Transcript Project Theme - Institute of Development Studies

Dependent on Development:
The interrelationships between illicit drugs and
socioeconomic development
Global Drug and Development Policy Roundup
6 –8 February 2013, Brighton, UK
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
Nick Crofts, Nick Thomson
Illicit drugs and development policy round
table key recommendations - 2005




greater focus be given to protection of human life in programs addressing illicit
drugs and harm reduction, and that this be incorporated into the discussion on
addressing poverty in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);
in addressing illicit drugs donor organisations give greater consideration to
reducing vulnerability among the very poor, the displaced, dispossessed and
internal or international migrants;
the negative impacts of social and economic development and their relationship
to drug use be recognised and ameliorated. Prevention programs must address
the fact that development is about change and that better and more attractive
alternatives to drugs are needed to help people deal with change;
a whole of government approach be adopted to include public health,
legislation, law enforcement, and education, taking into consideration human
rights and governance issues. It was strongly recommended that police and
health officials work together to provide better understanding of harm
reduction, how to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS among intravenous drug
users, and to provide greater clarity of their roles;
Illicit drugs and development policy round
table key recommendations - 2005





national drug reduction networks be established among different government
and non government organisations working in different aspects of drug
reduction and development and that the responsibility for addressing illicit
drugs and demand reduction incorporate health, education, development
organisations and civil society in addition to law enforcement;
donors expand their economic emphasis on illicit drugs to include the social
aspects of illicit drugs and the intersection between development, social
behaviour and drugs;
programs adopt a multi-faceted approach that deals in an integrated way with
reducing drug supply, providing attractive livelihood alternatives, reducing drug
use and demand, reducing the harms caused by drug use and the provision of
treatment and support for existing drug users;
any programs dealing with drug reduction incorporate an advocacy component
to increase understanding of drug use, drug treatment and harm minimisation;
and
appropriate research, monitoring and evaluation of illicit drug impacts in
development programming/projects should be promoted and results made
widely known.
MDGs – absence of drugs

“To break this vicious circle, it is essential to promote development in drug-growing regions.
“Our work to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and fight drugs must go hand in
hand.”
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ,Vienna, 22 June 20103

IDPC Briefing Paper: Drug policy and development, Martina Melis, October 2010:
How action against illicit drugs impacts on the Millennium Development Goals
“A clear manifestation of the divide between drugs and development can be found in the
absence of substantial references to drugs issues and drug policies in discourses around
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Symptomatically, the United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is not even a ‘UN partner’ on the MDGs. “

Dependent on Development
“... drug use figures nowhere within discourse on the Millennium Development Goals”
and yet ...
“Examination of countries and regions where illicit drugs are grown reveals a common set
of characteristics: weak governance, civil strife or conflict, food insecurity,
underdevelopment – often specifically in agricultural infrastructure, and geographically or
socially isolated populations” (Chouvy & Laniel, 2006).
Project Overview
Globally, in developing and transitional countries


Donors, development agencies and programs for
social and economic development tend to neglect
relationships with illicit drugs:
- Creation of vulnerabilities to use
- Creation of conditions for production and trafficking

… and …
International and national drug control agencies tend
to operate without regard to the social and economic
development context
Both usually ignore human rights of illicit drug
consumers, producers and traders
Project Overview

Aim: to raise awareness and influence approaches of
both development agencies and drug control agencies
of inter-relationships and impact of their activities on
each other’s sector
Twelve-month project to:
1. Develop and consolidate evidence
2. Develop stakeholder network
3. With stakeholders, consult and develop action plans
including submissions for funding for ongoing action
Action-oriented project – to achieve change
Aims of the report
1. Highlight the complex interrelationships between illicit
drugs and socioeconomic development (SED)
2. Illustrate the unacknowledged association between
drug policy and SED, and its fundamental but often
unacknowledged human rights impact


Concerned with illicit drug production, trade, and
consumption
Feeds into project, contributing to the overall goal:
 ensuring that findings and research are
translated into development policies and
practices that promote humane, rational and
effective drug policy
Approach

Based on a hypothesis:
‘Equitable SED is necessary for successful control of illicit
drugs, whilst effective and human rights based illicit drug
control is required to foster sustainable SED’

Hypothesis is tested by adopting a ‘double sided approach’:
- How does poor/enhanced SED impact upon illicit drugs?
- How do illicit drugs enhance/hinder SED?

