OP 1

Russia:

Providing assistance to states for assessing needs and necessary information to control substances for legitimate purposes, in relation to the title, we have no specific proposal we are ready to accept the title as it is on the screen. Nonetheless we would like to examine the text. 

Spain: there are three separate categories. We propose to delete ‘abuse and trafficking’, because those concepts are included in the concept of diversion.

Colombia: We do not agree with Spain’s position. This language comes from OP 2. We ask that all three elements be included.

China: we suggest that ‘international’ is put before control.

Peru: Generally, we are in full agreement with this paragraph, but believe the word noting isn’t the clearest option. Maybe instead use a word like recalling as it’s not something new.

El Salvador: we ask that the para is retained as per the UNGASS language.

Chair: I ask the delegate of Spain to approve this.

Spain: just a technical improvement. I understand there are other delegations that request this, but we do feel this is a repetition.

Pakistan: we will consult our experts to see if the word ‘control’ here is enough.

Chair: Can we approve the text?

Belgium: I agree with Colombia on this point. We have a commitment to improve access and availability and this will help for any substance for national control or international. ‘international’ is not needed here

Peru: we agree with Colombia and Belgium. There are national and international controls. We support the paragraph as it stands currently.

Chair: Can we approve the text as it is shown on the screen?

Pakistan: We do not agree with deletion. This paragraph is about the basic policy documents which we have referred to a few days back.

El Salvador: if we would be deleting sub paragraphs a and b under the original proposal?

The proposal would be to delete them. We would need to mention elements relating to the other paragraphs if we were to keep them so it is best to delete them.

Belgium: the political declaration have been developed in UNGASS, but the point of this paragraph is to highlight the recommendations that are there. If they are deleted the point is not clear. I encourage colleagues to keep A and B.

Singapore: we support the Peruvian proposal. There is no need to single out the recommendations from only one document

El Salvador: in the same vein as Belgium, we believe that this resolution focuses on the UNGASS recommendations to a great degree. We are not crafting a resolution on all the commitments we have entered into, neither are we referencing the 7 operational recommendations, so we will urge delegations recommending the deletion to consider a re-wording.

United Kingdom: we also would like to support the retention for these two paras, the rest of the resolution builds on these.

Finland: as expressed by Belgium and several others, we would like to retain paras a and b.

Croatia: We also support in keeping these two paragraphs

Uruguay: We support the retention of these two paragraphs A&B

Colombia: Thank you chair, we also believe this new drafting leaves OP1 without force, so we would prefer to retain A&B

Austria: We would also like these two paragraphs to be retained. We support the retention of A and B

France: We also want to have these paragraphs retained

Russia: we can both share the opinion of those who would like to retain and those who would not like to retain A and B. We would propose a new paragraph taken from outcome document para 2F ‘encourages member states to develop national supply management systems for control substances that comprise section, quantification, procurement, storage, distribution and use, strengthen the capacity of competent national authorities to adequality estimate and assess the need for control substances and paying special attention to essential medicines, as defined by national legislation, take in due note of the guide on estimating requirements for substances and international control, and enhance data collection mechanisms in order to present the International Narcotics Control Board with estimates on the consumption on drugs used for medical and scientific purposes’

Cuba: bearing in mind all the opinion of delegations in the room on OP 1, we would prefer the proposal by Peru. We believe it is much more in line with the rest of the text.

India: we also support the original language with the retention of a and b as that was much more focussed.

Philippines: before our counterpart from Peru made the proposal, we are in support of retaining a and b.

Iran: We are in favour of retaining item A and B, because they are more in line with the entirety of the resolution

France: We also in line with other colleagues’ support retaining A&B, and without them resolution would be much weaker

Malta: We support the position.

Peru: we don’t want to complicate matters. There are contrasting opinions in the room. Instead of having aa and b we could put ‘inter alia’

El Salvador: We can support Peru’s constructive proposal.

Chair: is the room in agreement with the paragraph as it is shown on screen?

Belgium: I think the Peruvian proposal is constructive, but I wonder if it is necessary to reference all three documents in this paragraph?

Chair: We are close to the consensus. I kindly request you not to bring new amendments to the text

Pakistan: I believe we have had exhaustive discussion. I kindly request you present it to the room for adoption.

Peru: we are very close to finding consensus. El Salvador has signaled his support in relation to the proposal for the para as I put forward. There is confusion about which document is more important than others. This is not the time for it. I propose to proceed with what I have put forward.

