INPUD-EUROPE
REPORT ON THE EU CIVIL SOCIET FORUM ON DRUGS (13-14/12/2007)
Introduction
The first EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs was held in Brussels (December 13 – 14, 2007).
INPUD member Milena Naydenova attended the Forum on behalf of INPUD-Europe.
The document below is based on the information provided by Milena Naydenova. It presents an analysis and report on the EU Forum on Drugs in 5 parts. Although each part is published under a separate link, all of them should be considered as different chapters of one and the same document.
Part 1.
The events that preceded the 1st Civil Society Forum on Drugs (January 2006 - December 2007)
Part 2.
INPUD initial exclusion and follow-up inclusion in the ForumThe People Who Use Drugs acknowledged as a stake-holder in the drugs - policy debate
Part 3.
The EU Institutions, the EU legislation papers on Drugs, power balance between the EU Institutions, and some consequent conclusions
Part 4.
Theory and practice: 1st Civil Society Forum on Drugs, the role of INPUD, and the possibilities of the Forum
Part 5.
Summarized information about the way the Forum was held
1. The events that preceded the 1st Civil Society Forum on Drugs (January 2006 – December 2007)
Click to read the (his)story.
2. INPUD initial exclusion and follow-up inclusion in the Forum
The People Who Use Drugs acknowledged as a stake-holder in the drugs - policy debate
INPUD members are People Who Use Drugs, organizations of People Who Use Drugs, supportive individuals and organizations – partners and ally of the People Who Use Drugs. INPUD-Europe is the European department of the International Network of the People Who Use Drugs.
Many of the present INPUD-Europe activists, who participated in the events that preceded the Forum, were ENCOD members. All of them were known by the EC as ENCOD members. Their work had also contributed to the nowadays image of ENCOD, especially at EU level.
INPUD activists have no objective reasons to distrust the unofficial information that the EC considers the initial exclusion of the People Who Use Drugs from the Forum as inner ENCOD problem. INPUD was legitimately registered in July 2007 - one month before we applied for the Forum. Regardless our personal activities, the EC neglected the newly registered INPUD and invited two ENCOD members. In our opinion the EC expected that ENCOD participants would also represent the People Who Use Drugs at the Forum.
Despite our past cooperation, ENCOD did not acknowledge explicitly the need of a Drugs Users' representative at the Forum on Drugs. ENCOD position before, during and after the Forum was that the DU organizations are “one among many important stakeholders” excluded from the debate. Consequently ENCOD did not undertake any specific action for the inclusion of the People Who Use Drugs.
The participation of the People Who Use Drugs in the Civil Society Forum on Drugs was made possible by the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN). The EHRN gave to INPUD one of the two slots they had for the Forum, as initially INPUD - EHRN agreed that INPUD participant will speak as a representative of the People Who Use Drugs. This agreement made INPUD an independent full-right member of the first Forum on Drugs for 2008 and 2009. In the end of the period a new call for applications will be announced by the EC and a new experts' team will be selected for the next Forum.
At present, from a broader perspective, INPUD-Europe activists recognize the EC's right to exclude INPUD. INPUD-Europe activists also acknowledge that the EC left enough room for follow-up cooperation and respected our and our partners' demands.
In connection, we thank to all anti-prohibitionists pro-harm reduction organizations that supported us world-wide and made our voice heard when the People Who Use Drugs were initially excluded from the Forum. We also thank to EHRN for offering us one of their two slots and to the EC for their professional and mutual beneficial decision to accept INPUD-Europe as a full right member of the Forum.
3. The EU Institutions, the EU legislation papers on Drugs, power balance between the EU Institutions, and some consequent conclusions
The EU Institutions in charge of the EU drugs policy:
The Council of the European Union: The Council of the EU is the main decision-making body at EU level. The ministers of the EU member-states form the Council of the EU.
The Horizontal Drugs Group (HDG) is one of the working groups of the Council of the European Union. The group is formed by representatives of the EU member states. The HDG facilitates and mediates the joint work of the EU Council / the Member States and the European Commission.
The European Commission (EC) is the main coordinating body of the EU.
The EU Institutions' authorities
The EC is independent from the EU member-states and works only at EU level.
The EC is authorized to make proposals for amendments, to give recommendations, to writes reports on the progress of the EU member-states, etc.
The documents developed by the EC are recommendatory.
The EC is the one that drafts first the EU Strategy on Drugs and the EU Action Plan on Drugs.
The EC delivers the draft to the Horizontal Drugs Group.
The HDG reviews the draft, developed by the EC, makes amendments and presents the new proposal to the Council of the European Union for voting.
After a review and possible new amendments, the EU Council adopts the proposal of the HDG.
The EU legislation papers on Drugs
The EU Strategy On Drugs (2005 - 20012) and the EU Action Plan On Drugs (2005 – 2008; 2009 – 2012) are the main legislation papers in the EU policies on Drugs..
The EU Strategy on Drugs
The EU Strategy on Drugs is based on the fundamental principles: respect for human rights and dignity, liberty, democracy, equality and solidarity. As a consequence of these principles the EU demands a health approach to the drugs problems and appoints priority areas: demand reduction, supply reduction and the cross-cutting international cooperation and research and information.
The Strategy only sets the framework, the overall objectives, and the priority areas. Its practical implementation is provided by the EU Action Plan.
The EU Action Plan on Drugs
The EU Action Plan on Drugs focuses on concrete objectives in the priority areas, outlines concrete tasks and actions, and appoints concrete assessment tools and operational indicators for measuring the progress of the EU member-states.
Both, the Strategy and the Action Plan, have a recommendatory character and aim mainly at providing added EU traditional values to the national Strategies on Drugs of the EU member-states. Within the frameworks of the Strategy and the Action Plan, the EU member-states are free to enact any laws, legislations, and policies on drugs, they find appropriate.
Still, the national authorities in the area of drugs are obliged to provide to the EC annual reports on their progress. In regards with the received data, the EC makes progress-evaluation reports, recommendations, proposals, draft the EU legislation papers, proposes amendments to the EU Action Plan, etc.
Power balance and conflicts between the EU Institutions
The HDG is a working group of the Council of the EU. The members of the HDG have much better political interests to protect their national governments' political freedom, than to support the EC.
The national governments are obliged to report at a regular base to the EC on their work and progress. The EC analyzes the national governments progress, makes progress-evaluation report for national level, and if weak points in the EU legislation papers are revealed, the EC recommends amendments to enable improvements at EU level. The EC proposals have to be approved by the HDG and adopted by the EU Council.
If the EC recommends better tools to monitor the work at national level, and the EC proposal is adopted, then the EC will gain a powerful weapon to control and influence the national governments. The HDG is not willing to reduce the political independence of their governments and will not accept such proposal. And if the HDG delivers the proposal to be voted by the EU Council, the EU member-states' ministers in the area will never empower the EC against their national governments by voting it.
The EC could partly counter-weigh to the national government by involving the Civil Society as a stake-holder in the EU drugs–policy debate.
The EU Civil Society Forum on Drugs should be considered as the first attempt of the EC to change the status-quo.
The EC will be less dependent on the official data reported by the national governments, if the experts' team of the Forum can provide the EC with an accurate data, monitored at national level.
Through adequate recommendations and accurate monitored data, the Forum members may enable the EC strengthen the control at national level and pursue the EU member-states improve their work.
Increased influence of the EC at local level also means increased influence of the EC at inner EU level. Despite the differences in their narrow personal interests, the close cooperation between the EC and the Civil Society may be mutual beneficial.
Conclusions:
The EC needs accurate information to evaluate the work of the EU member-states' national governments. The EU member-states national governments provide the information to the EC for the EC progress-evaluation reports. The EU member-states will never provide willingly information that will result in a negative report. The monitored data of the Civil Society may be used by the EC as a control indicator of the accuracy of the official data.
There is a conflict of interest in EU drugs policy making process. The involvement of the Civil Society in the drugs-policy debate can partially restore the balance in the powers at EU level.
