Home » Committee of the Whole – Resolution L.3: Improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: recommendations of the standing open-ended intergovernmental working group on improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Committee of the Whole – Resolution L.3: Improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: recommendations of the standing open-ended intergovernmental working group on improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

E/CN.7/2017/L.3 Improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: recommendations of the standing open-ended intergovernmental working group on improving the governance and financial situation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Chair: Can Spain explain the scope of the resolution?

Spain: We came together to discuss and decide the draft resolution everything agreed in the working group as how to take action as of now. Participants felt the group should continue with its work. The draft resolution is ready, but a couple of points may be up for debate. It has been examined thoroughly and don;t anticipate many problems.

Chair: Any comments on the title?






Australia: We would like to insert an addition paragraph after P3: “Recalling its resolution 59/5 in which UNODC was requested to continue to support member states, upon request, in mainstreaming a gender perspective in their policies and programs related to the world drug problem, and invites other relevant United Nations entities, within their mandates, to cooperate in this regard.”

Chair: are we agreed with inserting this paragraph and have 6 Preambular paragraphs. (No comments).




US: in 2nd part of sentence, unclear who is being requested. I suspect it’s aimed at UNODC, so insert who it is directed at.

Mexico: We agree with the US, but better to say “secretariat”

US: Agrees







US: On paragraph C, we would note that this suggestion was not originally included in the paper. We urger caution on directing UNODC on what they give in their presentations to FinGov. We support the paragraph, but suggest delete from “including” to the end.

Spain: This proposal came from informal consultations.

Pakistan: On OP8D, We are not trying the any function from the commission, but they should have direction on research publications. This has passed through several rounds of informals with no difficulty.

Ecuador: A group proposed this recommendation, and there was a need for greater transparency which is why we have asked for member states to be given notice of activities taking place and kept informed. Very often projects are designed for certain countries and not even informed of them including our own and is of no use to them. We would prefer to keep wording as it is.

US: Our issue is with directing UNODC on certain topics. We agree with transparency, but our concerns is with criteria and mandates. We could delete that part and change for “All research activities”

Guatemala: It’s a problem is having more information and with notice. This was agreed previously.

Brazil: It does not say we are going to dictate what is being done, but instead to report on what is being done.

Egypt: We want the paragraph left as it is. It is beneficial for both sides to be in a dialogue with each other.

Argentina: We support the paragraph’s inclusion. More information in advance helps make better use of scant resources countries like mine have. If we imminent or things we are not informed about, there is the issue of making the most of what it going on.

Russia: We would like to keep the original text and agree with Brazil. All we are asking for is greater transparency.

Chair: Can you go and agree wording.




Spain: The proposals would be to go back to initial text of draft resolution for 11 & 12A, or another type of agreement.

Mexico: NO agreement could be reached, so we can revert to the original text.


Chair: Any comments?

Mexico: There is an amendment in 12B, we would prefer to revert to the original language.

Guatemala: idea is not to pinpoint individual counties, but to see improvement of geographical list.

Italy: We would prefer the previous text as the UNODC is a part of the process.

Russia: If we revert to previous text then the heading should be consistent with this. And can only talk about UNODC and prefer to see that here.

Canada: Staffing of the whole UN secretariat is out of the remit, so it should be for UNODC.

Ecuador: This issue was discussed at length at the FinGov meeting. We cannot Italy’s amendment.

Italy: I need more time

Chair:  We will leave in brackets

Russia:  We would like the heading changed as requested.

Chair: Can we approve this change to the heading?

Mexico: No problem with Russia proposal, and would insist this also appears in various sections in previous resolutions.



Chair: This is mostly approved.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 (Afternoon)

Spain: We tried to have an informal, but there were so many going on that we were unable to do this. For 8C, please add “including criteria and methodology that inform the research activities” after “timelines.”

Pakistan: Changes don’t reflect what we had originally agreed to, but showing our flexibility and respect for great work done by EU, we are willing to go along with this language.

Spain: Thank Pakistan for their flexibility.

Italy: Some concern about current text of paragraph 12, both in A and B. Building on proposal from Mexico, in A, after the word “Representation” add “in line with article 101, para 3 of the Charter of the United Nations.” delete “and its evolution.” Replace B with, “Invite UNODC to further increase cooperation and collaboration with other UN entities in this regard, and to provide to the working group information on the composition of the staff and recruitment policies within the UN Secretariat.

Guatemala: Article 101 does not talk about gender, so this link is not one we can go along with. For paragraph b, I would not “invite,” but I would “request” so that there is an obligation. What other collaboration with UN entities are we talking about?

Ecuador: Colleague from Guatemala explained our position as well. This proposal made by Italy is not linked to this resolution. Recall that this resolution is about constant dialogue with the UNODC Secretariat, not the whole UN system. We see the validity, but it is not relevant here, so we can not accept it.

Cuba: Echo the comments made by Guatemala and Ecuador. This goes beyond the mandate of the group. Don’t need a specific mention of the UN Charter here.

Russia: Support the first proposal made by Italy. Cannot support B.

Brazil: Surprised to keep discussing this. We improved the language with Mexico, but not agreed, so we showed flexibility by coming back to this language. Would like to keep the original language.

Italy: Understand that only geographical representation is in article 101 of the UN Charter. Don’t see why their is opposition to mention of the UN Charter.

Iran: Concern about alternative paragraph B. Original paragraph is more straightforward. Too much ambiguity in alternative paragraph B, and cannot accept that.

Pakistan: When we amended 12B, intention was to improve the geographical representation from developing countries, than recruitment policies are not enough. We also need to be briefed on the actions they are taking in this regard.

Netherlands: Support for Italy’s proposal. This paragraph is mostly about information and UNODC should not be isolated in this respect.

United Kingdom: We had a good compromise with these paragraphs before CND. Could have gone along with Spain’s proposal. Understand thinking behind Italy’s proposal, we don’t see this as a role for the Secretariat and would increase the workload too much. Not something we can really support. Perhaps we can simply request the working group to continue these discussions.

United States: Supports both changes to A and alternative paragraph for B. Important to contextualize efforts within the larger UN system.

El Salvador: Cannot accept the alternative proposal. We feel it should focus on just the staff of the organization. Has nothing to do with other Secretariats. This would be discussed in New York and in other subcommittees.

Belgium: Language in A has been agreed in the past. True that the UN Charter is guiding us. We can support this addition. For B, the provision of information in this regard can be helpful.

Mexico: Shares frustration voiced by Brazil, because we with other interested delegations tabled proposed amendments during informals. We didn’t reach agreement, which is why we agreed to go back to original text. In A, it is true that this reference has been used in other text, but I understood that it would also include resolutions on gender equality. That is the language we agreed to withdrew. Need to rebalance the paragraph. For B, not opposed to more comprehensive discussion of Secretariat policies, but should go to FINGOV before including in a resolution. Refer to 2015 original language.

Canada: Could benefit from having information from other places in UN system. Paragraph B and alternative B refer to different topics, both worth including. Return to Spain’s proposal for this paragraph. Retain alternative B as paragraph C, but go with something simpler, such as “Invite UNODC to provide to the working group information on best practices and the recruitment policies of other UN entities within the UN Secretariat.”

Brazil: Canada’s proposal seems reasonable. Okay to add a third paragraph. Keep A and B as is.

Chair: Can we go back to original language?

Mexico: Like Brazil, inclined to keep original language. Accept additional paragraph from Canada.

Kenya: How does this address question of improving the gender balance and representation? Not asking the Secretariat to give updates on improvements, just asking for information. Other formulation went a step further.

Chair: Take a pause of ten minutes.

Chair: Let’s continue reviewing paragraph 12, parts A, B, and C.

Pakistan: We don’t see what additional value we will bring by having paragraph C. Let’s assumed that UNODC shares best practices with FINGOV, how do we benefit from that as member states? Important element is that Secretariat takes steps to improve the situation. I don’t see paragraph C bringing this focus, but I can live with it if we add back the part that was removed.

Italy: Canada proposal is valuable. In A, after “gender” add the word “balance” and again after “geographical representation” we can add the two main reference documents, which is, “in accordance with GA resolution 69/251 and in line with article 101, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the UN.” In paragraph B, at the end add, “and on steps taken to achieve improvements in this area.”

Iran: To be aware of best practices in other UN agencies could be useful, but these are about what? We have no mention about what the aims of these best practices and policies are. Add at the end of C, “aimed at improving geographical representation.” For A, move balance to after “geographical representation” as this is for both gender and geographical representation. For B, add “update” after “information.”

Russia: For C, where will UNODC get such information? Should be deleted in our opinion.

Chair: Want to see progress. Need to move forward.

Guatemala: Agree with Russia that this is too broad. Agree with Iran’s proposal.

Italy: Cannot go along with change to section A as proposed by Iran. UN Charter calls for wide geographic representation, not balance, so this term would be misleading. Propose to move it back. The rest is fine.

Brazil: Take out mentions of resolutions added to A.

Canada: Redundancy in mentions of updates in paragraph B. Remove “updated and” after “receiving.” Add “improving geographical representation and gender balance” to the end of C.

Iran: Understand Italy’s point. Add “wide” before “geographical representation” in A.

Ecuador: Can’t accept modified language. Go back to original language.

Chair: Want to see this moving forward.

Spain: I would like for all of us to think that in practice nobody has been refused the right to express themselves as they have wished. Best thing is to pass this on to the group. Not going to solve it in a resolution. No problem with leaving this in discussions for working group. All FINGOV’s meetings deal with this. So if the group can make progress in some way, we will give them the time to do that, but should not stop now on a draft resolution that we have published since 2015.

Chair: Can we accept them as they appear.

Brazil: I think we can close this as it is.

Italy: We can accept this as is.

Chair: Can we approve? It is approved. Any budgetary implications?

Financial Resources Management Services: No budget implications from this resolution.

Chair: Can we send this to the plenary for adoption? I see no objections. Resolution is closed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *