Road to 2030: Concrete actions to scale up human rights-based approaches to harm reduction. A call to action for HCV, HIV and TB elimination among people who use drugs

Gefra Fulane1,2, Joana Santos1,3,4, Cristina Bernardo1, Ricardo Baptista Leite1,5,6

Eleven years to reach the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), infectious diseases are still serious health threat. Global estimates indicate that 71.1 million people are living with chronic hepatitis C [1], 36.9 million people are living with HIV/AIDS [2], and 10 million people are ill with Tuberculosis [3]. Higher mortalities and transmission rates are found among key subpopulations such as drug users and drug injectors who, in many settings, lack basic rights to health care [4–7]. Environments like prisons are more likely to carry high burden of HCV, HIV and TB, with, for instance, HIV prevalence in prison worldwide considered to be up to 50 times higher than in general public [7]. Risky drug usage behaviour and lack of affordable health care services are a predominant way of disease transmission [7–10], and sharing needles and syringes among drugs injectors accounts for 23% of new infections globally [4].

Despite the efforts to prevent the initiation or continued use of drugs, many people continue to use psychoactive substances. Harm reduction strategies prove to be cost effective at reducing negative consequences associated with the use of drugs in people unable or unwilling to stop [11]. Notwithstanding, harm reduction exists at some level in only half of total countries in the world, the number of countries implementing needle and syringe programs has reduced from 90 in 2016 to 86 in 2018, whereas prevalence of HCV and HIV are still high among people who use drugs if compared with general populations [4]. The implementation of harm reduction strategies fall far short of reaching most people in need, who frequently see their health-related human rights violated [13].

Considering that members of parliament have powerful tools to contribute to the elimination of the threat infectious disease pose within this population group, UNITE UNITE, 

the Global Parliamentarians Network to End HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and other infectious diseases 

, held in Porto City, Portugal, entitled 

Road to 2030: Concrete Actions to Scale up Human Rights-based approaches to Harm Reduction. A Call to Action for HCV, HIV and TB Elimination among People Who Use Drugs

 for Development (APDES) and the Harm Reduction International (HRI), the event was attended by 184 participants coming from 30 countries, across 5 continents, including 15 members of parliament, 37 community organizations, 8 scientific entities, 22 government representatives, and 12 donor representatives. Case-examples of Portugal, China, West Africa, France, Brazil and the US were discussed. Participants agreed that:

Good policies that are effectively implemented are needed to assure human rights-grounded services for people using drugs. Proved to be cost-effective, accessible harm reduction services that are integrated and human-centered, and do not cause financial hardship, have the potential to reduce the burden of Hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS and TB among people using drugs, and ultimately contribute to ending infectious diseases as threat to global health.

Recommendations on policy actions to accelerate the attainment of health-related SDGs by tackling hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS and TB on people using drugs include:

Drug use is not a criminal issue, it is a health issue! Punishment is counterproductive. 

Parliamentarians have a role to play in promoting political responses to end drug use criminalization and move towards legal regulation of currently illicit substances in their nations, regions and ultimately across the globe. Portugal is an example of how cost-effective decriminalization can be in reducing drug-related deaths, overdose and HIV/AIDS among drug users. But decriminalization is not a ‘magic bullet’. It is a component within a comprehensive approach that includes the implementation of harm reduction services, while ensuring access to care across the whole cascade from prevention, diagnosis to treatment.

If harm reduction works in your neighboring country it will work in yours!

 Integrated harm reduction services comprise needle and syringe programs, opioid substitution therapy, test and treatment of HIV, hepatitis C and Tuberculosis, antiretroviral therapy, condom programs, psychosocial, sexual and reproductive health services, education and communication, overdose management, psychosocial support, and livelihood development programs. Lessons from a community-based organization 

 show clearly the impact of service integration in the reduction of hepatis C, HIV, Tuberculosis and syphilis among drug users. This is an issue to advocate for in countries like Brazil where harm reduction’s era is at the end.

Harm reduction and love have a shared common denominator: they must be unconditional!

 If harm reduction services are introduced, they need to be focused on health determinants and based on human rights. Abuses to rights of people using drugs need to be tackled with good laws, which will ultimately decrease stigma and discrimination. Members of parliament need to guarantee that civil rights and health rights of people using drugs are safeguarded.

