Chair: We will start our fourth day of the fifth intersessional. We had a very productive meeting with good exchanges for all of us. With regard to the organisational segment, this will be in preparation for the Ministerial Segment of the 62nd Session of CND 2019. We will discuss these preparations and we still have issues to discuss. On the provisional agenda, we have the agenda and themes for the roundtables. First, the agenda is to be defined at the reconvened session. The themes are also important, so we can guarantee that when our ministers come, the meeting will be successful. On 25 October, I invited delegations to share comments on the interactive multi-stakeholder consultations to be conducted in parallel to the general debate of the Ministerial Segment. We were to receive your feedback by the 2nd of November. Yesterday morning, we had an informal on it. 2019: target date to take stock on trends, progress and challenges. The feedback would include series of sub themes: one would be progress made regarding the fulfilment of the objectives of the 2009 document regarding all three documents, and the sharing of information of trends, challenges and best practices. For the second: the road ahead, fostering our efforts and strengthening cooperation. The sub themes could be: accelerating the implementation of pending commitments, mobilisation of resources and partnerships, improving data collection and analysis. We received on these roundtables more comments yesterday morning at the informal discussions. Thank you for taking the time and for providing input. The proposal will be revised according to the feedback and, shortly, send the revised proposal and call for the next round of informals on the issue. I will open the floor on the roundtables for further comments.

Discussion on the roundtables

Japan: As for the roundtable, the structure is good for a basic structure (stock taking and road ahead). It reflects our reflections at CND. You pointed out that yesterday we had a good discussion on changes and additions. Given the time for the roundtables is limited, the general direction we prefer is to make the description concise and streamlined, which would help us to make an agreement. Allow me to make a comment about the outline document, very much appreciate your effort on this matter. The basic structure (preamble, stock taking, road ahead) is good and supported broadly. The question is how to think about this in paper. Information and guidance. The sense from my delegation would be that this paper could be a reference paper, containing important information, when we try to consider this matter. It would not be a good basis for negotiations of an outline. We would like to see a more brief, concise document. Based on common ground, which would serve as good basis for negotiations. I would like to request the Chair based on today’s discussions would provide a short concise common ground-based document. Maybe a short one, as an outline, which would be good for the basis for discussion. We don’t have much time, so this would be helpful. With regard to the preamble, for us it is important first the three conventions as the cornerstone of our missions; and also highlight the importance to abide by these legal instruments. Mention that 2009, 2014, 2016 are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Important to highlight the central role of CND and UNODC. We would like to see these in the preamble. On stock taking. We support what’s written in this paper is good basis. We hope we can come up with a generic statement on stock taking and how to evaluate the current situation. On the road ahead, it is important to pin down what would be the timeline, the next target year. This is another point raised by many delegations. We want in 10 years as the new target date (with 5 years midterm review). With regard to the new timeline and follow up. It should be efficient. How to make best use of ARQ, annual report and questionnaire mechanism. Not to cover just 2009 but other documents. A detail matter: delegate in a body the responsibility for that, so that we don’t have to spend so long on that. It would be good to pinpoint how this would be done.

Uruguay: On the outline, we don’t have a response from capital on the outline. I would like to share the comment that on the outline, it’s too long. 8 pages will not be agreed here or ever. 1-2 pages would be satisfying. On the roundtables, the first one is taking stock, second one is way forward. I think we could make changes, think about that on one day we’re thinking of what we did well and badly, and the second part what we’ll do in the future. It’s hard to give a title. We cannot agree with the proposal from the chair. We are not prepared to take stock about progress. First, because we think there have been no progress. I would challenge any delegate to tell me about any progress. I haven’t heard ANY progress, that we’ve achieved something. Everything is about us going backwards. We don’t want that as a title, but I suggest then a different formal. I’d say achievements, perhaps; and difficulties, mistakes, so it would be a different wording. We can simply say Taking Stock of Experience. Some people don’t want to accept we have made major mistakes. The war on drugs has caused tremendous harm. We have waged war systematically imprisoned couriers and producers and others in Latin America, including in my country, and the rest of the world. We’ve made mistakes. Many of the harmful effects are not necessarily because of drugs but the systematic repression that we have ordered. Some countries with zero tolerance and hard-line policies belief there on the right track. And some don’t agree with that approach. We don’t need to discuss progress for a whole day. Let’s take stock and we can all talk about mistakes and others can talk about the successes or achievements. But I hope that at least one of them will refer to a form of success in the last 10 or 50 years.

Pakistan: In general terms, we support the very constructive proposals for the roundtables. We reemphasise two elements: we would request you that on the first roundtable, the reference to 2019, we made that reference in relation to the 2009 document. On the second roundtable, we wish to see the issues faced by transit states.

Peru: The title of the roundtables and elements in the document being prepared are important but I don’t think they’re going to determine discussions on the roundtable. As Uruguay said, it will be a moment to review what happened and glance at the future, those in the roundtables will be able to make comments and discuss views. We don’t have a problem about the sub subjects, but if we take part, we will look at our project. Our country has reduced the total area used by 20k hectares and helped developing communities; that is success and I could continue. Uruguay did ask for progress…we are far from total success, but we have achieved a lot.

Canada: We support the themes but would like to make one suggestion to the sub themes of the second roundtable. Responding to new and emerging challenges, for instance. The first roundtable looks back at trends and challenges in the past 10 years, we want to reflect that going forward.

United States: We share the view of others that we should simplify our approach and agree just to themes of general roundtables. The second should focus on national efforts, including cooperation and the future of our youth, grounded on our common concern of the health and welfare of humankind. We support the Canadian proposal for emerging challenges.

