REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 2018
Date: 2019-05-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, drug addiction, operation of the Institutions, psychotropic substance

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.5.2019  COM(2019) 228 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 2018 {SWD(2019) 174 final}  
 
 
I. 

CONTEXT 

The human and social costs of drug addiction are very high. Drugs and drug addiction affect 
the health and wellbeing of many people, in particular  young ones, create security concerns 
and lead to premature deaths. Therefore, drug addiction generates costs for public health (drug 
prevention, healthcare and treatment), public safety, the environment and labour productivity. 
The market for illicit drugs is the most dynamic criminal market in the EU and is able to adapt 
rapidly in response to drug control measures.  

The  European  Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction  (EMCDDA;  referred  to  as 
“the  Agency”)  was  established  in  1993  as  one  of  the  EU’s  decentralised  agencies.1  Its 
objective, pursuant  to  Article 1 of Regulation  (EC) 1920/2006  (referred to as “the founding 
Regulation”)2, is to provide the EU and its Member States with factual, objective, reliable and 
comparable information  at  European level  on drugs, drug addiction  and  their consequences.  
The  Agency’s  core  tasks  are  to  collect  and  analyse  existing  data,  improve  data  comparison 
methods,  disseminate  data  and  to  cooperate  with  European  and  international  bodies  and 
organisations  as  well  as  with  third  countries.  The  Agency  acts  as  a  centre  of  excellence  in 
providing information on the drugs phenomenon, not only in Europe but also internationally.  

Article 23 of the founding Regulation provides for "an external evaluation of the Centre every 
six  years,  to  coincide  with  the  completion  of  two  of  the  Centre's  three-year  work 
programmes".  The  evaluation  should  also  address  the  Reitox  system  (the  European 
Information  Network  on  Drugs  and  Drug  Addiction).3  The  previous  evaluation  was  carried 
out in 2011/2012.4 Therefore, an evaluation was initiated by the Commission in late 2017 and 
carried out in 2018. The evaluation was conducted by a consortium lead by  ICF Consulting 
Ltd.,  in  collaboration  with  the  Centre  for  the  Study  of  Democracy  (CSD)  and  Optimity 
Advisors,  and  took  place  between  March  and  November  2018.  The  final  report  of  the 
evaluation will be published online. 

This  report  will  be  submitted  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  as  well  as  to  the 
Management  Board  of  the  Agency.  The  Staff  Working  Document,  which  accompanies  this 
Commission Report, provides a detailed analysis of the outcomes of the external evaluation. 

II.  

FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION 

The evaluation had the following scope: 

  Material  scope:  the  evaluation  covered  the  two  pillars  of  the  Agency’s  work,  i.e. 
public  health  and  security.  It  looked  into  its  governance  and  administration,  the 

1  

2  

3  
4  

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  302/93  of  8  February  1993  on  the  establishment  of  a  European 
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, OJ L 36, 12.2.1993, p. 1. 
Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on 
the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (recast), OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 1; as 
amended most recently by Regulation (EU) 2017/2101 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 15 November 2017 amending  Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 as regards information exchange on, 
and  an  early  warning  system  and  risk  assessment  procedure  for,  new  psychoactive  substances,  OJ  L 
305, 21.11.2017, p. 1. 
See Article 5 of the founding Regulation. 
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/e-library/documents/policies/organized-crime-
and-human-trafficking/drug-control/docs/2012_emcdda_evaluation_main_report_en.pdf  

EN 

1 

EN 

 
 
                                                           
information 
organisational  structure,  operations,  funding  and  resourcing, 
management  and  the  work  of  Reitox,  cooperation  with  other  relevant  EU  agencies 
(such  as  the  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  agencies5,  the  European  Medicines  Agency 
(EMA),  the  European  Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and  Control  (ECDC))  and 
international organisations (such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United 
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), etc.), partnerships with third countries, 
and communication and dissemination of research; 

its 

  Geographical  scope:  the  evaluation  covered  the  countries  reporting  data  to  the 
Agency, i.e. the EU Member States as well as Norway and Turkey, and third countries 
with  which  the  Agency  has  closer  relations  due  to  the  conclusion  of  working 
arrangements, cooperation agreements or similar; 

  Temporal scope: the evaluation covered the activities carried out from 1 January 2013 
until  30  June  20186  to  coincide  with  the  completion  of  two  consecutive  3-year 
strategies and work programmes of the Agency. 

