kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2017
KOM (2017) 0195
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.3.2017

SWD(2017) 95 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and the EU

Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Evaluation of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and of the EU

Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016: a continuous need for an EU Action Plan on Drugs

2017-2020

{COM(2017) 195 final}

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1.

4.2.

6.1.

6.2.

6.3.

6.4.

6.5.

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

Background to the initiative ......................................................................................... 4

Evaluation questions .................................................................................................... 8

Method ......................................................................................................................... 9

Overview of sources and method ................................................................................. 9

Methodological challenges: limitations and robustness of findings .......................... 10

Implementation state of play (results) ........................................................................ 11

Answers to the evaluation questions .......................................................................... 14

Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 14

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 18

Relevance ................................................................................................................... 19

Coherence ................................................................................................................... 21

EU added value .......................................................................................................... 22

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 24

Annexes ...................................................................................................................... 25

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

NTRODUCTION

Purpose of the evaluation

The EU's 2013-2020 Drugs Strategy

and the 2013-2016 Action Plan on Drugs

set out the

EU's political framework and priorities on drugs policy.

The EU Drugs Strategy requires the Commission to

"initiate an external midterm assessment

of the Strategy by 2016, in view of preparing a second Action Plan for the period 2017-2020".

The European Agenda on Security

, implementing the Political Guidelines of President

Juncker

, foresees that the Commission will assess the progress made in implementing the

2013-2016 EU Drugs Action Plan and on this basis it will decide whether to propose a new

EU Action Plan for the period 2017-2020.

In this context, the Commission, with the support of an external contractor

conducted the

mid-term assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and the final evaluation of the 2013-2016 EU

Action Plan on Drugs. Due to their complementarity and interconnection the results of the

mid-term assessment and the final evaluation are presented in the form of a single,

comprehensive evaluation report.

The evaluation has two main objectives:



to allow the assessment of the degree of implementation of the 2013-2020 Drugs Strategy,

as well as of the 2013-2016 Action Plan in terms of both outputs and their impact

. The

evaluation was expected to contribute to ensuring that the objectives of the EU Drugs

Strategy are achieved by 2020, by highlighting the areas where expected progress has

been achieved and those where progress is not sufficiently on track to meet objectives.



to support the Commission's decision on whether to propose a new Action Plan to cover

the period 2017-2020 and which changes would be needed compared to the current one.

The results of the evaluation will inform the decision-making regarding drug policy and

allocation of resources to this field. Members of the civil society with an interest in drug

policy will be able to use the results of this evaluation for their activity. The evaluation also

OJ C 402, 29.12.2012, p. 1

OJ C 351, 30.11.2013, p. 1

3 COM(2015) 185 final

4 https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/president-junckers-political-guidelines_en

5 The external contractor was a consortium made of Ernst & Young and RAND Europe

In the context of this evaluation, outputs were understood as indicators describing the "physical" product of spending resources through

policy interventions. Impact is understood as the change that can be credibly attributed to an intervention; i. e. the long-term "effect" of the

intervention or "contribution to change". Where the impact could not be measured the contractor had to explain why this was the case.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

provides a comprehensive presentation of the achievements and challenges of the EU drugs

policy aimed at the general public.

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation covers the period 2013 up until August 2016, which is when most data

collection was completed, and it assesses whether the outputs of the EU Drugs Strategy and

Action Plan, as well as at their impact, have been achieved effectively and efficiently, and

whether the actions remain relevant. In addition, it addresses the EU-added value and

coherence with other actions in this area at European, international and national level.

The evaluation addresses the main policy areas of the Drugs Strategy, including (a) drug

demand and (b) drug supply reduction as well as the cross-cutting themes (c) coordination, (d)

international cooperation, and (e) research, information, monitoring and evaluation.

Both the internal and the external dimensions have been addressed.

The evaluation assesses the degree of the implementation of all the 54 actions of the Action

Plan as well as the impact of their implementation.

The evaluation covers all 28 Member States and it draws on data from all relevant EU bodies,

such as the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the

European Police Office (Europol), the EU's Judicial Co-operation Unit (Eurojust), the

European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and

Control (ECDC), the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS),

the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union. Civil society organisations and

selected third countries have been consulted during the evaluation. A public consultation was

also held from mid-February until end of May 2016

. More information about the

stakeholders consultation carried out in the framework of the evaluation is available in annex

II.

ACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION

Drugs are a complex social and health problem that affects millions of people in the EU and

globally. The human and social costs of drugs addiction are very high. It incurs costs on

public health (related to drug prevention and treatment, health care and hospitals), public

safety, the environment and labour productivity, as well as on governance. Drugs are also a

serious security challenge affecting the stability of a number of states around the world, as

well as the rule of law.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/public-consultation/2016/consulting_0032_en.htm

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

At least 83.2 million Europeans report having used cannabis at least once in their lifetime,

while cocaine and amphetamines have been tried by 17.1 and 12 million people respectively.

In addition, 1.3 million adults are high-risk opioid users. For 2014, it is estimated that at least

6 800 overdose deaths occurred in the European Union. This represents an increase compared

to the figures for 2013. In 2015, 98 new psychoactive substances (NPS) were detected,

bringing the number of new substances monitored to more than 560, of which 70 % were

detected in the last 5 years

. Over the last 4 years new psychoactive substances have been

increasingly accessible on the open market and/or online, posing serious health threats.

Drugs are also a global problem. It is estimated that a quarter of a billion people between the

ages of 15 and 64 years, used at least one drug in 2014. Over 29 million people who use drugs

are estimated to suffer from drug use disorders

An EU Drugs Strategy and associated Action Plans for Drugs were also implemented during

the period 2005 -2012. The final evaluation of these policy initiatives, carried out in 2012

showed that cannabis was in 2012 the most widely used illicit drug in Europe, with cocaine on

second place. The number of problem opioid users remained stable over the course of the

Strategy but despite progressive trends in prevention, treatment and harm reduction, drug-

induced deaths remained at historically high levels, and accounted for the greatest share of

morbidity and mortality related to drug use in Europe. In 2012 the EMCDDA informed that

newly reported infections with HIV had declined since the adoption of the Strategy whereas

the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infections were highly prevalent among injecting users in most

EU Member States. The 2012 evaluation reported that access to treatment programmes

improved over the course of the Strategy.

It was also found that law enforcement cooperation efforts at the EU level had improved from

2005 and that effective information sharing across country borders was the most important

facilitator in effective supply reduction. In this framework the Strategy was credited with

having fostered frameworks and mechanisms to facilitate the sharing of intelligence,

especially in relation to Europol and the Council's Horizontal Drugs Group. The evaluation

also showed, however, that there was a lack of progress in developing supply reduction

indicators. The previous Strategy and Action Plans on Drugs also only addressed the

emergence of new technologies in the production, marketing, purchasing and distribution of

illegal drugs from a research perspective.

European Drug Report 2016,

EMCDDA

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,

World Drug Report 2016

Assessment of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy 2005-2012 and its Action Plans

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

The 2012 evaluation also found that the coordinating role of the HDG in the area of supply

reduction was becoming more complex since law enforcement activities in drugs policy had

become a priority in the EU internal security agenda, giving COSI a more active parallel

coordination role. Nevertheless, the evaluation found that the 2009-2012 Strategy was

effective in providing guidelines to the Member States for the drafting of their own national

drugs policies. The role of the HDG in coordinating drugs policy was viewed largely

positively although it was found that its effectiveness was highly dependent on the clout and

capacity of the respective Council presidencies. The 2009-2012 Strategy was credited with

improving the influence and visibility of the EU on the international stage in terms of the EU

"speaking with one voice" and of the impact of the EU funding various projects and initiatives

worldwide. The Strategy was also seen as influential especially in providing focus and

direction for data collection and it was credited with contributing to the expansion of the EU

knowledge base on drugs.

In December 2012 the Council of the European Union adopted, via a Council

Recommendation, a new EU Drugs Strategy that provides the political framework and

priorities for EU drugs policy for the period 2013-2020. The Drugs Strategy serves as a basis

for two consecutive 4-year EU Drugs Action Plans. The first Action Plan covered the period

2013-2016.

The EU Drugs Strategy has five major objectives:

1. To contribute to a measurable reduction of the demand for drugs, of drug dependence and

of drug-related health and social risks and harms;

2. To contribute to a disruption of the illicit drugs market and a measurable reduction of the

availability of illicit drugs;

3. To encourage coordination through active discourse and analysis of developments and

challenges in the field of drugs at EU and international level;

4. To further strengthen dialogue and cooperation between the EU and third countries and

international organisations on drug issues;

5. To contribute to a better dissemination of monitoring, research and evaluation results and

a better understanding of all aspects of the drugs phenomenon and of the impact of

interventions in order to provide sound and comprehensive evidence-base for policies and

actions.

The EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016 provides further detail on the 5 major objectives in

the form of 15 more operational objectives to be achieved through a set of actions listed in the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Action Plan. For each action the responsible party for its implementation was identified.

Member States, relevant agencies (such as EMCDDA, Europol, Eurojust, the EU Agency for

Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL)), the European Commission, the European External

Action Service, the Council of the EU and the rotating EU Presidencies had to join efforts to

carry out the actions of the Action Plan. For each action, indicator(s) and data

collection/assessment mechanisms were also identified. These are all detailed in annex H of

the contractor's report.

Three operational objectives are related to specific objective 1 of

drug demand reduction

and

aim at: 1) preventing drug use and delaying the onset of drug use; 2) enhancing the

effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation including services for people with co-

morbidity, to reduce the use of illicit drugs; problem drug use; the incidence of drug

dependency and drug-related health and social risks and harms and to support the recovery

and social re-integration of problematic and dependant drug users; and 3) embedding

coordinated, best practice and quality approaches in drug demand reduction. Nine actions

were expected to contribute to the implementation of this specific objective.