El Salvador: We are on the verge of having consensus here and my delegation would call on other delegations to support retaining the paragraph as it was, we have on the one hand delegations who want to delete the two recommendations, then some delegations who want to reference the document. Now we should compromise, whereby we include reference to the three documents and consensus to the two UNGASS documents

France: I support the request put forward by Belgium, recalling the three documents has no link with the paragraph, as any reference should be put in the preamble. The proposition put forward by Belgium is consistent and logical and we, therefore, support this.

El Salvador: I am not sure why we are discussing this again. There is reference to the two recommendations. I would urge delegations to support the paragraph as it is on the screen. We believe it should be adopted to all the references that it currently contains.

Chair: the representative of Belgium is in agreement. Thank you.

Peru: we would like to delete ‘especially’

United Kingdom:  the purpose of OP1 is to highlight the recommendations. I don’t see the value referencing the 2009 and 2014 documents. We could delete ‘inter alia’ and keep especially.

India: just to go back to how it was, the statement won’t connect properly now. We can cut the ‘following recommendations’ also.

Afghanistan: the UK gave us a good explanation. The main aim of this para is to use para a and b from the UNGASS. It is not clear to us why references to the 2009 and 2014 documents need to be added here. We support the language on the screen especially the word ‘especially.’

Peru: I think my delegation has much flexibility and accept deleting ‘inter alia’ and adding ‘including’ but also deleting ‘especially’ and ‘inter alia’.

Chair: Is there any other comment? I think that we have spent enough time on this paragraph, can we agree on this paragraph as it is shown on the screen? I see no objection; the paragraph is approved. Russia, we will remove

Russia: I actually for us it can easier alternative or additional, the paragraph we like would show in a more convenient way and detail the idea, which was in para one, it’s like an alternative, so it’s up to you chair

OP 2 

El Salvador: This paragraph is pending, no consensus was reached in the informals, there are delegations who want to retain the insure treaty compliance, others such as Canada who have proposed new language to the original language put forward by El Salvador.

 Canada: Since we were one of the delegates that proposed new language, can I propose to remove all the new language from mine and Russia’s – ‘To facilitate new availability’

Russia: Thank you to Canada for deleting our language. Rather than building it should be ensuring. We would like to reiterate treaty compliance. In the fifth line after diversion, we should put ‘and abuse’. If it does not go, we can propose alternative language to this paragraph. We reiterate to whom? The INCB or the Member States?

El Salvador: Thank you Chair. The first amendment put forward by Russia – we would prefer enhancing rather than ensuring. This paragraph is addressed to national authorities to build capacity and training; we would be asking the INCB to help national authorities, but it is primarily aimed at the national authorities. Perhaps we can delete ‘training’. Maybe we can use the langue from the title?

Chair: Do you have a specific proposal.

Colombia: in connection with what has been suggested by the Russian delegation in relation to capacity-building, we understand that to refer to a process not to what was agreed. We agree to what was proposed by El Salvador, to the words ‘enhancing capacity-building.’ Compliance with the treaties are not achieved through enhancing capacity-building so we agree with El Salvador and Canada to removing those words.

Kenya: we agree to retaining the words ‘building’ and ‘enhancing’ so that those states that don’t have it can work towards it.

Spain: the words diversion includes the notion of ‘abuse’. We can’t include here ‘abuse’. Diversion is a broad concept that includes abuse. We propose the deletion of the words ‘abuse’. We would like this para to conclude with the term ‘diversion’. We are doing this work together with the INCB which looks at the consumption of these substances. We want to avoid implicitly criticising the work of the INCB.

Chair: Any further comments? We have a small amount of time to read the paragraph to make some changes.

El Salvador: I’m in full agreement with the paragraph my only suggestion would be to remove the square brackets in relation to the Philippines proposal, so to have and addressing there we would delete what is inside the square brackets please.

Chair: Is the room ready to agree on this paragraph, I see no objection, the paragraph is approved

Russia: We are okay with the paragraph, we want to make some addition, after drug control to insert adequately estimate, and assess the need for international control of substances for scientific and medical purposes.

Chair: Any other comments? Can we agree on this paragraph as amended? Paragraph is approved

OP 4

 Pakistan: on the second last line we would request to delete ‘80’ and insert many or several countries.

Chair: any other comments on this paragraph? Are we ready to approve? The paragraph is approved

OP 5

 Chair: are there any comments on this paragraph? Can we approve this paragraph? I see no objections.

China: we would like to suggest putting UNODC before WHO.

