Resolution L10. Strengthening cooperation with academia and promoting scientific research in drug control issues in order to achieve the goals set forth in the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem

Russia. The aim of the resolution is to consolidate scientific potential to provide assistance to member states at CND on demand and supply. It is necessary to set up an efficient cooperation system between CND and academia to adapt the scientific knowledge into effective decisions. The focus of academia on the world drug problem will enable to focus our work at the UNGASS in 2016 to formulate measures and balanced approaches in addressing the world drug problem.
Title
Adopted.

Preambular paragraphs
PP1 is adopted.

Egypt. PP2: what is the “internationally accepted standards for scientific research”?

Russia. It is acceptable and adopted research by ECOSOC in 1976.

Egypt. Wait on this paragraph until we check something.

UK. to provide some clarification, our expert provided a lengthy explanation of the fact that there are a number of internationally accepted standard, and there is not one specific standard we are referring to. Here, in terms of trafficking, effects of drugs, etc., there are a number of scientific fields that work on this and each has a set of accepted standards followed by the international community.

PP2 is adopted.

Venezuela. PP3: at the very end, we would like to have “illicit” changed: move to say “the illicit supply and demand for drugs” instead of “the supply and demand for illicit drugs”.

Chair. don’t modify text from a resolution that has already been agreed upon.

Venezuela. Let’s keep this in brackets for now until we have the exact wording.

Egypt. change “reaffirming” with “recalling” so that it is clearer that we are mentioning the resolution text.

PP4 is adopted without comments.

Russia. On PP5 remove “emerging” NPS as many NPS are not new.

Egypt. we prefer to retain “emerging”, as we are talking about emerging substances now and in the future.

Chair. Perhaps we could use “current and emerging” – this is accepted and PP5 is adopted.

PP6 is adopted without comments.

Egypt. PP7: add at the end “ensuring access to narcotic drugs for the relief of pain and suffering while preventing its diversion and/or abuse”.

UK. We preferred the original proposal without “and/or abuse”.

Egypt. We are here conducting scientific research, and maybe there will be abuse or not, and there will be diversion, or not. But we need to take all of this into account.

PP7 is adopted.

PP8 is adopted without comments.

Venezuela. On PP3: we would like to be flexible, if we take text directly from the resolution. But here we are not citing the resolution from 2005. Since 2005 the wording was modified to be correct and we insist that this wording should be changed here. We find that in that resolution a reference to “reducing illicit supply and demand for drugs” in the resolution, so we can pick up this wording.

Netherlands. Having heard the proposal by Venezuela, we want to keep with the original wording.

Venezuela. I can understand the concern raised by the Netherlands. We suggest: “the illicit demand and/or the illicit supply of drugs”. Our rational is that “illicit drugs” refers to a limited number of drugs. What makes them illicit is when they are within the cycle of criminal supply and demand.

Chair. Let’s keep this one pending and hold consultations later unless Russia wants to respond.

Russia. Let’s keep this PP open if we don’t have a compromise.

Egypt. Let’s stop the paragraph “in practice” and remove “in which states recognised…” to avoid this issue. This is accepted and PP3 is adopted.

Operative paragraphs
Australia. We asked whether it was possible for UNODC if they could explain what this informal scientific network is and how it has progressed, and to ensure that this provision is accurately reflecting where we are at.

UNODC. This text reflects what is happening, starting with a small group of 20 experts. We were asked why this group was not permanent. We made it informal, with experts nominated by member states to provide evidence to inform the policies, at the request of the CND. We have minimal amounts of contents. We had a statement in the demand reduction discussion, with a scientific hearing. It is a minimal form of our dream, we want to move forward with this project, having them in a permanent basis for new topics to be consulted upon. The idea of the commission is to be inspired by scientists. And scientists are at the service of the CND. We will mediate this kind of intervention. We are grateful for the Russia Federation for convening the scientific network meeting, but we have budget limitations. The scientists are available to volunteer for this activity, but everything should be designed for technical communication and exchange.

Germany. It is more than clear that we need information about meetings of this scientific committee to be shared with member states. We have nothing against adding this if it makes it clearer in the resolution.

