The Robert Carr Fund (RCF) is excited to share a major advocacy success from one of our grantees, the Harm Reduction Consortium – led by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC).

In this interview, Jamie Bridge, Deputy Director of IDPC, explains how the coordinated efforts of numerous civil society partners led to the historic inclusion of harm reduction in a United Nations resolution. This achievement, made possible through years of dedicated advocacy and long-term support from RCF, shows the vital role civil society plays in shaping global drug policies. By sharing this story, we want to show how sustained funding can fuel community-led advocacy, driving real change in global health and human rights.

Which problem did the Harm Reduction Consortium and partners want to address?

Jamie Bridge: The main issue we aimed to address was the lack of recognition for harm reduction in the United Nations (UN) drug policy discussions in Vienna, where the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) convenes. Despite harm reduction being acknowledged in other UN spaces, such as the General Assembly in New York and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, it was noticeably absent in Vienna. This discrepancy created a significant barrier. Countries would often justify their inaction on harm reduction by pointing to the lack of support in the CND and related international drug control conventions, which were drafted decades before harm reduction even existed as a concept. We needed to close this gap to enable consistent, supportive international language and policy on harm reduction across all UN bodies.

At the March 2024 CND meeting, a historic resolution was passed that explicitly included harm reduction—a first for this UN body. The United States submitted the resolution, marking a significant shift, as the country had historically opposed harm reduction. This change was largely driven by the opioid overdose crisis in North America. The passage of the resolution was not straightforward, as it broke with the CND’s traditional practice of consensus decision-making. Instead, the resolution went to a vote, with overwhelming support from member states and only two countries—Russia and China—voting against it. This vote set a new precedent, demonstrating that progress could be made despite opposition and lack of traditional consensus approach to decision-making in this UN institution.

This breakthrough is monumental for future advocacy efforts. It not only aligns Vienna with other UN bodies but also opens the door for more ambitious resolutions on many critical issues. For us, harm reduction advocates, this development represents a powerful tool to challenge resistance at the national and regional levels, as governments can no longer claim that the CND does not support harm reduction. The long-term core funding from the Robert Carr Fund was pivotal in enabling the Harm Reduction Consortium to sustain our advocacy efforts over the years, ensuring that relationships, expertise, and readiness were in place for this specific moment in time.

Jamie Bridge: Our strategy has always been about persistence and collaboration. Since IDPC received its first grant from the Robert Carr Fund in 2012, engaging at the CND has been our core activity. Over the years, we focused on developing trust and constructive relationships with government delegations through regular meetings, briefings, and constant engagement. Alongside this, we coordinated civil society’s presence at the CND by organizing training sessions to prepare community representatives and NGOs for advocacy in this space. The result has been an exponential rise in the levels of civil society participation at CND (Figure 1).

Turning the tide: Growth, visibility and impact of the civil society drug policy reform movement at the UN - International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)

Additionally, we consistently kept harm reduction and human rights at the center of discussions, advocating for countries that practice harm reduction to openly support it in UN statements.

The sustained financial support from RCF allowed us to maintain this comprehensive strategy year after year. These long-term efforts culminated in March 2024 when, for the first time, a resolution explicitly mentioning harm reduction was approved at the CND. This breakthrough required tenacity, strategic relationship-building, and a collective push from our partners. The RCF’s contributions ensured that we could adapt, respond, and act decisively when the opportunity arose.

Who were the network partners, and how were they engaged in the advocacy?

Jamie Bridge: This success was a collective effort, powered by a broad coalition. Key partners included the Harm Reduction Consortium members and others such as the Transnational Institute and the International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD).

Our advocacy was thoroughly coordinated. For example, every March before the CND session, we hold a full-day civil society strategy meeting funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Representatives from over 70 NGOs worldwide come together to strategize, assign tasks, and ensure everyone is aligned. This includes deciding which governments to approach, preparing side events, and crafting interventions. Without this coordination, the unified civil society presence that has been critical to our success would not have been possible.