Spain: We agree with the delegation of Peru. Given the level of representatives, everything will be discussed irrespective of the subjects and titles we choose. So, the most positive approach would be to keep things as general as positive. To discuss agreements and disagreements. We are flexible but would like to clarify one point: to include specific points, like the proposal for Pakistan to include themes about transit countries, we are fine including that; but a country of production can be a transit country too; and consumption countries can be transit countries. Bearing that in mind, countries of production, transit and consumption, at the end of the day, find themselves in a similar situation.

Egypt: The proposal is a good step in the right track. WE have two simple comments. First, supporting Pakistan, on the theme of the first roundtable we stress on the fact that the target date is for the implementation of op 36 of the Political declaration; not the target date for stock taking. For the second roundtable, once we’re talking about international cooperation, we should discuss capacity building and technical assistance reflected. We are sceptic on focusing on national efforts because that will just be a repetition and duplication of discussions at the plenary. The roundtables should be about international cooperation because that’s why we’re here for.

Malaysia: We share the views of others to prefer general themes for the roundtables. Countries can speak freely; for instance, of the success in saving thousands of lives by law enforcement by preventing drugs from getting to drug abusers.

Russia: We support the idea of let ministers decide what their national statements will be devoted to. If we keep the sub topics, we would propose an addition to the first sub them of the second roundtable: “Accelerating the implementation of ongoing commitments, in according to the three conventions”. This would be an integral part of our discussion. IN our view, the topic on improving data collection should be reworded as “Strengthening”, not “improving”; and delete the end of “better policies”. We would prefer, though, stick to a general wording. We support Egypt and Pakistan on the title of the first roundtable. 2019 is about assessing progress in achieving the Political Declaration. Taking stock.

Germany: We reiterate what we said yesterday at informal. I’m thankful to the Russian colleagues and others about shortening the document. Better to avoid sub-titles in the roundtable themes. We would limit the first one to Taking stock. ON a general line, we should be aware that with these themes we are not writing a script for a movie play where we prescribe to actors what they have to say. We just want to give the discussion an orientation. We are wasting our efforts on a substitute outcome document…when this is actually for roundtables.

Ecuador: We support keeping this also general. Taking stock of the last ten years for the first. Way ahead for the second. But we think the second table should discuss technical assistance and international cooperation.

Austria: I agree with previous delegates about general themes. We don’t have strong feelings about sub topics. ON the first one, the comment about 2019 should be the moment to take stock of the situation in which we are, taking into account development of the last decade, different policy documents; we wouldn’t like to be restricted to ONE policy document. We can agree the Uruguayan ambassador that the ministers will talk about the situation where we are and why and different opinions. We support that spirit.

Afghanistan: First, regarding transit/origin countries, we have a problem because, as said by Spain, distinguishing one from the other is difficult. If we had enough transparency in data collection and information sharing, we would see a different map of which country is a country of origin; for instance, when it comes to heroin. According to UNODC, half of the heroin is converted outside of Afghanistan, but we don’t know who they are. So, using these words is tricky. We don’t have any pending commitments, they are ongoing; so, we would rephrase that way. Most delegations seem to prefer to reorganise the first roundtable. It makes sense to rephrase. We note some colleagues say there have been little “progress”. We have made a lot of efforts. If we hadn’t, where would we be? Problems could be bigger, 10 times larger. That is progress. Prevention is progress.

Singapore: We agree with delegations about simplifying the topics. They should be broad/general, so that our ministers have more flexibility. We look forward to establishing consensus on the themes as soon as possible to discuss more substantial aspects of the upcoming meeting.

South Africa: The reference to 2019 should be in relation to the 2009 document. Stock taking should be a platform to share best practices, successes and challenges. WE are flexible on the subtitles. We would like to see a shortened text.

China: WE have not received feedback from capital. We echo colleagues who introduced the idea to have general themes and shortened.

Brazil: We support the idea of concise guidance. We think the second roundtable should be focused on our international efforts. What we have to do together.

Sri Lanka: The first roundtable should identify shortcomings of the last 10 years. What we have learnt. And the way forward. The second roundtable mentions international cooperation; but I’d include regional cooperation.

Turkey: The sub themes in the proposal are indicative and the negotiations on them are time consuming, so we would keep them general.

Pakistan: Very good point by Sri Lanka on regional cooperation. I invite countries to read 1988 convention, article 10, which makes the reference to transit states important. I invite colleagues to read what UNODC published in 2015; a report on trafficking along the southern route. A study which is an eye opener to understand the challenges of countries in regions that produce skyrocketing amounts of drugs, the challenges they face. My delegation is not interested in writing a script. Sometimes we like a script, sometimes we don’t. When we negotiated the wordplay, we did. We could’ve had a half a page workplan. But then the workplan was much longer. Why don’t we face the reality that we have to eliminate illicit cultivation, and illicit production? These realities affect Pakistan on a daily basis.

Argentina: We would like to keep themes general, as other delegations have also discussed.

Thailand: We would also keep the two main themes, as general as possible. We support adding technical assistance and capacity building in the second roundtable.

Colombia: We support the idea of keeping themes general, bearing in mind the political level of the participants. This is not a meeting of experts or technical officials, but political officials from the highest level. A roundtable evaluating how commitments have evolved thus far, and another one looking towards future. I underscore my concern about the first roundtable, it should not be seen as something that evaluates the last decade, but a discussion on the implementation. The ministers don’t have all the information about implementation throughout the world. How countries see implementation has evolved. The second roundtable could be about moving forward those agreements. Accelerated implementation of remaining challenges or however one would call it. The discussion on international cooperation is crucial. Not just technical assistance but in its full breadth, exchange of information, evidence, legal assistance.

