Master Dissertation

European drug policy: the EU Drug Action Plan 2009 – 2012 and the Belgian drug policy

Student: Sander de Bruijn – 00906301 Program: Manama European Criminology and Criminal Justice SystemsPromoter: Prof. dr. B. De RuyverCommissioner 1: Prof. dr. P. HebberechtCommissioner 2: Prof. dr. M. CoolsGhent University 2009 – 2010

Abstract. This paper examines Belgian and European drug policy. The drug problem is described as a multidimensional phenomenon to which European and Belgian drug policy attempt to provide a multidimensional answer. Several drug policy documents stipulate measures in different policy fields. European drug policy is explicated in the EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012 which outlines the main objectives and principles and provides the framework for two consecutive four-year action plans. The EU Drug Action Plans translate the general objectives and principles in concrete actions. In Belgium drug policy is captured in the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001 which had a thorough review and update in the Communal Declaration of January 2010. The content of these policy documents is submitted to an analysis and comparison. Similarities and differences were detected. The comparison has shown that both drug policies treat the same topics although they have a different outline. Very generally we could say that both drug policies aim for an integrated, integral and well coordinated drug policy which is scientifically and evidence-based and that provides prevention, treatment and repressive measures on different aspects of the drug problem. On some issues (e.g. harm reduction initiatives) Belgian drug policy is much more advanced and liberal than European drug policy, but this statement can be reversed too (e.g. attention for law enforcement and judicial cooperation). Drug policy is therefore constructed through both bottom-up and top-down approaches, a given that guarantees and maintains a certain dynamics.

Key words: EU, Belgium, drug policy, comparison.

Word count (excl. front page, abstract, table of contents, footnotes and references): 18337

2

Content

0. General Introduction 4

1. International drug legislation 5

2. European drug policy 5 - Introduction to European drug policy- History of European drug policy in a nutshell- Focus on current European drug policy

The theoretical and general guidelines: The EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012In the field: The EU Drug Action Plan 2009 – 2012

3. Belgian drug policy 10 - Introduction to Belgian drug policy- Belgian drug legislation- Modern Belgian drug policy: Parliamentary workgroup Drugs Federal Drug Policy Note Cooperation Agreement Communal Declaration

Parliamentary workgroup Drugs Federal Drug Policy Note Federal Drug Policy Note Cooperation AgreementCooperation Agreement Communal Declaration

4. Evaluation and comparison 16 - Introduction- A comparison based on the multidimensional nature of the drug phenomenon

Comparison on an integrated and integral approach – coordinationComparison on epidemiology and research – information and understanding of the problem

The Reitox National Focal PointsMonitoring the drug situation and the key indicatorsOngoing evaluation of drug policy

Comparison on prevention and treatment policy – demand reduction initiativesPrevention

General drug use and associated risksHigh risk behaviour of drug users

TreatmentEffectiveness of drug treatmentHarm reduction and infectious diseasesHealth care and treatment in prison

Comparison on repressive policy – supply reduction initiativesComparison of international and Belgian drug legislationComparison of European and Belgian repressive drug policy

Enhancement law enforcement cooperationEnhancement judicial cooperation

5. General conclusion 34

References 37

3

0. General Introduction

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891).

This expression could be a frolicsome way to explain the high number of drug users in the world. A temptation can unfortunately turn into a habit and addiction fast. Although drug use often remains in an experimental phase, many people are confronted wit problematic drug use and serious addictions. Drugs users are only one fragment in the drug problem. Drugs and the drug problem are issues which have always been present in our societies. The illicit economies of drugs and the intertwined issues concerning organized crime and trafficking of drugs (but also weapons, humans, nuclear waste) have been on the priority list of policy makers for quite some time. Also in the European arena these themes have received a tremendous amount of attention and numerous specialized task forces have attempted to understand and combat the phenomena. Others create and develop policy plans to prevent and tackle these issues related to drugs and drug crime. The drug problem itself was one of the main catalysts of the birth of a European police force, the European Drug Unit, later reformed into Europol. The link between drugs, drug policy and Europe is an inevitable one. The drug phenomenon is also a problem with many dimensions. Therefore the reaction to it should be of the same nature to be efficient and effective. Drug legislation and drug policy have to take into account the many facets of the drug phenomenon to successfully achieve its goals and objectives. Health-care, prevention measures, social policy, treatment, security, repression and judicial interventions are just a few areas which are close related and have significant roles in the drug problem. They all provide a platform or view on how to deal with the drug problem in a different way. The difficulties lay in successfully integrating all these fields into one drug policy at e.g. national or European level. Nevertheless a Belgian and a European drug policy exist.Although Europe plays an important role in constructing transnational drug policy and the creation of communal goals and objectives to be accomplished in certain time frames, these goals and objectives often remain rather vague and insufficiently specified. A large space of interpretation is often left to the member states to apply and insert certain measures or to neglect these. International legislation, European drug policy documents and other sources provide a huge amount of instruments loaded with information and knowledge to deal with the drug problem. National drug policies of the member states remain important though. International initiatives have to be translated in national policy since nation states enjoy a national sovereignty. The European guidelines for example will (sometimes) be adopted by national drug policies and specified in national policy plans. The same can be argued for other European instruments.

This paper focuses on Belgian and European drug policy. The core issue in this paper will be a comparison and evaluation of Belgian and European drug policy in its different aspects.The paper consists of four main parts. The first part will very shortly exhibit international drug legislation. The second chapter will elaborate on the ingredients and contours of European drug policy. Attention is given to its history and current and relevant policy documents. The third chapter is similar to the second but cogitates on the Belgian situation. Belgian drug legislation is also captured in this part. The fourth part consists of the actual comparison and evaluation of Belgian and European drug policy. Preference was given to a comparison according the different aspects of the multidimensional drug phenomenon. To finalize a general conclusion is given in the last part.

4

1. International drug legislation

The very basic framework of international drug legislation can be found in de UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 (and their schedules). These Conventions provide the framework for the control of narcotic and psychotropic substances which is monitored by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). They continue the initial prototype of some sort of global prohibition set out in the 1912 Hague opium convention.1

Article 2 of the 1961 Convention provides controls over a group of substances, summarized in the schedules. The group of manufactured drugs was expanded in the second convention through an enlargement of the scope of control in article 2 of the 1971 Convention. Finally several more acts and actions related to these controlled substances were criminalized in article 3 of the ‘88 Convention.

2. European drug policy

Introduction to European drug policy

Drugs have been a criminal problem since the existence of the European Union and before. Most criminality concerning drugs gained an international character through time. The notion ‘Drugs’ and ‘drug crimes’2 contain a wide range of criminal activities which all can be listed in this category. Some of these criminal actions manifest themselves locally (e.g. drug related crime caused by drug tourism from French drug tourists in large Belgian cities3), some of them adopt an international (hashish trafficking from Morocco to Spain, Portugal and France as final destination4) and even intercontinental (cocaine trafficking from South America to Europe (through West Africa) and North America5 or heroin trafficking from the Middle East and South East Asia to Europe through the Balkan and Turkey6) or global character. Europe has a significant role in the drug phenomenon, e.g. as manufacturer of specific drugs, as central node for international traffic and as a drug market as final destination of certain types of drugs. It is only logical that responses to this problem have taken the same international and European character.Without making it the central topic of this paper it is important to understand that drug policy is an answer to the drug phenomenon and the drug problems around the globe. The drug problem itself is a very multidimensional phenomenon. The answer to this diversified

1 K. KRAJEWSKI, “How flexible are the United Nations Drug Conventions?”, International Journal of Drug Policy 1999, 329.2 Drugs in this paper is a generic term for illegal substances. Different nations use other notions for these illegal substances. Drugs refer in this paper to the traditional illegal drugs and do not refer to prescription drugs, tobacco or alcohol. Most common examples of illegal drugs are cannabis, cocaine, heroine, XTC, MDMA, GHB, qhat, LSD, …3 B. DE RUYVER and T. SURMONT (ed.), Grensoverschrijdend drugstoerisme; Nieuwe uitdagingen voor de Euregio’s, Antwerpen – Apeldoorn, 2007, 1 – 129 and B. DE RUYVER, “Drugs in de Lage Landen: de Belgische kant van het verhaal”, Justitiële Verkenningen 2006, 135 – 136.4 T. BOEKHOUT VAN SOLINGE, Cannabis in Frankrijk, CEDRO, 1995, 5 – 6.5 F. THOUMI, “The Colombian competitive advantage in illegal drugs: the role of policies and institutional changes”, Journal of Drug Issues 2005, 7 – 26.6 G. FARRELL, K. MANSUR and M. TULLIS, “Cocaine and heroine in Europe 1982 – 93: A Cross – national Comparison of Trafficking and Prices”, British Journal of Criminology 1996, 255 – 281 and J. VAN DOORN, “Drug Trafficking Networks in Europe”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 1993, 96 – 104.

5

problem is therefore also very diversified and multidimensional. Legislation on drugs only covers the drug problem partially and provides an answer in a narrow prohibitionist and (commonly) strictly repressive way. Other problems and dimensions of the drug problem (health, prevention, treatment and alternatives and degrees of repression) are discussed in policy plans on different policy levels. One of these levels is Europe with its many platforms and forums where drugs have always played a significant role, even in enhancing the European cooperation on other areas. The multidimensional character of the drug phenomenon has evoked a multidimensional answer to these issues, captured in different degrees of policy all dealing with a specific aspect of the rug problem. "Multidimenionsionality" would be a key notion in both the drug problem and the reactions to it.

History of European drug policy in a nutshell

This part will attempt to give an overview of the most important events in European drug policy. It will only focus on key EU activities and milestones in European drug policy because the emphasis of this paper will be upon current European drug policy. Nevertheless will a historical overview of European drug policy be useful to get a better understanding of the current situation and what has led to the current situation.The early 1990’s are the scenery for a first modern developing European drug policy. In response to several initiatives in the European drugs arena, the very first European Plan to combat drugs was adopted in 1990 by the Rome European Council.7 Two years later, it was the Maastricht Treaty which labelled the drug problem (more specifically drug dependence and related diseases) as a public health problem. Community actions should be directed towards drug dependence and have to aim at a high level of human health protection.8 The Maastricht Treaty would enter into force in 1993. Based on Title 6 of the Maastricht Treaty, a European police force would be set up to enhance police cooperation in the field of unlawful drug trafficking and other crime types.9 A year later, the European Drugs Unit was created as a non-operational unit which focussed solely on organizing the exchange of information on narcotic drugs.10 The EDU would evolve into Europol in 1999 through the Europol-convention and has now become the European Police Office from the 1st of January 2010 after the Council Decision of 6 April 2009. Drug crimes have remained one of the most significant crime phenomena the European police force is confronted with. Meanwhile another European action plan to combat drugs (1996 – 2000) was adopted in 1995. The provisions on drugs of the Maastricht Treaty were strengthened through the amending Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 and a new objective was added: The Community shall complement the Member States’ (after this: MS) action in reducing drug-related health damage, including information and prevention.11 Together with the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, an Early Warning system was developed. The Joint Action of 16 June 1997 adopted by the Council based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on the European Union created a mechanism for rapid exchange of information on new synthetic drugs and the assessment of their risks in order to permit the application of the measures of control on psychotropic substances.12 A few years later, during the same period Europol was born, the European Council adopted a first

7 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index2982EN.html8 Article 129, §1 of the Maastricht Treaty (TEC).9 Art. K.1 (9) of the Maastricht Treaty on the European Union.10 M. DEN BOER, “Police Cooperation in the TEU: Tiger in a Trojan Horse?”, Common Market Law Review 1995, 568.11 Art. 129 of the amending Treaty of Amsterdam.12 Art. 1, 97/396/JHA

6

real European Union Drug Strategy 2000 – 2004, accompanied by the endorsement of a European Union Drug Action Plan which was the translation of the policy objectives and guidelines in the Strategy into concrete actions. This is the start of a period when drug strategies and action plans would determine European drug policy, an evolution which is maintained until today. A new strategy was developed in 2004 for the period of 2005 – 2012 accompanied by two executive four-year action plans. There have also been evaluation reports, e.g. the evaluation of the Drugs Action Plan 2005 – 2008 conducted by the Commission, the MS, the EMCDDA and Europol. The most recent plans in European drug policy are discussed more thoroughly below. During this period several other European initiatives (council decisions, framework decisions, regulations, recommendations, …) concerning drug matters were introduced. The Council recommendation of June 18th 2003 on the prevention and reduction of health-related harm13 is a recommendation which encourages MS to set as a public health objective the prevention of drug dependence and the reduction of related risks. Another example is the European Parliament and Council regulation on drug precursors of February 11th 2004 which is an attempt to establish harmonised measures for the control and monitoring of substances regularly used for the manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.14 Drug crimes and their international character often have different definitions in different countries. The Council Framework Decision lays down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking.15 Hereby a common definition can be created which allows a common approach in dealing with the problem. The Lisbon Treaty repeats the need to establish minimum rules concerning criminal offences and sanctions in different areas of crime, one of them being drug trafficking.16 The Treaty further repeats the objective relating to public health introduced in the amending Treaty of Amsterdam where the Union shall complement the MS’ actions in reducing drugs-related health damage including information and prevention.17 In 2007 a special ‘Drug prevention and information programme’ was set out through a European Parliament and Council Decision. The programme runs from 2007 until 2013 and aims to prevent and reduce drug use, drug addiction and the related risks by implementing targets identified by the EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012 and the EU Drug Action Plans 2005 – 2008 and 2009 – 2012.

Focus on current European drug policy

European drug policy plans have been constructed by the Council and are separated in policy and action plans. Considering the age of the Belgian federal drug policy plan and the more up-to-date European policy plans, it is interesting to investigate whether the Belgian drug policy plans are still capable of following the European guidelines.It is commonly known and more than once proven in scientific literature that the drug problem is one of an international nature and that the reaction to it should therefore also be an international one (see above). Europe therefore tries to provide measures, actions and policy plans in order to tackle or at least deal with the problem. The question therefore is whether the MS are willing and capable to follow these European initiatives.

