Dialogue organised with the European Policy Centre

European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, António Vitorino, delivered the opening address at the European Policy Centre Dialogue: “European Drug Policy on the Brink of Change,” which took place on the 5th of February 2004.

Commissioner Vitorino’s speech was followed by presentations from an expert panel comprising Mr. Raymond Kendall, Former Secretary General of Interpol, Mr. Petr Mares, Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Dr. Vladimir Poznyak, Coordinator of the Management of Substance Dependence Team, World Health Organisation (WHO), and Professor Brice De Ruyver of Ghent University’s Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy. Dr. Susan Stern, Special Advisor to the Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue, acted as moderator for the panel. The panel discussion was followed by a question and answer session.

This is not an official record of the proceedings and specific remarks are not necessarily attributable.

A “complex and controversial subject”

The Managing Director of the King Baudouin Foundation, Baron Tayart de Borms introduced the Dialogue, following a welcoming speech given by Mr. Hans Martens, Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre. Baron Tayart des Borms underlined that Europe has an important role to play in the debate on global drug policy and expressed his conviction that the future of drug policy lies in a common European voice. He added that drug policy is a “complex and controversial subject,” and that “there is a need for a pragmatic dialogue on a European level.”

Opening Speech by Commissioner António Vitorino

Commissioner Vitorino reinforced these points. The task facing policy-makers is complex “because the problem itself is complex and multi-faceted.” Illegal drug consumption patterns vary significantly between different EU Member States, as do regulatory regimes, and the opportunities for action at the European level are limited by the fact that primary responsibility for tackling illegal drugs lies at the national level. This, however, should not discourage action at the European level.

All Member States are committed to the 2000-2004 European Union Action Plan on drugs. This creates a common framework for the evaluation of drug problems in Europe, setting six main targets for the European Union and lists approximately 100 specific actions for implementation by the end of 2004. Commissioner Vitorino highlighted the adoption by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November 2003 of a Framework Decision on drug trafficking. This recognises that trafficking of illegal drugs often involves several Member States and that effective cooperation coordinated at EU level is therefore critical.

Commissioner Vitorino also summarised other areas of EU level activity:

• Preparing for EU enlargement by developing institutional capacities for coordinated drug policies and improving enforcement capability, by means of the PHARE programme, which deals with both law enforcement and demand reduction.
• EU actions in the field of public health, which relate to the drug issue.
• Improving coordination within the EU so that the Union can act more effectively at an international level.
• Coordinating and evaluating the drug problem across the EU and raising awareness.

Responding to new trends in both drug consumption and production calls for effective information collection and information exchange, but also for coordination of policies of prevention, risk reduction and control.

Whilst the EU core-principles of subsidiarity and proportionality have to be respected, action at the EU level must complement action at the national, regional and even local level. Sharing and evaluating best practices within the EU is a promising way forward.

“We can only reinforce European identity and boost the Union’s presence and profile on the international scene through genuine European co-ordination.”

He concluded by saying that the Commission would present the results of the final evaluation of the EU Action Plan on drugs by the end of 2004, noting that “we have started the process of defining key indicators and tools that in the future may act as quality standards in adopting new strategies and policies.” This will form the foundation of an effective policy at EU level, and he noted that the EPC-Senlis Council Dialogue would be a contribution to this goal.

Commissioner Vitorino ended his speech with these words: “Tackling drugs is and will […] remain a top priority of the European Union.”

Repression versus public health concerns

After introducing the panel presentations and the discussion, Dr. Susan Stern described The Senlis Council as an organisation dedicated to dialogue on drug related issues, an area in which dialogue and discussion are lacking. She added that the present debate was an antecedent to the United Nations’ 47th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which will take place in Vienna in March 2004. In relation to this and the central strategic issue for drug policy - whether to pursue a repressive approach or view the problem as a public health issue – Dr. Stern was unequivocal, saying “the United Nations agenda has been hijacked by the Americans. The Americans believe that if you throw everyone in jail you solve the problem. The EU meanwhile is putting a huge amount of money into international drug policy - far more than anybody else - so why isn’t the EU having more of a say?”

The answer to this question, she continued, is that there is a lack of agreement between countries and even between regions in the EU. “Agreeing on trafficking is relatively easy but other issues like harm reduction are much harder,” she said.

Diversity of practices and experience in Europe and their impact on the international level

Raymond Kendall, Former Secretary General of Interpol, started off by clarifying the goals of The Senlis Council, by saying that it is not a “cover-up” for pro-drug or pro-legalisation, but rather a group of dedicated people who consider that there is a need for change in international drug policy. He commented that at the moment international drug policy is “in a rut”, and that The Senlis Council’s main objective is to generate new ideas and initiatives. Kendall commended Commissioner Vitorino on creating a basis for united and more decisive EU action on drug policy, but also sounded a note of caution - that the results of this are yet to be seen.

