TNI is an international network of activist-scholars committed to critical analysis of the global problems of today and tomorrow, with a view to providing intellectual support to those movements concerned to steer the world in a democratic, equitable and environmentally sustainable direction.

El TNI es una red internacional de activistas e investigadores dedicados a analizar de manera critica los problemas mundiales de hoy y de mañana, con fin de apoyar a los movimientos que intentan llevar al mundo hacia un enfoque más democrático, equitativo y un ambiente sostenible.

Le TNI est un réseau international d’activistes-chercheurs dont le travail est consacré à l’analyse critique des problèmes mondiaux d’aujourd’hui et de demain, l’objectif étant de fournir un soutien intellectuel aux mouvements visant à diriger le monde vers une approche démocratique, équitable et un environnement durable.

Transnational Institute (TNI)

The third Brandenburg Forum in Geneva (the Forum) took place on 7th June 2023, bringing together a broad range of Member State delegates, civil society representatives, UN officials and human rights experts, to discuss challenges and opportunities for consolidating the recent progress in addressing the human rights implications of drug policy across the United Nations (UN) level.

The Forum was opened with interventions by the co-hosts of the Forum and by high-level attendees. The speakers highlighted that the 2022 Forum had been critical in building momentum towards the Human Rights Council Resolution on human rights in drug policy that was finally adopted in April 2023 (HRC Resolution 52/24). The Resolution requested a report from OHCHR on human rights challenges in drug policy, which will be a key contribution from the UN human rights system to the mid-term review of the 2019 Ministerial Declaration on drugs, scheduled for March 2024 at the CND.

The morning session of the Forum featured discussions on strengthening the role of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in drug policy debates. Reflecting on lessons learnt during the negotiations of HRC Resolution 52/24, participants recognised that drug policy will be a polarising issue at the HRC, and pointed to the importance of building coalitions from the start, setting up a transparent process, defining clear objectives and red lines, and engaging in constant outreach, including to non-like-minded delegations. A need for closer cooperation between like-minded Geneva and Vienna delegations was mentioned – including in the upcoming mid-term review. Noting that delegations from Africa or Asia are absent from the core group of Member States that lead on the human rights impacts of drug policies at the Human Rights Council – including by tabling HRC Resolution 52/24 – Do, attendants called for efforts to facilitate cross-regional engagement through thematic dialogues. Strategies to ensure the presence of drug policies at the HRC were also discussed.

In the afternoon session, participants discussed different approaches to consolidate the systematicity of contributions by human rights mechanisms on drug policy. Although there has been great progress in the last year, participants agreed that so far interventions are reactive and may have blind spots. Participants reflected on barriers to accessing the know-how and networks necessary to operate in the human rights system, and the need to invest in civil society advocacy, particularly for activists from under-represented regions. At the same time, many pointed to the need to keep building up evidence-based knowledge on drug policy among treaty bodies and special mandates, dispelling preconceived notions, providing thematic briefings, information in country reviews or visits, and individual cases.

Following the standard Brandenburg Forum methodology, after each panel participants were divided in four breakout groups to discuss and formulate concrete recommendations for the way forward. Each breakout group brought back to the plenary two recommendations. After a voting exercise at the end of the day, the top-voted priorities were:

Top-voted priorities on “strengthening the role of the Human Rights Council in drug policy”:

Organise regional briefings to engage Member States in regional groups which may need support in establishing a human rights-based approach to drug policies, with a prior mapping of strategic themes and Member States, and involving regional stakeholders and civil society. (23 votes)

Ensure widest dissemination possible of OHCHR report, including sharing it with national stakeholders, and OHCHR presenting the report at the Autumn 2023 CND intersessional, organising events a broad range of Member States and involving the UN system coordination Task Team on the Implementation of the UN System Common Position on drug-related matters. (20 votes).

Mainstream drug policy language into relevant HRC resolutions, with prior mapping of issues, and influencing special mandates to integrate drug policy issues into their reports. (20 votes).

Promote a one-UN approach to drugs, including a stronger role for the Task Team, and consolidate cooperation between UNODC and OHCHR (examples: OHCHR input to World Drug Report, joint work plan, memoranda of understanding, etc.). (29 votes).

Build on the core group, systematise recommendations on drug policies through the Universal Periodic Review. (25 votes).