Community-based outreach and peer-support 

needs to be proved to increase the access and uptake of harm reduction services. Policymakers need to understand, respect and value the role of peers in establishing the bridge towards the access to healthcare services, social services, and psychosocial aid for people using drugs. The recently opened mobile drug consumption room in Lisbon is a step to illustrate that proximity can increase the adherence to health-related services and increases autonomy of people using drugs.

People in prison used to live in the society and they will come back after their release. Go there and Solve it! And take a Micro-elimination approach

. “Breaking down national goals into smaller goals for specific populations, for which treatment and prevention interventions can be delivered more quickly and efficiently” [14]., requires a new approach, in which services are moved to outside conventional health facilities to improve the linkage to care. The challenge to strengthen harm reduction in prison settings is not unique to France. Many countries still fail to address prison health as public health.

Actions need to be based on high quality evidence!

 Gathering data to monitor and evaluate how far we go and whether adjustments are needed, is paramount. Thus, policies must anticipate how results will be monitored, which sources will be used and whether data is available to provide decision makers with the good evidence. Providing good health information systems is central to overcome lack of data and show where we stand. Actors in the Western African region are engaging policymakers to move forward on data driven actions.

It is important to go beyond drug users and include other key populations at high risk of being infected with hepatitis C, HIV, and TB. Do not leave anyone behind! 

, the Activists Group under Treatment, has developed a wide range of actions that provide diagnosis, counselling and treatment to populations with high risk of infectious diseases. Some specific actions include 

network and peer support in outreach strategies

, as these increase empowerment and reduce stigma, thus easing the access to health services. Informed citizens are more prone to end with a 

, thus ensuring universality of health care coverage.

Current funding models are not sustainable. Although international funding has a role to play, national governments are invited to fill the gap and replenish harm reduction services. Funding has to guarantee community-based organizations do their work without prejudice of their autonomy. At international level it is important to call attention to this issue to increase allocation of budget. A good example is that ALL Members of Parliament present at the event signed the call to action 

People before politics: HR19 call to action on harmreduction funding and Global Fund replenishment

stating their support to sustainable funding of harm reduction.

New ways of doing partnerships: reinvention and diversification. 

Partnerships are key to go further as it reinforces engagement and commitment towards common goals. Engaging prosecutors-supported interventions such as law-enforcement assisted diversion in countries, as well as media groups and youth groups is paramount as these are opinion makers; actually, sharing successful stories can have a considerable impact in people´s awareness. At a lower level, alliances like peer networks and support among drug users can help navigate among formal and informal social services. In the United States, the NGO Fair and Prosecution is working with a 

 to reduce incarceration driven approaches among drug users. Rather, they promote harm reduction by taking advantage of prosecutors unique role in this matter.

Political will, political advocacy, political leadership: people’s health and safety first! 

Evidence for harm reduction is out there. Actually, it is no longer a matter of what works. It is a matter of political will and leadership to propose and implement proper actions and take the lead. Local and global networks are both required.

1. Blach S, Zeuzem S, Manns M, Altraif I, Duberg AS, Muljono DH, et al. Global prevalence and genotype distribution of hepatitis C virus infection in 2015: a modelling study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:161–76.

2. UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics. 2018.

4. Stone K, Shirley-Beavan S. The Global State of Harm Reduction 2018. London; 2018. www.ihra.net.

5. Csete J, Kamarulzaman A, Kazatchkine M, Altice F, Balicki M, Buxton J, et al. Public health and international drug policy. Lancet. 2016;387:1427–80.

6. Greely J, Bruneau J, Lazarus J V., Dalgard O, Bruggmann P, Treloar C, et al. Research priorities to achieve universal access to hepatitis C prevention, management and direct-acting antiviral treatment among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;47:51–60.

7. Sander G. Human Rights, Minimum Standards and Monitoring at the European and International Levels 1 Monitoring HIV, HCV, TB and Harm Reduction in Prisons: A Human Rights-Based Tool to Prevent Ill Treatment HIV, HCV, TB AND HARM REDUCTION IN PRISONS www.ihra.net. 2016.

