Committee of the Whole - Tuesday Morning

L3:

Chair: Adjourned yesterday stating we’d talk about L2 – but in meantime they’ve gone to informals. So we’ll start with L3, then L6, then we’ll see how we go. L5 informals in M5 now, L4 informals M4 now, L2 this afternoon at 2pm in M4.

USA: We’re actually doing informals at 1pm. Rm reserved 6-9pm on US resolution. As cow is not convening tomorrow morning we invite you to join us at 1pm and 6pm if you’d like to join informals.

Chair: we already have a revised text with several problems cleared in informals.

Invite you to look at the title – any comments?

No comments – agreed.

PP1? No comments – agreed.

PP2? No comments – agreed.

PP3? No comments – agreed.

PP3 bis – any additional comments?

PP3bis

Netherlands: PP3bis added by Peru to bring us back to 2009 PD which defined indicators.

Russia: we’d like to add wording to end of PP3bis to address that issue: “and establish, through the CND and in the coordination with the Statistical Commission of the ECOSOC, clear and measurable indicators in the area of supply reduction in order to accurately assess the achievement of any goals and targets that might be set by the international community beyond 20009”

USA: just want to double check language: will get back to you in a minute

Colombia: there is some understanding here. It’s seems we’re putting the CND in both places and that there is an agreement to do so – so we need to discuss this

Chair: Okay – we’ll come back to PP3bis. Any comments for PP4?

USA: PP3bis – we’re fine with this para – have confirmed the 2009 agreed language

Secretariat: Yes this language is accurate.

Colombia: We no longer have our reservations. We are happy for PP3bis now.

Russia: in terms of English – a few more worded need to be added “and decided to establish” after ‘to address that issue’ – so it reads better in English

Colombia: Maybe Russia could explain what this means to CND? We don’t understand this through the CND

Russia: Thanks Colombia – this is a literal translation of para 22M from 2009 PD.

Australia: Question to esteemed Russian Fed colleagues – is this new amendment still agreed language?

Russia: The quote begins with term ‘establish’ – it reads ‘member states should establish through the CND…”. Possible alternative to ‘decided’ is ‘recommended’

Chair: Australian delegate nodding – Accepted.

Chair:

PP4? -No comments

PP5? – No comments – Agreed

PP6?

Australia?

Australia: Sorry, wanted to discuss PP6bis

Iran: I would like to go back to PP5. We suggest to insert mandates.

Netherlands: Two points: we would like to see in ever paragpoahraph discussing UNODC and other UN bodies that they don’t doubt they work within mandates and this is exact language to text of last year.

Chair: Will Iran accept?

Iran: if accurate language yes we agree.

Chair:

PP5? Agreed

PP6? No comments – Agreed

PP6bis?

Australia: Regarding PP6bis, Canada and Australia have been working on an alternative but want more time so we ask for it to be bracketed.

Chair: We will return to PP6bis at a later stage.

PP7? No comments – Agreed.

PP8?

Mexico: Can we add and ‘other related problems’, to add the term ‘other’

Russian Federation: We would prefer to keep the general message without specifically listing the areas where we want UNODC to examine the trends of the annual report. We want to stick with the original version of the paragraph.

Australia: Usually you would say what trends are being looked for. ‘I am looking for trends’ is very general. A suggestion, but we are happy to withdraw.

Chair: Will the Russian Federation accept Australian amendment or want it deleted?

Russian Federation: Deleted

Chair: Any more comments for PP8? – Agreed

PP9? No comments – Agreed

PP10?

The Netherlands: We discussed the part in brackets. There are areas where people find it more difficult to monitor their policies. Hence we suggest ‘areas in which data are currently scarce’.

Finland: Suggested compromise. Netherlands explained discussion. We keep part of the both, it would read as it is from the start and in the brackets would read as it is in the brackets but would leave ‘from the point of view for drug supply and drug demand reduction’.

Russian Federation: The real problem for us is in this para that it’s not clear what thematic areas we may be discussing. We would prefer to leave this part of the para in brackets and consult further with delegations.