Community representatives played a critical role. In the lead-up to the resolution vote, these activists worked tirelessly, navigating the corridors of the UN building, briefing governments, and ensuring they understood the significance of the vote. Their advocacy directly influenced key decisions. The ability to sustain this high level of coordination and engagement over years is directly tied to the long-term financial support from RCF.

How were RCF’s funds used to achieve this success?

Jamie Bridge: The Robert Carr Fund’s support has been instrumental in both direct and indirect ways. The CND work has always been a priority in the Harm Reduction Consortium’s work plans. However, advocacy at this level requires years of groundwork, training, coordination, and trust-building. These are resource-intensive activities that cannot be accomplished with project-based funding alone. Without RCF’s core support, we wouldn’t have had the capacity or relationships to achieve this milestone. The flexibility of core funding has allowed us to adapt our strategies to changing political landscapes, ensuring that we remain effective advocates for harm reduction.

What are the outcomes of this case and its broader impact on human rights and the global harm reduction movement?

Jamie Bridge: The inclusion of harm reduction in a CND resolution represents a landmark victory. For the first time, we now have a unified acknowledgment of harm reduction across all relevant UN structures, from Vienna to Geneva and New York. This alignment eliminates a significant barrier that governments previously used to avoid implementing harm reduction measures.

For communities, the potential impact can be profound. NGOs and activists can now leverage this CND resolution to advocate for harm reduction services at their national level. For instance, in countries without naloxone programs for overdose prevention, this resolution explicitly calls for their implementation. It’s a powerful tool for challenging resistance and pushing for change.

Moreover, this success has shifted the dynamics at the CND. Historically, decisions were made by consensus, which allowed a few opposing countries, like Russia and China, to veto progress. In March 2024, this tradition was broken when the resolution went to a vote. With overwhelming support, harm reduction became part of UN policy.

This shift opens the door for future resolutions on previously untouchable topics, such as the death penalty for drug-related offenses or broader human rights issues. It’s a game-changer. The momentum is on our side, and we’re already strategizing for the next steps.

However, we’re realistic. Progress at the UN level is rarely linear, and we need to see what role the United States may continue to play as a harm reduction ally. UN resolutions also don’t automatically translate into immediate change on the ground. The real challenge lies in translating this victory into better access to harm reduction services and stronger human rights protections worldwide. This requires continued advocacy, capacity-building, and long-term investment—areas where the Robert Carr Fund’s support remains critical.

‘RCF’s long-term investment into community-led networks fuels harm reduction advocacy’ — Interview with Jamie Bridge

In January 30, employees at TB HIV Care received a letter informing them that they’d soon get their last paychecks. The nonprofit organization, working directly with people who use drugs in South Africa, has been forced to halt operations—part of a global freeze imposed on groups receiving United States humanitarian aid. 

Some 5,000 people were being served by TB HIV CARE at two harm reduction sites in eastern South Africa—depending on them for access to resources including sterile syringes and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

“I owe my HIV-negative status to their efforts.”

Barend Beukes, 42, who lives in the city of Tshwane in Gauteng province, has relied on groups like TB HIV Care, and others funded by US aid programs, for years. “I owe my HIV-negative status to their efforts,” he told 

He got his first dose of methadone right before the COVID lockdowns. “It has progressively been changing my life ever since. Programs like opioid support therapy have allowed me the semblance of a normal life.”

The two sites include one in Tshwane, which has been serving about 4,000 people, and another in the Ehlanzeni district of Mpumalanga province, serving around 1,000.

“Both sites are now closed, leaving these clients without access to critical harm reduction services,” Klaus Mtshweni,a national leader with the SANAC Civil Society Forum PWUD Sub-sector, told 

People who use drugs among victims of Trump's assault on USAID

The situation is under control, which wasn’t the case a year ago when the number of crack users was doubling every month, according to Thomas Herquel, director of Première Ligne, the association that runs the Quai 9 injection room. In an interview published on Saturday in the Le Temps paper, he stated that “the number of users is constant and violent acts have decreased”.

