8 th Civil Society Forum on Drugs: June 2013, Brussels

Transcription

1 8 th Civil Society Forum on Drugs: June 2013, Brussels The annual meeting of the Civil Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs took place on 24/25 June in Brussels Belgium. This 8 th CSF considered how the Forum would move forward over the next two years, establishing working groups, a new structure for the Core group, and how to carry out its work most effectively. Members discussed the priority areas for this new mandate of the Forum, with a specific focus on quality standards in drug demand reduction, how best to work with Horizontal Group on Drugs (HDG) and prepare a contribution for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS). The meeting concluded with a meeting with the Horizontal Drugs Group (HDG), which provided members the opportunity to discuss ways of further collaboration. Background The Civil Society Forum on Drugs meets at least once a year and serves as a platform for informal exchanges of views and information between the Commission and civil society organisations. This is in addition to the Core group, which is the leadership team of the CSF, who meets twice a year. There is a new membership for a 2-year mandate of the Forum ( ). 26 organisations reapplied and continue their work within the Forum, while 14 new members were accepted to join the CSF. European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice: 1

2 Day 1, Monday 24 June 2013 The unique, collaborative nature of the CSF has helped the Forum to achieve some important milestones over the past years. For the European Commission, having the civil society perspective, experience and input provides a useful and important insight into drug issues, allowing for much richer debate and well-informed decision-making at EU level. Speaking about the role the CSF has and should continue to play at the beginning of the conference, Lotte Knudsen, Director of the Criminal Justice Directorate at the European Commission, said From our perspective, the CSF is a positive, constructive experience, we have always relied a great deal on the contribution of NGOs to bring us added value, to bring us an expertise we don t possess ourselves. That is why it is important to have civil society as an interlocutor in what is the wider policy debate. The impact of the Forum has become much stronger, targeted and cohesive, and the European Commission would like the CSF to build on this over the next two years. Looking forward, Ms Knudsen explained From our point of view, we see the CSF s remit in a relatively clear way. We d like you to be a platform for informal exchanges of views between the Commission and civil society organisations and we d also like to increase the input that we get from you on initiatives and work that is going on at EU level. The work of the Forum over this time has also had a direct impact on EU policy, by providing practical recommendations for ongoing policy work. The recommendations for the EU Strategy on Drugs and the EU Drugs Action Plan are the two main areas where this work has been carried out. This means the CSF has not only contributed towards ongoing debate, but has also influenced EU policy directly. A key outcome of EU Drugs Action Plan has in fact been to stipulate that every six months the CSF will meet with representatives of the Horizontal Drugs Group, the EU Council Working Group with competence in drug policy. This means that over the next two years, the CSF will have the opportunity to have a structured dialogue with the Presidency and Member States twice a year. The first of these meetings took place on the second day of the conference. In her introductory remarks, Dana Spinant, Head of the Anti-Drug Policy Unit at the European Commission looked at her vision for the future. We are looking forward to even more, much more. We have a big group of 40 organisations with first hand cross- 2

3 field experience of drugs issues, across the spectrum of drugs policy and we look forward to interesting and constructive debates with you over the next two years. Presentation of a cross-section of the organisations represented After setting out the work carried out by the CSF over the last two years and considering its impact, the floor was given to members to present the work they do. Given the diverse approaches and objectives of the Forum member s organisations, it is an important way to help the Forum find areas of common understanding. Seven different representatives of CSF member organisations used this opportunity. The Nightlife, Empowerment and Wellbeing Network (NEW Net) focuses its work around harm reduction and community empowerment in nightlife at the city level. It works on reducing risks in a number of areas related to nightlife and is always carried out in partnership with all relevant stakeholders. The main intervention areas, as explained by its representative, Thierry Charlois, have included: producing harm reduction leaflets adapted to nightlife culture, on-sight interventions, peer education, encouraging on-sight drug-checking, developing training for nightlife professionals and health promotion labels and charters. The European Initiative on Hepatitis C and Drug Use is a new initiative started at the beginning of 2013 and was launched as the only project focused exclusively on drug users. The project is run by Correlation, which has been chaired by Eberhard Schatz since its inception in 2004, and which has already developed several products to help in the fight against the spread of Hepatitis C. The Women s Organisations Committee on Alcohol and Drug Issues (WOCAD) was represented by Leena Haraké. Its work focuses on women, in the context of an issue which is often seen as a male world, raising awareness and building opinion about the ruling norms, strategies, policies and actions made predominantly with men in mind. It is primarily involved in preventative activities in the areas of alcohol, drugs and other addictive substances, and sees future successful policy making as requiring a holistic approach to drugs issues that considers women separately from men and with equal importance. Elisa Rubini presented the work of San Patrignano, an organisation that focuses on rehabilitating drug users. She discussed a specific programme that seeks to find alternative sentencing to prison for users who are also offenders. Underpinning this 3

