Committee of the Whole: E/CN.7/2016/L.2-L.5, L.10, L.11, L.8

Chair: Merging of the three NPS resolutions into L13. Currently in the process of being translated. Informals started this morning. We will likely have it introduced this afternoon. L2 making good progress. Will be able to discuss it this afternoon or even this morning.

Greece: We provided a draft with no track changes. Tried to redraft it. We can have it ready in thirty minutes.

Chair: Update on L3? L4?

Russia: L3 will be ready to be on the screen in the COW this afternoon or tomorrow morning. In the process of consultations for L4.

Chair: Update on L5?

USA: Had informals this morning. Will have them again this afternoon. Will hope to bring this to the COW this afternoon.

Chair: Update on L10?

Thailand: Intense informals last night. Have no perspective regarding the COW. Heard they made good progress. Will ask my colleagues to update you.

Chair: Update on L11?

Peru: Already received a number of comments from member states. Trust all delegations will work constructively in informals. Hope to submit it to the COW this afternoon.

Australia: Unlikely that it will come this afternoon, but will keep the COW informed.

Chair: Turn to Mexico to get an update on L8 and to revisit the text on the screen.

Mexico: Co-sponsors did not have an opportunity to convene a round of informals. Had some bilaterals. Can submit some compromises to suggest for text to contribute to a clean up exercise. We can proceed paragraph by paragraph. Where possible, seek to align positions.

PP1: No changes. Approved.

PP2:

Mexico: On behalf of the co-sponsors, we would prefer to keep this and the next two paragraphs. Would prefer to discuss those as a package.

PP5: No changes. Approved.

PP6: No changes. Approved.

PP7: 

Mexico: Amendments to the text submitted by Peru. We can go along with these amendments. Submit them to the room.

Germany: Two remarks. Should say “twentieth anniversary” not “twentieth anniversaries.” Not logical to include reference to the 20th anniversary here.  “Programme of action of the ICPD” should come later in the text.

Chair: Look at the logical order. Substance is agreed.

PP8: No changes. Approved.

PP9: No changes. Approved.

PP10: No changes. Approved.

PP11:

Mexico: Text in red on the screen submitted by request of one delegation. Had bilaterals with them and thank them for compromise. Can return to previous text. Can return to “welfare of families.”

Russia: We had supported. We will insist on family in singular.

Mexico: Only spoke with the delegation that had originally submitted, but trust that Russia had supported. This text will also be strengthened in an OP, so this PP is broader. Strike out from “the great contribution” up to “families.”

Holy See: Like to see the family explicitly named in this PP. Family is the foundation on which later OPs are built. Hope that mention of the family could be retained, but open to discussing the exact language.

Mexico: PP needs more work. We will take it up in consultations.

PP12:

Mexico: Part of an operative paragraph. Suggestion was to divide it into OP7 and here. So we did divide it up accordingly. Yesterday, a number of delegations were seeking clarity on language, particularly “affected populations.” Suggestion is to return to previous text and keep it as a preambular, and take out OP. Suggest text below.

“Emphasizing the important role that civil society plays in particular non-governmental organizations in addressing the world drug problem and noting with appreciation the important contributions to the mainstreaming of a gender perspective in drug related policies and programmes…”

Russia: Can Mexico reiterate the link between this and OP7?

Mexico: We would delete OP7 and keep this language in the PP as it currently stands.

Russia: Considers the linkage between this PP and OP7 strange. Should not make this linkage.

Chair: Want to keep OP7, and have this PP as amended?

Russia: Yes, keep OP7. We can agree with this PP, except the word “affected populations” as it is unclear who are meant.

Mexico: Reference to “affected populations” comes from agreed language. Need more discussion. Will do so.

Mexico: One of the delegations pointed out that a significant mention to the Convention on Violence Against Women was removed in compromises. Would like to propose a new PP now, and can discuss it in upcoming informals.

“Reaffirming the commitments of state parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in particular those related to the world drug problem.”

Egypt: Comments on a number of PPs. Should I bring them up now, or in informals.

Chair: In informals.

OP1:

Mexico: Have not achieved agreement in bilaterals. Not sure if it would be wise to open this now, or rather in informals?