8. Gountas I, Sypsa V, Blach S, Razavi H, Hatzakis A. HCV elimination among people who inject drugs. Modelling pre- and post–WHO elimination era. PLoS One. 2018;13:1–15.

9. Nelson PK, Mathers BM, Cowie B, Hagan H, Des Jarlais D, Horyniak D, et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in people who inject drugs: Results of systematic reviews. Lancet. 2011;378:571–83.

10. World Health Organization. Global Hepatitis Report, 2017. 2017.

11. What is harm reduction. IHRA Off Website. 1996;44.

12. Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S, Leung J, Greely J, Vickerman P, et al. Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Heal. 2017;5:1192–207.

13. International Harm Reduction. The Global State of Harm Reduction. 2016. https://www.hri.global/contents/1421.

14. Lazarus, Jeffrey V., et al. "Micro-elimination–A path to global elimination of hepatitis C." Journal of hepatology 67.4 (2017): 665-666.

1. UNITE, the Global Parliamentarians Network to End HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and other infectious diseases
2. Nova SBE, New University of Lisbon
3. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Dr. Ricardo Jorge
4. Faculty of Public Health, University of São Paulo
5. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University
6. Institute of Health Sciences, Católica University of Portugal

Road to 2030: Concrete actions to scale up human rights-based approaches to harm reduction

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) regularly conducts country visits. On the occasion of these visits, they also meet with relevant NGOs that are active in these countries.

The INCB has asked the VNGOC for suggestions of suitable civil society organisations to meet during their upcoming mission to 

.

If you know any civil society organisation active in the field of drugs in Austria, please let us know as soon as possible, but no later than

by sending the following information to info@vngoc.org

Telephone number is optional but appreciated

We are looking forward to receiving your suggestions of NGOs!


Upcoming INCB country visit: Austria (June 2019)

This article was originally published on the Dianova website.

In March 2019, the international community gathered in Vienna for a high-level Ministerial Segment. The goal: to take stock of the past 10 years of global drug policy and chart the course for the coming decade in UN drug control. No only a key opportunity for civil society to influence the debates. But also call for more effective drug policies going forward.

Finally, building upon the momentum created in 2016 by the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs and its relatively progressive Outcome Document.

Acknowledging the failures of the past decade of drug policy

Ahead of the 2019 event, there was the absence of any meaningful official review of progress made in international drug policy since the adoption of the 2009 Political Declaration on drugs. Hence, IDPC – a global network of more than 180 NGOs working towards more humane drug policies – conducted its own analysis of the past decade.

Our analysis ‘Taking stock: A decade of drug policy’ utilised the available research from the UN, governments, academia and civil society. Specifically, to find out what the international community had achieved over the past ten years.

It underscored that cultivation, trafficking and consumption have all increased since 2009. As have the numbers of drug use-related deaths, in particular a recent surge in preventable overdose deaths. The report also highlights the catastrophic human rights toll of repressive drug policies. Including: severely overcrowded prisons, the continued use of the death penalty, extrajudicial killings, compulsory detention and corporal punishment.

Instead of promoting development and security, punitive approaches towards drugs have exacerbated violence, corruption, poverty, stigma and marginalisation.

The beginning of a new decade for global drug policies

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) opened its 125th session on 6 May 2019 in Vienna.

On May 8th, 2019, the Board held elections for officers for the coming year, which were as follows:

David T. Johnson, Second Vice-President and Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates

Galina A. Korchagina, Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Estimates

Jagjit Pavadia, Chair of the Committee on Finance and Administration.

IDPC sends its congratulations to the new INCB President. Mr. Cornelis P. de Joncheere.

Mr de Joncheere is a Dutch citizen and has expertise in pharmacy and health sciences. He was previously Director of the Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products at the World Health Organization (2012-2016), where his work included access to controlled medicines and the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. He has been a member of the INCB since 2017.

New President at the INCB

As part of its recently concluded 125th Session in May 2019, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) invited civil society to a special ‘hearing’ on the topic of young people and drugs – which will be the thematic focus for the Board’s 2019 Annual Report.