Operational objectives 4, 5 and 6 of the Action Plan are in turn related to the second specific

objective of the Drug Strategy concerning

drug supply reduction.

These aim at: 4) enhancing

effective law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU to counter illicit drug

activity, in coherence, as appropriate, with relevant actions determined through the EU policy

cycle; 5) enhancing effective judicial cooperation and legislation within the EU; at 6)

responding effectively to current and emerging trends in illicit drug activity. Thirteen actions

were expected to contribute to the implementation of the second objective of the Strategy.

Operational objectives 7, 8 and 9 of the Action Plan are related to the third specific objective

of the Strategy concerning

coordination.

They aim at: 7) ensuring effective EU coordination

in the drugs field; 8) ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy at national level;

and 9) ensuring the participation of civil society in drugs policy. Eight actions were expected

to contribute to the implementation of this specific objective.

Operational objectives 10, 11 and 12 of the Action Plan are related to the fourth specific

objective of the Strategy concerning

international cooperation

and aim at: 10) integrating the

EU Drugs Strategy within the EU's overall foreign policy framework as part of a

comprehensive approach that makes full use of the variety of policies and diplomatic, political

and financial instruments at the EU's disposal in a coherence and coordinated manner; 11) at

improving cohesiveness of EU approach and EU visibility in the United National (UN) and

strengthen EU coordination with international bodies related to the drugs field; and 12)

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

supporting the process for acceding countries, candidate countries and potential candidate

countries to adapt to and align with the EU acquis in the drugs field, through targeted

assistance and monitoring. Fourteen actions were expected to contribute to the

implementation of the fourth objective of the Strategy.

Finally, objectives 13, 14 and 15 are related to the fifth specific objective concerning

information, research, monitoring and evaluation,

and they aim at: 13) ensuring adequate

investment in research, data collection, monitoring, evaluation and information exchange on

all aspects of the drug phenomenon; 14) maintaining networking and cooperation and

developing capacity within and across the EU's knowledge infrastructure for information,

research, monitoring and evaluation of drugs, particularly illicit drugs; and 15) enhancing

dissemination of monitoring, research and evaluation results at EU and national level. 10

actions were expected to contribute to the implementation of the fifth objective.

The graphic representation below illustrates the intervention logic of the EU Drugs Strategy,

summarising in a schematic way how its different elements were expected to interact.

Figure 1 Intervention logic

A more detailed version can be found in the contractor's evaluation report

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

VALUATION QUESTIONS

In accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation looked at

the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence of the actions undertaken on basis of

the Action Plan, as well as at the achieved EU added-value of these actions.

The following questions were addressed during the evaluation:

Effectiveness:

(1)

To what extent have the objectives and actions of the EU Action Plan on Drugs

2013-2016 been implemented?

(2)

What have been the results of the actions implemented in relation to the specific

objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan?

(3)

To what extent have the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy been achieved and what

have been the impacts of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan?

Efficiency:

(4)

To what extent have the Strategy and Action Plan had an impact on the Member

States' budgetary resources?

(5)

Were sufficient resources allocated throughout the years 2013-2016 for reaching the

objectives of the EU Strategy and Action Plan?

(6)

Would additional resources be necessary for the remaining years of the EU Drugs

Strategy? If yes, where should these additional resources come from?

Relevance:

(7)

(8)

To what extent has the EU Drugs Strategy been relevant in view of the EU needs?

Is the EU Drugs Strategy relevant in view of current needs?

Coherence:

(9)

To what extent are the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan coherent with other EU

policies, as well as with Member States drugs policies?

(10)

To what extent are the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan coherent with the

developments in the international fora and with the EU external action?

(11)

To what extent is the EU cooperation with third countries and international

organisations coherent with the objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy?

EU added value

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

(12)

What is the additional value resulting from the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan,

compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional

level?

(13)

Would a new Action Plan for the period 2017-2020, as foreseen in the EU Drugs

Strategy, be useful and necessary? If so, is there anything to be changed (beyond the

actual actions) in the new Action Plan compared to the current one? What would be

the most urgent issues to be tackled by the new Action Plan?

ETHOD

4.1.

Overview of sources and method

The evaluation was conducted through a mixed-methods approach and was informed by the

triangulation of a variety of sources as shown in this section and more in detail in annex III.

An evaluation framework has been built to guide the evaluation. For each evaluation question,

an ‘evaluation grid’ was developed. The evaluation grids provided an overview of the

approach used to tackle the evaluation criteria and explained the links between the evaluation

questions;

they

identified

risks

and

challenges;

they

detailed

the

proposed

evaluation/judgment criteria; they presented the indicators and descriptors i.e. the pieces of

information needed to conduct the analysis; and they identified for each judgment criterion

the source(s) of information to be used during data collection. Two types of data were

collected: secondary data (existing data) and primary data in order to fill gaps in the

secondary data and generate a more detailed understanding.

The secondary data were collected via desk research which focused on reviewing

contributions from EU Agencies and Member States to the 2015 Commission Progress Report

on the implementation of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2013-2016

as well as other relevant

documentation, including general market data and trends and Member States' drugs strategies.

Primary data collection was done through interviews or roundtable discussions with Member

States and third countries' representatives, EU institutions and bodies, industry and civil

society representatives, experts in the field, a survey of the European External Action Service

(EEAS) representatives in third countries, and an analysis of the results of 121 contributions

COM(2015) 584 final

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

to the public consultation run by the Commission. More details on the stakeholder

consultation are available in annex II.

The implementation of the Action Plan was synthesised in a "traffic light" assessment

(annexed to the main evaluation report). For each action an assessment was provided,

considering the available evidence for all indicators associated with this given action. The

evidence underpinning the assessment is also provided. The actions and the operational

objectives are assessed as

green

(completed, in progress, or ongoing but on target);

amber

(in

progress or some progress, but behind plan) or

red

(deterioration, no progress, little progress

or considerably behind plan) depending on the extent of progress achieved.

4.2.

Methodological challenges: limitations and robustness of findings

One of the main challenges arising during the evaluation is the availability of comparable data

from all Member States, as well as a lack of baseline measures for all actions and objectives

against which to compare outcomes of the period covered by the EU Drugs Strategy and

Action Plan. Therefore, the attribution and assessment of possible trends and developments to

the Strategy and the Action Plan is made difficult, which has had an impact on the analysis of

the effectiveness of the Strategy and Action Plan in terms of quantifying the quantitative and

qualitative effects and crediting changes corresponding to the objectives solely to the Strategy

and Action Plan. To address these limitations the evaluation collected the best possible

statistical data available (in terms of its relevance and timeliness), and interpreted this in light

of the extensive qualitative data collected. Using evidence from different sources provided

opportunities to triangulate data and thereby to validate the information and build up a picture

about the weight of evidence.

The same difficulty was encountered when assessing the efficiency criterion where available

data were subject to considerable caveats. As there was no comprehensive and up-to-date

overview of drug-related expenditure, due to differences in attribution and inconsistent

classification of expenses among Member States, the evaluation was not able to draw firm

conclusions about the efficiency of the actions implemented as part of the EU Drugs Strategy.

Instead, the available data and particularly the consultation of stakeholders provided

indications of the extent to which the allocation of financial resources at EU and Member

State level was sufficient.

Caveats and limitations related to data availability and to each method used during the

evaluation process are explicitly mentioned in the evaluation report. For example, in some

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

cases available data do not allow for a measurement of a trend in a given indicator because

there is only one data point available. In other cases the baseline precedes the current Strategy

and Action Plan, which therefore precludes a trend assessment pertaining strictly to the

reference period for this evaluation.

With some indicators, the available data did not allow for a conclusion of whether the

observed trend represents an improvement or deterioration. This is due to the lack of

indicators that accurately measure the phenomena of interest, and/or the absence of contextual

information that would enable an identification of underlying drivers. The evaluation

recommends that data collection to inform the supply reduction activity indicators be

complemented with qualitative, contextual information to obtain a more comprehensive

picture of the impact of supply reduction efforts.

Triangulating the findings from each data source has contributed to enhancing the weight of

evidence behind the conclusions of the report. While for some research questions, the

conclusions are more tentative (e.g. evaluation question 3 on impact), on the whole, the

evaluation presents a coherent and robust set of answers to the evaluation questions.

At the same time, the main method for collecting primary data was via interviews. The use of

this method was requested by the Commission in order to maximise the participation of the

stakeholders in the evaluation process, which would not have been guaranteed by the use of

surveys. The relatively low participation of the EU Delegations in the online survey that was

created to gather their input supports this point.

However, interviews covered a wide range of topics and did not often discuss specific actions

in detail, which may have an impact on the quality and comprehensiveness of the data

collected. To mitigate this risk the evaluation looked at contributions received from relevant

EU agencies such as the EMCDDA, Europol and CEPOL and at desk research, triangulating

data and findings.

MPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY

(

RESULTS

)

As explained in section 4 the assessment of the implementation of the Action Plan’s actions

was conducted in the form of a traffic light assessment. The full assessment can be found in

Annex A of the evaluation report.

Overall, the majority of the actions in the Action Plan have been implemented and

considerable progress has been made with regard to the 15 objectives referred to in section 2.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

A slight majority of objectives (8 out of 15) were assessed as “green,” (completed, in

progress, or ongoing but on target) with the remaining seven objectives assessed as “amber,”

(in progress, but behind plan).