Some positive indications, however, may come out of the forthcoming Vienna United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, where the EU will be represented by a single delegation. Prior to the Commission the EU member states will have a special meeting about what their common position will be in certain issues. In the past, the EU has generally ‘aligned with the US’ on drug policy, but now, Mr. Kendall noted, “There is a clear indication in Europe that there is a change in policy away from the repressive law enforcement attitude towards one which looks at the drug user as a person who has a problem and needs assistance.”

The Senlis Council strongly endorses this latter approach, believing that drug abuse should be dealt with as a social and public health issue, and that the EU has an opportunity to develop this strategy at the Vienna meeting. This, Mr. Kendall commented, “is a question of attitudes but also a question of money.” At present, however, he noted “most of the money is spent on law enforcement projects.”

He went on to say, “this is one of the things we would take issue with” and concluded with a call for more civil society involvement at the policy level to help develop a more effective education and prevention-focused approach to the drug problem, in contrast to a heavy-handed repressive approach.

Moreover, as a law enforcement officer, Mr. Kendall said he “would rather spend his time on the important issues of international organised crime and general criminality than dealing with people who have a problem with drug use”.

Considering the enormous amounts of money the EU contributes to the UN, Mr. Kendall urged the EU member states to openly take a stance on these issues and demand a higher priority in terms of policy matters. They should follow and promote the policies they are already implementing or trying to implement in Europe. Lastly, the member states of the EU should know whether their money is spent efficiently and on projects which are giving results. This demands thorough evaluation of UN projects and policies. Mr. Kendall concluded by saying that respect of the individual and human rights should be included in whatever type of law we are trying to apply.

The need for a uniform and pragmatic European drug policy

Professor Brice De Ruyver, Professor in Criminology at the Ghent University and Expert Advisor to the Belgian Prime Minister on drug related issues, underlined the need for the “development of a more uniform, pragmatic EU policy” based on public health policy. He supported this argument with three observations:

• Changes in the phenomenon of drug use necessitate a more practical and multidimensional approach. EU countries, he said, are now aware that “intensive use of drugs is a reality in our society.”
• In an increasing number of countries, public health concerns are driving drug policy development. Professor De Ruyver raised the issue of HIV infection in this respect, noting its link to drug use. This, he said, meant a need for ‘harm reduction’ strategies.
• Developments in criminal justice policy have changed the attitude of states towards drugs.

Overloaded court and prison systems, he said, “demonstrate that the traditional criminal sanction system has reached its limits.”

These factors mean that in the field, approaches to the drug problem are changing. Treatment, counselling and social re-integration are being emphasised across the EU. The focus has become public health and social welfare. However, Professor De Ruyver noted a significant difference between the current and future EU Member States. The latter, lacking in many cases the social welfare systems of the current EU, emphasise in their drug policy “the fight against the supply of drugs.”

“The EU drug policy derives its success from the strength of its social preconditions and its social systems. Throughout the years, it has become clear that evidence-based drug policy and evaluation must be an integral part of the EU approach towards licit and illicit drugs.” However, despite of the success of EU drug policies, Professor De Ruyver noted that there is still a lot to be done:

“The development of an integrated drug policy and evaluation of policy requires more than information on epidemiology and more than the development and evaluation of prevention and treatment strategies. The strength and surplus-value of a truly integrated drug policy lies within the evaluation of a drug policy that goes beyond prevention, treatment and law enforcement as such. In other words, an EU drug policy and strategy aimed at developing a cross-pillar approach of the drug problem […] that reinforces the uniform pragmatic approach developed by regions and countries within the EU.”

Professor De Ruyver concluded by saying that “it is of the utmost importance that the EU as a whole can make a difference on the global policy as outlined by the United Nations.”

The experience of the Czech Republic

Mr. Petr Mares, Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic reinforced Professor De Ruyver’s views. Mr. Mares is responsible for formulating, implementing and coordinating drug policy in the Czech Republic. He noted that in the mid-1990s, Czech drug policy was “developed on the basis of experts’ opinions and estimates rather than on complex data.” This “gave room for a lot of moral panic,” and it was generally assumed that drug use was rising dramatically. Consequently, heavily prohibitionist laws were introduced in 1999.

However, the new laws were accompanied by serious research into the drugs issue. It was found that repressive measures did not lead to an improvement in the situation. In some cases, in fact, they made it worse; resulting in a more systematically organised illegal drugs market.