4 approach is the idea that prison is not a suitable place for drug addicts and is therefore not the suggested place for drug treatment. In practice, the programme is offered to offenders who are serving no more than six years in prison and it can be offered no more than two times to an individual. It consists of providing offenders with continued education and professional training programmes, with the aim of socially and professionally reintegrating offenders into society. With 72% of participants no longer relapsing (compared to 51% who have not been on the programme), and no cost to the taxpayer, it offers a cheaper and more effective way of treating these types of offenders. DIOGENIS was presented by Athanasios Apostolou, who explained that the organization promotes drug dialogue in southeastern Europe, specifically in the Balkans. The main goal is to achieve a coherent drug policy in the region, through inclusion and cooperation with decision makers, enforcers and users. The activities are focused in three main areas (1) international dialogue involving all relevant stakeholders and always in cooperation with the responsible Ministry; (2) coordination of the drug policy network in southeastern Europe; (3) improving the impact of NGO actors. A specific longer term aim is to raise the Action Plan between the EU and Balkan countries. Proslavi Oporavak (Celebrate Recovery) is a Bosnian NGO that aims to ensure resocialization of former addicts. Borislav Goic explained that their work is structured on outreach, rehabilitation and re-socialization and social integration. The outreach phase consists of educating current addicts and their families who are seeking help. In the rehabilitation phase, addicts are offered drug free treatment, whilst being given the opportunity to do complementary support work, helping them not to live as victims anymore. In the last phase, they are supported in their efforts to reintegrate and build sustainable, drug-free lifestyles, before becoming mentors to drug users thereafter, and thereby helping to close the circle once more. Fay Watson made the last presentation, introducing the work of EURAD (Europe Against Drugs) which is a network of 50 partner organisations focusing on prevention and recovery. The organisation represent partners at EU and UN level, whilst it also organizes training sessions on EMCDDA (European Centre for Drugs and Drug 4

5 Addiction) drugs standards and the EU drug strategy and has produced publications on cannabis and on psychoactive substances. Similarly to the CSF, the network seeks to enable and empower national and local civil society organisations become involved in projects and policy. The network, which focuses purely on EU issues, will be hosting an event in the European Parliament on recovery on 2 nd October Day 2, Tuesday 25 June 2013: Taking stock of past experiences and building towards the future The CSF mandate Now that consultations between the HDG and civil society is officially one of the actions of the EU Drugs Action Plan, an obvious priority for the Forum over the next two years will be coming up with an overarching mandate for the Forum. The relative weaknesses of the previous Forum was that the tasks that the Forum set for itself were probably too vague, without a roadmap and the coordination system failed making it virtually impossible to meet the set targets. Clarifying what the aim and functioning of the Forum as a whole and the Core Group in particular will be, should therefore be defined as early as possible by the incoming leadership team. Having a more structured approach including deadlines, would also help to make the work more constructive and substantive. The CSF approach A procedural approach is particularly important within the context of having an impact on Presidency priorities, but also for having an impact on EU policy more generally. Since each Presidency establishes priorities and activities in advance of their tenure, anticipating in which areas the CSF would like and would be able to intervene, before the priorities are set in stone, should be a key objective. Facilitating this communication must be ensured to allow intervention to happen as early as possible. This was reflected by Eberhard Schatz who noted, this kind of communication has to be improved both within the Core Group and from the European Commission. 5

6 Early preparation and a clear approach will also be important for influencing the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) process and ahead of that, the high level meeting that will take place in Vienna in The capacity to intervene and contribute to the debate ahead of these meetings, will be key to shaping the EU position. Targeting recommendations Eberhard Schatz commented that one disappointment of the previous Forum was the failure to have certain recommendations considered and incorporated by the HDG. Paola Tardioli-Schiavo, the Deputy Head of the Anti Drugs Policy Unit, explained that any perceived failure in this regard was mostly a question of procedures. She explained I m pretty sure that if we find a modus operandi for the working groups, not only for the formulation of the recommendation, but also on how to propose it, we will not have the same problem in the future. Lella Cosmaro (Fondazione LILA Milano ONLUS) discussed the fact that in the Civil Society Forum for AIDS, where she is a co-chair the work is made easier by the fact there is a much clearer common objective that members are pushing for. For the CSF on Drugs there is a broad range of interest organisations with different objectives, making it much more difficult for members to speak with a unified voice and therefore have a clear message. The need for a more targeted approach is therefore clear to Ms Tardioli-Schiavo. She went on to further underline this by saying, We will have only one meeting for the CSF in 2014, which means that we have to find even stricter procedures for the working groups to deliver. We will meet with the Core group twice, but in the meantime, it is important that the working groups work on the issues that they are responsible for. Financial support A recurring problem for the Forum has been reduced financial support. This has made it difficult for members to meet regularly enough to work together as often or as effectively as they would like. One area where additional financial support would be welcomed is with administrative support for the CSF. Andrzej Kosnikowski informed that DPIP could not provide funding for a permanent administrative support mechanism between the annual meetings of the Forum, but reminded that an opportunity for the Forum to receive 6

7 additional funding would be to apply for an action grant during the current call with a deadline for submission on 11 July at noon. Setting up the new Core group and Working Groups Another important change that will take place is to link the Working Groups to the Core group in a more direct way. Linking the leadership between them would be beneficial to members of the respective Working Groups, it would ensure better management and facilitate coordination of the Forum s efforts. Work towards specific objectives would therefore be more effective and streamlined. It was therefore decided that the leaders of the three Working Groups would also automatically become three members of the Core Group. It was also decided that there will be a new chair of the group, who will hold the leading position in the Forum, and a vice-chair will be elected to assist in her/his duties. With the agreement of Forum members, who were given the opportunity to discuss the proposals of the outgoing Core group leadership team, the new Core group will be composed of 5 members. It was also decided that members of the Core Group would be free to resign at any point, if they felt unable to carry out the role effectively. Prior to the vote, Eberhard Schatz informed the Forum that he did not intend to run for the position of Chair again. Consequently this meant a new chair and vice-chair would be elected. Following the vote it was decided that Raminta Stuikyte (European AIDS treatment group) will now become the Forum new chair, while Fay Watson (EURAD Europe Against Drugs) will become the vice-chair. Improving internal communication A range of different methods for improving communication were put forward. Ultimately it was left to the chair of each respective Working Group to figure out how members would stay in touch with one another and help to deliver any agreed objectives. All three WG chairs decided that the most effective way to carry out regular correspondence would be to set up groups that will become communication platforms. In addition, members were encouraged to use Skype more frequently for direct communication, given the relatively few opportunities members will have to meet face to face. 7