Expanding on the first ever civil society hearing in May 2018 (on the topic of cannabis), the Board invited the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs (VNGOC) to select civil society speakers from all around the world through an open call. Despite the relatively short application period of around two weeks, the VNGOC received a total of 35 applications from 22 countries – nearly a third of whom were aged under 30. After careful review, the VNGOC selected a panel of eight representatives to present either in person or by video submission, including four members of the IDPC network:

Paul Kogi Mburu, Soberlife Mentorship Society (Kenya): “The Social, Cultural and Economic Gap as a Trigger to Drug Abuse among Young People in Kenya.”

Anna Quigley, Citywide (Ireland): “The Drug Economy and Youth Interventions: Findings from exploratory research on working with young people involved in the illegal drugs trade.”

Rogers Kasirye, Uganda Youth Development Link: “Involvement of young people as change agents in substance use prevention.”

Mediha Kovacevic, Association Proslavi Oporavak (Bosnia & Herzegovina): “The importance of early interventions for young people with drug related problems.”

Jorge Herrera Valderrábano, Instituto RIA (Mexico): “Harm reduction for young people across Latin America: theory and evidence for better drug policies.”

Cristina von Sperling, Karim Khan Afridi Welfare Foundation (Pakistan): “Young People and Drugs.”

Nihat Yücel, Turkish Green Crescent: “The importance of effective and widespread preventative work with youth.”

Sara Velimirovic, Students for Sensible Drug Policies (USA): “Young People and Drugs – evidence and recommendations by the Paradigma coalition of youth organisations representing thousands of impacted young people around the world.”

The meeting was opened by the outgoing INCB President Viroj Sumyai from Thailand, and the VNGOC Chair (and IDPC Chief Operating Officer) Jamie Bridge – and then chaired by Andrés Finguerut, the Secretary of the Board. The speakers covered a wide range of different topics, including harm reduction, policy reform, illicit trafficking, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation. Unlike in 2018, the Board members were also encouraged to ask questions and engage in discussions with the speakers (in 2018, they were on a strict “listening brief” only).

These civil society hearings are a very welcome initiative, and represent how the INCB is gradually embracing the need to be more accessible and transparent. Future hearings would benefit from longer preparation periods (allowing more time for the call for speakers), and the INCB should also consider web-casting the events. Further, to ensure the best possible standard of civil society engagement, the INCB should consider providing funding for speakers to travel to Vienna – despite the best efforts of the VNGOC, the only speakers from the list above who were able to attend the meeting in person were those based in Europe or Asia.

The INCB followed-up on the meeting with a joint press release with the VNGOC.

INCB hold second civil society hearing – focused on young people and drugs

By Chokwan Kitty Chopaka, Highland Network

25th December of 2018 was a historical day for cannabis enthusiasts in Thailand. The (interim) Parliament voted, 166-to-0, to pass new amendments to the country’s Narcotics Act. These legislative changes will allow for the cultivation, importation/exportation, distribution, possession and use of cannabis for medical and research purposes in the Kingdom. The move is regarded by many as a big leap forward, especially as the country still retains a criminal penalty (one year of imprisonment) for the simple use of illicit drugs, including cannabis.

While the drug law is being reformed in relation to cannabis, people who use drugs remain highly discriminated against and stigmatised in Thailand. Indeed, the consumption of drugs deemed illicit for non-medical purposes, including cannabis, remains a criminal offence. And this against the progressive realisation, by jurisdictions worlwide and the UN system itself, that criminalising people who use drugs is an obstacle to realisation of health and human rights objectives.

The penalty for its "unauthorised" use will still be in place, and random, surprise public urine tests will still be carried out. This is far from being a safe, effective and evidence-based response to drug use, especially for those that need to use cannabis for medical purposes but may not qualify for a government-issued license or permit to do so given the strict requirements that are likely to be put in place.

The implementation of the legal provisions on medical cannabis, which took effect on 18 February 2019, has triggered debate on several issues including who might be permitted to cultivate and produce cannabis, and under what conditions people may be allowed to consume cannabis for medical purposes.

