Chair: I hear OP1 was agreed at the informals. I see there are no more comments, so agreed CoW.
OP2 also agreed CoW.
OP3bis already agreed at informals. No more comments, therefore agreed CoW.
OP11 also agreed at informals. No more comments, therefore agreed CoW.
OP13 agreed at informals, therefore agreed CoW.
PP6bis also agreed at informals, therefore agreed CoW.
PP – “noting with concern..” agreed at informals, therefore agreed CoW.
PP – “recognising the important role..” agreed at informals, therefore agreed CoW?
Russia: a technical correction: transaction or transactions?
Australia: We suggest the version with the plural.
Russia: Apologies I was looking at a different para.
Chair: is PP – “recognising” is agreed CoW.
What about PP13?
Russia: This wording is taken from resolution 58/6 the sector needs to be in plural.
Chair: PP13 is agreed CoW.
PP – “reiterating the importance..” agreed at informals, therefore agreed CoW.
I wish to invite the sponsors. How would you like to proceed.
US: We would like to conclude with the final paras.
Chair: What about PP8alt?
US: this is connected with OP1. I suggest the deletion of “based on the principle of common…footnote as well as data protection and privacy language”.
Chair: This is a new proposal. I see no objections therefore agreed CoW
Chair: What about PP14ter? Can we look the text in brackets?
Russia: From our stand point we need to reflect on the link in this para to UNODC the opioids strategy. We therefore propose “in close collaboration..”
Canada: There are 3 different proposals so please let’s have all in the screen. For the time being coordination remains our preference.
Russia: This language does not cover interlinked and coordinated. whereas with the Canadian language is more focused on the importance of it.
Canada: The idea of giving instruction to INCB was taken last year. We don’t see the need to have such tight text as proposed by Russian delegation.
Mexico: It appears that the problem was pointed to by Russia, there is a discrepancy: the pp should be highlighting the importance of the tools that the INCB has available and the methods they use. Highlighting what the INCB does could come together with the UNODC’s strategy. In the context of INCB projects, we would have to have a reference to the opioid strategy. Highlighting INCB’s program in a preambular would link to UNODC opioid strategy.
USA: We can take a vote of earlier proposals. This para is important because it points to the work currently ongoing. We take to the Russian point about the close collaboration between INCB and UNODC. Could we take the language proposed by Mexico and put it after the INCB project description?! Then “highlights the importance of and welcomes their efforts to maintain close cooperation…”.
Russia: We feel our views are important to this resolution and we would like to propose our own variation. Electronic platforms for information exchange doesn’t only work for opioids. We propose to divide this pp into two paragraphs. After “system” we could go “highlighting the importance of their global Operation Partnerships […] Implemented by the INCB in collaboration with the UNODC opioid strategy” and the rest would be deleted.
Canada: As one of the founders of these projects, we have not seen the precise wording so I am careful to highlight or take note or reference any details. We haven’t developed a sufficient understanding. We would “Also highlighting the importance of INCB’s global Operation Partnerships […] and the importance of close coordination with the UNODC as is implemented.
Russia: The project was launched recently therefore if delegations lack information, well, we could do without the second part of the pp if the USA finds it acceptable. It might make sense to seek clarification from INCB and UNODC about how they collaborate so we don’t invent anything here.
INCB Secretariat: Based on the ongoing opioid project, as described in pp14, it is about airports – we support MS in interdictions. This is a board project based on the board’s decision. INCB is separate organ under the UN framework, however we reside in Vienna side by side the UNODC and our subjects are similar. We plan coordination: twice a year coordination meeting, we share information. There is no overlap or competition. UNODC has strong competitive edge in science, research and broader technical assistance. Frequently, we ask support from UNODC for example to identify government partners – or the other way around, about trafficking we provide information.
Chair: This is a good explanation. I see that is captured in the proposal. The question is on coordination, collaboration or cooperation.
Russia: This project is a very new initiative. Therefore we would like to have clarification in to the extent of that collaboration.
US: We thank INCB for the explanation. We support Canada’s version.
UNODC: As the coordinator of the opioid strategy we are not familiar of the 2year coordination meetings. as it stands there is not much collaboration between the 2 programmes.
INCB Secretariat: Today there is no need of these institutionalised meetings. INCB is not necessary invited to all relevant meetings however we are happy to endeavour in ensuring collaboration and coordination.
Chair: I believe the text as is it does no harm
US: we believe this issue has been discussed enough. It is a standard to request the Agencies to coordinate. We need to underscore the importance of that coordination.
Japan: We fully agree with US. The details are not to be discussed here.
Chair: I see consensus therefore we accept the language so PP14 and PP14quat agreed CoW.
PP18bis. I wish to invite sponsors for comments.
Colombia: A small suggestion to use the agreed language and add “substances” after scheduling.
Chair: I see no objections so PP18bis agreed CoW.
Moving to OP3; I see the whole para is bracketed.
China: From our understanding only retain the first part. Also to remove “ and trafficking of scheduled..illicit manufacturing of drugs”. For us the discussion on precursors is the same as for other commercial goods in terms of trafficking.
Romania on behalf of EU: Explicitly mentioning non-scheduled precursors and it is very important for the EU. The main reason is that non-scheduled precursors are at the core of most resolutions in the last few years. It fuels the fentanyl problem in North America and ecstasy in Europe. IT would be a step back to refer to them explicitly. Scheduled substances don’t need an encouragement, it’s a legal obligation of all parties to the convention. In other words, there is already a commitment to work with the private sector in this regard.
China: For those non-scheduled substances, around the World, you can’t carry out an investigation. It is a generic review or information collection but not a criminal investigation.
Japan: We agree with EU. MAPA.
Argentina: cooperation is important.
EU: I now better understand the difficulties – would it help if we said “further disrupting”?
Canada: Is there an agreement on the second half of the pp?
Colombia: We agree with Canada, but we also want to delete “chemicals”.
Chair: Can we accept the text?
China: Non-scheduled precursors will only be regarded in case of trafficking. We think we need to remove the “with a view to…” part.
Chair: We keep the reference to scheduled and non-scheduled.
Australia: Just a technical update on the reference to the private sector, maybe it should say “private sector entities” to be consistent with the language.
USA: We support the text as it stands.
Chair: Are we ready to accept this? PP agreed in cow.
We proceed with OP5.
US: We would like to propose some revisions; to remove the word “use” and “health care” and complete the para with “private sector entities”
Chair: I see no comments therefore OP5 agreed CoW.
The CoW is ready to send the relolution to the Plenary. We are awaiting to hear the financial implications first though.
Chair: Resolution agreed and sent to Plenary for adoption.