Herquel’s estimates are based on the number of crack pipes distributed, which averages about 90 a day. According to him, the peak of users has been reached. He notes that the police and the association have succeeded in better monitoring of the area and combating ‘crack tourism’.

Crack consumption soared in Geneva from 2021 onwards, with the arrival on the market of very small doses of this highly addictive drug at very low prices. The government launched a three-year action plan at the end of 2023, costing CHF6 million a year.

Switzerland: Geneva’s fightback against crack cocaine making inroads

A recent study suggests the ACT's cannabis legislation is mostly working as intended, but shows the majority of cannabis cultivators are engaging in illegal activity in order to grow it.

growing, possession and use of small amounts of cannabis was legalised in the ACT.

The research, conducted by the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics based at the University of Sydney, indicated the five-year-old laws are having the intended effect.

Academic Director of the Lambert Initiative, Iain McGregor, said the legislation had "been a real positive for cultivators".

Nearly three years after the legislation was introduced, 311 people who grew cannabis were asked a series of questions.

Some respondents also sent samples of their cannabis for chemical analysis, including the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol — the chemical that produces a high — in them.

Australia: Canberra cultivators mainly grow 'mild and modest' cannabis, study finds

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 — Selangor’s Local Government and Tourism Committee chairman Datuk Ng Suee Lim recently proposed urine screening to detect drug use among ravers or concert-goers.

 of four people who attended the New Year's Eve Pinkfish Festival in Sunway here.

Post-mortem reports indicated they died from complications caused by the drugs they consumed, likely to be ecstasy in pill form. Three other attendees were also hospitalised because they were suspected of taking the same pills.

There were mixed reactions to the proposal. Drug policy advocates suggested urine screening may not be effective at all, and could actually do more harm. The National Anti-Drug Agency, meanwhile, said the idea was impractical.

Why is urine screening may not be a good idea?

Palani Narayanan, Director of Drug Policy Program Malaysia, said urine screening is inherently defective as a solution to drug use problems

“Firstly, urine screening can only tell you if someone used a drug in the short past, say three weeks before, so someone who hasn’t taken a drug in six months will likely test negative,” he said.

“Now when they consume a drug at the music festival after having not taken anything in the last six months, just a small dose of drugs can be fatal because their tolerance level is lower than someone who takes drugs regularly,” he added.

“This person has a higher chance of fatal overdose and urine tests are useless to identify this.”

Then there is the cost factor. Urine screening is expensive. In the US, urine drug screening costs billions of dollars annually. Between 2011 and 2014, the cost of urine tests were reported to be around US$8.5 billion.

There is no available data on how much enforcement agencies spent on urine screening, but drug policy advocates believe it could reach hundreds of millions in the past ten years.

Palani said it makes little sense to pour money into a defective system that could be better spent on harm reduction measures like the health care workers who can advise people on the safety of the drugs they take.

Malaysia: Urine screening before concerts? Drug policy advocates explain why that may do more harm than good

This blog post was originally published by the EAPC blog and is available here.

Screams of pain punctuate households worldwide, but disproportionately more so in low and middle income countries.

Our home witnessed this for two years as my adoptive mother was ravaged by cancer. She was finally administered pentazocine two days before she died. It barely made a dent on the pain emanating from a backbone broken by cancer. As she took her last breath, we exhaled in guilty, tearful relief.

Twenty three years later, my biological mother lay dying of interstitial lung disease and needed oral morphine to ease her breathlessness. Despite working for a WHO Collaborating Centre for Training and Policy on Access to Pain Relief, getting access to these pills in the most populated state in India was a nightmare. Ironically, the same state where the only government-run opium and alkaloids factory is located. A local doctor reluctantly prescribed oral morphine, which was then sent from Kerala – an approximate distance of 1952 kms.

