Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004) - Main contents

EN

Brussels, 22.10.2004

COM(2004)707 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the results of the final evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)

• 1. 

  The EU Drugs Strategy and the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)

In 1999, the Commission presented a Communication on a European Union Action Plan to Combat Drugs (2000 – 2004)¹. Based on this the Helsinki European Council endorsed the EU Strategy on Drugs for 2000-2004². The Strategy calls for a multidisciplinary and integrated approach to drugs where drug demand and supply reduction are seen as equally important and mutually reinforcing parts of a balanced strategy.

In June 2000, the Feira European Council adopted the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2000-2004³. This Action Plan translated the EU Drugs Strategy into approximately one hundred concrete actions to be taken by the Member States, the Commission, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol.

The Action Plan states that the Commission should organise appropriate evaluations at mid-term and upon completion of the EU Drugs Strategy 2000-2004. In November 2002 the Commission presented a Communication on the mid-term evaluation⁴.

This Communication presents the results of the final evaluation and lays the foundation for the future evolution of EU drugs policy on the basis of the lessons learnt from the implementation of current policy.

• 2. 

  Aim and process of the final evaluation

2.1. Aim

The aim of the final evaluation is to assess the level of achievement of the activities set out in the Action Plan, to assess the extent to which this meets the objectives of the Drugs Strategy and to assess the impact of both the Drugs Strategy and the Action Plan on the drug situation in the European Union.

Drug policy impact evaluation is still developing and the lack of precise and quantifiable operational objectives in the present Drugs Strategy and Action Plan does not make the task simple. However, the process of impact evaluation and of defining key indicators and tools that in the future may serve as quality standards for adopting new strategies and policies has started.

2.2. Process

This evaluation commenced in April 2003 with the establishment of a steering group (comprised of representatives of the Commission, the four Member States having the Presidency during 2003-2004, the EMCDDA and Europol) to oversee and provide guidance in relation to the final evaluation. This group has met on four occasions to determine the evaluation tools and methods and to monitor the process.

In November 2003 a questionnaire was sent to the then Member States⁵ to obtain details of actions in the Action Plan implemented by them (Annex 1). A similar follow up table was sent to the relevant Commission services, the EMCDDA and Europol (Annex 2).

A series of thematic papers were prepared by the EMCDDA and the Commission focusing on particular aspects of the drugs issue⁶. The EMCDDA together with Europol developed a statistical snapshot which contains core data on the drugs situation in 1999 and in 2002-2003⁷.

A Eurobarometer survey was carried out in April/May 2004 on the attitudes/perceptions of young people to drugs⁸. The main results obtained are compared with the results of a similar survey conducted in 2002. In addition, the final report on Law enforcement and its role in fighting drug trafficking⁹, the implementation plans regarding the supply of synthetic drugs¹⁰ and on demand and supply reduction¹¹, the report approved by the Council on progress in their implementation¹² and other initiatives taken (Annex 3) were taken into account.

The data taken from the various sources was analysed to highlight the main achievements over the period and to highlight areas where further progress is needed. It was also used to assess the level of achievement of the activities set out in the Action Plan and to assess the extent to which achievement of the Action Plan met the objectives of the Drugs Strategy. The statistical snapshot provides the basis for the assessment of the impact of the Drug Strategy and Action Plan on the drug situation. The data provided for the final evaluation ranges over the period 1999 to June 2004.

• 3. 

  MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND AREAS WHERE FURTHER PROGRESS IS NEEDED

3.1. Coordination

Achievements at national level

• - 

  Since 1999, more developed national drugs strategies have been adopted by Member States. Most of them cover the entire range of drug-related activities.

• - 

  The awareness among Member States of the need of a multidisciplinary coordination in the field of drugs has increased. All Member States acknowledge that it is an essential element of drugs policy, even if there is no single definition of the term ‘coordination’.

Areas where further progress is needed at national level

• - 

  National drugs coordination needs to be extended to all areas of drugs policy, including regular consultation with civil society.

• - 

  More prior coordination at national level (e.g. between public health, justice and home affairs, external relations and budget authorities) would be helpful to delegations in articulating their positions within the Council.

Achievements at EU level

• - 

  Since the adoption of the Action Plan, meetings of the national drugs coordinators have taken place twice a year.

• - 

  The Commission issued a Communication on drugs coordination in 2003. A paper with the views of the Horizontal Drugs Group on the Communication has been discussed.

Areas where further progress is needed at EU level

• - 

  Adequate follow-up of the Commission Communication on drugs coordination has to be ensured. The meetings of the national coordinators should be more focused on specific issues.

• - 

  The Commission should strengthen and streamline its internal coordination mechanisms: a more visible and operational coordination of all the services involved in the drugs dossier is required. Its structural links with the EMCDDA should continue.

• - 

  There is no clear division of responsibilities among the Council working groups dealing with drug issues. The Horizontal Drugs Group should have overall responsibility for co-ordination of the work of the different groups on drug issues.

• - 

  Civil society has not been regularly consulted in the formulation of EU policy on drugs and such consultation should become a regular feature. This will be the subject of a Commission Communication in 2005.

3.2. Information and evaluation

Achievements at national level

• - 

  The availability and the quality of the data on the drug situation have improved in most Member States, as has the political support necessary for specific information and evaluation activities.

• - 

  All Member States have agreed to apply the five key epidemiological indicators¹³ and to provide comparable and consolidated data.

• - 

  Some Member States have progressed on the development of tools for the regular assessment of the effectiveness of their actions in the field of drugs.

Areas where further progress is needed at national level

• - 

  The systematic monitoring of the implementation of national drugs strategies/action plans should be improved. Progress is also needed to ensure regular assessment of their implementation.

• - 

  Member States should pursue efforts towards full implementation of the epidemiological indicators.

• - 

  The provision of information on public expenditure in the field of drugs and the analysis of the cost-effectiveness ratio of policies need further improvement.

Achievements at EU level

• - 

  The availability and quality of data and information on the drug situation have been improved mainly through the work of the EMCDDA and the National Focal Points.

• - 

  The final evaluation process has led to the development of key methodological tools and the creation of a steering group which could provide a framework for future evaluations of EU drugs policies.

• - 

  The exchange of information on emerging trends in drug use has improved, partly, as a result of the establishment of an early warning system in the framework of the Joint Action on synthetic drugs.¹⁴

Areas where further progress is needed at EU level

• - 

  There is a lack on information on drug related crime and more work needs to be done on the appropriate indicators, taking into account the work of the EMCDDA and Europol in this field.

• - 

  Mechanisms for monitoring emerging trends in drug use should be improved. Research on such trends should be further developed.

3.3. Demand reduction

Achievements at national level

• - 

  The awareness of the need to take preventive actions starting from an early age is clear for all Member States. They have created global prevention programmes involving relevant experts and civil society.

• - 

  Specific prevention projects aimed at tackling poly-drug use and the abuse of licit and illicit substances are increasingly implemented. Information campaigns are increasingly directed towards target groups and address risk behaviour and addiction in general.

• - 

  Most Member States have increased the funding for and the availability of treatment services and diversified the range of treatment options.

