2 June 2003
Ottawa
by
Antonio Maria Costa
Executive Director
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me first of all thank you for this invitation. I am pleased to be in Canada where the Government and CCSA have been strong supporters of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In particular I thank Michel Perron and Chief Barry King, and I especially pay tribute to the work of the Solicitor General of Canada, the Honorable Wayne Easter, whose statement today, I find very inspiring.
I welcome the opportunity to learn more about Canada's National Drug Policy and about your work at the Centre. In exchange, I will share with you information about my Office's recent work.
It is a special pleasure to attend CCSA Board meeting. The Centre's pioneering work on tools for statistical and policy development (for example the International Guidelines for Estimating the Costs of Substance Abuse), has provided a new basis for good advocacy work, including work with my Office. We have developed a longstanding relationship in drug prevention (you co-hosted The Youth Vision Jeunesse forum in Banff in 1998) and look forward to an even greater future partnership.
First point: the importance of civil society in drug abuse prevention
CCSA role in policy development, prevention and treatment underscores the fact that today's a-social behaviours (whether related to drugs or to crime -- which are the twin areas mandated to our Office) cannot be controlled without grassroots mobilisation. Governments, even when working together at the United Nations, cannot make headway in abating these threats unless they count on all society. No stakeholder in society should be exempted; no one should take a time out.
Canada has often broken new ground when it comes to giving to civil society an appropriate place in the scheme of things. UNODC shares this conviction, recognizing that governments -- our logical partners -- can do much, much more, but cannot do everything.
One of the Office's Operational Priorities established after I took office last year, called on greater efforts to harness the power of partnerships. Why do we ask to be a partner with you? Because there is much in common between us, and among the organisations that throughout the world address the problems created by substance abuse. Tonight I want to be bolder than just stating the importance of this joint work. Tonight I wish to appeal to governments to redefine their work on substance abuse according to the logic of subsidiarity -- namely I call on governments to devolve funds, work and responsibility to the groups and the actors most closely associated with beneficiaries. Indeed, who is closer, more intimately involved with substance abusers than the CCSA foundation itself?
In practical terms, at UNODC we are already doing this. Our field network of (22) offices relies heavily on the reach and efficacy of NGOs to promote actions on HIV/AIDS, on sport-against-drugs, or treatment and re-integration. In the coming months we will reorganize ourselves in Vienna, inter alia, to enhance the sharing of our commitment and our resources with a broad range of stakeholders, private or public. The goal is faster and better delivery, at reduced costs. Good value for money: this is how we would like to represent our work, funded by taxpayers.
Second point: the integrated approach to drug issue
UNODC has had much in common with the Canadian approach to the drug issue, starting from the recognition that an integrated, long-term policy is best. The idea that drug problems must be addressed comprehensively (addressing both supply and demand issues), while keeping in mind that social changes (whether lower addiction, or smaller illicit cultivations) take long time to materialize -- this idea is one that my Office endorses strongly. We also maintain that the individual health and the social needs of drug abusers should be addressed: they are sick people looking for help, not criminals deserving punishment. The way in which Canada seeks to address the socio-economic roots of drug abuse finds an echo in the recommendations we make to member states.
Of course, recent aspects of Canada's National Drug Policy have attracted much commentary. Tonight I prefer not to pass judgement, mindful of the system of checks and balances that govern drug controls at the United Nations. This system includes, as within a nation, legislative organs (i.e. the General Assembly and the Drug Commission), a judicial organ (the International Narcotic Control Board, INCB), and an executive arm (my Office, UNODC). I believe INCB is assessing the Canadian situation quite closely, and will soon be here for a review of the issues. My main concern is not centred so much on the letter of the pending legislation, whose conformity with the UN Conventions INCB will no doubt certify. My plea to governments, especially to some European ones, is to avoid any measure that could send a wrong message to abusers and public opinion alike. Especially, no message should go out -- message by governments, media or civic leaders -- implying de-escalation of the severity of the cannabis problem, at a time when cannabis' potency (in terms of THC) has increased dramatically, destroying any distinction (absurd, yet popular, distinction) between hard and soft drugs.
After this parenthesis, let me mention that I applaud the work done by CCSA and the Canadian Government in addressing the links between various kinds of a-social behaviours. The factors that make our youth generally more vulnerable to drugs and crime abuse are largely similar; the difficulty of recovery and of social reintegration are equally serious. Your efforts in defining these links and looking at the general concept of addiction and how this unleashes a complex dynamics that no single law can capture, will be of help in our efforts to integrate work in both areas.
Third point: encouraging progress towards still distant goals
My third point is of an informal nature: it is a progress report about the commitments countries have made in drug control, and how far down the road they are in fulfilling them. Just to remind you, the international community has cast drug control policies in three conventions (1961, 1971 and 1988) that limit the use of controlled substances to medical and scientific purposes, and decree other uses illicit. Obviously, countries apply these conventions in accordance with their local conditions, taking advantage of the options sketched out in the Conventions. These Conventions, together with more recent resolutions by the General Assembly and the Drug Commission, have helped contain drug abuse and its lethal consequences to a fraction of the costs and the deaths caused by licit substances, such as tobacco and alcohol. For your information, in North America alone, each year about 500 thousand people die of tobacco related causes, 250 thousand because of alcohol, while no more than 20-25 thousand die because of drugs.
Let me pause and ask a key question: is the (relatively) low death rate for controlled drugs due to the fact that narcotics are - in fact - controlled by the Conventions and by the mechanisms built for their implementation, while tobacco and alcohol consumption is legal and virtually uncontrolled? My answer to the question is affirmative. Yes, narcotic drugs kill more when they are, or are made, licit. I know we all agree with this assessment. You may like to know that our common opinion was recently shared by over 70 Ministers who reaffirmed their commitment to the UN Conventions during the April meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This view is also consistent with the recent, unanimous decision by all, I mean all 191 countries and territories in this world (including Canada, of course), to adopt the new convention against tobacco. Of course tobacco is not, and should not be made, illegal. Yet, smokers are on the defensive; tobacco abuse is now a virtual offence, while most of its promotion has become prohibited. Why should the opposite happen to cannabis, which produces at least the same lethal, smoke-related consequences as tobacco?
Fourth point: how are we progressing in controlling drug addiction?
During recent years, governments' drug policies have gained new momentum.
Best practices aimed at reducing demand and improving treatment have been developed, adapted, and more widely adopted. International cooperation, notably the sharing of information on and joint action against illegal trafficking, has gained new breadth and depth. As a result of law enforcement and of programs to promote voluntary crop diversification, illicit drug cultivation has declined significantly in the Andean countries (coca leaves) and in the Golden Triangle (opium poppies). Since 2002 cultivation has resumed at high levels in Afghanistan.
With regards to prevention, the picture is not clear (By the way, I admire those who claim that abuse is spreading and getting unmanageable: they seem to know more than anybody else - even more than the world's best experts who are very cautious in their judgement). Efforts to reduce drug abuse have shown some success in recent years; for example, the decline of heroin and cocaine abuse in rich countries gives reason to hope that greater achievements are possible. A matter of major concern is the increase of drug abuse in the transition countries of Eastern Europe, Russia and China (though from a very low level).
The gradual acceptance of cannabis and of synthetic drugs abuse presents a significant obstacle, possibly undoing the successes in the other plant-based drugs. Cannabis continues to be the most widely abused drug and worldwide the number of people seeking treatment for cannabis health problems is showing an upward trend -- a circumstance aggravated by the much greater potency of cannabis' active ingredients and the ever more lenient public opinion. Worrisome also is the trend imparted by the chemical technology of bliss. While abuse of synthetic drugs in Canada is reported at largely stable levels (in Ontario it declined between 1999 and 2001), elsewhere success has been uneven, across space and time. After a strong acceleration of abuse between 1997-2000, recent data for rich countries show a decline since. The decline in Western Europe is offset by increases in Asia and Africa. To help governments and public opinion at large, my Office will shortly release its first Global Survey on ATS complete with detailed trends in production, trafficking and consumption.
On the positive side, I would like to add the increased awareness of the link between drug abuse and HIV infection, and the commitment to do more about it in very exposed countries like Russia and China. At UNODC we believe in taking a comprehensive approach to the twin problem of HIV and drug abuse covering the whole gamut of available interventions: from information sharing to the provision of safe equipment, culminating in drug treatment as required. This last point is significant for us since we believe that to lose sight of the ultimate goal, that of helping addicts to recover and rejoin society as productive individuals is, in many ways to chop the very branch we perch on.
These trends confirm that, in order to help reduce drug abuse, there is no substitute to cooperative intervention. Prevention and controls are both necessary; none is sufficient, per se. While more prevention would help, in some areas more controls should also apply. For example, the road code against drunken driving has improved safety. Yet, some countries, especially in Europe, do not seem to have the same vigilance about driving under the influence of drugs, although related road accidents are potentially no less serious.
Finally, what about the future?
Where do we go from here? Collaborative action is my answer. We need to foster creative coalitions, encourage unorthodox partnerships and inculcate a culture of innovation amongst our professional community. CCSA has been active amongst the community of NGOs working on drug issues. I take this opportunity to compliment you. We are creating a new consultation mechanism that will remember your pivotal role in evaluating the effectiveness of prevention, in being a clearing-house of good practices, and in setting standards for the evaluation of costs and consequences of abuse. Your model is worthy of emulation. We shall count on it in the period ahead.
Thank you for you attention, at such a late hour, after such a wonderful dinner.