Under the

drug demand reduction

pillar the operational objective aimed at preventing drug

use and delaying the onset of drug use was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent

to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to preventing

drug use and delaying the onset of drug use has been addressed through four actions (from 1

to 4, three of which were assessed as "amber" and one "green"). It was found that there has

been no recorded decrease in the proportion of the population using drugs but the data that are

available have limitations (see section 4 of this document and the full evaluation report).

However, it is unclear how overarching trends are connected to the implementation of the

Action Plan. Available evidence shows that there has been some progress in three actions

aimed at preventing drug use and delaying the onset of drug use, with one assessed as "green"

(on target).

The drug demand reduction objective of enhancing the effectiveness of drug treatment and

rehabilitation, including services for people with co-morbidity, to reduce the use of illicit

drugs, problem drug use, the incidence of drug dependency and drug-related health and social

risks and harms, and to support the recovery and social re-integration of problematic and

dependent drug users, was also assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the

implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to achieving this objective

has been addressed through four actions (from 5 to 8, all of which were assessed as "amber"

(some progress)). The trends in relevant variables of interest (e.g. drug-related deaths, high-

risk opioid use, infectious diseases attributable to drugs, treatment uptake) appear mixed.

Nevertheless, available evidence from the Commission’s 2015 Progress Report and interviews

suggests that there has been some progress in enhancing the effectiveness of drug treatment

and rehabilitation. Drug users in Europe are offered a wide range of services, although this

varies by treatment type and context and stakeholders disagree about the recent trend in

availability of these services.

The third objective under the drug demand reduction pillar aims at embedding coordinated,

best practice and quality approaches in drug demand reduction and it was assessed as "green"

(on target).The extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has

contributed to this objective has been addressed through one action (action 9, which was

assessed as "green" (completed)). It was found that the adoption and the beginning of the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

implementation of common European Minimum Quality Standards has contributed to

improving quality approaches in demand reduction.

Under the

drug supply reduction

pillar the operational objective aimed at enhancing the

effective law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU to counter illicit drug

activity, in coherence, as appropriate, with relevant actions determined through the EU Policy

Cycle, was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the implementation of

the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to enhancing effective law enforcement

coordination and cooperation within the EU has been addressed through seven actions (from

10 to 16). Law enforcement coordination and cooperation in the field of drugs within the EU

have visibly improved in recent years. While not necessarily accompanied by positive trends

in relevant outcome indicators, progress has been made in implementing all seven actions in

this area, five of which are assessed as "green" (on target) and two as "amber" (some

progress).

The drug supply reduction objective aimed at enhancing effective judicial cooperation and

legislation within the EU was assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to which the

implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to achieving this objective

has been addressed through five actions (from 17 to 21, three assessed "amber" and two

"green"). Progress has been achieved in enhancing judicial cooperation and legislation within

the EU in all areas covered by these five actions, in particular with respect to drug precursors

and alternatives to coercive sanctions.

The third objective in the area of drug supply reduction aimed at responding effectively to

current and emerging trends in illicit drug activity was assessed as "green" (on target). The

extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to

achieving this objective has been addressed through action 22. It was found that there are

indications that the relevant law enforcement agencies have set up mechanisms to respond

quickly to emerging developments.

Under the

coordination

pillar, the objective aimed at ensuring effective EU coordination in

the drugs field was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of

the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to encouraging effective EU coordination in the

drugs field has been addressed through six actions (from 23 to 28). Progress has been

achieved in all relevant areas related to EU coordination in the drugs field. All actions in this

category are assessed as on target with the exception of financial coordination.

The objective aimed at ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy at national level

was also assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to encouraging effective coordination in drug-

related policy at the national level has been addressed through Action 29. It was found that

coordinating mechanisms typically exist in and are routinely used by Member States.

The third objective of the coordination pillar aimed at ensuring the participation of civil

society in the drugs policy was also assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the

implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to encouraging the

participation of civil society has been addressed through Action 30. It was found that civil

society organisations are closely involved in drug policy dialogues both at national and EU

level.

Under the

international cooperation

pillar the objective aimed at integrating the EU Drugs

Strategy within the EU's overall foreign policy framework as part of the comprehensive

approach that makes full use of the variety of policies and diplomatic, political and financial

instruments at the EU's disposal in a coherent and coordinated manner was assessed as

"amber" (some progress). The extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and

Strategy has contributed to integrating the EU Drugs Strategy within the overall foreign

policy framework has been addressed through eleven actions (from 31 to 41, five assessed as

"amber" (some progress), five as "green" (on target) and one as "red" (no progress)). On the

whole, the EU Drugs Strategy can be considered well integrated within the EU's overall

foreign policy framework as part of a comprehensive approach. The EU has continued to use

a range of policies and diplomatic, political and financial instruments, although some areas

with room for improvement persist.

The objective aimed at improving cohesiveness of the EU approach and EU visibility in the

United Nations and at strengthening EU coordination with international bodies related to the

drugs field was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of the

Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to achieving this objective has been addressed

through two actions (42-43). There has been strong progress in the Action Plan’s

implementation in this area, with all relevant actions assessed as on target.

The third objective of the international cooperation pillar aimed at supporting the process for

acceding countries, candidate countries, and potential candidates to adapt to and align with the

EU acquis in the drugs field, through targeted assistance and monitoring was also assessed as

"green" (on target). The extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy

has contributed to achieving this objective has been addressed through Action 44. It was

found that this action is on target, with EU and Member States providing assistance to

candidate countries in order to facilitate their compliance with the EU acquis.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Under the

information, research, monitoring and evaluation

pillar the objective aimed at

ensuring adequate investment in research, data collection, monitoring, evaluation and

information exchange on all aspects of the drug phenomenon was assessed as "amber" (some

progress). The extent to which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has

contributed to adequate investment in research and data collection has been addressed through

three actions. Overall, there is progress in this area, with two actions being on target (actions

45 and 47) and one with some progress (action 46).

The objective aimed at maintaining networking and cooperation and developing capacity

within and across the EU's knowledge infrastructure for information, research, monitoring and

evaluation of drugs, particularly illicit drugs was assessed as "green" (on target). The extent to

which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to achieving this

objective has been addressed through six actions (from 48 to 53, all assessed as "green").

Overall it was found that different parties (Europol, EMCDDA and CEPOL) all have

contributed to maintaining networking and cooperation within and across the EU’s knowledge

infrastructure.

The objective aimed at enhancing dissemination of monitoring, research and evaluation

results at EU and national level was also assessed as "amber" (some progress). The extent to

which the implementation of the Action Plan and Strategy has contributed to achieving this

objective has been addressed through action 54. According to available evidence, efforts in

disseminating the results of monitoring, research and evaluation activities have continued to

be implemented. Some results of EU-funded research projects are also available through open

access portals. However, budget constraints at national level have reduced financial support

for REITOX focal points, which may have had some negative implications on their operations

and capability to deploy dissemination activities.

In terms of individual actions, 33 out of the total of 54 actions were assessed as "green" (on

target); 20 actions were assessed as "amber" (some progress, but behind plan) and one action

registered no progress.

A detailed overview of the assessment of each action and objective can be found in annex A

of the contractor's report.

Figure 1: Summary of traffic light assessment: number of actions implemented per

pillar

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

NSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

6.1.

Effectiveness

The extent to which the objectives and, linked to them, the actions of the EU Action Plan on

Drugs have been implemented has been presented in section 5.

As already shown in section 4, the analysis of the effectiveness of the Strategy and Action

Plan in terms of quantifying the quantitative and qualitative effects and crediting changes

corresponding to the objectives solely to the Strategy and Action Plan was made difficult by

the lack of availability of comparable data from all Member States, as well as by the lack of a

baseline for all actions and objectives.

In the area of

drug demand reduction

the three actions linked to the operational objective of

preventing drug use and delaying the onset of drug use were assessed as "amber" (some

progress) and one as "green" (on target). The objective was assessed as "amber" (some

progress) because prevention measures have been implemented in all Member States, and,

according to the majority of Member States, the availability of such measures has remained

stable or improved over 2013-14. But evidence of their effectiveness is limited and key

evidence-based elements of such programmes (such as social and personal skills training) are

not widely available. There is extensive or full provision of targeted prevention measures for

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

groups such as pupils with social and academic problems, young offenders and families –

including in a range of settings, but no information is available on whether the provision of

these services has increased since 2013. Most progress has been achieved in the area of

awareness raising. Initiatives to communicate the risks and consequences associated with the

use of illicit drugs have been reported by a large majority of Member States and a majority of

NGOs. The ECMDDA and other agencies have also produced a range of outputs and activity

in this area was acknowledged by a large number of interviewees.

Still in the area of drug demand reduction, the four actions linked to the operational objective

of enhancing the effectiveness of drug treatment and rehabilitation including services for

people with co-morbidity, to reduce the use of illicit drugs; problem drug use; the incidence of

drug dependency and drug-related health and social risks and harms and to support the

recovery and social re-integration of problematic and dependent drug users were assessed as

"amber" (some progress). The objective itself was assessed as "amber" (some progress)

because integrated treatment services are available in all Member States with good cross-

country coverage in the majority of countries. Overall, the availability of treatment has been

stable or expanded since 2013, and the number of people entering treatment has remained

stable. There has been a decrease, however, in the number of first-time users seeking

treatment. While there is considerable variety between Member States, EMCDDA data

indicate that more than half of problem drug users have access to treatment. The majority of

Member States also claim to make some provision for after-care on release from prison.

