USA: I believe we’re ready to consider this in the CoW apart from just one suggestion. We had successful informals. We’d like to get agreement on all the other paragraphs before we decide whether the top will say CND or ECOSOC.
Chair: All PPs approved by COW.
Comments on OP.3quat
China: We have a minor amendment. Can we put UNODC ahead of WHO?
Chair: This paragraph is approved in COW.
Comments on OP.4
Guatemala: We’d like to take out the word ‘goals’ and leave it more general. We think that by taking out goals we can keep it to what’s agreed in political declaration.
Colombia: Colombia insists on keeping accepted language in UNGASS 2016 and not political declaration of 2009.
Peru: This paragraph was accepted in informals, we’d like to keep ‘goals’.
Ecuador: I support Guatemala’s proposal.
South Africa: We did this in informals yesterday. We are continuing to receive support from UNODC, particularly in SA. We can live with Guatemala’s proposal but we do want to insist on this language.
USA: I would like to implore flexibility from my colleagues. We have had a series of informal negotiations this week. We have tried to balance these references. This is about coordination, we feel these debates are distracting from point of text.
Cuba: This was discussed at great length and there was broad agreement. We would like to keep original text.
Russia: We too support text which came from informals, it is firstly a balanced text and secondly, when we talk about specific goals that gives a more accurate picture of what UN system should do. For each of the specific bodies there are specific goals they should implement in context of political declaration. Since we are talking about operational recommendations of special session, we think we need to maintain reference to goals in political declaration.
Peru: We’ve already said that this has been worked upon at length, it did achieve consensus amongst parties who took part in informal discussions. We’ve all displayed flexibility and this is now a balanced text.
Pakistan: We believe this paragraph has been worked on very hard. We reached this delicate balance only after hard work. We will not be able to support amendments at this advanced stage.
Egypt: We really cannot understand why referring to these goals would be sensitive and want to keep it how it is.
Malaysia: We would prefer to go with what was agreed in informals.
Guatemala: We appreciate the flexibility of all. Can we take out just the word goals? Some people can see the balance but I cannot. I was unable to be in the informals.
Singapore: We support language as agreed on screen.
Canada: We understand importance that many place on this language. We think that because we don’t implement goals, this text now is better.
China: We want to support US and Russia. This text is balanced and good and accommodates all concerns of all the parties. It is a compact and concise text so can we keep text as is?
Ecuador: Firstly, we are grateful for efforts of US to come up with this draft but we also need to understand that small delegations cannot attend informals. The point of the COW is to discuss things. We cannot see the balance. There’s no balance once we delete ‘UNGASS’ – there’s no balance if you delete such an important event like UNGASS.
USA: We have not deleted reference to UNGASS, we’ve just deleted it in this paragraph.
Colombia: We think we should change ‘while continuing’ into ‘to continue’, and after ‘plan of action’, to change the word ‘to’ into ‘and’.
Vietnam: Our position is that the we support the text as it is from the sponsor and we applaud people in coming to this balanced language.
Uruguay: We’d prefer to keep original text but if we can’t then we will go with what is here. We cannot accept reference of goals in this paragraph, so it would say ‘continue to support political declaration’ but not to the goals.
Mexico: I’d like to acknowledge endeavors of delegation. I think we are making life very complicated for ourselves, particularly the balance referred to. We would prefer to keep original language that we all agreed to. I think it should read like this ‘encourages all relevant UN bodies to identify operational recommendations in the outcome document of the thirtieth special session of the General Assembly that fall within their area of specialization and to commence implementing those recommendations made in the outome ocument that are within thier existing mandates, in collaboration and coooperations within the UNODC and the INCB, keeping the CND informed of programmes and progress made …’
Peru: Although we see merit in Mexico’s proposal, we’d prefer to go with Colombia’s proposal. I’d like to refer to Canada’s point that implementation of the goals could be meaningless. Implementation should be realization or achievement.
South Africa: We wish to refer back to Colombian proposal.
Cuba: We are grateful to Mexico but we feel that we’ve spent a week looking for alternative text, we’d prefer to go with what we agreed this week or Colombia’s language.
Colombia: We had proposed that after ‘specialised agencies’ we change ‘while continuing’ to ‘to continue supporting the implementation of the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action’. We would add ‘and’, ‘and to identify…’.
USA: We would be pleased to support this.
Peru: Please can we keep reference to goals, ‘achievement of goals’ should be in there.
South Africa: We can support the language as proposed by Colombia.
China: It is very important to refer to goals of 2009 Plan of Action, so we subscribe to correction to this on the basis of what was proposed by Colombia.
Netherlands: We think Colombian proposal is good but we do not want to put in trying to reach the achievement of the goals.
Chair: I know this is an important paragraph for all, I really want something to work out for everybody. Does anyone have further comments?
Pakistan: We are not happy to delete word goals, as this is language that was agreed upon last night. But we agree that we should not prolong discussion. We would like to place on record that this is not what we wanted. I too are a single delegate, and I did manage to get to the late night informals yesterday.
Peru: Along similar lines, I think it is utterly regrettable that we’re discussing this after some lone delegates stayed very late discussing this texts. We are willing to not object since the US has put in such effort with this.
Chair: Paragraph is agreed here in COW.
Comments on OP.5
Iran: It is not clear where has been agreed in informals and where not. I’d appreciate seeing the clean version or just with one colour.
USA: Click ‘Final Version’.
Egypt: Unfortunately, we were unable to stay until end of informals. Can we have clarification on deletion of ‘when mandates coincide’?
USA: There was a proposal from one delegation along with many others, that the language was seen as superfluous.
Egypt: We would add ‘as appropriate’ after ‘explore’.
Chair: Paragraph approved in COW.
Comments on OP.6
Iran: To me, this is an important issue – we are requesting for the UNODC to pursue joint initiatives. We would suggest saying ‘report’ instead of ‘update’. We would prefer to have a written report, update could be less formal. Can it say ‘to update and report’?
Our understanding is that to report is also to update. From our perspective, ‘to report’ is suffice.
Chair: Paragraphed approved…
UK: We would prefer the language of ‘to update’ and ‘to report’. We recognise that a report would require more resources. If we include update then we will at least get a verbal report if there are not resources for a written one.
Chair: Paragraph approved.
Comments on 6bis
Egypt: Can we add ‘upon request’ to the second line after ‘supporting member states’?
Comments on PP.1
USA: If we scroll down to PP.6. Can we insert a new PP? This language is taken from the UNGASS document. ‘Welcoming the 2030 Agenda, and noting that efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and to effectively address the world drug problem are complimentary and mutually reinforcing.’ This is PP.10 from UNGASS outcome document.
We think this should be directed at the CND, not ECOSOC.
Chair: Can we approve new paragraph from the US? Can we approve that this will be addressed to the CND.
UNODC: With regards to L8. I’d like to clarify that in the request for a report, if it is part of a current report then it will require nothing more and if it is a new report it will cost $34,100 for a 16 page report in 6 languages.