The  evaluation  assessed  the  Agency,  building  on  the  findings  of  the  previous  evaluation, 
along the five standard evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and 
EU added value. The evaluation questions related to lessons learned were attributed to these 
five criteria. The conclusions of the evaluation are summarised below along those five criteria 
and in more detail in the accompanying Staff Working Document. 

The  contractor  identified  a  number  of  limitations  when  carrying  out  the  external  evaluation 
study, which have an impact  on this  report.  The  main limitation  was the  unavailability of  a 
baseline for most elements, which made it difficult to analyse progress.  Other issues, which 
might limit the robustness of the findings, include the short duration of the evaluation, the low 
response rate to some questions or from certain stakeholder groups, respectively, the quality 
of  the  received  data  as  well  as  the  use  of  different  key  performance  indicators  over  the 
evaluation period and the unavailability of an Activity Based Budget.7 

A. 

Relevance 

The relevance criterion examined the alignment of the Agency’s outputs with the needs of its 
multiple stakeholders. It assessed the Agency’s adaptability to scientific, economic, political, 
social  and  technological  changes.  Finally,  the  relevance  criterion  explored  stakeholders’ 
views on any potential broadening of the scope of monitoring as well as the identification of 
best practice with regard to illicit and legal substances, and addictive behaviours not involving 
substances.   

The  outcomes  of  the  Agency's  activities  met  the  needs  of  its  multiple  stakeholders,  by 
providing  relevant  and  timely  information.  As  shown  through  all  means  of  the  consultation 

5  

6  

7  

The Justice and Home Affairs agencies are besides the EMCDDA:  CEPOL (European Union Agency 
for Law Enforcement Training), EASO (European Asylum Support Office), EIGE (European Institute 
for  Gender  Equality),  eu-LISA  (European  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  large-scale  IT 
systems  in  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice),  Eurojust,  Europol  (European  Union  Agency  for 
Law Enforcement Cooperation), FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency) and Frontex (European Border and 
Coast Guard Agency). 
The cut-off date for the work of the contractor was set for 30 June 2018, i.e. the date of submission of 
the Agency’s General Report on Activities 2017 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/gra/2017_en  
For more details see Section V.B. and Annex II(2) of the accompanying Staff Working Document. 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
                                                           
 
activities, the Agency largely addressed the needs of policy-makers, especially at the EU level 
and to a more limited extent at the national level. There is scope for more engagement with 
the scientific community as well as increasing its visibility with practitioners and the general 
public.   

The Agency adapted well to various changes during the evaluation period. Drug demand and 
supply  is  a  dynamic  and  changing  landscape,  and  the  Agency  responded  by  increasing  its 
focus on emerging threats and trends, developing new methodologies and using open-source 
information  such  as  waste-water  analysis8  or  trendspotter  studies9.  When  it  comes  to 
publications, the Agency addresses different audiences by tailoring them to various types of 
stakeholders.  Overall,  the  interviews  showed  a  need  for  more  forward-looking  products 
identifying future trends and risks to better support EU preparedness and response in the ever-
changing drugs landscape as well as communicating more directly with national stakeholders. 

The  Agency  carried  out  an  internal  reorganisation  to  align  itself  better  with  political  and 
strategic  objectives  in  drug  policy,  and  addressed  economic  constraints  by  prioritising  its 
activities and redeploying its resources.       

The evaluation considered also the question regarding the potential future broadening of the 
scope of the Agency. The outcome of the evaluation on this question was inconclusive. While 
the  majority  of  Member  State  representatives  and  the  Agency  staff  were  in  favour  of  an 
expansion  to  other  licit  and  illicit  substance,  such  as  alcohol,  tobacco  or  prescription 
medicines,  and  –  to  a  lesser  extent  –  addictive  behaviours,  such  as  gambling,  EU-level 
stakeholders and international organisations presented divergent views.  

B. 

