International Narcotic Control Board
The Cannabis Embassy coordinates the INCB Transparency & Accountability initiative.
The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is a treaty body in charge of monitoring and oversight of the 3 drug control Conventions of 1961, 1971 & 1988.
INCB defines itself as “an independent and quasi-judicial control organ, established by treaty, for monitoring the implementation of the international drug control treaties. It had predecessors under the former drug control treaties as far back as the time of the League of Nations.” (source)
In practice the 13 Board Members are independent and volunteer, while INCB staff and secretariat is integral part of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Click to unfold more information
More about the INCB (analyses from researchers & civil society)
“In recent decades the United Nations has opened its procedures significantly to civil society participation. Virtually all major United Nations events and summits accommodate NGO forums of various kinds, and many invite NGO participation in the form of speaking slots to accredited delegates, permission to distribute publications, and space for NGO networking. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) includes civil society representatives on its governing body, though not as voting members. Even the UN Security Council, historically one of the UN’s most secretive bodies, has opened up its proceedings. There is an officially established NGO Working Group that relates to the Security Council and is involved in regular meetings and briefings often through the vehicle of the rotating Council president. […] In spite of such observations, the INCB remains perhaps the most closed and least transparent of any entity supported by the United Nations. There are no minutes or public reports on the deliberations of the INCB. The INCB’s proceedings are closed not only to NGOs but also to member states. The country visits – on which it bases its annual reports – generally do not include meetings with civil society organisations, people who use drugs, or others affected by drug control measures. In recent years, the INCB president has met with NGOs in one session at the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. When questioned about the closed nature of the Board at these sessions, INCB officials have repeatedly cited security concerns and the need for confidentiality associated with sensitive drug control measures. Can it be impossible, however, for the INCB to engage with civil society if the Security Council can do so with the delicate and potentially explosive issues that it considers?”
“The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or the Board) plays an important role in the international drug control system, serving as an independent body monitoring states’ implementation of their obligations under the international drug conventions. It has, however, been criticised for being one of the most secretive bodies in the UN system. It holds its meetings behind closed doors. No minutes are published. There is no opportunity for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) or civil society organisations to observe or make submissions.
The INCB has claimed that it is ‘unique in international relations’, and has used this allegedly unique status to justify its exclusion of civil society from its deliberations and its closed meetings. However, far from being unique, the INCB is instead an early example of the ‘independent committee of experts’ model that has been adopted and developed within the UN human rights system, and regional human rights systems, over the past four decades. It is a common model that continues to be used today. Yet in contrast to these similar bodies, the INCB has failed to modernise its processes, and retains working practices inherited from defunct monitoring bodies.
[Barrett’s] report compares the INCB’s structure, mandate, legal status, activities and working methods with those of the UN human rights treaty bodies. While the INCB does differ in certain ways from these independent, quasi-judicial bodies in the UN human rights system, this is an inevitable result of differences between the aims and objectives of the drug and human rights conventions that the various committees are mandated to oversee. These differences are procedural rather than structural or legal, and are far outweighed by the similarities. The basic model, far from being unique to the INCB, is in fact identical.
The INCB’s ‘uniqueness’ stems not from its mandate, its activities or its legal status, but instead from the working methods the Board has adopted, methods that are out of step with those of similarly constituted UN bodies which have chosen to operate via open and inclusive processes.
The Board’s claim of unique status is untrue, as is its contention that civil society must, by mandate or other official barrier, be excluded from its deliberations. The key issue is one of choice, rather than mandate or legal barrier. The INCB has chosen secrecy, while the human rights treaty bodies have chosen open engagement. The INCB’s choice is becoming an increasing worry for the international community. Rather than working behind closed doors, the INCB should instead learn from the methods used by the human rights treaty bodies to develop a dialogue with civil society. It can adapt those methods and apply them to its own work to ensure a more open and informed monitoring system for the international drug conventions. Opening up the INCB’s activities in this way would bring its work into conformity with that of other similarly constituted UN bodies.
[Barrett’s] report aims to highlight those aspects of the Board’s working methods that must be addressed to achieve the inclusion of civil society as partners in the international drug control system, to ensure that the Board’s mandate is fully understood and fulfilled and to allow the INCB to remain relevant in international affairs. Such an outcome requires a change of attitude by the INCB and a decision on its part to alter working practices. However, action at many levels of the UN may be needed to ensure that such a transformation occurs.”
