Data on the world drug situation: Gaps and opportunities Sandeep Chawla Director Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, UNODC

Outline Why collect and analyse data on the drug situation? Existing data and indicators of the world drug situation Production Seizures Prices Use Data availability present gaps opportunities moving forwards

Drug production

Opium and cocaine production: Methods developed, reasonable certainty

Global cannabis production: estimation remains a challenge Wide range of potential cultivation areas Wide variety of cultivation practices Many different cultivation scales and intensities Different processing and products Outdoor areas potentially suitable for cannabis cultivation Cannabis surveys in Morocco 2003-2005 cover main European supply area but … Wide range of potential cultivation areas (worldwide, see map) Wide variety of cultivation practice (outdoor/indoor, traditional/hydroponic, …) Many different cultivation scales and intensities (from commercial-industrial to home-grown for self-consumption) Different processing and products (resin, herb, oil)

Global ATS production, 1998-2007: Great uncertainty, and need for critique and improvement

Drug seizures

Drug seizure data – average improvements in recording HOWEVER Africa and Oceania still lack capacity, and data quality remains an issue The graph was calculated as the average number of countries and territories reporting seizures over the 1998-2007 period and over the 1988-1997 period, expressed  as a percentage of all countries and territories (as reported by Preethi). Based on these data, the global coverage improved from 71% on average over the 1988-97 period to 77% on average over the 1998-2007 period. Improvements can be identified  for the Americas, Asia and for Europe; in contrast, coverage deteriorated for Africa and for the Oceania region. The high coverage of 77% is only due to active data collection efforts by UNODC. If no data is  reported in the ARQ, gaps are filled with seizure data reported by Interpol, Europol, various online government reports, OAS/CICAD (for the Americas), DAINAP (the predecessor programme of SMART),  INCB and data from INCSR of the US State Department. The Individual Drug Seizure data are provided to UNODC by States, in accordance with the provisions of article 18.1 (c) of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and article 16.3 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. The international drug control treaties require States parties to furnish - in addition to information contained in the annual reports on the working of the treaties - reports of cases of illicit drug traffic which are important because of the light thrown on the sources from which drugs are obtained, the quantities involved, the methods employed by illicit traffickers or, in the case of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, because of new trends. Data sets are exchanged with Interpol-ICPO and WCO on a quarterly basis; Analysis of IDS data is translated into inputs to the World Drug Report, CND and HONLEA official reports, various briefings, papers, reports and requests for information on drug trafficking trends. Since July 2003, the Anti Trafficking Section has been approaching Member States with a view to increasing the returns of IDS reports. As a result, at present some 55 Member States furnished these reports. This compares with 25, which furnished IDS reports for 2002 and includes a number of key countries such as Colombia, Spain, Germany and Italy, as well as several countries in Eastern Europe and Africa. 90 countries contributed Individual Seizure Reports between the years 2004 and 2007 to the UNODC. It is envisaged that if the campaign continues, more countries would send reports as it should not be too difficult for bureaucracies to provide UNODC with listings of seizures on a monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly basis.

Drug prices

UNODC prices data collection: opium and coca products Monthly farm-gate prices coca leaf and derivatives (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru) opium (Afghanistan, Myanmar) Monthly trader prices in production areas Export value estimation opium (Afghanistan) Consumer prices and purities collected through ARQ

Price data collection challenges Very limited and outdated data: Wholesale level (country to country) Street level prices (except in some high income countries) Purity Poorly monitored and reported Value added along trafficking routes Poorly understood ARQ price data reported in 2009 refer to 2007 or previous years Up to date information on prices only available for Afghanistan, Myanmar, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia (UNODC supported surveys) Price data collection methods differ strongly from country to country, often not based on scientific methods. Time series comparisons are thus difficult and potentially misleading. Prices are often only known per special units, which are not easily converted into prices per gram or kilogram Purity data available only for a limited number of countries. Information from forensic laboratories is not systematically collected in most member states. General problems: changes in purities depending on the level of sale; without this knowledge reliable calculations of the value added are rendered difficult. Some member states provide purity data on quarterly basis (either mean or median), which assists in understanding changes in the drug markets (short-time changes at the retail level are reflected rather in purity changes than in price changes) Some member states run test purchases of drugs, which are subsequently analyzed thus providing information on prices per pure gram of substance

Drug use

Data incredibly limited: drug use prevalence estimates

Drug use data Very few objective data on drug use Even fewer direct measures of trends in drug use Expert perceptions of trends most common source, but unknown validity Improve reporting against the 2000 Lisbon consensus? Drug use: general population, young people “High risk” drug use: injecting, risk behaviours Drug problems Lisbon consensus: considered multiple indicators of drug use and problems related to drug use. No one idnicator is sufficient – should we being systematically reviewing and monitoring more indicators? The Consensus stated that the following should be considered core indicators: Drug consumption among the general population - prevalence and incidence Drug consumption among the youth population - prevalence and incidence High-risk drug use - estimates of number of drug injectors; proportion of high risk drug users engaging in high risk behaviours; estimates of the number of daily users Service utilisation for drug problems- number of individuals seeking help for a drug problem Drug related morbidity - HIV, HBV and HCV prevalence among illicit drug consumers Drug related mortality - deaths directly attributable to drug consumption Indicators were considered for inclusion on the basis that: a) the information was strategically important, b) scientific understanding of how data should be collected on the topic was sufficient to allow the development of a standardised indicator, c) information was currently available from a significant number of countries, and/or the potential existed to increase the number of countries reporting on these strategically important areas.

Moving forward: Increasing data collection and consolidation

Data collection Build data collection capacity Develop drug information systems in regions of need Support studies of drug use prevalence Encourage collaborative links between countries within regions Use a strategic focus to direct activities Build the SMART programme Development of a new programme to improve drug use data collection Maximise integration with other data collection Other health surveys and studies Other regional drug information systems Regional drug information systems including – EMCDDA, OAS and so on

Methodological issues The ARQ and BRQ Are they still fit for purpose? Can we improve reporting processes and outcomes? Data are often unclear or inconsistent How should UNODC deal with such data? Are additional review processes warranted? How can regional and global estimates best be made? Methods of data imputation Logic behind extrapolation of estimates to other countries Data that are unclear or inconsistent interception rates – how to estimate them, especially for drugs such as ATS things which are not possible – for example, falling lifetime prevalence in a two year period. inconsistent data such as evidence of icnreasing problems but official or survey estimates suggesting that no use is occurring

Addressing uncertainty Explicitly acknowledge and estimate uncertainty Increased transparency, critique and consultation Shared approach to data collection and interpretation Better coordination and collaboration With member states With drug monitoring organisations With other external partners and experts Transparency – work already begun – this year’s world drug report will include details of the original data soruce and of any adjustments to the original estimate made by UNODC staff in deriving a prevalence estimate

Revising global data collection: March 2009 mandate CND meeting in Vienna Debates about current data Debates about future processes Political declaration re-stated the importance of data to inform evidence-based drug policy Resolution passed that tasked UNODC with: revising the Annual Reports Questionnaire Improving and streamlining integrated data collection at the global level

Revising global data collection: the coming year Review process being undertaken by UNODC: UNODC Expert meeting in July 2009: Vienna, Austria Recommendations made for revisions to both process and tools – for consideration in November Intergovernmental Expert Group meeting in November 2009: Vienna, Austria Revised ARQ process and questionnaire developed for consideration by CND UNODC reporting back to CND in March 2010: consideration and ratification