Effectiveness 

The  effectiveness  criterion  assessed  how  successful  the  Agency  has  been  in  achieving  and 
progressing  towards  its  objectives  and  the  priorities  set  out  in  the  founding  Regulation.  It 
examined the extent to which the changes in the structure resulting from the implementation 
of  the  “EMCDDA  Strategy  2025”10  and  the  recent  internal  reorganisation  impacted  its 
effectiveness. Further aspects examined under this criterion included the effectiveness of the 
Reitox network11, the use of internal monitoring tools, external factors affecting the impact of 
the  Agency  and  its  international  activities,  i.e.  work  with  third  countries  and  international 
organisations.  

Taking into account the overall impression from the stakeholder consultations, the evaluation 
showed  that  the  Agency  is  well  recognised  and  highly  regarded  by  its  stakeholder 
communities as a centre of excellence in providing information on the drugs phenomenon, not 
only  in  Europe  but  also  internationally.  The  information  produced  is  considered  factual, 
objective,  reliable  and  robust,  as  evidenced  by  the  targeted  survey  for  civil  society  and  the 

8  
9  

10

11  

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water-analysis_en  
Trendspotter  manual:  www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/manuals/trendspotter-manual_en;  the  most 
recent trendspotter study concerned recent trends on the cocaine market: 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/10225/2018-cocaine-trendspotter-rapid-
communication.pdf  

 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4273/2017.1998_EMCDDA_STRATEGY_202
5_web-1.pdf. 
Members  of  the  Reitox  network  are  designated  national  institutions  or  agencies  responsible  for  data 
collection  and  reporting  on  drugs  and  drug  addiction  (‘national  focal  points’  or  ‘national  drug 
observatories’). 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
                                                           
 
scientific community as well as by the public consultation. The same sources showed that the 
main  areas  to  be  improved  and  strengthened  include  increasing  the  comparability  of 
information, further use of visual aids and improving the quality of translation.   

The  evaluation  found  that  the  majority  of  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  Agency’s  3-year 
strategies and work programmes were achieved.  

Regarding the monitoring of the state of the drugs problem, the Agency performed well. The 
Agency’s  provision  of  demand  and  –  and  to  a  lesser  extent  –  supply  data  contributed  to 
informing  relevant  authorities  and  practitioners,  improving  their  ability  to  respond  to  drug 
trends. The Agency established mechanisms to carry out regular and sustained monitoring of 
developments  in  the drug  field,  aimed  at  identifying emerging risks. The monitoring task is 
complemented by publishing regular and up-to-date information on drug supply and demand 
developments,  in  particular  through  the  European  Drug  Report,  but  also  through  its  many 
other  publications.  However,  the  evaluation  also  concluded  that  work  on  poly-drug  use  is 
largely lacking. In this context, the external study stated that the term “poly-drug use” is not 
mentioned once in the Agency’s 3-year strategies and work programmes.  

Similarly,  the  work  of  the  Agency  on  the  monitoring  of  solutions  applied  to  drug-related 
problems was evaluated positively by stakeholders, in this case in particular by civil society 
organisations  participating  in  the  public  consultation,  answering  to  the  survey  and  the  few 
targeted interviews. The Best Practice Portal12 is central in sharing best practice in the areas of 
prevention, treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration.  

Through  the  implementation  of  the  Early  Warning  System  (EWS),  which  is  available  24/7, 
the  Agency  contributed  to  the  detection  of  new  psychoactive  substances  (NPS)  and 
subsequently enhanced Member States’ capacity to tackle this growing phenomenon. Over the 
last  years,  the  number  of  new  psychoactive  substances  detected  for  the  first  time  in  the  EU 
and therefore notified to the Early Warning System decreased from a peak in 2014.13 At the 
end  of  2018,  the  Early  Warning  System  monitored  more  than  700  new  psychoactive 
substances,  of  which  more  or  less  half  are  available  in  any  given  year  on  the  European 
market.14 However, the substances detected are becoming more dangerous and, therefore, the 
Agency undertook in  2017-18 more risk assessment  than ever before in  a given  year.15 The 
role  of  the  Agency  in  this  process  has  been  reinforced  by  the  new  legislation  on  new 
psychoactive substances.16  

Finally,  when  it  comes  to  developing  tools  and  instruments  to  support  Member  States  with 
their  national  drug  policies,  specific  support  was  provided  upon  request  to  some  Member 