Stakeholders disagree however about the recent trend in availability of these services. The

majority of Member States reported some expansion in at least one type of treatment services,

while a large number of NGOs reported no expansion of rehabilitation/recovery services. A

large majority of Member States reported that they have taken specific measures to ensure

availability of and access to evidence-based risk and harm reduction measures in 2013-2014.

Respondents to the public consultation and the evaluation working group of the Civil Society

Forum on Drugs, however, argue that harm reduction programs remain largely under-

implemented.

Action 9 linked to objective 3 referring to embedding coordinated, best practice and quality

approaches in drug demand reduction was assessed as "green" (completed). Objective three

was also assessed as "green" because the adoption and the beginning of the implementation of

common European Minimum Quality Standards has contributed to improving quality

approaches in demand reduction.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

In the area of

drug supply reduction

of the seven actions linked to the objective aimed at

enhancing the effective law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU to

counter illicit drug activity, in coherence, as appropriate, with relevant actions determined

through the EU Policy Cycle, five were assessed as "green" (on target) and two were assessed

as "amber" (some progress). The objective itself was assessed as "amber" (some progress).

Law enforcement coordination and cooperation within the EU have visibly improved in recent

years. Actions have been taken to improve information flows between relevant agencies and

Member States, and to improve the coordination of their actions. This has resulted in

measurable increases in the use and in the quality of existing mechanisms. Nonetheless, as

with Europol’s role more broadly, interviewees noted continuing obstacles to information

sharing related to tackling drug trafficking stemming from Europol’s legal framework.

Europol and Eurojust demonstrate extensive operational activity to tackle organised drug

trafficking and support Member State law enforcement agencies. And CEPOL activities

contribute to capacity building in Member States, as the number of courses offered and

attending participants have increased. Whether these activities have had an impact on the

supply and availability of illicit drugs remains to be seen. There are no indications that these

have reduced in recent years. And available information does not allow for measurement of

activities suppressing drug trafficking routes, although the EMCDDA has been improving its

analysis of drug trafficking routes. The traffic light assessment of this objective reflects the

improvements in law enforcement cooperation rather than their impact on illicit drug markets.

Still in the area of drug supply reduction, of the five actions linked to the objective aimed at

enhancing effective judicial cooperation and legislation within the EU, three were assessed as

"amber" (some progress) and two as "green" (on target). The objective itself was assessed as

"amber" (some progress) because progress has been achieved in the area of EU legislation

with the adoption of the Directive on freezing and confiscation and with the amendments to

the EU legislation on trade in drug precursors. The regulatory framework for active

pharmacological substances had been strengthened. However, the new legislative package on

NPS has yet to be adopted, and therefore has not been implemented by Member States.

Action 22 linked to objective 6 of the drug supply pillar aimed at responding effectively to

current and emerging trends in illicit drug activity was assessed as "green" (on target).

Objective 6 was also assessed as "green" (on target) because relevant law enforcement

agencies have set up mechanisms to respond quickly to emerging developments. Examples

include regular production of the Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (iOCTA) or

specific operational actions as part of the EU Organised Crime Policy Cycle.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

In the area of

coordination,

of the six actions linked to objective 7 aimed at ensuring effective

coordination at EU and national level in the drugs field, five were assessed as "green" (on

target) and one as "amber" (some progress). Objective seven was assessed as "green" (on

target) because the European Commission, EU Agencies, Council working groups and

Member States are involved in EU coordination in the field of drugs. The mechanisms at EU

level, most of which pre-date the current Strategy, are effective in this coordination. Its most

prominent coordination body, the EU Council's Horizontal Drugs Group, is considered

effective by many in monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan and facilitating

dialogue on the state of the drugs phenomenon in Europe. There is evidence of consistency

over time and continuity across presidencies, with positive feedback from interviewees.

Action 29 linked to objective 8 aimed at ensuring effective coordination of drug-related policy

at national level was assessed as "green" (on target), just like objective 8 itself. This is

because coordinating mechanisms typically exist in and are routinely used by Member States.

Action 30 linked to objective 9 aimed at ensuring the participation of civil society in the drugs

policy was assessed as "green" (on target), just like objective 9 itself. This is because all

Member States reported that civil society organisations were involved in the development,

monitoring and/or evaluation of their national drugs policy in 2013-2014. Civil society

organisations agreed, although some reported that there was no structured dialogue for doing

so. Several interviewees also indicated an improvement in the involvement of civil society.

In the field of

international cooperation

out of the 11 actions linked to objective 10 aimed at

integrating the EU Drugs Strategy within the EU's overall foreign policy framework as part of

the comprehensive approach that makes full use of the variety of policies and diplomatic,

political and financial instruments at the EU's disposal in a coherent and coordinated manner,

five were assessed as "green" (on target), five as "amber" (some progress) and one as "red"

(no progress). Objective 10 was assessed as "amber" (some progress) because drug-related

priorities have been incorporated into the EU’s external policies, strategies and actions

targeting third countries and regions. EU policies, implemented programmes and other

external assistance in third countries were in line with the balanced approach across demand

and supply reduction. And EU external cooperation programmes also incorporated a human

rights perspective. The EU supports a wide range of programmes in third countries, some of

which have also supported civil society capacity building in the reduction of drug demand and

supply. The annual dialogue on the EU' and Member States' drugs-related assistance to third

countries, however did not take place.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

The two actions linked to objective 11 aimed at improving cohesiveness of the EU approach

and EU visibility in the United Nations and at strengthening EU coordination with

international bodies related to the drugs field were assessed as "green" (on target). Objective

11 was also assessed as "green" (on target) because the EU has been effective in its

contribution at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and UNGASS sessions over the current

Strategy’s period. The approach has been cohesive and it improved EU visibility in

international fora. Interviewees mostly agreed that that the EU speaks as one voice in

international fora. In this context, the preparations for UNGASS 2016 in which countries

worked together to develop a common and coherent position, could be considered a

successful endeavour.

Action 44 linked to objective 12 aimed at supporting the process for acceding countries,

candidate countries, and potential candidates to adapt to and align with the EU acquis in the

drugs field, through targeted assistance and monitoring was assessed as "green" (on target).

Objective 12 was also assessed as "green" because the EU and Member States provide

assistance to candidate countries in order to facilitate their compliance with the EU acquis.

In the field of

information, research, monitoring and evaluation,

out of the three actions

linked to objective 13 aimed at ensuring adequate investment in research, data collection,

monitoring, evaluation and information exchange on all aspects of the drug phenomenon, two

were assessed as "green" (on target) and one as "amber" (some progress). Objective 13 was

assessed as "amber" (some progress) because the EU has provided support to several research

projects under a variety of funding mechanisms (including FP7, Horizon 2020 and Health

Programme 2014-2020) spanning various aspects of the drug issue and related disciplines.

However, more could be done to reflect the priorities of the Strategy and Action Plan in

research calls, and to ensure coherence between calls. At EU, national and international levels

there are various evaluations of policies and interventions. Whether the investment in the

areas of research, data collection, monitoring, evaluation, and information exchange is

adequate remains uncertain.

Still in the field of information, research, monitoring and evaluation, all 6 actions linked to

objective 14 aimed at maintaining networking and cooperation and developing capacity

within and across the EU's knowledge infrastructure for information, research, monitoring and

evaluation of drugs, particularly illicit drugs, were assessed as "green" (on target). Objective

14 was also assessed as "green" because the evidence collected shows that Europol,

EMCDDA and CEPOL have all contributed to maintaining networking and cooperation

within and across the EU’s knowledge infrastructure. The EMCDDA has made considerable

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

efforts towards enhancing data collection on various aspects of drugs and drug markets, for

example on new psychoactive substances (NPS). The existence and operation of the Early

Warning System for NPS is a reflection of improved sharing of forensic and toxicological

data at EU level over the past years. This early warning activity seems to allow the EU to

swiftly identify and assess changes in drug consumption.

Action 54 linked to objective 15 aimed at enhancing dissemination of monitoring, research

and evaluation results at EU and national level was assessed as "amber" (some progress).

Objective 15 was also assessed as "amber" because the EMCDDA continues to play a crucial

role in the dissemination of monitoring, research and evaluation results at EU level,

complemented by open access publications produced through EU-funded research projects.

However, there are concerns about the capacity and resources available to maintain the Reitox

network

. Budget constraints may have hampered the dissemination of monitoring, research

and evaluation results at national level.

6.2.

Efficiency

Efficiency measures the relationship between the resources used by an intervention and the

changes brought about by it. The evaluation could not conclude on the efficiency of the

intervention as insufficient quantitative data was available as regards the costs and benefits of

the intervention.

First, no systematic or comparable information is available regarding the budgets for drug-

related activities at Member State level. Difficulties exist in identifying the resources

allocated to addressing drugs issues within Member States due to the wide range of policy

areas in which there is government spending relevant to drugs, as well as the diversity of

possible funding sources at national and EU levels.

The evaluation found that the level of budgetary resources in the Member States is not

influenced directly by the need to implement the Strategy and Action Plan, with Member

States placing priority on the implementation of their own national objectives and priorities.

In addition, there appears to be a decrease in budget allocations to drug-related issues within a

majority of Member States due to the economic crisis and because priorities are placed on

other policy areas. In at least some instances this decrease has impacted on the

implementation of Actions. However, promising practices have been identified where

Reitox is the European information network on drugs and drug addiction created at the same time as the EMCDDA. Members of the

Reitox network are designated national institutions or agencies responsible for data collection and reporting on drugs and drug addiction.

These institutions are called ‘national focal points’ or ‘national drug observatories’.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Member States have been able to implement national programmes that are in line with the

Action Plan, even in a climate of financial austerity. Overall, despite some recent decreases in

budget allocations resources for drug-related activities within most Member States are

sufficient to implement the Action Plan, but it was necessary for Member States to make

compromises and prioritise to ensure activities could be conducted within available resources.