8 Any document exchange / document storage can take place through sites like Dropbox. European Commission also informed that a possibility of offering an internet forum which used to exist in the past but was not popular as a means of communication among CSF members, could be explored. In addition to how communication will be carried out within working groups, a decision was also reached regarding how each working group would be kept informed about the progress of the work in the other groups. The newly elected chair advised that quarterly updates would be provided by respective chairs, on the work that has been carried out by its members. She set a first deadline of September (exact date tbc), for when these first reports would be prepared, and advised that she would take care of setting up the necessary mailing lists. Also, on that day Akos Topolanszky, member of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) attended the morning sessions and held bilateral discussions with CSF members. Deliverables and objectives for next two years Working Group 1: On the implementation of the CSF recommendations towards HDG up to 2016 WG1 elected Peter Sarosi (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union), as its new chair by a majority, in a group with 8 members. Prior to the first meeting of the new Group, it was decided that the group would be renamed as above, so as to have an impact on a broader area than just harm reduction (as it had been named before). With the HDG meeting taking place at the end of the conference, WG1 s first meeting took on added significance as this was an early opportunity to deliver a message on behalf of the Forum. The group decided to focus its work until 2016 on the implementation of recommendations in demand reduction. This timeframe will include three different Presidencies: the Lithuanian, which begins on July 1 st followed by Greek and Italian. In order to ensure a maximum level of impact, members agreed it was crucial to intervene as early as possible. With this in mind, members raised doubts as to how much they would be able to influence the incoming Lithuanian Presidency, saying 8

9 many of their priorities would now already have been decided, and therefore highlighted the importance of anticipating the next two Presidencies well in advance instead. In this context, one of the concrete actions will be to develop a joint paper that can be sent to the Presidencies, highlighting the CSF s priorities, and also to find out what the priorities of those Presidencies are going to be. Work on this paper will begin immediately and a provisional deadline for a first draft has been set for end of July. The Action Plan will be used as a basis for deciding priority areas of intervention, where a flexible approach will be taken to providing feedback. The recommendations that were made by WG1 s predecessors, will also be looked at, with a focus on determining which of these were taken on board by the HDG, so these areas can once again be prioritized now. Any priority areas that weren t addressed in previous recommendations that members feel ought to be raised, may be considered as well. In terms of the HDG meeting at the conference, the Group advised it would raise the issue of the impact of budget cuts, and how to keep prevention of treatment focused on the most vulnerable people during the economic crisis. A second key point will be to ask about CSF engagement in HDG meetings, both at EU and national level. Working Group 2: On quality standards in drug demand reduction Matej Kosir was elected as chair of WG2 as the only candidate standing for the position along with nine new members. Having already led the group during the last mandate of the Forum, he explained that he would offer continuity and an understanding of what his role required. During the first meeting of the new group, Mr Kosir used the opportunity to explain that the focus of their work would centre around quality standards in three main areas: harm reduction, treatment and prevention. Importantly, the focus of this work would be on minimum quality standards. These three subject areas will be dealt with by sub-groups that are now being set up (on prevention, harm reduction and treatment quality standards). The scope of drug demand reduction is quite narrow. During the presentation of the WG, it was explained that the work would focus almost exclusively on service provision. To ensure maximum impact, the importance of not over-elaborating contributions was encouraged. 9

10 Members will contribute to ongoing efforts by working on delivering new recommendations to existing documents, bringing civil society interests to the fore. Highlighting weaknesses in existing proposals will be another important focus. Practically speaking this will entail looking where gaps in standards exist and considering the feasibility of proposed changes. Concrete areas where the group would try to intervene include trying to impact the 2 nd EU Drugs Action Plan. This would allow the group enough time to prepare and deliver meaningful recommendations, offering EU policy makers sufficient time to take them on board. The group has given itself a one year time frame to come up with a policy document summarizing all the recommendations it wishes to make. Working Group 3: on the civil society contribution to preparations for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, 2016 WG3 will be chaired by Maria Phelan (Harm Reduction International), after she was elected by a majority. The clear priority is to help shape the EU position for the UNGASS conference in Since there are already various deadlines for input from Member States in place, there is a pressure in terms of available time, to succeed in the Groups aims. In order to be as effective as possible a subgroup will be set up to prepare the terms of reference, so it is clear to everyone what everyone will be working on, what the responsibilities of the group are and how inputs to UNGASS will be delivered. This group will also map out key deadlines. A briefing of the UNGASS process will also be set up to help members of the group understand its complexities and how best to have an impact on the outcome. In terms of methodology, members agreed that the best way to proceed would be to have better inputting at the national level, since the EU position at the UNGASS conference will be determined by input from MS. The group will also look at civil society input in the wider context of having an impact on the EU position. The European Commission will intervene in the different thematic debates, in the following areas: demand reduction, supply reduction, international cooperation, money laundering issues and cooperation more generally. Contributing to the discussions in these different areas at an early stage to give the civil society perspective will therefore be important. 10