12  
13  
14  
15  

16  

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/best-practice_en  
Notifications in 2012 (baseline year): 73, 2013: 81, 2014: 101, 2015: 98, 2016: 66, 2017: 53. 
Source: EMCDDA. 
Eleven risk assessments were finalised in 2017 and 2018, leading to Commission proposals for putting 
the substances under control. The substances covered by these risk assessments were acryloylfentanyl, 
furanylfentanyl,  AB-CHMINACA,  ADB-CHMINACA,  5F-MDMB-PINACA,  CUMYL-4CN-
BINACA,  4-fluoroisobutyrylfentanyl,  tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl,  carfentanils,  methoxyacetylfentanyl 
and cyclopropylfentanyl. 
Regulation  (EU)  2017/2101  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  November  2017 
amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  1920/2006  as  regards  information  exchange  on,  and  an  early  warning 
system  and  risk  assessment  procedure  for,  new  psychoactive  substances,  OJ  L  305,  21.11.2017,  p.1; 
Directive  (EU)  2017/2103  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  November  2017 
amending Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA in order to include new psychoactive substances 
in the definition of ‘drug’ and repealing Council Decision 2005/387/JHA, OJ L 305, 21.11.2017, p. 12. 

EN 

4 

EN 

 
                                                           
States to help them design or monitor national drug strategies and policies. This was the case 
in 2015 for Germany, Ireland and Luxembourg. Tools and instruments for the evaluation of 
drugs policies and monitoring of drug markets have been developed.17     

The  Reitox  network  effectively  delivered  the  data  and  information  needed  to  meet  the 
objectives  set  out  in  the  Agency’s  3-year  strategies  and  work  programmes  during  the 
evaluation  period.  The  external  study  also  concluded,  based  on  the  feedback  from  different 
stakeholders, including the EMCDDA staff, that the quality and timeliness of data provision 
varied  between  national  focal  points,  although  progress  has  been  made  since  the  last 
evaluation.  The  reason  for  these  differences  is  mainly  due  to  the  human  and  financial 
resources  available  to  the  national  focal  points.  Further  improvements  are  possible  in 
particular as regards the comparability of the data provided.  

The  activities  of  the  Agency  at  international  level  are  compatible  with  the  EU  priorities  in 
external  action.  The  Agency  brings  the  EU’s  evidence-based  policy-making  experience  in 
drug monitoring to third countries, thereby helping to improve the global understanding of the 
drugs phenomenon, which in turn translates into a more complete picture of the situation in 
the EU. International stakeholders and Agency staff generally agreed that more could be done 
at  international  level,  i.e.  working  with  other  third  countries  and  better  cooperation  with 
international organisations. However, this has to be in line with the Agency’s mission, linking 
back to  a better understanding of the drugs phenomenon. The consulted statkeholders noted 
the  existence  of  overlaps,  such  as  the  duplication  of  data  collection  with  United  Nations 
Office on Drugs and Crime, which should be addressed.   

Although  the  changes  in  the  Agency’s  structure  resulting  from  the  implementation  of  the 
“EMCDDA Strategy 2025” and the internal reorganisation are relatively recent and more time 
is  needed  for  the  impacts  to  materialise,  they  appear  to  have  had  a  positive  impact  on  the 
Agency’s effectiveness. The internal reorganisation has further supported the performance of 
the tasks set out in the founding Regulation and in achieving its objectives. For example, the 
restructuring  of  scientific  resources  in  line  with  the  two  pillars  of  the  “EMCDDA  Strategy 
2025” has helped the Agency to provide data that are more robust, adapt to new scientific and 
environmental  developments,  and  react  to  challenges  and  contextual  shifts  in  the  field  of 
drugs.   

External  factors  that  have  influenced  the  effectiveness  of  the  Agency  include  the  changing 
landscape  of  drug  consumption,  the  emergence  of  new  marketplaces,  and  new  security 
challenges relating to drugs and evolving national policies. The Agency proactively reacted to 
these factors as set out above.   

The  overall  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  numerous  tools  and  mechanisms  (both 
internal  and  external) used to  monitor and review the Agency’s outputs  and results seem  to 
work  well  and  be  adequate  to  ensure  accountability  and  an  appropriate  assessment  of  its 
overall performance. However, the evaluation report stresses that due to  the use of different 
key  performance  indicators  (KPIs)  over  the  evaluation  period  and  the  lack  of  an  Activity 
Based  Budget,  performance  monitoring  could  be  done  only  based  on  headline  indicators. 