13 2003/488/EC of 18 June 200314 Regulation EC 273/2004.15 2004/757/JHA16 Art. 83 of the Lisbon Treaty/TFEU17 Art. 168 TFEU

7

European drug policy has received broad attention for over a decade. As was discussed above, the first European action plan on drugs dates from 2000 and the Europol Drug Unit was already established in 1994 to transform into Europol five years later.Today, the most important documents on European drug policy are the EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012 and the most recent Drugs Action Plan 2009 – 2012. The next part will focus on the content of these policy documents. The EU Drugs Strategy gives a general overview of aims and guidelines and provides a theoretical framework for European drug policy. The Drug Action Plan 2009 – 2012 will explicitly describe responsibilities for Europe and other European institutions such as MS.

The theoretical and general guidelines: The EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 201218

This CoE document provides the framework for two consecutive four-year action plans. It holds the aims and priorities for the European drug policy for a period of eight years. The Strategy builds on the preceding EU Drugs Strategy 2000 – 2004 and Action Plan on drugs 2000 – 2004. The Strategy is also based on a number of UN conventions (the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 protocol19, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971)20 and the Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988)21 discussed earlier). Numerous arguments, views and other elements will be found in the EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012 based on these conventions. The Strategy also takes into account the future Constitution of the EU and the EC treaties and legislation. The general aim of the Strategy is to complement on national strategies and to accentuate the relationship between the MS’ national strategies. The Strategy emphasizes that EU efforts are geared towards a coordination of all actors involved (including MS) and that these MS should consider the impact of their national strategies on other MS and the effect and impact on the European Union Strategy. Finally the Strategy emphasizes the importance of the preceding EU Drugs Strategy 2000 – 2004, the Action Plan on Drugs 2000 – 2004 and considers the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Action Plan, the Council’s response to this Mid-Term Evaluation and the results of the Final Evaluation.22 As an integral part of the multi-annual programme “The Hague Programme”, the Strategy became one of the ten priorities and an essential matter in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice.23

The Strategy is roughly divided in two large parts with five major themes. A general introduction sketches the general thoughts and principles of the Strategy. Further it focuses on partners (European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction or EMCDDA, Europol, Eurojust) and its place in EU’s and global drug policy. For a view on the current drug situation in Europe, the Strategy refers to the annual reports of the EMCDDA and Europol. A short reflection on the results achieved by the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan 2000 – 2004 follows and it suggests how this can be implemented in the new Strategy. As most important result for further implementation in the future is the necessity to create clear and precise objectives and priorities which can be translated into operational indicators and actions in the future Action Plans, with responsibility and deadlines for their implementation clearly defined. The Strategy makes the distinction between two areas of drug policy: health

18 15074/04 CORDROGUE 77 SAN 187 ENFOPOL 187 RELEX 564.19 http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf 20 http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1971_en.pdf 21 http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf 22 Art. 1 – 6 EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012. 23 EU Drugs Action Plan 2005 – 2008, 1. (2005/C 168/01)

8

care (prevention, treatment, care) versus security (repression). A clear emphasis is put on the coordination needed between partners and MS in the drug policy. Coordination is described as the key factor in successful drug policy.24

The second part captures the actual content of the Strategy. It consists of two policy fields (demand and supply reduction) and two cross cutting themes (international cooperation and information, research and evaluation). The exact and detailed content can be read in the Strategy itself but a short summary will follow next. The demand reduction is mostly focussed on prevention and providing treatment and rehabilitation programmes. Special attention goes to specific groups (pregnant women, youth). The priorities given by the Strategy are improving the access and effectiveness of prevention programmes, improving access to early prevention- and diversified treatment programmes.25 There is a strong focus on prevention, treatment and health care programmes in the fight against demand reduction. The other policy field, supply reduction, is a mixed way to combat the drug problem. A strong reasoning is focussed on law enforcement but also on crime prevention. It is absolutely a priority to target the crime forms and issues that have an effect on the EU as a whole and thus there must be a clear added value to all MS. Certain drug related crimes receive special attention (money laundering, financing of terrorism). Points of interest are the import and export of illegal drugs which should be prevented and punished. Cooperation is essential when MS are confronted with the same drug related crimes. The Strategy encourages the use of existing instruments (Europol, Eurojust, European Arrest Warrant, Joint Investigation Teams) to their full potential to intensify the cooperation in law enforcement between the MS in achieving their goals. A crucial role is given to Europol to collect and disseminate data and intelligence to facilitate cooperation between MS. Cooperation and intensifying law enforcement efforts directed to non-EU countries is important as well (towards production countries of trafficking routes).26

Two cross cutting themes emphasize the importance of international cooperation and the significance of information, research and evaluation in drug policy. First, the Strategy states the drug problem as a global problem that needs to be tackled from a regional, national and international approach. A balanced cooperation should be more effective and visible. Third countries should be assisted in their drug demand and supply reduction through both closer cooperation among MS and by mainstreaming drug issues into the common foreign and security policy dialogue. Second cross-cutting theme is information, research and evaluation. These goals are designed to get a better understanding of the drug problem in Europe and to consolidate the earlier made tools and information systems. The EMCDDA and Europol will play an extremely important role in exchanging and disseminating information, research results and experiences. These institutions also have a supportive role in evaluating the policy which is a responsibility of the Commission.27

The Strategy elaborates on the main guidelines and principles of the EU’s drug policy. It creates the theoretical goals and framework. It is remarkable how goals are supposed to be measurable and precise however the aims given by the Strategy remain relatively vague. Measuring levels of effectiveness or improvement in access is quite difficult.

In the field: The EU Drug Action Plan 2009 – 201228

24 Art. 7 – 21 EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012.25 Art. 22 – 25 EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012.26 Art. 26 – 27 EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012.27 Art. 28 – 32 EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012.28 (2008/C 326/09)

9

This plan builds further on the EU Drugs Action Plan 2005 – 2008.The Drug Action Plan 2009 – 2012 (DAP from now on) captures what has been achieved in the previous DAP and repeats the importance of the drug problem as a multidisciplinary problem. It summarizes the results of the evaluation report which is a joint effort by the Commission, the MS, the EMCDDA, Europol, and European NGO networks. Further the DAP repeats the five major themes from the Strategy which, in short, are: 1) Improving coordination, cooperation and raising public awareness, 2) Reducing the demand for drugs, 3) Reducing the supply of drugs, 4) Improving international cooperation, 5) Improving understanding of the problem. This construction of categories is maintained throughout the whole document (and in fact the result of many years of drug policy documents in Europe. Several drug action plans use the same terms to distinct different policy areas, e.g. the European Action Plan to combat drugs 2000 – 2004 and even older documents). Following the same outline as in the DAP itself, an overview of objectives and actions in which the MS have a responsible role will follow. The DAP describes 72 separate concrete actions spread out over 24 objectives and the MS have a role in almost every one of them (because the MS are represented in every organ of the EU, like e.g. Europol, the Council, …). Comparing all actions and policy fields with the developments and evolutions in Belgian drug policy would be an almost impossible task for this master dissertation. Therefore this paper has made a selection of objectives and actions which will be compared to Belgian drug policy. Nevertheless by selecting several and different actions and objectives from all policy fields and cross cutting themes, an overall and widespread interpretation will be explicated to which extent the Belgian drug policy is consistent with the European drug policy. Sometimes the MS are a responsible party together with other institutions in achieving certain objectives, sometimes an objective or action is fully their responsibility. In listing several objectives and actions in which the MS have a significant role, it becomes easier to analyse whether the Belgian drug policy has met the European suggestions and initiatives.

3. Belgian drug policy

Introduction to Belgian drug policy

The framework for Belgian drug policy rests on different sources. On the one hand there are the drug laws, reflecting the narrow and limited repressive and prohibitionist viewpoint of the drug matter. On the other hand there are the drug policy documents, attempting to deal with the problem from a multidimensional point of view. Both will be explained here separately.The narrow prohibitionist view on the drug matter is captured in the history of Belgian drug legislation which dates back to the beginning of the 20th century. This will be discussed in the first part of this chapter. Obviously it is necessary to focus on other sources as well. Multidimensional Belgian drug policy can be expounded by elucidating the different milestones from the last fifteen years in this field. The foundations of modern Belgian drug policy were constructed in the second half of the 1990’s by the Parliamentary Workgroup ‘Drugs’. The results from this research conducted by experts shaped the general guidelines, objectives and principles of drug policy from the last 15 years. The results were published in the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001, the cradle for Belgian drug policy for almost a decade. One of the goals of this policy document was to develop a “Cooperation Agreement” (Samenwerkingsakkoord) between all authorities in Belgium. In 2008 all parties had ratified this agreement, making it possible to establish an Interministerial Conference on Drugs and an “Algemene Cel Drugsbeleid” which will be translated in “Council on Drug Policy” in this paper. Only recently in the beginning of 2010, an actualisation and period of new and fresh

10

developments has found its way to the drug policy arena. The creation of a ‘Communal Declaration’ (Gemeenschappelijke Verklaring) seems to be the latest stage in the history of Belgian drug policy so far. This part will elaborate on the developments through time concerning Belgian drug policy. The ingredients, outlines, objectives, guidelines and principles of the different ‘milestones’ in Belgian drug policy will be explicated.

Belgian drug legislation

The original law regulating drug matters in Belgium dates from February 24th 192129

and has seen many changes since then30. This law ratifies the Opium treaty of The Hague of January 23rd 1912.31 The latest legal changes were made by the Law of May 3rd 200332 and the Law of April 4th 200333. Art. 1 of the Belgian Drug Law stipulates that possession (together with a summary of other actions like transport, import, export, production) of drugs is to be regulated and supervised by the government.34 These two laws are accompanied by a Royal Decision or ‘Koninklijk Besluit’ (KB) of May 16th 2003 (which is needed for the implementation of the law and to make the law operational in Belgium35). The KB specifies three categories of criminal offences concerning drugs: 1) import, manufacturing, transport, buying and possession of narcotics and cultivating cannabis plants36; 2) the same offences as under 1) but with aggravating circumstances37; 3) other infractions of the Belgian Drug Law. The two laws and the KB constitute the foundations of the Belgian legal framework about drugs and determine the illegal nature of drug possession and other infractions. Two more minor changes have been applied to the Drug Law in 2006 but these changes did not alter the law significantly.One interesting point within Belgian drug legislation is the situation concerning cannabis. Much has been written about it but considering the strict repressive character of international drug legislation, this could be interesting (this will be discussed in detail in the next chapter). In Belgium, the legislator made a clear distinction between the rules about cannabis and other

29 Law of 24 February 1921 “betreffende het verhandelen van de giftstoffen, slaapmiddelen en verdovende middelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica”, B.S. 6 March 1921.30 Law van 24 February 1921 betreffende het verhandelen van de giftstoffen, slaapmiddelen en verdovendemiddelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica, B.S. 6 March 1921; changed by Law 11 March 1958, B.S. 10September 1958; changed by Law 22 July 1974, B.S. 1 March 1975; changed by Law 9 July 1975, B.S. 26September 1975; changed by Law 1 July 1976, B.S. 10 August 1976; changed by Law 14 July 1994, B.S. 21October 1994; changed by Law 10 July 1996, B.S. 1 August 1996; changed by Law 17 November 1998, B.S.23 December 1998; changed by Law 22 August 2002, B.S. 1 October 2002 (after this the Belgian Drug Law).31 The International Opium Treaty signed in ’s Gravenhage on January 23rd 1912. The Treaty was signed by Belgium on June 18th 1912 and ratified by Law of 15 March 1914, B.S. 16 July 1919.32 Law of 3 May 2003 tot wijziging van de Law of 21 February 1921 betreffende het verhandelen van giftstoffen,slaapmiddelen en verdovende middelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica, B.S. 2 June 2003.33 Law of 4 April 2003 tot wijziging van de Law van 24 February 1921 betreffende het verhandelen van degiftstoffen, slaapmiddelen en verdovende middelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica, en van artikel 137 vanhet Lawboek van Strafvordering, B.S. 2 June 2003.34 Art. 1 of the Drug Law.35 P. DE VROEDE and J. GORUS, Inleiding tot het recht, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2003, 217 – 222.36 Art. 2 2° K.B. 16 May 2003 tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 31 December 1930 omtrent de handelin slaap- en verdovende middelen alsmede van het koninklijk besluit van 22 January 1998 tot reglementering vansommige psychotrope stoffen, teneinde daarin bepalingen in te voegen met betrekking tot risicobeperking entherapeutisch advies, en tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 26 October 1993 houdende maatregelen omte voorkomen dat bepaalde stoffen worden misbruikt voor de illegale vervaardiging van verdovende middelen enpsychotrope stoffen, B.S. 2 June 2003.37 Art. 2bis §2-4 of the Drug Law.

11

drugs. Considering other reasons to drop prosecution (opportunity reasons or technical reasons), the Belgian Drug Law states that only a registration, and therefore not even a police report, by the police forces is required when: 1) the possession of cannabis doesn’t exceed the amount for personal use; 2) this possession isn’t accompanied by public nuisance and 3) the possession isn’t accompanied problematic (ab)use of the drug.38 This means there will be no prosecution, no treatment or settlement when these conditions are respected because the police will not submit the case to the prosecutor. Though in theory the act remains a criminal offence although there will be no punishment of any kind which de facto depenalises cannabis possession. Obviously one could argue that the thin line between depenalizing and decriminalizing becomes very thin and extremely blurry. A huge discussion emerged about the terms ‘amount for personal use’, ‘problematic use of the drug’ and ‘when to talk about public nuisance’ and how they should be interpreted. The Belgian Drug Law refers to the KB of May 16th 2003 and other laws to clarify a few aspects. Discussion about the exact content of these notions remained a hot item on the Belgian political and judicial agendas and will -in my personal opinion- remain like that for some more years. Most important to remember is that concerning cannabis the MC of May 16th 2003 states that the amount of a maximum of three grams of cannabis can be considered as an amount for personal use. A concrete number does exist therefore for cannabis. The amounts for other drugs are still up to the interpretation of the prosecutors. It is interesting to notice here that it is the law itself which provides an opportunity and basis for depenalising (and de facto decriminalisation!?) possession of a drug.Now knowing the drug legislation, the paper focuses on the other drug policy documents in Belgium.

