The use of drugs is not new to Nigeria, but in recent years, the country has moved from being a transit nation to a producing nation ranking as one of the largest producers of cannabis in 2 Africa and with the highest rates of drug trafficking and drug use in West Africa . In spite of this, data on the estimated number of illicit drug use in Nigeria is limited. The available data is fragmented, with one having to rely upon individual or institution research studies which tend to focus on certain drugs, population or region.

According to National Agency For Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) , the most commonly abused drugs in Nigeria are stimulants, hallucinogens, narcotics, sedatives and tranquilizers. In National Epidemiological Network on Drug Use (NENDU) analysis of drug treatment information in Nigeria, cannabis was declared the most frequently used (36.2%) followed by opiates (28.3%) and alcohol (17.1%). The most common opiates were tramadol -71%, codeine - 15.1%, pentazocine - 9.9% and heroin and morphine representing 3.3% of the opiates declared . increase in use of injecting drugs in the country, there is a heightened risk of HIV and other blood born viruses though the sharing of needles and syringes, low risk perception and non-availability of sterile equipment at the time of use .

Injecting drugs with a contaminated needle directly into vein is actually a much more efficient way of transmitting HIV than through unprotected sexual intercourse. According to the 2014 Integrated Biobehavioral Surveillance Survey (IBBSS), the HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs is 3.4% . The HIV prevalence however varies from state to state with Kano state as high as 7% and Cross River and FCT, just over 5%. Although concerns have been raised at the community level that the national data is not a true reflection of the HIV situation among people who inject drugs which is considered to be higher. Female injecting drug users also have a higher prevalence rate than their male counterparts - seven times higher . This is consistent with data globally which states that women who inject drugs face a broad range of gender-related health risks and are less likely to access healthcare services.

Addressing barriers to effective HIV prevention and service delivery among people who inject drugs in Nigeria

Drug users are a socially hidden population with high risk behaviours, this group is one of the traditional key populations with a high HIV/STI burden. Revitalizing HIV prevention programs for drug users especially those who inject drugs is paramount. Efforts to involve drug users in programming could increase access to services to this hard to reach sub-populations. The needs and risks of people who use drugs require innovative, comprehensive and effective HIV, TB and HEPs prevention interventions.

Uganda Harm Reduction Network has conducted various activities throughout this year among which is the population size estimates and rapid assessment studies. The results of the survey data revealed that 80% of 95 respondents in Kampala and 63.3% of 30 in Mbale had tested for HIV in the past 12 months. Up to 9.2% of 76 respondents in Kampala who reported testing for HIV in the past 12 months were seropositive and none in Mbale indicating a higher HIV prevalence among the PWID in Kampala. This data suggests that the HIV prevalence for PWID in Kampala is higher than that of the general population in Uganda which is 6.0%.

Based on these results, it goes without mentioning that it is challenging to end HIV and AIDS by 2030 as required by the Sustainable Development Goals when a considerable sect of the general population; people who use and inject drugs whose specific needs with regard to HIV response are being ignored. Nationally there has been laxity in embracing essential HIV treatment and prevention strategies for people who use and inject drugs living with and affected by the epidemic thereby creating a situation of alienation of PWUIDs from the movement to end HIV and AIDs.

Uganda Harm Reduction Network therefore calls upon stakeholders to join hands, to embrace such essential harm reduction programs including Needle and Syringe Programs (NSP) and Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) as part of the HIV prevention strategies in Uganda to cater for the specific HIV response needs of PWUIDs if Uganda as a Nation is to end HIV/AIDS by 2030.

Uganda harm reduction network- (UHRN) Annual report 2017

Effective international regimes are not static constructs. While there remains definitional variation concerning exactly what constitutes a regime – a situation that exists not only across but also within the increasingly synergistic disciplines of International Relations (IR) and International Law (IL) - there is general agreement that they operate in terms of ‘lifecycles’ and consequently ‘tend to change more or less profoundly during their lifetime.’ Still an area of relatively limited study, the concept of regime evolution takes on increasing salience in light of a significant expansion in the number of international legal instruments in operation today. As the International Law Commission noted in 2006, ‘the volume of multilateral - “legislative” – treaty activity has grown manifold in the past fifty years.’ Furthermore, observe Simmons and Steinberg, such expansion has been accompanied by an increase in ‘the scope of topics and subjects addressed by treaty law, with treaty growth being ‘especially marked in economic affairs, as well as in the areas of human welfare and the environment.’

