HOPS aims to prevent HIV/AIDS and other blood or sexually transmitted infections, re-socialisation, rehabilitation and improvement of the health and social status of drug users, sex workers, their partners and families in Macedonia. HOPS provides harm reduction services and offers harm reduction and drug policy training to professionals, decision makers and NGOs.

HOPS tiene como objetivo de prevenir la transmisión de infecciones transmitidas sexualmente o por la sangre y de mejorar la salud y la condición social de los usuarios de drogas, de trabajadores sexuales, de sus parejas y de sus familias en la Republica de Macedonia. HOPS proporciona servicios de reducción de daños, así como formaciones sobre políticas de drogas y reducción de daños a profesionales, responsables políticos y ONG.

HOPS protège les populations atteintes du SIDA et d’autres infections sexuellement transmissibles ou transmissibles par le sang, et travaille sur la resocialisation, la réhabilitation et l’amélioration du statut social et sanitaire des usagers de drogues, des prostitué(e)s, de leurs partenaires et de leur famille, en Macédoine.

Healthy Options Project Skopje (HOPS)

Preocupa a expertos de la sociedad civil que la nueva Agenda y Plan de Acción den la espalda al “enfoque equilibrado” de la UE sobre políticas referidas a drogas. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

The following letter was drafted by a coalition of 29 civil society organisations and community networks in the European Union. The letter urges the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that the current draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 be rejected, and measures are taken to ensure an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

We are writing regarding the proposed EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025, published by the European Commission on 24 July 2020 (the “2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda”, or the “Agenda”). We have serious concerns regarding both the process for its development as well as with the substance of the document and urge the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that this draft cannot be accepted, and to outline an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

The formulation of the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda through a unilateral Communication of the European Commission without consultation with EU Member States and other relevant EU actors, including civil society is deeply problematic. If the HDG accepts this document as it stands, a worrying procedural precedent will be set. To date, the ‘EU’s drugs strategies and action plans are developed through a rigorous process that allows Member States to work together on the development of strategic approaches. This involves a series of negotiations, evaluations and compromises so that consensus can be reached in the form of a new strategy document.’ The 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda appears to be the result of a hasty, opaque and non-participatory policy-making process, and represents a drastic departure from agreed EU policies. The lack of appropriate consultation and engagement inevitably means that the different experiences and views of EU Member States and other relevant EU actors have less weight in the new document. It fails to adopt a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug matters; it is not rooted on human rights, public health, and the key international drug policy documents; and it envisages a diminished role for civil society and affected communities.

The European Union has been a global leader in advancing a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug policies. The 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies established a consolidated framework that has become a ‘central guiding model’ for national-level drug strategies across the EU. However, the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda proposes -in its own words- a ‘paradigm-shift’. It disproportionately focuses EU policy on law enforcement and supply control, to the detriment of the priority previously given to public health, human rights, international cooperation, and scientific research and evaluation. If implemented, it will signal a diminished support for evidence-based drug treatment and harm reduction services, and it will weaken the voice of the EU in international drugs fora, where it has been a key global actor in defending the balanced, rights-based approach adopted by the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document.

In spite of the EU’s commitment to seek the ‘active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’ in the ‘development and implementation of drug policies’, the participation of civil society in the preparation of the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda has been deeply flawed. European NGOs were only allowed to provide input to the Agenda with the publication of the Road Map, on 10 June 2020, with no other opportunity to feed in the process, besides a call between the Commission and certain CSFD members in April. It should be borne in mind that the Road Map is a document of just over two pages that does not allow for a genuine understanding of, or feedback on, the Agenda. No draft of the Agenda was ever shared.

Furthermore, the European Commission disregarded the overwhelming majority of the 27 submissions sent by European NGOs, which urged the EU to retain the balanced and multidisciplinary approach that characterized the 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies. The fact that the deadline for submitting feedback was 15 July 2020, a mere nine days before the publication of the Communication, suggests that the consultation was not undertaken in the spirit of genuine inquiry, and that the Agenda was at least near completion when the Road Map was published.

