Alternative development (AD) has been a contested, fragmented concept. Envisioned as bridging drug control and development cooperation, its trajectory and siloed operationalization were marked by resistance, mixed results and security-driven reappropriations deviating AD from its intended development rationale. Now, the 2016 UNGASS accelerated AD’s normalization (Nay 2014) as a pillar of development-oriented drug policy (Alimi 2017, Brombacher&David 2020).
The post-UNGASS debate, despite distorted “complementarities,” reflects interest in broadening AD beyond its traditional focus on rural illicit cultivation. Thailand, Latin American and Caribbean countries are testing “innovative alternative development approaches” (IADA) to address a wider array of illicit drug supply activities, including micro-trafficking, in diverse terrains (urban areas, borderlands, conflict-affected territories, ethnic and indigenous communities…). These emphasize cross-cutting issues (gender, human rights, rights of Indigenous peoples, environmental protection…) while adapting to different policy frameworks (regulated cannabis markets). A recent study commissioned by COPOLAD (2024, Alimi&Gasca) explores these evolutions, which have sparked calls to revise the 2014 UN Guiding Principles.
Updating our 2017 AD socio-historical review and drawing on COPOLAD qualitative fieldwork, this paper examines the advent of AD as a development-based drug policy referential for action. It explores normative processes and entrepreneurship shaping AD as a viable policy category for illicit drug supply. Using policy transfer, change, and evaluation instruments, it argues AD’s future depends on reclaiming its development-first orientation, while addressing conceptual dilution risks stemming from elasticity and innovations. It proposes a conceptual scheme repositioning AD within a people-centered, development-based drug policy paradigm, emphasizing scalability, impact, and coherence aspects.