Subsequently, said Mr. Mares, “the government decided to officially differentiate between drugs with various potential health and social risks [and] from 2001 we proposed to relax the punitive approach towards the possession of cannabis for personal use.” The current Czech approach, Mr. Mares summarised, is as follows: “On the one hand the reduction of potential risks and adverse consequences of drug use, while on the other […] the prosecution of organised crime involved in drug trafficking. There is no desire to punish drug users.” Mr. Mares strongly believes that “drug policy should be realistic and its overall aim should be prevention and minimisation of potential health and social risks for individuals and society.”

Mr. Mares finished by endorsing the idea that the EU should definitely play a greater role at UN level. “The Czech Republic will do its best to help the EU fulfil this role,” he said.

Health consequences of licit and illicit drug use, World Health Organisation

Dr. Vladimir Poznyak, Coordinator of the Management of Substance Dependence Team, World Health Organisation noted that the consequences of substance abuse were ‘dramatic.’ He also commented that “consumption of licit substances creates a bigger problem globally, thus attacks on illicit substances should be proportionate.” “The tobacco epidemic claims 4.9 million lives each year, constituting the single largest preventable cause of death worldwide.”

He outlined the scale of the problem by noting that illicit drugs cause 1.2 million deaths annually, according to WHO studies. He also commented on the dangers of injecting drugs: there are 10 million drug users worldwide injecting. In Western Europe 10% of HIV cases are caused by needle sharing, whilst in some other countries, such as Russia and the Baltic states, the comparable proportion is 50 to 75%.

In the context of the alarming HIV/AIDS epidemic, Dr. Poznyak said that “people with substance dependence and HIV/AIDS should have equal access to HIV/AIDS medical care, which requires better integration [within the EU] and the linking of treatment services.” From the WHO perspective, “substance dependence is a health disorder,” he said. “There is a need to integrate drug dependence treatment into the overall healthcare system and to increase the capacity of treatment. People with substance dependence should have access to treatment.”

“The nature of substance dependence […] requires an integrated public health approach to the problem, which comprises an epidemiology, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and integration into society.”

He concluded by saying, “Incarcerating drug dependent people for drug use in their dependence is not an effective treatment and prevention strategy.” Therefore, “a comprehensive public health approach, aimed at reducing substance abuse related risks, should be an important and prominent component of drug policies.”

“Dealing” with America

The first question was asked by Robert Lessmann, an independent consultant from Austria: What should Europe do to best work with America, previously identified as holding back the development of drug policy through repressive policies? Raymond Kendall responded by saying that the complex political structure at the European level “rarely permits the possibility of a unified approach to anything, let alone drugs.” Reaching a uniform position, he commented, was an essential first step in ‘dealing with’ America. He also noted that two powerful lobbies target the European Commission: the American lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby. “It’s clear that these are extremely powerful lobbies,” he said, “and unless you are prepared and well organised to deal with that you are not going to achieve anything.” He concluded that it was necessary to agree on a strategy and stick with it. “It is a question of the working structures of the Union,” he said.

Professor De Ruyver backed up Mr Kendall’s argument, and noted that the postponed discussion over the future of Europe is a key factor. This needed to be effectively resolved, he said, or it would be left to the Member States to carry on doing “too little.”

Mr. Mares had a different view. He said, “The question is not ‘what are we going to do with the United States?’ They will not change in the near future. Drug policy is not an issue in the US Presidential campaigns. We do not have any measures to make them change, so let us concentrate on ourselves and our resources, where there is still a lot to do.”

Criminal Justice System capacity

The next question, asked by Brian Beary, Journalist for European Report, concerned the details of the recent developments in the criminal justice systems of EU Member States, and whether or not various member states were moving in a harmonious direction in terms of criminal justice systems. The question was addressed to Professor De Ruyver, who replied: “There is a serious gap between what is happening in practice and what’s said in theory. The reality of the criminal justice systems in all Member States is that practical considerations take the lead. However, with those people that have a drug problem, most of the Member States agree that it is not in prison that you will solve that problem,” he said. However, he commented, though this was often recognised, there has to be capacity for treatment and solid alternative approaches, and this is not always available. According to him, the main question is: “Do we have enough capacity to take the drug issue from the law enforcement system into the health care circuit?”

Eberhard Rhein, EPC Senior Policy Advisor, reinforced one of the points made earlier during the panel presentations: that licit drugs present a greater health problem than illicit drugs. He also pointed out that the European Commission does have competence to act in the field of drugs as it has competence in the health field, and is therefore in a position to make proposals. The next Health Commissioner, he hoped, would be able to drive forward the agenda in this respect. Member States are often blamed for not finding common positions, but in fact it has been shown - for example by Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy - that strong Commission leadership can produce results.

Marco Cappato, MEP, called for consideration of the EU’s role up to the current time. He said that the EU had “reinforced mechanisms of European repression, through Europol and Eurojust” and created “a sort of harmonisation for the worst.” He questioned the idea of the benefits of a common European position on drug policy. “We risk that the most tolerant approach will be de facto prohibitive,” he said. “The EU has much less power in the area of public health.”