• - 

  In all Member States more attention is being paid to drug-using offenders as illustrated by the increase in community-based alternatives to incarceration and the greater availability of prison-based psychosocial and health interventions.

• - 

  All Member States have undertaken research into the effects of driving under the influence of illicit drugs and medication and some of them have introduced stricter control measures.

Areas where further progress is needed at national level

• - 

  More regular assessment of the effectiveness of measures to reduce health-related harm associated with drug dependence and of treatment measures should be carried out.

• - 

  Member States should create recognised qualifications for professionals in the areas of drug prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence.

Achievements at EU level

• - 

  The Council adopted a number of resolutions on drug prevention issues (cf. Annexe 3).

• - 

  The Programme of Community Action on the Prevention of Drug Dependence (1996-2002)¹⁵ and the New Public Health Programme (2003-2008)¹⁶ have provided co-funding for drug prevention projects. Treatment is an emerging issue.

• - 

  A Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence was adopted in 2003¹⁷.

• - 

  A European Community road safety action programme¹⁸ and a Council Resolution on combating the impact of psychoactive substances use on road accidents¹⁹ have been adopted. Both take into account the effects of alcohol, drugs and medicines on driving.

Areas where further progress is needed at EU level

• - 

  The EU should promote further research on the biomedical, psychosocial and other factors behind drug use and addiction, especially in areas, where such research is still limited (e.g. long term use of cannabis or synthetic drugs).

• - 

  The dissemination of reliable and high quality information and best practices should be improved.

• - 

  The Commission will follow up on the key points of the 2003 Council Recommendation mentioned above.

3.4. Supply Reduction

Achievements at national level

• - 

  Within most Member States co-operation between law enforcement agencies has been improved through the establishment/reinforcement of structures and activities such as joint police/customs teams, joint enforcement operations and memoranda of understanding.

• - 

  More Member States now seem to be able to operate in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 (Illicit Traffic by Sea) of the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

• - 

  All Member States have transposed into national law the first money laundering Directive²⁰ and 11 have transposed its amending Directive²¹. In addition Member States have introduced new measures to reduce money laundering such as powers to oppose transactions and increased powers for the control of travellers who import large sums of money.

• - 

  10 Member States have transposed the provisions of the Council Framework Decision on joint investigation teams²² and/or have ratified the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters²³ or have indicated that legislation in place already enables the setting up of such teams.

• - 

  10 Member States have ratified the Convention on mutual assistance and co-operation between customs administrations (Naples II)²⁴. 14 Member States have ratified the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes (CIS)²⁵.

Areas where further progress is needed at national level

• - 

  Those Member States which do not report having formal structures for co-operation between their national law enforcement agencies should consider establishing such formal structures as appropriate.

• - 

  Member States should ensure that they have the necessary procedures in place to enable them to operate in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the 1988 UN Convention and should consider the establishment of a guide regarding its implementation.

• - 

  Member States which have not done so should transpose the second money laundering Directive²⁶, the Council Framework Decision on joint investigation teams and/or ratify the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and ratify the Naples II Convention and the CIS Convention.

Achievements at EU level

• - 

  Co-operation between law enforcement agencies at EU level has been improved through the establishment/reinforcement of structures, the activities of Europol and Eurojust and activities such as joint investigations, joint customs operations, maritime co-operation, joint teams, and police and customs co-operation centres.

• - 

  A number of EU projects (e.g. CASE, EELS and EILCS) aimed at identifying the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs have been established and are ongoing.

• - 

  Since 2000, five substances have been made subject to EU wide control measures on the basis of the Joint Action on synthetic drugs.

• - 

  EU financing programmes such as AGIS²⁷ have played a significant role in facilitating co-operation between the Member States’ law enforcement authorities.

• - 

  Political agreement has been reached on the Council Framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking²⁸. Its formal adoption is expected shortly.

• - 

  A Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors (intra-Community trade) has been adopted.²⁹ A proposal for a Council Regulation on the external trade in drug precursors ³⁰ has been presented by the Commission.

• - 

  OLAF has facilitated an important exchange of information relating to the risk of diversion of precursors and continues to support the Yachtinfo and Marinfo systems.

• - 

  The further development of a permanent Operational Co-ordination Unit to support Joint Customs Operations is under discussion.

• - 

  The Commission has adopted a proposal for a third Directive on money laundering³¹.

• - 

  The adoption of the Council Decision³² on the exchange of information between Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) has provided a better framework for cooperation.

• - 

  A number of Member States are involved in discussions with regard to forming joint teams and giving their police and judicial authorities additional, far-reaching powers to operate on each other’s territories.

Areas where further progress is needed at EU level

• - 

  Member States should establish joint investigation teams to deal with drug trafficking between them, as provided for in the Council Framework Decision and the Convention.

• - 

  Further developing joint operations between law enforcement agencies of the Member States should be discussed. The establishment and results of these operations should be reported to the Council and the Commission.

• - 

  Further developments in operations to tackle the production in and trafficking of synthetic drugs should be explored. The suggestions for mapping distribution networks presented by the Commission could be a useful starting point in this process.

• - 

  The Council Recommendation on the alignment of law enforcement drug and diverted precursors statistics should be fully implemented³³.

• - 

  The third Directive on money laundering should be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council as soon as possible.

3.5. Enlargement

Although enlargement did not take place until eight months before the end of the period covered by the Drugs Strategy, drugs initiatives form part of the EU acquis. All new Member States and two of the candidate countries have responded on a voluntary basis to the Commission questionnaire³⁴. A summary of this data will be included in a separate report.

Achievements

• - 

  The PHARE programme and other relevant Community programmes have been especially useful in familiarising the new Member States and candidate countries with the drugs elements of the acquis.

• - 

  Almost all Member States have provided assistance to the new Member States in their efforts to deal with drug abuse and drug trafficking. Member States have provided similar assistance to the candidate countries.

• - 

  All the new Member States have transposed the drugs elements of the acquis into their national legislation and the candidate countries are in the process of doing so.

• - 

  The JHA Chapter of the acquis has been provisionally closed for Bulgaria and negotiations with Romania are progressing.

• - 

  The agreements with Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey for participation in the work of the EMCDDA have been initialled.

Areas where further progress is needed

• - 

  There should be close co-operation with the new Member States and candidate countries in the implementation of the drugs elements of the acquis.

• - 

  The new Member States should make full use of the AGIS and other relevant programmes to facilitate co-operation with other Member States.

• - 

  The agreements with three candidate countries to enable them to participate in the work of the EMCDDA should enter into force as soon as possible

• - 

  The PHARE programme and other Community programmes should continue to provide assistance to the candidate countries in the drugs field.

3.6. International cooperation

Achievements at national level

• - 

  Member States provide drug-related assistance to third countries on a bilateral basis and/or through the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

• - 

  A number of Member States co-operate with third countries to develop and improve anti money laundering systems.

Areas where further progress is needed at national level

• - 

  All Member States should systematically feed the database created by the Commission on the technical assistance projects in candidate and third countries in the field of drugs.