Chair: Can we approve the text? Approved

OP 6

Pakistan: another harmless suggestion, on the second line we request amendment of the para to remove […] after ‘operational recommendations.

Russia: we cannot request the INCB, it is an organ that is very independent, we prefer ‘invite’ rather than ‘request’. Secondly, since the INCB is an independent body, we would like to change the para by replacing ‘monitoring progress….’ with ‘facilitating effective national action to implement the three international drug control conventions in particular by’.

Belgium: With regard to the comment from the delegate from Pakistan, I would recommend the inclusion of both, I am sorry, but I do not understand the proposal by Russia as it has changed the subject of the paragraph, and we cannot agree with it.

El Salvador: In the same vein as the delegate of Belgium, we would need a request from Russia confirming how the member states are in a position to implement the three documents, and hence an explanation.

Spain: We also do not fully understand the proposal, but we would suggest putting encourages instead of invites or suggests, because of the reading the INCB is already supporting member states, so we can encourage the board to do so, as the INCB has it mandate and there are mandates in relation to tech cooperation, we would be in favour of the Belgium proposal

Colombia: We think that Spain has clarified this matter. It should be ’encourage’ in this case. We would be in favour of deletion of this proposal. We also support Belgium’s recommendations

France: we support the proposal from Spain. It is in line with the mandate of the INCB.

Russia: The problem is that the mandate of the INCB is to facilitate national action and not to monitor programme.

Finland: we also would like to support the wording proposed by Spain, the word ‘encourage’ is a good word for this para. We also support the compromise proposal by Belgium. We also have difficulty understanding the proposed addition by Russia when it changes the substance of the para.

United Kingdom: we also support the amendments proposed by Spain and Belgium.

Germany: we also support the amendments proposed by Spain and Belgium, and not to support the additions proposed by the distinguished delegate from Russia.

Peru: I hope that we help us to overcome this deadlock, if we have to facilitate progress or monitoring progress, and could subsequently keep the text as it appears on the screen now and potentially adopt the paragraph

Chair: May I ask the room if we can agree on this paragraph, I see no objection, the paragraph is approved

OP 7

Russia: Honesty we have not heard about this initiative, about maybe el Salvador could tell us more about it.

El Salvador: I would ask if an official from the INCB could give more information

INCB: Some delegates may know that the data on consumption on psychotropic substances is not as reliable as it is for narcotics. INCB have been using a proxy figure but have been working with national authorities to obtain better data on this. The meaning of this paragraph is to support this process.

Chair: Can we approve the text as it is:

Russia: We don’t understand. Can the INCB rep clear up. Should data collection be presented in a different way.

INCB: rather than data collection on re3porting or info on psychotropic substances. It is not the practice, but they need to have a system of reporting. Change reporting data on consumption.

Chair: Any other comments?

El Salvador: with this amendment from the INCB, we are repeating what is said in the last line on ‘promoting the submission of data.’ Perhaps we can delete from ‘data’ to ‘national authorities.’

Chair: is there any objection to this amended para? Can we approve the para?

Finland: we not have ‘sharing experiences on the promotion of data’, who are we promoting as a competent authority? Maybe the previous speaker can explain.

Chair: May I ask the room if we can agree on this paragraph, I see no objection, the paragraph is approved

Russia: Honesty we have not heard about this initiative, about maybe el Salvador could tell us more about it.

El Salvador: Perhaps after facilitate, to share experience and good practices on the promoting

Belgium: What does it mean to facilitate national authorities? The last proposal is a bit complicated for me.

Iran: we have started by asking the member states how they facilitate the national authorities. This paragraph is incapable of its meaning. Providing collection and submission of data would be a better wording.

Belgium: I don’t understand why we have deleted the ‘sharing of experiences and good practices’ we want to keep this because it is important to the collection and submission of data.

Russia: Now instead of having data collection we now have it in the fifth line. It should be submission of data without collection.

Chair: Are there any other delegation that want to take the floor

Kenya: Could the INCB comment on the wording. Are we giving the right message?

INCB: I see no objection. The para is approved. Now we move to OP 8. Is there any comment?

Chair: is the room ready to approve this paragraph?

OP 8

Russia: we would like to make little amendments and additions. First, we would like to change ‘encourage’ to ‘invite’. We would really like to show respect to INCB. In the third line, we would like to add ‘adequately estimating and assessing their needs and’ before ‘reporting their consumption’. Also, at the end of the para we would like to add ‘for medical and scientific purposes as required by the three international drug control conventions.’