Modern Belgian drug policy: Parliamentary workgroup Drugs Federal Drug Policy Note Cooperation Agreement Communal Declaration

Parliamentary workgroup Drugs 1996 – 1997 Federal Drug Policy Note 2001

The foundations of Belgian drug policy date from 1996 – 1997 when the parliamentary workgroup ‘Drugs’ notified the Chamber of Representatives (Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers) through a report39 about their research in which they apprised the analyses, needs and concerns of the many different and diversified actors in the drug field. Through this bottom-up approach, the working group confronted the policy makers with the experiences, worries and concerns of the actors involved at the basis of the drug phenomenon. This process resulted in recommendations and general guidelines concerning an integrated and global drug policy in which all the competent actors are involved respecting their own specificities and finalities. The recommendations and guidelines proposed by the workgroup have been adapted and translated by the executive power into a policy document, the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001. The first part of this policy document captures all the viewpoints and recommendations of the workgroup of which a brief summary will follow here.

The starting point for an integrated Belgian drug policy is an integral and global approach, according to the workgroup, in which prevention, treatment and in a last instance repression have crucial roles. The drug phenomenon is multi-dimensional and cooperation and coordination between the different policy making authorities is necessary to establish an integrated and global policy plan. The workgroup pleads for policy coordination between different authorities and organs. A vertical (between the federal, community, provincial and local level) and horizontal (between policy coordinating organs in different sectors) policy

38 Art. 11 §1 Belgian Drug Law.39 Parl. St., Kamer, 1996- 1997, 1062/1 tot 1062/3

12

coordination is necessary because of the high level of fragmentation of competences and authorities spread out over the different policy making levels in Belgian politics.40 The workgroup has chosen to give the highest priority in drug policy to prevention measures for people affected and confronted with drugs. Prevention will focus upon discouraging and reducing drug use through dissuasion policy and lowering the initiation rates to the use of both legal and illegal drugs. The scope of prevention measures has to contain both prevention measures focussing on the individual (e.g. education, boosting social skills) and structural prevention measures (e.g. fighting poverty, community development). There are a few themes which have to receive special attention: youngsters, psychoactive medication and driving under influence are considered priority problems.41 Treatment measures should protect the society and its members who are confronted with the drug phenomenon. There has to be a large offer of treatment facilities (from very low threshold facilities to high-threshold drug free therapeutic programmes) providing customized care for every individual. To organise and coordinate treatment facilities in the best way it is necessary to create a system of registration and strict government control. Treatment is based on a voluntary participation which means that the person who requests help has to do this out of his own free will. A forced treatment has to be avoided (but is not excluded). This is why an optimal cooperation between justice and treatment has to be established through cooperation protocols and agreements. These agreements have to consider and respect different finalities and principles of both sectors (e.g. the trust relationships between drug clients and helpers). Problematic drug use is an unavoidable problem which also has to be dealt with through harm reduction and risk reducing measures like needle exchange programmes, substitution policies or programmes promoting social reintegration through employment, respecting the human dignity of drug addicts.42 Repression is focussed upon drug production and drug trafficking. Both drug production and drug trafficking are phenomena of an international nature. Therefore international cooperation is a must in combating problems like drug tourism and the trade in precursors. Efforts in activating Belgian participation in European drug policy development and international cooperation have to be maximized. Certain sprouts of international phenomena (e.g. drug-related crime from drug tourism in a local city) have to be dealt with through integrated local drug policy plans. Although drug use and other drug-related crime caused by drug users remains illegal behaviour, a penal intervention will be considered to be an “ultimum remedium” or final remedy towards drug users. When drug-related crime is linked to a criminal financial gain, a repressive penal intervention will be the answer. When the drug-related crime is committed to meet with his/her needs, a penal intervention has to be avoided. Problematic drug users who commit drug-related crime have to be directed to treatment. The criminal justice system provides possibilities on every level (prosecution, sentencing and execution of sentence) to guide the problematic drug users to treatment according to the relevant policy guideline. Lastly a prison drug policy should be developed to deal with the emerging problems in this field. This environment needs harm reduction initiatives like substitution policy too or access to external treatment facilities.43

All these recommendations and starting-points have been copied into the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001.

Federal Drug Policy Note 2001 Cooperation Agreement

40 FDPN, 9 and Communal Declaration (after this CD), 7.41 FDPN, 10 – 11 and CD, 7 – 8 .42 FDPN, 11 – 12 and CD, 8.43 FDPN, 8 – 9 and CD, 7.

13

The Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001 (Federale Beleidsnota Drugs 2001, after this FDPN) has been the Holy Grail of Belgian drug policy for almost a decade. This policy document considers the drug problem as a public health matter and therefore as a health-related issue.44 The FDPN consists of three distinguishable parts. The first part captures all the recommendations, suggestions and findings from the parliamentary workgroup drugs which have been summarized above. The second part of the FDPN describes the actual state of the drug problem and captures those recommendations which already had been realised by the time the FDPN was created. The content and construction of the recommendations and what had actually already been realised follow roughly the same outline. The concept of an integrated and global approach towards the drug problem provides the basis. Epidemiology, evaluation and the classic threefold approach on how to deal with the drug problem are distinguished: prevention (targeted on substances or groups), treatment (harm reduction, risk control, reintegration) and repressive policy (crime phenomena, penal policy towards groups and specific phenomena, drug policy in prison). These two parts, describing the state of the drug problem and recommendations of the expert group, are followed by a series of ‘action points’ spread out over the same topics as the first two parts. The third part (which contains the Action Points) follows the same construction as the first two parts, distinguishing action points in the different policy fields (once again: the concept of an integrated and global approach, epidemiology, prevention, repression, after care and treatment). It becomes clear that these are the main themes and topics in the FDPN.

Considering the development and implementation of an integrated and global drug policy in Belgium the first and most important action point proposed by the FDPN is the establishment of a “Council Drug Policy” (Cel Drugbeleid) as soon as possible. This has to be achieved through the ratification of a “cooperation agreement” (samenwerkingsakkoord) between the State (de Staat), the Communities (de Gemeenschappen), the Communal Community commission (de Gemeenschappelijke Gemeenschapscommissie), the French Communal Commission (Franse Gemeenschapscommissie) and the Regions (Gewesten) for a global and integrated drug policy. This ‘Council Drug Policy’ will be led by a drug coordinator and is assembled by representatives of all competent authorities. The ‘Council Drug Policy’ supports and advises the competent authorities and the “Interministerial Conference on Drugs” (Interministeriële Conferentie Drugs). The main objectives for this council, as set out by the Federal government are five-fold: to develop a global vision on all aspects of the drug problem, to guarantee a continuous prevention of drug use accompanied by a harm reduction principle, to optimize the care and treatment offer, the repression of illegal production and trade of drugs and lastly the development and implementation of deliberated policy plans aiming at a global and integrated drug policy.45 It is obvious that this “Council Drug Policy” has to play a central role in all domains of Belgian drug policy and has a preparatory task in the development of drug policy. The Interministerial Conference on Drugs will be the confirming organ of what was prepared by the Council Drug Policy.The Council Drug Policy will also have a crucial role for the participation and involvement of Belgium in the international and European drug policy arena and act as a “national coordinator”. The Council Drug Policy will attend all the activities organised by the Groupe Pompidou and the different relevant organs of the UN.

44 D. REYNDERS en A. VAN LIEMPT, “De zoektocht naar een integraal en geïntegreerd drugsbeleid”, Orde van de Dag 2007, 15.45 FDPN, 31.

14

Cooperation Agreement Communal Declaration

In the aftermath of the FDPN, the earlier proposed ‘cooperation agreement’ was draughted in September 2002. The cooperation agreement aims to install the Council Drug Policy and the Interministerial Conference on Drug Policy and their respective tasks, objectives and organisation. The cooperation agreement lists six objectives for the Interministerial Conference of which the fifth is important to policy-making: the development and implementation of deliberated policy plans concerning a global and integrated drug policy.46 Further it describes the Council Drug Policy as a supporting organ for the Interministerial Conference.But the instalment of these institutions would take much longer since the agreement had to be ratified by all the competent parties. It would take up to September 2008 before the agreement was ratified by the last competent party, the Brussels Capital Region (Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest). After the last authority had ratified the agreement, the instalment and operationalisation of the Council Drug Policy and the InterMinisterial Conference on Drugs was established.

One of the first accomplishments of the Council Drug Policy is the creation of the ‘Communal Declaration’ (Gemeenschappelijke Verklaring), which was approved by the InterMinisterial Conference on January 25th 2010. The Communal Declaration can be generally interpreted as an actualisation of the FDPN. It adheres the same basic principles which were set out in the FDPN, but evaluates what can be improved and what has been accomplished. It states that the Cooperation Agreement (see above) is the founding document for the Council Drug Policy and the InterMinisterial Conference on Drugs. The Communal Declaration attempts to execute the tasks which were described in article 1, 5 of the Cooperation Agreement (the development and implementation of deliberated policy plans concerning a global and integrated drug policy). The Council Drug Policy will have to safeguard the global and integrated drug policy by providing a platform for policy coordination between all the involved and competent authorities and partners in the diversified field of the drug phenomenon. The Council Drug Policy can also on its own initiative conduct research on certain aspects of the Belgian drug policy which can be reported to the InterMinisterial Conference on Drugs or the competent ministers. The Communal Declaration captures the history of Belgian drug policy and summarizes all the initiatives, actions and policy principles which have been taken by the relevant Ministers since the approval of the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001. What has been accomplished in the previous years will be compared to the goals and action points set out in the European policy documents in the next part.The third part of the Communal Declaration sketches the policy options which will be taken, in the different dimensions of the drug phenomenon, by the competent Ministers in the future. The policy options mainly repeat the viewpoints of the FDPN of 2001. An integrated and global approach remains the basic principle in designing Belgian drug policy. Prevention remains the basis for drug policy, followed by treatment and repression as ultimum remedium. The drug problem is an issue of public health. Considering international and European drug policy, the Communal Declaration ascribes the Council Drug Policy, and more specifically it’s Cell International Cooperation, as a ‘privileged instrument of management to establish a level of coherence in the external aspect of the integrated and global Belgian drug policy’.47

46 CD, Chapter 1, article 1 – point 547 CD, 82.

15

4. Evaluation and comparison

Introduction

Making a comparison of Belgian and European drug policy can be done in different ways. One possibility is to compare the way in which drug policy is developed. It has been argued that a European drug policy as such does not really exist but that it is more a sum of national drug policies from the MS. This would refer to a bottom-up approach in which the EU looks at drug policies in the MS and adapts objectives, principles and guidelines from them. Specific drug problems and challenges can occur in only a few MS at first and later in other. As they are detected in those few countries, responses are created. These responses can be adapted by the European policy makers, who at their turn, attempt to spread them over other MS. The European drug policy plans copy measures and principles, targeting specific problems, from those MS where the drug problem has already occurred. However, on the other hand European policy documents very clearly set out principles, guidelines and objectives of themselves (e.g. because of the transnational nature of a specific crime), even in concrete actions accompanied by a time frame and a note of which organs carry responsibility to accomplish the actions. When MS implement actions on their territory to execute such actions to accomplish a certain ‘European goal’, we would have to talk about a top-down approach in policy making. Because drug policy is multidimensional and a very complex and diversified phenomenon, it is most likely both bottom-up and top-down policy making evolutions occur. In this paper, I have chosen to analyze and compare European and Belgian drug policy according the multidimensional character of the drug problem, starting from the European Drug Action Plans (and therefore following more a top-down approach than a bottom-up approach). Drug policy consists of roughly four dimensions on how to deal with the drug problem: prevention, treatment, repression and the need for an umbrella of cooperation and coordination. Some other themes have to support these basic approaches, such as epidemiological initiatives, the need for research and information and the way on how policy is evaluated. These aspects can be found in both European and Belgian drug policy documents although they are sometimes named different. Despite their different ‘naming’ and labels, the content is comparable.

A comparison based on the multidimensionality of the drug phenomenon

The multidimensionality of the drug problem has been acknowledged by both Belgian and European policy makers. Where the Belgian policy documents refer to ‘an integrated and global approach in which prevention, treatment and repression play crucial roles based on epidemiological research and evaluation’, this is not so much different in European policy documents. European drug policy documents refer to ‘the need for cooperation and coordination to establish supply and demand reduction initiatives based on information and understanding of the problem’. It is not so difficult to see similarities between the Belgian ‘an integrated and global approach’ and the European ‘need for cooperation and coordination’, the Belgian ‘prevention’ and ‘treatment’ and the European ‘demand reduction measures’, the Belgian ‘repression’ and the ‘supply reduction measures’ and lastly the Belgian ‘based on epidemiological research and evaluation’ and the European ‘based on information and understanding of the problem’. These different labels capture the same content which makes a comparison a lot easier. This is why I have chosen to compare Belgian and European drug policy following the outline of these policy fields. The different European actions will be

16

compared to what has actually been done in Belgium. The starting-point will be the latest Drug Action Plan which mentions which actions are linked to the efforts and involvement of the MS. Every action mentions which parties carry responsibility in accomplishing that action. Those actions which require participation of the MS have been selected to compare to Belgian policy. In this way this paper will examine what efforts have been made in Belgium to meet with these goals and objectives.

