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)

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.

Drug policy experts raise concerns regarding the draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 - Open Letter

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.

Legal needs and access to justice for people who inject drugs and sex workers in Macedonia

HOPS – Healthy Options Project Skopje’s Center for Education, Documentation and Research and Coalition “Sexual and Health Rights of Marginalized Communities” 

announce call for articles for 9th issue of theDrugs – Policies and Practices magazine

.

Drugs – Policies and Practices promotes topics about drugs, drug use, drug treatment, 

sex work and drugs, HIV/AIDS and drugs, Hepatitis B and C and drugs, Tuberculosis and drugs, rights of the marginalized groups/communities, gender perspectives, free access to public information, researches, policies, advocacy, civil society, activism, social work, social policy, health, through the drugs perspectives

.

Drugs – Policies and Practices target audience are people who use drugs, people on drug addiction treatment, experts for drug use and drug treatment issues and all for people with interest for these topics. It is published both in Macedonian (printed and online) and in English (online).

Drugs – Policies and Practices accepts articles, translated articles, news, promotions, columns/essays, pictures with socially enlightening content, campaigns related to D-PP topics. It is space for affirmation of personal opinions and opinions of institutions and organizations who work on such issues. If you have an opinion to declare, news to announce and to boost your campaign, please, contact Vanja Dimitrievski,

.

The main topic for the 9th issue of the magazine is 

Financial support for harm reduction programs

. Despite the main topic, we welcome all other articles related to afore mentioned topics.


Dead line for this call is March 15, 2017

. Editorial Board will do the selection of received articles and other materials. Selection criteria are:

Expertise (knowledge and experience for described topics)

For more information, please, contact Vanja Dimitrievski, 


For more information about text formatting, please, read the 


The previous issues of Drugs – Policies and Practices are available at: 

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

Healthy Options Project Skopje: article call for Drugs – Policies and Practices magazine

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.

A brief history of drug user self-organisations

Fom October 1-3, 2015 a regional meeting of NGOs, policy makers and scientists/researchers from the countries of Southeast Europe, was organized by Diogenis Association in Belgrade, to discuss the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS, April 2016) and its significance for Southeast Europe. The meeting closed with the formulation of some conclusions relevant for the situation in the SEE countries.

The UNGASS 2016 and its significance for SEE: Statement of NGOs in South East Europe

Ahead of the 34th meeting of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, civil society groups have called on the organization to develop a sustainability and transition strategy for countries likely to be most impacted by its funding withdrawal.

Thirty-three groups have co-signed an open letter to the Fund's Board who meet November 16-17, highlighting that a number of middle and upper-middle income countries (MICs and UMICs) are likely to be severely hit when the Fund pulls out. According to the groups:

"[These countries] are not ready for successful and sustainable transition from Global Fund support to domestic funding and we believe that they will be not ready for at least two more allocation periods. Most of these countries have HIV and MDR-TB epidemics that are concentrated among highly stigmatized key populations that will not have access to services and life-saving medicines without Global Fund support. A rushed and irresponsible transition will lead to closure of essential services (especially those provided by civil society organizations) and resurgence of disease."

In light of this, the groups strongly urge the Fund to develop a Sustainability and Transition Strategy to mitigate the risks of funding withdrawal.

The letter comes on year after 24 civil society organizations expressed their concern to the Fund's Board over the New Funding Model (NFM) approved by the Global Fund, noting that it will result in a worrying scale-down of harm reduction services in MICs located in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

Civil society groups highlight risks of global fund withdrawal, fear resurgence of disease

"My name is Sashe. I’m a child without parental care. I started injecting heroin when I was 8. Before that I was inhaling glue and solvents. "

team made their first contact with me and other 76 children that use drugs, 32 of them have been contacted from January 2014 till now. There is also a small child at the age of 3 that inhales glue. Three of the children the "

contacted died in 2011 and 2012 from overdose. According to the information from the centers for prevention and treatment of people that use drugs not one child has been included for treatment with methadone and buprenorfin in the last three years. There are no accurate numbers in Macedonia for children that use drugs. The data that we have come, is either from the outreach work (data from the people that contact us and work with the issue of drug addictions), or from researches among the secondary school students. I will tell you my story and my problems, which are problems of all the children that used drugs, in the next videos".

"HOPS - Healthy Options Project Skopje“

“I have the right to treatment and compassion”

, the campaign is supported by 18 civil society organizations. The aim of this campaign is to inform the public regarding the problem that children who use drugs face. According to ESPAD research in 2012, 8,7% of the interviewed children have used marihuana in their life; 3,75% have used ecstasy; 2,18 % have used inhalants; 0,6 % have used heroin and 0.6% have injected drugs. This year the new ESPAD research is conducted which will show us information about the current situation.

Macedonia: I have the right to treatment and compassion

这封信提出了对于新的全球基金将分配给主要受影响人群所造成影响的关切。英语版本拥有更多信息，请阅读下文。

随时掌握与药物政策发展相关的最新信息。

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.

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

 民间社会组织在其第三十二次会议前向全球基金董事会提交公开信

Мы – организации, представляющие гражданское общество, включая сообщества людей, живущих с тремя заболеваниями, т.е. основные затронутые группы из разных стран Восточной Европы и Центральной Азии (ВЕЦА) и партнерские организации из других регионов, – в этом письме хотели бы рассказать членам Правления Глобального фонда об уроках, полученных в процессе реализации нового подхода Глобального фонда к распределению ресурсов, и в особенности – о том негативном воздействии, которое этот подход, вероятно, окажет на деятельность программ снижения вреда и финансирование программ в ВЕЦА в 2015-2017 годах.

Оставайтесьвкурсесобытийнаркополитики, подписавшисьна

Healthy Options Project Skopje (HOPS)

Region

Translations

Related Content