UK. We were in agreement with Australia that we needed more information to clarify what the committee is about. We don’t have enough information to include the last section of the paragraph around the role of the commission and how it will communicate its findings with member states.

Russia. We can include that the committee will communicate its outcomes with member states.

This is agreed and OP1 is adopted.

OP2 is adopted without comments.

Egypt. On OP3, what policies are we talking about here in terms of supply reduction – national or international level? Or regional level? We want clarification on this.

Russia. These policies are the same – national policies should be in line with international policies.

OP3 is adopted.

UK. On OP4, it should mention “Expert consultations” instead of “technical consultations”, as was agreed in informals.

OP4 is adopted.

OP5 is adopted without comments.

Egypt. On OP6: after “member states”, please add “upon request”. Also, what policies are we talking about here, national or international policies?

Russia. On the policy level here, it is again the same, we see it as a tool from UNODC.

OP6 is adoped.

OP7 was deleted, so OP8 will become OP7.

Uruguay. Please give us clarification in paragraph 8, Uruguay had requested the inclusion of the 3 UN drug conventions and other relevant international instruments. It would be good to include “other international conventions” and we are wondering why this isn’t there as it is standard language. It should state: “In accordance with the three international drug control conventions and other relevant international instrument.”  Standard language from Ministerial declaration, so request it be written that way in this document. 

Russia.  Which relevant instruments do you mean?
 
Uruguay. It is important to mention here, and the human rights instruments just to strike a balance and this is already agreed language.
 
Russia. Which in particular relevant instruments?
 
Uruguay. As we said, these are human rights instruments — we could make a long list, but what we don’t want to make happen in this resolution is to generate a step backwards with regard to MD which we already have. 
 
Egypt. Will try to bridge.  “In full compliance with the three international drug control conventions and in accordance with other relevant instruments.”
 
USA.  Full compliance language not acceptable to us.  would prefer to stick with original language.
 
Korea. Stick with text on screen.  Doesn’t like international instruments. 
 
Uruguay. Perhaps we are at a crossroads here.  Uruguay cannot cede on this point although we understand the opinions of all our colleagues.  We cannot go back to language already agreed upon in Ministerial Declaration . We have human rights agreements, we have health agreements, we have language agreed on last year.  We would keep this para in brackets.
 
Germany.  Having only international instruments not concrete enough.  we would say “instruments including international law”.
 
Russia. Has some doubts.  We are all going by language of Ministerial statement. Could not neglect it.  however, we see some contradiction with the proposal of distinguished rep of Uruguay.  If we see some relevant instruments which were not named and only after this we see “and taking into account pd and poa, means that some instruments have higher profile than PD and poa.  Have some mix in compromise.  For example.  “In accordance with the three international drug control conventions, PD and POA,”   and then proposal from Austria.

Uruguay.  I was referring to Austria’s proposal.  We can accompany that proposal, but not the proposal made by RF. 

Korea. Suggest including in accordance with the three international drug control conventions, other relevant applicable international legal instruments, and taking into account the MD and POA.

OP 8 Looks like this now:  “Encourages MS to continuously share the latest scientific research, taking into account the contributions of national, regional and international scientific community, including academia, on the most effective demand and supply reduction strategies, in accordance with the three international drug control conventions, other relevant and applicable international legal instruments, and taking into account the PD and POA.

Germany Use original text of PD and POA. 
 
Austria. Support what Germany said, but reads JMS —“With the three international drug control conventions as well as other relevant international laws.”

Chair. Park this para. and go to OP 9.

Invites Ms and other donors to consider providing… No objections. 

OP 10.  No comments.

Meeting suspended for 10 minutes. “Three international drug control conventions as well as other relevant international laws” —JMS language.  Approval. 

Concludes reading of draft resolution L10.  

Financial implications.  OP 1 and 10. 

OP 1. Envisaged that EB resources in 153K USD to hold one scientific meeting in Vienna.  Two days conference without interpretation and professional staff.  163USD to hold one expert group meeting and distribute science based guidelines, conference, translation and printing and professional staff for four months.

OP10.  Report would be oral so no additional resources.  If written report, then more money. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.