General comparison: an integrated and integral approach – coordination

An integrated approach towards the drug problem is an objective in both the European DAP and the Belgian FDPN of 2001 and Communal Declaration. Ensuring more efficient policy development and implementation are priorities for both Europe and Belgium. Although both policies stick to the same policy principle (an integrated and all containing approach), there are important differences. These differences can, on the one hand, be linked to the ‘hierarchy’ between these policy levels. In Europe the integration of European drug policy refers to the implementation of the objectives captured in the Strategy and Drugs Action Plan in national drug policies. Belgian drug policy documents have repeatedly emphasized the importance of the European objectives for the national policy on different matters. But once we take a closer look at the Belgian drug policy documents, it stays with mentioning that the European objectives are important for Belgian policy and that e.g. the FDPN assembles itself with the EU documents.48 Also the Communal Declaration states that the EU Strategy and Action Plan are the relevant sources to realize an internationally integrated Belgian drug policy.49 Unfortunately it is a statement and (in my opinion at least these days) not much more. On the other hand, the integrated approach in the European arena covers the policy coordination between the MS, Europe and third countries. This is an external matter for Belgian drug policy. The Communal Declaration of the Interministerial Conference of Drugs refers to the cell ‘International Cooperation’ (Internationale Samenwerking) which is part of the Council Drug Policy to ‘be seen as a privileged instrument of consistency in the management of the external dimensions of the integrated and global drug policy’. The task of this ‘sub cell’ or workgroup is however limited to solely safeguard the coherence of the external dimension of the Belgian drug policy. It will not replace the Belgian positions or representation as it was organised by the Belgian Institutions and their competences. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been appointed to organise the presidency and administration of this workgroup.50 According to a spokesman of the Council Drug Policy (Mr. Kurt Doms), the Cell International Cooperation is not installed yet. The procedure to create and organise this organ is still running. The external dimension of an integrated and global Belgian drug policy is therefore still organised and executed by representatives of the different competent authorities such as the Federal Public Service of Justice, The Federal Public Service of Health, the Communities and the Federal Police Service. Belgian representation in the European organs occupied with drug policy making is still fragmentised. The responsibility to coordinate one Belgian voice lays on the Council Drug Policy and its delegates.The ongoing instalment of parts of the Council Drug Policy arises questions to what extent the Belgian drug policy can be integrated and adhere a global approach, including its external dimension. Although the aims were to establish such a policy making organ by the end of 200251, it took up until 2008 before this general Council Drug Policy was realised and operational. Still today it has to be finalized (the ongoing instalment of its workgroups) in

48 FDPN, 37.49 CD, 82.50 CD, 81 – 82.51 FDPN, 32.

17

order to guarantee the effectiveness of the aimed tasks and objectives appointed to the Council. The creation of this Council Drug Policy and its working groups (and their full operationalisation) is absolutely necessary as the DAP further states that an effective coordination at national level is required in order to have a coordinated position on certain matters at EU level. One voice for Belgium in e.g. the Council’s Horizontal Drugs Group is preferable to many different uncoordinated inputs. The need for one voice is also desirable for effective coordination at EU level. As the DAP proposes to convene meetings between the presidency and the national drug coordinators or their equivalents on a regular basis to advance coordination on specific and urgent issues requiring action, one national drug coordinator is needed. The FDPN has decided to appoint the Council Drug Policy as the national coordinating organ in the European drug arena.52 The Council Drug Policy is led by a “drug coordinator” who is authorized to coordinate the drug policy and to represent the Council Drug Policy on European level.53 Therefore it seems that some form of Belgian representation is actually present.The long period to install the Council Drug Policy has been linked to the complicated political structures in Belgium. It was the Brussels Capital Region which delayed the ratification of the Cooperation Agreement.54 Another author links the long delay to the lack of political will. He argues that it can be believed that the instalment of such a ‘heavyweight’ drug-policy-making-organ would paralyse the policy because of its power.55 The earlier mentioned authors argue that in 2007 there was no sign whatsoever of a national policy translation of the EU Action plan because the Council Drug Policy had not been installed. It is precisely this organ (and its workgroup International Cooperation) which has to coordinate this process.56 The very first objective of the DAP is therefore still a hazardous theme. To develop an integrated drug policy, and especially considering the external dimension towards Europe, requires the full instalment and operationalisation of the Council Drug Policy and its work groups, a process which is still going on today.The national coordinators are also invited to contribute to the Council’s annual examination of the state of the drug problem. The assurance of an effective coordination at EU level depends on the information which is available. The MS, together with the EMCDDA, Eurojust and Europol will have to publish annual reports on the state of the drug problem. Information contributing to these reports comes from all sorts of sources already. The Communal Declaration states that many different actors already provide scientific research and information and that they are supported in their activities by the Council Drug Policy. Research teams from universities, the Belgian REITOX national focal point which cooperates closely with the EMCDDA (Wetenschappelijk Instituut Volksgezondheid, de Vereniging voor Alcohol en andere Drugsproblemen, Concertation Toxicomanie Bruxelles - Overleg Druggebruik Brussel, Eurotox) and the Federal Police Service are a few actors contributing.Closely related to the difficulties described in the first three paragraphs lays the will to involve civil society in drug policy, which is another objective set by the DAP. The DAP states that civil society in the MS can be involved in drug policy at all appropriate levels. The Council Drug Policy could be the perfect platform to democratize the decision-making concerning drug policy by actively and structurally involving the civic society in the decision-

52 FDPN, 36.53 CD, 9 – 10.54 D. REYNDERS en A. VAN LIEMPT, “De zoektocht naar een integraal en geïntegreerd drugsbeleid”, Ordevan de Dag 2007, afl. 38, 19.55 S. TODTS, “Uitgeleide, Te land, ter zee en in de lucht: ja, maar met nieuwe marsorders”, Orde van de Dag 2007, 57.56 D. REYNDERS en A. VAN LIEMPT, “De zoektocht naar een integraal en geïntegreerd drugsbeleid”, Ordevan de Dag 2007, afl. 38, 18.

18

making process through a democratic control mechanism.57 The DAP states however that such involvement and participation should be measured through national dialogues in accordance with national practises, clearly respecting the autonomy and sovereignty of national law and policy. This indication raises the question once more whether European drug policy can really change and knead national drug policy (top-down perspective) or if it is the other way round (bottom up). The bottom up approach would accentuate the national drug policies as the very base and European drug policy as an adjunct of these national strategies and policies moulding them together.

Belgium has done efforts to take part in the integrated and balanced approach towards a more effective coordination in European drug policy. The presence of a national drug coordinator in Belgium and the ongoing instalment and further development of the Council Drug Policy seems to suggest that a coordination of an integrated Belgian drug policy, and therefore also its external dimension towards the European drug policy, is progressing. Although it has taken more time than actually was hoped for in the FDPN, the new contours of Belgian drug policy are emerging. Simultaneously Belgian drug policy pays more and more attention to the European initiatives which are seriously considered in Belgian drug policy documents. Nevertheless a long road lies ahead, especially if we consider the long period which was needed to establish the Council Drug Policy. This certainly raises questions about the actual effectiveness of such an organ and the further development of an integrated Belgian drug policy.

Comparison on epidemiology and research – information and understanding of the problem

Information, research and evaluation are key principles in drug policy. They provide the basis for knowledge which has to form the very foundations of policy. Although the main priority in the DAP is very general, the importance of this policy field is well visible. The DAP aims for an improvement of the understanding of all aspects in the phenomenon of drug use in order to expand the knowledge base for public policy and raise awareness among citizens of the social and health implications of drug use, and to carry out research. Multiple researches have emphasized the importance of a policy based on information, empirical evidence and research. Policy should be able to make evidence-based decisions based on a framework of empirical evidence.58 It has to be avoided though that evidence is used selectively to support a predetermined policy direction.59 Information and scientific research are therefore indispensable factors of a good drug policy. Four different objectives are discussed in the DAP in which the MS have a role.Belgian policy documents have always emphasized the need for epidemiological research and have activated the former DWTC (Federale Diensten voor Wetenschappelijke, Technische en Culturele aangelegenheden) to outsource and launch researches to support the different themes in the FDPN.60 The DWTC has therefore created the ‘Research programme to support the FDPN’ which organises a summoning each year for new researches. Over the years the DWTC has changed its name into Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid but every year numerous researches have signed in. The main aim of this research programme is to provide the

57 S. TODTS, “Uitgeleide, Te land, ter zee en in de lucht: ja, maar met nieuwe marsorders”, Orde van de Dag 2007, 57.58 L.G. MAZEROLLE, A Systematic Review of Drug Law Enforcement Strategies, Griffith University, 2004, 3, http://www.griffith.edu.au.59 C.E. HUGHES, “Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative”, Drug and Alcohol Review 2007, afl. 26, 363.60 FDPN, 10 and 15.

19

necessary information and knowledge about the different aspects of the drug problem in order to develop and implement good federal drug policy. The calling is open for different participators such as universities, government institutions or research centres. The conducted researches are evaluated by foreign scientific experts and many actors can participate. An overview of all the conducted researches which were issued by the Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid is included in the Communal Declaration and can be consulted there.61

The list counts 39 researches on very different aspects: defining and measuring drug related crime, drug use amongst female sexworkers in Belgium and a feasibility study for the evaluation of treatment centres with double diagnosed patients are just a few examples. The Communal Declaration further repeats the importance of scientific research in developing drug policy. The Council Drug Policy will have to consider the scientific knowledge about drug phenomena when designing new policy. The Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid will have a crucial role on this matter.The Dap further distinguishes several ‘sub-objectives’.

The Reitox National Focal Points (NFP’s)One of these objectives is the instalment of Reitox National Focal Points to ensure the

exchange of accurate and policy-relevant information. These NFP’s will have to meet up with the EMCDDA’s quality standards. It’s the NFP’s who will have to provide relevant information to the EMCDDA concerning illicit drugs. Based on this information, the EMCDDA can publish documents expanding and spreading the knowledge about certain phenomena in the field of drugs. They will also promote the need for scientific research.The Belgian National Reitox Focal Point already exists since 1995. It is the Scientific Institute of Public Health (Wetenschappelijk Instituut van Volksgezondheid or WIV) which is appointed by the Minister of Public Health to act as NFP for Belgium and mainly occupied with epidemiological research through the ‘Drugs Program’.62 The Belgian NFP consists of the Scientific Institute of Public Health as main actor and is supported by four ‘sub-focal points’. These sub-focal points are organisations (delegated by the Communities and the Regions) specialized in drug matters who work together with the NFP. Together these organisations form the Belgian Information Reitox Network (BIRN).63 The FDPN states that the Belgian NFP should gradually be transformed into a Belgian Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (BMCDDA), as an equivalent to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) on national level. This organ would be guided and directed by the Council Drug Policy and could assemble and bring together all the activities concerning registration, evaluation, gathering, analysing and dissemination of data, information and knowledge. Such a BMCDDA could implement and adhere the European standards and quality norms and fulfil the obligations towards the EMCDDA. The BMCDDA has to be established in coordination with the Communities and Regions and can only be operational after the operationalisation of the Council Drug Policy.64 The Cooperation Agreement designed right after the FDPN repeats the tasks and principles of a Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction for Belgium in relation to the Council Drug Policy.65

After this Cooperation Agreement, the idea seems to be faded for some time since its destiny is attached to the instalment of the Drug Policy Cell. The tasks and obligations towards Europe and the EMCDDA are therefore still carried out by the BIRN.

61 CD, 32 – 34.62 http://www.iph.fgov.be/reitox/NL/progdrugs.htm63 http://www.law.ugent.be/crim/ISD/links/belgie_en.html64 FDPN, 37 – 38.65 Art. 8 and 11 of the Cooperation Agreement.

20

Monitoring the drug situation and the key indicatorsA second sub-objective, and closely linked to the previous, is the need to further

develop instruments to monitor the drug situation and the impact of responses to it. MS will have to file reports to the EMCDDA about the drug situation in the countries. The MS are encouraged to increase their compliance with implementation of the five key epidemiological indicators designed by the EMCDDA (these indicators are: general population surveys or GPS, Problem drug use or PDU, treatment demand indicator or TDI, drug-related deaths and mortality or DRD and drug-related infectious diseases or DRID66). MS will also have to conduct scientific studies to develop key-indicators for the collection of policy-relevant data on drug-related crime, illegal cultivation, drug markets and supply and demand reduction interventions and to develop a strategy to collect them. The Belgian National Focal Point generates national reports every year on the drug problem in Belgium. These Belgian national reports on Drugs contain information on new developments and trends in the different areas of drug policy. They also focus every year upon some selected issues and topics such as public expenditure67 or sentencing statistics of drugs users68. The national reports consist of contributions from many different institutions and persons (police officers, academics, people from the treatment and prevention sector, representatives from ministries, …). The five key indicators from the EMCDDA have been adapted in the FDPN and their implementation has been accredited to the BMCDDA. Although the absence of this organ, research on the epidemiological key indicators is conducted in Belgium by different organs. General population surveys on drugs are largely the responsibility of the Council Health Policy Drugs (Cel Gezondheidsbeleid Drugs). The National Health Survey probes cannabis use but no other illegal substances.69 It is the WIV (the same institution that creates the annual reports on the drug situation in Belgium) who has designed a Belgian version of the Treatment Demand Indicator-protocol together with the treatment centres. The protocol agreement installing the Belgian TDI has been approved by the Interministerial conference on Public Health in 2005. They also conduct research on another key indicator, the DRID.70 Key indicators on problematic drug use are not widespread in Belgium because a turbulent discussion on how to define problematic drug use has not reached a consensus yet.71 The key indicators which were developed by the EMCDDA have found their way into Belgian drug policy research. The annual reports to the EMCDDA by the WIV fulfil the need for an annual state of the drug problem report and sketch an image of the situation concerning the drug problem in Belgium.

