous  EU  Drugs  Strategy,  the  cross-cutting 

pillars  (coordination,  international  cooperation  and  information,  research,  monitoring  and 

evaluation) continued to be viewed as highly relevant to needs at EU level. The priorities and 

actions relating to international cooperation were considered as highly relevant at the EU level 

24 

 
 
 
 
as  a  guide  for  the  EU’s  work  with  third  countries  and  international  organisations  but  were 

considered less relevant at national level (and were less implemented than other actions). At 

national  level,  the  coordination  pillar  was  relevant  to  the  need  recognised  by  national 

stakeholders to improve national coordination.  

The  five  pillar  structure  of  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  continues  overall  to  address  most 

current needs in relation to drugs policy at EU and national level. The evaluation identified no 

areas which were no longer considered as relevant to the drugs phenomenon.  

The  evaluation  found  that  there  is  not  a  widespread  wish  among  stakeholders  interviewed, 

particularly at the national level (e.g. HDG delegations, Reitox, etc.), to decrease the number 

of  objectives  and  actions  in  the  Strategy  and  Action  Plan.  Moreover,  most  stakeholders  did 

not point to any pre-existing actions which they thought should be removed. However, a vocal 

minority  of  stakeholders  (in  particular  on  the  EU  level,  but  also  amongst  Member  State 

stakeholders) did underline the need to better prioritise and streamline the Action Plan.     

Stakeholders  identified  areas  where  greater  focus  could  be  placed  moving  forward  (e.g. 

adoption  of  legislation  relating  to  NPS)  or  where  new  priorities  could  be  considered  (e.g. 

creating a closer  link between  drug  demand policy and overall  social  policy in  the Member 

States). Some  national level  stakeholders, civil society and EU Agencies raised the point of 

whether  more  fundamental  changes  to  the  EU  Strategy,  such  as  a  future  EU  pan-addiction 

strategy covering licit and illicit substances and addictive behaviours would be beneficial. The 

rationale behind this is that some individuals are more susceptible to addictive behaviour than 

others  (regardless  of  the  behaviour  or  substance),  and  that  any  effective  response  must 

recognise that and respond in a holistic way.   

New psychoactive substances are of particular concern – the evaluation found that continued 

efforts  should  be  placed  on  implementing  existing  actions  to  gather  information  about  the 

extent of these issues and on ensuring that legislation is adopted to address the issues relating 

to NPS at national level.  

International developments with regard to cannabis law reform (such as decriminalisation of 

use, market regulation or legalisation) have remained unaddressed by the Drugs Strategy and 

Action Plan. The evaluation found that this could diminish its relevance in light of the debate 

currently ongoing in some Member States and internationally.  

6.4. 

Coherence 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
The priorities and actions in the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) and the European Agenda on 

Security, specifically the emphasis on disrupting organised crime, are coherent with those in 

the  EU  Drugs  Strategy.  On  an  operational  level,  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  Drugs  can  also  be 

considered to be well aligned with the ISS and the Agenda on Security. For almost all specific 

actions  set  out  in  the  Action  Plan,  the  ISS  and/or  Agenda  on  Security  included  relevant 

strategic elements. In addition, DG TAXUD's Strategic Plan for 2016  – 2020 covers actions 

pertaining to drug precursors. 

While the evaluation considered the EU Drugs Strategy to be coherent with internal security 

overall, it also found that greater coherence (and coordination) could occur with regard to the 

working groups within the Council. Member State representatives at the HDG generally focus 

on  and  have  expertise  in  demand  rather  than  supply  reduction.  Although  coordination 

mechanisms  exists  between  the  HDG  and  the  Standing  Committee  on  Operational 

Cooperation  on  Internal  Security  (COSI)  relating  to  drug  supply  reduction  initiatives, 

stakeholders and the evaluation identify a need for further cooperation between these groups, 

so that the HDG can fulfil its role of monitoring the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 

and  ensuring  coherence  between  demand  and  supply  reduction  activities  (and  that  relevant 

synergies are identified).  

Overall, the EU Drugs  Strategy is aligned with the fundamental  objective of fostering  good 
health  set  out  in  the  EU  Health  Strategy14.  However,  it  does  not  take  into  account  some 

aspects of the EU Health Strategy resulting in a loss of synergies. Specifically, it does not take 

into account the challenges posed by the ageing of the population in Europe, does not address 

the  potential  impact  of  new  technologies  within  the  demand  reduction  pillar  and  does  not 

make  mention  of  emergency  preparedness  measures  for  drug-related  epidemics.  The 

complementarities  between  the  EU  Health  Strategy  and  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action 

Plan also appear limited due to the focus of the latter on illicit substance abuse.  

The  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  are  in  line  with  the  European  Consensus  on 
Development15.  With  regard  to  human  rights  and alternative  development,  strong coherence 

can also be noted with the Operational Human Rights Guidance for EU external cooperation 

actions addressing terrorism, organised crime and cyber security. 

With  regard  to  national  strategies,  the  mapping  exercise  found  that  the  EU  Strategy  and 

Action Plan are generally highly aligned with national strategies, action plans and other key 

policy documents.  Moreover, many Member  State strategies are aligned with  the timeframe 

14 COM (2007) 630. While the Strategy was adopted in 2007, an evaluation by the Commission in 2011 found that the principles and 
objectives identified in 2007 will remain valid for the next decade in the context of Europe 2020.  
15 The European Consensus on Development 2006 

26 

 
 
                                                            
and  the  structure  of  the  EU  Strategy.  However,  many  national  strategies  tend  to  place 

relatively  more  emphasis  on  issues  such  as  prevention,  harm  reduction,  treatment  and 

reintegration.  Another  divergence  that  can  be  observed  between  EU  and  Member  State 

strategies  on  the  demand  reduction  side  is  that  many  of  the  latter  focus  more  generally  on 

addiction covering illicit and licit substances and other behavioural addictions. 