At EU level drug-related expenditure comes mainly from a number of financial programmes

managed by the Commission. While this provides a fragmented picture, there are data

available on the spending of EU-funded projects and programmes. Based on the evidence

about the results and impacts of these programmes – across the five pillars of the Strategy – it

can be concluded that the expenditure contributed to the implementation of the actions in the

Action Plan.

There is a need to ensure EU Agencies are provided with adequate resources to undertake

work to implement the Strategy and Action Plan in addition to their core tasks, taking into

account the increase in cases and training with regard to drugs issues.

International development activities and cooperation with third countries was the aspect of the

Strategy in relation to which resources were most often mentioned by interviewees to be

insufficient. The need to ensure appropriate funding for alternative development was

identified by stakeholders as there is increasingly a focus on such programmes in relation to

international development.

The resources allocated to the implementation of monitoring and evaluation were not

considered as sufficient in some Member States thus impacting on the efficiency of effective

implementation of this pillar in Member States. The lack of resources at national level for

evaluating existing drugs policies can lead to the inefficient implementation of the measures

overall.

Overall, resources were considered to be sufficient for the EU Strategy and Action Plan by

relevant stakeholders, particularly with regard to drug demand and supply. Stakeholders

consulted, however, acknowledged the benefit of increasing resources to ensure better

implementation of the actions in the Action Plan (e.g. development of preventive measures at

national level).

Overall, the evaluation found that stakeholders were positive about the availability of

resources, although many respondents to the public consultation indicated that the

effectiveness of drug demand and supply reduction policies could be improved in the EU by

increasing resources at Member State level. There was consensus that increased resources

should be ring-fenced to achieve the objectives set by the Strategy.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

While it was acknowledged that additional resources would provide added value and increase

the implementation of priorities and actions, views on the areas where additional funding

should be provided differed, depending on the stakeholder interests.

6.3.

Relevance

The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan were considered as relevant as at the time of their

adoption by stakeholders consulted through interviews at both EU and national level. Data

about trends in the drug situation at national level at the time of the adoption of the Strategy

and Action Plan generally confirmed this feedback on the relevance received through

interviews.

Whilst the Action Plan can be characterised as slightly more streamlined than its predecessors

(it has fewer actions), its relevance and that of the Strategy can largely be attributed to their

broad scope.

Concerning

demand reduction,

the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan address the need,

confirmed by all groups of stakeholders interviewed, for information-sharing at EU level to

support the ongoing push towards evidence-based policy-making (e.g. sharing best practices,

developing guidelines). The actions relating to drug demand reduction are principally

implemented at a Member State level. On this level as well, both documentary data on

national needs and challenges and feedback from interviewees confirmed that the Action Plan

was relevant to the need to continue to provide and expand a range of demand reduction

activities.

With regard to

supply reduction,

the priorities and actions set out in the Strategy and Action

Plan were considered to be highly relevant by stakeholders interviewed (law enforcement and

judicial authorities at EU and national level). At EU level, the general focus on law

enforcement and judicial cooperation, as well as specific objectives and actions relating to

combatting NPS and the diversion of precursors were considered by interviewees to respond

to well-identified needs. On the national level, the evaluation found that the EU Drugs

Strategy and Action Plan can be considered to be broadly aligned to the diverse needs of

Member States.

Characterised by their continuity from the previous EU Drugs Strategy, the

cross-cutting

pillars

(coordination, international cooperation and information, research, monitoring and

evaluation) continued to be viewed as highly relevant to needs at EU level. The priorities and

actions relating to international cooperation were considered as highly relevant at the EU level

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

as a guide for the EU’s work with third countries and international organisations but were

considered less relevant at national level (and were less implemented than other actions). At

national level, the coordination pillar was relevant to the need recognised by national

stakeholders to improve national coordination.

The five pillar structure of the Strategy and Action Plan continues overall to address most

current needs in relation to drugs policy at EU and national level. The evaluation identified no

areas which were no longer considered as relevant to the drugs phenomenon.

The evaluation found that there is not a widespread wish among stakeholders interviewed,

particularly at the national level (e.g. HDG delegations, Reitox, etc.), to decrease the number

of objectives and actions in the Strategy and Action Plan. Moreover, most stakeholders did

not point to any pre-existing actions which they thought should be removed. However, a vocal

minority of stakeholders (in particular on the EU level, but also amongst Member State

stakeholders) did underline the need to better prioritise and streamline the Action Plan.

Stakeholders identified areas where greater focus could be placed moving forward (e.g.

adoption of legislation relating to NPS) or where new priorities could be considered (e.g.

creating a closer link between drug demand policy and overall social policy in the Member

States). Some national level stakeholders, civil society and EU Agencies raised the point of

whether more fundamental changes to the EU Strategy, such as a future EU pan-addiction

strategy covering licit and illicit substances and addictive behaviours would be beneficial. The

rationale behind this is that some individuals are more susceptible to addictive behaviour than

others (regardless of the behaviour or substance), and that any effective response must

recognise that and respond in a holistic way.

New psychoactive substances are of particular concern – the evaluation found that continued

efforts should be placed on implementing existing actions to gather information about the

extent of these issues and on ensuring that legislation is adopted to address the issues relating

to NPS at national level.

International developments with regard to cannabis law reform (such as decriminalisation of

use, market regulation or legalisation) have remained unaddressed by the Drugs Strategy and

Action Plan. The evaluation found that this could diminish its relevance in light of the debate

currently ongoing in some Member States and internationally.

6.4.

Coherence

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

The priorities and actions in the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) and the European Agenda on

Security, specifically the emphasis on disrupting organised crime, are coherent with those in

the EU Drugs Strategy. On an operational level, the EU Action Plan on Drugs can also be

considered to be well aligned with the ISS and the Agenda on Security. For almost all specific

actions set out in the Action Plan, the ISS and/or Agenda on Security included relevant

strategic elements. In addition, DG TAXUD's Strategic Plan for 2016 – 2020 covers actions

pertaining to drug precursors.

While the evaluation considered the EU Drugs Strategy to be coherent with internal security

overall, it also found that greater coherence (and coordination) could occur with regard to the

working groups within the Council. Member State representatives at the HDG generally focus

on and have expertise in demand rather than supply reduction. Although coordination

mechanisms exists between the HDG and the Standing Committee on Operational

Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI) relating to drug supply reduction initiatives,

stakeholders and the evaluation identify a need for further cooperation between these groups,

so that the HDG can fulfil its role of monitoring the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy

and ensuring coherence between demand and supply reduction activities (and that relevant

synergies are identified).

Overall, the EU Drugs Strategy is aligned with the fundamental objective of fostering good

health set out in the EU Health Strategy

. However, it does not take into account some

aspects of the EU Health Strategy resulting in a loss of synergies. Specifically, it does not take

into account the challenges posed by the ageing of the population in Europe, does not address

the potential impact of new technologies within the demand reduction pillar and does not

make mention of emergency preparedness measures for drug-related epidemics. The

complementarities between the EU Health Strategy and the EU Drugs Strategy and Action

Plan also appear limited due to the focus of the latter on illicit substance abuse.

The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are in line with the European Consensus on

Development

. With regard to human rights and alternative development, strong coherence

can also be noted with the Operational Human Rights Guidance for EU external cooperation

actions addressing terrorism, organised crime and cyber security.

With regard to national strategies, the mapping exercise found that the EU Strategy and

Action Plan are generally highly aligned with national strategies, action plans and other key

policy documents. Moreover, many Member State strategies are aligned with the timeframe

COM (2007) 630.

While the Strategy was adopted in 2007, an evaluation by the Commission in 2011 found that the principles and

objectives identified in 2007 will remain valid for the next decade in the context of Europe 2020.

The European Consensus on Development 2006

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

and the structure of the EU Strategy. However, many national strategies tend to place

relatively more emphasis on issues such as prevention, harm reduction, treatment and

reintegration. Another divergence that can be observed between EU and Member State

strategies on the demand reduction side is that many of the latter focus more generally on

addiction covering illicit and licit substances and other behavioural addictions.

Beyond the EU, the strategic priorities at the UN level have evolved to become increasingly

aligned with the EU approach. In this context, the EU strategy has long been viewed as an

important point of reference by those pushing for reform on the international level. The EU

Strategy is generally coherent with the UN Strategy and has become increasingly with the

observed evolution of the UN strategy over the past decade. The 2016 UNGASS outcome

document was largely coherent with the EU UNGASS position and the EU Strategy and

Action Plan.

The EU Strategy and Action Plan tend to be more advanced than the strategies of other

international organisations in terms of adopting a balanced health and evidence-based

approach. Another notable difference that can be identified in terms of strategic focus is the

emphasis on institutional capacity building (e.g. strengthening the capacities of national drug

authorities).

As a key destabilising factor for states and societies around the world, the EU has identified

the drugs problem as a priority in dialogue with international partners. The EU has well

integrated the approach set out in the EU Drug Strategy and Action Plan in its dialogue with

third countries and regions. Particular priority is also given to technical assistance projects in

the candidate countries and potential candidate countries.

In line with the Strategy and Action Plan, the EU and its Member States also provide support

and assistance for a wide range of drugs-related initiatives in Latin America, the Caribbean

and West Africa along the cocaine trafficking route, and in Afghanistan and Central Asia

along the heroin route. The drugs issue is also addressed through external assistance

programmes on the EU and national level.