Australia: Going back to conversation on trends. We support Finland’s proposal. We are interested in prevalence of use and prevalence of problems as well as drug supply and drug demand reduction – could lead to a long list. We could drop the specifics and have something inclusive by implication.

Colombia: We support Finland’s proposal

Sweden: We support Finland’s proposal

Russian Federation: It would still be our preference to work in this para to improve the wording so it is agreeable to all.

PP14

Iran: We would like to add ‘where appropriate’ in the first line.

Chair: A slight modifier in the PP14. No other comments, can we accept PP14? – Agreed. We continue with the operative paragraphs. Para 1 is still bracketed

Belgium: Add a concept from the UNGASS outcome document. After ‘vulnerable members of society and communities’ add ‘and society as a whole’ – official language of the UNGASS, para 4a.

[Country]: We would like to add ‘gender equality, equity in health’

UK: We welcome gender equality in this para. If unacceptable we accept gender mainstreaming – ECOSOC res 1997.

Chair: Can we accept all these additions? US?

USA: This is too broad-based for us. We have already discussed what cross-cutting issues are in 2015. We don’t believe we need to enter into more discussion here on gender equality, equity in health etc. We do not accept these added preferences, we only want the cross-cutting issues identified in the UNGASS 2016 document.

Russian Fed: We share the view with the United States. We want this to reflect the views by us in the document of UNGASS. We could agree with those cross-cutting issues mentioned in the special session document and support the proposal ‘and communities’ but not ready to adopt proposals by Sweden and Canada.

Chair: The language we are putting up now is directly from UNGASS. Do we want to go further?

Canada: WE had included the the impacts of stigma because the UNODC recently hosted a consultation on the technicalities of stigma and the role of structural stigma, and there is a summary report tabled yesterday and up on the CND website – that is our rationale for inclusion.

Sweden: We should discuss this further in informals.

Colombia: we see it as an issue of gender mainstreaming – we maintain we support gender mainstreaming.

Chair: Sent to informals.

OP2?

Russian Federation: We have two amendments. Given Canada’s amendment we are not clear what ‘collective capacity’ might mean, we prefer to talk about ‘national capacity’ – we want the following ‘our national capacities and knowledge’ and then we would like the agreed upon wording ‘addressing and countering’

Australia: ‘To address and counter’ rather than ‘addressing and countering’

The Netherlands: After ‘member states’ read ‘, to cooperate among them with the involvement of the national statistical entities and’ proposed by Mexico

USA: We welcome addition by Mexico. ‘Collective’ is not the perfect word, this could be discussed further.

Russian Fed: Amendments by Mexican delegation – we point out the data collection in Russia should not be done by a statistical institution but by the bodies responsible for work on narcotic drugs. We suggest ‘the involvement of the competent national authorities’. Also the proposal by the US, to retain the original idea of the para about strengthening our collective understanding of how to effectively address the global drugs problem, I think we could find appropriate wording but the word ‘capacity’ and then using the word ‘collective’ does not work anymore.

Belgium: Limiting to ‘collective national’ capacities is too limited.

Italy: please add ‘collective knowledge’

USA: We want to add the same as Italy. We agree with the Russian point

Mexico: we accommodate Russian amendment. Regarding national capacities vs collection, we understand some of the national capacities are collective capacities. We suggest ‘our collective national capacities and knowledge’

Chair: Is this acceptable?

Mexico: We are happy with the change.

Chair: Can we accept the text? I repeat my question, can we accept this language?

UK: As native speaker, first line: ‘to cooperate with each other,’ and then another comma after ‘entities’

Australia: We can remove ‘with each other’, ‘to cooperate’ is enough.

Chair: Can we accept?
OP2 – Agreed.

OP7

The Netherlands: There is a decision to consider this new ARQ. Focal points for the ARQ are discussed later this week, so we don’t see the necessity of this anymore and propose to delete OP7.

Chair: silent withdrawal of OP7 accepted.

OP8? No comments – Agreed

OP9?

Russian Federation: For 8bis from resolution 58/7: requests UNODC to continue to convene an information international scientific network composed of scientists, nominated by Member States, ad invites the Office to continue this initiative, to communicate its outcomes to Member States in order to facilitate a closer dialogue between Member States and the scientific community, including academia, and to brief Member States periodically on the status of their initiative’.