17  

See  for  example  “Evaluating  drug  policy:  a  seven-step  guide  to  support  the  commissioning  and 
managing  of  evaluations”,  www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4680/td0417390enn1.pdf, 
and  the  related  website  (www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/policy-evaluation);  or 
“Trendspotter  manual:  a  handbook  for  the  rapid  assessment  of  emerging  drug-related  trends”, 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/10233/2018-trendspotter-manual.pdf 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
                                                           
Further efforts to streamline the indicators as well as to introduce an Activity Based Budget 
should be undertaken to mitigate this for the future. 

C. 

Efficiency 

The  efficiency  criterion  assessed  the  extent  to  which  the  Agency  conducted  its  activities, 
achieved  its  objectives  and  delivered  results  at  a  reasonable  cost,  in  terms  of  financial  and 
human resources and administrative arrangements.  

Within the limitations of the available data, the evaluation could reasonably conclude that the 
Agency  has  used  the  available  human  and  financial  resources  efficiently  to  deliver  the 
outputs,  outcomes  and  impacts  set  out  in  its  3-year  strategies  and  work  programmes.  By 
implementing  changes  in  its  organisational  and  governance  structure,  and  re-deploying 
available  (human  and  financial)  resources,  the  Agency  increased  its  outputs  and  introduced 
new types of products and services without receiving any additional funding.    

The  budget  remained  relatively  flat  during  the  evaluation  period,  with  only  some  small 
fluctuations.  Compared  to  2012,  the  budget  increased  by  less  than  1%.  Most  of  the  budget 
(60%  in  2017)  is  spent  on  staff  costs.  These  costs  include  both  operational  and 
administrative/support functions. During the evaluation period, the share of operational staff 
gradually increased, from 68% in 2012 to 71% in 2017.   

The  benefits  of  the  Agency’s  work  include:  a  clear  and  thorough  perspective  on  the  drug 
situation  in  the  EU;  an  informed  debate  on  drug  policies  and  strategies;  the  effective 
facilitation  of  a  useful  network  of  professionals  in  the  field  of  drugs  and  drug  addictions 
(Reitox),  including  the  effective  exchange  of  information  and  best  practices;  a  proactive 
approach to new substances and emerging trends; and the promotion of scientific excellence. 
These  benefits  are  difficult  to  quantify,  but  overall  the  outputs  of  the  Agency  are  valued 
highly by all stakeholders at EU, national and international level.   

The Agency provides good value for money as the cost of producing and managing its outputs 
and activities compares favourably to the same measurements of other EU agencies which are 
similar  in  size  and  scope,  as  shown  by  the  benchmarking  case  study.18  The  benefits  at 
European  level  could  not  be  delivered  by  a  single  national  entity,  in  particular  the 
development of standard indicators applied by all members of the Reitox network, the testing 
of drug-related policies and measures, the early warning system for emerging threats, and the 
exchange of best practice.   

the  expected  results.  They 

The achievement of key performance indicators and the high percentage of budget execution 
show  that  the  decentralised  management  model  adopted  at  the  beginning  of  the  evaluation 
period  produced 
the  current  governance, 
organisational  set-up,  management  systems  and  working  methods  are  appropriate  to  its 
operations.  There  is  some  scope  for  simplifying  the  Agency’s  administrative  set-up  and 
working  methods,  such  as  review  and  modernisation  of  information  and  communication 
technology  tools,  and  better  internal  planning  through  the  adoption  of  Activity  Based 
Budgets.   

indicate 

that 

18  

The  benchmarking  case  study  compared  the  Agency  with  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency  (FRA)  as 
regards several criteria; Annex 4 of the final report of the external evaluation. In addition, the case study 
also  compared  the  budgets  of  the  Agency  with  the  ones  of  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency,  the 
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and the European Asylum Support Office 
(EASO); see Section VI.C. of the accompanying Staff Working Document. 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
                                                           
The  Agency  has  improved  its  online  outreach,  and  stakeholders  reported  their  satisfaction 
with  the  outreach  and  communication,  considering  it  quite  efficient.  Further  improvements 
could be made to reach national stakeholders, primarily policy-makers and practitioners. 

