| |
Contributions from
the Column
Monitor
No universal blueprint
Growing support for
taxing airline tickets
Avian flu lessons from Europe
“Alternative development”
often stops short
Wolrd Bank proposes active
poverty reduction
Zimbabwean success in
fighting HIV/AIDS
Nature conservation fund for
the South Caucasus
German development budget
expected to rise in 2006
DAC publishes
Annual Report 2005
Wold Food Programme buys
drought insurance for Ethiopia
04/2006
|
|
[ Fighting drugs ]
“Alternative development” often stops short
In its latest annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) criticises past attempts at drug cultivation
control in developing countries. It states that the “alternative development” model is a step in the right direction, but
it often does not go far enough in practice. In the INCB’s opinion, long-term success in fighting drugs such as opium and
coca is hampered by the “impatience” of the governments of drug cultivating countries as well as donors. The INCB
monitors the various international treaties on drug control.
“Alternative development” is aimed at encouraging farmers who plant drug crops to cultivate legal cash crops instead.
The approach is based on the understanding that repression alone does not succeed. The report says that, in some countries,
the model has, to some extent, helped to reduce drug cultivation. In Thailand, for example, the area under poppy cultivation
is now only a few hundred hectares whereas, in the 1960s, according to INCB figures, it was more than 17,000 hectares
(see D+C/E+Z 7/2005, p. 294). The areas used for drug cultivation have shrunk by three quarters in Laos since 1998
and by approximately one half in Colombia since 2000. On the other hand, a study from the USA concluded last year that
there has been almost no change in the supply of Colombian cocaine in the last five years (see D+C/E+Z 6/2005, p. 227).
In practice, governments, international organisations and aid organisations too often limit alternative development
projects to crop substitution. The INCB suggests that true alternative development would mean improving access for
the farmers affected to roads, transport and infrastructure in general as well as to education and health services. In
other words, the idea is to ensure integrated rural development. All too often, farmers return to drug cultivation, for
example, once they discover that there is no market for their new products.
The INCB sees a further flaw in the practice of alternative development in that it is normally limited to individual
projects at the local level. However, drug control can only be effective if the whole context – from local production
through to international trade – is taken into account. For the INCB, this means that there must be more effort than
in past to reduce drug use, too. Donor countries should not only consider drug use among their own people, but also
the rapidly increasing drug consumption in many developing countries.
Furthermore, says the INCB, alternative development projects should relate more systematically to questions of
international trade than in the past. Market opportunities must also be reviewed for selecting alternative crops.
The INCB appeals to rich nations to grant preferential market access to such products. However preferential treatment
of this kind contravenes multilateral WTO rules. For years the European Union granted customs tariff preferences to
countries which take steps against drug cultivation, but it had to remove them in late 2005. They had been overruled
by a WTO panel as a breach of international trade law (see D+C/ E+Z 2/2005, p. 82).
The INCB sees impatience on the part of the governments of the cultivation countries as well as of donors as a reason for the
short-sightedness of many alternative development projects. In the fight against drugs, governments want results fast.
Therefore, they turn to short-term measures such as plant substitution, without taking into consideration the factors
which are relevant in the long term.
(ell)
Internet:
http://www.incb.org
|
