1. A work in progress? Understanding the development and current features of the CSC model in Belgium
Lisbon Addictions 2017, October, Lisbon
Mafalda Pardal
Institute for Social Drug Research, Ghent University

2. a ‘MIDDLE GROUND’ MODEL FOR THE SUPPLY OF CANNABIS?
Registered associations of users
Non-profit
Closed supply: cultivation and distribution of cannabis among members
For personal consumption (recreational or medical)
Advocacy for cannabis legalization and/or regulation of the model
From: Caulkins et al. (2015). Options and issues regarding marijuana legalization. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

3. MULTIPLE CONTEXTS AND PRACTICES
Increasing presence of the model
Spain, Belgium and Uruguay as key settings
Reports of CSCs elsewhere too (other European and South American countries, and elsewhere?...)
Limited body of knowledge on CSCs
(Marín 2008; Decorte 2015; Belackova et al. 2016; Queirolo et al. 2016)
Available reports note differences in practices within and across settings
(Decorte et al., 2017)

4. Our approach Ongoing research project (2015-2018, FWO) Aims: Methods:
Map the presence of the CSC model in Belgium (since its inception)
Examine Belgian CSCs’ supply practices
Methods:
44 semi-structured interviews (21 CSC directors; 23 CSC growers)
Review of internal documents of BE CSCs
Field observations

5. The belgian csc landscape

6. 2006-2012: THE INTRODUCTION OF THE MODEL in Belgium
The first Belgian CSC was established in 2006
Changes to CSC landscape
2005 Ministerial Guidelines as precipitating factor
“And suddenly, because of these Ministerial Guidelines, in 2006 we saw a possibility” (CSC3F-D21).
Policy developments
Social activities and protests
First collective cultivation
Two court cases with positive outcome
Key characteristics

7. 2013-2014: first wave of Belgian cscS
Six CSCs established in 2013
But five have soon after ceased activities
Changes to CSC landscape
2012 changes to Dutch coffee shop policy
Policy developments
First CSCs in Wallonia
First ‘medical’ CSC
Creation of CSC sub-units
Most new CSCs have faced legal problems
Key characteristics

8. 2015-present: second wave of Belgian cscS
Four new CSCs established in 2015 and one other in 2016
Changes to CSC landscape
2015 legislation on Sativex
Policy developments
New attempt of creating ‘medical’ CSC
Two CSCs are not supplying cannabis
Key characteristics

9. CSCS’ SUPPLY FUNCTION

10. ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES
CSCs register as non-profits in national registry of associations
Distinction from other (commercial) suppliers
Attenuating factor in legal proceedings
Increasing public/political acceptance of the model
But some exceptions
“You cannot be a Social Club if you are not registered. Then you are just like an ordinary drug grower” (CSC5-D13)

11. Annual membership fee: 25-40EUR
Access to CANNABIS
Membership criteria: 18 or 21 years old; BE nationals/residents; cannabis users
* ‘Medical’ CSCs
Intake interview
Formal registration
BECOMING A MEMBER
Annual membership fee: 25-40EUR
House rules: no distribution of cannabis to non-members; no nuisance in or around CSC; no misuse of CSC’s name
REMAINING A MEMBER
Smallest CSC counts with 10 members, largest estimates having about 400

12. SMALL-SCALE & DECENTRALIZED CSC ‘PLANT-CARETAKERS’
Cannabis cultivation
ONE PLANT PER MEMBER
Indoors
2-49 plants per site
Organic cultivation (for a “clean product”)
No systematic quality control practices
SMALL-SCALE & DECENTRALIZED
“Reimbursement”
(4-4.50EUR per gram)
Protocol for cultivation
CSC ‘PLANT-CARETAKERS’
Photos of CSC grow sites, courtesy of anonymous CSC growers

13. Cannabis distribution
INDIVIDUAL DISTRIBUTION
VS.
‘EXCHANGE FAIRS’
6.5-9EUR PER GRAM
GENERIC INFORMATION ABOUT CANNABIS
WEEKLY/BI-WEEKLY TO TRIANNUAL SUPPLY
MAX GR (PER MONTH)
NO ONSITE CONSUMPTION (*)

14. an ever-changing landscape?
Over a decade of uninterrupted CSC presence in the country
3 phases of renewed activity
Relatively small number of active CSCs (Decorte et al., 2017)
Adaptability but also vulnerability to external (control) pressure
How would today’s snaptshot look like?

15. alignment with key features of the model...
Non-profit (no boom of ‘Commercial Cannabis Clubs’ à la Barcelona – Barriuso, 2012; Páres & Bouso, 2015)
Closed supply
Small-scale cultivation by in-house growers
Distribution for personal consumption
(≈ Decorte, 2015)

16. ...but co-existence of several variants of A csc model?
FORMALIZATION
Registered non-profits vs. unregistered CSCs
STRUCTURE
One unit vs. several sub-units/regional chapters
SIZE
Small CSCs vs. medium-sized CSCs
ACCESS
Medical users only vs. mixed CSCs
FUNCTION
Supplying CSCs vs. non-supplying CSCs
DISTRIBUTION
‘Exchange fairs’ vs. individual distribution
(…)
Moving underground?
Laying the ground for CSC expansion?
How are medical users’ needs best accommodated?
(Re-)focus on activism?
Less social contact? Implications for harm reduction
(Belackova et al. 2016)
& Blind zones: what about the cannabis? And the members?

17. For more information, please contact us at:
THANK YOU!
For more information, please contact us at: