Taking it home: Tórshavn 2026

11.10.2026 - In Tórshavn, the bigger policy questions were never far from everyday life. Discussions about alcohol retail systems, drug reform and public health data kept leading back to people: the environments young people grow up in, the support families can find, and the decisions that make harm more or less likely.

Before the conference, we asked how to connect policy with the reality on the ground. We leave with a clearer sense of how closely they belong together, a better understanding of the work being done in the Faroe Islands, and real admiration for the people doing it.

Prevention is a good example. We often explain it through laws, age limits, prices and restrictions. Those measures matter. Prevention also takes place in ordinary moments: a conversation at a festival, a welcoming place to spend an evening, or a familiar adult who has time to listen.

Someone may come in to charge a phone or get warm. Over time, that same place may become somewhere they feel able to ask for help. Trust grows through repeated contact. Keeping that contact going requires people, time and stable funding.

This gives a practical meaning to a question we brought to the Faroe Islands: what kind of environment are we creating for young people? Asking them to make healthy choices carries a responsibility for adults too. We need to make those choices possible, attractive and supported.

And when problems develop, people need services that work together. Alcohol or drug use may be connected with difficulties at home, mental health, loneliness or insecure housing. A person already struggling should know where to turn. Families need that clarity too.

There were also reminders to be careful about how we describe progress.

Lower consumption and fewer young people trying alcohol are encouraging. They show that habits can change. But an average can hide the groups facing the greatest risks, and a positive trend can become an excuse to pay less attention. We should welcome progress while continuing to ask who is being left behind.

The same care is needed when we compare countries. Figures can look similar while measuring different things. If we want to learn from each other, we need to understand the definitions, methods and gaps behind the numbers. Good data should help us decide where to act.

Public health protections need continued attention as well. Systems that have worked for years can become so familiar that their purpose is taken for granted. Meanwhile, proposals for greater convenience, wider access or new commercial opportunities often come with an easy story to tell.

We need to explain the benefits of existing protections just as clearly. What do they make possible? What harm do they help prevent? And what could be lost through a series of changes that each seem small?

These questions apply to drug policy too. New products and reforms require careful examination of the evidence, the interests involved and the ability of services and auhtorities to respond. A political agreement still needs clear responsibilities and practical ways for people to reach support.

One reflection from the closing discussion deserves particular attention: how we respond when we lose.

Commercial interests have considerable resources and influence. Yet explaining every setback through their overwhelming power can leave us passive and give them more influence than they actually have. We can become too comfortable with the story of why we could never have won.

We need to examine our own choices as well. Did we reach the right people? Did we understand the arguments we faced? Was our message clear and understandable? Where is the next opportunity?

Civil society has a role in shaping these decisions. We should take that role seriously and be confident about the knowledge and experience we bring.

That is also a reason to keep this conversation going. The value of meeting becomes clearer through what we do afterwards: an idea tested, a partnership strengthened, an argument explained better, or a question examined more closely.

There may well be a Tórshavn+6: a Zoom meeting six months after the Faroe Islands, giving us a chance to revisit these topics. What has changed? What have we tried? And which of the thoughts we took home have found their way into our work?

Thank you, Faroe Islands, for hosting us, and thank you to everyone who came, shared their experiences and contributed to our discussions.