The current structures for dealing with drug policy at the United Nations are somewhat the product of historical accident. With the agreement of successive Conventions on drug control, it was necessary to create institutions that co-ordinated the implementation of these agreements and that policed member states' compliance with them. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have grown out of this process and have tended to interpret their mandates restrictively. The INCB has largely acted as a guardian of the spirit and implementation of the Conventions. It is increasingly overstepping its mandate, is quick to criticise member states that deviate from what it perceives to be their legal requirements or who are seen to be weakening the international consensus, and does so without any consideration of UN policy developments in related areas. The UNODC has primarily acted in policy terms as a champion of enforcement-led approaches and as the defender of existing structures and programmes.

At national level, it is recognised that effective drug policies need to be co-ordinated across different disciplines - health, law enforcement, social and economic development, and foreign affairs. In the UN system, this co-ordination is lacking. UN agencies with a significant interest in drug policy issues either steer clear of the subject, or defer to the priorities or positions of the relatively small specialist agency which, by its nature, has a crime and law enforcement focus. This state of affairs is becoming less defensible as the links between drug markets and development, public health and human rights are becoming clearer. In view of the UNODC policy shift to focus more on the links between drugs, crime and terrorism, a renewed placement of the drugs issue within the UN system as a whole is now necessary.

• The World Health Organisation and UNAIDS should obtain a more prominent mandate, comparable to those of the INCB and the UNODC, in identifying and responding to the threats to public health that are linked to drug use and addiction.
• The UNDP, UNAIDS, FAO, World Bank, and UNHCR, should be more involved in ensuring that action against drug cultivation, distribution and use is consistent with the human rights and development standards and priorities as laid down in the UN Charter and Millennium Goals with regard to poverty reduction and HIV prevention.

There is a potentially strong and positive role for UNODC and the INCB in a more co-ordinated UN system. The INCB could use its broad mandate in not only criticising member states for any perceived deviation from the enforcement aspects of the drug-control conventions, but helping governments to understand the range of policies and practices that would be appropriate to their implementation of the directives coming from the UN system as a whole. To perform this broader function it may be necessary to revise the selection criteria for INCB membership, presently dominated by pharmacological expertise rather than experience of the wider policy context in which drug use takes place.

The UNODC should become more like a co-ordinating body that, apart from its normative functions, facilitates the coherence of a UN system-wide approach to drug policy, acts as a centre of excellence that collates and disseminates best practices in supply reduction, demand reduction and reducing the harmful consequences, and provides (through the CND) a forum in which member states can debate drug policy challenges in an open and objective manner. All of these developments, and particularly the last one, will depend on a commitment from member states to confront the very real challenges currently faced in international drug policy, with a willingness to debate and develop effective solutions, rather than remain stuck in outdated and polarised positions.

The members of the International Drug Policy Consortium are aware that the search for effective approaches in this difficult area of social policy is fraught with difficulty. We have synthesised in this brief paper some highly complex issues, and have made some far-reaching recommendations. We consider, however, that these positions are supported by an objective review of current evidence and experience across the world. We know, however, that there is no simple solution to the problems associated with the widespread use of illegal drugs, and indeed what works in one setting may be wholly inappropriate in another. We will therefore continue to constantly review the available evidence and, where it indicates a modification to our positions, we will adjust them accordingly.

There are also huge political and diplomatic barriers to some of the courses of action we propose. While recognising the complexities of international relations in this field, we think it important that we make a clear statement of what we consider to be guiding principles for sensible drug policies, before engaging in the much longer debate of how such policies can realistically be pursued and implemented.