• - 

  Member States should regularly inform the Council and the Commission of their bilateral activities in third countries and regions.

Achievements at EU level

• - 

  The Commission is concentrating its efforts on the two main trafficking routes to the EU.

• - 

  The Commission has kept the Council regularly informed of its drug-related assistance in third countries/regions and of the improved integrated process through which it finances drug projects in third countries/regions.

• - 

  In the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, Action Plans with a number of countries are under discussion. These plans normally include a section dealing with drugs.

• - 

  All relevant Community and EU external agreements contain specific provisions on drugs.

Areas where further progress is needed at EU level

• - 

  The Member States and the Commission should continue to ensure coordinated EU positions in international fora dealing with the drugs issue, in particular the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

• - 

  Member States and the Commission should continue to link the drug-related assistance they provide to Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and the Western Balkan countries to the drugs action plans adopted with these regions. In this regard an appropriate funding mechanism might be considered.

• - 

  There is a need to ensure a link between the adoption of new EU drugs action plans for various regions of the world and the allocation of resources for their implementation.

• - 

  Member State drugs experts should continue to participate actively in emphasising drug issues when Country/Regional programming documents are being developed/reviewed. Better co-ordination should exist between the Geographical Working Parties and the Horizontal Drugs Group.

• - 

  New emergencies and trends in drug use and production in specific countries/regions should be monitored and taken into consideration.

• - 

  The existing mechanisms for international co-ordination in the drugs field, such as the Dublin Group, should be fully utilised.

• 4. 

  Conclusions

• I. 

  Assessment of the level of achievement of the activities set out in the Action Plan
• - 

  Around 95 per cent of the actions set out in the EU Action Plan on Drugs have been implemented or are in some stage of being implemented.

• - 

  The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan have been taken as a central reference point for action and have provided a framework for drug-related activities and initiatives at national and EU level.

• - 

  Almost all Member States have adopted a national drugs strategy or action plan. Among the elements in these national drugs strategies and action plans, there are common patterns with the EU approach, as outlined in the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan.

II. Assessment of the extent to which achievement of the Action Plan met the objectives of the Drugs Strategy

• - 

  There can be little doubt that the implementation of the actions in the Action Plan has contributed to the achievement, to a greater or lesser extent, of the 11 aims of the EU Drugs Strategy.

III. Assessment of the impact on the drug situation

• - 

  To some extent at least, progress has been made in achieving some of the targets of the EU Drugs Strategy (Target 2 and, in particular, Target 3)³⁵.

• - 

  Based upon the evaluation tools, no strong evidence exists to support the contention that the goal of Target 1 to significantly reduce drug use prevalence has been achieved or that fewer young people are using drugs. However, the snapshot data suggests that overall a levelling off in the upward trend in drug use prevalence may be seen, even though it is at what may be considered as historically high levels.

• - 

  Similarly, the available information does not suggest that the availability of drugs has been reduced substantially (Target 4). At the same time, Targets 4 and 5 taken together have been a catalyst for a number of EU level initiatives that have strengthened law enforcement measures against drug trafficking and supply.

• - 

  A number of important initiatives have also been taken to combat money laundering (Target 6.1). With regard to Target 6.2, Member States participate in a number of important initiatives to combat the diversion of precursors, such as the European Joint Unit on Precursors. Important proposals have been brought forward to amend the Community legislation in the field of the control of trade in precursors.

• 5. 

  PROPOSALS
• - 

  The future EU Drugs Strategy should contain clear and precise objectives and priorities that can be translated into operational indicators and actions in the future Action Plans, with responsibility and deadlines for their implementation clearly defined. Information systems and evaluation tools should be taken into consideration when setting these objectives and priorities.

• - 

  Continued progress should be made in the availability, quality and comparability of information on monitoring the drugs situation.

• - 

  The Commission will bring forward a proposal in the beginning of 2005 for an Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008. In addition, the Commission will draw up an annual progress review on the implementation of this action plan and will organise an impact assessment in 2008, with a view to proposing a second Action Plan for the period 2009-2012. During 2009-2012, annual progress reviews will continue to be drawn up by the Commission. In 2012 the Commission will organise an overall evaluation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plans that will be presented to the Council and the European Parliament.

• - 

  The objectives of the new Drugs Strategy and Action Plans should be reflected in the Multi-annual Programme consolidating the area of freedom, security and justice.

• - 

  The primary focus of the work of the Council’s Horizontal Drugs Group should be on moving forward and monitoring the implementation of the actions set out in the future EU Action Plans on Drugs, as well as having a leading role in co-ordinating the work of the other Council groups on drug issues.

• - 

  There are many interesting and useful activities in the drugs field being implemented. The results of these activities should be more widely shared to promote similar activities elsewhere. In this context, consideration should be given to having an annual seminar on an aspect of drugs policy linked to these activities.

• - 

  This final evaluation should be taken into account in the development of the new EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012.

ANNEX 1

Summary of 15 Member States responses to the questionnaire on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs (2000-2004)

• 1. 

  Co-ordination

1.2.2 What steps has your country taken towards the establishment or the strengthening of the national co-ordination mechanisms since 1999? Has your country appointed a National Drugs Co-ordinator in the related period? Does your country envisage carrying out or has your country carried out an evaluation of the co-ordination mechanisms?

All Member States recognise the importance of coordinating the activities of the multiple actors involved in the drugs issue. They report to have mechanisms in place for coordinating their national drugs policies. Member States have adopted different models of coordination, depending on their national administrative structures and on the aspects of the fight against drugs they intend to focus on; some have interdepartmental committees, some have appointed national drug coordinators (e.g. France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Sweden) and/or established dedicated coordination units or bodies (e.g. Austria, Greece, Ireland, Finland). Some, however, lack coordination mechanisms that cover all aspects. Few Member States provide for evaluation of their coordination mechanisms.

1.2.4 In what way has your country ensured a balanced and multidisciplinary approach in national drugs programmes and policies and their implementation?

The importance of maintaining a multidisciplinary and balanced approach is clearly recognised by all Member States. Most have adopted a national plan or strategy on drugs (Belgium Denmark, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the UK).

1.3.2 Has your country developed a specific strategy for co-operation with civil society regarding drug abuse? Please give details.

Most Member States make provisions for involving civil society in the fields of prevention, health care and treatment, mainly at local level. Most of them also consult civil society on an ad hoc basis, e.g. for specific projects. Many Member States mention financial support for community groups and organisations as a way of cooperating with civil society.

Some countries (Germany, Greece, Ireland, and Sweden) have more regular contacts with the networks of NGOs, the voluntary sector, associations, etc. These countries recognise the importance of linking policy making and practice through dialogue with civil society, but also refer to the supporting work done by these organisations to influence public opinion.

1.4.2. In which way has your country encouraged the provision of funding for the prevention of drug use, the prevention of drug related crime, the reduction of the negative health and social consequences of drugs and other proactive measures?

Public expenditure on prevention and risk reduction programmes and measures are different from one country to another depending on the national administrative structure, ministerial budgets and social security systems. Some Member States (Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, and United Kingdom) indicate an increase of funding for drug-demand reduction.

