Resolutions L.10, L.5

Chair: Good afternoon. I do not intend to pursue the L2 anymore today. Might be possible to move on the L5, and perhaps also the resolution on alternative development. But now I will start with Mexico.

Mexico: As we announced the co-sponsor will promote bilateral consultations to the extent possible, so we can agree something. And we think tomorrow morning we will be in a position to submit it to the COW.

Chair: This is excellent news. I hope you succeed. We start with the plenary tomorrow. Following that we start at 11.30 with the COW. See if we can clear some paragraphs from alternative development.

Thailand: Thank you chair. Some moments please.

Chair: When will your resolution be agreed, USA?

USA: I think it is too early to say. Colleagues are working on it.

Chair: useful having a planning horizon for everyone. Re L3 – anything new on that Russian Fed?

Russian Federation: we have had a round of consultations. As far as I can judge we are close to agreement.  We can submit tomorrow morning, I think.

Chair: I know you have more to clear with the Paris pact. How about L11?

Peru: They’re still in informal consultation.

Chair: Tomorrow morning again? Yes. If it’s useful to clear paragraphs, I am looking forward to doing that. The L5?

USA: We have made it through the text and believe it is ready to be taken up by COW, should be ready by this afternoon.

Chair: Experience shows that the suggestion by Egypt, is best picked up  in the morning session. Would be nice to get in paper format, in addition to what we see on the screen. Could we do that after 30 minutes break?

USA: Yes.

Thailand: My delegation has had several informals and we are ready to present the draft of L10.

Find draft document here. This document has been edited since.

Chair: Can we get alternative development on screen. Let me start by thanking Thailand, Germany and Peru for excellent work on the informals. Let’s move to the first pp1. This is a short resolution.

Germany: Since I was at last informal, I will explain. We decided to leave the document as it is and leave in consensus wording from the UNGASS document. We would suggest going to PP2.

Chair: lets go to PP2. Any comments Germany?

Germany: This was mostly agreed, although there were some contentious points.

Thailand: The paragraph in red has never featured before in drug control. We suggest taking it out.

Germany: I can’t further comment on the language.

Armenia: This language comes from resolution 70/3. This is still pending a decision.

(???) We would like to keep the same language in black. Comes from 2014 ministerial statement.

Chair: we have now dealt with two paragraphs that are held hostage to another situation. Is this the case for whole document?

Germany: more than 80% has been agreed, so a good basis to start from.

USA: This language has not been seen before.

Chair: I don’t intend to negotiate these two paragraphs.

Thailand: We believe we should agree to this paragraph. Paragraph 1,2 and 9 should be left pending. But the rest can be negotiated.

Chair: Thank you. We continue with PP3. no objection. then we move to pp5. agreed. pp6. agreed.

Peru: We think it would be better to keep the agreed language. Resolution e/8 is very specific, we think it would be better to delete this reference.

Chair: I propose we adopt this paragraph as amended by Peru. Then we move to pp7. Welcoming the adoption. Agreed.

Egypt: Thank you for resolution. As i stated in the morning, apologies for not attending the informals. Can we delete special references to the specific goals? We can continue on the rest, as we have no problem.

Thailand: Our intention is to ensure the implementation of a specific goal.

Chair: This is a challenge we have had with another resolution.

(Pause for negotiation between Thailand, Peru, Germany. )

Peru: Our delegation after some informal consultation, can accept deleting that with regard to particular goals.

Mexico: can we request that we delete the word “directly” in the last paragraph with regards to sustainable development agenda. Otherwise I can agree.

Thailand: To have our discussion and move forward.

Chair: I see no objection. we can adopt this paragraph and move on. is it OPP9 or PP9 that is hostage?

Thailand: OPP9.

Chair: I see no objections. pp9 is agreed.

Uruguay: I thought it was question of style not to refer to individual cases? And not referring to the individual case here. Can we end the paragraph with out example please?

Ecuador: we support the proposal of Uruguay. Para should end without example.

South Africa: individualization of example has not happened before. It sets a new precedent. we should omit mention of specific workshop, but we can other workshop.

Thailand: we understand concern. but the outcome of ICAT2 is a special report. There was no contest in the informals.

South Africa: Can we get rid of the direct reference, and then we can adopt the resolution.

Uruguay: we would agree with that proposal that has just been made.

Thailand: can we put this part in brackets. We did not have problem before with Uruguay. So we will try and negotiate this.

Chair: Can those in informals enlighten us about language in bracket of pp10?

Pakistan: when we talk about alternative development, it is to implemented within the framework of sustainable crop control strategy. It is about capturing this concept in its entirety.

Peru: It is not acceptable to have this language.

Chair: Is this also one that is hostage? I do not want a two track negotiation.

Peru: The paragraphs that are held up are pp1, pp2, and pp10.

(???) just to add to statement from our colleague in Pakistan. taken from ministerial statement  OPP16. I hope we can go ahead with this agreement.

Colombia: Thank you, Madame chair. my delegation participated in the consultation, this is the draft resolution. Alternative development is a priority subject in terms of dealing with illicit crop cultivation. This resolution is about alternative development, and we think we should replace “tackle” for “address”.

Pakistan: We have shown extreme flexibility. The agreement was to use the exact language. I would ask my colleague from Colombia to not include any new language.

Kenya: We are unfortunately a small delegation and have difficulty covering everything. We are happy with the proposal. We want a small addition and clarification, from ministerial statement. We need to qualify the ‘crops’.

United States: with respect to the comment made about addressing and countering, this is an argument that will be bought into the UNGASS. Please don’t bring in new language here, let’s just use language we have used in past.

South Africa: Support USA and Pakistan. Can we try and agree this?

Russian Federation: we support this paragraph as it was previously.

Germany: Would like to remind everyone it was difficult to find this consensus. thanks to flexiblity of Pakistan . Can we accept it, we would be grateful for flexibility in this case.

Peru: my delegation never said the proposed change had anything to do with UNGASS. We are not going to wait for that before accepting this paragraph. This is a paragraph that we think should be here, this is about addressing the problem. We have no difficulty with being flexible.

Chair: Thank you very much, that is helpful. Let’s include narcotic plants if that is more usable. can we agree on pp10 ?

Ecuador: I would like to change to preventing and reducing.

Peru: We would prefer to keep crops, not plants, – which is more general and is agreed language.

Kenya: I can live with the crops. Crops is a wide term in agriculture.

Chair: This is approved. Let’s move to pp.11

Mexico: Thankyou Madame chair, we attended some of the informals, and expressed some differences with this paragraph. The first line after financial support, say for development orientated programs, in particular, include “as appropriate” and finishing the paragraph “official development assistance”.

Brazil: with regard to this paragraph maybe we could add to Mexico’s suggestion, “crop control programmes”

China: we would like to restore “minor percentage of communities”.

(???) cross mention of crop control.

USA: confused by points added into this document. Take out the line before “development orientated”.

Ecuador: when we are looking into UNGASS we are looking into broader measures. We must look at just the alternative development aspect.

Peru: Thank you Madame chair. My delegation has tried to be flexible. we accept Mexico’s proposal. we cannot accept the sentence “crop control”. It is important to maintain this aspect, it helps focus it on alternative development.

Chair: I’m in the hands of the sponsors. Break for five minutes.

___

Peru: we have decided to maintain the paragraph agreed last year. “Financial support for alternative development projects and programs, including preventive alternative development, as appropriate has only account for a minor share of official development assistance, and household involved in illicit crop cultivation on the global level”  (instead of around the world)

India: just before we broke, the word preventive had been taken out. We have concerns about the word preventive – “preventive alternative development” encourages a modern hazard, a blackmail situation where farmers can hold government at ransom, “we will grow poppy or else”

Ecuador: we think it should stay.

Peru: why don’t we put “as appropriate”, will this fly?

Chair: pp11 accepted.  lets move to opp1.

(??) instead of welcome we should say “takes note”.

Thailand: Thank you Madame chair.The language was agreed, we should maintain similar language.

Chair: move to OPP3. equally, this waas agreed in the informals.

(???) Want people centered approach. We should “focus on” should be changed in OPP4.

Thailand: after development we should include where appropriate, preventive alternative development.

Italy: the paragraph should stay as it is.

Egypt: we should strike out “people centered approach”, and then after young people: we should add “take into account their specific needs”.

Japan: Human centered approach is inevitable when making polices. Cannot stand by Egypt on this.

India: we do not like the term “preventive alternative development”. Please take out “preventive”. Perhaps later add alternative.  let us not make the document a “pie in the sky”.

Germany: thanks to members states for flexibility, Peru and japan for their people centered approach. I think this is a very balanced and pragmatic proposal.  We have had this discussion on preventive alternative development for very long at the informals. We have found sentences that are appropriate. I think we should go ahead with this.

Ecuador: we agree, we want to keep this language i.e. “as appropriate and when appropriate”. We also support.

Peru: we agree to that paragraph, with most recent amendments.

Chair: can we now agree? OP4 agreed.

Japan: agreed.

Chair: now to OPP5. Can you tell me about the debate around this?

Germany: Please refer to 5 bis. we had a long discussion on this op5. the contentious issues were excluded. Can we please agree on OP5 at informals?

Azerbaijan: when we say “promote peaceful” societies, can we delete that?

Chair: it is already deleted.

Peru: we would not have any problem with this paragraph. We know that the term “fight” is quite controversial. We would like to see if we could find a word that we all feel comfortable with. We however could not accept this paragraph with that terminology.

Guatemala: We completely agree with Uruguay. we support this proposal.

Russian Federation: we would like to include “*combating* the world drug problem”

Ecuador: we could not accept “fight” or “combat”.

Egypt: we can go along with Russian proposal. We can go with “countering” & “tackling”

Germany: We want to recall the informals that we had around this. It is agreed language. can we please accept this? We had a discussion about this that was long and comprehensive, I would like to agree this now.