Ongoing evaluation of drug policyThe last objective in this area is very general and consists of an ongoing evaluation of

drug policy. MS are asked to continually “fine-tune” their national drug policies on a regular basis. They are also asked to annually evaluate the implementation of the DAP in the national policies and present this to the Council and the European Parliament. Finally by 2012 an independent external assessment should be carried out on the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012, followed by a reflection period prior to follow-up. The foundations of Belgian drug policy date from 2001. The principles and

66 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/key-indicators67 B. LAMKADDEM (WIV), Belgian National Report on Drugs 2007, http://www.iph.fgov.be/reitox/Publications/BNR07.pdf, 119 – 131.68 B. LAMKADDEM (WIV), Belgian National Report on Drugs 2008, http://www.iph.fgov.be/reitox/Publications/Belgian%20National%20Report%20on%20Drugs%202008.pdf, 129 – 148.69 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index79112NL.html#tdi70 CD, 20.71 http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index79112NL.html#tdi

21

basic thoughts have not changed significantly over time, yet a more frequent evaluation of Belgian drug policy could be a good intention. The first real all containing update of the FDPN came nine years after its introduction, captured in the Communal Declaration. The development of this Communal Declaration was therefore very welcome, even more, more than necessary. Considering the regular change in objectives, principles and updates in European drug policy in the form of a new Strategies and more regular Action Plans, an evaluation of Belgian drug policy on a more frequent basis is desirable. The evolution of Belgian drug policy is also obstructed by the lack of dynamics from the involved actors (think of the instalment of the Council Drug Policy and the still ongoing organisation of the Cell International Cooperation). It is inherent to Belgian politics to slow processes down. Rapidly changing problems like the drug problem do not wait for politics to change with them. Hopefully will the existence of the Council Drug Policy change this shortcoming and will it be possible to react faster and more accurate to persistent and new problems. The instalment of the Council Drug Policy could lead to more regular, maybe even annual, updates in Belgian drug policy.

Comparison: prevention and treatment policy – demand reduction initiatives

The DAP states as main priority the reduction of drug demand through improving the coverage, quality and effectiveness of services of prevention, treatment and harm reduction.Every single objective within this policy field holds the MS as a responsible party, and often the only responsible party to execute the actions are the MS. They are sometimes supported by the EMCDDA who provides them of reports and information about drug demand, drug use, the effectiveness of treatment programmes and health related problems. As responsibility for demand reduction measures is largely directed to the member states, a significant portion of policy content in this field should be in national drug policy. At first sight this assumption seems correct. The Communal Declaration states, in the chapter of most significant initiatives which have been realised since the ratification of the Cooperation Agreement in 2002, that the Federal Public Service Health realises the growing importance of international policy concerning prevention and other demand reduction activities. It even labels the European Union as initial and most important reference concerning the development of its own demand reduction policy. The Federal Public Service Health will fully implement its policy in the general objectives (concerning demand reduction this refers to the contribution to a high degree of health protection, well being and social cohesion through the prevention and limitation of drug use, addiction and drug-related harm and risks to society and public health) of the European Drugs Strategy and the DAP 2005 – 2008 and 2009 – 2012.72 This general objective remains rather vague though. The following part will examine whether Belgian drug policy has met with the specific objectives and concrete measures and actions from the DAP concerning demand reduction or if these have been captured in the new drug policy documents.The label ‘demand reduction’ in the European arena refers to both prevention and treatment measures and has included objectives concerning prevention and treatment policy in the same field. Although captured in the same ‘chapter’, objectives and actions can be clearly linked to either prevention or treatment policy. Belgian drug policy clearly distinguishes these two fields in drug policy and elaborates on them separately. That is why first the comparison between European and Belgian policy concerning prevention shall be presented followed by the measures and initiatives on treatment. The border between prevention and treatment initiatives is sometimes thin and blurry and overlap is not uncommon as the aims of both intertwine. This can be ascribed to the consequences and effects prevention and treatment

72 CD, 19.

22

initiatives have. Drug dependence treatment (substitution programmes specifically) has proven to be effective to prevent HIV transmission among injecting drugs users.73

Prevention

The first two objectives in the DAP are specifically aimed at prevention. Another objective is also oriented on prevention although of a different nature as it aims to evaluate and improve existing and future prevention measures.

General drug use and associated risksFirstly, the DAP suggests two actions in preventing general drug use and its associated

risks. On the one hand should drug use prevention be organised through evidence-based and evaluated universal prevention programmes. These interventions have to be organised in different settings (youth centres, schools, prison) in order to delay or postpone a first drug use. The action should be focussing also on poly drug use and the combination of drug use and driving. Prevention actions focussing on this European objective are present in Belgian drug policy to some extent. The FDPN of 2001 had already outlined the need for scientific-based and evaluated prevention initiatives. The initiatives have to be compliant with the directives and evaluation criteria of the EMCDDA. The need for evidence-based prevention programmes was already concluded ten years ago in Belgian drug policy, however an important remark has to be made. The execution of the action point in the FDPN pleading for an enlargement of the prevention services and the need for a scientific basis for these programmes is linked to the instalment of the Council Drug Policy.74 The first part of this chapter has explained that it lasted until 2008 before this Council was set up. The evolution of this action point after the FDPN can therefore be questioned as one of the responsible organs did not exist. Also the reference of the FDPN to the European Action Plan on Drugs 2000 – 2004 as an important source for prevention policy in Belgium75 seems to be outdated since already two new action plans have passed. The Communal Declaration provides an answer on this absence by repeating and emphasizing the need for scientific research (in all areas, also prevention and treatment of drug use) and good coordination and cooperation between the academic world and the other sectors in the drug field.76 Despite the absence at the time of the Council Drug Policy, several initiatives in prevention have been developed and put into practice. An important development in prevention policy was the instalment of the Council Health Policy Drugs in June 2001, a coordinating organ (as more and more actors got involved in prevention policy)77 which aims to organise a continuous prevention of drug use and its associated risks and harms.78

Aiming to delay the first drug use (initiation rates) in Belgium is mainly managed through a policy of dissuasion. Dissuasion policy is mainly focussed upon youngsters and teenagers today as it was in the past. Previously, these universal prevention programmes were mostly present in high schools and the FDPN acknowledged the lack of such programmes focussing

73 M. FARRELL, L. GOWING, J. MARSDEN (et.al.), “Effectiveness of drug dependence treatment in HIV prevention”, International Journal of Drug Policy 2005, 74.74 FDPN 45 – 46.75 FDPN, 46.76 CD, 81.77 B. DE RUYVER, I. PELC, D. DE GRAEVE, A. BUCQUOYE, L. CORNELIS en P. NICAISE, Drugs in cijfers 2; studie naar betrokken actoren, overheidsuitgaven en bereikte doelgroepen, Gent, Academia Press, 2007, 78.78 CD, 15.

23

on adults.79 The dissuasion policy will be the core-thought for future drug prevention policy in Belgium (targeting youngsters) as well.80 Concerning the setting for universal prevention initiatives, the Communal Declaration mentions the school environment, the workplace, prisons and places for leisure time (youth centres, play grounds, clubs, music clubs/events, sports centres) as the sectors where the dissuasion policy has to focus on.81 Less traditional places like the prison environment even receive special attention through the development of a drug policy for penitentiary institutions. Adjusted initiatives especially developed for these institutions, like e.g. drug free wings or education programmes aiming at prevention of relapse, are outbalanced with control and supporting measures.82

The DAP further states that these prevention measures must focus especially on poly drug use and the combination of drug use and driving. Although poly and/or combined drug use is a problem well known, researched and described in Belgian literature83, Belgian drug policy only mentions that ‘combined and/or poly drug use is a health problem’. It does not further target this danger through specific policy initiatives or actions both in the past and today.84

The second theme, drug use and driving on the other hand is a topic which has received quite some attention in Belgian drug policy. Reducing the cases of driving under influence was one of the main objectives and most important recommendations by the Parliamentary Workgroups Drugs in the late 90’s and included in the FDPN.85 Driving under influence (of either legal or illegal drugs) became one of the concrete actions points in the FDPN.86

Through time, this topic has never lost attention. The Communal Declaration elaborates extensive on what actions and developments occurred related to drugs and mobility. Concerning prevention initiatives on driving under influence of illegal drugs, a few examples are: in 2002 en 2006 ‘Drugs and driving will get you in a bad trip’ (“Drugs en rijden bezorgen je een bad trip”) aiming mainly at clubbing people through brochures and pamphlets and the ‘Don’t blow and drive’-campaign targeting Belgian, French and Dutch drug tourists visiting Dutch coffee shops pointing out the dangers of smoking cannabis and driving. The best known example on driving under influence of alcohol, an initiative which has also been expanded and exported to other EU countries, is the “BOB”-campaign. This campaign which has been introduced in Belgium in 1995, has received support from the European Commission since 2001 and is now active in 17 EU MS. Other initiatives are the Young Responsible Drives and Drive Up Safety.87

It can be concluded that Belgian drug policy certainly includes several priorities set out by European standards such as drug use and driving. Others like poly drug use are well known but policy has not yet really focussed on this topic with concrete actions or measures.

High risk behaviour of drug usersSecondly, the DAP targets the high risk behaviour of drug users (e.g. Injecting Drug

Users or IDU) through targeted prevention. High risk behaviour of drug users is an objective

79 FDPN, 19.80 CD, 72.81 CD, 73.82 CD, 28 – 29.83 About poly and combined drug use E.g. in T. DECORTE, M. MUYS and S. SLOCK, Cannabis in Vlaanderen: Patronen van cannabisgebruik bij ervaren gebruikers, Acco, Gent 2003, 95 – 109 and T. DECORTE (red.), Ecstasy in Vlaanderen: Een multidisciplinaire kijk op synthetische drugs, Acco, Gent 2005, 79 – 90.84 FDPN, 20 and CD, 45.85 FDPN, 10.86 FDPN, 42 – 43.87 CD, 34 – 35 and 37.

24

which is also dealt with in Belgian drug policy, yet in a slightly different manner. The recommendations of the Parliamentary Workgroup Drugs have assigned high risk behaviour to marginalised drug users (mostly in deteriorated neighbourhoods) who have lost contact with the treatment facilities.88 The high risk behaviour is a problem which primarily should not be dealt with through prevention, but through harm reduction measures and treatment, for example substitution policies to reduce the already existing risks.89 In the past high risk behaviour of drug users was a matter for treatment and aftercare services, not so much of prevention (as is aimed for in European policy guidelines). The same trend can be found in the Communal Declaration which links high risk behaviour to drug addiction, therefore to an already existing regular pattern of drug use. Harm reduction and treatment measures are here in place.90 The elaboration on future policy has some potential though for prevention towards high risk drug users. The Declaration states that medical aid has to be offered to provide relapse prevention and early detection of problematic drug use.91 The concrete actions described in the DAP have been translated in Belgian drug policy in a very limited way. This can partly be ascribed because the DAP adheres a prevention approach towards problematic and high risk drug users, whereas Belgian drug policy mainly aims for treatment in such cases. Obviously it is possible that treatment measures have a prevention function too in attempting to prevent worse. Treatment actions can generate a double goal towards the problematic drug user. When describing the treatment measures, it will be pointed out that many treatment measures have prevention characteristics too.Concerning this objective, the DAP mentions on the one hand that early detection and intervention techniques and programmes, which must lower high risk behaviour in vulnerable groups, have to be designed and further developed: a measure which has to be combined with the implementation of evaluated and effective selective prevention. Early detection and early intervention have been labelled as indispensable in the Belgian integrated and global drug policy.92 But oddly enough, neither the FDPN nor the Communal Declaration does further specifies how early detection or selective prevention can play a role, neither in prevention policy, nor somewhere else. Another policy document, the Flemish Action Plan on Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs 2009 – 2015, recognised the international recommendation to include selective prevention and early detection mechanisms in an integrated policy.93 But it stays with a reference, and a concrete completion lacks here as well. On the other hand, the DAP states that attention has to be paid to the development and implementation of indicated prevention for specific high-risk groups. The DAP suggests in this case the instalment of low-threshold access to counselling, problem behaviour management and outreach work. Once again the DAP touches upon the phenomenon of the poly-drug users as a high risk group which needs special and extra attention. The instalment of low-threshold facilities in Belgian drug policy is integrated in the treatment, risk control and reintegration policy guidelines. As problematic drug users are already confronted with regular drug use, general or selected prevention is no longer efficient. Nevertheless has the financing of low-threshold treatment services also been linked to prevention goals, such as the actual outreach to those who else would never get in touch with treatment and other facilities (e.g. the drug users without health care security).94 The FDPN further recognises the lack of

88 FDPN, 12.89 FDPN, 52 – 53.90 CD, 67.91 CD, 72.92 CD, 71.93 Flemish Action Plan on Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs 2009 – 2015, 6 – 7.94 FDPN, 12.

25

sufficient low-threshold initiatives like street-corner work or harm reduction measures.95 The Communal Declaration does not elaborate on low-threshold facilities and initiatives which is remarkable considering the facts and evolutions described in the FDPN seven years earlier. The FDPN describes the numerous initiatives which were taken in the previous years (back then) on the instalment of low-threshold services. The creation of eight MSOC’s (Medical-Social Shelter organisations which consist of multi-disciplinary teams and work partly ‘out-reach’) is one example. The MSOC’s high caseload has shown the ‘successes of such facilities and the need for further expansion in this field in the future. Their principal activity is providing substitution products but those activities are always accompanied by social and psychological counselling.96 These activities (although this is not literally mentioned and the primary tasks of these organisations are of another nature) could imply and offer indirectly a high level and possibility for indicated prevention. The problematic drug users have to be present in the low-threshold institution which makes it possible to make close contact with him/her and e.g. establish a trust relationship. The MSOC are still operational and new and higher budgets have been reserved for their functioning over the years.97 Belgium provides several possibilities for low-threshold facilities which offer counselling, out-reach work and other services. Once again no particular remark is made about poly-drug users.

Treatment

The demand reduction policy in the DAP contains three objectives immediately linked to treatment, harm reduction and reintegration.

