Peru: Text is a result of informal consultations. Certain aspects are semi-open. Resolution has been enriched with language of the UNGASS.
Chair: Let’s look at the title.
Germany: Would like to see UNGASS outcome document reflected in the title. Add “and the UNGASS 2016 operational recommendations on alternative development, regional, interregional and international cooperation on development-oriented balanced drug control policy addressing socio-economic issues”
Peru: Trying to avoid political debate from last year. Would rather keep flexibility of original title. Text is better with UNGASS language, but not necessary in the title.
Mexico: Support Germany’s proposal. Believe it should be included in the title.
France: We understand the logic, but we have worked with Peru and thank them for sponsoring this. Germany’s position is consistent, but we prefer consensus.
Thailand: Emphasize that we give high importance to progress since last resolution, namely the UNGASS. Having this in the title is useful because it adds clarity to the overarching theme.
El Salvador: Propose original title. Don’t think just mentioning UNGASS is a good thing.
Peru: By way of compromise, we propose modifying the title to avoid politicization by directly referring to UNGASS. Change addition to “and all international commitment on alternative development.” Our first choice is to retain original title, but can accept this compromised text.
Russia: We like the original text, but compromise solution from Peru is also acceptable.
Egypt: UNGASS made good developments on this topic, but we see that subject is tied to more international commitments than just UNGASS. Happy with original title, or Peru’s compromise.
Brazil: We are okay with the long title mentioning UNGASS. Peru’s compromise is a bit redundant. How about “Promoting the implementation of all international commitments on alternative development”?
Morocco: Support Peru’s compromise, and amendment from Brazil.
Peru: There is a certain consistency in having a reference to UNGASS. Brazil suggestion might meet with consensus.
Argentina: Brazil’s suggestion is fine.
Germany: Did not want to remove the reference to UN Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. Go back to Peru’s compromise.
Argentina: We are happy to join the consensus on this.
Brazil: We are duplicating the references in the title. If necessary to include the UN Guiding Principles, perhaps we can say, “Promoting the implementation of relevant international commitments on alternative development, including the UN Guiding Principles on Alternative Development.”
Uruguay: Prefer “related” rather than “relevant.”
Mexico: Value added of the original title has to do with the fact that resolution was adopted last year at UNGASS. If can’t include UNGASS, remove mention of Guiding Principles and the word “related” to “all.”
Germany: Not acceptable without any reference to documents.
Egypt: We are flexible with the short version or the longer one. Having mentioned all international commitment, redundant to single out one.
Uruguay: We can support the proposal as revised by Mexico. It is a compromise.
Peru: Germany made an important point. Reference to the fundamental basis for alternative development is important. Only supported by two delegations. Can put it to one side, and have high-level consultations.
Brazil: Our suggestion is to stop after the word “development.”
Chair: Move this to bilaterals. Go to PP1. Any comments? I don’t see comments. It is approved. PP2? See no comments, so this is approved also. PP3? No comments, approved. PP4? No comments, approved. PP5? No comments, approved. PP6?
Uruguay: One brief formal modification. In lines 2 and 3, add commas throughout the sentence and remove the word “and” before “production.”
Chair: I see no comments. Approved. PP7? I see no comments. Approved. PP8?
Thailand: Delete “and we recommend the following measures.”
Brazil: Yes, we can stop at “strategies.” This was a result of our hasty sending of this resolution.
Chair: Can we approve? Approved. Let’s move to PP8. I see no comments. Approved. PP9? I see no comments. Approved. PP10?
Brazil: The word “which” should be deleted on the third line.
Chair: Can we approve? I see no comments. Approved. PP11? I see no comments. Approved. PP12? Peru please clarify what is in brackets.
Peru: No major problem with this paragraph, but one delegation asked for more time to consider it.
Uruguay: We can endorse the text.
Chair: Approve PP12? I see no comments. Approved. PP13?
Uruguay: We have a brief inclusion in line four of this paragraph just for consistency with UNGASS Outcome Document. Add the word “may” before “include” and “inter alia” after “include.”
Chair: Can this be approved? I see no comments. Approved. PP14? I see no comments. Approved. Move to OP1. I see no comments. Approved. New paragraph. Can Peru please comment.