D. 

Coherence 

The  coherence  criterion  examined  the  extent  to  which  the  activities  and  objectives  of  the 
Agency supported the key EU policy developments and complemented actions undertaken by 
other EU agencies and Member States, including consistency with the regulatory framework. 
It also considered the alignment with the common approach for decentralised agencies19 and 
the  correspondence  of  the  Agency’s  3-year  strategies  and  work  programmes20  with  the 
objectives  of  the  founding  Regulation,  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  (2013-2020)21  and  its  Action 
Plans22, and the European Agenda on Security23. 

The  desk  research  of  the  external  evaluation  found  a  high  degree  of  coherence  between  the 
regulatory framework and the objectives and activities set out in the three-year strategies and 
work programmes. All of the objectives set out in the two strategy documents align with and 
can be traced back to the founding Regulation. The Agency’s activities contributed to a large 
extent to the wider EU priorities in the area of drugs policy by addressing both drug demand 
and drug supply issues, though to a more limited extent for the latter, as well as by providing 
technical  support  and  expertise  to  EU  institutions.  However,  while  the  founding  Regulation 
specifically  outlines  in  Annex  I  that  data  on  emerging  trends  in  poly-drug  use  should  be 
monitored,  this  is  not  mentioned  in  its  objectives  set  out  in  the  strategy  documents  and 
remains underexplored.   

The objectives and activities of the Agency listed in the 3-year strategies were also found to 
be  coherent  with  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy  and  its  Action  Plans.  The  coherence  with  the 
European  Agenda  on  Security  is  evidenced  inter  alia  by  extensive  joint  work  with  the 
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), including several joint 
publications such as the European Drug Market Reports24 and the most recent publication on 
“Drugs and the darknet”25.   

While  the  Agency  has  made  progress  on  addressing  supply-side  issues  compared  to  the 
previous evaluation period, there is scope for further improvement in this area. The Agency 
developed supply-side indicators and cooperated closely with Europol on drug supply issues. 
However, data collection on drug supply issues should be further improved.26  In order to do 

19  

20  

21  
22  

23  
24  

25  
26  

information  on 

the  "common  approach",  please  see  https://europa.eu/european-

For  further 
union/sites/europaeu/files/docs/body/joint_statement_and_common_approach_2012_en.pdf  
2013-2015:  http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/676/wp2013-15_393821.pdf  and 
2016-2018: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/2095/TDAX16001ENN_.pdf 
OJ C  402, 29.12.2012, p.1. 
EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016, OJ C 351, 30.11.2013, p.1; EU Action Plan on Drugs 2017-2020, 
OJ C 215, 5.7.2017, p.21. 
COM(2015) 185 final. 
2016:  http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/10225/2018-cocaine-trendspotter-rapid-
communication.pdf; 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/joint-publications/drug-
markets_en 
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/darknet 
For a state of play, see the EMCDDA-Europol Joint Publication “Improved drug supply indicators for 
Europe: progress report”,   
www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/10178/Improved%20drug%20supply%20indicators%
20for%20Europe_Joint%20publication.pdf 

2013: 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
                                                           
so,  additional  data  would  have  to  be  provided  by  the  national  focal  points,  the  main  data 
providers for the Agency.     

The Agency is well aligned with the Common Approach for decentralised agencies. The tools 
and mechanisms in place work well and are adequate to ensure accountability and appropriate 
assessment  of  the  overall  performance.  Monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  3-year 
strategies  and  work  programmes  and  the  Management  Plan  takes  place  via  a  series  of 
monitoring  exercises.  The  development  of  clear  key  performance  indicators  is  positive; 
however,  these  have  changed  during  the  evaluation  period  and  therefore  comparisons  over 
time and with the previous evaluation were in parts not possible. In addition, the Agency has 
not yet implemented some Common Approach actions, in particular those relating to Activity 
Based  Management  and  Activity  Based  Budgets.  Other  missing  elements  to  the  full 
compliance with the Common Approach have been identified in the external evaluation and 
are set out in the accompanying Staff Working Document. 