Chair: In informals. Important to address the realities of people out there. For example, with HIV, we have transmission from mother to child. We can agree this is not something we would like to see affecting an unborn child. Some countries wanted more specific language to highlight specific problems.

OP2:

Russia: What are the financial implications on producing this new report?

Chair: Do not anticipate new financial commitments. Can approve OP2?

Egypt: Why can’t we say “Commission on Narcotic Drugs” instead of “Commission mandated by the three international drug control conventions”?

Mexico: We have no problem with that change.

Chair: Approved text with that Egyptian proposal.

OP2 bis: 

Mexico: Proposal on the screen is the outcome of informals. Co-sponsors have no problem with the two amendments. Perhaps a grammatical adjustment would be adding “of” after “note” in “Takes note the.”

Russia: What do we mean by “and girls”? Do we include minors? If so, do they have any possibility of policymaking in this case?

Mexico: Not a proposal from cosponsors. It was a proposal in compromises in the informals. I think it reflects the fact that girls should be taken into account. If we want to delete that and just refer to women, we can submit that for consideration.

Cuba: Replace “their involvement” with “their contributions,” as involvement is the responsibility of the state.

Chair: Wrap this up in informals.

Mexico: Hoping we might reach agreement in the room. Put Cuba’s recommendation on the screen.

Egypt: “The needs and specificities of girls” rather than contributions. How can girls contribute? What is the operational impact?

Germany: Willing to go along with Egypt and what Cuba said. Happy with either proposal. Encourage us to finalize those here, rather than in informals.

Chair: Contribution means…[described what was meant.]

Egypt: Happy with it as is.

Mexico: Canada suggested that we might refer to “their continued contributions.”

Norway: We would prefer not to have “continued” because there has not always been contribution. Where it hasn’t been before, we don’t want it to not be continued. We can use the word “more” if we want.

Mexico: Sure, no need to add “continued.”

Chair: Approved.

OP3:

Egypt: Instead of “specific realities” change to “specificities.” We said this in informals.

Mexico: This is already agreed language, but if there is a strong preference, we can go along with Egypt’s wording.

Egypt: We prefer “specificities.”

USA: What about “circumstances”?

Egypt: Would prefer “circumstances.”

Chair: “Specific needs and circumstances” is agreed.

South Africa: In the second sentence, when it says “subject to prosecution,” are we not requiring arrest?

Mexico: Seeking to reflect the different stages in the process in which the guidelines would apply. Idea is not to have a long or exhaustive list, but recall that different stages should be taken into account.

South Africa: While we do not want to delay, we may require at least a bilateral with Mexico.

Chair: I really want to close paragraphs. Mexico is moving to make consultation with you now.

Germany: Minor point.  Add the word “Nelson” before “Mandela” to have the correct name of the document.

Chair: Change is made.

Mexico: Aware of the South African concerns. We can explain and develop things a bit more in the second line. Add  “arrest, detention,” after “subject to.”  Add “for drug-related offences” after “in prison settings.”

Chair: Approved.

OP3 bis: 

Egypt: We have no problem with the intention of this, but why are we only saying “broad” programs? Remove the word “broad” so we can include other types.

Mexico: This is agreed language. I would be hesitant to strike this text, because the delegation proposing it isn’t in the room.

Chair: Egypt is nodding. Approved.

OP4:

Mexico: Number of amendments. No problem with referring to “the office.”

Germany: Has the word “appropriate” twice. Once is enough.

Mexico: German proposal is a timely one. Understand that the insertion made at the end of the paragraph was suggested by Russia. Take out the first “where appropriate” and then adopt.

Egypt: This is talking about sentencing, which is usually done by judges, which are an independent branch and thus not in the hands of the executive branch. Say “promotes” instead of “emphasizes” at the beginning. Ask to strike out from “with” to “alignment.”

Mexico: This is agreed language. Hope to keep it as it stands.

Egypt: We will be flexible.

Chair: Approved.

OP5:

China: Instead of “feel safe” change to “are safe.” We don’t believe that feel is adequate as it is an individual matter, but if the environment is a secure one, then women can be sure that they “are” safe.

Egypt: Add “law enforcement” after “health.” Use “circumstances” instead of “realties” as we have agreed. After “conviction or punishment” add “or additional.”