At the moment the EC is pressed by the Civil Society demands to amend the EU legislation papers in a way that will ensure practical improvements. Such changes will also be beneficial for the EC. These changes will substantially reduce the political independence of the national governments (that also form the EU legislation bodies). Only the cooperation of the Civil Society with the EC may bring such changes, if the both sides put coordinated pressure on the national governments on both national and EU level.
4. Theory and practice:
1st Civil Society Forum on Drugs, the role of INPUD, and the possibilities of the Forum
2008-2012
The current EU Strategy on Drugs is valid until 2012. The current Action Plan, 2005-2008 has three years to secure the implementation of the Strategy and one year – 2008 – when the progress at both national and EU level will be evaluated and the next Action Plan (2009 - 2012) will be developed and adopted.
The Forum should be regarded as an event with historical importance. As such, practical changes, influenced by our work at the Forum, would be possible in years. Consequently, for the coming years our main goal will be to establish as traditions:
The participation of the People Who Use Drugs as a full-right member in the experts' team;
The recognition of the People Who Use Drugs as an important stake-holder in the drugs-policy debate;
The acknowledgment of the People Who Use Drugs as an equal reliable partner.
At each meeting of the Forum, we will also make sure that the recommendations for amendments in the EU legislation papers that might enable our peers advocate for more effective drugs policies at national level are included in the final outcomes.
Qualitative vs Quantitative
The current EU Action Plan contains almost 100 different objectives and at least twice more concrete tasks for the EU member states to achieve.
The assessment tools and indicators the EU Action Plan appoints are mainly (if not all) quantitative.
Practical example: the EU member-states report on their progress in prevention by quoting only the number of the implemented prevention programs. This allows the EU member-states' governments to report highest efficiency without even being aware of the practical results of their policy. More over, reporting on the efficiency and the sustainability of the programs appears to be non-beneficial and therefore is neglected.
The current quantitative indicators, set by the Action Plan, make the objective progress-evaluation reports of the EC impossible. Consequently, through the EU Council, the EU member states will work against including qualitative indicators in the EU Action Plans.
The qualitative indicators may also empower the Civil Society Organizations, working at local and national level. Apart from a more objective progress-evaluation, the qualitative indicators may also provide a reliable advocacy information. INPUD first recommendation to the EC as a Forum-member is to persist in proposing qualitative indicators as amendments to the Action Plan.
Concrete
The Drug Users' Community is not mentioned at all in the current Action Plan. Therefore, our topmost priority is to start with aggressive evidence-based advocacy for separating the Drugs Users as an important stake-holder in the implementation of the national policies on drugs. No improvements in the area are possible until our needs, opinion, and evaluation of the results are not taken into consideration.
Once the need for cooperation between the decision-makers, the professionals/service providers, and the DU Community is acknowledged and officially recommended, INPUD can start working for adopting the changes that will enable practical improvements in the national policies on drugs.
The current Action Plan sets framework of well defined objectives but a wrong approach to their implementation and progress reports. The very first change INPUD will advocate for will aim mainly at directing the EU drugs policies to the correct starting point. As a practical change this means to replace “the number of the programs implemented” - the main evaluation tool in the current Action Plan - with the appointed below set of indicators. This will secure the implementation of the most effective and efficient treatment and harm reduction programs, in regards with the realistic possibilities the UN Conventions on Narcotic Drugs allow.
The set of indicators should oblige the governments to report also on:
Needs assessment – If needs of the clients and the best solutions are not carefully studied and evaluated the new program is doomed to failure and from the very beginning it is a waste of money and time. More over, the implementation of effective programs is often impossible because few other programs already work, although inefficiently, in the area.
Equal access to the program, secure coverage of the hidden populations and marginalized groups, work in direction of capacity building – to enable sustainability each one of these aspects should be considered when a program is to be opened.
Impact over the estimated curves of the patterns and types of drugs use, of blood born diseases' transmissions, etc, e.g. back up information from the community regarding the practical results of the program – as obvious, the only objective evaluation of the implemented programs is their practical results in the DU community and the information for that can be given only by the people from the community.