More about the INCB (presentation provided by the Board)
Composition
INCB consists of 13 members who are elected by the Economic and Social Council and who serve in their personal capacity, not as government representatives. Three members with medical, pharmacological or pharmaceutical experience are elected from a list of persons nominated by WHO and 10 members are elected from a list of persons nominated by Governments. Members of the Board are persons who, by their competence, impartiality and disinterestedness, command general confidence. The Council, in consultation with INCB, makes all arrangements necessary to ensure the full technical independence of the Board in carrying out its functions. INCB has a secretariat that assists it in the exercise of its treatyrelated functions. The INCB secretariat is an administrative entity of UNODC, but it reports solely to the Board on matters of substance. INCB closely collaborates with UNODC in the framework of arrangements approved by the Council in its resolution 1991/48. INCB also cooperates with other international bodies concerned with drug control, including not only the Council and its Commission on Narcotic Drugs, but also the relevant specialized agencies of the United Nations, particularly WHO. It also cooperates with bodies outside the United Nations system, especially INTERPOL and WCO.
Functions
The functions of INCB are laid down in the following treaties: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol; Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971; and United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. Broadly speaking, INCB deals with the following:
(a) As regards the licit manufacture of, trade in and use of drugs, INCB endeavours, in cooperation with Governments, to ensure that adequate supplies of drugs are available for medical and scientific uses and that the diversion of drugs from licit sources to illicit channels does not occur. INCB also monitors Governments’ control over chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of drugs and assists them in preventing the diversion of those chemicals into the illicit traffic;
(b) As regards the illicit manufacture of, trafficking in and use of drugs, INCB identifies weaknesses in national and international control systems and contributes to correcting such situations. INCB is also responsible for assessing chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, in order to determine whether they should be placed under international control.
In the discharge of its responsibilities, INCB:
(a) Administers a system of estimates for narcotic drugs and a voluntary assessment system for psychotropic substances and monitors licit activities involving drugs through a statistical returns system, with a view to assisting Governments in achieving, inter alia, a balance between supply and demand;
(b) Monitors and promotes measures taken by Governments to prevent the diversion of substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and assesses such substances to determine whether there is a need for changes in the scope of control of Tables I and II of the 1988 Convention;
(c) Analyses information provided by Governments, United Nations bodies, specialized agencies or other competent international organizations, with a view to ensuring that the provisions of the international drug control treaties are adequately carried out by Governments, and recommends remedial measures;
(d) Maintains a permanent dialogue with Governments to assist them in complying with their obligations under the international drug control treaties and, to that end, recommends, where appropriate, technical or financial assistance to be provided.
INCB is called upon to ask for explanations in the event of apparent violations of the treaties, to propose appropriate remedial measures to Governments that are not fully applying the provisions of the treaties or are encountering difficulties in applying them and, where necessary, to assist Governments in overcoming such difficulties. If, however, INCB notes that the measures necessary to remedy a serious situation have not been taken, it may call the matter to the attention of the parties concerned, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Economic and Social Council. As a last resort, the treaties empower INCB to recommend to parties that they stop importing drugs from a defaulting country, exporting drugs to it or both. In all cases, INCB acts in close cooperation with Governments.
INCB assists national administrations in meeting their obligations under the conventions. To that end, it proposes and participates in regional training seminars and programmes for drug control administrators.
Reports
The international drug control treaties require INCB to prepare an annual report on its work. The annual report contains an analysis of the drug control situation worldwide so that Governments are kept aware of existing and potential situations that may endanger the objectives of the international drug control treaties. INCB draws the attention of Governments to gaps and weaknesses in national control and in treaty compliance; it also makes suggestions and recommendations for improvements at both the national and the international levels.
The annual report is based on information provided by Governments to INCB, United Nations entities and other organizations. It also uses information provided through other international organizations, such as INTERPOL and WCO, as well as regional organizations. The annual report of INCB is supplemented by detailed technical reports. They contain data on the licit movement of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances required for medical and scientific purposes, together with an analysis of those data by INCB. Those data are required for the proper functioning of the system of control over the licit movement of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including preventing their diversion to illicit channels. Moreover, under the provisions of article 12 of the 1988 Convention, INCB reports annually to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs on the implementation of that article. That report, which gives an account of the results of the monitoring of precursors and of the chemicals frequently used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, is also published as a supplement to the annual report.
Since 1992, the first chapter of the annual report has been devoted to a specific drug control issue on which INCB presents its conclusions and recommendations in order to contribute to policy-related discussions and decisions in national, regional and international drug control. (All annual reports)
INCB Transparency & Accountability Initiative
2021 Sign-On letter
On 2 December 2021, the 1st anniversary of the historic UN cannabis vote, 181 NGOs from 56 countries signed this letter calling upon the INCB to create elemental transparency and accountability in its work, the most opaque of all similar international organisations.
Since 2021, the letter has been sent to UN Secretary-General, shared in an official CND statement (E/CN.7/2021/NGO/7) and shared officially on three other occasions with the INCB, but no answer has been provided.
NGOs supporting the letter
Basic Background on International Cannabis Law
This section provides basic, simplified information about the international legal system around Cannabis.