Peru: This paragraph is related to second one. As I recall, this is approved by UNGASS. No problem with that, but some think it is a bit repetitive. One delegation asked for time to have consultations.
Chair: Can we approve? I see no comments. Approved. Can we agree on 1. ter?
Peru: This paragraph is linked to previous one, so don’t see why it can’t be approved.
Chair: Can we approve? Approved. OP2?
Uruguay: We would like to make a small amendment on third line. Add “illicit” before “drug production.”
Kenya: Noticed different terms used (illicit drug crop, illicit crop, etc.).
Peru: This is a paragraph we have been using in last resolution. I don’t understand the concern.
Iran: Replace “through tackling poverty and providing livelihood opportunities” with “including through eradication within the framework of sustainable crop control strategies and measures.”
Brazil: We cannot go along with Iran’s proposal. Prefer already agreed language.
Peru: If we delete this, we are going against Guiding Principles of Alternative Development.
Germany: Agree with Brazil and Peru.
Ecuador: Prefer original text because it is agreed language.
Kenya: Coming back to issue of terminology, we have different agreed languages on cultivation. What is really the correct language? Can we interchangeably use all these terms?
Chair: Peru, can you comment?
Peru: I don’t see contradiction. It is different ways to say the same things.
Germany: There is precedent for all these terms. They are interchangeable. No implications other than referring to those scheduled under 1971 Convention.
El Salvador: Support paragraph as it is.
Chair: Can we approve? I see no comments. Approved. OP3? I see no comments. Approved. OP4? I see no comments. Approved. OP5 and OP6? I see no comments. Approved. OP7 and OP8? I see no comments. Approved. OP8.bis?
Uruguay: Small amendment. In line 5, delete “and, the.”
Chair: Can we approve? I see no comments. OP8.bis is approved. OP9? I see no comments. Approved. OP10.bis? I see no comments. Approved. OP11? I don’t see comments. OP12 and OP13? I don’t see any comments. Approved. OP13.bis? I don’t see any comments. Approved. OP13.ter?
Russia: What is the source of this language?
Peru: Discussed in today’s informals. Don’t remember which delegation proposed it.
Ecuador: From UNGASS Outcome Document, 7K.
Guatemala: This is agreed language from UNGASS.
Brazil: Support the retention of this paragraph.
Chair: Can we approve? It is approved. OP14 and OP15? I see no comments. Approved. OP16 and OP17? I see no comments. Approved. OP18? I see no comments. Approved. OP19? I see no comments. Approved. OP20? I see no comments. Approved. OP21? There is some text in brackets. Any comments from Peru?
Peru: This is very important for my and other delegations. There is a close link between illegal lodging and mining and illicit cultivation. Problem in my and other countries. We are open to withdraw this paragraph in order to allow the resolution to be approved.
Chair: Thank you. I see no comments. Approved. OP22?
Peru: Can we have a break of five minutes to allow us to find a solution for the title and therefore finish this resolution?
Chair: Yes, break for five minutes.
Chair: OP22 and OP23? I see no comments. Approved. OP24 and OP25?
Uruguay: Small amendment to OP24. Add “cultivation” before “crops” in last line.
Chair: Can we approve? I see no comments. Approved. OP25.bis?
Russia: Seek clarification on the term “actors.” Usually we use “stakeholders.” If it is agreed language, we are fine with it.
Peru: Not agreed language. If suggestion is to change this word, we are fine with that.
Germany: Replace with “agencies.”
US: Are NGOs part of the stakeholders? If so, should use “stakeholders” since “agencies” is quite narrow.
Egypt: We should remove “other.”
Chair: I see no comments. Approved. OP25? I see no comments. Approved. Back to title.
Peru: I think we found a solution. Proposal will read as follow, “Promoting the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development and related commitments on alternative development, regional, interregional and international cooperation on development-oriented balanced drug control policy, addressing socio-economic issues.”
Chair: I see no comments. Title is approved.
Financial Resources Management Services: No financial implications from this resolution.
Chair: Can we send this to the plenary for adoption? I see no objections. Resolution is closed.
Morocco: We will be a co-sponsor of this resolution.