Dependent on Development: The interrelationships between illicit drugs and socioeconomic development

1. 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

6. 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;

7. 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.

8. 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).

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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 …

14. What we found…

15. Review Findings

16. 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

17. Impact of enhanced SED on illicit drug use • SED and resultant modernizationhas 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Impact of drug policies on SED - what does the evidence say?

21. Supply side policies • 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 • 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

22. 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

23. 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 • Costsassociated with incarceration

24. 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

25. The forgotten victim: Human Rights

26. 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

27. Summary & Conclusions

28. 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 evaluationsin the areas of SED, illicit drugs, and drug policies

29. 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

30. Regional Case Studies:Southeast Asia and South Asia

31. 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 …

32. 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

33. 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?’

34. 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 • ... 

35. 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 under-development, rather than underdevelopment causing vulnerabilities to drugs •  ...

36. 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 • More effective and cost-effective development • Development agencies become champions for drug law reform

37. Grazie mille

38. Suggested lines of action

39. 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 • …

40. 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

41. 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)

42. 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 evidence-base, 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.

43. 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

44. Nick.crofts@unimelb.edu.au • nthomson@jhsph.edu