While the government is still in the process of fleshing out the implementation of these legislative changes, an amnesty for people who already use, cultivate and possess cannabis for medical purposes has been provided for. People who use cannabis for these purposes will have to declare it by 19 May 2019. During this period, State organisations, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, practicioners of traditional Thai medicine and certified folk healers, as well as private higher-education institutions that do research or teach medicine/pharmacology, may qualify for a permit for access.

Legally-registered community and social enterprises, as well as agricultural cooperatives that work with or under the supervision of approved state organisations or private schools, international transport services, Thais who travel overseas with medical marijuana and others who have been authorised under ministerial regulations, may also qualify.

Those who sought amnesty and do not qualify for permission will need to surrender the cannabis they have in their possession.

In April 2019, officers from the Office of the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) raided the premises of a non-profit organisation, known as the Khaokwan Foundation, and arrested one of its employees. The Foundation had been cultivating cannabis and providing it for medical use for several years. There was a strong backlash against the government’s actions, including from non-governmental organistions advocating on biodiversity, agricultural and consumer rights issues, particularly since the amnesty period had yet to expire. There were also accusations from the community that the government had been acting on pressure from pharmaceutical companies, who are likely to want to see highly restrictive regulations to ensure their relative control of the cannabis market. The ONCB subsequently released the employee and announced that it will not take legal action against Khaokwan Foundation as it still has time to apply for amnesty.

Overall, this approach to studying the effect of a drug on the community is almost unheard of in Thailand and, as a cannabis legalisation advocate, I feel that this is a step in the right direction. It is comforting to see that at least there is a search for answers to better understand and manage drugs.

In relation to another substance, kratom, the ONCB is now permitted to operate specifically zoned areas which allow for kratom cultivation and use. These areas will permit research to improve understanding of consumption patterns and cultivation methods, and its impacts on the community. This measure will mean that the cultivation, distribution, possession and use of kratom will be decriminalised in certain communities.

To learn more about the Highland Network, you can visit their website or Facebook accounts (in English / in Thai).

Medical cannabis moving ahead in Thailand, but who stands to benefit?

The INCB had a busy time at the 62nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its Ministerial Segment, held in March 2019. INCB President, Dr Viroj Sumyai, spoke at the Ministerial Segment, underscoring the importance of complying with human rights norms in the implementation of the drug control conventions, in addition to improving access to controlled drugs for medical and scientific purposes. He also referred to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and their links to drug control.

In his presentation, Dr Sumyai further discussed the invocation of Article 14 of the Single Convention in relation to Afghanistan – specifically the use of Article 14 bis, which allows member states to provide (financial and other) support to ensure treaty compliance. IDPC has, in the past, argued for the Board to invoke 14bis in relevant situations.

On a less positive note, however, the INCB President went on to say to assembled delegates that:

‘The legislative developments concerning the “recreational” use of cannabis are a real concern not least for their potential impact on health, particularly of youth, but also because they are contrary to your treaties and the commitments you made to one another’.

The Russian Federation had proposed a resolution supporting the treaty mandated functions of the INCB; given the extensive Russian attacks on Canada for legally regulating the non-medical us of cannabis, it was clear that the motive underlying this resolution was to support the Board in taking action under the international drug control conventions against the Canadian government.

The Board was also engaged in the now-familiar ‘informal dialogue’ with CSOs. On the topic of transparency, Dr Sumyai blamed the INCB’s lack of such on the Conventions and the need for confidentiality in dealings with member states. Further on, when asked about its position on the USA and states’ legalisation of nonmedical cannabis use, Dr Sumyai gave a very strange response, comparing the situation to that pertaining in a family:

‘The situation is like when you have a big family. The US has 51 sons, 51 states. You have 10 stubborn ones. What are you going to do with your sons? The federal government must impose some measures on the stubborn child. The federal government does it already’.

The President added that the INCB was in dialogue with the USA regarding this situation but gave no answer as to why the Board’s response to the USA is so radically different from the actions it has taken in respect of Canada or Uruguay.

Finally, the INCB presented its Annual Report at CND, which contains a further attack on the nonmedical use of cannabis, in both the Foreword and Chapter 1. These texts also state that ‘poorly regulated’ medical cannabis regimes contribute to the legalisation of nonmedical or recreational use of cannabis, which challenges public health, young people, the Conventions and member states. Earlier in March, IDPC issued a press release criticising the INCB’s uncooperative attitude towards cannabis reform as reflected in its Annual Report.

