The Correlation Network (Correlation–European Harm Reduction Network (C-EHRN)) published a report in 2023 entitled Critical partners: level and quality of civil society involvement in the field of drug policy.1 It explores the experiences of decision-makers and civil society from working together in the field of drug policy. Case studies were carried out in four countries – Finland, Greece, Hungary, and Ireland. This article focuses on the findings as they relate to the Irish context. Overall, they suggest a situation in which the mechanisms and structures are in place for meaningful partnership, but it does not always follow through to implementation.

Context

C-EHRN advocates for more civil society involvement in drug policy and decision-making. This is grounded in a core belief:

[Doing so is] a sound investment and a core element of good governance. It allows governments at national, regional and local level to tap wider sources of information, perspectives and potential solutions, and improves the quality of the decisions reached. It also contributes to strengthening the capacity of civil society itself.2

This position is widely recognised by international organisations, agreements, and national governments, such as the Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe and the EU Drugs Strategy 2021–2025.3

Methodology

Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were held in each of the four participating countries. One had civil society representatives (CS FGD) who had expert knowledge of the involvement of civil society in drug policy decision-making, while the other had decision-makers working in the field of drug policy (DM FGD). The groups were structured around the nine criteria of the Quality standards of civil society involvement in drug policies, which is an output of the Civil Society Forum on Drugs (see Figure 1).4,5 In Ireland, representatives of the Ana Liffey Drug Project have been involved in both the current report and the quality standards.

Findings

The report outlines the findings for each participating country, first describing their structures and mechanisms for engaging civil society in drug policymaking, followed by the views and experiences discussed in the focus groups under the nine overarching quality criteria (see Figure 1). The findings as they relate to Ireland are outlined as follows.

Structures and mechanisms

The National Oversight Committee (NOC) is described as the ‘head platform’ (p. 24)1 for civil society and Government to work together on Irish drug policy, as well as the six Strategic Implementation Groups, other national drugs strategy subcommittees, and the Citizens’ Assembly on Drugs Use.

Figure 1: The planning–implementation–evaluation cycle of civil society involvement

Transparency and accountability

Participants in the DM FGD mentioned that the system through which civil society becomes involved at the national level is not particularly transparent. There was a perception that these organisations were ‘pre-selected’ (p. 28),1 as there were organisations that had been members of the various groups over a number of Government lifetimes. When decision-makers tried to revise membership to allow for a broader representation of insights, this was met with resistance. The overall message from the CS FGD was that the involvement of civil society has been weakening since 2011.

Balance and inclusivity

There was a call from the DM FGD to broaden the involvement of civil society participation from just the organisations that have been involved historically to ensure the range of perspectives were included (i.e. all concerned citizens including those with lived experience, and not only organisations). This was seen to be less of an issue at the local rather than the national level. However, it was noted by the CS FGD that the role of civil society is often seen to be in the delivery of interventions rather than decisions about policy.

Timeliness

Timeliness was not seen to be problematic in either FGD.

Approachability

The focus groups differed in the extent to which they considered the others approachable. Civil society organisations were perceived by the decision-makers to be approachable and to engage in a professional way. However, civil society had a less favourable view of the approachability of the decision-makers. They were seen to be inconsistent in terms of responding to civil society requests.

Competency

The DM FGD suggested that civil society was not always competent in its ability within the policymaking process. In turn, in the CS FGD, there was general agreement that the competence of civil society may not be valued and that where they provide their analysis of the drug situation, it was sometimes labelled as servicing a political agenda (p. 38).1 

Openness and trust

The findings on the theme of openness and trust would suggest that there is not a common understanding on the role of civil society in policy decision-making and that trust can be lacking. There appeared to be differing views between the groups on this, however. Among civil society it was understood that the decision-makers trusted them to deliver services, but that their role in policymaking was diminishing.

Autonomy

The autonomy of civil society was ‘one of the most heatedly discussed issues in both FGDs’ (p. 43).1 A decision-maker argued that civil society organisations sometimes go beyond their remit and enter the political realm. Examples of reasons given by decision-makers for why problems arise in this area included a lack of clarity about the role of civil society and its boundaries in policy decision-making and language used. In the CS FGD, there was a view that where civil society was critical of Government policies, they risked losing their funding. This resulted in them being hesitant to air their views publicly. It was argued in the CS FGD that when they air their views or their overall analysis of the situation, they are accused of being political.

Sustainability

The issues that arose on the question of sustainability related to insufficient funding for civil society and a lack of equality in how funding is distributed within civil society. It was noted that some organisations are better funded than others.

Relevance

The DM FGD recognised the importance of the civil society voice in decision-making but the overall findings would suggest a lack of meaningful involvement within the current system. For example, decisions are made by State players and civil society has no real chance to change those decisions.

Conclusion

The findings of this study highlight problems with the current situation in Ireland in terms of the involvement of civil society in drug policy. While formal and operational structures for civil society involvement are in place through the national drugs strategy (unlike in any of the other countries participating in the study), this does not necessarily follow through to implementation. As in other countries, overall, the DM FGD had more positive views about the quality of civil society involvement in policy decision-making than the CS FGD. There is a gap between the two groups in their understanding of the role and meaning of civil society in general and how it can best be involved in the development and implementation of drug policy. There appears to be conflict over airing views and providing analysis of the situation and it becoming ‘political’. This leads to a situation where there can be mutual distrust and suspicion, which impacts negatively on partnership working.

What is described as ‘a concerning trend’ (p. 7)1 by the authors across all four countries is ‘the shrinking space for civil society: many representatives perceive an increasing hostility from governments towards civil society, exacerbated by decreasing funding and advocacy opportunities’ (p. 7).1 This was certainly seen to be the case from the perspective of the Irish CS FGD. 

1    Sarosi P (2023) Critical partners: level and quality of civil society involvement in the field of drug policy. Case study research in Finland, Ireland, Greece and Hungary. Amsterdam: Correlation –European Harm Reduction Network. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/40481/

2    Correlation Network (nd) Advocacy/civil society involvement. Available from: https://www.correlation-net.org/advocacy.csi/

3    Council of the European Union (2020) EU Drugs Strategy 2021–2025. Brussels: Council of the European Union. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/33750/

4    Sarosi P, Fulga V, de Boer Y and Keane M (2021) Quality standards of civil society involvement in drug policies. Report of the Civil Society Forum on Drugs. Amsterdam: Civil Society Forum on Drugs in the EU. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/34368/

5    Dillon L (2022) Quality standards and civil society. Drugnet Ireland, 80 (Winter): 29–30. Available from: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/35835/