The number of the programs – If all recommended above is taken into consideration, the number of the programs in the area is also important indicator. Still, if the governments are requested to report annually on the number of the implemented programs, their most beneficial approach is each year to open as many programs as possible and disregard their sustainability. If the indicator differentiates two different categories – the number of the newly implemented programs together with the number of the previously opened and still operating programs, before opening a new program, the governments will have to evaluate in details the needs, to provide high efficiency, cost effectiveness, and the capacity-building in order to ensure the sustainability of the newly opened program. Thus will redirect the focus from opening unnecessary programs to the aggregate effectiveness of the programs – a fundamental condition for improvements in the national policies on drugs.
As said, if the above appointed recommendations are adopted as amendments to the Action Plan, the EU policies on drugs will be placed at a right starting point. Meanwhile, radical changes and substantial improvements at national level will be enabled. Inevitably new, unforeseen at present, problems and obstacles will occur. INPUD long term advocacy goals might be determined only when the first practical results are analyzed and evaluated.
5. Summarized information about the way the Forum was held.
The 1st EU Civil Society Forum On Drugs took place in Brussels, on December 13 – 14, 2007. The agenda was proposed by the EC and consisted in resume of the following panels:
Registration; Opening and Introduction (the EC); Brief Presentation Of the Participants (tour de table)
Presentations (the EC):
Progress Review Of the EU Action Plan On Drugs;
Recommendation On Drugs And Prisons
Information About the Grant Programme On Drug Prevention, That Is To Be Launched In January 2008
Workshops Introduction (the EC)
Progress Review Of the EU Action Plan On Drugs;
Recommendation On Drugs And Prisons
Workshops
Closing pannel
Presentations From the Workshops And Discussion
Conclusions and next steps
The opening was made by the chair and moderator of the Forum - Mr. Carel Edwards. He started with a short introduction to the main aspects of the Forum – forming the team, the input the EC needs from the experts, the authority of the EC, the realistic possibilities for influencing practical changes, etc. After the short representation of the participants the EC presented:
Progress Review Of the EU Action Plan On Drugs – the EC presented their view on the current EU policies on drugs – accomplishments, achievements, failures, objective obstacles, expert's recommendations and input needed to influence improvements. The focus was on the EU Action Plan On Drugs which implementation is to be evaluated by the EC during 2008 as meanwhile a proposal for the next Action Plan has to be developed and presented to the HDG.
Recommendation On Drugs And Prisons – the EU still has not adopted any official documents to ensure regulations at EU level in the area. The presentation focused on the EC evaluation of the current situation and the recommendations, the EC found important to be considered, when the EU regulation papers on drugs and prisons are developed.
Information About the Grant Programme On Drug Prevention, That Is To Be Launched In January 2008 – the last presentation was only informative, as the possibilities of the new grant program of the EC were reviewed.
In the introduction of the workshops the EC set concrete requirements about the input they will need. The expert team was asked to focus on revealing the weak points in the presented documents (the EU Action Plan on Drugs and the EC recommendations on drugs and prisons) and make recommendations for amendments.
INPUD representative Milena Naydenova chose to work on the EU Action Plan. Since the very beginning of the workshop the cooperation between the supporters of the harm-reduction and the prohibition was not possible. To secure the experts' recommendations from all possible views and approaches the representatives of the EC, who hosted the meeting without moderating it and directing the discussions offered the team to split again to two working subgroups.
Till the closing session the event was focused on the analysis of a part of the EU Action Plan and the recommendations that can enable a more effective implementation of the EU Strategy at national level.
During the closing session the recommendations of the three working groups were presented and discussed. The EC took the responsibility to accomplish and email to the members of the Forum the summarized outcomes and to organize the next meeting of the Forum in three months. Meanwhile the participants should inform the members of their organizations about the event as the EC promised to take into consideration all email remarks and comments sent by the participants after the event.
Stijn Goossens
Executive Director
International Network Of People Who Use Drugs
email: Stijn@INPUD.org
website: www.INPUD.org
WWW.HaRdCOREhARMREdUCER.BE
DrugWarLog
ArtCoreFromTheHardCore
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](http://hardcoreharmreducer.be/picture%20library/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