The INCB at the 62nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND)

This article was originally posted, in Spanish, on the Animal Político website.

The populations affected by punitive drug policies must attend international forums. The voices of women such as myself, formerly deprived of liberty, as well as female users, growers, couriers, dealers, relatives – among many others – must be heard.

From the grey walls behind which I served a ten-year sentence for transporting drugs, and which I left two years ago, I travelled towards the tall buildings of the United Nations. The place was overseen by tight security, a space where protests are not welcome and where diplomacy and the language of protocol are befitting. The only colourful detail lay in the flags that undulated to the beat of the Viennese climate. There, I achieved what would seem to be an unreachable dream to any person deprived of liberty in the world.

At the 62nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), I had many questions, criticisms and uncertainties. I witnessed about a hundred roundtable discussions and conversations on drug policies around the world. I was struck by the large quantity of reports, data, scientific evidence, testimonies and accounts reflecting the problems found in each country, in each region, on this issue.

While civil society organisations can consider themselves to be guardians of democracy – by reminding governments of their duties as States – their massive presence this year reflected (among other things) an increase in humiliations and human rights violations, lack of freedoms, impoverishment, criminalisation, mass incarceration, structural failings and the violence faced by hundreds of communities throughout the world, because of punitive drug policies implemented in different countries. Although many might not appreciate it, civil society organisations play a leading role at the United Nations. They are the ones that bring information that contrasts with that submitted by governments. They are the ones that build bridges between affected communities and UN agencies, since most governments refuse to implement public policies that protect human rights for all.

Although organisations are building these bridges, it is also necessary for the populations affected by punitive drug policies to attend these meetings. The voices of women such as myself, formerly deprived of liberty, as well as women who use, grow, transport and deal drugs and their families – among many others – must be heard at these forums. Together, we observe how urgent it is for delegates to hear not only about the prevention and treatment of drug dependence, but also about the multiple human rights violations caused by mass incarceration arising from punitive drug policies.

The role of international agencies cannot be limited to inspecting prison conditions. They must approach those who live in those prisons and listen to the voices of the women affected by these policies. They must check under which criteria they were incarcerated, verify that their human rights are protected, and advocate for addressing the harms done by authorities, as well as for creating measures for non-repetition.

But there is a disconnect with reality. This can be seen in the traditional zero-tolerance drug policies implemented by various governments. Over the years, dozens of women, mothers and young people have been sent to prison for possessing or transporting drugs, destroying families and condemning women to search for a life of dignity amid the violence created by the war on drugs.

Meanwhile, the Mexican government is hardening its prohibitionist policy. In light of this, it is surprising that the international agencies in charge of UN drug policy did not call for a reduction of the harms precisely caused by the failed war on drugs strategy, through the legalisation, regulation and/or decriminalisation of drugs, and the prevention of drug dependence. The most emblematic proposal is that focusing on the treatment of drug dependence – it is not a substantive proposal but rather a mere plaster to tackle drug use while ignoring the clear consequences of the war on drugs from the past decade, including mass incarceration.

Once again, I am disappointed to see that prisons are managed the same way countries are being administered. I have now been able to confirm this is also the case at global level. The proposals, initiatives and actions presented there do not include a profound or tangible structural change that would improve the situation of people in prison settings, those who are in conflict with the law for offences against health.

The delegates representing various governments refused to answer these questions. UN agencies had a hard time recognising the failure of the past decade, and did not present concrete proposals to address the disastrous and unchecked spread of private prison systems.

Using my own experience and the hundreds of stories I heard during my time in prison, during the event I tried to put forward the need for proposals focused on people, and on the impact of incarceration on their lives, their psychological well-being, their families, towns, provinces, cities and society as a whole.

To ensure that public policies do evolve, those who implement them must change as well. During my stay in Vienna, I saw that UN officials were not necessarily moved by the reports conveying the harms caused by the war on drugs, and they had little access to the testimonies of people directly affected. How can we advocate more effectively to achieve a quicker change in drug policy? It seems that reports and figures are no longer enough. For the next session, it looks like we will have to come with a large delegation of formerly incarcerated women, women who use, grow, transport and deal drugs and entire families so that this crisis – and the urgent need to modify failed drug policies around the world – are finally acknowledged.