How did we reach a point where one of the oldest medicines in the world is so hard to access in a country where it has been cultivated and used medically for centuries? And what causes the 

 [1] between the global north, primarily erstwhile colonisers, and the global south, entirely comprised of previously colonised countries?

Opium’s use throughout history has been extensively 

. But its entry into the arena as a feared and controversial ‘drug’ only happened in the 19th century. 

, the opium poppy, transformed from traditional medicine used in small quantities into a currency of political economy alongside another main character—the deceptively innocent 

, or tea. These plants triggered a series of events that shifted the global power balance. Amitav Ghosh’s 

 dives deep into how this came to be and illuminates some dark corners of colonial legacy. 

Under the Dutch and subsequently the British, opium travelled from India across South East Asia to China. It fueled Empire. The British East India Company became the world’s largest cartel and established a narco-state. When the Chinese tried to stop the trade, the British went to war under false pretenses of protecting free trade. They enforced legalisation, causing unfathomable harm to the local population of China and indentured labour in India.

In the post second World War era, after colonial entities withdrew from most colonies, they framed a new paradigm around controlled substances, within which they created international laws that served to ensure the power balance remained skewed.

While the United Nations Single Convention (1961) – which is still in use – allegedly seeks balance between the prevention of illicit use and access for medical and scientific purposes, it disproportionately focuses on control. Accountability lies with countries that grow, produce, manufacture and supply these substances. Effectively, what was previously a source of astronomical profit to colonialists is now regulated with harsh punitive measures in the very countries that were exploited. Katherine Pettus’s 

‘Structural Imperialism and the Pandemic of Untreated Pain in the Asia Region’

Draconian laws that stemmed from the ‘war on drugs’ gatekeep access to opioids for pain relief. In India, it took nineteen years of relentless advocacy [4,5] by civil society to amend the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ACT of 1985, which was one of the greatest barriers to pain relief.

While the overdose crisis in the United States of America is an enormous tragedy, it overshadows the other opioid crisis that afflicts 80% of the world – that of inadequate access to pain relief. The dominant narrative makes millions in agony invisible, once again underscoring the disparate value placed on life in different parts of the world. This is also reflected in academia, in studies like the one done by Dobson and Blackhall [6] that question whether all people with life-limiting illnesses should be screened for misuse.

This remains a contentious topic, often viewed as a harm vs. value debate. What is harmful and what is valuable cannot centre around the needs of high-income communities but must be refocused through a postcolonial lens where the patient and their needs—in any part of the world—is the driver of policy and action.

Pain relief and palliative care must be urgently reimagined through a new framework—one that includes the countries with the highest unmet needs at the table.

The influence of colonialism on the pain relief access abyss

: To inform the preparation of the HRC-mandated comprehensive study on human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures

Human Rights Council resolution 57/9 of 9 October 2024, entitled “Social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures”, requests the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to “prepare a comprehensive study, with practical recommendations, on human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures, with a view to assessing the benefits of further developing guiding principles”.

The resolution requests OHCHR to prepare the report based on wide consultations with relevant stakeholders.

The report will be presented to the Human Rights Council at its 60th session in September – October 2025.

The report aims to gather information on legislation, policies, programmes and other initiatives, including public-private partnerships, that facilitate the social reintegration of persons released from detention or subjected to non-custodial measures, with a particular emphasis on approaches grounded on human rights.

Download Human Rights Council resolution 57/9 on Social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures: 

Unless otherwise stated, contributions will be made available in full and as received on this website.

Human rights and the social reintegration of persons released from detention and persons subjected to non-custodial measures - OHCHR call for inputs

Deep inside Somawathiya National Park in Sri Lanka, surrounded by barbed wire and electric fencing to keep the elephants away, lies the military-operated Kandakadu Drug Rehabilitation Center. Formerly an army camp set up to forcibly reform the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) militants who fought against the government during the 26-year civil war, it has now pivoted to treating drug-dependent people from all over the country.