3rd Brandenburg Forum (BBF) in Geneva: Consolidating progress for human rights in drug policy - Meeting report

Together with many cities in the world, the beautiful city of Amsterdam struggles with the effects of drug-related crime. Therefore, as mayor of Amsterdam, I organise the international conference 

‘Dealing with Drugs – Cities and the quest for regulation’. 

The objective of this conference is to explore how -and not if- further regulation of the drug market can provide a solution, and which steps can be taken towards a more realistic approach of drug policy. This conference will take place on January 26, 2024, at the Beurs van Berlage, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Illegal drug trafficking poses a significant threat to cities all over the world. In Amsterdam it threatens our rule of law. The city grapples with daylight assassinations, explosions, cases of mistaken identity murders and fatal attacks on lawyers and journalists. The ruthlessness in which these crimes occur is shocking.

Cities worldwide face similar challenges. For decades, a global war on drugs has been waged. Unfortunately, the path we tread has proven insufficient: drug production and consumption continue to rise, illegal financial flows persist, violence remains unchecked, human rights are violated, and successive generations of youth are drawn into criminality, while the safety net wears thin.

Although victories are achieved in the war on drugs through the diligent investigative work of our partners, the battle is never fully won. This recognition extends beyond academic circles to include former politicians, policymakers and law enforcement.

I advocate a realistic drug policy. This conference represents our first step in that direction. By engaging in candid conversations with international experts, experienced individuals, NGOs and scholars, we aim to move beyond the question of whether regulation can be a solution and focus on 

 it can be achieved. I invite you to join us to and explore alternative approaches, learn from international experiences, overcome challenges and consider the role that cities can play.

I am looking forward to welcoming you at this conference.

Dealing with drugs - Cities and the quest for regulation

A response to the annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board

In its report for 2022, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the “

” that monitors the implementation of the UN drug control conventions, focuses on the legalisation of cannabis. Each year, in the first chapter of its annual report, the Board addresses a specific issue it deems important for drug policy discussions and the functioning of the international drug control system. This year, 

cannabis legalisation is the focus(external link)

, because as many have noticed, a decade after the first state legally regulated adult recreational cannabis “a growing number of States have adopted policies that permit the use of cannabis for non-medical and non-scientific purposes”.

Indeed, after Uruguay in 2013 and Canada in 2018, as well as to date 21 of the 50 states in the United States of America since 2012, other countries have announced or set in motion steps to legalise cannabis, such as Germany, Luxembourg and Malta in Europe, Mexico and Colombia in the Americas, South Africa, and Thailand in South-east Asia, while in the Netherlands and Switzerland science-guided experiments are under way to assess the effects of a legal regulation of cannabis. The expectation is that more countries will follow in the coming years. Draft legislation is already being discussed in the U.S. Congress, while opinion polls indicate that a majority of voters of both main U.S. political parties are in favour of legalisation. The legalisation of cannabis at the federal level in the U.S., for decades the main proponent of its prohibition for anything other than scientific or medical purposes, would constitute a sea change and a serious challenge to the international drug control regime.

Over the past decade, since Uruguay and the first states in the U.S., Colorado and Washington, legally regulated cannabis for adult recreational use, the standard cut-and-paste reaction by the INCB, repeated in every annual report, has been that this is not allowed under the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and that measures to permit the use of controlled substances such as cannabis for recreational purposes are inconsistent with article 4, paragraph (c) of the 1961 Single Convention, which requires States parties to take such necessary legislative and administrative measures, “to limit the use of narcotic drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes”.

So there was a mixture of expectation and concern when the news trickled out last year that the Board would finally address the issue in greater depth in its Report for 2022. Would the Board dig in its heels, continue to reject legalization as contrary to the obligations of the UN drug treaties, and set on a course that could eventually—or inevitably—lead to the 

invocation of the enforcement and sanctioning measures of Article 14 of the 1961 Single Convention(external link)

? Although the Board does not have the power to enforce the provisions of the international drug control conventions on its own, invoking Article 14, might, after a lengthy and complicated consultation procedure, lead to a recommendation for “co-operative action at the international level” to remedy the situation. Ultimately, that could result in an import and export embargo on licit drugs for medical purposes from or to the country concerned. Although such measures are seen by many as a ‘nuclear option’ and considered excessive and highly unlikely, triggering an Article 14 procedure in itself might already act as a deterrent. Since a remedial consultation procedure initially takes place behind closed doors, nobody but the members of the Board and the government involved actually know if such procedures may have already been set in motion regarding cannabis legalisation.