11 Given that the European Commission s role is limited to facilitator for this process, having input at the national level through national delegations, can help to achieve civil society objectives of impacting the political debate. In addition, the unique expertise that the CSF members bring, can also help inform policy makers, and therefore help them present an EU position that takes into account civil society concerns. Meeting with HDG The two-day Civil Society Forum conference ended with a first-ever joint session with members of the CSF and the HDG. The HDG is the group at the Council of the European Union, responsible for dealing with drugs issues. Taking part were representatives from the current and upcoming Presidencies, Ireland, Lithuania, Greece and Italy. Also in attendance were representatives from the Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands as well as from the EMCDDA (European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). Dana Spinant emphasized that the new EU Drugs Action Plan now does foresee regular dialogue between the CSF on drugs and the HDG under each Presidency. The chair of the outgoing Irish Presidency, Des Corrigan, meanwhile also highlighted the importance of the event saying the meeting takes the relationship between the CSF and HDG to another level and a further step forward. He went on discuss the work that has been at the heart of the Irish Presidency s efforts, which has included progress in the following areas: Overseeing the drafting and adoption of the EU Drugs Action Plan Preparing the Commission on narcotic drugs and preparing EU statements Taking part in the civil society hearing in Vienna Hosting the national coordinator s meeting in Dublin Preparing for CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) drugs strategy Dialogues on drugs with Western Balkans and US and a first ever dialogue with Brazil Meanwhile the Chair of the incoming Lithuanian Presidency also provided an outline of the priorities areas the next trio of Presidencies would focus on, which will centre around psychoactive substances and on the misuse of prescribed medicines. He also announced the dates for the HDG meetings that will take place under their Presidency, 11

12 which will take place on 17 July, 11 September, October and 11 November respectively. The CSF used the meeting as an opportunity to discuss areas where collaboration would be possible with the HDG. One specific area mentioned by WG1 in this context, is giving an important input towards the impact of the financial crisis on civil society. The chair, Peter Sarosi, also announced plans to produce a paper by September, with a comprehensive list of recommendations for the HDG to consider. Mike Trace of the International Drug Policy Consortium mentioned two further specific areas for intervention, in the context of preparation for UNGASS: supply reduction indicators and on new psychoactive substances. Several other important issues were raised. One key theme was how to ensure that its input into policy documents would be better implemented in future. Eberhard Schatz noted that a weakness of the recent cooperation between the CSF and HDG was that recommendations put forward by the CSF were not properly taken into consideration by the HDG and reflected in the new EU Drugs Action Plan. The Irish Chair explained that the civil society input had played an important role in the putting together of the final EU Drug Action Plan and that it was considered on a par with all the other contributions to the Action Plan. Moving forward, the Greek representative announced his Presidency s intention to propose a more structured way to communicate in future. Also discussed during the HDG meeting, was the prospect of the CSF ultimately gaining observer status in all HDG meetings. Although in fact earlier raised during the discussion on objectives for Working Group 1, it was in fact the Czech representative who first mentioned the idea during the meeting, when speaking about the importance of having a civil society representation during decision making meetings. This proposal was given strong backing by CSF members, and it was decided that the General Secretariat of the Council would investigate the matter. DO WE WANT THIS IN THE MINUTES? In the end it was decided that in terms of procedures it would be a good idea to come up with a terms of reference for collaboration between the two groups. In order to address the concerns of the CSF and to have a healthy and constructive relationship this sort of modus operandi would be very useful. 12