1

2 Background EU Funded Project.Seeks to support the European Union’s Pact on Drug Trafficking. Identify key source countries for drug reception. Project commenced January 2015. 3 partner Member States from outset: Romania, Lithuania, Spain.

3 Key Objectives 1. To evaluate how criminal records across the EU can be utilised to support an EU Pact on international drug trafficking 2. To identify a model that enables analysis of criminal records to continue once the project expires. This model should also be flexible enough to be applicable to analysis of all forms of offending. 3. To identify how existing EU co-operation mechanisms can be enhanced by using criminal records to combat international drug trafficking.

4 ECRIS Connectivity

5 ECRIS Volumetrics 2 MS 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Germany 58094 127217245831 283446 714588 Poland 64352 135349 146594 191597 537892 Romania 36647 80187 105261 334481 556576 France 35151 82165 104419 99280 321015 Italy 73249 131682 147397 352328 UK 27253 86354 88554 163103 365264 Spain 31724 55253 57155 82629 226761 Austria 24365 54410 61345 61449 201569 Belgium 1367 44093 43945 63924 153329 Lithuania 8848 28809 36869 47289 121815 Netherlands 5054 20317 46788 63792 135951 Bulgaria 997 16648 36441 45707 99793 Czech Republic 779 11972 33050 35527 81328 Ireland 120 10190 24505 30312 65127 Latvia 1132 9424 12671 23235 46462 Hungary 230 4030 13313 22621 40194 Luxembourg 4080 11810 14285 30175 Croatia 2572 11132 17841 31545 Estonia 1499 3829 7044 9504 21876 Finland 945 2715 8671 12354 24685 Denmark 666 3354 6993 10411 21424 Sweden 624 10207 17658 28489 Slovakia 1252 2767 4618 20924 29561 Cyprus 1043 4783 6106 11932 Greece 498 1992 2952 7056 12498 Slovenia 6 Malta 2 TOTAL 300973 862643

6 Workstream 1 Research and Analysis of criminal records data to identify international drug trafficking trends. Workstream 2 Implement an IT capability to efficiently extract offence and conviction data from ACRO systems. Workstream 3 Host an International closing event to relay the findings of the research to stakeholders.

7 Meetings Communication Plan Country Visits Quality AssuranceYear 2015 2016 2017 Month Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Month Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WS0 Product Initiation End Stage WS1 Research Analysis Reporting WS2 Requirements Development Testing Deployment WS3 Research / Requirements Procurement Delegate Engagement Event Project Closure Project End Meetings Kick Off Meeting KO1 PNC Meeting PNC1 Finance Meetings F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 Team Meetings TM1 / TM2 TM3 / TM4 TM5 / TM6 TM7 / TM8 TM9 / TM10 TM11 / TM12 TM13 / TM14 TM15 / TM16 TM17 / TM18 TM19 / TM20 TM21 / TM22 TM23 / TM24 TM25 / TM26 TM27 / TM28 TM29 / TM30 TM31 / TM32 TM33 / TM34 TM35 / TM36 TM37 / TM38 TM39 / TM40 TM41 / TM42 TM43 / TM44 TM45 / TM46 TM47 / TM48 IT Meeting IT1 Project Board Meetings PB1 PB2 PB3 PB4 PB5 PB6 Conference 30-31 Communication Plan Member States CIRCABC Project Board End of Stage Report Highlight Report 1 Highlight Report 2 2 x End of Stage Report Highlight Report 3 & End of Stage Report Highlight Report 4 End of Stage Report x 2 Highlight Report 5 & End of Stage Report Home Office Quaterly Report (Deadline: 02/10/2015) Quaterly Report (Deadline: 04/01/2016) Quaterly Report (Deadline: 04/04/2016) EU Commission Country Visits Romania 31-01 17-18 Lithuania 23-24 10-11 12-13' Spain 21-22 02-03 22-23 Europol - The Netherlands 29-30 ? Interpol - Lyon ERIC Conference - London 08 Belgium Germany 13-14 18-19 Italy 20-21 EMCDDA - Portugal 27-28 Croatia 16-17 Hungary Quality Assurance Folders QA Config Item Review Software Folders

8 WS1 WS2 WS3 Project Plan Research Analysis Reporting RequirementsDevelopment Testing Deployment WS2 Research / Requirements Procurement Delegate Engagement Event WS3