China: we agree with the proposal by Russia, we just have very minor proposal. In order to keep the coherence, to put ‘UNODC’ before ‘WHO’.

Spain: So once again we are back to the argument between encouragements and invited, and it seems here we’re splitting around the request we’re sending to the INCB, so we believe that if we could take the previous para as agreed, then we should be consistent and should continue with the word encourages rather than invites. In addition, perhaps it would be beneficial to finish the paragraph at scientific purposes, that is because firstly I understand all the INCB activities are takin under compliance with the three drug conventions, maybe some of the work of the INCB is dubious.

El Salvador: Like Spain prefers encourages instead of invites, in relation to the latest proposal adding reference to the three drug control conventions, we could accept the proposal put forward by Russia as it is line with UNGASS.

Peru: I am in agreement & disagreement when it comes to word encourages, however we hope to retain the reference to the three drug control conventions.

Colombia: We would like to say we prefer the word encourages

Iran: We propose that on the 5thline talking about reporting the consumption. We propose to put requirement as it is a word used by the INCB. This would replace the word consumption.

Russia: In this regard we would like to ask the INCB representative if this wording is ok?

INCB: Yes, it is fine.

Chair: Any other delegations wishing to take the floor?

Germany: Why do we need to quote the three international conventions? in the PP part we have a quotation about a wide range of ECOSOC references. We would prefer to delete it.

Japan: We would like to support the comment made by Germany. We should not mention the three international drug control conventions in the last part.

Chair: are we in a position to approve the text on the screen? I see no objection; the para is approved.

El Salvador: this language is in brackets because Belgium does not approve the proposal by El Salvador, we request Belgium to reconsider. Our resolution focusses on the technical assistance provided by INCB. The proposal by Belgium would require funding. We ask Belgium to withdraw their proposal and support the original proposal submitted by El Salvador.

Belgium: in the proposal that we made ‘9 Alt,’ it is because we believe it is important, that the UNODC also has an important role in providing support in the area of medicines and drugs so we believe the two bodies should be put at the same level. We could add ‘invite the WHO.’

Russia: We would like to support el Salvador with their idea, who are our stakeholders? The language by Belgium is a different idea what el Salvador have after, since we don’t agreement on the text, we would check – From the start we don’t like strong things regarding INCB, use encourages over urges, then in the second line we delete the UNODC and the WHO but we will return to it, adding adequately, estimating and assessing the need for international control substances for medical and scientific purposes, then we erase ensuring adequate availability to controlling medical substances.

Peru: I would like to offer my full support to proposal made by el Salvador as sponsor of the resolution, also we can accept proposal of Russia which in my view is more in line with the title of the resolution, we are happy with either the original or proposal put forward by Russia

Malta: For us, the Peru version stresses mainly the cooperation in a more straightforward way.

Brazil: We would support the idea of the revision of what is already used, because the CND would not mandate over WHO activities. We would not like to see the radical change suggested by Russia. We think that ensuring the availability should be included. We suggest including the original text by El Salvador, with some amendments suggested by Belgium. The changes by Russia do not reflect the spirit of the initial text.

El Salvador: my delegation can support the Russian proposal to support availability. We are focussing more on the support given by the INCB. Reference the cooperation from UNODC and INCB. In relation to stakeholder I would ask the INCB secretariat to provide an explanation as it goes beyond what we were asking from the INCB.

INCB: can you please request the part you are seeking clarification?

El Salvador: Salvador: the training for additional stakeholders, what financial implications will that require of the INCB?

Spain: in relation to the Russian proposal, it is not that we are against their deletion, it is just that we have a different view from Brazil. We do not have a problem with discussing this matter, but in another para because we don’t believe it is in line with what this para contains. The para talks about assistance provided by the WHO and UNODC, but now it also mentions member states. We don’t have a problem with this matter being dealt with in another para. With the para in red (9 ALT) we don’t have a problem with it, and we think the distinction between the INCB and UNODC, and the WHO, is useful. There are competent national authorities, they must be identified, and it is they who can send officials to those courses, not only the competent national authorities but also authorities that have links with those competent national authorities, so it could include health regulatory bodies. This option would then be very beneficial to this para.

Germany: I would like to point out that we don’t see any need to shift the focus of this OP to adequate training the focus here was on for training for adequate availability. We go along with Belgium and Brazilian thoughts, and the general approach of Belgium.

United Kingdom: UK: Cooperation is important, other than including ‘inviting the WHO’ the way in which it is worded demonstrates collaboration.

