Chair: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Kindly be seated. I now declare the meeting open. We will resume our consideration of item 7. Let me recall we considered the draft resolution: the Adu Dhabi declaration. Informals have been held yesterday. The outcome has been submitted.
Item 7: World situation with regard to drug trafficking and recommendations of the subsidiary bodies of the Commission (continued)
Secretariat: I would like to inform the commission that the title of the draft resolution should read as follows:
L14: Outcome of the meetings of the subsidiary bodies of the CND including the Abu Dhabi declaration.
Chair: Can I invite the commission to accept? It is decided, as I see no objection. Does anyone want to take the floor? No. Let us close the item of this Agenda.
Let us now go to Item 10: Provisional agenda for the sixtieth session of the Commission
Can I invite the floor to accept this resolution?
Mexico: we are aware that this draft has been considered. We believe it is appropriate to suggest an amendment. Can we eliminate the 2nd sentence in OP.6. This sentence is premature as it mention the commission session planned for 2019. We agree that OP6 should include the notion of preparations up to UNGASS.
Chair: thank you for proposal. Are there any comments on this?
United States: This agenda was circulated several weeks ago. MS and organizations has a chance to amend. Why is this change being suggested? We seek to know why.
Austria: Thank you Mr. chairman. We are quite surprised to hear this proposal. The draft agenda has been circulated in due time. We would like to keep it as it is.
Guatemala: Thank you chair. My delegation is of the view that it is premature to talk about the commission session planned for 2019 [supporting Mexico]. It is not that it should not be prepared, but more time is needed to consider it.
China: The Chinese delegation supports the US view. We believe this was circulated in due time and for adequate consultations. Proposing changes to the approved agenda is something we do not understand. What do they mean by “premature”?
Mexico: I understand the concerns of some of the delegations, in view of the fact that the document has already been circulated. In the case of my delegation, we only got to know this document today. This PP addresses very different issues: 1) follow up to UNGASS 2) commission of 2019. It is not appropriate to consider both at once, and is premature. We believe the follow up to UNGASS will be considered with the time and attention required. But we cannot undertake both exercises. The process of informal consultations, which are ongoing, has reached a point so as to not talk about the approach to UNGASS, so why discuss the Commission in 2019 and plan of action? We must ensure a broad-based dialogue for both. These issues should not be lumped together.
Chair: Seeing as there is no agreement, I will suspend the consideration of this agenda. I ask delegations to consult informally, and we will return to this Item during this meeting. We will now take up item 12, approving all that has been agreed in the CoW. I suspend the meeting for five minutes while delegates receive the texts and consider this.
Item 12: Adoption of the report of the Commission on its fifty-ninth session Draft resolutions:
Chair: we shall now resume the meeting. I request delegations to abstain from making editorial comments relating to translation. Please be patient, and do not raise your flag to co-sponsor until asked.
Secretariat: I would like to propose the following sequence, L3, L5 , L8, L11 , L2 the text can be distributed as it becomes available. Then L10, L13. the text can be distributed as it becomes available. The last will L4. Let us proceed with
L3: Promoting informal networking within the scientific community and sharing of evidence based findings that may inform policies for tackling the world drug problem.
Secretariat: This resolution has no financial implications.
Chair: I Invite the commission to accept the resolution? Adopted. Statement? None. Thank you. Any delegations wishing to co-sponsor? I see none. thank you. Let us proceed to next resolution.
L5: development and dissemination of international standards for the treatment of drug use disorders.
Secretariat: Budgetary implications: in accordance of rule 28 of ECOSOC. OP.2 and 3 and 4. OP2 it is envisaged that 1.3 million USD is required to support dissemination. The resource requirement would provide with 14 regional seminars covering 6-8 countries over 2 years. This will cover travel, translation, administration and p4 staff for 24 months. OP.3 and 4 require 4 million USD to support training, 2-3 countries, in 14 sub-regions. Training of continental trainers (…) OP. 2,3,4 can be carried out if the budgetary resources are made available.