Or would the INCB at last recognise that the trend toward legal regulation of adult recreational cannabis will not be reversed and initiate a process to assist State parties to the drug control treaties to find a solution, and a pathway to legally regulate cannabis in accordance with international law and the UN drug control treaties?

Willful blindness: INCB can find nothing good to say on cannabis legalisation

This report summarises the discussions and conclusions of the meeting, but does not reflect the institutional positions of the co-hosting parties.

7TH BRANDENBURG FORUM ON DRUGS AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES “TOWARDS 2024 – A KEY MILESTONE IN GLOBAL DRUG POLICY”

The 7th Brandenburg Forum on Drugs and Development Policies took place from 16th to 18th November 2022, at the Schloss Lübbenau in Brandenburg, Germany. The Forum was organised by the 

Global Partnership on Drug Policies and Development (GPDPD)

 – commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and implemented under political patronage of the Commissioner of the Federal Government for Drug and Addiction Policy. The meeting was co-hosted by the Government of the Netherlands, the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Transnational Institute (TNI), and the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC). The Forum was attended by 53 participants from around the world – including government representatives from Albania, Belgium, Colombia, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, and the USA. Also in attendance were officials from the European Union, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as leading civil society organisations. In order to promote open dialogue, discussions were conducted under the ‘Chatham House Rule’ whereby contents can be shared but neither the identity nor the affiliation of any participants may be revealed.

7th Brandenburg Forum on Drugs and Development Policies report

Drafted by Sylvia Kay (Transnational Institute) with contributions from Marie Nougier (IDPC).

The 2022 World Drug Report was released at a moment marked by the aftermath of the COVID19 pandemic, global economic turmoil, multiple armed conflicts, a climate emergency, and increasing calls to end the so-called ‘war on drugs’. And yet, the Report’s conclusions and policy recommendations disappointingly keep to ‘business as usual’, by refusing to contemplate alternatives to criminalisation and interdiction.

For the first time in the history of these annual reports, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) dedicates its thematic chapter to the issue of drugs and the environment, with the UNODC coming to the welcome conclusion that the international community should ‘mainstream the objective of “do no harm to the environment” in drug policy responses’. While the Report provides important takeaways, it also contains significant blind spots and questionable assertions that are highlighted in our analysis.

Firstly, the Report’s claim that damage to the environment is mostly identified in areas with little to no State presence should be questioned. In fact, recent research has pointed out that rural and underdeveloped regions are not defined by State absence, but rather by particular modalities of State presence, and that such State intervention can have equally, or even greater, damaging impacts on the environment as State absence, for instance by undermining modes of rural governance and environmental protection associated to farmer and indigenous land control.

Secondly, the Report fails to acknowledge the harmful effects of the ‘war on drugs’ approach for the environment, especially with regards to its discussion – and questioning of the mere existence of – the ‘balloon effect’. In the context of crop cultivation, the ‘balloon effect’ refers to the displacement that follows the forced eradication of illegal crops, with efforts to eliminate cultivation in one area simply leading to cultivation shifting elsewhere, and driving ecological harms such as deforestation. Contrary to what the World Drug Report suggests, the balloon effect is a well evidenced phenomenon, and it should be taken into consideration when assessing the environmental impacts of responses to cultivation.

Thirdly, the UNODC offers questionable comparisons of the carbon footprint associated with the production of cannabis, cocaine and cocoa beans. This analysis is problematic in many respects, including the fact that calculation of the carbon footprint of cocaine includes the impact of land deforestation whereas that is not included in the case of cocoa beans, and that cocoa beans and cocaine are simply not comparable products, as the former is a raw material whereas the latter is the result of a chemical and industrial process.

Fourthly, when discussing ‘community responses’ towards environmental protection, the Report fails to examine how different drug policy regimes impact on these community responses. These drug policy regimes are indeed a determining factor in shaping the prospects for addressing drug-related environmental challenges.

Finally, the Report refuses to acknowledge how legal regulation may address some of the environmental harms identified, for instance by allowing legal outdoor cultivation of cannabis in Global South countries that have traditionally produced the plant, which would have a much lower carbon footprint than indoor cannabis cultivation in the Global North. This, however, would also require addressing the tensions with the current UN drug control regime. It would also force a reckoning with the colonial legacy in drug policy narrative and practices – an issue that is entirely ignored in the 2022 World Drug Report.