Crucially, although the external evaluation of the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy was finalised in April 2020, the evaluation was not published or otherwise shared with civil society until three months later, on 24 July 2020, thus depriving stakeholders of crucial information when providing feedback to the Road Map. This is important, as there would appear to be a significant disconnect between the Agenda and the external evaluation. For instance, the evaluation consistently found that the 2013 Strategy had ‘sparked a considerable amount of progress’ in the cross-cutting areas of coordination, international cooperation, and monitoring, research and evaluation, which are precisely the areas now removed from the Agenda.

In addition to the grave concerns regarding the process and procedure, we felt it is important to bring your attention the key flaws in the draft Agenda:

. Although the Agenda explicitly claims to seek an ‘integrated, balanced, and multidisciplinary approach’ to drug policies, the draft is not balanced, as over half of its eight priority areas concern security and supply control interventions, with the rest distributed between prisons, prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Public health measures aimed at reducing the harms that can be associated to drug use have been relegated from the first priority of the 2013 Drugs Strategy to the end of the new Agenda. The cross-cutting themes of coordination, international cooperation, and information and research, which have been successfully developed since 2013 to materialise the multidisciplinary and integrated approach, have been dropped. The many references to the balanced approach across the operative parts of the 2013 Strategy, for instance as the basis for increased coordination across all actors, interventions at the CND, and international cooperation, have also disappeared.

Deprioritising human rights and public health.

 Human rights have practically disappeared from the draft Agenda, which contains no reference to the relevant international or regional human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, there is no mention of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy, a critical document developed with the leading support of Germany that lays down, for the first time, a set of clear and comprehensive international standards for articulating rights-based responses to illegal drug economies. In contrast, the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy explicitly referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, amongst others, and human rights were mentioned several times in the section on international cooperation. Public health has been relegated from the first policy field in the 2013 Strategy to the last priority areas of the Agenda, and has been replaced by ‘drug-related security’ as the first goal of the document.

Dropping support for key international documents.

 Equally surprising is the little attention paid to the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document - only a footnote in the preambular part of the Agenda, and a mention in the Action Plan, outside its priority areas -, even though it has been consistently described by the EU as ‘the most comprehensive policy agreement of the international community and a milestone in the discussions on international drug policy’. It is also inexplicable that the Agenda would completely fail to reference the 2018 UN System Common Position on Drugs, a watershed document championed by the EU and EU Member States, as it establishes for the first time a coherent position across all UN entities on key topics like decriminalisation and harm reduction.

Reducing the space for civil society and people who use drugs.

 Whereas the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy contained a commitment to promote and encourage ‘the active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’, the EU Drugs Agenda only mentions ‘engagement’ with the CSFD. Involvement with civil society beyond the CSFD has been omitted, and there is no reference to engaging with people who use drugs and clients of drug services, which the 2013 Strategy did.

Weakening the external dimensions of drug policy.

 The 2021-25 Drugs Agenda risks weakening the external action of the EU in bilateral and multilateral drugs fora, as it does not set clear guidelines for EU coordinated intervention, and it does not provide strong support for the key international documents that the EU has been forcefully defending and promoting in the last years. For instance, the Agenda does not provide any concrete principle or guideline for intervening at the CND, even though it is arguably the centre of the international drug control system, and the role of the EU there is more important than ever. This contrasts greatly with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which committed the EU to a ‘strong voice’ in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, with the aim of promoting the balanced approach. Another case in point is the only reference to alternative development in the whole Agenda, which can be found under the heading ‘dismantling drug production’, and is not deemed to warrant even one of the 24 priority areas set in the document. This is especially surprising considering that the 2018 Council Conclusions adopted exclusively on this topic committed the EU to a ‘leading role (…) in the funding and implementation of alternative development’, and stated clearly that the success of alternative development goes ‘beyond an exclusive focus on illicit drug crop monitoring’.

 In spite of the EU’s leading role in fostering scientific knowledge and research on drug markets and drug use through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda has dropped the cross-cutting theme on monitoring, research and evaluation, and science-based drug policies are scarcely mentioned in the operative parts of the document. Again, this makes a striking contrast with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which featured a whole theme on research and evaluation for ‘a better understanding of all aspects of the drug phenomenon’, and provided a role for the EMCDDA in supply reduction, international cooperation, and the overall implementation of the document, among others.