Morocco: I would like something more general. The listing is counterproductive. The second roundtable, we’d like to focus on international cooperation.

Afghanistan: Our colleague from Pakistan recommended us to read documents. Afghanistan can also refer to them and others to other documents understand what happens and has happened in the region. But we won’t recommend anyone to do anything. We know many countries are doing their best in situations of transit. We appreciate these countries. Afghanistan does not believe the wording is important, but the intention. Depicting transit countries as victims of countries of origin. We should not go forward like this.

Chair: I am pretty sure what is the way forward and the feeling of the room. So, I am sure in a short while we will have a document.

Pakistan: It is extremely important for the decorum of this room. The procedure. When we address each other, we should avoid calling each other names. We are not sitting here in our individual capacity. We address each other in the names of the countries we represent.

Discussion on the Outline document

Chair: A proposed structure was shared during the Extended Bureau Meeting and immediately circulated to missions. I consulted with membership of each group to collect initial feedback. I would highlight meeting expert level 29 October. This has fed into a revised proposal structure along three elements: preambular part, stock staking, beyond 2019. The revised proposal was shared at Extended Bureau Meeting and circulated to missions. The draft was sent on Tuesday so that you could have time for its analysis and consideration. It is only the basis for the outline, which once agreed, will be presented to the reconvened session, in compliance with 61/10. We propose this draft following guidance from Member States. I avoided issues that lead to unnecessary discussion. Balance between being factual and having a document that is long. We know we need to refine it. When preparing this document, we went through all the documents; hours reviewing the objectives of each of the documents (2009, 2014, 2016). All the goals and targets, each line, in order to bring to you something that could feed this outline. I also want to say that we wanted to include all the elements and comments so that we could have a balanced document. Of course, this is the outline, and the basis we prepared from you. We would like to take comments to start a shorter version for negotiation. This will be an indicative document. It’s longer than the outcome because it’s a reference and guideline to guide the next chair to prepare for the Ministerial Segment and its outcome product. I look forward to general comments. The negotiation process will start with informal consultations next week. I understand that the expectations for this outline hope it will facilitate the outcome document for next year. This document is meant to facilitate the work of the next chair. My mandate is only to present to you this outline. We need to prepare this outline which is a guideline for negotiations next year. From comments today, we will produce a shorter version from Monday.

Peru: we understood this document as you just presented it. As an informative document. When it comes to the process, 61/10, there was major discussion about you presenting a draft text; but you presented an outline as provided for by the resolution, so thanks. We would raise specific topics that we would like to see in the final outline document. With regard to the format. In the preambular part, we would like to see reflected the reasons why the ministers are meeting, reaffirmation of the three relevant documents as our cornerstone: 2009, 2014 and 2016 (and confirm their relationship as complimentary and mutually reinforcing). The roles of CND and UNODC, and INCB and WHO, inter alia. And also addressing civil society and relevant stakeholders and other organisations. And the SDGs, which are very relevant. On stock taking: Look at progress attained in the last 10 years and identify remaining challenges. The need to implement all existing commitments. When it comes to the way forward: need to focus on implementation of ALL existing documents and commitments, which we have agreed thus far and the ways to implement them. Reference to goals and targets. For ex. Paragraph 36 of Political Declaration. We know there is no agreement on what will happen with this, but it should be in the document. Single track approach. Bolster data collection and ARQs. And importance of international cooperation. New timeline to review the targets we set ourselves and resources needed, for the future. All these elements appear in the document that you have put forward. We would like to see it more clearly in the document you will present next week.

Cuba: We could come up with the definitions we need. Initial and swift reading of the document shows a balanced document between different positions and expectations. It is a positive and inclusive contribution, which deserves support. For the next steps, more synthesis. Let’s not give in but continue to understand there will be progress and setbacks; such is life. We maintain our optimism and keep our eyes in the future. We repeat and emphasise key ideas that make up the Cuban position with regard to the document in front of us. Not comprehensive, but it could lead to results. A succinct introduction. Mentioning paragraphs and documents by their name might not be necessary. We should reiterate the reasons we are here. And the cornerstone role of the Conventions. And their flexibility. Greater emphasis on the role of CND, which should continue to be the leading normative organ in the UN system. Not necessary to negotiate a policy document. We have to implement what we have. Keeping our eyes firmly on the 2009 document, 2014 and 2016. This is an indicative, good basis for our discussions towards a more succinct document.

Chile: Preliminary comments: structure suggested corresponds to the aspirations of most countries. The contents, of course, we would like to see condensed, as you have said. We reaffirm the three conventions as a binding legal regime, complemented by political statements and three documents adopted in the past.

