Presentation on theme: "Data on the world drug situation: Gaps and opportunities Sandeep Chawla Director Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, UNODC."— Presentation transcript:
1 Data on the world drug situation: Gaps and opportunities Sandeep Chawla Director Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs, UNODC
2 Outline Why collect and analyse data on the drug situation? Existing data and indicators of the world drug situationProductionSeizuresPricesUseData availabilitypresent gapsopportunities moving forwards
4 Opium and cocaine production: Methods developed, reasonable certainty
5 Global cannabis production: estimation remains a challenge Wide range of potential cultivation areasWide variety of cultivation practicesMany different cultivation scales and intensitiesDifferent processing and productsOutdoor areas potentiallysuitable for cannabis cultivationCannabis surveys in Morocco 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)
6 Global ATS production, 1998-2007: Great uncertainty, and need for critique and improvement
8 Drug seizure data – average improvements in recording HOWEVER Africa and Oceania still lack capacity, and data quality remains an issueThe graph was calculated as the average number of countries and territories reporting seizures over the period and over the 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 period to 77% on average over the 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 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.
10 UNODC prices data collection: opium and coca products Monthly farm-gate pricescoca leaf and derivatives (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru)opium (Afghanistan, Myanmar)Monthly trader prices in production areasExport value estimationopium (Afghanistan)Consumer prices and puritiescollected through ARQ
11 Price data collection challenges Very limited and outdated data:Wholesale level (country to country)Street level prices (except in some high income countries)PurityPoorly monitored and reportedValue added along trafficking routesPoorly understoodARQ price data reported in 2009 refer to 2007 or previous yearsUp 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 kilogramPurity 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
13 Data incredibly limited: drug use prevalence estimates
14 Drug use data Very few objective data on drug use Even fewer direct measures of trends in drug useExpert perceptions of trendsmost common source, but unknown validityImprove reporting against the 2000 Lisbon consensus?Drug use: general population, young people“High risk” drug use: injecting, risk behavioursDrug problemsLisbon 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 incidenceDrug consumption among the youth population - prevalence and incidenceHigh-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 usersService utilisation for drug problems- number of individuals seeking help for a drug problemDrug related morbidity - HIV, HBV and HCV prevalence among illicit drug consumersDrug related mortality - deaths directly attributable to drug consumptionIndicators 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.
15 Moving forward: Increasing data collection and consolidation
16 Data collection Build data collection capacity Develop drug information systems in regions of needSupport studies of drug use prevalenceEncourage collaborative links between countries within regionsUse a strategic focus to direct activitiesBuild the SMART programmeDevelopment of a new programme to improve drug use data collectionMaximise integration with other data collectionOther health surveys and studiesOther regional drug information systemsRegional drug information systems including – EMCDDA, OAS and so on
17 Methodological issues The ARQ and BRQAre they still fit for purpose?Can we improve reporting processes and outcomes?Data are often unclear or inconsistentHow should UNODC deal with such data?Are additional review processes warranted?How can regional and global estimates best be made?Methods of data imputationLogic behind extrapolation of estimates to other countriesData that are unclear or inconsistentinterception rates – how to estimate them, especially for drugs such as ATSthings 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
18 Addressing uncertainty Explicitly acknowledge and estimate uncertaintyIncreased transparency, critique and consultationShared approach to data collection and interpretationBetter coordination and collaborationWith member statesWith drug monitoring organisationsWith other external partners and expertsTransparency – 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
19 Revising global data collection: March 2009 mandate CND meeting in ViennaDebates about current dataDebates about future processesPolitical declaration re-stated the importance of data to inform evidence-based drug policyResolution passed that tasked UNODC with:revising the Annual Reports QuestionnaireImproving and streamlining integrated data collection at the global level
20 Revising global data collection: the coming year Review process being undertaken by UNODC:UNODC Expert meeting in July 2009: Vienna, AustriaRecommendations made for revisions to both process and tools – for consideration in NovemberIntergovernmental Expert Group meeting in November 2009: Vienna, AustriaRevised ARQ process and questionnaire developed for consideration by CNDUNODC reporting back to CND in March 2010: consideration and ratification
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.