Beyond the EU, the strategic priorities at the UN level have evolved to become increasingly 

aligned  with  the  EU  approach.  In  this  context,  the  EU  strategy  has  long  been  viewed  as  an 

important point of reference by those pushing for reform on the international level. The EU 

Strategy  is  generally  coherent  with  the  UN  Strategy  and  has  become  increasingly  with  the 

observed  evolution  of  the  UN  strategy  over  the  past  decade.  The  2016  UNGASS  outcome 

document  was  largely  coherent  with  the  EU  UNGASS  position  and  the  EU  Strategy  and 

Action Plan.  

The  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  tend  to  be  more  advanced  than  the  strategies  of  other 

international  organisations  in  terms  of  adopting  a  balanced  health  and  evidence-based 

approach. Another notable difference that can be identified in terms of strategic focus is the 

emphasis on institutional capacity building (e.g. strengthening the capacities of national drug 

authorities).  

As a key destabilising factor for states and societies around the world, the EU has identified 

the  drugs  problem  as  a  priority  in  dialogue  with  international  partners.  The  EU  has  well 

integrated the approach set out in the EU Drug Strategy and Action Plan in its dialogue with 

third countries and regions. Particular priority is also given to technical assistance projects in 

the candidate countries and potential candidate countries.   

In line with the Strategy and Action Plan, the EU and its Member States also provide support 

and  assistance  for  a  wide  range  of  drugs-related  initiatives  in  Latin  America,  the  Caribbean 

and  West  Africa  along  the  cocaine  trafficking  route,  and  in  Afghanistan  and  Central  Asia 

along  the  heroin  route.  The  drugs  issue  is  also  addressed  through  external  assistance 

programmes on the EU and national level.   

EU  cooperation  with  international  organisations  has  been  highly  coherent  with  the  EU 

Strategy and Action Plan on drugs. Since 2013, the EU has decisively contributed to shaping 

the  agenda  on  international  drugs  policy.  The  EU  has  also  continued  to  strengthen  long-

established international institutional partners in the fight against drugs and drug addiction.  

The  EU  has  been  particularly  successful  in  dealing  with  the  interplay  between  the  drugs 

problem  and  organised crime  in  its cooperation with  third  countries  due  to  its  ‘drugs  route’ 

approach. Nonetheless, a review of EU dialogues and programmes demonstrates that the EU 

27 

 
 
has  also  generally  maintained  strong  support  for  a  balanced  approach  between  supply  and 

demand reduction measures. 

6.5. 

EU added value 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  provide  added  value  to 

individual  Member  States  (and  other  non-State  actors)  and  their  strategies  by  establishing  a 

common EU-wide strategic framework and institutionalising a process of consensus-building 

for  horizontal  and  increasingly  complex  and  international  issues.  The  Strategy  and  Action 

Plan add value as a common political declaration on drugs policy.  

The creation of such a framework was identified by all groups of Member State stakeholders 

as  being  of  particular  added  value  as  the  instruments  broadly  shape  the  actions  of  Member 

States  and  other  actors,  whilst  leaving  the  necessary  margin  for  manoeuvre  to  adapt  to  the 

local context. This was also confirmed by the public consultation where respondents tended to 

agree  that  the  Strategy  adds  value  by  supporting  a  consistent  approach  to  drugs  at  national 

level and by contributing to coherence between national/regional and European actions in the 

area of drugs. The Strategy and Action Plan do not impose legal obligations on EU Member 

States, but the evaluation found that they have been successful in broadly directing collective 

action  in  the  field  of  drugs,  both  within  the  EU  and  at  international  level  and  promoting  a 

shared  model  with  a  culture  of  defining  priorities,  objectives,  actions  and  indicators  for 

measuring performance.  

Evidence of this effect can be found in the fact that a number of interviewees from Member 

States  that  undertook  an  update  of  their  national  Strategy  during  the  period  covered  by  the 

evaluation noted that they had drawn extensively on the EU Strategy and Action Plan in the 

elaboration  and  structuring  of  their  national  policy.  This  finding  was  corroborated  by  the 

review of national drug strategies which identified a number of direct references in national 

strategies  to  the  EU  strategy,  as  well  as  similar  structures  and  approaches.    From  this 

perspective also, the added value of the EU Strategy and Action Plan appears to be greatest in 

newer  Member  States,  which  for  the  most  part  did  not  have  pre-existing,  developed  drugs 

policies at the moment of their accession almost a decade ago.  

The evaluation also found that the added value appears more pronounced in terms of demand 

reduction activities where the Strategy provides guidance on evidenced-based approaches. In 

addition,  in  emerging  areas  of  drugs  policy,  a  more  general  added  value  can  be  seen.  An 

example  is  international  development  cooperation,  where  actors  from  both  new  and  old 

28 

 
 
 
 
Member  States  recognised  the  added  value  of  collectively  setting  a  common  strategic 

framework for actions at EU level. 

The evaluation also found that at national level as well, the EU Strategy and Action Plan may 

improve  coordination.  For  example,  in  some  countries  where  responsibilities  for  drugs 

policies are devolved to local levels, the EU strategy was considered as serving as inspiration 

and guidance for internal coordination and cooperation.  