Iran: Examining this document wasn’t easy. We look forward to receiving a shorter document. ON the outline on the way beyond 2019, we have shared our views. We reiterate, the outline could be a concise and ford looking document capturing: brief report of results of stock taking exercise and implementation of commitments on the matter, in light on 2019 target date. Underscore commitments 3 drug conventions as cornerstone of this. Reaffirm 3 documents (2009, particularly p 36; and 2014, 2016). Recognise the three documents as complimentary and mutually reinforcing. Focus on accelerating implementation. CND leading policy making role. Treaty mandate of WHO, INCB. Single track follow-up system for implementation commitments and reporting of progress. Importance of data. New clear review timeline for beyond 2019. Means of implementation of the commitment, including technical assistance. Strengthening international cooperation. Iran faces challenges related to the destructive phenomenon of narcotic drugs. It’s a fact that we are in a region where we have to fight together to get rid of this problem. And it’s a fact the world has to work together on this. We have lost 4,000 law enforcement officers in the past 4 decades; and 12,000 have been wounded. Tremendous human and financial resources. Billions of euros. Annually more than 4,000 of innocent lives die because of narcotic drugs. Brief overview of the destructive impact of narcotic drugs. My country has not focused only on combating narcotic drugs. Balanced policy. Treatment, rehabilitation, etc. Because of this, Iran is not in a position to accept weakening the international documents related to narcotic drugs. We emphasise the shared responsibility in this regard. When it comes to Iran, we don’t see this shared responsibility. WE have been alone in combating drugs. WE haven’t received international cooperation and assistance. But have received much criticism. When it comes to policy making on narcotic drugs, we shall not only focus on our national problems, but in the context of global problems. I’ve heard many positions on this issue for the past 40 years. Some countries are less affected but wish to affect policy at the international level. They have the right to be on board when it comes to policy making. But we expect those countries to take into consideration the affirmations of countries most affected. We need a holistic approach: prevention, treatment, combating or fighting. It is a serious threat to the country. Otherwise we wouldn’t say fighting. I don’t reject that there are some shortcomings in the Conventions. Is the solution to unilaterally go beyond the provisions of the conventions? We should stick to compliance. If there are problems in the Conventions, let’s discuss them in the room. The way is not to go beyond the provisions. In other fields, if a country does not agree with one aspect of a convention and then goes beyond the convention, they are acknowledged as weakening efforts by the international community.

Chair: Important to have a regional perspective.

Austria: We are grateful to the Chair for the proposal and the Iranian ambassador for reminding us of the regional challenges. We support the UNODC programmes in Iran as well as in other affected regions.

Austria (on behalf of the European Union and Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, FYROM, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Ukraine, San Marino, Serbia, Ukraine). We would highlight our interest in engaging from next week in consultations on the outline to be presented at the Reconvened. The final version should be shorter and concise to support preparations. We see a responsibility of all of us in the Reconvened to identify common ground to constitute elements of Outcome Document. Let us listen to each other and focus on issues that unite us all. WE want to share with you the elements we consider important: Reaffirming the commitment to the 3 UN drug convictions and overarching principles universal declaration human rights. CND as primary body for drug control matters. Strengthening cooperation between UNODC and other UN entities. Data collection, including ARQs, recognising that the UNGASS is the leading agreement and implementation should be accelerated. 2030 to implement UNGASS. Related to SDGs. Commit to the continued involvement of civil society. Existing international drug policies and relevant documents. Reflect ambitious, aspiration, responsible, gender sensitive vision of the future, and international cooperation. Balanced, comprehensive, and evidence based approach. Accelerate implementation of all agreements. It’s time to step up action to implement UNGASS stressing urgency of action.

Colombia: We believe the structure is appropriate. Preamble: the elements are important. Three conventions. Complementarity between instruments and policy documents. Role of CND, UNODC, INCB and WHO. All of this is very much in line with the instruments. Colombia is of the view that we need to bring out the complementary nature of the work done. How it all ties in with the UNGASS. The documents are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Colombia thinks that we should take stock on the work done in previous years to counter the threat of drugs. This balance will allow us to decide whether we need to extend the goals of para 36. Without complete clarity about this, hard to know how to move forward in attaining these goals. From 2019, as well as those goals under para 36, we should bear in mind that the UNGASS outcome document operational recommendations consider changing realities and challenges and threats; so, it updates the goals of 2009. It will be crucial that these goals that we include an objective of universal information system for data collection with impact on cross cutting indicators to measure progress. Bearing in mind principles of common and shared responsibility, balanced and inclusivity. In terms of the work for 2019. We need to accentuate implementation of commitments. Not just emphasise but speed up implementation. Countries need resources for implementation. Revision of implementation as we did just recently with the Paloma Convention.

Chair: Italy has the floor

Italy: Thank you chair and good morning. I align myself with the statement of Austria and the European Union. We thank you for presenting this document and recognize the serious analytical work done by your team. The nature of the document needs to be addressed. We concur that the document is a useful background document to proceed with the discussions. The outline needs to be a concise document with the key points in the form of bullet points. For the sake of clarity, we could rename it the chair’s guideline. Italy would like to make the point that a new policy document is not necessary as there is a broad consensus in the room. We would like to see an underlining message that strengthens the implementation of the existing documents. A consensus seems to be within reach and we would like to thank you for this. I would like to suggest that we extract the key elements from the paper and present them in the outline that will be presented next week. On the preamble, we would like to reaffirm the commitment to the three UN drug control conventions and human right principles as the cornerstone of the world drug problem. WE would like to also reaffirm the commitments stemming from the key documents. When it comes to the stocktaking, this is a very important part of the document and we think it is important to highlight the gaps in the reporting systems. There is also a need to improve the ARQ and the methodology of data collection. It is important to strengthen the links to the SDGs. An effort is required in terms of additional resources. We understand there will need to be a discussion o how we should strengthen the implementation of the commitments. We understand there is no consensus in the room but are ready to embark on this discussion.

Chair: Thanks to Italy and for the constructive comments. I would like to give the floor to the Netherlands.

