Committee of the Whole – L.6: Promoting adequate availability of internationally controlled drugs for medical and scientific purposes

Argentina – The CND needs this resolution because it addresses topical and specific programmes. Argentina is a co-sponsor of this resolution.

Pakistan – PP3: Wishes to change ‘the continuing efforts of NGOs…’ with ‘Noting the participatory role of civil society’.

Russia: we need to make a difference between NGOs and civil society. We should state ‘civil society, including NGOs.

Argentina: does not support Pakistan’s proposal: civil society has made incredible efforts in the past, and simply noting their participatory role is not enough here. I feel that we are reducing the role of civil society if we acknowledge Pakistan’s new wording. Response from Pakistan: We do not deny anything, but we think that we should cite the ‘participatory role’ of NGOs. Australia and Argentina prefer to retain the original wording.

Russian Federation: End of PP3: question about the last segment of the paragraph: ‘particularly in countries where availability is non-existent or almost non-existent’. What are these states? In this paragraph, it seems that we are giving priority to NGOs. Should we do this? Australia: We would like to bring Russia’s attention to the INCB report. The language used here was used in Resolution 53/4 adopted last year.

UK: We should use the language used in Resolution 53/4, which would resolve the issue on that paragraph. It would read: ‘Noting with appreciation the efforts of non-governmental organisations and civil society in continuing to highlight the importance of adequate availability of internationally controlled drugs for medical and scientific purposes’.

OP1: the USA want to add the words ‘Requests the UNODC, … review and update [if necessary – ADDED]’. Mexico: ‘review and, if necessary, update’ because reviewing is always necessary. This was agreed upon by the USA.

OP4: Sudan – proposal from Australia: paragraph 4: ‘the INCB and the UNODC’, is that necessary? After explanations from Australia, Sudan accepted the change. Argentina and Australia: leave it to square brackets for now. The goal of this resolution is to ensure further cooperation between UN institutions, so asked for time to consider this.

OP6: Pakistan proposed ‘according to [local – ADDED] requirements’. Argentina and Russia: paragraph 6 should remain as it stands, it is clear enough. Pakistan: ‘according to [their – ADDED] requirements’. Argentina agreed.

OP10: Sudan: we want to improve the reporting questionnaire, and this needs to be made clear in this paragraph. Australia: we can delete the paragraph for the sake of clarity, Sudan agreed.

OP 11: Russian Federation: the wording in this paragraph is problematic: which concrete steps should be implemented. UK: we could say: ‘take appropriate measures, including involving appropriate government ministries’, but we would prefer to retain the original language. Russian Federation: it is not the mandate of the CND to force government ministries to get involved in the issue. We understand the UK’s idea, but we need different wording that would be wider: ‘ensure cooperation between ministries’. Russian Federation: ‘Encourages member states to take appropriate measures, including by strengthening inter-agency coordination at the national level’. Australia would prefer to remain closer to the original wording.

OP12: China: What we want to see is: ‘to provide assistance to those countries, especially developing ones’. Sudan wishes to include UNODC as organisations facilitating the provision of technical assistance.

USA – Wishes to include an OP13: ‘Invites member states and other donors to provide extra resources for those purposes according to the rules and purposes of the UN’.

The discussions will be resumed tomorrow at 10:00 am.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.