In June 2022, Anthony Pathmaraja, whose name has been changed to conceal his identity, was being treated at the Kandakadu center for heroin and methamphetamine addiction, when he — along with 600 other inmates — tore down the gates and fled from the center into the jungle.

Their escape was triggered by the death of a fellow inmate, who, Pathmaraja claimed, had been beaten, waterboarded and ultimately murdered by the soldiers operating the center. “We heard the screams in the next room all night,” Pathmaraja, the son of a migrant worker, told New Lines. “In the morning we protested, demanding they let the media in, but when they refused, we broke out.”

Pathmaraja hid in the jungle for three days dodging crocodiles and elephants until he finally surrendered to the police after he contracted a painful throat infection from drinking river water. “I was very scared [in the jungle], and I couldn’t swallow once the infection set in, but I didn’t want to return no matter what,” he said.

Fifteen years after the end of the ethnic conflict between Tamil separatists and the Sri Lankan government, which claimed over 100,000 lives, Sri Lanka is dealing with a new crisis and engaging in a new war: a war on drugs. Conflict-ridden areas often struggle with increased substance abuse, partly due to new drug routes that emerge as a result of instability and inadequate rule of law.

While data on drug-related activities in Sri Lanka is largely limited to arrests, this number has been steadily increasing in the last five years. According to the National Dangerous Drugs Control Board (NDDCB), over 89,000 people were arrested in 2019, compared with around 162,000 people in 2023, and arrests for methamphetamine possession, in particular, skyrocketed during the same period — to nearly 13 times more than the number in 2019.

In Sri Lanka, the army is engaging in a new war on drugs

: To inform the preparation of the report on sustainable HIV response with regard to the human rights of persons living with, at risk of or affected by HIV, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its sixtieth session 2025

At its fifty-sixth session, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 

 on Human rights in the context of HIV and AIDS. The resolution requests the High Commissioner to prepare a report on sustainable HIV response with regard to the human rights of persons living with, at risk of or affected by HIV, to be presented to the Human Rights Council at its sixtieth session in September 2025.

In order to inform the preparations of the report, contributions are invited from States, National Human Rights Institutions, Civil Society Organizations, United Nations agencies, Funds and programmes, the academia, international and regional organizations, corporate entities, experts and persons living with, presumed to be living with, at risk of or affected by HIV.

Key questions and types of input/comments sought

OHCHR is seeking inputs on the concrete steps and measures taken in relation to the below areas.

(a) What frameworks, legal reforms, policies and strategies are in place that are key to protect the rights of persons living with, at risk of or affected by HIV and ensure that responses to HIV are sustainable and equitable?

(b) What measures did you take or need to be taken to ensure the protection of human rights in settings, which are transitioning to a more sustainable HIV response, such as in contexts of conflict or disasters?

(c) How can domestic funding be improved to ensure universal and equitable access to HIV services?

(d) What are the key barriers to the promotion, protection and monitoring of human rights in relation to the HIV response? How can they be overcome?

(e) Please indicate innovative approaches and technologies pursued to promote equitable and affordable access to HIV responses.

(f) What measures have been taken to effectively combat HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and address the needs of marginalized populations in a sustainable manner?

(g) What measures did you take or are required for community-led organizations and affected persons to meaningfully contribute to decision-making and participate in the HIV response?

(h) How can HIV responses address intersectional issues, including those experienced by key populations, and women and girls. Please indicate concrete measures taken.

(i) What partnerships, coordination or collaborations have been most effective in ensuring lasting impacts of HIV response strategies? Please provide concrete examples.

(j) What are the top priorities and actionable recommendations in relation to human rights for a sustainable HIV response for your country or institution?

Your contribution will be made public on the OHCHR website, unless otherwise requested.

Input/comments may be sent by e-mail. They must be received by 

Call for input: OHCHR report on sustainable HIV response with regard to the human rights of persons living with, at risk of or affected by HIV

In Golba Hill on the Caribbean island of 

 (SVG), just below a cluster of colourfully decorated homes, there are rows and rows of premium marijuana plants. Gleaming like green gold in the Caribbean sun, they lead up to a crudely constructed hut where cannabis farmer Bobbis Matthews spends most of his time nurturing and protecting his precious field.