9 31st January 2017 Park Hotel, LondonEPDT Conference 31st January 2017 Park Hotel, London Use of ECRIS – Claire Wills

10 The Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA legislated for the exchange of information, extracted from criminal records, between Member States. ECRIS- the European Criminal Record Information System – started as you may well know on 26th April It was legislated under Council Decision 2009/316/JHA. It started with only a few Member States exchanging through the system. Other Member States continued with the NJR (Network of Judicial Registers) system which was the forerunner of ECRIS for a few months, other Member States continued using communication until they were ready to use the electronic exchange. Currently all but two Member State are connected to at least one other Member State via ECRIS. The connectivity is around 72% of the possible total currently as some Member States have connected to some but not all other available Member States. The aim of the system was to enable member States to share conviction information using common codes so that the information would be easily understood in every Member State. Thus all member States mapped their offences to 188 Common Offence categories, for example Intentional Killing, Manufacture or production of narcotic drugs not exclusively for personal consumption; and their sanctions to 70 Common Sanction categories, for example Imprisonment, Fine, Confiscation. This means that there is common understanding of the types of offences in a conviction. Other fields within the system also use codes to facilitate the exchange. These include codes for Countries and Nationality, for Gender for example. All Member States use what is known as the ECRIS RI (RI standing for the Implementation of the References in 2009/316/JHA). One Member State has built their own RI whilst other member States have used the version provided by the European Commission. The use of a common standard has facilitated understanding between Member States. Many people will use the terms ECRIS and ECRIS RI interchangeably – I will use ECRIS from now on although I may be talking about the exchange or the software involved in the exchange.

11 UK Other MS Out In Message Types REQ RDL RRS (RAI, RAR, FEM, CAN)There are 2 main events in ECRIS Requests and Notifications. We also refer to 2 types of each In and Out. A Request Out is a request for criminal conviction history from the UK to another Member State A Request In is a request for criminal conviction history from another Member State to the UK Within the ECRIS system and the statistics a Request will have at least 3 messages, but that can be many more if Additional information is requested by the receiving Member State. A Notification Out is the sending of information on a conviction from the UK to the Member State of nationality. A Notification In is the sending of information on a conviction from another Member State to the UK Within the ECRIS system and the statistics a Notification will have at least 2 messages, but that can be many more if Additional information is requested by the receiving Member State. The total number of messages exchanged through ECRIS will therefore be a multiple of the number of requests and Notifications sent through the system. Message Types NOT NRS (RAI, RAR, FEM, CAN)

12 ECRIS Statistics Purpose Yearly Monthly Technical Functional BusinessThere is a large amount of data available through ECRIS based on the number and type of messages exchanged. The purpose of the Statistics collected through ECRIS is to provide accurate objective and factual information. The purpose of collecting non–personal statistical data is not that of producing general statistics on the conviction information handled in the Member States, such as offences and sanctions, but only to collect the most significant statistical parameters so as to allow the pertinent assessment of ECRIS’ efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of the statistics as described in this document is not to allow PROFILING analyses for each Member State, such as for example showing how many times a certain type of offence has been perpetrated by persons of a given nationality, or calculating the average levels of the sanctions pronounced by courts of specific Member States. (from ECRIS Technical Specifications Logging, Monitoring and Statistics Analysis) The information collected by ECRIS is data on for example how many responses to requests included at least one conviction. What is not stored is details on the convictions exchanged. This information can only be obtained through each Member State.  There are 2 sets of statistics which are available currently through ECRIS these are monthly and yearly and cover different elements. The yearly statistics cover elements such as how many connections have been made between the 28 Member States, the number of different types of messages and for what purpose requests for a criminal record were sent. They also provide a comparison year on year on these elements. The monthly statistics, whilst also giving the same data for the month in question will also give some more detailed information this is based on 232 ‘indicators’. These Statistical Indicators cover Technical, Functional and Business statistics. The Technical are those related to the performance of the system. The Functional are those related to the use of the functionality of the system The Business are those related to the different types of message and to the purpose of the requests for criminal conviction history. There at least 40 indicators of these. For example there are a specific set of statistics around directive 93 – that to do with Sexual Exploitation of children – including how many requests under directive 93 have not had a response.  There is also an indicator of how many requests have been sent for Third Country Nationals – a current concern for ECRIS where work is being done to try and establish a centralised database which all Member States will be able to search to establish whether a subject has been convicted in an EU Member State. The EU Commission has noted that in addition to the statistics mentioned, it may prove interesting for the Member States and the central entity to consider collecting statistical data also for purposes of analysis of the business processes not supported directly by the ECRIS software, but which influence directly the exchange of criminal records information such as: translation, parts of the matching/identification process, evaluation of the specifics of the identified person, evaluation of the legal terms of the request/of the notified convictions, etc. However that work would be outside the scope of the ECRIS exchange as currently implemented.