Effectiveness of drug treatmentEnhancing the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation is an objective in the

DAP which has to be accomplished by improving the availability, accessibility and quality of the treatment services. Several more actions have been linked to this objective. Drug treatment has to be adjusted to the needs of the drug users whether the approach is psychosocial or pharmacological. The effectiveness and spread of evidence-based drug treatment has to be increased by the MS. Secondly, rehabilitation and social-reintegration programmes have to be created of which the outcomes are measurable. Subsequently the existence of these services has to be made known to the target audience at local, regional and national level.As was mentioned above, the availability and amount of drug treatment services has experienced a serious increase in the beginning of the new millennium. The MSOC’s (see above) are only one example of this evolution. The FDPN is quite pleased with the amount of treatment services back then98 and also the Communal Declaration summarizes many initiatives which were taken in the treatment sector. The adjustment of treatment based on the needs of the drug users for example was already targeted in the FDPN and put in practice through the ‘Crisis units and Case manager’ – projects. This project was designed especially to speed up the process to detect the needs and expectations of the drug user, to refine the diagnosis and to organise the treatment procedure much faster and efficient. In Belgium this projects targets only users of psychoactive substances though.99 Social reintegration and rehabilitation in Belgium are organised through the concept of ‘after-care’. The FDPN has pleaded for a better organised after care. Treatment facilities will have an important role in

95 FDPN, 21.96 FDPN, 22.97 CD, 21.98 FDPN, 20.99 FDPN, 49 – 51 and CD, 13.

26

preventing relapse and societal reintegration.100 The earlier mentioned Council Health Policy Drugs has a prominent role in this area too. One if its other core tasks is the optimalisation of the treatment offer for drug addicts.101 This Council publishes activity reports every year in which many initiatives and actions (also directed from European level) are reported and explained: e.g. the implementation of a Treatment Demand Indicator in 2005 through a Protocol Agreement suggested by the DAP 2005 – 2008 and its further follow up102 or the discussion for better qualitative data in research to unfold advise and recommendations103. Despite the many initiatives taken in the past, the Communal Declaration emphasizes once more the need for a diversified drug treatment offer in the future as well. All the central aspects aimed for in the DAP can also be found in the Communal Declaration. It provides an accurate translation of principles like accessibility, low-threshold facilities, a diversified treatment offer with respect and adaptability to the needs of the drug users and a high level of specialisation and professionalism which has to guarantee the quality.104 These Belgian policy guidelines concerning treatment seem to fully implement the aims from the DAP. Improvement can still be pursued though. Expanding the programmes which detect the needs and expectations of the drug user to refine the diagnosis and to organise the treatment procedure much faster and efficient towards other drug types is an option.

Harm reduction and infectious diseasesThis objective within the demand reduction policy field highlights the access to harm

reduction services in order to reduce the risk of spreading infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C or other drug-related bloodborn infectious diseases and hereby limiting the number of drug-related deaths. One could argue that harm reduction measures hereby adapt a prevention character as they aim to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases instead of curing them. The concrete action proposed by the DAP for this objective is fully the responsibility of the MS and consists of providing easier access to harm reduction services. Harm reduction has to be a standard part of demand reduction policy in the MS and interventions, which have proven to be effective, have to be used.Harm reduction initiatives had been limited to the MSOC’s back in 2001, although the FDPN argues that they should be expanded to other services too like low-threshold streetcorner work or high-threshold therapeutic communities. In Belgium harm reduction initiatives are of all sorts of kinds, much more diversified than European policy documents aim for. The introduction of programmes such as ‘needle exchange’ where drug users can obtain clean needles to use drugs was approved in 2000, under the condition that the provision of needles had to be accompanied by information about how to use them properly, and about the offer of medical, social, psychological and judicial services and help.105 Also substitution treatment programmes were installed which directly aimed at a better contact with the drug users, a reduction of health related risks, related harm and a lowering of mortality rates.106 The FDPN even touches upon the controlled delivery of heroin although it clearly states that such

100 FDPN, 53.101 CD, 15.102 Federal Public Service Health – Cel Gezondheidsbeleid Drugs, Activiteitenverslag 2005, http://www.health.belgium.be/filestore/18046684/2008.CPSD.Rapport%20d%27activites.NL_18046684_nl.pdf, 4.103 Federal Public Service Health – Cel Gezondheidsbeleid Drugs, Activiteitenverslag 2008, http://www.health.belgium.be/filestore/18046678/2002.CPSD.rapport%20d%27activites.NL_18046678_nl.pdf, 14.104 CD, 76 – 77.105 FDPN, 54.106 FDPN, 53.

27

programmes will not be introduced in Belgium.107 Several research institutions have ignored this policy measure and started scientific experiments with controlled delivery of heroine. These programmes (in Ghent and Liege) have received quite some criticism, even from well respected treatment services like ‘De Sleutel’. They argue that controlled heroine delivery can’t provide an added value to e.g. substitution products like methadone and therefore can’t provide an added value to other treatment programmes.108 Research in Switzerland (and in the meantime also in other European countries) has confirmed that controlled heroin delivery is only successful when accompanied by intensive psychosocial counselling.109 Both substitutions programmes providing methadone for heroin users and the needle exchange programmes still exist today. They are even supported by other initiatives. The French Community for example has set up several actions to prevent the spreading of infectious diseases, mainly through the spreading of information, brochures (e.g. “shooter propre” or “Shoot clean” aims specifically at injecting drug users on how to inject without the risk of contamination) and flyers.110

Health care and treatment in prisonThe EU emphasizes the importance of health care provisions for drug users in

prevention. The underlying aim is once again to prevent and reduce health-related harms associated with drug (ab)use. The emphasis here lies upon the vulnerable prison population. This is why prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation services should be provided within the prison equivalent to the services organised outside of prison. There should also be attention paid to the development after a release from prison. It is important to monitor the drug problem and drug use in the prisons. The prison population has been labelled as a vulnerable group in older DAP-documents and as mentioned above, Belgium has developed a ‘special’ adjusted drug policy for the prison environment. It is important to know that all the measures concerning drug users in prison are captured in the ‘repression’-chapter of Belgian drug policy. Prevention and treatment initiatives exist but are organised within the penitentiary institution and therefore housed in the repressive field of drug policy. This is where two fields of drug policy collide and cooperation is necessary. The coordination and cooperation between the judiciary and the treatment sector has to be organised through cooperation agreements (between the judiciary and the Communities who are responsible for health care). These cooperation agreements have to respect the finalities and principles form both sectors in order to create an effective and efficient prison drug policy.111

First the drug problem within the prison walls is recognized in the FDPN and in 2001 an action was determined. A circular in 2000 had to organise the drug policy in the penitentiary institutions. It states that especially(!) problematic drug users can rely on counselling and treatment in prison. Every prison has a local drug team and a steering group ‘drugs’ that have to support the drug policy in prison.112 Several drug projects are set up such as the ‘drug free wings’ and initiatives in counselling once a user is released from prison and reintegrated in society. The circular also emphasizes the need for specialized and professional staff to run the

107 FDPN, 54.108 De Sleutel, Opinie: heroïneverstrekking, ideologisch of wetenschappelijk verantwoord?, 1 – 7.109 K. GEENENS and W. VANDERPLASSHEN, E. BROEKAERT and B. DE RUYVER, Tussen droom en daad: implementatie van casemanagement voor druggebruikers in de hulpverlening en justitie – Entre Rêve et Action: Implémentation du case management pour usagers de drogues dans le secteur de la santé et le secteur judiciaire, Gent, Academia Press, 2005, 102.110 CD, 56.111 FDPN, 33 and 67.112 Omzendbrief nr. 1722 of December 18th 2000 met betrekking tot de integrale aanpak van de drugproblematiek in de penitentiaire instellingen.

28

treatment initiatives. Special training will be needed to engender the staff which is needed to maximize the prevention of intramural drug use.113 Although Belgian policy documents clearly have aimed to equalize the quality and offer of treatment facilities in prison to those outside the prison walls, there are indications these attempts have failed. Research on substitution treatment performed in Belgian and Dutch prisons has shown a large discrepancy between intra and extra mural substitution programmes, a trend which is visible in more European countries.114

The need for a penitentiary drug policy is repeated in the Communal Declaration in which the circular is not mentioned anymore. The Declaration repeats some projects which already existed before like the drug free wings in some prisons and specific projects like B-leave (for drug users who are clean and want to work on a drug free future).115 The initiatives which are explained in the Declaration are mostly already existing programmes which have been expanded and spread out over other prisons. The Communal Declaration does emphasize again the need to respect the finalities and principles of the different policy fields to deal with the drug problem. This also applies on drug policy in prison.Belgian drug policy has not forsaken the prison population, yet has research shown that despite the many promising intentions, health care quality in the prison is of a lower quality than health care outside prison.

Comparison: repressive policy – supply reduction initiatives

The analysis and comparison on the repressive aspect of the drug problem is two-fold. Firstly, the drug legislation on different levels of politics plays a significant role in repressive drug policy. On the other hand the “classic” policy documents focus on repressive drug policy as well. These documents set out nuances for specific problems related to groups of people, types of drugs or specific situations. Repressive legislation has the tendency to create a black and white picture while reality is composed of many shades of grey.For this reason first a comparison on legislation will be set out, followed by a comparison on repressive elements in the DAP and Belgian drug policy documents. Due to the lack of a European Drug Law a comparison between international and Belgian legislation is made with attention for European measures.

An analysis and comparison of international and Belgian drug legislation

The content of the UN Conventions picture a prohibitionist approach towards the drug phenomenon limiting the production, possession, trafficking and so on of drugs only for medical or scientific purposes. The first Convention provides controls over opiates, cannabis and cocaine. The second one provided controls over manufactured drugs that had not been subject to the 1961 legislation, including barbiturates, stimulants, and hallucinogenic substances. The 1988 Convention finally provided criminal penalties for many acts that had not been considered criminal before, including possession for personal use of small amounts of named substances.116 None of the Conventions criminalise the consumption of drugs as it is

113 B. DE RUYVER, I. PELC, J. CASSELMAN, K. GEENENS et.al., Drugbeleid in cijfers – La politique des drogues en chiffres, Gent, Academia Press, 2004, 134.114 J. CASSELMAN, H. STOVER and L. HENNEBEL, “Substitutiebehandeling binnen en buiten de gevangenis in België en Nederland”, Verslaving 2006, 57 – 62.115 CD, 28 – 29.116 B. BULLINGTON, L. BOLLINGER and T. SHELLEY, “Trends in European drug policies: A new beginning or more of the same?”, Journal of Drug Issues 2004, 484.

29

impossible to consume the drugs without prior cultivation, purchase or possession.117 Hereby the line between possession and use already becomes vague and blurry.The main idea in the conventions is that drugs need to be controlled through repression with no room for decriminalisation. Only the ‘88 convention includes an alternative (administrative sanction) to the criminal sanctions in article 2. This provision allows countries to develop a differentiated drug policy in which it is possible to leave possibilities of penal and administrative sanctions. Depenalisation becomes possible and also the principle of expediency (at prosecution level) is an option in differentiating drug policy in several countries.The implementation of the provisions of these UN Conventions is left to the parties themselves as they are not self-executing. The states need to design and construct fitting legislation to criminalise the provisions of the Conventions. The international drug legislation therefore needs to be translated into national legislation first before it can have an effect. This principle obviously creates a first possibility for interpretation of the international legislative framework.118 The international legislative texts are also written in a very vague manner (probably as the result of bargaining and compromises) which allows quite some latitude in interpreting them. The many different, sometimes contradictory, interpretations are so numerous that it has become impossible to detect the ‘correct one’.119 The general thoughts and idea of the UN (towards drugs) have largely been translated into national legislations, leading to (in general) very repressive drug legislation. Worldwide countries have criminalised production and sale of cannabis, cocaine and opiates, but also holding and possession of small amounts of prohibited substances (except for limited medical use).120 Also all European states believe that drug dealers, drug smugglers, and the members of international drug trafficking and money laundering rings must be subjected to strict law enforcement and to severe punishments when caught and convicted for these activities.121 The vagueness of the UN Conventions can be ascribed to the need for compromises between nation states of very different origins. On the one side there is the very repressive United States of America in the middle of their War on Drugs which meets a more liberal Europe where the drug problem is shifting to a health approach. Different perceptions on the drug problem have led to the international legislation as a compromise between countries with very different backgrounds, political climates and socio-economic developments.

Europe does not provide legislative initiatives or European laws specifically on drugs. The European arena does not have a platform for drug legislation, only for drug policy. Therefore there is not really a solid uniform European legislative framework on drugs. Each nation state has its own translation of the rules set out by the UN Conventions. The fragmentation of drug legislation across Europe obviously creates problems in dealing with the drug phenomenon in one uniform way. But although there are no European drug laws, some legislative initiatives concerning drug matters have been developed in the European arena. In the part on the contours of the European drug policy, several examples are given (see above). The different treaties have attempted to include matters on drugs although they

117 K. KRAJEWSKI, “How flexible are the United Nations Drug Conventions?”, International Journal of Drug Policy 1999, 332.118 B. DE RUYVER, G. VERMEULEN, T. VANDER BEKEN, F. VANDER LAENEN and K. GEENENS, Multidisciplinary Drug Policies and the UN Drug Treaties, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu 2002, 62.119 K. KRAJEWSKI, “How flexible are the United Nations Drug Conventions?”, International Journal of Drug Policy 1999, 330.120 H.G. LEVINE, “Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises”, The International Journal of Drug Policy 2003, 145.121 H. KORNER, “From Blind Repression to a Thoughtfull Differentiated, ‘Four-column Strategy’”, Journal of Drug Issues 2004, 578 – 579.