Contents are derived from the Cannabis Embassy Campus Vienna 2024 courses.
International Law (IL)
International law (IL), also known as the law of nations, is a type of legal rules that is set out between sovereign countries, and applies to them (it applies to humans only indirectly, through their country’s government). While national or local laws are crafted by people (often, elected representatives) to apply to the behaviour and actions of people, IL is crafted by countries and generally applies to nations as such, not directly to people.
Pieces of legislation in IL are normally called “treaties” but can also be referred to as “conventions”, “agreement”, “arrangement”, “accord”, “protocol”… These are all strict synonyms.
IL can concern direct inter-country affairs (diplomacy, war, trade…). It can also pertain to the field of harmonisation of national laws and policies: while IL is not directly regulating people’s life, it can do so indirectly via “non self-implementing” treaties which countries then have to implement via their national laws (such as human rights, drug control, climate and environmental regulations, etc.).
Inter-governmental organisations (IGOs)
Sometimes, treaties establish “intergovernmental organisations”: an entity separate from countries which can handle, with varying degrees of independence from the countries (called “member states” in that context).
These organisations can be sectorial (e.g. the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), cultural (e.g. the Commonwealth), regional (e.g. the European Union), or international (e.g. the World Trade Organisation). Among this last type, one particular intergovernmental organisation stands out: the United Nations (UN).
The United Nations Organisation (UN/UNO)
The UN is the largest and most important intergovernmental organisation. It differs from others by its centrality in diplomacy and geopolitics, and it is recognized by all countries as universal. All countries in the world are UN members –except Cook Islands, Niue, Palestine, Vatican, and a total of 17 non-independent countries (“non-self-governing territories”). The Cannabis Embassy is not a UN member state.
The UN was created after WWII to maintain international peace, security, to develop friendly relations between countries, facilitate development and to promote human rights. It has 4 headquarters: Geneva (Switzerland), Nairobi (Kenya), New York (USA), and Vienna (Austria).
Although the UN does not write treaties, it serves as the depositary of almost all of the original texts of IL, making it a kind of guardian of international law.
The UN is organised with a three-fold structure Assembly-Council-Secretariat (a bit similar to Parliament-Government-Administration at the country level). UN’s General Assembly (UNGA) acts as a sort of parliament, with 1 vote for each country member of the UN. The council is divided between the ECOSOC (Economic & Social Council) and Security Council, they take most of the executive decisions in their respective fields (some of which have to be ratified by the Assembly after). The Secretary-General (UNSG) administers the actual UN action, often taken through its numerous agencies; the position is currently held by former Portuguese prime minister António Gutteres (famous for decriminalising in 2001) and a huge team aside him. The Secretary-General is also the depositary of most international treaties, meaning he/she is in charge of registering countries’ adhesions and keeping original archives of every treaty in force. In matters of drug control, the Secretary-General delegates its mandates to the UNODC (see next section).
The Assembly, the 2 Councils, and the Secretariat, are based in New York City.
UN: Drug Control (CND, INCB, UNODC)
When it comes to Cannabis and phytocannabinoids, the UN agency in charge is the Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). There are 3 treaties that relate to Cannabis & cannabinoids, which are deposited to the UN Secretary-General, but in practice, the UNODC is acting as the administration and secretariat of these 3 treaties.
In addition, there is an assembly of countries meeting only in relation to these three drug control treaties: the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). It discusses only the topics in relation to these 3 treaties. In practice, they are pre-making the work of the ECOSOC, which then just adopts what the CND has prepared.
Finally, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is a body created directly by the 3 drug control conventions (a “treaty body”), to serve as an exchange platform between countries and a monitoring body: countries must declare their production, export, and import of medical drugs to the INCB, which published it yearly; if countries fail to present accurate data, the INCB can alert other countries. As all treaty bodies, the INCB is independent, has a narrow mandate, and is composed of experts which do not represent the interests of their countries. In comparison, UN agencies like the UNODC are not established and ruled directly by a treaty, they have broader mandates, larger budgets, more capacity for action.
UNODC, CND, and INCB, are all headquartered in Vienna (Austria).
UN Health Agency (the WHO)
Aside from the UN drugs agency (UNODC), drugs-focused commission (CND), and monitoring body (INCB), there is a fourth intergovernmental organisation with a mandate on Cannabis and cannabinoids: the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is also geographically aside, being based in Geneva (Switzerland).
WHO is considered the “specialised agency of the UN” on health matters, nevertheless, it is still more independent from the core UN structure than regular UN agencies such as UNODC. WHO has its own history, its own internal practices, a separate funding, etc., but is still part of the “UN family”.
Like the UN, WHO is organised with a three-fold structure: World Health Assembly, Executive Council, and Executive-Director handling the administration of daily WHO operations. Within these, besides the numerous aid, training, capacity-building, data collection and information programs of WHO, the Department of Essential Medicines receives a special and quintessential role: convening high-level meetings of independent experts (the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, or ECDD) to evaluate substances and to recommend (or not) on a case-by-case basis if a substance should become controlled under the 3 treaties (which means effectively labelling a substance as either a “narcotic drug” or a “psychotropic substance”).
Notably, in 2017 and 2018 (made public 2019, adopted 2020), after thorough scientific review, the ECDD declared that CBD is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic substance, and should not be controlled under the three treaties. They also recognized the potential of Cannabis as a medicinal plant, and the usefulness of its products for a number of indications, and advocated at the CND for the withdrawal of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention, which was de facto the most significant and positive change in international Cannabis law since 1925.
Other IGOs concerned with Cannabis plants and the people growing/using them
Beyond the 3 drug-control treaties, IL is a vast galaxy with a number of treaties that affect naturally-occurring drugs like Cannabis, and people who consume them for whatever purposes.
There are some treaties directly pointing at the 3 drug control Conventions, for instance the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
But there are also treaties not directly linked, but who still apply to Cannabis or other herbal drugs and fungi under control.
Notably, this is the case for trade dispositions, including intellectual property law (on copyrights, trademarks, patents, but also Appellations of Origins…).
The ones that the Cannabis Embassy has been looking at, for their prior engagement with Cannabis or their already-active policy or piece of international law on the matter:
- UNEP, the Environment Program, gaining increasing traction as the realisation of the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crises increases. Hosts the Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (also abbreviated as “CBD”) which is highly relevant, particularly because of the “Nagoya Protocol”, which can be considered as the key treaty on landraces.
- WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation), with new treaties appearing in this area like the May 2024 GRATK treaty on traditional knowledge associated with landraces.
- FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) has a key relevance and is also depositary to various treaties which harmonise farmers’ rights, protect the environment, and foster sustainable local production practices.
- UNDP, the Development Program like the FAO has rich experience and has engaged in favour of drug policy reform on several occasions in the past.
- The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, and numerous human rights “treaty bodies”.
- ILO (International Labour Organisation), founded in 1920, is the oldest IGO continuously operating. It works in a unique way with ⅓ unions ⅓ bosses and ⅓ governments. ILO is depositary of numerous labour treaties applying to licit Cannabis industries that can help shape a legal market free from the flaws of other globalized commodity trade, such as modern slavery. Also, the ILO Indigenous Peoples Convention.
- UNESCO – UN Education, Science, and Culture Organisation
- UNCTAD – UN Conference on Trade and Development, a kind of UN think-tank that promotes the interests of developing countries in world trade since 1964. See their Hemp report.
This list is obviously not comprehensive.
Other IGOs concerned with Cannabis plants and the people growing/using them
Beyond the 3 drug-control treaties, IL is a vast galaxy with a number of treaties that affect naturally-occurring drugs like Cannabis, and people who consume them for whatever purposes.
There are some treaties directly pointing at the 3 drug control Conventions, for instance the UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
But there are also treaties not directly linked, but who still apply to Cannabis or other herbal drugs and fungi under control.
Notably, this is the case for trade dispositions, including intellectual property law (on copyrights, trademarks, patents, but also Appellations of Origins…).
The ones that the Cannabis Embassy has been looking at, for their prior engagement with Cannabis or their already-active policy or piece of international law on the matter:
- UNEP, the Environment Program, gaining increasing traction as the realisation of the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crises increases. Hosts the Secretariat to the Convention on Biological Diversity (also abbreviated as “CBD”) which is highly relevant, particularly because of the “Nagoya Protocol”, which can be considered as the key treaty on landraces.
- WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation), with new treaties appearing in this area like the May 2024 GRATK treaty on traditional knowledge associated with landraces.
- FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) has a key relevance and is also depositary to various treaties which harmonise farmers’ rights, protect the environment, and foster sustainable local production practices.
- UNDP, the Development Program like the FAO has rich experience and has engaged in favour of drug policy reform on several occasions in the past.
- The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council, and numerous human rights “treaty bodies”.
- ILO (International Labour Organisation), founded in 1920, is the oldest IGO continuously operating. It works in a unique way with ⅓ unions ⅓ bosses and ⅓ governments. ILO is depositary of numerous labour treaties applying to licit Cannabis industries that can help shape a legal market free from the flaws of other globalized commodity trade, such as modern slavery. Also, the ILO Indigenous Peoples Convention.
- UNESCO – UN Education, Science, and Culture Organisation
- UNCTAD – UN Conference on Trade and Development, a kind of UN think-tank that promotes the interests of developing countries in world trade since 1964. See their Hemp report.
This list is obviously not comprehensive.
