From Alternative Development to Development-Oriented Drug Policies

Daniel Brombacher, Sarah David
{"title":"From Alternative Development to Development-Oriented Drug Policies","authors":"Daniel Brombacher, Sarah David","doi":"10.4000/poldev.3711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This policy comment aims to trace the evolution of the concept of alternative development (AD)—alongside changes in the global drug control regime during recent decades—from a practitioner’s point of view. Since the 1970s, drug supply reduction was primarily concentrated on law enforcement and crop substitution programmes. Following negative experiences, some governments focused on development-led approaches that consider the socio-economic and political conditions of drug crop cultivating areas. Both the 1988 United Nations drug control convention (Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), the first to mention the concept of AD, and the 1998 Political Declaration created the latitude necessary for AD to evolve into a ‘third pillar’ within the traditional drug supply control system. Another political milestone was the Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS), as it was the first to dedicate an entire chapter solely to development-oriented drug control. In recent years—unexpectedly given the niche that AD had formerly been—a growing number of countries have declared that they either implement domestic AD measures or support them abroad. The observable increase in AD interventions may be due to a growing engagement of governments, but could also be explained by a rebranding of existing measures, given the increased popularity of AD. The funding situation in light of this enhanced political momentum is, however, rather poor. Latest figures, from 2013, show that AD only accounts for 0.1 per cent of global official development assistance. Though there seems to have been a slight increase in funding recently, the authors argue that a real surge in funding is so far not in sight.","PeriodicalId":30371,"journal":{"name":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue Internationale de Politique de Developpement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/poldev.3711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This policy comment aims to trace the evolution of the concept of alternative development (AD)—alongside changes in the global drug control regime during recent decades—from a practitioner’s point of view. Since the 1970s, drug supply reduction was primarily concentrated on law enforcement and crop substitution programmes. Following negative experiences, some governments focused on development-led approaches that consider the socio-economic and political conditions of drug crop cultivating areas. Both the 1988 United Nations drug control convention (Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), the first to mention the concept of AD, and the 1998 Political Declaration created the latitude necessary for AD to evolve into a ‘third pillar’ within the traditional drug supply control system. Another political milestone was the Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS), as it was the first to dedicate an entire chapter solely to development-oriented drug control. In recent years—unexpectedly given the niche that AD had formerly been—a growing number of countries have declared that they either implement domestic AD measures or support them abroad. The observable increase in AD interventions may be due to a growing engagement of governments, but could also be explained by a rebranding of existing measures, given the increased popularity of AD. The funding situation in light of this enhanced political momentum is, however, rather poor. Latest figures, from 2013, show that AD only accounts for 0.1 per cent of global official development assistance. Though there seems to have been a slight increase in funding recently, the authors argue that a real surge in funding is so far not in sight.
从替代发展到面向发展的药物政策
这项政策评论旨在从从业者的角度追溯替代发展(AD)概念的演变,以及近几十年来全球药物管制制度的变化。自1970年代以来,减少毒品供应主要集中在执法和作物替代方案上。在经历了负面经验之后,一些政府侧重于以发展为主导的方法,考虑到毒品作物种植区的社会经济和政治条件。1988年《联合国药物管制公约》(《禁止非法贩运麻醉药品和精神药物公约》)是第一个提到AD概念的公约,1998年《政治宣言》都为AD发展成为传统药物供应管制系统内的“第三支柱”创造了必要的自由度。另一个政治里程碑是2016年联合国大会世界毒品问题特别会议(UNGASS)的《成果文件》,因为它是第一个专门用一整章论述面向发展的药物管制的文件。近年来,出乎意料的是,鉴于AD以前的地位,越来越多的国家宣布要么实施国内AD措施,要么在国外支持这些措施。AD干预措施的显著增加可能是由于政府的参与度不断提高,但也可以通过重塑现有措施来解释,因为AD越来越受欢迎。然而,鉴于这种增强的政治势头,资金状况相当糟糕。2013年的最新数据显示,AD仅占全球官方发展援助的0.1%。尽管最近资金似乎略有增加,但作者认为,到目前为止,资金还没有真正激增。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信