1.5 In which way has your country shared information with other Member States on national strategies and action plans? Has your country made use of the EMCDDA database on drug laws, the Falcone and OISIN programmes or any other tools for information exchange and operational co-operation? Please describe.

Member States consider other national measures, strategies and action plans as useful examples for orienting their own national debate. Very often information exchange is made via bilateral contacts and visits. The Horizontal Drugs Group and the meetings of the national coordinators are recognised as important occasions to share information and views.

All Member States acknowledge the importance of learning from the others and quote internet as an important source of information. Most of them report regular input and consultation of the EMCDDA databases (EDDRA, ELDD).

As far as law enforcement information sharing is concerned, most Member States mention the Europol national liaison officers. All Member States were able to take part in joint projects co-financed by the Commission’s OISIN and/or the Falcone programmes. Since 2003 XXX (can we give a figure??) have received funding under the new AGIS programme³⁶.

• 2. 

  Information and Evaluation

2.1.1 and 2.1.4 Does your country fully or partly provide information on the 5 key epidemiological indicators of the EMCDDA? If your country does not fully provide information on the 5 key epidemiological indicators when do you believe you will be in a position to do so? Please give brief description of the evolution of political and financial support to implement the 5 harmonised key indicators.

All Member States have established systems for the gathering and treatment of data which will provide comparable and reliable data on the 5 key epidemiologic indicators, and most Member States are able to provide (partial) information on all indicators. In order to improve the data quality of the used sources and to alleviate the lack of information on some indicators, Member States have introduced the necessary amendments in their legislative systems, organised special workgroups composed of representatives from various Ministries, services, and NGOs specialised in the fight against drugs and actively participated in EMCDDA workshops In most Member States, political and financial support provided by the government for establishing the five indicators (particularly through the national budget to the REITOX Network) is considered sufficient.

2.2.6 and 2.2.7 Which measures are used in your country to assess the effectiveness of preventing and combating organised drug related crime? What kind of crime and policy indicators has your country developed? Has your country drafted an annual assessment on the role of organised crime groups involved in drug trafficking?

No unanimity exists among member States on the methodology used to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive actions and measures to fight organised crime related to drug-trafficking, but all annual reports include statistics which illustrate the number of confiscations and their quantities, the share of dismantled clandestine laboratories, the number of arrests, the number of drug-related deaths and other indicators of repressive actions by the relevant agencies. Member States contribute to the annual EU Organised Crime report, which includes a section on drugs, in accordance with the criteria set out in Enfopol 35 Rev 2 (21.4.1997).

Some Member States undertake further research on the linkage between drug phenomena and criminal activities, e.g. Ireland’s public surveys on the nature of the policing, the visibility and perception of crime, including drug related crime.

• 3. 

  Reduction of Demand, Prevention of Drug Use and of Drug Related Crime

3.1.1.1 Does your country have general programmes for the prevention of both licit and illicit drug use, including poly-drug use? In which way, if any, does your country encourage the inclusion of drug use prevention in school curricula? Are there programmes set-up to assist parents? If yes, please describe briefly.

Member States underline the importance of prevention, and the need for better and accurate information campaigns and prevention programmes focused on the promotion of health as well as on the personal and social development of the young people.

Prevention programmes can involve, among many other measures, the creation of prevention centres, specific training for experts and civil society (teachers, parents, support organisations…), health professionals and even representatives of the law enforcement services, working in the school environment and among young people. The importance of regular cooperation with young people’s associations, sports clubs, as well as taking preventive actions in nightclubs and major music and dance events are also stressed, in a way to promote healthy initiatives. Frequently decentralised, organised at local level in collaboration with the local autorities and the civil society, whit a short duration, they address to youngsters and other target groups.

Specific prevention projects aimed at tackling the poly-drug use and the abuse of licit substances (alcohol, tobacco, doping substances and medicinal products) are more and more implemented in all Member States.

Member States agree on the effectiveness of school based drug education programme, but only a few countries (France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, and UK) have clear references to illicit substances and their effects inscribed on the schools curriculum.

3.1.1.3 Could you describe the way your country allocated resources for positive alternatives to drugs for youngsters, in particular in socially deprived urban areas?

Member States have many projects on positive alternatives to drug use specifically targeted on older children and adolescents in disadvantaged urban areas, namely through the creation of youth consultation centres that provide recreational, sports and educational activities with job counselling.

The budget allocated to these prevention projects came from different sources: health, youth or social services, youth organisations as well as local projects supported by local authorities. Sweden gives precise details on amounts allocated.

3.1.1.4 Could you mention and describe briefly a particularly innovative approach to the prevention of the abuse of synthetic drugs developed in your country?

Member States are stressing their concern for the increasing popularity of synthetic drugs in the European Union and underline the importance of school-based programmes and information campaigns aimed at young people, but also on the internet, in all media, as well as dance clubs and music festivals. The distribution of informative material, the implementation of risk reduction measures at parties, pill testing and cooperation with owners of night clubs, medical staff and police are also mentioned.

3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.7 Has your country developed outreach work and/or easy accessible services for drug users? Which steps were taken to increase access and availability of services designed to reach drug abusers who were not integrated or covered by mainstream services? Please describe these briefly. Which were the strategies for vaccinating drug users against hepatitis A and B?

Several Member States have adopted integrated policies for risk reduction which propose « low-threshold » services, such as programmes for syringe exchange, condom distribution, access to substitution treatments and drug consumption rooms. Certain high risk groups such as addicted pregnant women, homeless people, prostitutes and prison inmates can benefit from specific programmes. Vaccination against Hepatitis B, prevention and treatment of contagious diseases linked to intravenous drug abuse has been recognised as priorities by all Member States.

3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 3.3.1 Please report briefly on any awareness raising campaigns carried out on the dangers related to drug use as well as on major programmes on the reduction of risks and consequences related to use. Do the actions target all age groups, in particular children and young people? In what sense have these campaigns been innovative and have made use of new means of communication such as, for example, the Internet?

All Member states underline the importance of information/awareness campaigns on drug related risks and organise regular campaigns in the media for the general public, as well as specific ones directed at target groups. Campaigns aimed at specific substances (cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy…) are also mentioned. The spread of hotlines on drugs and the use of internet in the field of demand reduction seem to be increasing in all countries.

Sweden gives a number of examples of messages aimed at young at young people in different campaign contexts. Finland mentionnes a specific emphasis in the use of internet in drug demand reduction.

3.1.2.4 In which way does your country ensure that enough attention is paid to drug related issues in training and education of doctors, social workers and other professionals in the health and social sector? Are they included in the curricula of the education of these professionals?

Training of teachers, social workers, health professionals, and law enforcement representatives is a priority in all Member States and budgets have been allocated for this purpose. In several countries (Ireland, France, Germany, Portugal), specialisations in addiction, alcoholism, , and new substitution treatments are organised within the context of university courses.

3.1.2.5 Has any research been carried out in your country about the effects of driving under the influence of illicit drugs and pharmaceuticals? If yes, could you please summarize the results which could be relevant for policy decisions?