13 Issues with data Unfortunately due to various connectivity issues the picture is not complete across the EU. Whilst the ECRIS Support Team can assist in resolving technical issues, there is no incentives to Member States to implement any solutions provided nor any penalties for not connecting via ECRIS. Whilst understanding that such penalties would not be popular or may not indeed be possible it does seem that ECRIS compliance is without teeth and relies on peer pressure from Member States to encourage each to connect to each other.

14 Use of ECRIS StatisticsThe use of the data provided by ECRIS is varied. As time has passed and there is a store of data for a period of years, the ability to analyse the data provided by the European Commission and a Member States own data would help each member state predict peaks and troughs in work enabling them to manage staffing more effectively. Some Member States do this more effectively that others – it will depend on their staffing and the desire to gain such information. As is often said there is no use in producing statistics for statistics sake – there has to be a need for them and a wish to act upon the result. Member States could also benefit from some Intelligence research around the type of criminality encountered in the country where the offending is taking place and comparing this to the types of criminality held by the country of nationality. It would also be possible to look at travelling offenders and their criminality across several EU member States. This would have implications for law enforcement in understanding the offending behaviours and would assist in Public Protection from a National perspective.

15 Analysis of data Analysing data nationally and across the EU presents challenges because of each Member States retention legislation. The only way to truly obtain a picture across the EU for travelling offenders would be for all countries to agree to share specific data. The EPDT has shown ACRO some of the possibilities of analysis of data help both within the UK and available through ECRIS. Further analysis will need to be undertaken to fully realise the potential of such data. The project obtained the use of PowerBI as an add-on for Excel for data analysis. Other members of staff have gained experience in using this and further training is being considered. I myself have used it successfully to obtain information requests under the UK’s Freedom of Information legislation. The information requested was held in different tables and sources of data within the database system used by ACRO. There was a considerable saving of time and money as I was able to pull information from the system and then use PowerBI to analyse it rather than having to pay for our system supplies to provide reports.

16

17 Workstream 1 - Research and Analysis of criminal records data to identify international drug trafficking trends. Questionnaire We have received responses from all 28 EU Member States Phase 1 15 responses received (plus UK data – 16) Phase 2 8 responses received (plus UK data – 9) ECRIS Priority was to exchange data – There was no intention to analyse ECRIS data at the inception of ECRIS.

18 EPDT - Project Overview

19 Workstream 1 – ECRIS DataData requirements spreadsheet shared with all countries that have provided Phase 1 volumetric data. Quality Assurance Framework. Worked closely with our 3 partner countries. We have also received data from:

20 Workstream 1 – National Register DataDate Parameters Offence Codes

21 UK National Criminal Register (PNC)68,460,000 Rows of data received from PNC 10,521,792 194,421 111,575 Offences sent from PNC Services 40 PNC ‘umbrella’ codes (2011 – 2014) Specified Heroin and Cocaine offences

22 Work Stream 2 - Implement an IT capability to efficiently extract offence and conviction data from ACRO systems. Potential to utilise Microsoft Excel 2013 products: Benefits: Compatible with most data systems across the EU Cost effective Allows quick time analysis of data Enables project team to map criminal record information

23 Work Stream 2 Power Business Intelligence (BI)

24 Analytical Highlights

25 Influencing Factors Legislative differences across EUECRIS Connectivity Retention of ECRIS Data Specific Drug Type Identification Recording of Offence Location

26 Summary – Why Analyse ECRISEU Added Value Maximise value derived from EU criminal record exchange Further support the understanding of international drug trafficking across the EU Enhance synergy between existing EU cooperation instruments Identify a model that can be used by EU Member States to identify trends in criminal records data ACRO Benefits Promote the value of having UKCA-ECR managed by the police service Promote the work of ACRO and the value of criminal record and intelligence analysis on an international scale Provide professional development opportunities for ACRO staff Create a sustainable solution to identify and analyse intelligence from ACRO systems UK Benefits Promote the reputation of the UK within the EU Law Enforcement community for innovation Maximise the value to the UK of intelligence derived from criminal records data (Human Trafficking) Provide a report based on 4 years accumulated data (2011 to 2014) of drug trafficking patterns and trends within the EU and the impact to the UK.