The evaluation found that the Strategy and Action Plan demonstrate clear added value in the 

field of international cooperation and augment the EU’s capacity to influence the strategies of 

partners  and  the  global  agenda  on  drugs.  The  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  provide  clear 

added value in terms of enhancing the ‘voice’ of the EU in international fora and in relation to 

third countries. For example, a key international actor in relation to global drugs policy is the 

UN,  whose  strategic  priorities  have  become  increasingly  aligned  with  the  EU  approach  –  a 

process in which the EU has played a role. Another example lies in the final UNGASS 2016 

outcome  document  that  reflected  the  main  elements  of  the  EU  common  position,  with  the 

exception of the abolition of the death penalty.  

The evaluation also found that the EU Strategy and Action Plan provided an important source 

of  guidance  for  candidate  countries,  and  a  framework  for  bilateral  cooperation  with  third 

countries.  

Interviewees  from  all  groups  of  stakeholders  and  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 

expressed  widespread  agreement  that  there  is  a  continued  need  for  an  Action  Plan.  The 

instrument  was  considered  as  a  necessary  operational  translation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy 

and  allows  for  the  community  to  set  out  more  precise  priorities  and  actions,  as  well  as  to 

assign responsibility and formulate specific and measurable indicators.  

While  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  actions  and  the  achievement  of  objectives  was 

underlined  as  a  weak  point,  the  Action  Plan  is  still  seen  as  a  useful  document  for  ensuring 

some level of follow up of the implementation of the Strategy. Through the elaboration of a 

number of actions relating to each principal objective, it is seen as a flexible tool due to its 

broad  encompassing  nature,  enabling  relevant  stakeholders  to  refine  the  focus  of  priorities 

over  the  lifespan  of  the  Strategy  whilst  still  maintaining  a  reasonable  degree  of  coherence.     

Most stakeholders interviewed favoured the idea of updating the current Action Plan.  

29 

 
 
 
 
7. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Available  evidence  shows  that  there  has  been  at  least  some  progress  in  all  EU  Action  Plan 

actions aimed at drug demand reduction and drug supply reduction.   However, a significant 

reduction of the supply of drugs was not recorded in recent years; in the same way, there has 

been no recorded decrease in the proportion of the population using drugs but the data that are 

available have limitations, as explained in section 4 and in the contractor's report.  

Efficiency was the most difficult criterion to assess, due to the wide range of policy areas in 

which  there  is  government  spending  relevant  to  drugs  (e.g.  law  enforcement,  social  policy, 

education,  health,  etc.).  However,  the  evaluation  did  find  that  overall  resources  were 

considered by stakeholders to be sufficient for the EU Strategy and Action Plan, in particular 

with regard to drug demand and supply.  

The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are well in line with most other relevant EU policies 

such as the European Agenda for Security or the European Development Consensus, as well 

as with EU's Member States drugs strategies and UN level priorities.  

Some areas for possible improvement of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan have been 

identified in the evaluation. They include, for example: 

 

 

The need for more synergies with the EU Health Strategy; 

A review of current coordination mechanisms between the HDG and COSI to identify 

opportunities  for  the  HDG  to  better  monitor  the  implementation  and  impact  of  the 

supply  reduction  priorities  of  the  Strategy  and  for  supply  reduction  activities  forming 

part of the organised crime policy cycle to be linked, when appropriate, to the objectives 

of the Strategy (and communicated accordingly); 

 

Consideration of potential developments in cannabis policy, including decriminalisation 

and/or legalisation, as well as their potential consequences for other Member States and 

the EU; 

In addition, areas where the actions taken so far should be continued and reinforced have also 

been identified, such as: 

 

 

The need for the EU institutions and Member States to continue to involve civil society 

in the policy making process; 

Continue  sustained  work  to  promote  the  balanced  approach  to  drugs  policies  in  third 

countries; 

30 

 
 
 
 

Build  on  the  momentum  from  the  successful  negotiation  at  UNGASS  to  continue  to 

foster  dialogue  with  the  UN  and  identify  opportunities  for  further  dialogue  through 

other international fora; 

 

Continue  actions  to  monitor  and  reduce  demand  and  supply  of  NPS  and  reduce  harm 

associated with the consumption of new psychoactive substances. 

The  evaluation  also  shows  that  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  are  perceived  by 

stakeholders to be as relevant as at the time of their adoption. They have provided added value 

by establishing a common EU-wide strategic framework and particularly in the international 

fora in terms of enhancing the EU's ability of "speaking with one voice".  

One of the recommendations made by the evaluation is for the Commission to propose a new 

Action  Plan  for  the  period  2017-2020  to  continue  to  translate  the  Strategy  into  steps  and 

activities that can be taken in relation to the drugs phenomenon. The new Action Plan should 

be  an  updated  version  of  the  current  Action  Plan,  rather  than  taking  a  new  approach  or 

introducing many more actions. 

In addition, some of the findings of the evaluation go beyond the current strategic framework. 

Several stakeholders (including Member States, civil society, EU agencies) raised the need to 

consider drug consumption in a broader policy framework of poly-consumption of licit and 

illicit substances and all addictive behaviours in general. Whereas this is not an approach 

supported by all Member States, it continues to gain momentum, particularly in Western and 

Northern Europe where attempts are made to create a more integrated approach.  

8. 

ANNEXES  

ANNEX I — PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The Mid- Term assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013- 2020 and the Final Evaluation of 

the Action Plan on Drugs 2013- 2016 has been carried out, with the assistance of an external 

contractor, in the period April- November 2016. Preparatory steps including the roadmap of 

the  initiative,  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  hiring  a  contractor,  the  launch  of  the  public 

consultation  and  the  evidence  gathering  were  initiated  already  in  June  2015.  The  Agenda 

planning reference for this evaluation is 2016/HOME/006. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  existing  Inter-service  group  on  drugs  has  served  as  inter-service  steering  group  for  the 

evaluation and it was systematically consulted on the evaluation process taking into account 

the  cross-cutting  nature  of  drug  situation  and  policies  in  the  EU.  The  following  DGs  and 

Services  were  invited  to  participate  in  the  meetings  chaired  by  DG  Migration  and  Home 

Affairs  (HOME):  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  Commission  (SG),  the  Legal  Service  (SJ), 

DG  Justice  and  Consumers  (JUST),  DG  International  Cooperation  and  Development 

(DEVCO),  DG  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (NEAR),  DG  Research  and 

Innovation (RTD), DG Health and Food Safety (SANTE), DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

(MARE),  DG  Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE),  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development 

(AGRI),  DG  Trade  (TRADE),  DG  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (TAXUD),  DG  Education 

and Culture (EAC), DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), DG 

Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion  (EMPL),  the  European  External  Action  Service 

(EEAS), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs 

and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC). 

The  Inter-service  group  discussed  the  evaluation  at  several  meetings.  The  first  meeting  that 

discussed  the  roadmap  of  the  evaluation  took  place  on  10  June  2015.  At  the  meeting  of  01 

September 2015 all services were informed about the publication of the roadmap and asked to 

share  the  information  with  relevant  stakeholders.  The  Terms  of  Reference  used  to  hire  a 

contractor  to  assist  the  Commission  with  the  evaluation,  as  well  as  the  stakeholders' 

consultation  strategy  were  discussed  with  the  Steering  Group  at  the  meeting  of  01  October 

2015. The questionnaire for the public consultation was discussed with the Steering Group at 

a  meeting  on  05  January  2016.  Besides  meetings,  regular  written  communication  with  the 

members of the ISG was maintained. Members of the Steering Group have also been invited 

to sit in all meetings with the contractor hired for the mid-term assessment of the EU Drugs 

Strategy and final assessment of the EU Action Plan on Drugs: the kick-off meeting that took 

place  on  14  April  2016,  the  inception  meeting  on  12  May  2016,  the  interim  meeting  on  25 

August 2016 and the final meeting on 24 October 2016. Only the EMCDDA attended the very 

first  meeting  via  phone  conference.  However,  all  the  DGs  involved  had  the  opportunity  to 

provide their views, ask for clarifications and submit comments on the developments of the 

evaluation. The Steering Group was sent the minutes of all these meetings. It also received the 

inception  report,  the  interim  report,  the  Public  Consultation  results  report,  the  draft  final 

report,  as  well  as  the  final  report  for  comments  and  review,  before  the  reports  could  be 

deemed approved. 

32 

 
 
In  order  to  gather  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan,  the  contractor 

reviewed  contributions  from  EU  Agencies  and  Member  States  to  the  2015  Commission 

Progress  Report  and  Member  States’  drugs  strategy  documents.  For  the  purpose  of  filling 

gaps  in  the  information  provided  by  the  EU  agencies  and  Member  States  contributions,  the 

contractor  reviewed  a  wide  range  of  additional  documentation,  including  communications, 

reports,  relevant  legislation,  funding  programmes,  reports  and  studies  from  the  EU 

institutions,  EU  Agencies  and  international  organisations.  In  addition,  the  contractor 

conducted 

interviews  with  a  range  of  stakeholders 

involved  or 

impacted  by 

the 

implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  Action  Plan.  Information  on  the  domain  of 

international  cooperation  in  the  field  of  illicit  drugs  was  gathered  through  a  survey  of  the 

Delegations  of  the  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS).  The  contractor's  evaluation 

team  consulted  the  Core  Group  and  the  Evaluation  Working  Group  of  the  Civil  Society 

Forum (CSF) on Drugs on their views on the EU Strategy and Action Plan  in  line with  the 

evaluation  criteria.  Data  from  the  public  consultation  ran  by  the  Commission  in  order  to 

gather  views  from  private  individuals,  non-  profit/private  organisations,  and  industry  and 

national/regional/local public administrations have also been reviewed. 

A panel consisting of three expert advisors for the purpose of reviewing the interim findings 

and  recommendations  obtained  through  the  external  evaluation  was  also  consulted.  In 

addition, a workshop was organised in which the relevance, feasibility and acceptability of the 

findings and recommendations were discussed by the contractor with the expert panel. 

Further  details  on  the  evidence  used  in  the  evaluation,  as  well  as  the  discussion  of  its 

limitation as regards in particular availability of comparable and reliable statistics and ensuing 

consequences  on  the  robustness  of  findings  are  detailed  in  Annex  III  on  "Methods  and 

Sources", as well as in Annex II on "Stakeholder consultation".   

ANNEX II — STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

A  broad  stakeholders’  consultation  has  accompanied  the  Mid-Term  Assessment  of  the  EU 

Drugs Strategy 2013- 2020 and the Final Evaluation of the Action Plan on Drugs 2013- 2016. 

