For the Record:
MEM Achievements Report 1997-2007

The Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism Achievements: 1997-2007 – the first report of its kind - was released at the 37th General Assembly session of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Panama City in early June.  The Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) is a peer review process which carries out multilateral evaluations of the efforts of CICAD member states and the hemisphere as a whole in combating illegal drugs, and identifies the steps each country can take to strengthen those efforts.  The evaluation process is structured in rounds.  Currently the MEM is in the first stage of its Fourth Evaluation Round, 2005-2006. 

As part of an overall review of MEM standards and procedures that took place last year, the Commission decided that it would be timely to prepare a report on the accomplishments of MEM’s first decade. This report allows a reader to understand the MEM’s 10-year development, see its impact on national and regional levels, the improvements it has stimulated in member states’ anti-drug programs, assess the value of policy and program feedback and also take note of the support activities, like training, public awareness initiatives, and technical assistance, that sustain the MEM and its participants.

          The MEM Achievements Report traces the Mechanism’s historical roots back to two important hemispheric events:

• The Anti-Drug Strategy in the Hemisphere of 1996 that was based on a broad consensus regarding concepts such as shared responsibility.
• The 1998 Summit of the Americas in Santiago where heads of state gave a clear political mandate to create the mechanism.

As a point of clarification, the MEM is an in-depth evaluation, not a "report card." It carries no sanctions. Member states participate in the process voluntarily. The mechanism is a dynamic, ongoing process that takes into account the complexity of national realities, competing needs and priorities for governments and the importance of understanding the context of each member state. This awareness of the nuances and difficulties means that a report cannot be distilled into an one-paragraph executive summary that the news media can turn into a headline, but it does provide relevant, actionable proposals to governments. With regard to compliance, the MEM taps into a reservoir of mutual goodwill, trust and dialogue that has been accumulated by the process itself, and the ownership the governments themselves have taken in the mechanism.  

Back to the basics: How does it work?

The MEM process has several key stakeholders

• Each member state designates a National Coordinating Entity (NCE) as the contact point responsible for compiling the necessary information from all relevant government agencies in order to respond to the MEM questionnaire.  
• The Government Expert Group (GEG), comprised of technical specialists and alternates representing all 34 member states, meets regularly to prepare country and hemispheric evaluations.
• The members of the Inter-Governmental Working Group (IWG), composed of all member states, reviews the entire MEM process, its procedures, indicators and technical guidelines to ensure the most efficient operations before each evaluation round.
• The CICAD Commissioners approve the final reports which are presented to the OAS General Assembly. They also provide overall guidance and instructions to the GEG and IWG.
• CICAD’s Executive Secretariat and its MEM Section provide operational support and administrative continuity for the process. A full-time, experienced staff has proven essential for sustaining the effort over time.

In the current round, the MEM process stretches over a three-year period, punctuated by drafting meetings usually lasting up to 10 days of intense working groups and plenary sessions. For the first three evaluation rounds, the MEM worked on a two-year production cycle. The longer time frame allows for more thoroughly considered recommendations and analysis. The main stages in the process are:

 
• At the start of an evaluation round, each NCE fills out an initial questionnaire of indicators based on input from national ministries and agencies. The NCE also drafts an introductory document that provides a context for the evaluation.
• During GEG drafting sessions, the experts review the questionnaire and make recommendations for addressing shortcomings in national programs.  GEG experts participate in the drafting of all national reports except that of his or her own country.
• Each country evaluation is approved by the Commission.
• In a second stage of each country’s evaluation, the GEG prepares a follow-up report, taking into account how each government has responded to MEM recommendations, both from the latest and earlier MEM country report.
• Each country follow-up report is approved by the Commission.
• The Commission also approves a hemispheric report for each evaluation period. Currently, the hemispheric report is published after the full national reports and prior to the follow-up report.

Pointing in the right direction

Since 1999, the MEM has issued three sets of country, follow-up and hemispheric reports: 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004. These contained 1,292 recommendations: 444 in the First Round, 342 in the Second Round and 506 in the Third Round. These recommendations reflect a focus on national anti-drug strategies, ratification of international conventions, national information systems, prevention, treatment, drug use statistics, drug production and alternative development programs, the control of pharmaceutical products and chemical substances, illicit trafficking of drugs, firearms and money laundering.

The MEM Achievements Report points out specific areas where progress has been attained, such as in the approval of national anti-drug plans, legislation and regulations, the creation of national authorities and drug observatories, and the ratification of international treaties and protocols, which has led to a greater harmonization of legal frameworks in the hemisphere to address the drug problem. In terms of prevention, countries have progressed in developing minimum treatment standards and anti-drug programs that target different sectors of society. Regarding control measures, examples of these can be found in the prevention and control of money laundering and the development of legal and institutional frameworks in keeping with current international standards.

The recommendations assigned through the MEM to each member state in all relevant areas of the drug problem have become important sources of guidance for member states and have helped raise awareness for the need to improve existing anti-drug policies.  Member states recognize the importance of the recommendations made to them.  Over the three rounds, an average of 80% of recommendations has been either implemented or significant progress has been made toward their implementation.

It may strike some observers as paradoxical that the First Round has over 100 recommendations that have not been started while the more recent Second and Third Rounds have less (48 and 96 respectively), despite having less time to act upon them. One of the reasons for this apparent discrepancy is actually a sign of maturity of the evaluation process: over the years the experts have focused more on making concrete, attainable, practical recommendations, rather than broader, more sweeping suggestions that a government may have difficulty implementing in the short term. 

The mechanism’s multilateral nature has not only ensured the transparency of the evaluations but has also increased the benefits to be gained from the experiences of different countries. Before the Fourth Round, the MEM also went through its own self-assessment, which resulted in streamlining the process, reducing the number and focus of indicators, and standardizing style and terminology.

During each evaluation round, CICAD receives requests from each government for assistance projects to address priority MEM recommendations. CICAD also takes MEM recommendations into consideration when preparing its own program activities in supply and demand reduction, alternative development, educational research and development, institution building and epidemiological research.

International appreciation

This Report underscores why the MEM has become a model of multilateral cooperation within OAS and the hemisphere, and has drawn interest from beyond the region. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has taken MEM evaluations into account for information for its 10-year review of the implementation of the declarations and measures adopted by the General Assembly at its 20th Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 1998).

The UNODC will be using information from the MEM Achievements report 1997-2007, the MEM national fourth round evaluation reports to be published at the end of 2007, and the MEM Hemispheric Report to be published in June 2008. The MEM will be a complementary source of information, especially in the thematic areas of illicit crop cultivation, amphetamine-type stimulants and their precursors, money laundering, and demand reduction. Significantly, this is the first time data from MEM evaluation reports is being considered to support or contextualize UN data and analyses and is seen as an important step in the evolution of the Mechanism in the international fora.

Over the past 10 years, the MEM has served to increase mutual confidence, dialogue, and hemispheric cooperation to address the drug problem and its different manifestations. The evaluation of countries’ efforts made in addressing the drug problem has been carried out within the framework of transparency, impartiality and equality, with a view to ensuring an objective assessment of hemispheric progress in this area. Despite its achievements, the MEM evaluation will fulfill its promise and purpose only if, based on its accurate assessments, it can generate national and regional policies and programs to strengthen positive aspects and correct deficiencies in the fight against drugs.  After three evaluation rounds, it is evident that, through constant review and discussion, the MEM is complying with this objective.