Germany: List of interventions is from agreed text. Change “When using” to “and to use” to make it less narrow.

Mexico: No problem with adding law enforcement authorities, even though that isn’t in agreed text. Prefer to keep it as it stands, and without “or additional.” Norway included text on the environments, perhaps they can clarify. What is meant by the environments? Perhaps “provide safe environment.”

Norway: Something might be said to be safe, but the reality of the women may be that they don’t experience it as safe. That is what we should take into account, but we are flexible.

Russia: Add “in accordance with national legislation.”

Mexico: Prefer to stick to agreed language, but if not agreed, we can take to informals.

Chair: Take to informals.

Egypt: Will be seeking more information about the practicalities of the environments.

Chair: Example would be prison systems where there are not separate washrooms for women and men.

South Africa: “In which women are, and feel safe” as a suggestion.

Chair: Note the suggestions. Will be discussed in informals.

OP6: 

Egypt: “Perspective” after the word “gender.” Strike out “tailored to individual needs.”

Chair: This was approved yesterday. “Tailored to individual needs” is relevant, such as women who are pregnant. No feelings about adding the word “perspective.”

Egypt: “Specific need of individuals” to replace “tailored to individual needs.” Add “safety.”

UK: Word “scientific” is in square brackets in the outcome document. Would like to see it as that here as well until it is resolved.

Chair: Not intending to hold these hostage to what is happening in other rooms. Clear objective to close these in this room.

UK: In which case I would like the word scientific to be taken out.

Mexico: Support your efforts to ensure that issues do not become confused. We can take this to informals.

Russia: Agree that these cannot be based on the outcome document. Otherwise no sense in meeting here before the outcome document is closed.

Chair: I intend to go resolution by resolution until all is approved.

Egypt: Agree that these are separate issues. We have been using the word “scientific” in all previous times here. We insist on this.

Germany: Happy to hear Egypt is pushing for agreed language. We already had an extensive discussion on this. Do not support to opening this again.

Chair: I would have liked not to reopen, but I am subject to the needs of member states.

Australia: No longer makes sense. We can sort it out in informals.

Chair: Grateful for help of native English speakers.

OP7:

Mexico: Be discussed in informals, along with related PP.

OP8:

Mexico: Text as it currently appears has two references to UN Women. The first could be taken out. The second it still subject to ongoing discussions.

Chair: UN Women is important. Remind delegates of the key SDG on gender.

Egypt: Delete “UN Women and other relevant agencies” as this comes up at the end of the paragraph. Add “upon request” after “support Member States.” The rest we are flexible on.

Russia: Compelled to reiterate my stance on this. I have never heard of UN Women working on drug-related matters in Vienna. Don’t see any ground to include them.

Mexico: Co-sponsors had not seen a reference to UN Women in previous agreed language or even to a gender perspective. That is the value of this. Will have to take it to informals.

OP9:

Mexico: Delete “actively and visibly.”

Egypt: Understand that this resolution is on the issue of gender. I have no problem with it. From our national capacity when we talk about the SDGs, we see them all as interlinked. We do not prefer to single out one of them over another. We already have the issue of gender perspective tackled in the second line. Stop the sentence after “sustainable development.”

Chair: Taking my Chair hat off, I would like that part stronger. Gender is very relevant to this resolution.

Australia: Appreciate Egypt’s flexibility and ask him to show more to leave this language. Seems strange to object to language on gender equality in a resolution on gender perspective. Ask it not to be struck out.

Guatemala: Endorse Australia’s position.

Mexico: Understand Egypt’s concerns. Current text indicates that this is in an integrated matter.

Chair: Yes, otherwise we would have said “in particular.”

Egypt: Add a preambular paragraph to address this and indicate that every single goal goes for women and men.

Germany: If we delete the last part of the phrase, it is true that we still include the goals on gender equality, but what is the point of taking into account all the goals here since there is no connection to them? Important to point specifically to the gender goals.

Russia: Want to confirm that there is no financial obligations.

Chair: OP8, still under discussion, is the only paragraph that would have financial obligations.

OP10: No changes. Approved.

OP11: No changes. Approved.

Chair: Close consideration of L8 for the time being. Ask those with special interest to engage constructively with Mexico, so we can come back as soon as possible to the COW.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.