30

ware limited to labelling the drug problem as a health issue. Minimal provisions on incriminations and sanctions are goals for Europe but not reality yet. Therefore the very base of repressive drug policy remains the national drug legislation of the different countries.The Belgian Drug Law captures all the provisions of the conventions; it criminalises production, selling, trafficking, possession and partly use of illicit substances. The basis of Belgian drug legislation does not deviate from international standards. There are no real surprises there. Although there is one catch and point of interest. The latter provision gives stuff to think about. The situation concerning cannabis possession and use in the Belgian Drug Law and international legislation is interesting for a closer look. The Belgian legislator has clearly stated that in some circumstances or cases, no criminal prosecution is required when the drug involved is cannabis. Although a large responsibility still remains with the prosecutor and he ultimately will decide what to prosecute, the Belgian law depenalises the possession of a drug, in fact creating a general feeling/atmosphere that the possession of cannabis has been decriminalized which means a partial decriminalization of drug possession or use.122 The question rises if this is actually possible considering the repressive character of the international UN conventions. When strictly reading the ’61 and ’88 Conventions it is not permitted to legalize drugs. The UN Drug conventions do not oblige to criminalize for example the recreational use of cannabis but they do limit it to medical and scientific purposes, which leaves no room for the legal possibility of recreational use.123

Nevertheless consequences for governments and nation states remain rather small and relatively light as the possible sanctions by the International Narcotics Control Board are merely symbolic. Strictly (from a lawfully point of view) interpreting the international standards and comparing them to the Belgian Drug Law reveals a contradiction though. Although the UN Conventions foresee a possible administrative alternative as form of sanctioning, this is still a type of sanction. Especially after 2003, only a registration is required and not making a police report (proces verbaal), hereby ignoring the criminal fact, is in my opinion difficult to ‘assemble’ with the prohibitionist approach of the UN conventions. The contradiction is also outlined in a document published by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs from the United Nations elaborating on the position of the INCB. It states: The will to restrict to only medical and scientific uses appeared to be weakening in some countries, and the proliferation of radically liberal attitudes and legitimization of non-medical use of drugs under the umbrella of harm minimization was not justifiable. He argued that while a reduction of harm to the individual might be demonstrated in certain circumstances, the harm caused by such a policy to society as a whole could be highly significant.124 This statement clashes with drug legislations and policies in several European countries which are quite liberal. Reform efforts to liberalize drug legislation and policy have been underway in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. The absence of a consensus however has weakened the European influence on global drug policy. The reluctance of establishing a consensus on drug law reforms and a common European reform of drug laws has been linked to the possible repercussions that are brought to bear on any state that challenges the

122 X, “Main trends in National Drug Laws, an overview of the legal position of EU countries with regards to illicit drugs” in B. DE RUYVER, T. VANDER BEKEN, G. VERMEULEN en F. VANDER LAENEN (red.), International Drug Policy: status questionis, Antwerpen – Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2003, 66.123 B. DE RUYVER, G. VERMEULEN, T. VANDER BEKEN, F. VANDER LAENEN and K. GEENENS, Multidisciplinary Drug Policies and the UN Drug Treaties, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2002, 23.124 COMMISSION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, Effects on Individuals, Society and International Drug Control of the Prescription of Narcotic Drugs to Drug Addicts, Vienna, United Nations, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_1997-01-21_2.pdf, 18 – 27 March 1997, 6.

31

prohibitionist model125 (read the US). Such a ‘provocation’ could disturb the political climate and economical relations.

An analysis and comparison of European and Belgian repressive drug policy

The DAP and Belgian drug policy documents contain many repressive elements. Since the mid 90’s repressive Belgian drug policy has targeted the same elements in the drug problem. Hard repression is aimed at serious and organised drug crimes.126 This tendency continued and the same idea was included in the FDPN which directs repressive interventions towards drug production and drug trade. The general thought is that drug users should be indulged by the criminal system and repressive measures are to be considered an ‘ultimum remedium’.127 It is clear that repressive measures are generally targeted at handling the supply side of the drug market and aim for result in supply reduction. Supply reduction repressive measures are also included in other policy plans, such as the National Security Plan which states that police and prosecution priorities will be production, sale and smuggling of narcotics.128

The link between Europe, Belgium and other MS is stronger concerning repressive drug policy. Prevention, treatment and harm reduction are fields which can be influenced by European initiatives but the actual prevention and treatment will occur on a local level. The evolution of globalisation, internationalisation of drug trafficking and the activities of criminal organisations in multiple countries at the same time require international cooperation more than ever, especially in the repressive drug policy field. The emphasis in the DAP therefore situates itself in cooperation to combat the supply side of the international drug market. The existence of a few European organisations (Europol, Eurojust, and EMCDDA) and cooperation between these organisations and the MS is of crucial importance. The drug problem as an international phenomenon and the need for international cooperation is well recognized in the FDPN. The recommendations set out by the Parliamentary Group Drugs have pleaded for maximum efforts of Belgium in European drug policy concerning international drug production and trafficking. Belgium must also strictly respect the treaties and regulations on precursors and has to ratify all relevant treaties on judicial assistance and cooperation. Further are a few specific themes mentioned to which attention has to be paid (e.g. drug tourism).129

The main priority in the DAP already sketches the importance of Europol and Eurojust as the main aim is to achieve a measurable improvement in the effectiveness of law enforcement at EU-level. Also the EU compatibility with national initiatives is part of the main priority. The roles played by Europol and Eurojust obviously require nation state participation as these organisations are build around national liaison officers coming together to improve coordination and cooperation in police and judicial activities. Although Europol or Eurojust does not and will never represent a nation state, every nation state is represented in these

125 H. KORNER, “From Blind Repression to a Thoughtfull Differentiated, ‘Four-column Strategy’”, Journal of Drug Issues 2004, 584.126 J. VANDE LANOTTE, Vrijheid blijheid; elementen voor een geïntegreerd drugsbeleid, Brussel, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1996,127 B. DE RUYVER en F. VANDER LAENEN, “Drug users in the criminal justice system: an individual approach from the ‘ultimo ratio’ philosophy” in B. DE RUYVER, T. VANDER BEKEN, G. VERMEULEN en F. VANDER LAENEN (red.), International Drug Policy: status questionis, Antwerpen – Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2003, 151.128 Belgian National Security Plan (Nationaal Veiligheidsplan), 18.129 FDPN, 13.

32

organisations. MS will have to play their role in supply reduction through judicial and law enforcement initiatives which are the two main priorities in European drug policy.

Enhancement of effective law enforcement cooperationThe very first objective in supply reduction as a policy field of European drug policy

consists of an enhancement of effective law enforcement cooperation initiatives to counter drug production and trafficking. Obviously an important role here lies with Europol. The MS can only appoint a liaison officer to this organisation and provide and extract information through him/her.130 It is very difficult to investigate to which extent this is done in Belgium, if not impossible since much information is confidential. Therefore this paper will focus on other elements of the improvement of law enforcement cooperation. As this paper mentioned before, the Belgian FDPN labels international cooperation as an indispensable condition to effectively counter drug production and trafficking. It is therefore remarkable that the FDPN only makes a superficial reference towards Europol as an actor to improve law enforcement cooperation. The suggested measures summarized by the FDPN do not further elaborate on how international cooperation in law enforcement can be realised or improved. The international cooperation concerning law enforcement has been captured in another policy document, the National Security Plan. This document does not distinguish the need for international cooperation in drug matters from other police activities. It does emphasize the importance of the EU as top priority for Belgian police forces. In providing and exchanging information and technologies, the NSP distinguishes several actions. The most important are: contributing to the OCTA’s from Europol, participating actively in the analytical work files (AWF’s) which are relevant for Belgium and providing information and using the Europol Information System (IS) and the Schengen Information System (SIS).131 Although these actions do not necessarily relate to drug matters, they can be used when appropriate. The need for law enforcement cooperation has been confirmed by Belgian literature. As Belgium lies close to the Netherlands, it is often confronted with drug tourism, an international phenomenon which requires an international answer.132 An integrated and global answer can be produced through cooperation and a communal base for action.133 This statement seems to be in line with the general thoughts and principles of the FDPN after all. If we take a look at the initiatives which were taken in the years following the FDPN, the Communal Declaration does mention several law enforcement cooperation initiatives between Belgium and other EU MS. The Hazeldonk initiative for example provides a platform for meetings and deliberation between Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and France in order to improve the coordination in cooperation in the fight against drug tourism. Joint Hit Teams were set up within this programme to act fast in the case of an intervention, joint checks were organised and information was exchanged.134 Another example is the NeBeDeAgPol cooperation agreement. This grouping between police force services in the border region between Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands operates in the ‘Euroregio Maas-Rijn’. This initiative

130 A. NUNZI, IV “Les Institutions de Coopération Pénale European Police Office – Europol”, Revue International de droit pénal 2006, 285 – 292.131 NSP 2007 - 2011, 31.132 B. DE RUYVER, “Drugs in de Lage Landen: de Belgische kant van het verhaal”, Justitiële Verkenningen 2006, 135 – 137.133 P. GARLEMENT, “Coopération policière” in B. DE RUYVER and T. SURMONT (eds.), Grensoverschrijdend drugstoerisme: Nieuwe uitdagingen voor de Euregio’s, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2007, 117.134 CD, 31.

33

exists already forty years and in 2009 a taskforce was installed to solely focus on cannabis related problems.135

It seems that Belgium is active in several programmes to improve effective law enforcement cooperation. This is especially the case in regions where border crossing drug problems emerge (e.g. border region between the Netherlands and Belgium and the drug tourists).

Enhancement of effective judicial cooperationThis objective in the DAP is similar to the objective described above. The emphasis

here however lies on the judiciary. Priority themes are improvement of the judicial cooperation in cases of drug and precursor trafficking. The key institution in judicial cooperation is Eurojust which is comparable to Europol, only with the emphasis on judicial cooperation in order to fight serious organised crime. Neither the FDPN nor the Communal Declaration mentions this organ although initiatives in judicial cooperation have been set up after the implementation of the FDPN. It is the General Policy Note of 2006 of the Ministry of Justice which has included the need for cooperation with Eurojust and other European initiatives concerning judicial matters in line with the European Council decisions and directives (which were mostly designed to fight terrorism).136 These directives are not specifically aimed at drug cases though. The Justice Policy Note does however emphasize the importance of efficient cooperation for drug matters in the ‘Euregio-zone’. The specific drug problems in this region must be combated through an intensified cooperation of the nations involved.137 Similar to the initiatives in police cooperation, the Communal Declaration lists also several actions related to judicial cooperation. The creation of the “Bureau voor Euregionale Samenwerking” has as priority the improvement of law enforcement cooperation but also judicial cooperation between the prosecutor’s offices from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. It manages a database and provides coordination and support for institutions burdened with the search and detection of transnational active criminals.138 Another more recent initiative is “Fedland” which is a cooperation agreement between the Dutch National Prosecutor and the Belgian Federal prosecutor.139 Fedland targets organised crime involved in drug trade and trafficking (especially synthetic drugs).140

Several programmes and initiatives have been set up to improve judicial cooperation between Belgium and neighbouring countries. These initiatives do not always include the cooperation with organs from the European level, such as Eurojust. Nevertheless due to the increasing international nature of drug and organised crimes, more and more law enforcement and at the same time judicial cooperation measures are set up.

5. General conclusion

The focus in this paper was on the different drug policy documents in Belgium and Europe. The drug phenomenon has been described as a multidimensional problem of an international nature. Policy makers have therefore been obliged to search for a multidimensional and international remedy as well. The many different aspects of the drug problem all require a different approach in dealing with them; a demand which was accepted and fulfilled in the different policy documents on Belgian and European level. The most

135 http://www.benelux.be/nl/pub/pub_jaarplan.asp136 Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers, Algemene beleidsnota van de Minister van Justitie van 31/10/2006, 29 – 30.137 Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers, Algemene beleidsnota van de Minister van Justitie van 31/10/2006, 42.138 http://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/ontwikkelingen/@122706/bureau_euregionale/139 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, kamerstuk 24077 nr. 232 - Drugbeleid140 CD, 31.

34

important documents on drug policy at EU level are the EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012 and the two consecutive four-year EU Drug Action Plans. Belgiuan drug policy relies primarily on the Federal Drug Policy Note of 2001, which had a significant evaluation and update through the Communal Declaration of January 25th 2010. These documents provide the foundations for on the one hand Belgian and on the other hand European drug policy.Although these documents follow a different outline, this paper has explicated how the different aspects, fields and priorities in the drug problem are addressed similarly. The key themes are labelled different but treat the same issues and problems. The comparison was made between the Belgian ‘an integrated and global approach’ and the European ‘need for cooperation and coordination’, the Belgian ‘prevention’ and ‘treatment’ and the European ‘demand reduction measures’, the Belgian ‘repression’ and the ‘supply reduction measures’ and lastly the Belgian ‘based on epidemiological research and evaluation’ and the European ‘based on information and understanding of the problem’. This approach forms the basis and outline for the eventual evaluation and comparison in this paper.

The recent update of Belgian drug policy does not significantly change the basic principles or objectives which were stated in the FDPN. Nevertheless does Belgian drug policy show promising developments concerning the integrated aspect of both the internal and external dimension of its policy. It has taken some time before the Council Drug Policy had been established but this organ is now operational for two years. Together with its realisation new initiatives concerning an integral and integrated drug policy can be developed, including the external dimension towards Europe. Therefore a better coordination, both internal and external, can be expected in the upcoming years. Nevertheless has Belgium been represented in the different organs concerning European drug policy and has it always taken part on this level. The future though must attempt to unify the many Belgian inputs on European level into one viewpoint or one voice for better policy coordination with European policy documents.

Secondly, Europe emphasizes the importance and need for scientific based policymaking. Information, research and critical evaluation have crucial roles concerning this matter. In general it can be argued that Belgium provides several platforms for scientific research. The Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid coordinates, outsources and organises the several scientific researches to which applicants of all sorts (academics, research centres, …) can participate. There is also a large variety of topics on which research is conducted. Nevertheless have policy documents indicated that certain domains in the drug field still require more attention, e.g. epidemiological research on problematic drug use. Since drug policy will be developed, itself basing on scientific and empirical research, the importance of this field remains crucial. Further has Belgium largely caught up with the European standards. The Belgian National Reitox Focal Point already exists since 1995 and discussions on a reform towards a Belgian Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction as an equivalent to the EMCDDA have been thrown in the policy debate which might be a promising idea for the future. At the same time have the key indicators which were developed by the EMCDDA been implemented in Belgium although they are spread over different instruments and institutions which measure them. As regards an ongoing evaluation of drug policy, Belgium could do better. Seven years between the FDPN and its first real evaluation and update is too much. The drug phenomenon is not only a multidimensional issue, but also a fast changing and adapting problem. More frequent evaluations and updates are not a waste of time. The drug problem evolves rapidly, especially considering its international character, and therefore are fast policy changes and interventions more than welcome.

35

Thirdly, prevention and treatment policy are fields in which the MS have a large responsibility. Prevention and treatment measures are organised mostly on a national and local level. In preventing general drug use it even becomes apparent that Belgium had a leading role in a prevention campaign concerning alcohol use and driving. The BOB-campaign has been spread out with the financial support of the European Commission over 17 MS and has in this way proven its success. Further has Belgium met the European requests to focus special attention on drug use prevention targeting at vulnerable settings and groups such as youngsters and the prison population. Many, both low and high-threshold, initiatives were organised to prevent general drug use and high risk behaviour of drug users (e.g. the MSOC’s). At the same time Belgian drug policy has recognised the need for a further expansion of the prevention and treatment offer, especially the amount of low-threshold initiatives such as street corner work. The current prevention measures often have a “treatment-character” at the same time. The MSOC’s for example organise activities aiming at both prevention and treatment as they provide both medical and social oriented activities. A persisting problem on which both European and Belgian literature have elaborated is poly drug use and its associated risks. Although the acquaintanceship of this problem and the repetitive references towards the dangers of this problem in European drug policy documents, Belgian policy does not explicitly propose counteracting measures. As regards to harm reduction policy Belgian drug policy is quite liberal. Several projects have been running for quite some time. Both substitution programmes and needle exchange programmes are widespread and generally known. Even controlled heroine delivery experiments in some research programmes have been set up although EU policy clearly disapproves of this. Treatment and prevention measures in the uncommon environment of prisons have been labelled as priority topics in both European and Belgian drug policy documents. Belgian drug policy has already installed guidelines and principles for this problem in 2000. Several initiatives such as the introduction of drug free wings were taken. Despite the efforts done, research has shown that intramural medical treatment is of a lower quality as the same treatment outside of prison. This group of vulnerable drug users requires therefore more attention in the future through an improvement of the quality of the treatment and harm reduction measures which are offered in the penitentiary system.

Lastly, repressive drug measures haven been compared on two levels. The comparison of international and Belgian drug legislation has exposed some interesting thoughts. The UN drug conventions picture a strictly prohibitionist viewpoint on the drug problem by criminalizing practically every action related to drugs. The Belgian Drug Law adapts the measures from the UN conventions to a large extent with the exception of possession of cannabis. Although strictly theoretically the Belgian Drug Law does not decriminalize the possession of cannabis in certain circumstances, it does state that there will be no criminal prosecution. The UN conventions do not exclude the application of -for example- administrative measures but the Belgian Drug Law goes one step further by even excluding the writing of a police report and hereby de facto decriminalizing the act. The merely symbolic sanctions by the INCB might have something to do with such developments as Belgium is not the only European country which has drug legislation which is liberalizing. Simultaneously it can be questioned what the exact significance and importance of the international legislation is in relation to the national laws as the implementation of the provisions of the UN Conventions is left to the parties themselves because they are not self-executing. The second comparison on repressive drug policy was made on the provisions captured in the “traditional” drug policy documents. Repressive drug policy targets the same problems on European and Belgian level. Drug trafficking, drug production and the serious drug crimes are the main priorities which have to be dealt with through repression. It is the

36

supply side of the drug market which is aimed at by repressive drug policy. European drug policy however lays an important emphasis on the need for cooperation between MS in fighting transnational drug crimes. Their priorities are to enhance the cooperation between law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities between different countries. Belgian drug policy recognises the growing importance of this problem and participates in the provided European institutions like Europol and Eurojust to fight drug crimes in a coordinated way, and most importantly together with other MS. Belgium however is mostly involved in closer cooperation with its neighbouring MS and has set up many different cooperation agreements (often on a more local level) to fight drug crimes in specific border regions. Despite the efforts realised in Europe and the requests for further development of closer law enforcement and judicial cooperation, Belgian drug policy documents do not specifically create or propose measures to enhance such law enforcement or judicial cooperation on European or international level. There are definitely possibilities in further enhancing cooperation and coordination in both law enforcement and judicial cooperation.

Belgian and European drug policy show numerous comparisons but also differences. It is not strange that European policy documents focus more upon European cooperation and coordination of drug policy between MS and that the MS themselves are in the first instance occupied with sorting out their internal problems. Nevertheless seems Belgian drug policy to understand the importance and necessity to have attention for international and European drug policy. The update of Belgian drug policy early 2010 has re-accentuated the need for an integrated and integral drug policy, with the inclusion of the European aspect. The instalment of the Council Drug Policy is an important evolution concerning that matter. Further concerns on different aspects are shared by both Belgian and European drug policy as well. Repressive measures targeting the supply side of the drug market and the need for sufficient, effective and efficient prevention and treatment for drug users are communal priorities. Belgian drug policy sometimes runs ahead of European standards as many initiatives have been installed for quite some time and have only recently become priorities in European drug policy. Therefore it can be concluded that Belgian and European drug policy influence each other and that both bottom-up and top-down policy evolutions emerge through time. Especially for Belgium these two policy composers, bottom-up and top-down, can have significant roles in policy making for the remaining time of this year. Belgium’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union until the end of 2010 might inspire Belgian politics in further fine-tuning Belgian and European drug policy.

References

1. Literature (alphabetical on author)

• BOEKHOUT VAN SOLINGE, T., Cannabis in Frankrijk, Amsterdam, Cedro, 1995, 52 p.

• BULLINGTON, B., BOLLINGER, L. and SHELLEY, T., “Trends in European drug policies: A new beginning or more of the same?”, Journal of Drug Issues 2004, 481 – 490.

• CASSELMAN, J., STOVER, H. and HENNEBEL, L., “Substitutiebehandeling binnen en buiten de gevangenis in België en Nederland”, Verslaving 2006, 57 – 62.

• COMMISSION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, Effects on Individuals, Society and International Drug Control of the Prescription of Narcotic Drugs to Drug

37

Addicts, Vienna, United Nations, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_1997-01-21_2.pdf, 18 – 27 March 1997, 12 p.

• DECORTE, T. (ed.), Ecstasy in Vlaanderen: een Multidisciplinaire kijk op synthetische drugs, Acco Leuven, 2005, 192 p.

• DECORTE, T. and TUTELEERS, P., Cannabisteelt in Vlaanderen: Patronen en motieven van 748 telers, Acco Leuven, 2007, 286 p.

• DE RUYVER, B., “Drugs in de lage landen; de Belgische kant van het verhaal”, Justitiële Verkenningen 2006, 135 – 145.

• DE RUYVER, B. and SURMONT, T. (ed.), Grensoverschrijdend drugstoerisme; Nieuwe uitdagingen voor de Euregio’s, Antwerpen – Apeldoorn, Maklu, 2007, 129 p.

• DE RUYVER, B., PELC, I., CASSELMAN, J., GEENENS, K. et.al., Drugbeleid in cijfers – La politique des drogues en chiffres, Gent, Academia Press, 2004, 499 p.

• DE RUYVER, B., PELC, I., DE GRAEVE, D., BUCQUOYE, A., CORNELIS, L. en NICAISE, P., Drugs in cijfers 2; studie naar betrokken actoren, overheidsuitgaven en bereikte doelgroepen, Gent, Academia Press, 2007, 324 p.

• DE RUYVER, B., VANDER BEKEN, T., VERMEULEN, G. en VANDER LAENEN, F. (ed.), International Drug Policy Status Quaestionis; Compendium of Articles, Antwerpen, Maklu, 2003, 257 p.

• DE RUYVER, B., VERMEULEN, G., VANDER BEKEN, T., VANDER LAENEN, F. and GEENENS, K., Multidisciplinary Drug Policies and the UN Drug Treaties, Antwerpen-Apeldoorn, Maklu 2002, 156 p.

• DE SLEUTEL, Opinie: heroïneverstrekking, ideologisch of wetenschappelijk verantwoord?, 7 p.

• DE VROEDE, P. and GORUS, J., Inleiding tot het recht, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2003, 511p.

• DEN BOER, M., “Police Cooperation in the TEU: Tiger in a Trojan Horse?”, Common Market Law Review 1995, 555 – 578.

• FARRELL, G., MANSUR, K. and TULLIS, M., “Cocaine and heroine in Europe 1982 – 93: A Cross – national Comparison of Trafficking and Prices”, British Journal of Criminology 1996, 255 – 281.

• FARRELL, M., GOWING, L., MARSDEN, J. (et.al.), “Effectiveness of drug dependence treatment in HIV prevention”, International Journal of Drug Policy 2005, 67 – 75.

• FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE HEALTH – Cel Gezondheidsbeleid Drugs, Activiteitenverslag 2005, http://www.health.belgium.be/filestore/18046684/2008.CPSD.Rapport%20d%27activites.NL_18046684_nl.pdf, 28 p.

• FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE HEALTH – Cel Gezondheidsbeleid Drugs, Activiteitenverslag 2008, http://www.health.belgium.be/filestore/18046678/2002.CPSD.rapport%20d%27activites.NL_18046678_nl.pdf, 20 p.

• GEENENS, K., VANDERPLASSHEN, W., BROEKAERT, E. and DE RUYVER, B., Tussen droom en daad: implementatie van casemanagement voor druggebruikers in de hulpverlening en justitie – Entre Rêve et Action: Implémentation du case management pour usagers de drogues dans le secteur de la santé et le secteur judiciaire, Gent, Academia Press, 2005, 299 p.

38

• HUGHES, C.E., “Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence? The role of evidence in the development and implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative”, Drug and Alcohol Review 2007, 363 – 368.

• KORNER, H., “From Blind Repression to a Thoughtfull Differentiated, ‘Four-column Strategy’”, Journal of Drug Issues 2004, 577 – 586.

• KRAJEWSKI, K., “How flexible are the United Nations Drug Conventions?”, International Journal of Drug Policy 1999, 329 – 338.

• LAMKADDEM, B. (WIV), Belgian National Report on Drugs 2007, http://www.iph.fgov.be/reitox/Publications/BNR07.pdf, 166 p.

• LAMKADDEM, B. (WIV), Belgian National Report on Drugs 2008, http://www.iph.fgov.be/reitox/Publications/Belgian%20National%20Report%20on%20Drugs%202008.pdf, 167 p.

• LEVINE, H.G., “Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises”, The International Journal of Drug Policy 2003, afl. 14 (2), 145 – 153.

• MAZEROLLE, L.G., A Systematic Review of Drug Law Enforcement Strategies, Griffith, Griffith University, 2004, 19 p., http://www.griffith.edu.au.

• NUNZI, A., “Les Institutions de Coopération Pénale European Police Office – Europol”, Revue International de droit pénal 2006, 285 – 292.

• REYNDERS, D. en VAN LIEMPT, A., “De zoektocht naar een integraal en geïntegreerd drugsbeleid”, Orde van de Dag 2007, afl. 38, 15 – 22.

• THOUMI, F., “The Colombian competitive advantage in illegal drugs: the role of policies and institutional changes”, Journal of Drug Issues 2005, 7 – 26.

• TODTS, S., “Uitgeleide, Te land, ter zee en in de lucht: ja, maar met nieuwe marsorders”, Orde van de Dag 2007, 55 – 58.

• VAN DOORN, J., “Drug Trafficking Networks in Europe”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 1993, 96 – 104.

• VANDE LANOTTE, J., Vrijheid blijheid; elementen voor een geïntegreerd drugsbeleid, Brussel, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1996, 40 p.

2. Legislation & policy documents (categorized by policy level and chronological)

- Europe

• Maastricht Treaty on the European Union 1993• EU Drugs Strategy 2005 – 2012• EU Drugs Action Plan 2005 – 2008• EU Drugs Action Plan 2009 – 2012 • Lisbon Treaty 2009

- Belgium

• Verslag namens de parlementaire werkgroep belast met het bestuderen van de drugsproblematiek, 5 juni 1997, Gedr. St. Kamer, 1996-97, 1062/1.

• Omzendbrief nr. 1722 met betrekking tot de integrale aanpak van de drugproblematiek in de penitentiaire instellingen of December 18th 2000.

• Federal Drug Policy Note of January 19th 2001.• Protocolakkoord tussen de Federale Regering en de in artikelen 128, 130 en

135 van de Grondwet bedoelde overheden inzake de totstandkoming van een geïntegreerd gezondheidsbeleid inzake drugs, B.S. 23 augustus 2001.

39

• Cooperation Agreement of May 11th 2003.• Wet van 4 april 2003 tot wijziging van de wet van 24 februari 1921 betreffende

het verhandelen van de giftstoffen, slaapmiddelen en verdovende middelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica, en van artikel 137 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering, B.S. 2 juni 2003.

• Wet van 3 mei 2003 tot wijziging van de wet van 21 februari 1921 betreffende het verhandelen van giftstoffen, slaapmiddelen en verdovende middelen, ontsmettingsstoffen en antiseptica, B.S. 2 juni 2003.

• K.B. 16 mei 2003 tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 31 december 1930 omtrent de handel in slaap- en verdovende middelen, B.S. 2 juni 2003.

• Chamber of Representaives (Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers), Algemene beleidsnota van de Minister van Justitie of October 31st 2006.

• Belgian National Security Plan 2007 – 2011 (Nationaal Veiligheidsplan).• Flemish Action Plan on Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs 2009 – 2015.• Communal Declaration of January 25th 2010.

- The Netherlands

• Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, kamerstuk 24077 nr. 232 – Drugbeleid

3. Other sources (websites - alphabetical)

• http://www.benelux.be • http://www.emcdda.europa.eu • http://www.incb.org • http://www.iph.fgov.be • http://www.law.ugent.be/crim/ISD • http://www.om.nl • http://www.unodc.org/

40