As he did his routine inspection, removing male plants that could diminish the potency of his crop, Matthews recalled a time, not too long ago, when the idea of a cannabis farm in a residential area was unthinkable.

Like many of SVG’s cannabis farmers, Matthews is a Rastafarian who spent years hiding illegal cannabis fields deep in the mountains and living in fear of US-backed antinarcotics operations that would destroy millions of dollars worth of the plant.

“It was hard! At least three times a year, US helicopters would come and tear down the crop. In those days, it felt like you couldn’t even say the word marijuana because just to say marijuana, you could get arrested,” Matthews said.

The Rastafarians opening up Caribbean cannabis farms to build a flourishing medical industry

Over the holidays, I received so many messages from friends that I should watch 

. I haven’t had a chance to see it but apparently it has moved so many people and opened their eyes to the situation of persons deprived of liberty in our country. I’m glad to hear of this development and happy to hear of a movie that humanizes one of the most stigmatized sectors of our society, reaching a wider audience and enjoy some commercial success. There is much to learn about the situation of our PDLs and I hope watching 

 is just the beginning of getting more Filipinos to advocate for their rights.
(...)

If we really want to decongest our jails, aside from reviewing and amending the Revised Penal Code, we must also review and amend our drug law. This was one of the main recommendations to come out of national sectoral consultations held in preparation for the Philippine Drug Policy and Law Reform Summit held last July 2024. Yes, another summit, I’m sorry, but this was the first time there was a conversation between representatives from different government agencies including law enforcement, local governments, nongovernment organizations, and community organizations about how the drug law has affected our justice system and our communities in such a profoundly harmful way.

Philippines: Will watching ‘Green Bones’ help decongest our jails?

The so-called war on drugs has failed. In the last century, countries have increasingly attempted absolute prohibition of drug use, often via penal measures. Despite global action, these policies have not deterred drug use: we have reached record levels of “abuse, illicit cultivation and production and manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”, as acknowledged at the 2024 

 on Narcotic Drugs. Drug trafficking networks have become increasingly sophisticated and violent, and deaths related to drug use have increased.The disastrous impact of punitive attempts at complete drug elimination have been felt most keenly by society's most vulnerable individuals. Despite drug use being prevalent across all socioeconomic and demographic groups, arrests for and punishment of drug offences are concentrated among 

 and economically disadvantaged, culturally marginalised, and racially minoritised populations, further encumbering these groups with criminal records. If the purpose of drug policy is to reduce health and social harms, we have severely botched our response. We must drastically amend our approach.On Dec 5, the Global Commission on Drug Policy published a call-to-action 

Beyond Punishment: From Criminal Justice Responses to Drug Policy Reform

. This report urges immediate humane and evidence-based reframing of the problem and the solution: to lessen the damage of illicit drug use and dependency, we must put harm reduction strategies at the centre of our response and tackle the social determinants of drug use.

 practices pragmatically recognise that drug use will occur, but they attempt to reduce the adverse health and social effects of drugs. Effective examples include needle and syringe programmes (NSPs), which provide sterile equipment; peer-distributed naloxone, whereby people with lived experience distribute this opioid antagonist that can rapidly reverse an opioid overdose; and opioid agonist therapy (OAT), which replaces illicit opioids with safer alternatives, such as methadone and buprenorphine. Supervised consumption sites often combine several measures, enabling people to use drugs in private spaces, equipped with clean and safe drug paraphernalia, and under medical supervision in case of overdose. But despite their known benefits, a 2023 

 found that high coverage of OAT and NSPs was present in only five countries, comprising just 2% of the global population of people who inject drugs, at a considerable risk to their health. Crucially, harm reduction measures should confer no risk of sanctions (such as fines, monitoring, or enforced treatment), to ensure participation.

News