The coherence with other EU agencies, including Europol, the European Medicines Agency 
(EMA), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the EU Agency 
for  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  (Eurojust),  was  facilitated  by  these  agencies 
mutually reviewing each other’s work programmes. In addition, the objectives and activities 
of the Agency, including those set out in the “EMCDDA Strategy 2025”, complement those 
of the European Commission and other European agencies.   

Synergies exist with the European Commission in the area of drug precursors, with Europol 
and  the  European  Medicines  Agency  in  new  psychoactive  substances,  with  the  European 
Centre  for  Disease  Prevention  and  Control  through  joint  publications  and  missions  in  the 
context  of  infectious  diseases  transmitted  by  drug  use,  and  with  the  Consumers,  Health, 
Agriculture and Food Production Executive Agency in the development of best practice in the 
area of public health. Synergies that could be exploited better include the relationship with the 
European Commission department in charge of health (DG SANTE).  

In general, few overlaps exist with other agencies because the Agency is unique in its position 
relating to the drug situation across the EU. As such, there is minimal duplication but a high 
likelihood  of  synergies.  The  potential  to  merge  the  Agency  with  another  agency  was  not 
deemed desirable by stakeholders.27   

With  regard  to  the  coherence  with  the  drug-related  policy  objectives  of  Member  States,  a 
minority  of  respondents  suggested  that  the  Agency’s  activities  were  somewhat  incoherent. 
This was attributed to the fact that several Member States take a pan-addiction approach when 
setting  objectives  for  their  drug  policies,  while  the  Agency’s  mandate  does  not  cover  legal 
substances  and  addictive  behaviours.  Therefore,  the  Agency  cannot  provide  data  on  other 
addictions to the Member States to support their policies.  

The  Agency  conducts  joint  activities  and  has  established  synergies  with  Europol,  the  EU 
Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Training  (CEPOL)  and  Eurojust  on  security-related  issues  in 
the context of the EU drugs market. Its monitoring and scientific expertise has complemented 
Europol  operations  by  providing  the  EU-wide  context  to  drug  security  issues.  The  Agency 
could  provide  more  support  on  security  issues  by  developing  supply  side  indicators  and 
corresponding data sets.    

27  

54%  of  all  interviewed  stakeholders  expressed  this  view.  In  addition,  almost  all  participants  in  the 
public  consultation  provided  a  clear  answer  to  the  potential  closing  or  merging  of  the  Agency  with 
another body. 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
                                                           
The “EMCDDA International Cooperation Framework 2018-25”28 aligns the activities of the 
Agency in this area with the “EMCDDA Strategy 2025”. However, the Agency could focus 
better  on  understanding  how  global  drug  issues  and  policy  developments  impact  on  the  EU 
drug situation.   

The  evaluation  identified  a  significant  degree  of  overlap  for  Member  States  in  their  annual 
reporting  duties  to  the  Agency  and  the  United  Nations  Office  on  Drugs  and  Crime.  It  was 
suggested that the two agencies should work with each other to identify possible solutions to 
optimise and streamline Member States’ reporting processes and thus improve the quality of 
reported data. 

E. 

EU added value 

The EU added value criterion examined the benefits of the Agency compared to what could 
have  been  achieved  solely  at  national  level.  More  specifically,  it  assessed  the  Agency’s 
capacity to improve Member States’ monitoring and response to drug-related problems, and 
the  extent  to  which  it  was  a  valuable  source  of  information  for  its  main  ‘customers’.  This 
criterion also explored the sustainability of the Agency’s activities and assessed whether, in a 
scenario in which the Agency was terminated, there would be viable alternatives to carry out 
its tasks.   

The Agency has an excellent reputation as a source of comprehensive, scientific and reliable 
drug-related  information.  It  is  seen  as  the  main  source  of  EU-level  data  and  is  used  by 
national,  EU  and  international  stakeholders,  especially  policy-makers,  researchers  and 
practitioners working in the field.  