The  aim  of  this  process,  which  took  place  in  the  period  April  to  November  2016,  was  to 

obtain views on the five evaluation criteria from a range of stakeholders involved in or who 

might be impacted by the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan, as well 

as  to  address  information  gaps  identified  in  the  secondary  data  review.  The  stakeholders' 

consultation was carried out by the contractor hired by the Commission to assist it with the 

33 

 
 
 
 
assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. The Commission's minimum standards 

for the Stakeholders' Consultation were duly taken into account and met.  

As  part  of  this  Stakeholders'  Consultation  a  public  consultation  was  conducted  by  the 

Commission, with the purpose of gathering views from private individuals, organisations, the 

industry and the public administration on the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and 

Action Plan.  

(1) 

TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

Targeted  consultations  took  place  within  the  framework  of  the  external  evaluation  and 

involved  different  types  of  stakeholders.  The  contractor  consulted  with  representatives  of 

Member  States,  EU  Institutions  and  Agencies,  EU  funded  projects, 

international 

organisations,  third  countries,  the  Civil  Society  and  the  Chemical  Industry.  These  targeted 

consultations were conducted mainly via interviews and collected mainly qualitative data. The 

interviews  were  accompanied,  where  necessary,  by  a  written  questionnaire  to  collect 

quantitative  data.  Representatives  of  the  selected  third  countries  the  EU  currently  engages 

with  strategically  in  the  field  of  drugs  (such  as  officials  in  charge  of  projects  run  in 

cooperation  with  the  EU,  co-chairs  of  dialogue  groups  with  third  countries)  were  consulted 

mainly via online questionnaires. 

Topic guides were prepared based on the evaluation framework and on the gaps identified in 

the  document  review.  In  particular,  interviews  with  representatives  from  Member  States 

sought  to  collect  updates  for  2015-2016  in  relation  to  data  that  had  been  submitted  for  the 

2015  Commission  Progress  Report  (which  related  to  the  period  2013-2014).  A  total  of  90 

interviews were conducted (with some interviews consisting of multiple interviewees). In 30 

instances no response was received or the interview was declined. 

The following list indicates the main targeted stakeholder consultations: 

(a) 

Member States 

At  Member  State  level,  three  different  types  of  interviewees  were  consulted:  National  Drug 

Coordinators,  Member  State  representatives  in  the  Horizontal  Working  Party  on  Drugs 

(HDG) and the REITOX national focal points.  

(b) 

European Institutions and bodies 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At  EU  level,  different  types  of  institutions  and  bodies  were  consulted:  the  European 

Commission (DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME), DG International Cooperation and 

Development  (DEVCO),  DG  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs 

(GROW), DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR), DG Health and Food 

Safety (SANTE), DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD), DG Research and Innovation 

(RTD),  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office  (OLAF)),  the  Council  of  the  European  Union 

(Secretariat, the Dutch Presidency that held office during the first half of 2016, the Standing 

Committee  on  Operational  Cooperation  on  Internal  Security  (COSI),  the  Working  Party  on 

Customs Union (CUG), the Customs Cooperation Working Party (CCWP)), Members of the 

European Parliament, the relevant EU Agencies (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and 

Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA),  the  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and  Control 

(ECDC),  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training  (CEPOL),  Eurojust, 

Europol,  European  Medicines  Agency  (EMA)),  the  French  Presidency  of  the  Dublin  Group 

and the European External Action Service (EEAS). 

(c) 

EU funded projects 

Further  targeted  consultations  included  stakeholders  from  the  EU  funded  projects  European 

Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN), Addiction and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe 

Reframing  Addictions  Project  (ALICE  RAP),  Internet  tools  for  research  in  Europe  in  new 

drugs  (I-TREND),  Cooperation  Programme  on  Drugs  Policies  (COPOLAD  II),  Cocaine 

Route Programme and Heroin Route Programme.  

(d) 

International organisations 

Consultations also included stakeholders from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC),  the  Joint  United  Nations  Programme  on  HIV/AIDS  (UNAIDS)  and  Pompidou 

Group of the Council of Europe. 

(e) 

Third countries  

Consultations  were  also  held  with  representatives  of  the  United  States,  Mexico,  Uruguay, 

Kazakhstan and Armenia. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(f) 

Representatives from the Chemical Industry 

Consultations  with  the  European  Chemical  Industry  Council  (CEFIC)  and  European 

Association  of  Chemical  Distributors  (FECC))  also  took  place  in  the  framework  of  the 

external evaluation. 

(g) 

European External Action Service (EEAS) Survey  

The EEAS Survey  aimed at soliciting views of representatives  of EU Delegations posted in 

third countries on the domain of international cooperation in the field of illicit drugs.  

(h) 

Civil Society Forum on Drugs 

The contractor consulted with the Core Group Civil Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs in order 

to gather their views in line with the five evaluation criteria. In addition, a written contribution 

to  the  evaluation  provided  by  the  members  of  the  Evaluation  Working  Group  of  the  Civil 

Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs was also taken into account.  

(2) 

PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

Secondly, in addition to targeted consultations, the Commission  organised an internet-based 

open public consultation for the 2016 assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan 

on Drugs.  

The  open  public  consultation  was  launched  on  15  February  2016  on  the  European 

Commission's website and was open until 31 May 2016. The aim of this consultation was to 

gather  views  from  private  individuals,  non-profit/private  organisations,  industry  and 

national/regional/local  public  administrations  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  and  Action  Plan.  The  consultation  covered  all  five  objectives  of  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  and  corresponding  actions  of  the  Action  Plan  and  all  the  evaluation  criteria: 

effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  value  added.  As  such,  the  public 

consultation  was  intended  to  form  part  of  the  inputs  for  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy and Action Plan. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(a) 

Overview of the replies to the online survey - Profile of the respondents 

A total of 121 standard contributions were submitted through the online questionnaire. Out of 

the  total  number  of  respondents,  60  consented  to  the  publication  of  their  full  contribution, 

while  41  opted  for  publication  in  anonymous  form  and  20  requested  their  answer  not  to  be 

published in any form.  