 Although the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda explicitly seeks to reduce drug-related stigma, the European Commission press release accompanying the publication of the proposed Agenda was deeply stigmatising, as it puts drug policies at the same level as child abuse and firearms trafficking. Furthermore, the Agenda contains some instances of stigmatising language (‘substance abuse’ and ‘substance misuse’) that did not exist in the 2013 Drugs Strategy.

In light of the above and following established practices for the development of previous EU drugs strategies, we urge you, as the Council Presidency, to take political leadership and encourage the HDG to reject the draft proposed by the European Commission. A new process for strategy development should ensure that the new document reflects in a balanced manner the existing EU and the latest international commitments (in particular the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document), the views of the EU Member States and all the relevant actors within the EU institutions, and engages meaningfully with civil society.

We would also be grateful if you could share this letter with your HDG colleagues before the 9 September meeting.
We remain at your disposal for any further discussion on this matter, and look forward to our continued cooperation on this and other topics during the German Presidency.

TThe following letter was drafted by a coalition of 29 civil society organisations and community networks in the European Union. The letter urges the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that the current draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 be rejected, and measures are taken to ensure an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

he following letter was drafted by a coalition of 29 civil society organisations and community networks in the European Union. The letter urges the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that the current draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 be rejected, and measures are taken to ensure an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

Expertos en políticas sobre drogas plantean inquietudes sobre borrador de la Agenda y Plan de Acción sobre Drogas de la UE para el período 2021-2025 – Carta Abierta 

HOPS explora formas de evaluar las necesidades legales y los caminos a la justicia en Macedonia. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

This research represents the first effort to assess the legal needs and paths to justice for people who inject drugs and sex workers in Macedonia. It was conducted at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017 using a mixed-methods research approach. The quantitative phase included 250 respondents chosen through stratified random sampling in two stages, out of which 169 injected/had injected drugs, and 107 were/had been engaged in sex work at the moment of the interview or in the prior three and a half years. The qualitative research phase, on the other hand, was comprised of focus group discussions with 69 respondents from both communities, as well as individual or group interviews with 7 representatives from competent institutions.

The research results showed that people who inject drugs and sex workers in Macedonia are ten times more likely to experience non-trivial justiciable problems in comparison to the general population in the country. In addition, low level of legal literacy, lack of trust in the institutions and systematic discrimination, among other factors, prevent citizens from these communities to seek protection of their rights and delivery of justice through institutional mechanisms. Such circumstances confirm the communities’ high vulnerability and underline the need for advancement of their access to information, legal advice and protection.

Necesidades legales y acceso a la justicia para personas que usan drogas inyectables y para trabajadores sexuales en Macedonia

Este informe relata la historia de varios grupos y redes formados por personas que usan drogas para promover la salud y defender los derechos humanos.

Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

Suscríbase a las Alertas mensuales del IDPC para recibir información sobre cuestiones relacionadas con políticas sobre drogas.

In January 1981, the Junkiebond was formed as an advocacy and activist drug user group based in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. As early as 1981, Junkiebond started an underground needle and syringe programme (NSP) with the aim of protecting people who inject drugs from hepatitis B. They took an activist approach campaigning for effective services for drug users, challenging discrimination and defending human rights.

The Junkiesbond closed in the late 1980s, but its influence remains strong with groups like Respect in the UK and Chemical Reaction in Edinburgh Scotland embracing the grassroots approach. These groups again operate primarily through peer networks, are often well integrated and engaged with drug supply (dealing) networks, and run a whole array of mutual aid functions. These can include advocacy with drug treatment providers, peer education, secondary or peer-led needle and syringe programmes, legal advocacy and consumer advocacy with local drug suppliers.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Breve historia de la autoorganización de los usuarios de drogas

La carta plantea una serie de inquietudes por el impacto que tendrá el nuevo sistema de asignación de fondos del Fondo Mundial sobre las principales poblaciones afectadas. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

Suscríbase a las Alertas mensuales del IDPC para recibir información sobre cuestiones relacionadas con políticas sobre drogas.