The Agency has contributed significantly to informing the policy debate at both EU and (to a 
lesser extent) national  level.  At EU level,  the provision of scientific  and timely information 
and  the  involvement  in  the  design,  implementation  and  monitoring  of  drug-related  policies 
were  considered  crucial  to  ensuring  that  political  debates  and  drug-related  policies  are 
evidence-based.  At  national  level,  the  exchange  of  best  practice  and  the  production  of 
evidence-based  information  on  hot  topics  were  deemed  particularly  relevant  by  national 
authorities.  However,  it  appears  that  in  some  Member  States  the  Agency  is  not  the  primary 
source of drug-related information, suggesting that the Agency could improve its engagement 
at national level and by being more proactive in involving practitioners.  

The evaluation found that the main added value of the Agency lies in the establishment of a 
drug-related data collection system, obliging its reporting countries to systematically monitor 
the drug phenomenon using a common methodology and common drug demand and  supply 
indicators. This ensures a high level of uniformity in the quality and comparability of the data 
collected,  allowing  the  Agency  to  analyse  the  information  and  produce  a  comprehensive 
overview  of  the  drug  situation  across  the  EU.  The  EU-level  overview  is  greatly  valued  by 
national  authorities,  which  rely  on  it  to  design  evidence-based  policies,  monitor  the 
effectiveness  of  their  drug-related  policies  and  interventions  and  identify  trends  occurring 
elsewhere  in  Europe,  thus  improving  their  capacity  to  monitor  and  respond  to  the  drug 
phenomenon.  Other  forms  of  support,  such  as  the  exchange  of  best  practice,  the 
methodological guidance provided, and its involvement in the EU Early Warning System on 

28 

 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/9886/International%20Cooperation%20Frame
work.pdf. 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
                                                           
new  psychoactive  substances,  are  seen  as  adding  value,  compared  to  what  Member  States 
could do individually. 

The evaluation explored to  what  extent the activities allocated to  the Agency would be less 
effective if carried out by other institutions at EU or national level. It is thus deemed the most 
effective  option,  as  other  alternatives  (e.g.  the  Commission,  Member  States  or  international 
organisations) would compromise the quality of its analysis, the continuity of activities, and 
the common understanding of the phenomenon that allows the EU to speak with one voice in 
international forums.  

The  termination  of  the  Agency  would  have  a  negative  impact  on  all  relevant  stakeholders, 
especially policy-makers, who need its objective information to inform their evidence-based 
policies.  The  absence  of  the  Agency  would  imply  the  loss  of  the  EU-level  overview  of  the 
drug phenomenon, as the data collected by Member States would be fragmented and in many 
cases non-existent, with important consequences at national, EU and international level.  

III.  CONCLUSIONS  

The  evaluation,  supported  by  an  external  study,  concludes  that  the  European  Monitoring 
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is working well. The evaluation is positive 
as regards all five evaluation criteria, but further improvements are possible in several areas as 
set out below and in more detail in the accompanying Staff Working Document.  

The  overall  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  is  that  the  Agency  is  recognised  as  a  hub  of 
excellence  in  Europe  and  internationally.  The  information  produced  is  considered  factual, 
objective,  reliable  and  robust.  The  Agency’s  activities  are  relevant  at  EU  and  to  a  varying 
extent at national levels. Its work is coherent with the EU drug policy objectives and the work 
of the EU institutions, other EU agencies and international organisations. The EU added value 
of the work of the Agency is high. Within the limitations of the available data, the evaluation 
concluded  that  the  Agency  used  the  available  human  and  financial  resources  efficiently  but 
identified scope for simplification. 

There is  room  for improvement when it comes to technological developments (in particular 
related  to  the  IT  tools),  the  availability  of  more  forward-looking  products,  the  relationship 
with  the  scientific  community  and  general  practitioners,  and  the  general  public  awareness. 
Provision  of  data  could  be  improved  as  regards  comparability  and  the  data  sets  covered  (in 
particular on drug supply issues to enhance the Agency’s capacity to better monitor supply-
side issues of drug policy). Overlaps exist with data reporting to the United Nations Office on 
Drugs and Crime. Poly-drug use and the support to Member States in evaluating their national 
drug  policies  are  areas  where  the  Agency’s  contribution  would  provide  added  value.  The 
cooperation with third countries and international organisations could be further strengthened, 
but in line with the Agency’s mission. The evaluation was inconclusive on the potential future 
broadening  of  the  scope  of  the  Agency  to  other  licit  and  illicit  substance  and  addictive 
behaviours. 

EN 

10 

EN