EU cooperation with international organisations has been highly coherent with the EU

Strategy and Action Plan on drugs. Since 2013, the EU has decisively contributed to shaping

the agenda on international drugs policy. The EU has also continued to strengthen long-

established international institutional partners in the fight against drugs and drug addiction.

The EU has been particularly successful in dealing with the interplay between the drugs

problem and organised crime in its cooperation with third countries due to its ‘drugs route’

approach. Nonetheless, a review of EU dialogues and programmes demonstrates that the EU

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

has also generally maintained strong support for a balanced approach between supply and

demand reduction measures.

6.5.

EU added value

The evaluation found that the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan provide added value to

individual Member States (and other non-State actors) and their strategies by establishing a

common EU-wide strategic framework and institutionalising a process of consensus-building

for horizontal and increasingly complex and international issues. The Strategy and Action

Plan add value as a common political declaration on drugs policy.

The creation of such a framework was identified by all groups of Member State stakeholders

as being of particular added value as the instruments broadly shape the actions of Member

States and other actors, whilst leaving the necessary margin for manoeuvre to adapt to the

local context. This was also confirmed by the public consultation where respondents tended to

agree that the Strategy adds value by supporting a consistent approach to drugs at national

level and by contributing to coherence between national/regional and European actions in the

area of drugs. The Strategy and Action Plan do not impose legal obligations on EU Member

States, but the evaluation found that they have been successful in broadly directing collective

action in the field of drugs, both within the EU and at international level and promoting a

shared model with a culture of defining priorities, objectives, actions and indicators for

measuring performance.

Evidence of this effect can be found in the fact that a number of interviewees from Member

States that undertook an update of their national Strategy during the period covered by the

evaluation noted that they had drawn extensively on the EU Strategy and Action Plan in the

elaboration and structuring of their national policy. This finding was corroborated by the

review of national drug strategies which identified a number of direct references in national

strategies to the EU strategy, as well as similar structures and approaches.

From this

perspective also, the added value of the EU Strategy and Action Plan appears to be greatest in

newer Member States, which for the most part did not have pre-existing, developed drugs

policies at the moment of their accession almost a decade ago.

The evaluation also found that the added value appears more pronounced in terms of demand

reduction activities where the Strategy provides guidance on evidenced-based approaches. In

addition, in emerging areas of drugs policy, a more general added value can be seen. An

example is international development cooperation, where actors from both new and old

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Member States recognised the added value of collectively setting a common strategic

framework for actions at EU level.

The evaluation also found that at national level as well, the EU Strategy and Action Plan may

improve coordination. For example, in some countries where responsibilities for drugs

policies are devolved to local levels, the EU strategy was considered as serving as inspiration

and guidance for internal coordination and cooperation.

The evaluation found that the Strategy and Action Plan demonstrate clear added value in the

field of international cooperation and augment the EU’s capacity to influence the strategies of

partners and the global agenda on drugs. The EU Strategy and Action Plan provide clear

added value in terms of enhancing the ‘voice’ of the EU in international fora and in relation to

third countries. For example, a key international actor in relation to global drugs policy is the

UN, whose strategic priorities have become increasingly aligned with the EU approach – a

process in which the EU has played a role. Another example lies in the final UNGASS 2016

outcome document that reflected the main elements of the EU common position, with the

exception of the abolition of the death penalty.

The evaluation also found that the EU Strategy and Action Plan provided an important source

of guidance for candidate countries, and a framework for bilateral cooperation with third

countries.

Interviewees from all groups of stakeholders and respondents to the public consultation

expressed widespread agreement that there is a continued need for an Action Plan. The

instrument was considered as a necessary operational translation of the EU Drugs Strategy

and allows for the community to set out more precise priorities and actions, as well as to

assign responsibility and formulate specific and measurable indicators.

While monitoring of the implementation of actions and the achievement of objectives was

underlined as a weak point, the Action Plan is still seen as a useful document for ensuring

some level of follow up of the implementation of the Strategy. Through the elaboration of a

number of actions relating to each principal objective, it is seen as a flexible tool due to its

broad encompassing nature, enabling relevant stakeholders to refine the focus of priorities

over the lifespan of the Strategy whilst still maintaining a reasonable degree of coherence.

Most stakeholders interviewed favoured the idea of updating the current Action Plan.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

ONCLUSIONS

Available evidence shows that there has been at least some progress in all EU Action Plan

actions aimed at drug demand reduction and drug supply reduction. However, a significant

reduction of the supply of drugs was not recorded in recent years; in the same way, there has

been no recorded decrease in the proportion of the population using drugs but the data that are

available have limitations, as explained in section 4 and in the contractor's report.

Efficiency was the most difficult criterion to assess, due to the wide range of policy areas in

which there is government spending relevant to drugs (e.g. law enforcement, social policy,

education, health, etc.). However, the evaluation did find that overall resources were

considered by stakeholders to be sufficient for the EU Strategy and Action Plan, in particular

with regard to drug demand and supply.

The EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are well in line with most other relevant EU policies

such as the European Agenda for Security or the European Development Consensus, as well

as with EU's Member States drugs strategies and UN level priorities.

Some areas for possible improvement of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan have been

identified in the evaluation. They include, for example:



The need for more synergies with the EU Health Strategy;

A review of current coordination mechanisms between the HDG and COSI to identify

opportunities for the HDG to better monitor the implementation and impact of the

supply reduction priorities of the Strategy and for supply reduction activities forming

part of the organised crime policy cycle to be linked, when appropriate, to the objectives

of the Strategy (and communicated accordingly);



Consideration of potential developments in cannabis policy, including decriminalisation

and/or legalisation, as well as their potential consequences for other Member States and

the EU;

In addition, areas where the actions taken so far should be continued and reinforced have also

been identified, such as:



The need for the EU institutions and Member States to continue to involve civil society

in the policy making process;

Continue sustained work to promote the balanced approach to drugs policies in third

countries;

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel



Build on the momentum from the successful negotiation at UNGASS to continue to

foster dialogue with the UN and identify opportunities for further dialogue through

other international fora;



Continue actions to monitor and reduce demand and supply of NPS and reduce harm

associated with the consumption of new psychoactive substances.

The evaluation also shows that the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan are perceived by

stakeholders to be as relevant as at the time of their adoption. They have provided added value

by establishing a common EU-wide strategic framework and particularly in the international

fora in terms of enhancing the EU's ability of "speaking with one voice".

One of the recommendations made by the evaluation is for the Commission to propose a new

Action Plan for the period 2017-2020 to continue to translate the Strategy into steps and

activities that can be taken in relation to the drugs phenomenon. The new Action Plan should

be an updated version of the current Action Plan, rather than taking a new approach or

introducing many more actions.

In addition, some of the findings of the evaluation go beyond the current strategic framework.

Several stakeholders (including Member States, civil society, EU agencies) raised the need to

consider drug consumption in a broader policy framework of poly-consumption of licit and

illicit substances and all addictive behaviours in general. Whereas this is not an approach

supported by all Member States, it continues to gain momentum, particularly in Western and

Northern Europe where attempts are made to create a more integrated approach.

NNEXES

ANNEX I — PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

The Mid- Term assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy 2013- 2020 and the Final Evaluation of

the Action Plan on Drugs 2013- 2016 has been carried out, with the assistance of an external

contractor, in the period April- November 2016. Preparatory steps including the roadmap of

the initiative, the Terms of Reference for hiring a contractor, the launch of the public

consultation and the evidence gathering were initiated already in June 2015. The Agenda

planning reference for this evaluation is 2016/HOME/006.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

The existing Inter-service group on drugs has served as inter-service steering group for the

evaluation and it was systematically consulted on the evaluation process taking into account

the cross-cutting nature of drug situation and policies in the EU. The following DGs and

Services were invited to participate in the meetings chaired by DG Migration and Home

Affairs (HOME): the Secretariat-General of the Commission (SG), the Legal Service (SJ),

DG Justice and Consumers (JUST), DG International Cooperation and Development

(DEVCO), DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR), DG Research and

Innovation (RTD), DG Health and Food Safety (SANTE), DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

(MARE), DG Mobility and Transport (MOVE), DG Agriculture and Rural Development

(AGRI), DG Trade (TRADE), DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD), DG Education

and Culture (EAC), DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW), DG

Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), the European External Action Service

(EEAS), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs

and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC).

The Inter-service group discussed the evaluation at several meetings. The first meeting that

discussed the roadmap of the evaluation took place on 10 June 2015. At the meeting of 01

September 2015 all services were informed about the publication of the roadmap and asked to

share the information with relevant stakeholders. The Terms of Reference used to hire a

contractor to assist the Commission with the evaluation, as well as the stakeholders'

consultation strategy were discussed with the Steering Group at the meeting of 01 October

2015. The questionnaire for the public consultation was discussed with the Steering Group at

a meeting on 05 January 2016. Besides meetings, regular written communication with the

members of the ISG was maintained. Members of the Steering Group have also been invited

to sit in all meetings with the contractor hired for the mid-term assessment of the EU Drugs

Strategy and final assessment of the EU Action Plan on Drugs: the kick-off meeting that took

place on 14 April 2016, the inception meeting on 12 May 2016, the interim meeting on 25

August 2016 and the final meeting on 24 October 2016. Only the EMCDDA attended the very

first meeting via phone conference. However, all the DGs involved had the opportunity to

provide their views, ask for clarifications and submit comments on the developments of the

evaluation. The Steering Group was sent the minutes of all these meetings. It also received the

inception report, the interim report, the Public Consultation results report, the draft final

report, as well as the final report for comments and review, before the reports could be

deemed approved.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

In order to gather information on the implementation of the Action Plan, the contractor

reviewed contributions from EU Agencies and Member States to the 2015 Commission

Progress Report and Member States’ drugs strategy documents. For the purpose of filling

gaps in the information provided by the EU agencies and Member States contributions, the

contractor reviewed a wide range of additional documentation, including communications,

reports, relevant legislation, funding programmes, reports and studies from the EU

institutions, EU Agencies and international organisations. In addition, the contractor

conducted interviews with a range of stakeholders involved or impacted by the

implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. Information on the domain of

international cooperation in the field of illicit drugs was gathered through a survey of the

Delegations of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The contractor's evaluation

team consulted the Core Group and the Evaluation Working Group of the Civil Society

Forum (CSF) on Drugs on their views on the EU Strategy and Action Plan in line with the

evaluation criteria. Data from the public consultation ran by the Commission in order to

gather views from private individuals, non- profit/private organisations, and industry and

national/regional/local public administrations have also been reviewed.

A panel consisting of three expert advisors for the purpose of reviewing the interim findings

and recommendations obtained through the external evaluation was also consulted. In

addition, a workshop was organised in which the relevance, feasibility and acceptability of the

findings and recommendations were discussed by the contractor with the expert panel.

Further details on the evidence used in the evaluation, as well as the discussion of its

limitation as regards in particular availability of comparable and reliable statistics and ensuing

consequences on the robustness of findings are detailed in Annex III on "Methods and

Sources", as well as in Annex II on "Stakeholder consultation".

ANNEX II — STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

A broad stakeholders’ consultation has accompanied the Mid-Term Assessment of the EU

Drugs Strategy 2013- 2020 and the Final Evaluation of the Action Plan on Drugs 2013- 2016.

The aim of this process, which took place in the period April to November 2016, was to

obtain views on the five evaluation criteria from a range of stakeholders involved in or who

might be impacted by the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan, as well

as to address information gaps identified in the secondary data review. The stakeholders'

consultation was carried out by the contractor hired by the Commission to assist it with the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. The Commission's minimum standards

for the Stakeholders' Consultation were duly taken into account and met.

As part of this Stakeholders' Consultation a public consultation was conducted by the

Commission, with the purpose of gathering views from private individuals, organisations, the

industry and the public administration on the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and

Action Plan.

(1)

TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

Targeted consultations took place within the framework of the external evaluation and

involved different types of stakeholders. The contractor consulted with representatives of

Member States, EU Institutions and Agencies, EU funded projects, international

organisations, third countries, the Civil Society and the Chemical Industry. These targeted

consultations were conducted mainly via interviews and collected mainly qualitative data. The

interviews were accompanied, where necessary, by a written questionnaire to collect

quantitative data. Representatives of the selected third countries the EU currently engages

with strategically in the field of drugs (such as officials in charge of projects run in

cooperation with the EU, co-chairs of dialogue groups with third countries) were consulted

mainly via online questionnaires.

Topic guides were prepared based on the evaluation framework and on the gaps identified in

the document review. In particular, interviews with representatives from Member States

sought to collect updates for 2015-2016 in relation to data that had been submitted for the

2015 Commission Progress Report (which related to the period 2013-2014). A total of 90

interviews were conducted (with some interviews consisting of multiple interviewees). In 30

instances no response was received or the interview was declined.

The following list indicates the main targeted stakeholder consultations:

(a)

Member States

At Member State level, three different types of interviewees were consulted: National Drug

Coordinators, Member State representatives in the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs

(HDG) and the REITOX national focal points.

(b)

European Institutions and bodies

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

At EU level, different types of institutions and bodies were consulted: the European

Commission (DG Migration and Home Affairs (HOME), DG International Cooperation and

Development (DEVCO), DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs

(GROW), DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations (NEAR), DG Health and Food

Safety (SANTE), DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD), DG Research and Innovation

(RTD), the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)), the Council of the European Union

(Secretariat, the Dutch Presidency that held office during the first half of 2016, the Standing

Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI), the Working Party on

Customs Union (CUG), the Customs Cooperation Working Party (CCWP)), Members of the

European Parliament, the relevant EU Agencies (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and

Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

(ECDC), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), Eurojust,

Europol, European Medicines Agency (EMA)), the French Presidency of the Dublin Group

and the European External Action Service (EEAS).

(c)

EU funded projects

Further targeted consultations included stakeholders from the EU funded projects European

Drug Emergencies Network (Euro-DEN), Addiction and Lifestyles in Contemporary Europe

Reframing Addictions Project (ALICE RAP), Internet tools for research in Europe in new

drugs (I-TREND), Cooperation Programme on Drugs Policies (COPOLAD II), Cocaine

Route Programme and Heroin Route Programme.

(d)

International organisations

Consultations also included stakeholders from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

(UNODC), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and Pompidou

Group of the Council of Europe.

(e)

Third countries

Consultations were also held with representatives of the United States, Mexico, Uruguay,

Kazakhstan and Armenia.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

(f)

Representatives from the Chemical Industry

Consultations with the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) and European

Association of Chemical Distributors (FECC)) also took place in the framework of the

external evaluation.

(g)

European External Action Service (EEAS) Survey

The EEAS Survey aimed at soliciting views of representatives of EU Delegations posted in

third countries on the domain of international cooperation in the field of illicit drugs.

(h)

Civil Society Forum on Drugs

The contractor consulted with the Core Group Civil Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs in order

to gather their views in line with the five evaluation criteria. In addition, a written contribution

to the evaluation provided by the members of the Evaluation Working Group of the Civil

Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs was also taken into account.

(2)

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Secondly, in addition to targeted consultations, the Commission organised an internet-based

open public consultation for the 2016 assessment of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan

on Drugs.

The open public consultation was launched on 15 February 2016 on the European

Commission's website and was open until 31 May 2016. The aim of this consultation was to

gather views from private individuals, non-profit/private organisations, industry and

national/regional/local public administrations on the implementation of the EU Drugs

Strategy and Action Plan. The consultation covered all five objectives of the EU Drugs

Strategy and corresponding actions of the Action Plan and all the evaluation criteria:

effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU value added. As such, the public

consultation was intended to form part of the inputs for the evaluation of the EU Drugs

Strategy and Action Plan.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

(a)

Overview of the replies to the online survey - Profile of the respondents

A total of 121 standard contributions were submitted through the online questionnaire. Out of

the total number of respondents, 60 consented to the publication of their full contribution,

while 41 opted for publication in anonymous form and 20 requested their answer not to be

published in any form.

Respondents were invited to identify themselves as one of the following categories: private

individual, national public authority, international/intergovernmental/regional organisation,

organisation which included non-governmental, civil society organisation, academia,

research, social partner, interest group, consultancy and think-tank, or private company.

Nearly two thirds (66.1 per cent) of submissions came from respondents answering as private

individuals. The next largest group of respondents were individuals answering on behalf of an

organisation (e.g. non-governmental organisations etc.), accounting for approximately a

quarter (26.4 per cent) of all received contributions. A small number of responses were also

provided by representatives of national public authorities (4.1 per cent) and international,

intergovernmental or regional organisations (3.3 per cent).

Regarding the geographical distribution of responses, respondents were asked to indicate

which country (or the EU as a whole) their responses referred to. About a fifth (21.5 per cent)

of respondents stated that their responses pertained to the EU while the remaining respondents

indicated one of the Member States. Of these, Sweden, Italy and Finland were most frequently

chosen. There were no responses referring to Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Latvia,

Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania or Slovakia. The generally low number of respondents

per country does not allow for a meaningful disaggregation of responses by country in the

analysis of the responses.

The majority of private individuals responding to the consultation (69 per cent) were

interested in drug policy but did not actively work in the area. That is in contrast with

respondents representing organisations and public authorities, the vast majority of whom were

actively working in the field. Among those actively involved in the field, NGO membership

was the most common form of involvement (18 respondents), followed by healthcare

professionals (11 respondents).

Regarding the focus of interest/work, the largest group of respondents indicated the area of

information, research, monitoring and evaluation (75 respondents). The next most frequently

indicated areas were drug demand reduction (47 respondents) and coordination of drug

policies at national/regional level (43 respondents). By contrast, drug supply reduction was

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

mentioned only by 17 respondents, all of them private individuals. Among respondents who

indicated ‘other,’ drug legalisation or similar was mentioned in 11 instances and in five

additional instances drug policy reform or advocacy was mentioned. The vast majority of

remaining ‘other’ responses (17 instances) can be broadly characterised as linked to drug

demand reduction as they referred to areas related to treatment, harm minimisation, and

prevention.

Respondents also differed in the degree of their personal involvement in any activity related

to drug policy. The majority of private individuals (66.3 per cent) did not take part in any

activity, while the same was true for only a small proportion of respondents answering on

behalf of organisations (12.2 per cent). Involvement in each of the four examined areas

(definition, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation) was similarly frequent among

respondents, ranging from 20-30 per cent of respondents.

(b)

Results

The detailed analysis of the results of the Public Consultation is found in a report available

online.

All results of the Public Consultation, including the individual replies that could be published

are also available

online.

ANNEX III- METHODS AND SOURCES

(1)

INTRODUCTION

This Annex provides more detailed information about the methodological framework used in

this evaluation. The evaluation relies on an external study carried out for the Commission, by

the external contractor Ernst and Young and RAND Europe, in the period April - November

2016. The evaluation's twofold aim is to assess the degree of implementation of the EU Drugs

Strategy 2013-2020 and the Action Plan 2013-2016 in terms of outputs and impacts and to

support the Commission’s decision on whether to propose a new draft Action Plan to cover

the period 2017-2020.