This open letter to the Global Fund Board was drafted in advance of its Thirty-Second Meeting, and signed by 24 civil society organisations from around the world. The letter details grave concerns regarding the impact of the funding allocation methodology applied to middle-income countries (MICs) or those transitioning to middle-income status, and the ultimate consequences this will have on key affected populations.

Carta abierta de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil al Fondo Mundial de cara a su 32ª reunión

La Fundación Andrey Rylkov publicó una carta abierta criticando a ONUSIDA por su apoyo de facto a las ineficaces políticas de Rusia en materia de VIH.

Civil society organisations wrote an open letter toUNAIDS Executive Director, Mr. Sidibe, criticizing UNAIDS for supporting Russia's HIV policies.

On April 25, the Andrey Rylkov Foundation (ARF) published an open letter to UNAIDS Executive Director, Mr. Sidibe. The letter, signed by 21 international, regional and national level civil society organizations and networks, sharply criticizes the UN Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS for their de-facto endorsement of Russia’s ineffective HIV policies through sponsoring the fourth Eastern European and Central Asian AIDS Conference (EECAAC).The upcoming EECAAC will be held on 12-14 May in Moscow, Russia. HIV advocates from around the world believe that holding the regional HIV conference organized by the Russian government will contribute to promoting ineffective approaches in HIV response in Russia and other countries of the region.

“Russian authorities openly reject human rights and evidence based approaches to HIV prevention and treatment among key affected populations (KAP) of people who use drugs, MSM, sex workers. Since UNAIDS being the co-chair and sponsor of EECAAC, never contradicted these statements, we can only state that UNAIDS is in the full agreement with them,” said Anya Sarang, president of the Andrey Rylkov Foundation.

As a result of the deadly national HIV policies, Russia remains one of the world’s few countries with rising HIV incidence and mortality: 77,896 people were diagnosed with HIV and 22,387 people with HIV died in 2013 alone, or, respectively, 10.1% and 9.1% more than in in 2012.

Because of the current Russian legislation KAP representatives will be almost prohibited from participating in the conference and directly speaking for themselves. At the same time, the conference organizers are inviting to the EECAAC opening Russian officials and politicians who actively discredit evidence-based health programs and promote a totalitarian state control over civil society.

“We still hope that UNAIDS will stand up for those whose interests are being ignored, and voices suppressed,” adds Anya. “But when will it happen?”

 Anya Sarang (+7 926 870 85 18) and Artem Chapaev (+ 7 915 349 19 55)

Follow the Andrey Rylkov Foundation (ARF) on Twitter @AndreyRylkov and on Facebook.

La sociedad civil critica con dureza a ONUSIDA por apoyar las letales políticas rusas en materia de VIH

sudeste europeo ofrece las últimas noticias sobre políticas de drogas y reducción de daños en la región.

During its annual meeting in Vienna in March 2012, the Drug Policy Network in South East Europe decided to publish a quarterly Newsletter for a more regular communication between the Network organisations.

The Newsletter was prepared and published by Diogenis, Drug Policy Dialogue in South East Europe, in collaboration with the members of the South East Europe Drug Policy Network. Each newsletter focuses on two or three countries in the region, for which updates are provided on issues related to drug policy reform, criminal justice, social and health programmes and human rights.

The first edition of the Newsletter provides updates on drug policy developments in Albania and Greece.

Healthy Options Project Skopje (HOPS)

Región

Traducciones

Contenido relacionado

Expertos en políticas sobre drogas plantean inquietudes sobre borrador de la Agenda y Plan de Acción sobre Drogas de la UE para el período 2021-2025 – Carta Abierta

Necesidades legales y acceso a la justicia para personas que usan drogas inyectables y para trabajadores sexuales en Macedonia

Breve historia de la autoorganización de los usuarios de drogas

Carta abierta de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil al Fondo Mundial de cara a su 32ª reunión

La sociedad civil critica con dureza a ONUSIDA por apoyar las letales políticas rusas en materia de VIH

Novedades de la Red sobre políticas de drogas en el sudeste europeo