Respondents  were  invited  to  identify  themselves  as  one  of  the  following  categories:  private 

individual,  national  public  authority,  international/intergovernmental/regional  organisation, 

organisation  which  included  non-governmental,  civil  society  organisation,  academia, 

research,  social  partner,  interest  group,  consultancy  and  think-tank,  or  private  company. 

Nearly two thirds (66.1 per cent) of submissions came from respondents answering as private 

individuals. The next largest group of respondents were individuals answering on behalf of an 

organisation  (e.g.  non-governmental  organisations  etc.),  accounting  for  approximately  a 

quarter (26.4 per cent) of all received contributions. A small number of responses were also 

provided  by  representatives  of  national  public  authorities  (4.1  per  cent)  and  international, 

intergovernmental or regional organisations (3.3 per cent). 

Regarding  the  geographical  distribution  of  responses,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate 

which country (or the EU as a whole) their responses referred to. About a fifth (21.5 per cent) 

of respondents stated that their responses pertained to the EU while the remaining respondents 

indicated one of the Member States. Of these, Sweden, Italy and Finland were most frequently 

chosen.  There  were  no  responses  referring  to  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Latvia, 

Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania or Slovakia. The generally low number of respondents 

per  country  does  not  allow  for  a  meaningful  disaggregation  of  responses  by  country  in  the 

analysis of the responses. 

The  majority  of  private  individuals  responding  to  the  consultation  (69  per  cent)  were 

interested  in  drug  policy  but  did  not  actively  work  in  the  area.  That  is  in  contrast  with 

respondents representing organisations and public authorities, the vast majority of whom were 

actively working in the field. Among those actively involved in the field, NGO membership 

was  the  most  common  form  of  involvement  (18  respondents),  followed  by  healthcare 

professionals (11 respondents). 

Regarding  the  focus  of  interest/work,  the  largest  group  of  respondents  indicated  the  area  of 

information, research, monitoring and evaluation (75 respondents). The next most frequently 

indicated  areas  were  drug  demand  reduction  (47  respondents)  and  coordination  of  drug 

policies  at  national/regional  level  (43  respondents).  By  contrast,  drug  supply  reduction  was 

37 

 
 
 
mentioned only by 17 respondents, all of them private individuals. Among respondents who 

indicated  ‘other,’  drug  legalisation  or  similar  was  mentioned  in  11  instances  and  in  five 

additional  instances  drug  policy  reform  or  advocacy  was  mentioned.  The  vast  majority  of 

remaining  ‘other’  responses  (17  instances)  can  be  broadly  characterised  as  linked  to  drug 

demand  reduction  as  they  referred  to  areas  related  to  treatment,  harm  minimisation,  and 

prevention. 

Respondents also differed in the degree of their personal involvement in any activity related 

to  drug  policy.  The  majority  of  private  individuals  (66.3  per  cent)  did  not  take  part  in  any 

activity,  while  the  same  was  true  for  only  a  small  proportion  of  respondents  answering  on 

behalf  of  organisations  (12.2  per  cent).  Involvement  in  each  of  the  four  examined  areas 

(definition,  implementation,  monitoring,  and  evaluation)  was  similarly  frequent  among 

respondents, ranging from 20-30 per cent of respondents. 

(b) 

Results 

The detailed analysis of the results of the Public Consultation is  found in  a report available 

online.   

All results of the Public Consultation, including the individual replies that could be published 

are also available online.  

ANNEX III- METHODS AND SOURCES 

(1) 

INTRODUCTION 

This Annex provides more detailed information about the methodological framework used in 

this evaluation. The evaluation relies on an external study carried out for the Commission, by 

the external contractor Ernst and Young and RAND Europe, in the period April - November 

2016. The evaluation's twofold aim is to assess the degree of implementation of the EU Drugs 

Strategy  2013-2020  and  the  Action  Plan  2013-2016  in  terms  of  outputs  and  impacts  and  to 

support the Commission’s decision on whether to propose a new draft Action Plan to cover 

the period 2017-2020.  

The external contractor undertook the gathering of the relevant information and data needed 

to achieve a complete overview on the implementation of the Drugs Strategy 2013-2020, as 

well  as  of  the  Action  Plan  2013-2016  in  all  EU  Member  States.  Effectiveness,  efficiency, 

relevance and coherence of the actions undertaken on the basis of the Drugs Strategy and the 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Action  Plan,  as  well  as  their  EU  added  value  were  examined.  All  main  policy  areas  of  the 

Drugs  Strategy  were  addressed,  including  drug  demand  and  drug  supply  reduction  and  the 

cross-cutting themes.   

(2) 

METHODOLOGY 

This  study  applied  a  mixed-methods  approach  and  used  different  data  sources  in  order  to 

address the evaluation questions. An evaluation framework, described in detail in the annexes 

of the final evaluation report, was designed.  