Bulgaria: We also support the Belgium proposition.

Belgium: the purpose of the is paragraph was stated by the secretariat of the INCB that cooperation between these two institutions should be encouraged. They follow training course for a week and learn about the work of the INCB learning proposal and the work of UNODC. This is the purpose of this paragraph when it comes to the availability and accessing services.

El Salvador: we issue a call for the support of the Belgium proposal. We encourage the INCB to provide training and technical support; INCB can only provide support to the competent national authorities. The wording goes beyond the mandate of the INCB by saying ‘other authorities. We are mixing different matters. We wish to avoid urging the INCB to exceed its mandate. I ask for a reconsideration of this proposal.

Chair: this paragraph should be bracketed, and we should move to OP 10.

OP 11

Belgium: we would like to propose that INCB and UNDO invite the WHO to improve their existing cooperation within their existing mandates.

El Salvador: we can support that proposal if we change urges to encourages.

Russia: we can also support that, but we need to make additional changes. After stakeholders there should be a comma and ‘where appropriate in accordance with national legislation.

Belgium: I don’t understand why we need such a caveat in this paragraph. Every member state will decide who is following the training.

Brazil: we like the language as it is right now and would like to ask the indulgence of the Russian delegation that sometimes ‘training’ is abo0ut adopting new practices. Could we use ‘where appropriate’?

Iran: we need some clarification on what would be the meaning of regulatory and relevant stakeholders?

Belgium: we speak from health care professionals as they are the ones that distribute the control substances. We could change it to healthcare professionals.

Chair: can we keep the competent national authorities as it was the working that was given by the INCB.

Belgium: could we keep relevant stakeholders? Because the healthcare providers are not an authority.

Peru: we are on the cusp of agreeing this paragraph. We believe irrespective if training changes national legislation it should be taken in accordance with national legislation.

Pakistan: We don’t have any strong position. Perhaps we can insert the phrase

Russia: we like your proposal to stop with national authorities and delete ‘relevant stakeholders’ in the spirit of consensus we can keep it as it is. We understand that countries differ and that they may have competent health stakeholders.

El Salvador: I request change to ‘their respective mandate’

Iran: we want to remind us that all the communications of INCB is to the national authorities, and all the information they receive is according to the government of the countries.

Brazil: we are confusing the spirit of the first para with what we are discussing right now. Now we have added other institutions, UNODC and WHO, to talking about competent authorities. It is therefore important to mention other stakeholders as recipients of this training. Maybe we can just separate references of UNODC and WHO. It is not only the INCB, there are other institutions too, so we can’t limit training only to the competent authorities.

Chair: I want to suspend discussion on this para and proceed to informals. I was informed that we are very close to consensus, but we are not very close to consensus.

Germany: I would like to support the ideas from Brazil and from Belgium and would like to provide more information about health stakeholders. We have for example, physician organisations, and other organisations like the Red Cross. We need these stakeholders mentioned here, but we would also like to show flexibilities, e.g. by inserting ‘where appropriate according to national legislation.’

France: I regret that this discussion has been ongoing for so long, the focus of the resolution was to assist member states to undertake an assessment for the need of controlled substances my q) if in those countries other relevant stakeholders can provide assistance to assessing he need for controlled  substances, the main objective is not focusing on the availability of resources but rather the need to make an assessment and estimate, so I’m wondering if in some countries its these other stakeholders who do the work. We strive for other delegates to meet consensus.

Chair: We have two options, some delegates are in favour to keep regulatory stakeholders, and in accordance with national legislation, to have the paragraph as it is, as in my view it seems balanced, the second option is to remove regulatory and health stakeholders.

Peru: I was just going to say much the same, we urge in previous interventions no one going against the text as its stand on the screen and amendment by Russia and I believe it could be submitted for approval at this point.

Belgium: Just to say in the interests of compromise, we can accept the text as it is.

Norway: We support the text.

Chair: Is the room, ready to approve the paragraph 9 alt? Approved. Delete OP 9

Financial resource management of UNODC: I would like to draw the attention of the delegates of OP’s 5,6, 7, 8 and 9 alt. Extra budgetary resources would be required for OP5. It is estimated $47,000 would be required for OP 6. $180,0000 would be required for OP 8, and $712,000 would be required for OP 9.

Chair: Can this resolution be submitted to the plenary? Endorsed.

El Salvador: I would like to thank all delegations for their constructive support and you for facilitating he adoption of the resolution.

Norway: We would like to understand the plans to proceed this evening.