* Natacha Lopvet is a Project Officer at EQUIS: Justice for Women (@EQUISJusticia).

From prison to the United Nations

At the 2019 Session, 12th & 13th Meetings (AM & PM) of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), some new members of the INCB were elected, and some of the present membership re-elected. Though countries are listed, Board members are mandated to serve in a personal capacity

New members were: A candidate nominated by the World Health Organisation (WHO), 

 were re-elected. All of these individuals will take up or renew their seats on the Board in 2020.

Those not re-elected were Francisco Thoumi (Colombia), Viroj Sumyai (Thailand) – currently President of the Board – and Wei Hao (China).

INCB elections at ECOSOC

WHRIN (Women and Harm Reduction International Network)

On International Women’s Day 2019, the Women and Harm Reduction International Network (WHRIN) wishes to highlight the lack of balance surrounding the sexual and reproductive health and parenting rights experienced by women who use drugs (WUD).

The issue of state intervention in the sexual and reproductive health and parenting rights of WUD is one of the many neglected areas related to the criminalization of drug use that disproportionally affect the lives of WUD around the world.

Due to the criminalisation of drug use, the choices WUD have regarding their sexual and reproductive health are often restricted and children are frequently removed from mothers who are competent parents. Consequently, women are often reluctant to disclose their drug use when seeking healthcare through fear of coercion and/or losing their children. Additionally, women who do venture to seek support are subject to harsher judgement and scrutiny if they are pregnant or have children.

WHRIN points out that drug use does not equate to bad decision making nor improper parenting and that all women should be free to have open and honest conversations about their sexual and reproductive health, parenting practices and drug use without fear of judgement and discrimination. Being able to seek health services, support and information without fear of reprisal is key to realising sexual and reproductive health and parenting rights for WUD.

The full statement can be found in the link below.

International Women's Day

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) will host its second civil society hearing for the INCB board members on the margins of this years INCB board meeting. The hearing will be on the topic of "Young People and Drugs" and will take place on May 8 2019, 10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. in Vienna, Austria.

Up to 8 NGOs will have the possibility to present their work and positioning on this issue during the meeting. In order to ensure an inclusive, comprehensive and meaningful civil society participation NGOs will work through the VNGOC to coordinate contributions.

Each speaker will have 5-8 minutes to present his or her work on young people and drugs. Selected speakers will be asked to send in their statements or videos incl. transcripts no later than 02 May 2019. Interpretation in official UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish) will be available at the day of the hearing but all abstracts have to be submitted in English.

In order to apply for a speaking slot, please fill out and submit this form (http://bit.ly/INCB-call-for-speakers) by Wednesday, 24 April 2019, 11:55 p.m. (CEST, Vienna local time).

Selected candidates will be notified as soon as possible.

The VNGOC will be using the new survey tool on the "NGO Marketplace" to collect applications. The Marketplace is an innovative online platform that gives NGOs the opportunity to exchange expertise, network and raise awareness about their work in the field of drug policy. To fill out the form you'll need to register on the Marketplace, but don't worry it only takes a couple of minutes.

Limited funding may be available to support participation in the events. The VNGOC will follow the guidelines developed by the CSTF (https://www.cstfondrugs.org/documentation/) to allocate available funds.
Due to the short timeline applicants are asked to apply for a in person statement if you can travel to Vienna for the meeting on 08 May 2019 and have a valid visa to enter Austria. Otherwise, please apply for a video message.

Please note that the meeting will not be webcast or recorded and that attendance is by invitation only.

Thank you and looking forward to your applications. Do not hesitate to contact us at info@vngoc.org in case you have any questions.

Call for applications for civil society participation in INCB thematic hearing on "young people and drugs"

This article was originally published on the Drug Reporter website.

Drugreporter’s team attended the UN Commission on Narcotics Drugs (CND), please read some take home messages and watch some videos we produced there!