Peru: I think that the proposal made by Egypt could be a good compromise. I think using the word “tackling” could be a good compromise in this situation.

Chair: Op6 has been agreed. Op7. Op8. Op9. and Op10. all agreed. Moving onto Op.11.

Nigeria: it might be appropriate to add “engage in awareness programs”  – key word needed is “awareness”.

Chair: Agreed? Op11 accepted. Let’s move to Op12. Agreed. Op. 14: Couple of alternatives. Has this been agreed?

Germany: I would suggest that this para should be left to the informals.

Chair: Agreed. Lets move to Op16, which has been agreed. Op17 agreed. op18 agreed. Addition proposed by Mexico?

Mexico: my delegation expressed something that was not reflected. We withdraw our proposal, however.

Chair: Op18 agreed.

India: would suggest including “as appropriate”.  That’s all.

Chair: Agreed. Let’s move on to Op. 19.

Mexico: the addition is good. but then we need to delete where appropriate in last line.

Egypt: cross continental cooperation – is this agreed language?

Chair: isn’t that a good thing?

Egypt: I want it to be agreed language. If we can strike it for now, that would be a way out.

Thailand: to confirm, this is definitely agreed language.

Chair: We have agreed Op. 19. We have now cleared this resolution. You have done an immensely good job. We will finish work started here today, at 6.15pm.

—-

Resolution: Item 5.

Find draft document here.

USA: The text on the screen displays agreed language.

Chair: Lets start with the title.  pp1 agreed. pp2 early *intervention*, not identification

USA: this is exact language from 1961 convention. We would like to keep it.

Chair: will simplify our work if we can agree.

Russia: (checking)

Chair: Egypt please.

Egypt: change suggested: “as part of a comprehensive and integrated approach to both supply and demand reduction”.

(…)

Chair: pp1, pp2, pp3 agreed.  – pp4 ? Still looking at pp5?

South Africa: pp5 recalling the importance of the 2030 agenda, “which calls for”.

Egypt: we are here specifying one. Can we have a general reference and *welcome*, not “recall”.  Will the USA agree to this?

Chair:  Let’s move to pp6 .

Egypt: suggested to replace pp6, negotiated recently: “Recognize drug dependence as a complex multi factorial health disorder, characterized by a chronic and rehabilitation programmes including community based programmes and… nature with social causes and consequences which can be prevented and treated through effective scientific evidence based drug treatment, care and strengthen capacity for aftercare , rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration of individuals with substance use disorders, including, as appropriate , assistance for the effective reintegration in the labor market and other support services.”

Holy Sea: There is a moral judgment. Suggests moral failure.

Australia: Drug use disorders include but are not restricted to drug dependence. People also come in for treatment that have not come into a treatment setting. While dependence is chronic, drug use disorders are not necessarily so, depending on severity.

Costa Rica: I want a clarification on this issue of a moral failure. They feel guilty, it is not the result of a moral failure. Guilt helps them overcome it.

USA: We are comfortable with the language, although we appreciate why the intervention was made.

Australia: I maybe mistaken , but I thought Egypt suggested he would withdraw the second paragraph. In the original document, third line – “that is treatable and can be sustained” – not a clear sentence.

USA: (Reads amended paragraph – pp6)

Egypt: please add “social causes and consequences”

Australia: rather than just social causes and consequences – I would prefer to add “*psycho*-social”. And I would say drug user disorders including dependence.

(???) What is legal difference between “psycho” social and social.

Australia: living in area of heavy prevalence, an environment that encourages use. Others might have had a traumatic experience. These are differing contexts, although they may overlap.

Russia: use “dependent” and “disorder”.

Chair: pp6 agreed. pp7 agreed. Let’s move to pp8.

Egypt: need to reflect more on pp8.

Chair: pp9. agreed. pp10 agreed. pp 11 .

Russian Federation: Have the United States replaced “outcome focused” for “integrated treatment therapies”. We can delete it because it was replaced with “aimed at preventing relapse”.

Chair: that change is implemented.

Egypt: Take out holistic, self directed, and family focused approaches.

USA: we would like that language kept in, they are apart of the international treatment standards, that are listed.

Egypt: can we bracket that please.

Chair: Children and families important, as I learnt in side events.

(???) “Drug use dependency and disorders”. Can we include that?

USA: have a suggestion – would like to underscore the family centered approach. We consider deleting “self-directed”.

Germany: we would like to keep in holistic and family centered. Agree with USA.

Egypt: we agree to take out “self-directed”.

USA: thanks for flexibility. we agree.

Holy Sea: glad to see the inclusion of the family. Looking at the text now, feels like the family can only be accommodated. But happy to proceed as long as family is at least mentioned.

South Africa: Don’t like “ethics based”. Can we remove it?  (pp11, pp12)

USA: would like to give background on informals. We had a long and robust discussion on this language (…)

Chair: we should discuss this tomorrow.

China: We have joined in co-sponsoring the L10 resolution.

Chair: Closes meeting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.