Chair: I Invite the commission to accept the resolution? Adopted. Statement? None. Thank you. Any delegations wishing to co-sponsor? I see none. I see Netherlands on behalf of EU, Czech Republic, Kenya, South Africa, Thank you. Let us proceed to the next resolution.
L8: Mainstreaming a Gender perspective in drug related policies and programmes.
Secretariat: OP.9 requires budgetary resources of 680,000 USD required to support mainstreaming of gender concerns with prevention and treatment in one country for three years. Analysis of post data [other operations mentioned]. In addition, OP.8 requires: 220,000 USD needed for initial activities to address specific needs of female prisoners. This includes staff travel costs to regional events [other operations mentioned].
Chair: I Invite the commission to accept the resolution? Adopted. Statement? None. Thank you. Any delegations wishing to co-sponsor? I recognize Austria, Ecuador, El Salvador, South Africa, United States, Peru, Greece, Philippines, Lichtenstein, Bulgaria. Thank you. Let us proceed to next resolution.
L11. Promoting prevention strategies and policies.
Secretariat: Budgetary resources required; OP18: 70,000 USD required, provide a report 16 pages in 16 languages, and p4 staff for 3 months.
Chair: Invite the commission to accept the resolution? Adopted. Statement? None. Thank you. Any delegations wishing to co-sponsor? I recognize Israel , Kenya, unite states, Norway Thailand, Philippines, Serbia.. Thank you. Let us proceed to next resolution.
L2: Promotion of proportionate sentencing for drug related offenses in an appropriate nature when implementing drug control polices.
Secretariat: Budgetary implications; OP.5 102,000 USD required, three day expert group, 20 participants, and advisory missions. Will be carried out if budget made available. That is all.
Chair: Invite the commission to accept the resolution? Adopted. Statement? None. Thank you. Any delegations wishing to co-sponsor? I recognize Norway, El Salvador, Israel. Thank you. Let us proceed to the next resolution.
Secretariat: Can i request as short break please, so delegations have text before them?
Chair: The meeting is suspended for 15 minutes.
[Session continued beyond working hours]
The below summary of proceedings is courtesy of TNI.
Read this summary in context here.
At around 23:00 delegations left informal negotiations agreeing on a final outcome document. Switzerland made a reservation, pending on approval of the government, on the preambular paragraph 7 mentioning a society free of drug abuse, wanting to include a mention on responding to the public health and social problems resulting from drug abuse. While the intention was to present a short and concise outcome document with operational recommendations, a 24 page document was presented at the Plenary.
The EU, supported by among others Turkey, Switzerland, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia and Chile, gave a statement about the failure to include language opposing the death penalty, regretting that the document did not include language about the abolition of the death penalty and called on countries to adopt a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty.
Read the EU full statement here.
Brazil, New Zealand, Australia and Norway made a similar statement. Indonesia made a statement that there is no consensus on the abolition of the death penalty and that the issue is not part of the mandate of the CND, and is a criminal justice matter of sovereign states, supported by China, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and almost all Arabic states.
Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Panama, Switzerland and others made a statement that although the outcome document is a step forward, because of the consensus process some issues were not included and called for a broad comprehensive approach towards 2019 and beyond, paying particular attention to the 2030 SDG targets. China pointed to the emerging challenges of NPS.
Reform minded delegations think there is sufficient progress to build on towards the evaluation of the 1998 UNGASS at the High Level Segment in 2019. The document mentions persistent, new and evolving challenges to be addressed in conformity with the three international drug conventions, which allow for sufficient flexibility to State parties to design and implement national drug policies. It does not mention harm reduction but there is mention of appropriate medication-assisted therapy and injecting equipment programmes, the new diplo-speak for opioid assisted therapy and needle and syringe exchange.
Final words of Yuri Fedotov about different views that have been expressed and heard. Thanks goes to many members of civil society. Fedotov says it is a good document and mentioned the goals of the SDGs as an important element of the United Nations. Looking forward to meeting everyone next month in New York. The session ended with the presentation of a video: on the road towards 2016.
I’ve been surfing online more than 2 hours today, yet I found the correct information.