Examine illicit drug control policy in light of these
relationships – what is the impact?
Approach

Assumptions:
- Different settings, different times, for different drugs
- Unidirectional, however we recognize that there will be
multiple and opposing forces acting at the same time
- Defining SED difficult
- Associations not causality

2nd hypothesis:
There is limited and largely anecdotal evidence available …
What we found…
Review Findings
Impact of poor SED on illicit drug production,
trade, and use

Rural underdevelopment creates settings in which
producing illicit drugs become a viable and appealing
means by which to earn a livelihood

Violent conflict facilitates growth in illicit drug
production and trade, which in turn, sustain the conflict –
mutually reinforcing cycle

Social and economic deprivation is associated with
illicit drug use

Drug use increases in societies undergoing transition:
support structures break down, poor economic growth,
new values & norms
Impact of enhanced SED on illicit drug use

SED and resultant modernization has led to an influx of
Western popular culture which is associated with drug
use

Economic growth has created a new middle class in
who can now access and afford illicit drugs

New values and structures associated with SED may
lead to consumption of illicit drugs
Impact of illicit drug production, trade, and use
on SED: hindering

Diversion of resources into illicit sectors

Production and trade fuel corruption – mutually
reinforcing cycle

Violence and crime

Disruption of social structures

Reduced productivity

Health consequences associated with use
Impact of illicit drug production & trade on
SED: enhancing

Income and corresponding multiplier effects
from illicit drug production and trade can boost
national GDP and help to reduce unemployment

Offers a ‘cushion’ during times of economic crises
by absorbing unemployment

However, only likely to be short-term gains which
are offset by the several long-term adverse
consequences
Impact of drug policies on SED
- what does the evidence say?
Supply side policies
1. Control of illicit drug production

-

-
Eradication & law enforcement
Wipe out the principal source of income for households producing illicit
drugs, families struggle to survive
Alternative development
Evidence suggests mixed success, often implemented with narrowly
defined goals, short timelines, and without a comprehensive
understanding of the local context
2. Control of illicit drug trade

Interdiction: effectiveness questionable, smuggling routes are simply
diversified or changed with fall-out effects on communities

Law enforcement: increases violence and crime
Supply side policy:
Alternative development

Alternative development has met with mixed success
E.g.: Thailand, alternative development programs with a more holistic
and broader focus have been successful in shifting farming to licit
crops – these comprised of training, credit facilities, building of
infrastructure, improving access to healthcare – heavily and
continuously subsidised

In other cases, gains have often been at a scale inadequate to need –
narrow goals, short timelines, not taking into account broader social
issues
E.g.: Rubber plantations in Shan state of Myanmar
E.g.: Impact on gender dynamics in matriarchal hill tribes of
Southeast Asia – women engage in sex work
Demand-side policies

Prevention activities
 lack of evidence on effectiveness

Treatment
 Studies done to date suggest it is effective in reducing
criminal activity associated with drug use, transmission
of HIV, and risky behavior

Law enforcement:
 Evidence on effectiveness is limited
 Increase in risky behaviors of drug users & switch in
patterns of use
 Marginalizes drug users who hesitate to seek healthcare
 Costs associated with incarceration
Harm reduction

Evaluation more complex given the different interventions
and determining how and what ‘proportion of
effectiveness’ is contributed by each

Evidence on effectiveness varies by intervention, various
reviews have drawn different conclusions
Exception: NSEPs

Benefits included: reduced risky behavior and transmission
of HIV, decreased injecting in public places, and safer
disposal of injecting equipment
The forgotten victim:
Human Rights
Drug Policy and Human Rights Violations

Supply-side: robbing poor farmers of their livelihoods
without providing alternatives
- e.g. adverse health effects associated with aerial
fumigation

Harsh law enforcement and associated abuses including
targeting of ethnic minorities, women

Morbidity and mortality amongst those not involved with
illicit drugs

Discrimination & marginalization of drug users
Summary & Conclusions
Based on the evidence available:

Interrelationships between SED and illicit drug production, trade,
and use are real and complex

Most illicit drug policies fall short of addressing the very
socioeconomic context which influences engagement with illicit
drugs, and often cause more harm to societies than the drugs
themselves

Development policy and illicit drug policy are interdependent

Illicit drug control and development agencies need to work
together

There is a need for more rigorous studies and evaluations in the
areas of SED, illicit drugs, and drug policies
Conclusions from literature review

