top of page
Search

UNGASS 2016 - The Civil Society Task Force

  • Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
  • Apr 9, 2016
  • 8 min read

The “importance of actively and meaningfully engaging civil society” during UNGASS 2016 was notably outlined by the CND Resolution 58/8 (CND, 2015b, Chap. 2.B, p. 51, Para. 15) which stated “the modalities relating to the special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem to be held in 2016.” (Ibid. p. 1) In this regard, the UNGASS 2016 Civil Society Task Force (CSTF) was formally introduced during the same CND Session and publicly supported by the President of the UNGASS Board and the UNODC ED “as the key vehicle for civil society engagement in the UNGASS process.” (IDPC, 2015) With the institutional support of the U.N. system, the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs (VNGOC) and the New York NGO Committee on Drugs (NYNGOC) - which focus respectively on Vienna and New York based UN-NGO related activities - joined forces to launch the process (1). The Task Force had among other responsibilities been tasked to organize several civil society hearings and to have “a primary role in the selection process for representatives to speak on behalf of civil society during the debate itself.” (Ibid.) Furthermore, the CSTF was charged with promoting “a diverse and comprehensive agenda” towards the 2016 Special Session, including “meaningful participation within the official agenda.” (IDPC, 2015c) As such, the CSTF represents an important step-up in comparison to previous UNGASSs and currently the most efficient and available way to gather inputs from civil society.

Heterogeneously composed (2), the CSTF does not claim as one of its objectives to present a common view from civil society on the subject of drug policy. Instead of simply displaying a joint message, their contributions are injecting “realism into the global discussion of drug policy objectives.” (Washington Post, 2015) Whilst there is “evidently a range of agendas, interests and priorities amongst the many groups represented” (Rolles, 2015a) and that researches made by civil society have shown that political consensus would be hard to reach in the U.N. forum - even for the NGO community - there exists a notable exception on its grounding point: the current international drug control regime seems to have been rendered impractical.

As a contribution to the preparations for the 2016 UNGASS, a Civil Society Hearing was coordinated on March 9, 2015 in Vienna. Held on as a Special Event of the CND, the Hearing was an initiative of the CSTF organized in collaboration with UNODC. Several important points emerged from the meetings such as the crucial need for UNGASS “not be just a repetition of the statements of the past but a space for fresh ideas and opportunity for innovation, considering new approaches in going forward.” (CND, 58th Session, Item 5 & 8, 2015)

Additionally, the CSTF had launched an UNGASS 2016 Global Civil Society Survey designed “to provide an initial assessment on the civil society work in the field of drugs, as well as to measure the awareness and level of knowledge and interest in participating actively at the UNGASS 2016 initiative at the regional and global levels.” (IDPC, 2015d) Conducted from April 21st and July 31st 2015, the results of the process intended to shed light on best practices, areas of expertise, key priorities and concerns as well as an overview of the contributions from NGOs' active in the drug field. Preliminary results of a survey responded to by 758 organizations were published by the CSTF in late 2015 (CSTF, 2015a) and which we will go through some below. These findings are similar to these presented by the CSTF in their recommendations and top priorities for the “Zero Draft” of the Outcome Document for UNGASS 2016 (CSTF, 2015).

  • New challenges

New challenges were identified by the civil society organizations, including the topic of new psychoactive substances (NPS), as-well as diverse views on the conventions and on the recent regulation and decriminalization trends observed throughout the world. As noted, the CSTF document presented a “range of views on the current Conventions along a continuum from complete preservation of the Conventions to exploring reinterpretation or revision of the Conventions.” (CSTF, 2015a) The document further noted that, “some effort is needed by the UN instruments including UNODC and the INCB, operating in conjunction with/through CND to clarify the range of interpretations of the meaning of the current Conventions with regard to the opportunities for member states to trial and test responses that are consistent with their own cultures and needs; without being seen to operate outside the Conventions.” (CSTF, 2015) This remark echoed the one made by Nazlee Maghsoudi, representative of the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which rightfully stated a common understanding of civil society, namely that “different contexts will call for different regulatory measures – a one-size-fits all approach will not be appropriate for every state or every substance.” (Rolles, 2015)

This very contribution, further allow us to get a crucial perspective from a segment of the population that is at the same considered one of the primary targets of the current drug control system, and often the least solicited on drug policy making: youth and students. As such, the contribution states that “far from protecting youth, the UN-sanctioned war on drugs in practice, even if not by intent, has done the precise opposite.” (Rolles, 2015) Such contributions is also quite refreshing, as it touches topics that are extremely relevant but will probably be absent from the UNGASS debates such as the “legal regulations of drugs” (Rolles, 2015), and which still need to be readdressed “if members states are serious about fulfilling the UN goals of child protection and enhancing ‘the health and welfare of mankind’.” The contribution continues by detailing the propositions which could include “to set legal age restrictions”, and at the same time “actually be more effective than prohibition at restricting the accessibility of illegal drugs among young people.” (Rolles, 2015)

Additionally, many side events have been organized worldwide, including the Canadian Students For Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP) 7th Annual National Conference, “A Rising Revolution: Drug Policy Reform Around the Globe”, and which gave the opportunity to civil society organizations to share their views on a number of issues which directly concern youth, such as “cannabis medicinal use”, or “nightlife harm reduction, and studies of the use of psychedelic drugs in medicine.” (IDPC, 2015f) By questioning “which scientific evidence demonstrates that a punitive approach to drug policy is the most ‘appropriate measure’ for protecting youth?” (Rolles, 2015), civil society organizations allow one of the only possibilities for concerned parties to actively participate in the upcoming debate.

  • The definition of “success” for civil society

In fine, the NGOs regrouped under the CSTF presented their expectations regarding the concrete outcomes and “successes” that UNGASS 2016 need to provide:

  • A. Harm reduction language

  • B. Use of data in decision-making

  • C. Re-evaluating indicators of policy success

  • D. The increased use of a health-based approach

  • E. Greater civil society involvement

  • F. Discussions and dialogue despite lack of consensus

For the CSTF (2015), the long term impact and the potential success of the decisions made during the Special Session could be defined by several means. As such, and if consensus does not exist and it is recognized as so by the member states (3), UNGASS should be a starting point for “future productive discussions about major points of disagreements.” Another element, such as “the inclusion of health and human rights as the cornerstone of international drug policy” would be considered as a success for many reform proponents. Finally, the crucial need to redefine “metrics for drug policy success” has been identified by the Task Force as another potential successful outcome. In summary, three levels are identified by the CSFT:

- At a minimum, a demand “that all countries end human rights abuses carried out in the name of drug control and drug law enforcement” should be made by the member states;

- A “strong promotion of harm reduction approaches, including strong support of evidence based treatment such as medication assisted treatment for opioid users” could represent a mid-satisfaction level for civil society;

- And in the best case scenario, member states would allow experimentations with decriminalization and regulation, as well as the end of the current illegal drug scheduling system.

As we can see, recommendations from civil society are often much more direct, and less politically charged than the contributions made by U.N. agencies or by member states. For these reasons, their involvement in the current process, is extremely relevant and necessary to the debate. However, many indications seem to point out the shortcomings, the lack of funding dedicated to such goals and the disinterest of member states for these valuable contributions.

Obviously positions and official declarations will vary with each actor during the upcoming debate as-well as during the current preparations. Although officially motivated by the idea of protecting the health and well-being of mankind, we have seen that the different actors do not share the same appreciation of these issues nor the same tactics in order to reach those very goals. In this regard, intending to predict where the debate will go and what will be the consequences for the world, is a difficult exercise that we nonetheless intend to execute in the next set of articles.

(1) “The VNGOC and the NYNGOC have overseen the composition of the CSTF, aiming for an overall balance in terms of both geography and approaches to drug policies and interventions.” (IDPC, 2015d)

(2) The Civil Society Task Force is also task to collect input from a broad spectrum of civil society, including growers and farmer groups, indigenous people, those who have experience of using drugs, affected families and community groups, as well as whose involved in delivery of prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, social reinsertion services and the access to essential medicines, from all around the globe. They also bring ideas and innovation, based on their hands on experience and information from the ground.

(3) “Success would mean that UNGASS has made it plain that no global drug policy consensus exists, and that the system will be in flux for the foreseeable future. Success would mean that next phase of the debate can occur in a more honest and realistic context, acknowledging the tensions that already exist, and understanding that governments should seek to manage drug problems, rather than continue to believe that drugs can be eliminated from society. Success at UNGASS would mean leaving behind objectives that are impossible to achieve, and shifting away from a fixation on strategies of prohibition, supply control, and punishment, and embracing human rights, harm reduction, public health and safety.” (CSTF, 2015).

Comments

 

UPEACE

  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • Twitter - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle
  • SoundCloud - Black Circle
bottom of page