EU power and competence

Raymond Kendall answered this by saying in some cases within the EU the powers and competences of different institutions are not always clear. “Europol has a role which comes under a group of ministers under the first pillar,” he said, “but some of the organised crime issues dealt with by Eurojust are under the third pillar, plus fraud and organised crime under the third pillar, which is the responsibility of the Commission. It is a structure which is not conducive to a coherent approach with too many cooks that spoil the broth.” It looks that action within the EU is often much less concerted than it is driven by circumstance, as we also have seen with corruption, where improvements were only seen after huge scandals were revealed. However, he said, “that doesn’t mean we have to stop trying to make things better.”

The Deputy Secretary-General of the World Customs Organisation, Mr. Kunio Mikuriya, argued that since 70 to 80 percent of drugs are intercepted at borders, the EU should focus more on its external borders. This aspect of the drug problem, immediately points to the fact that the EU as a whole should play a larger role. However, customs cooperation is often not very developed or successful between member states and between different agencies. The main problems seem to be a lack of a clear legal framework and budget that has not been allocated in the right way.

Frederik Polak, from The Netherlands, commented on how the idea of the ‘fight against drugs’ was used by European governments without any critical analysis of its meaning and impacts. He complimented the research undertaken by the Czech government and expressed the hope that the EU would follow suit. Ambassador Jan van der Tas, from The Netherlands, complimented the Czech government for its approach, suggesting that the EU may have something to learn from them, but he disagreed with Petr Mares’ earlier comments concerning the inability of the EU to influence American policy. “The Americans are too important to be left alone,” he said, “we have to talk to them all the time.”

Keep the debate going

Dr. Susan Stern closed the Dialogue by thanking the speakers and participants for “putting a situation which is enormously complex in to perspective. That is exactly what we want for keeping the debate going, and we intend to keep the debate going […] because we have no answers. There are no final answers. We have directions, but we do need to keep talking, as the situation won’t go away and god knows it is serious.”

She finished by announcing the launch of the latest Senlis Council book Global Drug Policy: Building a New Framework, a compilation of the speeches given at the Lisbon International Symposium on Global Drug Policy, which took place in October 2003. The book is intended as a reference for both policy makers around the world and all those working towards a more realistic and effective global drug policy.

Award Ceremony for the International Federation of Journalists “Europe Prize”
Rewarding excellence in reporting European and global drug issues
Sponsored by the European Mercator Fund

A European community of shared values

Raymond Georis, Managing Director of the Network of European Foundations (NEF) opened the Prize Ceremony for the Europe Prize, Journalism for a Changing World, which in its 2003 edition rewarded excellence in reporting European and global drug issues. He spoke of Europe and the “great effort to build a European society, sharing a common sense of compassion, humanity and culture. The ability to freely disseminate ideas, as well as the construction of a European community of shared values”. He added that “the ability for both these elements to be brought together was already illustrated earlier today during the European Policy Centre dialogue on Drug Policy”.

The “added value” of Europe

Pat Cox, President of the European Parliament, who presented the Prize, commented that the occasion was of particular significance to him as a former journalist. Journalists play an important role by reporting on drug related issues: cutting through policy complexity, they make it more transparent and comprehensible for people who are not experts. In this regard, Europe has an obvious “added-value”.

An urgent need for clarity in drug issues

Aidan White, General Secretary of the IFJ in Brussels, reflected on the Dialogue on European Drug Policy and noted that it had shown that there is an urgent need for clarity in drug issues, as communities around the world may be confused about the right way to move forward in dealing with the important issue of drugs. The role of journalism is to communicate in simple terms the complexity of the argument and what people need to know, not only about their own lives, but also about politics and the way to influence political decisions.

Excellence on reporting on drug issues

The winner of the 2003 Europe Prize, Nick Davies, is a journalist for The Guardian. His article “How Britain has lost the War against Drugs”, deals with the consequences of the “bureaucratic” management of drug use and abuse in Britain. On receiving the Prize, he commented that repressive drugs laws were a complete failure and a waste of time and money. According to Davies, the only way to win the war against drugs is to abandon it, legalise all drugs, thus making them safe for the people who use them and making for a safer community.

Julia Gayday, runner-up from the Ukraine, wrote an article called “Infant Face of Drug Dependence” published in the Evening News, which portrayed the lives of two Ukrainian teenagers, who suffered severe consequences after using home-made drugs.

Wolfgang Metzer, runner-up from Germany, wrote an article called “Generation Hasch - Voll Grass” published in Stern, which takes a relaxed approach to the issue of consumption of cannabis, but without neglecting its potential dangers.