The Netherlands: Thankyou Madam Chair. We align ourselves fully with the statement made by Austria and other EU Member States. Thank you for sharing the document at an early stage this week as this helps with the discussions that are happening today. We are happy to note that you will come back with a new version on Monday and frim our delegation it is important. The current document is to complex to navigate in the discussions. We do believe that all of the elements are in there and we can start filling it in the weeks to come. On substance, it is important to focus on the common ground areas. We can then see how to progress or finalize these discussions. We do believe that certain points need to be included in the outline. We highly support the structure introduced based on the consultations. With regard to the preamble, it is important to have a statement on why the minsters are meeting; it is important to reaffirm the legal framework and the leading policy making roles of the CND and UNODC. We would also like to make reference to other stakeholders including civil society and academia. With regard to the stocktaking exercise, it should show the commitments that have been achieved over the last ten years and those that have not. We need to be concise and evidence based. We believe it should be based on reports from the INCB and possibly complimented with reports from civil society. The way forward needs to focus on the acceleration of the commitments made over the last ten years. My delegation still needs to have a discussion of the goals and targets. We would like to move towards a single-track discussion and reporting stream. We believe we need to share the timeline, but further discussion needs to be made on what this timeline should look like. I have one more point to make regarding the process. I would like to stress the importance of being clear on the topics of each of the next discussions. This would help the process a lot. I look forward to the discussions next week.

Chair: Thank you to the Netherlands. The document that we put forward is a basis to bring together the elements that we have all agreed upon. I agree that cherry-picking should not be an issue, otherwise we will never come to a final report. Let me be clear that initially we should present a brief document in the hope that we can then revise it together. We would conduct a review of the draft outline as a group and then take a decision on how to move forward. Thank you. Norway, you have the floor.

Norway: Thank you for the paper you and your team have presented. From my delegation, we believe it should be a short and concise document that gives a skeleton for the ministerial segment. We can hopefully agree on a skeleton over the next 3 – 4 weeks under your leadership. Namely, a preamble, a stocktaking section and a way forward should be included. The preamble should reconfirm the three UN drug control conventions and human right principles as the cornerstone of drug policy. The UNGASS document represents the latest consensus. Stocktaking will produce and Overview of drug policy efforts over the last ten years. The way forward should merge the goals and target with OP36 for a long-term vision. It is important to have targets we can achieve in a ten-year timeframe. We need to strengthen and streamline the documents. We would also like to see the CND contribute to the broader SDG goals. Cooperation with all relevant stakeholders including civil society is key. We agree with the suggestion by the Italian delegation that if the document is presented on Monday, we would appreciate a few days to review the document.

Chair: Thank you Norway. Singapore.

Singapore: Thank you Madame Chair. Our own sense of hearing is that the nature of the document is not that of an outline but is more of a framework. The expectation is that this outline should serve as a basis for the ministerial segment next year. We thank you for presenting a more succinct version with your team next week. New issues should be avoided at this stage and to assist you with support from the secretariat we should clarify points that represent a broad consensus. Our understanding is that most delegations do not object. The outline should include why the ministers are meeting, the three UN drug control conventions and human right principles in relation to the drug problem; the complimentary roles of the WHO and the INCB. The stocktaking section should include an overview of the progress made in the last ten years. Then, the way forward should focus on the implementation of the commitments made over the last ten years, resource mobilization and the definition of a single-track approach on data collection needs clarification. We look forward to working constructively amongst delegations. We will join your efforts in reaching a consensus.

Chair: Thank you. I would like to give the floor to Portugal and then to Malaysia.

Portugal: We align ourselves with the statements made by Austria. Portugal prefers to see the document as a background document and not an outline. It should include the aspect where there is a common ground and focus on aspects where we do not have common ground. We would like to emphasize the leading policy making role of the CND and the commitments to the SDGs and the human rights principles. Without repeating what others have said we would like to strengthen the importance of data collection. We would like to thank Norway for their interesting side event as it represents where we are. We think we can focus on finding a political objective. As a member of a delegation which is not very big, I would like to request a calendar for the future meetings that are to take place.

Malaysia: Thank you Madam Chair. We take note of what you have mentioned earlier, for the draft outline to form the basis of negotiations in the ministerial segment. The draft outline which needs to be endorsed by all delegations should have clear language and direction for the way forward in 2019. The preamble should clearly state the objective, affirming the three mutually complimentary documents, and the role of the CND as the main policy making body should be given emphasis. Further discussions should include the role of other stakeholders – civil society for example. The stocktaking section should highlight the progress made as well as the gaps and challenges we still face. The annual report from the INCB should be used for this. For the way forward, we should mention the importance of the thee complimentary and mutually enforcing documents. There should be an emphasis on harnessing the tools and mechanisms to accelerate the agreed commitments that have not been achieved. Through your able and transparent leadership, this document could be translated into a brief statement to be used in the ministerial segment.

Chair: I give the floor to Spain.

Spain: We associate with the statement made by Austria and would like to comment in our national capacity. We take the document presented as an indicative document that follows the mandate given under the most resolutions from CND. You are going to submit this document and we will take part in the major work to reduce the document and ensure that it is appropriate to be used in the ministerial segment. As for the preamble, we think the elements that you put forward should be taken up and emphasis should be placed on the key role of UNODC to address the global situation on drugs. The importance of the three key UN documents and the human rights conventions should be key. The need to collate data has been clearly shown, because if we arrive without data we will be blinded. We would like to emphasize the participation by civil society as an essential entity in all of these matters of evaluation. We would also like to talk about the three UN documents and how they are all important because they are mutually complimentary. The three documents should be mentioned at the same time. In 2009, OP36 determined a number of goals and perhaps this should serve for the future. As for the third point of the document, we have already established the goals and targets so there is no need to revisit this thinking about 2019 to 2030, we would be making a major mistake. Let us not decide on goals for 2030 in 2019, because by then there will be different circumstances and the danger of having many commitments and documents is that in the end, they may not be consistent. Let’s try now to comply with the goals and targets that we already have. Let’s be careful that we don’t set ourselves with an enormous amount of work to do.

Chair: I thank you. I very much like the idea that the documents will be built on the other. I give the floor to the U.S.

USA: Thank you Madame Chair. We would like to thank you for your efforts to achieve a balanced document. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback today. We have reviewed the document carefully and thoughtfully and it does include some elements that we can all agree on. The document provided helpful information on the progress made and what still needs to be addressed. There is a need to develop indications with the social counsel. Member states remain divided amongst the goals that should be given in 2019. We have actively participated during the fall intersessional schedule and there are many areas of convergence regardless of the form it takes. The deliverables should underscore the leading roles of the CND and UNODC and the treaty roles of the WHO and the INCB. They should clarify that the outcome of the 2019 meeting is not to reaffirm the points from the international policy document, but to establish a new target date to take stock of our international drug control commitments. This issue of how it will feed into the new agenda is key. A broad range of issues were addressed and whilst our interventions are tailored to our shared drug control related challenges this will be another key issue for the chair to help us resolve. We all agree on the need to assess ourselves, we just need to decide on the best way to do it. With the concepts in mind, perhaps the way forward is to use the document you created as a background tool and use it as a basis on which to build the resolutions of the 2019 CND. We should use these commonalities as a basis to build this deliverable. We are grateful to you and your team and it is abundantly clear that we all share the common value of the wellbeing and health on mankind. There can be no greater cause than making the youth the centre of our efforts.

Chair: Thank you to the distinguished delegates of the United States. I would now like to give the floor to Brazil.

Brazil: Thank you Madam Chair. My delegation would like to thank you for providing us with the document. We concur with the proposals of the working with a shorter document. Our diplomatic process here shows that it is easier to expand a document that it is to shorten one; we are happy to work with you in doing this. My delegation concurs with many of the points given by other delegations and think the following points should be included. The preamble should have clear message on why ministers are meeting and their commitment to the three UN documents; the leading role of the CND and UNODC and the treaty role of the WHO. For the stocktaking section, there should be a general consensus of the progress made over the last ten years and an address of the gaps and challenges that we still face. Our suggestion would be to start very short and if you could guide us to focused discussions on how we should proceed that will allow us to give a statement on our progress of the last ten years. There should eb a commitment on improving the existing data collections in a way that all commitments are covered. It is important that we do not only reflect our commitments but also try to move forward. We believe that we need a short timeline. We believe that the reporting should support the SDGs. We believe there should be a focus on an integrated approach if we are to address the world drug problem on the basis of a shared and common responsibility. I would like to join the delegation of Portugal to have a timetable of meetings.

Switzerland: thank you Madame Chair. I’ve been listening to other colleagues and would like to add my voice in thanking you and your team for providing us with this document. I am not going to repeat the points from the Japanese ambassador. The points that have been listed are the points that my delegation also believe are important. There are lots of debates to come in the following month. I would like to add my voice to the points raised by Italian delegate. Thank you for the way forward and we would like to offer our support. It was well described from the Iranian ambassador that we need to work together to find solutions.

Chair: Thank you. There are statements to be made from Egypt, China, Russia, Morocco, Belgium, Guatemala, the UK, Pakistan when we come back. We will reconvene at 3:00.

 

**Afternoon Session**

Chair: Distinguished delegates, good afternoon. I would like to continue with the comments for the outline. Egypt you have the floor.

Egypt: Thank you madam chair. I would like to thank you and your team for this paper. In our view it captures everything that has happen in the last months. We do have concerns about how to make use of the paper. When it comes to the nature of the outline; I’d like to speak to this and the substance of the documents. We see it would be important to have a short 1 page or one and a had page outline with the main topics that are coming in the ministerial segment. If we put too many things on the table and try to strike out some of them this would not be constructive – it would be more effective to start from scratch and then we can build upon it. As for the elements that we would like to se in the outline; I would echo what my colleagues have said. We will need to reaffirm the role of the CND and the UNODC as well as the treaty roles of WHO and INCB. As for stock taking, we believe it will start will assessing what we have achieved so far – and madam chair I think that we have achieved a lot – after this we must assess the gaps that we do have and reaffirm the commitments that we do have. As for the way forward, we will need to reaffirm the targets and goals that we have in OP36 and all three key documents. How can the ARQ reflect this one-track approach. My delegation will work on a timeline. However, my delegation is a little sceptical on linking this timeline to the SDG’s and would prefer to separate them. If the document is ready for Monday, we would prefer to start the discussions a little later.

Chair: Thank you to the distinguished delegate of Egypt. China, you have the floor.

China: Thank you. We would like to echo the statements made from the ambassador of Iran. For the conventions, it may have some shortcomings, and this is why we have the UGASS document. For the relationship between the declarations and the UGASS – the only legal binding document is the UNGASS document. We would like to reiterate our commitment to the drug conventions and all three political declarations. First, we would like to see a shorter and more concise document – less than 2 or 3 pages. We would like to express our support to your chairmanship and would engage in all discussions. We will be aligning with what we have already achieved.

Chair: Russia now have the floor..