1. The CND is still dreaming about a drug-free world

Drug-free World: Reloaded. This was the title we gave to our video report about the 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drug meeting, when governments, despite of the evidence that their policies clearly don’t work, basically copy-pasted and repeated the 1998 political declaration. That is, they adopted another action plan to “eliminate or significantly reduce” drug use and trafficking in 10 years. I still remember the disappointment I felt: what is wrong with these people? This year I was not disappointed at all – everything went according to my expectations (I got older and more skeptical). The ministerial statement failed to draw conclusions from the evidence that they could not achieve any reduction in demand and supply and they reconfirmed their commitment to achieve a drug-free world. There were some strong, critical speeches at the opening, for example, the president of Bolivia defended coca legalisation again. But what we see is polarisation of opinions rather than linear progress.

If you want to learn more about why the ministerial declaration is a disappointment, read this excellent statement from the International Drug Policy Consortium!

Watch our video about how Jamie Bridge addressed the opening of the CND on behalf of the Civil Society Task Force!

The big news last November was that the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) proposed the UN to reschedule cannabis from schedule IV (same class as heroin, with high abuse potential and no recognised medical value) to schedule I (low abuse potential, recognised medical value). This decision was made after the WHO conducted the first ever scientific review on cannabis. Yes, the first, because when cannabis was placed on the list of prohibited substances in 1961, this was not preceded with any scientific review. It is likely that this CND will not make a decision about WHO’s proposal because there are still many issues to be clarified – but this is clearly a historical step to the right direction.

If you would like to learn more about cannabis rescheduling and its implications on global/national/local cannabis policies, watch this online video session we streamed from the UN Headquarters on Thursday!

We also recommend you to read this report from the Transnational Institute!

3. UN agencies call for drug policy reform

Unlike the CND, which reflects the consensus of member states, UN agencies are getting more progressive from year to year. In early March, right before the CND, the bosses of 31 UN agencies adopted a joint declaration in which, among others, they promote the decriminalisation of drug use. They “call for changes in laws, policies and practices that threaten the health and human rights of people.” Although several UN agencies adopted statements before in support of decriminalisation, this current one means that it is the official position of the whole UN family now. In addition to this statement, a task team that was created by the UN chief executives reviewed global drug policies and published a report. This report condemns punitive drug policies as “ineffective in reducing drug trafficking or in addressing non-medical drug use and supply.” This is a revolutionary statement in comparison with the dull ministerial declaration.

4. Landmark UN human rights guidelines published

Although member states acknowledged on paper that drug control policies must be implemented “in full conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms”, we know that 1) drug control policies often violate human rights and 2) what constitutes a human rights violation in the context of drug policies has been open to interpretation. Now this can change because a new International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy was published and presented at the CND this year. These guidelines cover all aspects of the drug phenomena and show how specific human rights violations intersect with drug control measures. Following these guidelines, member states will be able to develop human rights compliant drug policies – and critical NGOs will be able to make governments accountable. Please watch the video we produced at the CND about the side event where the guidelines were presented:

5. Strong civil society presence creates tensions

There is an unprecedented number of civil society representatives in Vienna this year, with loads of side events organised by NGOs and several activists speaking at the thematic debates. This is clearly beneficial not only for civil society – but for the CND as well. Tons of expertise and knowledge is channelled to the sometimes rather dull conversations. But not everybody is happy with this change. Several member states still consider NGOs hostile forces who disturb the business-as-usual operation of the UN. In this they have the full support of the security staff of the UN HQ, which is a fossil from another historical age and treats civil society representatives in a disgraceful manner. Those governments that are responsible for gross human rights violations hate to be named and shamed publicly by activists. The government of the Philippines has a booth in the rotunda of the UN HQ with a huge poster with Duterte’s picture, praising drug policies of a country that murders thousands of people in the name of drug control. When activist organised a peaceful die-in action in front of the Philippine booth, the security intervened. Just like when Support. Don’t. Punish organised a joint photo taking outside the building. I think it is time for the UN to reform not only its outdated drug control system – but also its outdated rules and security procedures. The peaceful expression of opinion is not a threat to the UN basic principles but an exhibition praising mass murder is.

We thank the International Drug Policy Consortium for supporting our work at the CND this year!

Text: Peter Sarosi
Video: Istvan Gabor Takacs

Blog