27 Monitoring drug supply in Europe: making the most of existing dataNicola Singleton, Teodora Groshkova, EMCDDA London, 31st January 2017 European Pact on Drug Trafficking Conference

28 Outline Who we are and what we do General supply monitoring issuesDrug supply indicators 3.1. Improvement of established measures 3.2. New sources and tools Putting the data together: what can it tell us about supply? Summary & discussion

29 The EMCDDA A decentralised EU agency (100 staff)Formally established in 1993 Based in Lisbon, Portugal (operating since 1995) The hub of drug-related information in the EU

30 EMCDDA’s mandate Why do we do it? Inform decision-making on drugs Generate a high-quality European evidence base Understand what responses work Provide early-warning on new threats and developments

31 Drugs and supply monitoring - an EU priority…the EU Drugs Strategy ( ) has a supply reduction pillar and sets a priority to “work towards more effective policies in the field of drug supply reduction, by reinforcing policy evaluation and analysis to improve the understanding of drug-markets, drug-related crimes and the effectiveness of drug-related law enforcement responses”, the EU Action Plan on Drugs ( ) calls on the parties concerned "to develop and progressively implement key indicators on drug supply by standardising, improving and streamlining data collection in this field, building on currently available data", (Action 16) The Council of the EU conclusion (15 November 2013) stresses that accurate, reliable, comparable and high-quality data on drug supply would help assess the drug situation, the dynamics of the illicit drug market, the burden of drug-related crime and the effectiveness of supply-oriented policies.

32 Networks of partners & routine monitoring28 EU MS, Norway, Turkey Annual reporting exercise Standardized reporting tools improved incrementally over last 20 years New supply indicators Additional partners Reference group on drug supply indicators Europol Eurojust EC (Joint Research Centre, Eurostat, Taxud)

33 In practical terms this means:Addressing both security & health issues Multidisciplinary & holistic analysis Processing and analysing large volumes of data Developing standards and common approaches Focal points & expert networks allow an ongoing conversation with member states

34 Monitoring drug supply: general issues

35 The financial impact of drug markets€ 24 billion

36 The complex ramifications of the drug market

37 What are the uses of drug supply-related dataThree main uses: Inform the formulation, planning and implementation of strategies to disrupt and prevent drug production and trafficking and, by tracking trends, help ensure they remain on target. Foster operational cooperation, inform the policy dialogue and provide a common basis for mutual understanding and discussion. Support the quantification and modelling necessary for measuring impact and thus facilitate the debate on the extent to which measures can be shown to work.

38 Key challenges for measurement‘Hidden’ phenomenon: difficult to monitor Mainly data from LE sources: ‘consensual crime’ = ‘dark figure’ Huge range & variety of activities Data sensitivity and confidentiality - operational factors influence what is possible to collect and data available Wide range of agencies involved - data from LEAs and CJS sometimes ‘trapped within agencies’ Influence of operational priorities on what is possible to collect and data available Issues of data comparability: impact of national legislation, CJ practices, political priorities 38

39 Driving themes for supply indicator developmentA dynamic and systematic approach in line with Council Conclusions (2013) Focus on a minimum core data set for routine reporting to form a top-level European analysis Data quality needs to improve incrementally over time The system should be operationally coherent with, and add value to, national level activities (or it won’t work) Identify opportunities presented by operational data collection for enhancing our understanding of drug supply patterns and trends

40 Three kinds of information we are interested in…Existing information sets routinely collected but not always complete or of high quality Tasks developmental and relatively straight forward Improving comparability, availability and timeliness Priorities should be based on cost to benefits Analytical framework at EU level weak Data not currently routinely collected by all countries but has potential for routine collection at EU level More demanding Greater resource implications and requires a longer term vision Feasibility questions New opportunities & challenges Data essential for analysis but not suitable for routine reporting Mechanisms for incorporating information on an ad-hoc basis Contextual information and research findings Operational intelligence expertise