Russian Federation: OP1 of 58/7

Australia: Question, was it ‘to facilitate a closer’, or ‘to facilitate a close’ dialogue

Finland: We want to check the language and continue discussion in informals

Colombia: We also want to keep this para in brackets to reflect more on language. We would appreciate an explanation why Russian Federation has brought this to dialogue

Russian Federation: We’re ready to continue discussion in informals, it is important to talk about international scientific networks.

Chair: delegate to informals in any case

Colombia: This is an issue of data collection belonging particularly to the member states, we do not want this para in the resolution.

Mexico: asking to continue to combine a network sounds strange. Relying on the scientific community is a positive one.

Chair: OP8 to informals

OP9

The Netherlands: Relates to the common position. We suggest to take to informals.

OP10? No comments – agreed

OP11?

Russian Federation: We would like to propose ‘within their mandates’, that would be moved to the third line after ‘provide’

Chair: OP11 – Agreed with acceptance of proposal to move it after OP8

OP12? No comments – Agreed

OP13?

Finland: Many of us would like to keep this in its original form.

Russian Federation: We would like to discuss this proposal separately with interested delegations

Mexico: Any discussion regarding this issue has to be based and guided and cannot break the financial regulation and rules. We are not willing to engage in a conversation which aims to establish a different regime outside of existing financial rules regarding extrabudgetary contributions
Sweden: We also support no changes in this text – there is no reason for changes proposed by Russia

USA: The standard form of language appears in every CND resolution, so would be unusual to change

Guatemala: Regarding this paragraph we do not want to see greater changes. When talking about the budget we need ot be extremely cautious and the resolutions adopted by the UNODC and other bodies is what we have always stuck to. But this text could be improved. When we talk about ‘other member states and donors to provide extrabudgetary resources’ – would it be sufficient to simply say ‘provide resources’

Colombia: SUpporting keeping the standard language for this para

Chair: Majority of speakers would like to keep the standard language. Will Russia accept?

Russian Federation: UNfortunately the reasons why we want to change standard wording went alongside actions by certian member states, we need to still think carefully to rpotct ourselves from new and unclear trends.

Chair: In certain resolutions there is provision to ‘consider providing’ to make language lighter, less prescriptive.

Russian Federation: We would like to still discuss this in informals.

The Netherlands: at 3.30 this afternoon to further discuss paragraphs that are still open. – room will be shown on the blue board

L6:

Title:

Chair: Changes in informals accepted – now agreed in COW

PP1:

Chair: Changes in informals accepted – now agreed in COW

PP2:

Chair: No comments – accepted now in COW

PP3:

Chair: No comments – accepted now in COW

PP4:

Chair: Changes in informals accepted – now agreed in COW

PP4bis:

Chair: Changes in informals accepted – now agreed in COW

PP5:

Chair: No comments – accepted now in COW

Chair: An addition: from PP11 (last years resolution) – accepted

PP6:

Chair: No comments, agreed informal – accepted now in COW

All next PPs accepted until last PP

USA: We’re happy with this now

Chair: Agreed now

OP1:

Chair: No comments, agreed informal – accepted now in COW

OP2:

Our suggestion for OP3 could be added to OP2 – could we go through OP3 first

OP3:

Germany: Draw your attention to OP3bis: our tendency is to keep OP3 as short as possible and focus on real message

USA: yesterday we were trying to accommodate 3 core issues – we agree with Germany that a short and concise paragraph. Community support and sustainability of programs -we can go along with 3bis. We realised that OP2 comes in part in 2016 Outcome Doc – original language from 7J would work quite well here on gender sensitivity. Add ‘and to this end to consider development-oriented interventions, while ensuring that both men and women benefit equally from them’ (in OP2)

Canada: Yes – we support US proposal and can shorten OP3

Australia: Can drop ‘in the long run’ from OP3bis – it’s redundant if we’re talking about sustaining development already

Chair: Can we accept OP2 and OP3 and OP3bis? Yes – accepted.

OP4: