Plenary – Agenda item 11: Provisional agenda for the sixty-first session of the Commission

Russia: Discussion of item 8 regarding follow up to UNGASS should be more inclusive and should be attended by an in depth discussion regarding the implementation of 2009 Political Declaration. We have no certainty that it is advisable to split these two issues into two tracks. This discussion should proceed as a single format as they are parts of a whole. Note that provisional agenda has some new items and a changed sequence. These new elements were not subject to a prior broad discussion. Would appreciate if UNODC Secretariat provided additional information on what will be discussed under agenda item 9.

Canada: We’ll need to think about comments from Russia. We particularly appreciate the idea of moving the scheduling of substances item to earlier in the week. Maybe we could change positions of 5a and 5b. I would like to start session on scheduling with voting, which this year was 5b. Thank you for the floor.

Pakistan: Thank you very much. There are substantive changes introduced here, with a few new items. We would like to say that, like Russia, we think it’d be helpful to not have two parallel tracks of implementations of negotiations. We don’t want to duplicate efforts.

Mexico: We take note of concerns voiced by a number of delegations, however we’d understand this draft agenda purely as a way of organising our negotiations. We also need to look at item 5. in light of UNGASS outcome document. We support your proposal and we view this as a way of organising our work. We think this is a better way of availing ourselves of the time.

Portugal: It’s true that in the future we’ll need to reflect on the structure of our agenda. We feel that discussions on demand and supply reduction were talked about more than the thematic chapters, and perhaps a future agenda could be an item for each chapter.

Egypt: We would like to support Russia’s proposal. This year we needed special emphasis on UNGASS this year, but starting from next year we should avoid having two separate tracks. UNGASS is tied to the political declaration so the discussions cannot be separated – we want them on the same item.

UK: We thank you for the proposed provisional agenda. We cannot support the changes you’ve made. We can support Canadian proposal of swapping the positions of 5a and 5b.

Colombia: We agree with your provisional agenda. I think we’ve shown this year that it is possible to separate political declaration and UNGASS outcome document, we should keep it that way.

Sweden: We would like to state that it is important for us to reflect 7 chapters of outcome document. It is important that latest consensus document is reflected. We’d like to see 7 thematic areas of ungass document spelled out in same way that political declaration chapters were.

Malaysia: We would support Russia in merging agenda items since the goals in these two documents are complimentary and interrelated.

Brazil: We don’t see need for political discussion on the agenda now. We don’t think that restructuring the agenda will make much difference. We will be able to have an in depth discussion no matter how the agenda is structured.

Chair: This discussion reminds me of a two and a half month discussion on something else. This is a provisional agenda. Can we please forward this to the ECOSOC? Then of course we can continue this important political debate as we move forward. Please reflect on this as we’ve been going up and down this road for many, many weeks.

Spain: We agree with the importance of moving forward in light of these events. As regards to these proposals made, we think it might be logical for 5b to proceed 5a. We understand that as you’ve suggested it, UNGASS document and 2009 need a different approach. We need to decide how to deal with different types on document. We see no need to change this proposed agenda.

Uruguay: We support the agenda as you’ve submitted it. We can accept it nonetheless we might consider Canada’s amendment regarding item 5.

Ecuador: We fully support your decision on the agenda. We are talking about an important issue – the implementation of UNGASS. If we are going to have this structure perhaps it’d be a good idea to take on Switzerland’s idea of having 7 points on the agenda for the 7 themes of UNGASS.

Germany: Willing to go along with proposal to adopt this as a provisional agenda and come back to this at intersessional or reconvened session.

Vietnam: Support agenda item 8 being put after agenda item 7.

Peru: Express concern of creation of two parallel tracks for something that should be a single item, namely UNGASS Outcome Document and 2009 Political Declaration. Still need to discuss this. Sufficient time should be afforded to come to an agreement on this.

Singapore: View is that 2009 Political Declaration and UNGASS Outcome Document should be discussed in tandem.

UNODC Secretariat: Increased call on UNODC to provide information at UNGASS. Encouraged CND and UNODC to increase collaboration and coordination with all relevant UN agencies and institutions.

Chair: Can we put the draft forward to ECOSOC with the amendments that I have cited moving A and B under 5. It is decided. I would like to continue with agenda Item 7 and then move to the draft resolutions from CoW.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.