Russia: We would like to join other delegations in their statements. I believe the statements we are going to make have already been made by other colleagues. We fully share the views expresses by japan. We do still need to streamline the document to produce an outline. In our view the document should contain the elements of convergence which amount to 85% of our position. I would like to reiterate our position; we fully support the proposed structure – in the preamble we would like to include the reaffirmation to all of the political documents which are complimentary and mutually reinforcing. We could also reiterate the principle of common and shared responsibility. We would like to keep the stock taking part more generic as the factual elements can be extracted from the world drug report. I would like to stress that this part shouldn’t be in the part, predominate. In this regard it is important to discuss resources mobilisation and the issue of targets and goals. We are looking forward to your new proposal and would like to support other colleagues who have suggested that the next round of consultations to Wednesday/ Thursday next week.

Chair: Thank you to Russia, I would now like to give the floor to Morocco.

Morocco: I would like to support the statements made by our other colleagues. We think it is clear that since 009 we would like to see reflected that the problem of drugs continue to be a problem to health, security and wellbeing; particularly for young people. In the road ahead after 2019, we would like to see the UNGASS declarations strengthen international cooperation and the commitment.

Chair: Thank you. Belgium now.

Belgium: We fully aligns itself with the statement given by Austria. Thank you for the document, it is a very good basis for the discussions that are happening now. The outcome at the end is not to have more incoherency – so we should not focus on new targets and goals that are not included in the 2009 document. I had one important question on the document. It is on the list of issues. The list of issues looks like a list of concepts rather than issues. I would suggest that we work on this list to separate what we agree on and what needs to be discussed further. I would also ask for a calendar of future discussions so that we can organise our work.

Chair: the list of issues is only indicative and appear in all three documents. Now I have Guatemala

Guatemala: Good afternoon everyone. My delegation is grateful for the presentation of this proposal. Like many other delegations we are waiting for the observations and comments from our colleagues. We remain open to take part in discussions and to work on the document so that it contains the agreement to strengthen international cooperation. We would like to emphasize the need for the document to be clear and concise. This document should take into account the SDG for 2030 and take into account the needs of the most vulnerable group and gender issues. Taking the outline as the foundation, our delegation think it wise to engage on progress and commitment to the points that have already been made. We hope that delegations will be kind towards our smaller delegation. Otherwise thank you all the work done so far.

Chair: Thank you. UK, you have the floor.

UK: The UK support the intervention made by Austria. With regards to the content I refer to the UK’s statement in October: it is of the utmost importance that we engage in consultations in a timely and constructive matter. The Preamble should reference the legal framework and acknowledge the role of other stakeholders such as civil society and academia. In terms of stocktaking, we feel it is really important to include the ARQ. On the way forward, it is important to streamline data collection process working towards a one-track approach. As we have expressed, we believe the UNGASS document…no targets are needed, however we understand different delegations’ stance on this and stand ready to begin discussions on this.

Chair: Now I have Pakistan.

Pakistan: Thank you madame chair. We support you in your capacity as the Chair in this important process. First, we fully support the new structure comprising of three parts (the preamble, stocktaking and the way forward). Following the discussions, we will need a skeleton that will serve as a basis. In the preamble we would like to see the three conventions reiterated, the three documents underlined together with the fact that they are mutually complimentary. We should identify gaps and challenges in the stocktaking part, but this section should be kept simple. Now, the way forward; we wish to see a strong focus on implementing the existing commitments, the means of implementations. Specific refence to OP36 is also important. Pakistan would like to see a special focus on children and youth in the outcome document. We would really like to see not only reference to streamlining and improvement, but also the important of the ARQ. In terms of timeline, we are flexible, but I believe the proposal made by Japan is a reasonable one. Finally, the element of international cooperation based on common and shared responsibility – we would like to have a strong reference to this.

Chair: Thank you Pakistan.

Algeria: Thank you. My statement will be brief. We would like to thank you and welcome the commitment from you and your team. Algeria would also endorse the reaffirmation of the international drug treaty and the important of the qualitative work of the WHO and UNODA. WE think focus should be put on bolstering international cooperation. The goals of the political statement 2009 should be discussed in the ministerial segment.

Chair: Thank you Algeria. I would like to give the floor to Nigeria.

Nigeria: Thank you. First of all, I would like to share my appreciation for your work and exemplary leadership. Most of the issues in the documents have brought disagreements and I am impressed that the comments from my colleagues are moving towards a way that is acceptable to all of us. We also think that we should try as much as possible that the outline is short and precise. Having said that, I want to align with the comments of Egypt, Morocco and Algeria. In the aspect of stocktaking, I also want to emphasise the that gaps in the implementation are discussed. This will guide us in the ways we can move forward. Going forward we should also consider that the political declaration document is very important and maybe consider that we extend the timeline for these goals.

Chair: Thank you to Nigeria to your comments. I would like to give the floor to Germany.

Germany: I am happy that at the end of this intersessional meetings you have reached a major success that no one is contesting the structure of this outline. We need chapters or elements that we might agree on the 5th December. I was surprised as to how many converging comments were made.  I join those who would advise to reconvene on Wednesday. I would also appreciate you to give us a list of meeting until December.

Chair: I appreciate your words and the constructive spirits of the delegations.

Romania: I would like to add a few remarks. Romania will play a constructive and active role in the run up to the 62nd meeting. Our vision on the global policy on drugs should be based on the protection of human rights. The mechanism of cooperation constitute an important tool that can benefit our process. We should continue efforts to preserve this consensus. Uniform indicators for data collection could be helpful in this regard. We appreciate the structure you proposed of the document.

Chair: Romania was the last speaker on the outline. I have taken your comments. In the meantime, I would like to finish the discussions that were pending yesterday. I give the chair to VGNOC

Jamie Bridge, Chair of the VNGOC: Thank you, Madame Chair, for giving me the floor and for allowing me to speak today as Chair of the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs, and as Co-Chair of the Civil Society Task Force for March 2019. Excellences, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, In the context of preparations for the 62nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, I wanted to take this opportunity to inform member state colleagues about the processes that we have followed in selecting civil society speakers for this latest round of intersessional meetings – but also, we anticipate, for the High-Level Ministerial Segment itself. For each speaking opportunity that we have – either on panels, from the floor or by video – the Civil Society Task Force issues an open call to NGOs around the world to apply. This autumn, we received 116 applications to speak. The Civil Society Task Force then convenes a working group to review the applications and select a roster that is balanced in terms of regions, themes, perspectives and gender, but also one that is high quality and relevant to the themes. With the kind support of our donors, the Task Force has also been able to fund some of the speakers to travel to Vienna. Civil society speakers come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of different perspectives. They work at the global, regional, national and grass-roots levels. Some are here to tell their personal stories, some have never been to an international forum before. This is all a positive outcome of civil society engagement and the Civil Society Task Force’s work. Sometimes, the messages that civil society speakers have can be challenging. In many settings, our role as civil society is to be the “critical friend” of governments. However, I also want to reassure colleagues in this room that each civil society speaker is asked to submit their statement or video in advance. The Civil Society Task Force is then able to advise speakers, where necessary, on how to communicate their important messages in the most productive, constructive and diplomatic way possible. Collectively, we are learning all of the time in this regard and appreciate the ongoing support and feedback from you all. Madame Chair, I want to thank you, member states, the UNODC Civil Society Team and the CND Secretariat for your ongoing leadership in ensuring the meaningful engagement of civil society here in Vienna – and for maintaining the best practices that have developed in this regard over recent years, including at the UNGASS itself. Finally, I want to inform member states about a special lunchtime event during the reconvened CND meeting, at 1.30 on Wednesday 5th December. This event will allow the Civil Society Task Force to present the results of our global online consultation, which gathers NGO views on the 2009 targets, the 2016 UNGASS and the Sustainable Development Goals. The consultation closed last weekend, so we are now translating and analysing responses from nearly 500 NGOs. The event on 5th December will therefore provide the strongest indication of civil society’s views, reflections and recommendations for the Ministerial Segment and beyond. We will also provide some lunch for you all! I look forward to seeing you there and remain available to discuss the work of the Civil Society Task Force with any of you at any time. Thank you for your kind attention.

Chair: I will give the floor to Giovanni C from UNODC first. WE then have one NGO video message. I will then go through specifically how we will work on Monday.

Giovanna Campello, Programme Management Officer, UNODC: I want to show how when we do international cooperation, we take into account all of the important issues. This story begins in 2007. Out of this interagency collaboration we looked into the guidelines on how to work on family-based preventions and now we now that family-based preventions is one of the most effective. In addition, we know that family-based prevention can help children with behavioural problems. Family-based prevention prevents your violence. I Will focus the work in central America. Here we relied on the work of PAHO. We were very fortunate to join with them and use their programme. This will become important later in the story. After panama, we got good results and were able to move out in the region to Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and the Dominican Republic. The governmental structure adopted and expanded the programme. Now we are expanding to Buenos Aries and Venezuela. The periphery is now driving a new phase. One of the researchers in panama tried to deliver only one session instead of ten. We got the evidence that only one session can make a difference. We are now developing a suite of programmes that are tailored to families who are in displaced situations. I presented something like this earlier on. We have now done the analysis on the work amongst refugees and on children that have show that the trauma was getting to them. You can see from the programme that the signs of trauma are going down and this is from our work with their parents. Our work is being recognised by the WHO and UNICEF. I would like to give testimonials from people who have been involved in the programme.

[Link]

Chair: The last point that was still pending is a video from Nepal speaking on change addiction.

[Link]

Chair: this was the last item from what was pending on our agenda from the last couple of days. So first of all, I would like to remind you of some issues.

As far as the preparations for the reconvened, I understand that the invitations were sent on 18th September and the proposed timetable is on the CND website. These discussions will take place on 5th December in an open assembly format. On 6th, we will have joint meetings with the CCBCJ. It was decided that the CND will hold two meetings with the CCBCJ. There will be a separate CND meeting in the morning of 7th December between 10:00 and 13:00. Pursuant to CND resolution 60/10 a representative of the WHO will present about the outcome of the 40th meeting of the WHO which was held in June and the outcome of the 41st meeting of the ECDD. I would like to see if there are any comments at this stage. The composition of the 62nd session of the CND will be open for the purpose of electing the Chair, three vice Chairs and the rapporteur. The Chair will now respond to the African groups. There will be an intergovernmental expert meeting group on international use of non-medical synthetic opioids. The IGM is convened pursuant to the CND resolution decided last March. The invitations for this event were sent out on 4th October. On the CND subsidiary bodies, the sub-commission will be here from the 19th – 23rd November. I would like to go to the closing remarks and the work for the coming days. First of all, regarding the round table themes, via a special message we will be circulating a revised version of the proposed themes that assume less is more and focus on the general themes. We are very close to reaching a consensus on this issue. I expect to have this ready early next week. As for the draft outline, we will be meeting on Monday 12th November in rom C4. The opportunity of meeting on Monday at 13:00 will allow us to take the rational on the concise outline so that you can reflect better on it for when we meet again. I will present how to organise specific consultations as required for further collaborations. The coming days will be important for us in keeping up with our work. The next round of informals will take place on 16th November. I hope that from what I have already hear I think that from what the German delegate said we have many points in common, so we should be able to get points which are productive and useful. I would like to see if there are any comments? Thank