Two types of data were collected: secondary data from various  sources and  primary data in 

order  to  fill  gaps  in  the  secondary  data  and  generate  a  more  detailed  understanding.  The 

secondary data was collected through desk research and document review, more specifically 

review  of  contributions  from  EU  Agencies  and  Member  States  to  the  2015  Commission 

Progress  Report,  relevant  documentation  and  Member  States'  drugs  strategies.  Primary  data 

collection was conducted via stakeholders' consultation, in particular interviews with Member 

States,  third  countries  and  industry  representatives,  survey  of  European  External  Action 

Service (EEAS) representatives in third countries; discussions with members of Civil Society 

Forum (CSF) on Drugs; analysis of a Commission-run public consultation; and a consultation 

and  workshop  with  expert  advisers.  The  analysis  and  synthesis  of  findings  and  data  was 

elaborated in order to answer the evaluation questions. The limitations and challenges linked 

to each of these data collection activities and methods are indicated below.  

(a)  SECONDARY DATA- DESK RESEARCH AND REVIEW 

Review of contributions from EU Agencies and Member State contributions to the 2015 

Commission  Progress  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and 

Action Plan 2013-2016 

The  review  of  contributions  from  EU  Agencies  and  Member  States’  submissions  to  the 

progress  report  was  intended  to  capture  information  about  the  implementation  of  the  EU 

Action Plan and to help in designing interview topic guides. The reviewed data was received 

from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol, 

Eurojust,  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training  (CEPOL)  and  28 

individual Member States. Information provided by the EU Agencies was integrated with the 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015  Commission  Progress  Report  to  provide  a  narrative  and  an  assessment  of  the 

implementation of individual actions listed in the Action Plan.  

One of the challenges arising in this context is that in certain cases, there is no mechanism to 

collect  data  directly  relevant  for  a  given  action-level  indicator  and  other  existing  valuable 

information do not always precisely address the given issue. Another challenge is related to 

data availability as, for instance, available data do not always allow for a measurement of a 

trend  in  a  given  indicator  because  there  is  only  one  data  point  available.  In  other  cases  the 

baseline  precedes  the  current  Strategy  and  Action  Plan,  which  therefore  precludes  a  trend 

assessment  pertaining  strictly  to  the  reference  period  for  this  evaluation.  Also,  with  certain 

indicators, available data do not always allow concluding whether the observed trend in some 

indicators  represents  an  improvement  or  deterioration,  due  to  the  lack  of  indicators  that 

accurately  measure  the  phenomena  of  interest  and/or  the  to  the  absence  of  contextual 

information that would enable the identification of underlying drivers. 

Review of additional documentation  

The  objective  of  reviewing  relevant  available  documentation  was  to  fill  gaps  in  the 

information provided by the Commission Progress Report and additional contributions by the 

EU  agencies.  For  this  purpose,  documents,  studies  and  reports  produced  by  EU  institutions 

and agencies, international organisations, civil society and academia were reviewed. 

The identification of relevant documentation did not involve a systematic search protocol and 

some potentially relevant literature may therefore not have been identified. Another limitation 

arises from the fact that some sources identified as relevant appeared to be inaccessible and 

therefore  could  not  be  consulted  for  the  evaluation.  The  evaluation  was  bound  by  these 

limitations, but where possible, gaps were filled through consultation of stakeholders.  

Review of Member States' drugs strategies  

Member States drugs strategies were reviewed in order to provide for background information 

to  inform  the  interviews  with  Member  State  representatives  and  to  provide  information  to 

populate a Member State fiche on implementation. The Member State fiche, produced for all 

Member  States,  was  divided  in  two  sections:  the  overall  national  drugs  strategy,  which 

provides an overview and a contextualisation of the national strategy and action plans; and the 

implementation of EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan, which provides the highlights of the 

implementation status of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2016.  

One limitation identified in this context is that national documents posted on the EMCDDA 

website  may  have  not  always  captured  the  latest  developments  in  each  Member  State.  The 

contractor tried to minimise this caveat and obtain a more recent picture of the developments 

40 

 
 
through interviews with Member State representatives, although the extent to which this was 

possible depended on the level of knowledge of the interviewee on the topic. 

(b)  PRIMARY DATA- CONSULTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS 

Stakeholder interviews  

The  objective  of  stakeholder  interviews  was  to  obtain  views  on  the  five  evaluation  criteria 

from a range of stakeholders involved in, or who might be impacted by, the implementation of 

the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. The interviews' topic guides were prepared based on 

the  evaluation  framework  and  on  the  gaps  identified  in  the  secondary  data.  In  particular, 

interviews with Member States sought to collect updates for 2015-2016 in relation to data that 

had  been  submitted  for  the  2015  Commission  Progress  Report  (which  related  to  the  period 

2013-2014).  

Interviews  covered  a  breadth  of  topics  and  interviewees  did  not  always  discuss  specific 

actions  of  the  Action  Plan  in  detail,  which  may  have  had  an  impact  on  the  quality  and 

comprehensiveness of the data collected. To address this challenge the evaluation consulted 

documentation  from  relevant  EU  agencies  such  as  the  EMCDDA  and  Europol.  Another 

challenge  arising  during  the  interviews  is  that  stakeholders'  familiarity  with  the  EU  Drugs 

Strategy  and  the  Action  Plan  varied  and  most  interviewees  were  mainly  familiar  with  the 

particular part of the strategy relevant for their work. 

Survey  with  European  External  Action  Service  (EEAS)  representatives  in  third 

countries 

The objective of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Survey was to solicit views of 

EU Delegations representatives posted in third countries relevant for international cooperation 

in  the  field  of  illicit  drugs.  Information  gathered  through  the  EEAS  survey  was  intended  to 

inform  the  evaluation’s  findings  primarily  with  respect  to  the  domain  of  international 

cooperation.  The  results  of  this  survey  were  triangulated  with  other  data  on  the  topic  of 

international cooperation.  