41 Supply-side monitoring system: EMCDDA frameworkCORE DATA NON-ROUTINE DATA Drug seizures Open source information Drug law offences Surface web Deepweb — darknet markets Retail Middle Wholesale Possession/use Supply Production Expert groups Europol drugs & NPS experts EMPACT: cocaine | heroin | synthetic drugs & NPS European Network of Forensic Science Institutions Reference Group on drug supply indicators Reitox National Focal Points EWS correspondents Prices Purity MARKETS, CRIME, SUPPLY REDUCTION Purity-adjusted prices Retail — market size estimate Wastewater analysis Perceived availability Individual subject experts (in population surveys) Retail Key periodical reports Production World Drug Report (UNODC) Crop monitoring reports (UNODC) Precursors Report (INCB) SOCTA (Europol) Cannabis Synthetic drugs Cocaine extraction QUANTITATIVE Workbooks Ad hoc research QUALITATIVE Markets Crime Supply reduction Web surveys Studies: fieldwork | contracts Published literature

42 Drug supply indicators

43 Routine data (+15 years of monitoring)Drug law offences Seizures Prices Composition of tablets Potency/Purity

44 Europe’s stimulant market: geographic divide

45 Trends in price and potency

46 Trends in stimulants purityFinally looking into purity… Indexed trends point clearly to increases in MDMA-content since 2010. The availability of high MDMA-content products has prompted joint alerts from Europol and the EMCDDA in 2014. The purity of cocaine has now levelled off. For amphetamines, the average reported purity is higher for methamphetamine than for amphetamine samples. Although indexed trends suggest that amphetamine purity has increased in the latest data, the average purity of this drug continues to be relatively low.

47 Areas for improvement Expanded scope for reportingReporting by market level Information on trafficking routes Streamlining and co-ordinating

48 Drug Law Offences Definition: Acts committed in violation of drug, and other drug-related, legislation involving controlled drugs, new psychoactive substances, precursors, or controlled medicinal products diverted to or produced for the illicit market. To be counted: a criminal or non-criminal report will have been initiated by law enforcement or other agency, regardless of charges or prosecution. Main sub-divisions: Type of offence: Use/possession; Supply; Both Type of substance: Main list of controlled drugs; NPS; Medicinal products; other significant substances; Unknown; Precursors Offences &/or offenders Type of supply offence

49 1.6 million drug law offencesOverall ~75% use/possession Range: 2% RO, 37% HU, 38% CZ to 93% AT; 94% LT, 95% ES Cannabis offences dominate Three quarters of possession offences

50 DLO: Interpretation issuesImpact of different legal frameworks Very driven by law enforcement practice & priorities Variability with respect to point of recording/ data capture Differentiation by drug not always possible Drug-specific influences Separation of possession & trafficking variable Offence vs offender

51 Open source informationOther data and sources Darknet monitoring Production facilities (labs) Drug related violence (homicides) Cultivation sites Wastewater Open source information Resources

52 Putting the data together: what can it tell us about supply?

53 Heroin: recent market changes?Number of seizures stable …but recent increase in quantities seized Rebound of heroin purity

54 Heroin: increasing large seizures

55 European market for opioids: not just heroin and home-made opioids

56 Heroin related offences

57 Heroin main trafficking routes into Europe

58 Another example: MDMA

59 MDMA: High-dosage tablets

60 Important gaps & areas for developmentLinks to other crime areas Drug market-related violence Other drug-related crime

61 Key messages Data sources that appear the same often have many important inconsistencies (WYSINWYG) ! A data source can have many different uses depending on how it is analysed. Different data sources provide different pieces of the jigsaw which is the picture of the drug market. All data sources have limitations so triangulation and cross-indicator analysis is essential. It is increasingly important to consider overlaps between drugs and other crime areas.

62 Thank you for listeningFor more information contact: Nicola Singleton (351) Teodora Groshkova (351)

63 European Drug Summer School 2017Two-week course in Lisbon with EMCDDA experts and keynote speakers Registration Phase 1: 17 October – 3 February (early-bird discounts) Phase 2: 13 February – 7 April Phase 3: April – 2 June

64