To conclude, while the efforts made by the UNODC to consider the environmental impacts of drugs and drug policies may be laudable, the UNODC continues to be behind the curve as it refuses to acknowledge the severe consequences of the ‘war on drugs’ rationale, to challenge the range of human rights abuses associated with this approach, or to propose meaningful options for reform. Unless the UNODC aligns itself with the work of other UN entities to promote an approach to drugs truly grounded in human rights, health, development and environmental protection, there is a real risk that it will quickly get out of step with broader efforts to building a strong and unified UN response to pressing world challenges.

The World Drug Report 2021: A critical assessment of projected increases in African drug use

The World Drug Report 2020: Perspectives on markets, technology, and policy

The World Drug Report 2019: Perspectives on protecting public health

IDPC response to the 2018 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2017 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2016 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2015 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2014 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2013 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2012 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2011 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2010 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2009 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2008 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2007 World Drug Report

IDPC response to the 2006 World Drug Report

IDPC analysis of the UNODC World Drug Report 2022

In recent years, more than a dozen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have promoted some form of regulation of the medicinal use of cannabis, following the worldwide trend of relaxing the prohibition of the plant.

Such regulations are at different stages of development and have distinct characteristics, but they are similar in their pro-profit commercial orientation, which has stimulated the structuring of a regional production and consumption chain connected to the international dynamics of this new market. According to some reports, in 2020 the global medical cannabis market was worth US$9 billion and could reach US$49 billion by 2028, with an annual growth of 24%. The Latin American medicinal cannabis market is predicted to follow the same trajectory. It is estimated that this market represented US$1.2 billion in 2022 and is expected to reach US$3.75 billion in 2027, based on the same global annual growth rate.

A growing number of transnational corporations (TNCs), especially from Canada and the US, view this new Latin American regional market as a great business opportunity. Low taxes, unprotective and undemanding labour laws, low labour costs, a favourable climate for growing cannabis, affordable land, infrastructure and inputs for the cultivation and manufacture of cannabis products have all attracted this corporate interest. Several of these corporations have made direct investments in countries across the LAC region, establishing partnerships of different types with local companies in order to obtain commercial advantages for growing cannabis at low cost to manufacture their products either for export or for expanding their consumer market.

This new context of regulations on cannabis for medicinal purposes in Latin America could be a driving force for social justice. It could guarantee a therapeutic alternative for various medical conditions, reflecting scientific research and the positive experience of patients who have used cannabis-derived products for years, particularly CBD-rich oils. It could also be an opportunity to invest in repairing some of the social harms imposed by the long period of prohibition, which focused on the repression of vulnerable social groups involved in the production, commercialisation and consumption of cannabis, and led to incarceration, exclusion, deepening inequalities, corruption, and the like.

Corporate capture of the Latin American medical cannabis market

Germany’s current interpretative approach puts the fate of the entire project for cannabis regulation on very thin ice. But there is still time to change course, and legally sound and politically viable alternative options are available.

The German government has released its ‘

’, a concept note laying out the key points to shape the regulation of the recreational cannabis market. Presenting the key points at a press conference this week, 

 that it had not been easy to reach agreement within the ‘Ampel’ coalition and between the involved ministries. Clearly one of the trickiest issues has been how to deal with the legal hurdles of the UN drug treaties and EU law. The Minister presented what he called the ‘

’ as the government’s Plan A, which will be submitted to the European Commission in hopes of a green light that would allow the legislation to proceed. But if the EC rejects Germany’s ‘interpretative solution’, there will be no legal regulation unless another legal accommodation can be negotiated. Regarding a Plan B, the 

 vaguely mention the possibility that the proposed legislation 

“can be accompanied by Germany's advocacy for certain amendments/updates at EU and international law level”

Unfortunately, Germany’s Plan A approach risks bringing the whole regulation project onto legally very thin ice, for several reasons. Let’s make clear from the outset that TNI fully supports the intention to legally regulate the cannabis market, as we have done in the case of Uruguay, Canada, Mexico, Malta and now also Colombia. TNI has been working for several years now with a group of international lawyers, treaty experts and government officials to explore the most viable options to accommodate the legal regulation of cannabis markets under international law. With due respect for basic principles of international law, and staying within the realm of faithful treaty interpretation, we have laid out in detail 

the legal tensions and the available compliance options

’ now proposed by Germany, does not appear on the menu of viable solutions elaborated by the group of treaty experts we convened, as it can be easily contested and dismissed on legal grounds.

German cannabis regulation on thin ice - The government’s risky approach to international legal obstacles puts the entire project in jeopardy

2nd Brandenburg Forum in Geneva (1st-2nd June 2022): Aligning drug policies with human rights

The second Brandenburg Forum in Geneva took place on the 1st and 2nd June 2022, bringing together a broad range of member state representatives, civil society members, and UN officials and human rights experts, to discuss challenges and opportunities for aligning drug policy and human rights across the UN system.

After two days of debates, participants were invited to identify their priorities for action on mobilising the UN system to align global drug policies with human rights. After a voting exercise, the winning activities were:

Top-voted priorities for action in Geneva:

Present a resolution in the Human Rights Council during the March 2023 session (25 votes)

Establish an informal group of countries and civil society organizations to work on drugs and human rights in Geneva, and strengthen coordination with Vienna, as well as fostering dialogue with special procedures mandate holders (Clear leadership needed!) (23 votes)

Use the 2022 CND inter-sessional meeting in September to establish a (Brandenburg) group of friends to better coordinate and formulate a clear strategy for mainstreaming human rights and drug policy into Vienna, as well as to help assure better coherence with Geneva

This meeting report summarises the key debates and interventions in the forum, and provides an account of the voting and prioritisation exercise.

2nd Brandenburg Forum (BBF) in Geneva: Aligning drug policies with human rights - Meeting report

Across the world, the state of environmental stress is unprecedented. As scholarship and activism on ‘environmental justice’ point out, poorer and marginalised communities face particular exposure to environmental harms.

This holds especially true for populations in the Global South, including Myanmar. The role of opium cultivation in relation to these environmental stresses is an underexplored terrain. Yet, as this new TNI report argues, drugs, as well as the policy responses to them, are an environmental crisis in Myanmar as well as other countries where opium poppy, coca bush and cannabis plants are cultivated.

Across the world, the state of environmental stress is unprecedented. This includes major threats to the lands, soils, waters, forests, and oceans that make up our ecosystems and biodiverse nature. Cutting across all of this are the unfolding effects of climate change and global heating. All of these developments will continue to have dramatic impacts on both people and planet. These impacts are however not evenly distributed. As scholarship and activism on ‘environmental justice’ points out, poorer and marginalised communities, often differentiated along class, gender and racial lines, face particular exposure to environmental harms. This holds particularly true for populations in the Global South.

The role of illicit drugs in relation to these environmental stresses is an underexplored terrain. Yet, as this report will argue, drugs, as well as the policy responses to them, are an environmental issue. This disconnect between drug and environmental policy is the result largely of the institutional compartmentalisation of the issue of drugs into the domain of crime and law enforcement with little outreach to other spheres related to the environment or sustainable development. References to the environment within drug policy have as such remained sparse and limited in scope.

This is slowly changing. A resolution on alternative development adopted by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) - the central drug policy-making body within the UN system - in March this year gave special attention to environmental protection, encouraging “Member States to examine and address, within the efforts of alternative development, the harmful impact of the illicit cultivation of crops used for the production of narcotic drugs on the environment, which may lead to deforestation and the pollution of soil and water, and to seize the opportunities offered by alternative development with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of the environment and the protection of biodiversity”. And for the first time this year, the 2022 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) World Drug Report will include a special booklet on the connection between illicit drugs and the environment. This follows on from an increasing number of official side-events that have been organised in recent years at the CND in Vienna on the issue of drugs and the environment.

TNI’s latest report ‘Prohibited Plants. Environmental Justice in Drug Policy’ explores, among other things, the environmental dynamics associated with opium poppy cultivation in the two regions with which it is most associated: Myanmar (as part of the so-called ‘Golden Triangle’ along with Thailand and Laos) and Afghanistan. The two cases make for an interesting contrast. While in the case of Myanmar, more traditional forms of cultivation practised by upland populations and ethnic minority groups as part of mobile agricultural systems are examined, in Afghanistan the environmental implications of the introduction of new ‘green’ technologies in the form of solar-powered deepwater wells for long-term sustainability are discussed. In both cases, opium cultivation has continued, if not dramatically increased, against the backdrop of a series of bans and, with few exceptions, failed crop-substitution and alternative development (AD) programmes.

Transnational Institute (TNI)

Region

Translations

Related Content