The relatively small number of respondents challenged the evaluator's ability to make general 

(and  generalisable)  comments  on  the  EU’s  international  cooperation  in  the  field  of  illicit 

drugs. Another limitation arising in this context is that the importance of illicit drugs for the 

agenda  of  individual  delegations,  as  well  as  the  level  of  involvement  and  expertise  of 

individual respondents in the field of illicit drugs vary.  

Roundtable discussions with the Civil Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs  

41 

 
 
 
 
The  Core  Group  and  the  Evaluation  Working  Group  of  the  Civil  Society  Forum  (CSF)  on 

Drugs were consulted on their views on the evaluation criteria, as well as on the EU Strategy 

and Action Plan.  The discussion focused on both  EU  and  Member State level  and aimed at 

receiving  input  regarding  civil  society's  role  at  EU  level  and  regarding  developments  in  the 

implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan in relevant Member States. 

The views presented by CSF are not generalisable to other stakeholder groups and thus, the 

evaluation clearly indicates when views from civil society are presented. 

Public Consultation 

The  scope  of  the  public  consultation  was  to  gather  views  from  private  individuals,  non-

profit/private  organisations,  industry  and  national/regional/local  public  administrations.  The 

consultation covered all five objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy and corresponding actions 

of  the  Action  Plan  and  all  the  five  evaluation  criteria.  A  framework  for  the  analysis  of 

responses was developed and applied to the submissions received. The data from the public 

consultation were triangulated with other data collected for the evaluation.  

The main challenge arising from the Public Consultation is that the responses received cannot 

be  understood  as  representative  of  views  of  any  particular  population  or  group  of 

stakeholders.  As  the  questionnaire  was  publicly  available  on  the  internet  and  no  one  was 

precluded from providing a response, information on the demographic profile of respondents 

is  based  on  self-reported  values.  Additionally,  the  small  number  of  contributions  received 

challenged the evaluator's ability to draw general findings from the public consultation. 

Consultation and workshop with expert advisors 

Throughout the external study, a panel consisting of three expert advisors was consulted for 

reviewing  the  interim  findings  and  recommendations  obtained  through  this  study.  An 

independent criminal law expert, a former  director of a National Crime Agency Programme 

and a research leader in the area of security were consulted. In addition to reviewing previous 

versions  of  the  external  study,  the  experts  participated  in  a  workshop,  where  the  relevance, 

feasibility and acceptability of the findings and recommendations were particularly discussed. 

(c)  ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS 

Traffic light assessment of implementation of the Action Plan 

Through  this  exercise  the  evaluation  aimed  at  assessing  the  extent to  which  the  actions  and 

objectives in the Action Plan have been implemented. The assessments were developed using 

a traffic light system applied at action-level using the indicators in the Action Plan. The level 

42 

 
 
 
 
of  implementation  of  action  was  scored  as  "green"  for  actions  completed,  in  progress,  or 

ongoing but on target, "amber" for actions in progress or some progress, but behind plan and 

"red" for actions in deterioration, no progress, little progress or considerably behind plan. The 

assessment  was  based  on  the  review  of  contributions  from  relevant  EU  agencies 

complemented by and updated with findings from interviews and information from additional 

documentation.  

A  limitation  identified  here is  that,  in  some  instances, the contributions  from  agencies  were 

synthesised in the Commission’s Progress Report for most actions providing information on 

the volume of activity, which was not always sufficient to provide an assessment of a given 

indicator.  

Synthesis of data  

The  synthesis  of  data  aimed  at  assessing  the  judgment  criteria  identified  in  the  evaluation 

framework  and  formulating  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions.  The  evaluation  framework 

was used to guide the assessment of judgment criteria and the data collection tasks targeted 

the sets of indicators for each of the judgment criteria. The responses of the interviews with 

stakeholders were coded according to the evaluation framework. This approach allowed for a 

synthesis  of  findings  for  each  judgment  criterion  across  all  interviews.  The  evaluation 

framework  was  completed  with  information  from  other  data  collection  approaches  (survey 

with EEAS representatives, the public consultation, and relevant documentation). The results 

from the various data collection approaches were subsequently triangulated and the findings 

synthesised whilst taking account of the various sources.  

The judgment criteria were assessed on the basis of the available information. However, the 

data collected were not sufficient to populate all indicators in the evaluation framework and 

for some indicators the information was incomplete or not available.  

(d)  ROBUSTNESS OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED 

There are several challenges and limitations to the evaluation methods due to data availability 

constraints  or  issues  around  the  attribution  of  observed  trends  and  developments  to  the 

Strategy and the Action Plan. In reporting on the collected evidence, the evaluation has made 

those  caveats  and  limitations  explicit.  In  drawing  conclusions,  the  evaluation  has  been 

cautious not to over-interpret the evidence, since the available data did not always allow for 

firm conclusions.  

43 

 
 
 
 
Despite  the above-mentioned  limitations,  the  contractor  used  a  range  of  different sources  to 

validate and triangulate the findings from each data source. While the conclusions for some 

research questions are more tentative, the overall evaluation presents a coherent and robust set 

of answers to the evaluation questions. 

Further information regarding the methods and sources used for this evaluation can be found 

in the Methodology section and in the annexes of the contractor's evaluation report. 

44