The external contractor undertook the gathering of the relevant information and data needed

to achieve a complete overview on the implementation of the Drugs Strategy 2013-2020, as

well as of the Action Plan 2013-2016 in all EU Member States. Effectiveness, efficiency,

relevance and coherence of the actions undertaken on the basis of the Drugs Strategy and the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Action Plan, as well as their EU added value were examined. All main policy areas of the

Drugs Strategy were addressed, including drug demand and drug supply reduction and the

cross-cutting themes.

(2)

METHODOLOGY

This study applied a mixed-methods approach and used different data sources in order to

address the evaluation questions. An evaluation framework, described in detail in the annexes

of the final evaluation report, was designed.

Two types of data were collected: secondary data from various sources and primary data in

order to fill gaps in the secondary data and generate a more detailed understanding. The

secondary data was collected through desk research and document review, more specifically

review of contributions from EU Agencies and Member States to the 2015 Commission

Progress Report, relevant documentation and Member States' drugs strategies. Primary data

collection was conducted via stakeholders' consultation, in particular interviews with Member

States, third countries and industry representatives, survey of European External Action

Service (EEAS) representatives in third countries; discussions with members of Civil Society

Forum (CSF) on Drugs; analysis of a Commission-run public consultation; and a consultation

and workshop with expert advisers. The analysis and synthesis of findings and data was

elaborated in order to answer the evaluation questions. The limitations and challenges linked

to each of these data collection activities and methods are indicated below.

(a)

SECONDARY DATA- DESK RESEARCH AND REVIEW

Review of contributions from EU Agencies and Member State contributions to the 2015

Commission Progress Report on the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and

Action Plan 2013-2016

The review of contributions from EU Agencies and Member States’ submissions to the

progress report was intended to capture information about the implementation of the EU

Action Plan and to help in designing interview topic guides. The reviewed data was received

from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), Europol,

Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and 28

individual Member States. Information provided by the EU Agencies was integrated with the

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

2015 Commission Progress Report to provide a narrative and an assessment of the

implementation of individual actions listed in the Action Plan.

One of the challenges arising in this context is that in certain cases, there is no mechanism to

collect data directly relevant for a given action-level indicator and other existing valuable

information do not always precisely address the given issue. Another challenge is related to

data availability as, for instance, available data do not always allow for a measurement of a

trend in a given indicator because there is only one data point available. In other cases the

baseline precedes the current Strategy and Action Plan, which therefore precludes a trend

assessment pertaining strictly to the reference period for this evaluation. Also, with certain

indicators, available data do not always allow concluding whether the observed trend in some

indicators represents an improvement or deterioration, due to the lack of indicators that

accurately measure the phenomena of interest and/or the to the absence of contextual

information that would enable the identification of underlying drivers.

Review of additional documentation

The objective of reviewing relevant available documentation was to fill gaps in the

information provided by the Commission Progress Report and additional contributions by the

EU agencies. For this purpose, documents, studies and reports produced by EU institutions

and agencies, international organisations, civil society and academia were reviewed.

The identification of relevant documentation did not involve a systematic search protocol and

some potentially relevant literature may therefore not have been identified. Another limitation

arises from the fact that some sources identified as relevant appeared to be inaccessible and

therefore could not be consulted for the evaluation. The evaluation was bound by these

limitations, but where possible, gaps were filled through consultation of stakeholders.

Review of Member States' drugs strategies

Member States drugs strategies were reviewed in order to provide for background information

to inform the interviews with Member State representatives and to provide information to

populate a Member State fiche on implementation. The Member State fiche, produced for all

Member States, was divided in two sections: the overall national drugs strategy, which

provides an overview and a contextualisation of the national strategy and action plans; and the

implementation of EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan, which provides the highlights of the

implementation status of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan 2013-2016.

One limitation identified in this context is that national documents posted on the EMCDDA

website may have not always captured the latest developments in each Member State. The

contractor tried to minimise this caveat and obtain a more recent picture of the developments

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

through interviews with Member State representatives, although the extent to which this was

possible depended on the level of knowledge of the interviewee on the topic.

(b)

PRIMARY DATA- CONSULTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder interviews

The objective of stakeholder interviews was to obtain views on the five evaluation criteria

from a range of stakeholders involved in, or who might be impacted by, the implementation of

the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. The interviews' topic guides were prepared based on

the evaluation framework and on the gaps identified in the secondary data. In particular,

interviews with Member States sought to collect updates for 2015-2016 in relation to data that

had been submitted for the 2015 Commission Progress Report (which related to the period

2013-2014).

Interviews covered a breadth of topics and interviewees did not always discuss specific

actions of the Action Plan in detail, which may have had an impact on the quality and

comprehensiveness of the data collected. To address this challenge the evaluation consulted

documentation from relevant EU agencies such as the EMCDDA and Europol. Another

challenge arising during the interviews is that stakeholders' familiarity with the EU Drugs

Strategy and the Action Plan varied and most interviewees were mainly familiar with the

particular part of the strategy relevant for their work.

Survey with European External Action Service (EEAS) representatives in third

countries

The objective of the European External Action Service (EEAS) Survey was to solicit views of

EU Delegations representatives posted in third countries relevant for international cooperation

in the field of illicit drugs. Information gathered through the EEAS survey was intended to

inform the evaluation’s findings primarily with respect to the domain of international

cooperation. The results of this survey were triangulated with other data on the topic of

international cooperation.

The relatively small number of respondents challenged the evaluator's ability to make general

(and generalisable) comments on the EU’s international cooperation in the field of illicit

drugs. Another limitation arising in this context is that the importance of illicit drugs for the

agenda of individual delegations, as well as the level of involvement and expertise of

individual respondents in the field of illicit drugs vary.

Roundtable discussions with the Civil Society Forum (CSF) on Drugs

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

The Core Group and the Evaluation Working Group of the Civil Society Forum (CSF) on

Drugs were consulted on their views on the evaluation criteria, as well as on the EU Strategy

and Action Plan. The discussion focused on both EU and Member State level and aimed at

receiving input regarding civil society's role at EU level and regarding developments in the

implementation of the Strategy and Action Plan in relevant Member States.

The views presented by CSF are not generalisable to other stakeholder groups and thus, the

evaluation clearly indicates when views from civil society are presented.

Public Consultation

The scope of the public consultation was to gather views from private individuals, non-

profit/private organisations, industry and national/regional/local public administrations. The

consultation covered all five objectives of the EU Drugs Strategy and corresponding actions

of the Action Plan and all the five evaluation criteria. A framework for the analysis of

responses was developed and applied to the submissions received. The data from the public

consultation were triangulated with other data collected for the evaluation.

The main challenge arising from the Public Consultation is that the responses received cannot

be understood as representative of views of any particular population or group of

stakeholders. As the questionnaire was publicly available on the internet and no one was

precluded from providing a response, information on the demographic profile of respondents

is based on self-reported values. Additionally, the small number of contributions received

challenged the evaluator's ability to draw general findings from the public consultation.

Consultation and workshop with expert advisors

Throughout the external study, a panel consisting of three expert advisors was consulted for

reviewing the interim findings and recommendations obtained through this study. An

independent criminal law expert, a former director of a National Crime Agency Programme

and a research leader in the area of security were consulted. In addition to reviewing previous

versions of the external study, the experts participated in a workshop, where the relevance,

feasibility and acceptability of the findings and recommendations were particularly discussed.

(c)

ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

Traffic light assessment of implementation of the Action Plan

Through this exercise the evaluation aimed at assessing the extent to which the actions and

objectives in the Action Plan have been implemented. The assessments were developed using

a traffic light system applied at action-level using the indicators in the Action Plan. The level

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

of implementation of action was scored as "green" for actions completed, in progress, or

ongoing but on target, "amber" for actions in progress or some progress, but behind plan and

"red" for actions in deterioration, no progress, little progress or considerably behind plan. The

assessment was based on the review of contributions from relevant EU agencies

complemented by and updated with findings from interviews and information from additional

documentation.

A limitation identified here is that, in some instances, the contributions from agencies were

synthesised in the Commission’s Progress Report for most actions providing information on

the volume of activity, which was not always sufficient to provide an assessment of a given

indicator.

Synthesis of data

The synthesis of data aimed at assessing the judgment criteria identified in the evaluation

framework and formulating answers to the evaluation questions. The evaluation framework

was used to guide the assessment of judgment criteria and the data collection tasks targeted

the sets of indicators for each of the judgment criteria. The responses of the interviews with

stakeholders were coded according to the evaluation framework. This approach allowed for a

synthesis of findings for each judgment criterion across all interviews. The evaluation

framework was completed with information from other data collection approaches (survey

with EEAS representatives, the public consultation, and relevant documentation). The results

from the various data collection approaches were subsequently triangulated and the findings

synthesised whilst taking account of the various sources.

The judgment criteria were assessed on the basis of the available information. However, the

data collected were not sufficient to populate all indicators in the evaluation framework and

for some indicators the information was incomplete or not available.

(d)

ROBUSTNESS OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED

There are several challenges and limitations to the evaluation methods due to data availability

constraints or issues around the attribution of observed trends and developments to the

Strategy and the Action Plan. In reporting on the collected evidence, the evaluation has made

those caveats and limitations explicit. In drawing conclusions, the evaluation has been

cautious not to over-interpret the evidence, since the available data did not always allow for

firm conclusions.

kom (2017) 0195 - Ingen titel

Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the contractor used a range of different sources to

validate and triangulate the findings from each data source. While the conclusions for some

research questions are more tentative, the overall evaluation presents a coherent and robust set

of answers to the evaluation questions.

Further information regarding the methods and sources used for this evaluation can be found

in the Methodology section and in the annexes of the contractor's evaluation report.