Several Member States (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Finland and UK) announced having undertaken research on driving under the influence of illegal substances, or in association with alcohol and/or medicines. In many cases legislation was reviewed and controls and sanctions reinforced. On the other hand, even though testing for alcohol is compulsory, testing drivers involved in accidents for narcotics is not yet systematic.

3.1.3.1 Which are the types of treatment services for drugs users, and measures to assist severely dependent individuals, including measures to reduce the health related damages provided in your country? Please describe briefly

In accordance with their national situation and legislation, Member States have diversified drug care systems, which can include day-care centres, detoxification units, therapeutic communities, substitution centres, aftercare programmes and special units in prisons. Frequently carried out at local level and in collaboration with NGO’s, they are directed towards different age groups, gender specific needs and drug dependent people in different stages of dependence.

Some Member States have also underlined the existence of drug consumption rooms and programmes of medical heroin delivery (Belgium, Germany).

3.1.3.2 Which are the average waiting periods for accessing treatment in your country?

Member States indicate that, after investments in treatment services mainly at local level, there are no waiting periods for accessing treatment other than for residential treatment and substitution treatment.

3.1.3.3 Has your country defined guidelines for the standards and goals of treatment services, and ensured the evidence-based evaluation of these treatments? If yes, please briefly describe the outcome. Does your country have a national protocol on treatment assessment?

The majority of Member States has not developed models for the systematic and global evaluation of drug treatment. However, scientific research on the effectiveness of the proposed measures is undertaken using the monitoring of drug-addicts under treatment (among other indicators).

3.1.3.4 In which way does your country ensure that adequate attention is paid to the social and professional integration of former addicts? Please describe briefly the most relevant measures adopted in this area, including any projects implemented under the Community Programmes between 1999 and 2003

The professional and social integration of drug addicts, considered very important by all Member States, is promoted in co-operation with NGO’s, local authorities and the business community, to provide for educational programmes, vocational training and special employment opportunities for ex-addicts. The Netherlands and UK underline the programmes aimed at tackling this issue within the criminal justice system and the measures to prepare the drug misusing offender reintegration into the labour market.

3.2.2 Have the resources for research into the biomedical and social causes of addiction, prevention and behavioural patterns of drug consumption been modified during the reference period?

Several Member States indicate that they do not have exact figures for functions allocated to drug research, by the government departments, universities, NGOs, and research institutes. Nevertheless, they stress the importance of studies on epidemiology, public health and social sciences in achieving a better definition of public policies.

3.2.3 Has your country identified new areas where it is considered useful to implement actions at the European level to contribute to reduce drug-related harm?

New consumption trends, international and trans-border cooperation are areas generally identified as deserving greater attention within the EU.

3.3.2 How has your country addressed risk behaviour and addiction in general, including aspects of alcohol, medicine, substances used for doping in sport and tobacco use?

Member States’ strategies and policies are increasingly geared towards addictions in general, linking licit and illicit drugs, with special measures concerning alcohol, tobacco, doping substances and abuse of medicinal products. Belgium also takes into account gambling and food dependency.

3.4.1.1 What programmes have been set-up in your country to promote best practices in the prevention of criminal activities linked with drugs, juvenile and urban delinquency?

The prevention of drug related crime, juvenile and urban delinquency is a priority for Member States which have allocated funds for programmes based on in-service training of police and other prevention agents, information campaigns on drugs and measures for the development of a healthy lifestyle through sports, leisure and educational activities, acquisition of specific skills, implementation of peer groups, counselling/follow up, cultural activities, and treatment/counselling activities.

In the Netherlands, the project “Communities that care”, which involves civil society, aims to create a safe and liveable environment for young people.

3.4.2 and 3.4.3 Could you describe the mechanisms in place to provide alternatives to Prison (in particular for young offenders). Which measures have been foreseen to provide drug prevention and treatment services and, where appropriate, measures to reduce health damages in prisons and upon release from prison?

In several Member States(Portugal, Denmark…), depending the penal system and on the basis of the voluntary acceptance of treatment, a large spectrum of alternative measures is proposed to drug addicts in order to avoid incarceration: financial penalties and administrative sanctions, community work, vocational training and follow-up, etc.

In view of the high level of drug consumption in prisons, some countries have introduced risk reduction measures, such as vaccination programmes, needles exchange, drug free rooms, substitution treatments by methadone, etc.

3.4.4 Please mention the main examples of sharing with other Member States best practices on the handling of drugs addicts in the justice system. In what way were the results of the study prepared by the EMCDDA in this field considered by your country

Some Member States refer to sharing best practices in the treatment of drug addicts in the justice system through active participation in the European Union Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and the European Network Drugs Services in Prison (ENDSP), as well as cooperation with other Member States within the EMCDDA and the Pompidou Group.

The study of the EMCDDA is referred to by only few countries.

3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3 In view of the need to develop expertise in the prevention of drug use, has your country promoted the creation of co-ordinated qualification skills in this area? What has been done in order to encourage the development and implementation of a network of trainers and other professionals in the health and social sector? How have the best practices been promoted and brought to the attention of other Member States and the Commission?

Training of prevention agents is deemed paramount in all Member States, although efforts must still be made to create formal qualifications.

In the context of health promotion strategies, expert networks and specialised training centres have been established to ensure permanent training of the various prevention agents.

Several Member States underline the role of the EDDRA and EMCDDA networks, of the Pompidou Group and of the HDG in the exchange of information on prevention.

• 4. 

  Supply Reduction

4.1.1.1 Please indicate which measures your country has applied to ensure a high and uniform level of security at the external borders of the EU in relation to drugs.

Within Member States the law enforcement services involved in combating drug trafficking are involved in close co-operation. This co-operation can take the form of joint groups of risk analysis, a network of “contact points” between the relevant services, special teams of police and customs officers, a “coastal-watch” programme involving police, customs and the maritime rescue service, memoranda of understanding and operational protocols between the relevant services.

In order to ensure a high level of security at the EU’s external borders, Member State law enforcement services use a range of equipment such as drug detection scanners, patrol vessels, and drug detector dogs. Member States also refer to the training provided to law enforcement personnel in combating drug trafficking.

Co-operation also takes place between the law enforcement services of different Member States. For example, there are police/customs co-operation centres, joint customs operations, and participation in training courses by one Member State in those hosted by another Member State. The Convention on mutual assistance and co-operation between customs administrations (Naples II) is also seen to have potential as a tool for cross-border co-operation.

4.1.1.3 Has your country, taking into account the existing EU systems for exchange of information and working with other Member States in the relevant Council bodies, reinforced its efforts against maritime drug trafficking? Has your country organised training courses on the identification and surveillance of suspicious vessels, and have you established procedures for boarding and searching vessels? Has your country implemented the principles laid down in Article 17 of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances? If so, please describe briefly how this has been done.

A number of Member States have indicated that they are in a position to operate in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances or have incorporated Article 17 or parts of Article 17 into national law (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands).