Development policy and illicit drug policy are
interdependent

Illicit drug control and development agencies
need to work together
and …

There is a need for more rigorous studies and
evaluations
Regional Case Studies:
Southeast Asia and South Asia
Case studies from SE Asia




Infrastructure projects & associated vulnerability to drug use and HIV
 Laos: “Trucks and water melons” - Labor migration
“Narco” states and UN drug control
 Burma: Crop eradication → ATS cultivation and re-cultivation;
Livelihoods entwined in drug trade
Public health investment and its impact on SED
 Vietnam: Significant investment in MMT in Vietnam; impact on local
economies - savings due to reduced crime, increased investment in
formal economy, job creation, capital works
Emerging middle class and changing drug use patterns
 Thailand: Youth culture with disposable income and increased
leisure time: are harms relative to ‘access’ to SED?; Law
enforcement response and harm …
Case studies from South Asia




Factors facilitating proliferation of drug vulnerabilities
 Manipur State, India: national politics – disregard for development;
insurgency, corruption and drug trafficking; differential
development between valley and hills; corruption; unemployment
Misguided implementation of poppy eradication
 Helmand Province, Afghanistan: Agriculture - poor water resources,
unfavorable to farming - failure of River Valley Project; economic
nexus for the narcotics trade - well established ‘Hawala’ System;
misguided implementation of poppy eradication
Factors favoring illicit drug imports, exports & use
 Kathmandu, Nepal: poverty, lack of economic resources, corruption
Misguided implementation of poppy eradication
 Punjab, Pakistan: Largest impact is on the economic situation of
wives of drug users, Children also suffer
Outstanding questions:
‘Why have the international development and drug policy
communities not worked more together in the past?’
‘How could the two policy communities strengthen their
cooperation, what would be the incentives for them to do this?’
Outstanding questions
Why have the international development and drug policy
communities not worked more together in the past?’
Development Agencies:
 Prejudice and stigma – in agencies as well as countries
 Infrahumanisation of drug users – barred from access to
human rights
 Lack of convincing evidence or argument
 Lack of advocacy to development community
 Sensitivities and difficulties working with governments
 ...

Outstanding questions
Why have the international development and drug policy
communities not worked more together in the past?’
Drug policy community:
 Prejudice and stigma
 Infrahumanisation
 Focussed on the drug, lose sight of the people
 Reverse understanding of causation – drugs cause underdevelopment, rather than underdevelopment causing
vulnerabilities to drugs
 ...

Outstanding questions
How could the two policy communities strengthen their
cooperation, what would be the incentives for them to do
this?’
 Get together, talk …!
 Research – generate useful evidence
 Advocate – apply evidence
 Demonstrate – projects
Incentives
1.
More effective and cost-effective development
2.
Development agencies become champions for drug law
reform

Grazie mille
Suggested lines of action
Suggested lines of action

Network – begun in 2010, dormant



Regular meetings
Input to conferences etc
Research


Audits of bilateral programs
Demonstration of impacts



appropriate research, monitoring and evaluation of illicit drug
impacts in development programming/projects should be
promoted and results made widely known (ANU 2005)
More case studies, better data, better analysis
…
Suggested lines of action
 Steering committee (IDPC, WB, Hopkins, Nossal,
GIZ, TNI, IDS etc) – organic, multilateral think tank
 Research – need for ongoing targeted evidence
 Research options - Collaborative grants, audits of
bilateral programs, field studies, involvement of
NGOs working on development to document
impact of programs on illicit drugs and visa versa,
impact of incarceration on SED
Suggested lines of action




Network and partnership building (process had begun)
Convening multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms between
development agencies, UN, drug control and donors
(regional level and focus on policy and practice reform)
Development of guidelines for donors and strategies for
multi-stakeholder partnership formation and indeed for
sustaining those partnerships
Guidelines for big industry (infrastructure project etc)
Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at
Regional Levels
The aim of such engagement and advocacy will be
push a reform agenda that recognizes that only
through collaboration and increased
understanding will illicit drugs policy and
development strategies respond to an evidencebase, recognize the inherent and intertwined
relationship, promote better progress on socio
economic development and lessen the negative
impacts of illicit drugs on health and
development.
What do we already have?





Willing institutes
Some partnerships
Academic interest and large network growth
potential
This meeting here at the IDS to further build ideas,
strategies and real time implementation
And a chance to answer some of the questions
posed in the agenda

[email protected]

[email protected]