From Alternative Development to Development-Oriented Drug Policies
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...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Institut de Hautes Études Internationales et du Développement
2020-09-01
|
Series: | Revue Internationale de Politique de Développement |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/poldev/3711 |
Summary: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1663-9375 1663-9391 |