Member States refer to a number of techniques used for combating maritime drug trafficking such as risk profiling, ship surveillance and vessel search techniques. Use is made of the maritime information systems such as MAR-INFO and YACHTINFO in order to exchange information on suspected drug trafficking and on drug seizures. Maritime co-operation between Member States has led to the capture of ships which were used for drug smuggling and the seizure of illicit drugs.

Some Member States indicate that they have training courses in the field of combating maritime drug trafficking or such training is included as a part of the training provided to the relevant personnel (France, Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands). One Member State (France) indicates that it has established a guide regarding the implementation of Article 17 of the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

4.1.1.4 Has your country, with the support of Europol, examined the means to combine forensic and law enforcement information in order to identify the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs and those involved in their production and trafficking? What are the results of this analysis?

At national level, Member States combine forensic and law enforcement information in order to identify the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs. In, at least, one Member State (France) a sharing of databases between the relevant law enforcement agencies containing scientific information on synthetic drugs is to be developed.

Many Member States emphasise the importance of the various EU projects aimed at identifying the production and trafficking of synthetic drugs such as CASE, Synthes-lab, EELS, EILCS, and CHEDDAR

4.1.1.5 Has the co-operation between police, customs and judicial authorities been improved in your country in the drugs field? Has your country participated in EU Third Pillar Programmes in the field of co-operation between these authorities? Please give details, in particular of the results and benefits of such programmes for your country.

Member State police and customs services participate in joint enforcement operations and investigations against drug traffickers, joint training courses and have appointed police/custom liaison officers. Some Member States have permanent joint police/customs teams (France, Germany, the Netherlands). Greece refers to its Central Anti-Drug Coordination Body with police and customs representation and the UK refers to its Concerted Inter-Agency Drugs Action Group.

Training courses and seminars aimed at improving police, customs and judicial co-operation at EU level have received funding from the European Commission under various programmes. In the Nordic Member States police and customs collaboration takes place within a specific framework PTN (Police and Customs Co-operation in the Nordic Countries).

4.1.1.6 Has your country implemented the project-based EU law enforcement strategy against transnational organised crime to combat drug trafficking? Please describe briefly.

Techniques used to combat organised crime include surveillance, infiltration and phone-taping. Investigations into the activities of trans-national organised crime groups involved in the distribution of drugs have taken place. These investigations have involved the law enforcement authorities of several Member States. Member States also participate in relevant Europol Analysis Work Files (AWFs) such as Mustard, Cola and Genesis.

4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3 What measures has your country taken against money laundering? How does the analysis and exchange of information between your Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and other FIUs work?

All MS have transposed into national law Directive 91/308/CEE of the Council of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and 11 (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the UK) have transposed Directive 2001/97/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC. In addition, Member States have introduced new measures to reduce money laundering such as powers to oppose the execution of a transaction and increased powers for the control of travellers who import large sums of money.

Council Decision of 17 December 2000 relative to the exchange of information between the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of the Member States provides a primary framework for the exchange of information between the FIUs of the Member States. 8 Member States utilise the FIU-Net as a means of exchanging information between FIUs. Individual Member States also exchange information with third country FIUs. This exchange of information often takes place under the auspices of signed Memoranda of Understanding which generally are developed in accordance with the principles of the Egmont Group. The Egmont Secure Web is also utilised as a secure communication network.

Some Member States also refer to the 40 Recommendations of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force), the Council Framework Decision on money laundering, identifying, tracing, freezing and confiscation of criminal assets and the proceeds of crime and the Council of Europe Convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

4.1.2.6 What type of training for customs and police does your country provide in view of combating the diversion of chemical precursors, including possibly the assistance of the Commission and EUROPOL?

Law enforcement officers receive training in combating the diversion of precursors through stand alone courses or through courses related to combating synthetic drugs production and trafficking. Some Member States refer to the assistance provided by Europol in this regard.

4.2.1 Please describe the joint investigative units which have been established in your country between police, customs and other law enforcement agencies specifically responsible for tackling drug trafficking.

Some Member States have permanent joint police/customs teams. Other law enforcement authorities may be represented on these teams. In other Member States joint police/customs investigations take place as the need arises.

4.2.2 Please describe the measures your country has taken, with the assistance of Europol where appropriate, to reinforce co-operation with other Member States against drug trafficking. In particular, please mention if any joint teams with other Member States have been established when dealing with drug trafficking between Member States. If no such teams have been established, please explain why this is the case.

Co-operation between Member States against drug trafficking generally takes place through exchanges of information, joint investigations or law enforcement co-operation in border areas. Some Member States have established a joint police/customs team to combat drug trafficking on road and rail routes between them. 6 Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK) together with Europol are involved in a European Joint Unit to combat serious criminal activity in the field of precursor chemical diversion.

A number of Member States have transposed into national law the provisions of the Council Framework Decision on joint investigation teams and/or have ratified the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters or have indicated that legislation in place already enables the setting up of such teams (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). However, joint investigation teams, as provided for in the Framework Decision or the Convention, dealing with drug trafficking between Member States have not been established. Some Member States are involved in discussions with regard to forming joint investigation teams and giving their police and judicial authorities additional, more far-reaching powers to operate on each other’s territories.

4.2.3 Please describe the measures your country has taken to promote regional co-operation with other Member States affected by similar drug problems.

A number of Member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain) have created police and custom co-operation centres on their common borders. Regional systems of exchange of information have been established by, for example, a permanent liaison bureau and the appointment of joint superintendents. Police officers from one Member States participate in police officer meetings of another Member State (Belgium and the Netherlands). In addition, a number of Member States have adopted a co-ordinated regional approach to combating drug tourism (Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). The Nordic Member States are part of a regional law enforcement co-operation known as PTN with a significant focus on combating drug-related crime. These Member States and Germany are also part of the Task Force on Organised Crime in the Baltic Sea Region.

4.2.5 In what way does your country promote new investigation techniques, research and documentation of drug related crime?

Member States use investigation techniques such as controlled deliveries, undercover agents, simulated purchases in combating drug trafficking and drug related crime. Some Member States have at their disposal tools such as a specialist research centre, a national network of drug experts and a computerised system for the collection, development and analysis of data on operations against the illegal traffic in drugs. A number of Member States refer to research carried out or being carried out on drug-related crime.

• 5. 

  International

5.1.3 During the reference period, which Candidate Countries has your country supported, with technical assistance and/or finance where necessary, in their efforts to counter drug abuse and drug trafficking?

Almost all Member States have provided assistance to the candidate countries in their efforts to combat drug abuse and trafficking. This assistance has taken a number of forms such as:

Participation in the PHARE programme and in particular in twinning projects under this programme;

Organisation of study visits and seminars and provision of training to law enforcement officers;

The signing of bilateral co-operation agreements in relation to internal security matters;

Funding to the Council of Europe’s Pompidou Group in the framework of training in drug demand reduction interventions provided to Central and Eastern European countries;

Provision of financial assistance to drug related projects in candidate countries; and

Provision of technical assistance and equipment.

5.1.5 Has your country implemented the pre-accession pact on organised crime and extended it to all applicant countries?

A number of Member States refer to the utilisation of the PHARE programme in the implementation of the Pre-accession pact on organised crime and to the Council working group with responsibility for overseeing its implementation. In the context of the Pre-accession Pact contact points have been established.

5.2.2 and 5.2.3 How has your country co-ordinated its projects in third countries with other countries, multilateral and international organisations to enable their assessment? In this framework, has the co-operation with multilateral and international organisations been strengthened where this would increase the effectiveness of the actions carried out?

Member States provide drug-related assistance to third countries on a bilateral basis and/or through the UNODC. Some Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Sweden, and the UK) indicate that they co-ordinate their bilateral projects with other Member States, multilateral and international organisations. A number of Member States refer to the provision of information to the Commission on drug-related assistance to third countries. The Dublin Group and the “major donors group” of the UNODC are cited as primary mechanisms for co-ordination and for strengthening co-operation with multilateral and international institutions. In this regard Member States also refer to their membership of or observer status to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe, CICAD and the work of the Paris Pact initiative. In the context of co-operation with Latin America and the Caribbean some Member States refer to the Co-ordination and Co-operation Mechanism on Drugs between the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean.

5.2.4 What resources have been made available for third countries for the implementation of programmes and projects for supply reduction and demand reduction? In what way have the projects undertaken been reported to the Horizontal Drugs Group of the Council?

Many Member States provide financial assistance to demand reduction and/or supply reduction projects in third countries. Most of these countries indicate that the Commission and the Council’s Horizontal Drugs Group are kept informed of their drug-related assistance to third countries.

5.2.5 Please describe in what way, in relations with non-candidate and non-European countries, all relevant Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) instruments take full account of the aims of the EU-Drug Strategy.

A number of Member States (Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK) affirm that in their relations with non-candidate and non-European countries in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy they take account of the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy.

5.2.6 Has your country drawn up an action plan on drugs co-operation with North Africa and implemented fully the action plans on Latin America and the Caribbean and Central Asia?

No Member State has drawn up an action plan on drugs with North Africa. With regard to the implementation of the plans with Latin America and the Caribbean and Central Asia, Member States refer to the training, technical and financial assistance they provide and law enforcement operational co-operation.

5.2.7 Please describe the measures, if any, your country has taken to help non-EU countries and regions to develop their anti-money laundering systems

A number of Member States refer to co-operation with non-EU countries to develop and improve anti-money laundering systems under the auspices of the Egmont Group (Belgium, France, and Greece) and to participation in the work of the Council of Europe’s anti-money laundering programme PC-R-EV recently renamed Moneyval (Belgium and the Netherlands). Member States also refer to participation in the PHARE anti-money laundering programme and in initiatives of the FATF (Financial Action Task Force). Other assistance provided by Member States include study visits by/to non-EU Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), participation in IMF and World Bank evaluations, financial support and observer status in FATF regional bodies.

5.2.8 Please describe the tools used to support the development of a common international set of indicators in the field of demand reduction and to promote a common standard for national reporting to international organisations

Many Member States refer to their participation in the work of the EMCDDA in the development of a common international set of indicators in the demand reduction field. Member States also refer to the work of the Pompidou Group and the UN and to all of these bodies in the context of promoting a common standard for national reporting to international organisations.

5.2.9 Please describe the measures used by your country to integrate drugs as a cross-sectional issue into supranational co-operation schemes (particularly with the developing countries)

Member States affirm that they see drugs as being a cross-sectional issue and stress the importance of dialogue on this issue within bodies such as the Dublin Group and the UN.

ANNEX 2

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU ACTION PLAN ON DRUGS 2000-2004:

FOLLOW-UP TABLE FOR THE COMMISSION, THE EMCDDA AND EUROPOL ³⁷

ANNEX 3

Instruments of the European Union in the field of drugs (2000 – 2004).

• A. 

  Instruments of the EU adopted during the period 1 January 2000 – 31 July 2004.

• - 

  Council Resolution on cannabis. CORDROGUE 59 – 07.07.2004

• - 

  Progress report in relation to the Implementation Plans on Demand and Supply Reduction of Drugs and the Supply of Synthetic drugs – CORDROGUE 43 – 14.06.2004

• - 

  Council Recommendation regarding guidelines for taking samples of seized drugs. CORDROGUE 26 - 30.03.2004

• - 

  Regulation (EC) no 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors. OJ L 47, 18.02.2004 - P.1

• - 

  Council Decision 2003/847/JHA of 27 November 2003 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drugs 2C-I, 2C-T-2, 2C-T-7 and TMA-2,

OJ L 321,06.12.2003 - P. 64

• - 

  Resolution of the Council on combating the impact of psychoactive substances use on road accidents. CORDROGUE 97 – 13.11.2003

• - 

  Council resolution on the posting of liaison officers with particular expertise in drugs to Albania. CORDROGUE 95 - 13.11.2003

• - 

  Council Resolution of 17 December 2003 on training for drug law enforcement officers. CORDROGUE 96 – 12.11.2003

• - 

  Council Resolution on the importance of the role of the families in preventing drug abuse by adolescents. CORDROGUE 94 – 12.11.2003

• - 

  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on coordination on drugs in the European Union. COM/2003/0681 final - 12.11.2003

• - 

  Resolution of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, for the development of education curricula on substance misuse disorders for medical and other care students and professionals and their inclusion in university studies. CORDROGUE 57 - 19.06.2003

• - 

  Resolution of the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council for the integration of the effective management (diagnosis, brief intervention, referrals) and medically assisted treatment for opiate dependent patients within the national health care. CORDROGUE 56 - 19.06.2003

• - 

  Council Recommendation of 18 June 2003 on the prevention and reduction of health-related harm associated with drug dependence. OJ L 165, 03.07.2003 P.31

• - 

  Resolution of the Council on the importance of early intervention to prevent drug dependence and drug related harm among young people using drugs. CORDROGUE 58 – 13.06.2003

• - 

  Implementation paper on demand and supply reduction to deliver the EU Drugs Action Plan. CORDROGUE 40 – 27.05.2003

• - 

  Action Plan on Drugs between the EU and Countries of Western Balkans and Candidate Countries (Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey). CORDROGUE 3 REV 2 - 23.05.2003

• - 

  Agreement between the European Community and the Turkish Republic on precursors and chemical substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. OJ L 064, 07.03.2003 - P.30

• - 

  Resolution of the Representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council on the treatment of drug abusers in prisons. CORDROGUE 54 REV 4 – 28.11. 2002

• - 

  Implementation plan on actions to be taken in regard to the supply of synthetic drugs. CORDROGUE 81 REV 2 – 26.11.2002

• - 

  Council Resolution on the generic classification of specific groups of new synthetic drugs. CORDROGUE 64 REV 4 – 11.11. 2002

• - 

  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European parliament on the mid-term evaluation of the EU action plan on drugs. (2000-2004). COM(2002)599, 04.11.2002

• - 

  Council Decision of 30 September 2002 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area (2002-2006). OJ L 232, 29.10.2002 – P.1

• - 

  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008). OJ L 271, 09.10.2002 - P.1

• - 

  Action plan on Drugs between the EU and Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan). CORDROGUE 78 - 25.09.2002

• - 

  Council Decision of 22 July 2002 establishing a framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS). OJ L 203, 01.08.2002 - P.5

• - 

  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1232/2002 of 9 July 2002 replacing the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3769/92 . OJ L 180, 10.07.2002 - P.5

• - 

  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams. OJ L 162, 20.06.2002 - P.1

• - 

  Council Regulation (EC) No 988/2002 of 3 June 2002 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

OJ L 151, 11.06.2002 - P.1

• - 

  Resolution of the Council on the incorporation of drug prevention in school curricula. CORDROGUE 4 REV 3 - 08.05. 2002

• - 

  Council Recommendation of 25 April 2002 on improving investigation methods in the fight against organised crime linked to organised drug trafficking: simultaneous investigations into drug trafficking by criminal organisations and their finances/assets. OJ C 114, 15.05.2002 - P.1

• - 

  Council Recommendation of 25 April 2002 on the need to enhance cooperation and exchanges of information between the various operational units specialising in combating trafficking in precursors in the Member States of the European Union. OJ C 114, 15.05.2002 - P.3

• - 

  Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Member States on the prevention of the recreational use of drugs. CORDROGUE 2 REV 3 – 15.04. 2002

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 February 2002 concerning control measures and criminal sanctions in respect of the new synthetic drug PMMA. OJ L 063, 06.03.2002 - P. 14

• - 

  Joint declaration on drugs of the Ministers of the European Union in association with the European Commission, and the Candidate Countries. CORDROGUE 7 REV 2 – 15.02 2002

• - 

  Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004. OJ L 346, 31.12.2001- P.1

• - 

  Directive 2001/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering - Commission Declaration. OJ L 344, 28.12.2001- P. 76

• - 

  Council Resolution on the implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators on drugs, developed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). CORDROGUE 67- 15.11.2001

• - 

  Council Act of 16 October 2001 establishing, in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union.OJ C 326, 21.11.2001 - P.1

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 June 2001 establishing a programme of incentives and exchanges, training and cooperation for the prevention of crime (Hippokrates). OJ L 186, 07.07.2001 - P. 11

• - 

  Council Framework Decision of 26 June 2001 on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. OJ L 182, 05.07.2001 - P. 1

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 June 2001 establishing a second phase of incentives, exchanges, training and cooperation for law enforcement authorities (Oisin II) – OJ L 186, 07.07.2001 – P.4

• - 

  Council Regulation (EC) No 1116/2001 of 5 June 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

O J L 153, 08.06.2001 - P. 4

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 May 2001 setting up a European crime prevention network. OJ L 153, 08.06.2001 - P.1

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 May 2001 on the transmission of samples of controlled substances.

O J L 150, 06.06.2001 - P.1

• - 

  Council recommendation on the alignment of law enforcement drug and diverted precursors statistics. STUP 26 – 30.10.2001 and STUP 29-13.11.2001

• - 

  Council conclusions on networking information on emerging trends and patterns in drug abuse and poly-drug use and the associated risks. O J C 017, 19.01.2001 - P. 2

• - 

  Initiative of the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a JHA Council Decision establishing a system of special forensic profiling analysis of synthetic drugs. OJ C 10, 12.01.2001 - P. 1

• - 

  Council Decision of 17 October 2000 concerning arrangements for cooperation between financial intelligence units of the Member States in respect of exchanging information. OJ L 271, 24.10.2000 - P. 4

• - 

  Council Regulation (EC) No 2220/2000 of 28 September 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. OJ L 253, 07.10.2000 - P.1

• - 

  Council Decision of 28 September 2000 on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Norway on the participation of Norway in the work of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. OJ L 257, 11.10.2000 - P.23

• - 

  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1610/2000 of 24 July 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3769/92 implementing and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. JO L 185, 25.07.2000 - P.30

• - 

  Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union. JO C 197, 12.07.2000 – P-3

• B. 

  Pending EU instruments.

• - 

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, including terrorist financing. COM (2004) 448 – 30.06.2004

• - 

  Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors”. UD 81, CORDROGUE, COMER 120, 30.06.2004

• - 

  Proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (recast). COM (2003) 808 (01) - 19.12.2003

• - 

  Draft Council Recommendation on the monitoring of the chemical composition of narcotics, in order to improve investigation results in the fight against transnational drug trafficking within the European Union. CORDROGUE 82-13.11.2003

• - 

  Proposal for a Council Decision on the information exchange, risk-assessment and the control on new narcotic drugs and new synthetic drugs. COM(2003)0560 final - 03.10.2003.

• - 

  Initiative by the Kingdom of Spain for the conclusion of a Convention on the suppression by customs administrations of illicit drug trafficking on the high seas. JO C 45, 19.02.2002

• - 

  Proposal for a Council framework Decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. COM (001) 259 final 23.05.2001. OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001 - P.172

1COM (1999) 239 final of 26.5.1999

2Cordrogue 64 Rev 3, 12555/3/99, 1.12.1999

3Cordrogue 32, 9283/00, 7.6.2000

4COM (2002) 599 final, 4.11.2002

5 Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Member States are to the former 15 Member States

6The papers are available on www.emcdda.eu.int or on www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home and www.europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs

7Available on www.emcdda.eu.int

8See www.europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home

9Crimorg 43 Rev 3, 9615/3/03

10Cordrogue 81 Rev 2, 12452/2/02

11Cordrogue 40, Rev 2, 8926/2/03

12Cordrogue 43, 10481/04

• 131. 

  The extent and pattern of drug use in the general population 2. The prevalence of problem drug use 3. The demand for treatment by drug users 4. The number of drug-related deaths and the mortality of drug users and 5. The rates of drug-related infectious diseases.

14OJ L 167, 25.06.1997, p. 1

15 OJ L 19, 22.1.1997, p. 25

16OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 1

17OJ L 165, 03.07.2003, p. 31

18COM(2003)311 final

19Cordrogue 97, 13.11.2003

20Directive 91/308/EEC, 0J L166, 28.06.1991, p. 77-83

21Directive 2001/97/CE , OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76

22OJ L 162, 20.06.2002, p.1

23OJ C 197, 12.07.2000, p. 1

24OJ C 24, 23.01.1998, p. 2

25OJ C 316, 27.11.95, p. 34

26Cf. footnote 21

27OJ L 203, 01.08.2002, p. 5

28COM (2001) 259 final

29OJ L 47, 18.02.2004, p. 1

30COM (2004) 244 final

31COM (2004) 448, 30.06.04

32OJ L 271, 24.10.2000, p. 4

33Stup 26, 30.10.2001, Stup 29, 13.11.01

34See Section 2.2

35For further exploration see the snapshot and the thematic paper “Main lessons from investigation of evaluation in the drug policy field in the European Union” on the EMCDDA’s website.

36The AGIS programme (Framework programme on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) started in 2003 and incorporates previous Title VI programmes, such as Falcone and OISIN.

37Only the actions where the Commission, the EMCDDA and EUROPOL are directly involved are analysed.

EN EN

This page is also available in a full version containing de juridische context.