Although various processes of regime evolution can be found across all three categories, this paper focuses on examples from the fields of human welfare (broadly defined) and the environment; more specifically the treaty regime based upon the United Nations (UN) drug control conventions and the regime of environmental regulation and its underpinning Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). With a basis in comparative analysis, our aim here is to explore how these multilateral treaty based regimes have altered and are capable of modernization over time in response to changes in circumstances and requirements of regime members. Moreover, within the context of shifts in the way that a growing number of jurisdictions are choosing to deal with the illicit use of cannabis within their territories, the paper seeks to demonstrate the extent to which the evolutionary capacity of what has been usefully called the ‘global drug prohibition regime’ (GDPR), can be considered out of step with a more dynamic regime like that dealing with transnational environmental concerns. In so doing, we hope to help move current discussions concerning the tensions presently surrounding the operation of the GDPR beyond the narrow confines of drug policy analysis and locate them within the broader context of IL, IR and wider investigation of regime evolution and modernization in general.

Beyond the fact that environmental regimes have been the subject of the most study on evolution and change, the focus on MEAs as a principle comparator to the GDPR rests on two factors. The first of these is the important, although very different, role that the advancement of scientific knowledge plays in the lifecycle of both regimes. The second relates to the regimes’ age and the associated structures and mechanisms that come with it. As will be discussed, such factors go some way to help explain why from an IL perspective the GDPR has been described as ‘Jurassic’ with its underpinning drug conventions ‘so stubbornly resistant to change compared to other treaty systems’ that they almost seem ‘“frozen in time.”’

The paper begins with an overview of the GDPR. This includes discussion of structural and normative mechanisms, processes and examples of regime ‘change’ and transformation as well as their limitations. It then moves on to an examination of MEAs and the key elements of the environmental regime that allow for change; the existence of a Conference or Meeting of the Parties and related legal structures allowing for the incorporation of far-reaching changes to environmental instruments. Examples of these mechanisms and other relevant features are explored specifically through structural analysis of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the UN European Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Arhus Convention).

The modernisation of treaty regimes: Contrasting cases of international drug control and environmental regulation

The Senior Level Policy Dialogue "Addressing HIV and TB Challenges: from Donor Support to Sustainable Health Systems" was held in Tallinn, Estonia in December 2017 as an official event in the programme of the Estonian Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The event, organized by the Ministry of Social Affairs and National Institute for Health Development from Estonia, WHO European Region, UNAIDS, and the Global Fund, brought together representatives of the health and financial ministries of Europe, the Balkan and Eastern Partnership countries, representatives of the European Commission, international organizations, as well as community representatives and institutions involved in funding programmes and offering services to tackle HIV and TB.
DPNSEE and 4 participating member organizations representatives (Margina, Viktorija, Cazas and Juventas) actively contributed to the meeting. Both the experiences from South East Europe and challenges we face were presented, emphasized and mentioned by many participants.
The main focus of the meeting was to:
- Present and discuss good practices at political and technical level of integrating HIV and TB services into national health systems, including challenges, risks, and opportunities;
- Present and discuss current financial and programmatic sustainability gaps and challenges, with particular focus on effective national investment to ensure universal access to health care, including key affected populations;
- Discuss roles and responsibilities of national governments, EU and international partners, as well as civil society partners in transition processes, to effectively and sustainably address HIV and TB.

DPNSEE October-December newsletter 

Since 2009, we provide harm reduction services to people who use drugs in Moscow. The political and financial climate as well as the epidemiologic situation are not very supportive for our work - Russia still has one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics in the world with more than 1 million cases being registered and more then 50 000 HIV positive people living in Moscow. Officially registered number of people who use drugs living in Moscow is over 30 000 people. Unsafe injection of drugs is still the major cause of HIV transmission in Russia (more than 60% of all new cases), HIV epidemic is escalating in the country and its capital, but the government still denies the effectiveness of harm reduction measures and provides zero support to NGOs working on HIV prevention among key affected populations. Russian drug policy is still known as one of the most conservative and repressive among those around the world - it continues to declare a zero tolerance towards drug use inflaming the stigma and discrimination towards people who use drugs because of their drug dependence and primarily they are considered not as patients who need proper treatment and support but as criminals. It restricts the access for drug users to vitally important for them information on health issues and to the health services needed such as needle exchange programs and opioid substitution treatment.

Andrey Rylkov Foundation: Provision of harm reduction services in Moscow in 2017

Drug use is criminalized in all countries of the MENA region, and a large number of PWUD are incarcerated, mostly for drug use, but sometimes even for the mere possession of syringes (UNAIDS, 2016; MENAHRA program data). Moreover, PWUD face high levels of stigma and discrimination in the region (MENA Regional Networks, 2016), which are further reinforced by their criminalization (UNAIDS, 2017a). Both the criminalization of drug use, and high stigma and discrimination faced by PWUD, negatively affect access to health services for this population. A number of studies have reported that this criminalization, manifested by punitive laws, incarceration, and prohibitions on harm reduction services, negatively affects harm reduction efforts. These negative effects include decreases in access to Needle/Syringe Programs, increased risky behaviors of sharing used injecting materials, and an increased HIV burden among PWID (UNAIDS, 2017a). Injecting drug use has been document within prisons in a number of countries in MENA, with unsafe injecting drug use being the primary mode of HIV and HCV transmission among prisoners (HRI, 2017). Furthermore within these settings, OST and ART are often unavailable, discontinued, or severely delayed - further exacerbating negative health consequences.

Police/law enforcement can also be a source of stigma and discrimination. In an Operational Research on PLHIV who inject drugs in 6 countries of the region, 7.7% of participants reported to have faced stigma and discrimination from police (MENAHRA, 2017a).

Of further concern are women who inject drugs, who remain more vulnerable and at higher risk than their male counterparts due to social stigma and gender related factors, whether within prisons or not. These vulnerabilities further hinder access to health services among women (MENAHRA, 2015). Women who inject drugs also have high risks being subjected to sexual violence from police and law enforcement agencies, as has been reported by a study conducted in 2015 (UNAIDS, 2017a).

Policy brief for law enforcement officials on the provision of harm reduction services

The last remaining DEA agents left Bolivia in January 2009, bringing to a close more than three decades of DEA-presence within the country. President Evo Morales had ordered the expulsion of the US agency in response to the harms caused by the ‘war on drugs’ and perceived US-meddling in the internal affairs of Bolivia. As part of the dispute, Morales had also expelled US Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg in September 2008, accusing the US of fomenting civil discord. ‘Without fear of the US empire, I stand before the Bolivian people today and declare United States Ambassador Mr. Goldberg persona non-grata,’ Morales announced, ‘We don't want people here who conspire against our unity. We don't want people who threaten our democracy.’ The period thus marked a nadir in US-Bolivian relations, and a turning-point for the course of counterdrug policy in Bolivia. For better or worse, the Bolivian government would now seek to cut its own path: moving away from the drug war approach of the US. But how did US-Bolivia relations arrive at this point? What were the historical antecedents of this point of fracture? Drawing on 27 oral history accounts with US and Bolivian political actors, the paper considers Bolivia’s post-transition period as a key moment in this history of fractious US-Bolivian relations and the ‘war on drugs’ in the Andes.

Many of the same themes of grievance raised by Morales were apparent during this period. Bolivia transitioned to democracy in 1982 against a background of economic crisis. The imposition of harsh-neoliberal structural reforms would bring stability to the national economy, but at a severe social cost. For large swathes of the population, the coca-cocaine economy provided a vital social-safety net during this period of crisis. Furthermore, narcodollars played a crucial role in helping to stabilise the economy: boosting national reserves and inward investment. Given these socio-economic realities and the relative absence of drug-related violence in Bolivia, there was a level of ambivalence towards the drug trade. Instead, the escalation of the US ‘war on drugs’ was, at-times, viewed to pose the greater risk to Bolivia’s social, political and economic stability. This US drug war approach included the militarisation of counterdrug operations and coca eradication. For many Bolivians, the exercise of US power in advancing its counterdrug goals invoked ‘Yankee Imperialism’ and recent memories of US-Cold War interference in Bolivia. US agencies, for example, operated in Bolivia with little local oversight, while Bolivian politicians from this period believed accusations of drug corruption were used to silence opponents of US policy. Perceptions that US counterdrug policy ran contrary to local interests, and that the US exploited the ‘war on drugs’ to exercise control in Bolivia, created an atmosphere of mistrust between the US Embassy and the Bolivian government. As evidenced by the expulsion of the DEA in 2008 and the breakdown of US-Bolivian relations, such mistrust continues to manifest itself to this day. Speaking in June 2017, Morales stated, ‘I do not regret the decision to expel the DEA. The United States used the “war on drugs” in order to control the country's politics and loot our natural resources’.

The	 coca-cocaine economy, the US	 ‘War on Drugs’ and Bolivia’s democratic	transition (1982-1993)

EQUIS is presenting the following Shadow Report for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in light of the pre-sessional working group meeting that will take place in Geneva in November 2017.
EQUIS is a feminist organization whose mission is to transform institutions, laws and public policies, and women’s leadership to improve women’s access to justice. EQUIS contributes to the advancement of women’s human rights and gender equality through the use of advocacy and litigation strategies at national and international level.
This document includes data EQUIS has collected through the implementation of its projects, all of which target issues that converge with recommendations made to the Mexican state.

Shadow report on women's access to justice in Mexico

On November 6, 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first two states – and first two jurisdictions in the world – to legalize marijuana for adult use. Two years later Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C. followed suit. In 2016 voters in four additional states – California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada – also approved ballot measures legalizing marijuana. In January 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a state legislature. More states are expected to legalize marijuana in the near future.

Evidence shows that marijuana legalization is working so far. States are saving money and protecting the public by comprehensively regulating marijuana for adult use. This success has likely contributed to the historically high levels of public support for marijuana legalization in the U.S., which has steadily grown to an all-time high of 64 percent. The majority of Americans, across party affiliations, support legalizing marijuana, with 51 percent of Republicans now in favor.

Arrests and court filings for the possession, cultivation and distribution of marijuana have plummeted since voters legalized marijuana for adult use in eight states and Washington, D.C. These states have saved millions of dollars and prevented the criminalization of thousands of people.

Marijuana legalization has a positive effect on public health and safety. Nationally, and in states that have legalized marijuana, youth marijuana use has remained stable or declined. Legal access to marijuana is associated with reductions in some of the most troubling harms associated with opioid use, including opioid overdose deaths and untreated opioid use disorders. DUI arrests for driving under the influence, of alcohol and other drugs, have declined in Colorado and Washington, the first two states to establish legally regulated adult use marijuana markets. In addition, crash rates in both states have remained similar to those in comparable states that have not legalized marijuana.

At the same time, states are filling their coffers with hundreds of millions of dollars in marijuana tax revenues. These revenues are being allocated for social good – to fund education, school construction, early literacy, bullying prevention, behavioral health and alcohol and drug treatment. In addition, the legal marijuana industry is creating jobs; it currently employs approximately 200,000 full and part-time workers across the country.

From prohibition to progress: A status report on marijuana legalisation

The ’war on drugs’ is collapsing. Now let’s build the alternative. The ‘war on drugs’ was built on shaky foundations. Now, countries around the world from Canada, to Uruguay, Portugal and many US states are beginning to dismantle it piece by piece. Its collapse is good news for people and communities around the world, providing us with the opportunity to build a new approach to drugs that prioritises, promotes and protects human health and well-being. This shift, from a criminal justice approach to health-based policy making, is essential if we want to take drug policy into the 21st century. It is time for the UK to catch up, and develop and promote appropriate, evidence-based, and sustainable alternatives both in the UK and globally.

This new approach will ensure that rather than penalising or criminalising people involved in the drug trade, we recognise that it is often injustice, inequality and vulnerability that drives them to engage in that trade in the first place, whether that is as consumers, producers or suppliers. Rather than compounding problems like poverty, powerlessness and stigma with a hard-line prohibitionist approach, which has failed on its own terms, we must aim to approach drug policy in a way that works to address these drivers of engagement with the drug trade, and at the same time makes engaging in that trade as harm-free as possible. If we do this effectively we have the chance to develop and build a whole new paradigm to replace the ‘war on drugs.’ Below are six key steps the UK government can take to lead the way in ending the ‘war on drugs’ at home and abroad.

Building a 21st century approach to drugs

This case study was conducted by the TB/HIV Care Association, which works to prevent, find and treat TB and HIV in communities in South Africa. Partly through funding and support from Bridging the Gaps Alliance partner Mainline, TB/HIV Care and its partner OUT Wellbeing (providing direct health services to LGBT people, MSM, sex workers, and injecting drug users) have established a joint programme for people who inject drugs (PWID). Bridging the Gaps played a key role in the initial procurement of sterile injecting equipment, enabling the launch of the project, and has continued to support Step Up’s advocacy for the human rights of PWID.

This case study illustrates how TB/HIV Care Association (THCA), and its partner OUT Wellbeing (OUT), have implemented the Step Up Project, an innovative joint initiative to support PWID in South Africa.

The criminalisation and stigmatisation that PWID experience in South Africa, combined with a fear of using health services due to the criminalisation of PWID, has contributed to the widespread use of unsafe injecting practices, such as the sharing and improper use of injecting equipment. In addition to facing stigma and discrimination from health service providers and the public, PWID also face abuse by law enforcement agencies.

The prevalence of high-risk injecting practices identified by a United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2013 study, indicated that services were urgently required to address the potential public health impact of injecting drug use, and improve the wellbeing of PWID.

Introducing and developing harm reduction strategies in South Africa

Welcome to the Ana Liffey Drug Project’s Strategic Plan for 2018-2020. The last number of years have seen significant and welcome changes in Ireland, both in terms of the general economic outlook for the country and in terms of broad drug policy trends.

The Ana Liffey Drug Project’s primary activity is to provide ‘low threshold - harm reduction’ services to people who use drugs. By low threshold, we mean that the barriers to availing of our services are kept as low as possible. By harm reduction, we mean that we seek to reduce the harm that drug use causes to individuals, families and communities. In addition to our direct services, we also perform advocacy and support roles at an organisational level in the addiction sector in Ireland and beyond.

We will work hard, we will work together internally as a unit and in partnership externally to achieve these goals and ensure that we continue to deliver on our mission to work with people affected by problem substance use and the organisations that assist them.

Publications from IDPC Members