Committee of the Whole Tuesday afternoon (L6. Promoting Alternative Development as a development-oriented drug control strategy)

(…)

Belgium: We did not engage fully in the informal and would like more time to get back to the capital and think about this proposal

Pakistan: We believe that it would be useful to bring in the reference to the ministerial declaration introduces last week as the last two lines were included in the min(…) 3rd line from bottom – while recalling in the ministerial declaration, member states have committed – then delete reaffirming our commitment

USA: (…) we appreciate the more recent edits offered by Pakistan, (…) i think we can (missed)

France: a general remark, i think we are moving away from the main message of the resolution – must we really reiterate the 2016 (…) our preference would be to remove the whole paragraph – we are currently in talks with our capital on this

Peru: Most of the delegations who have taken the floor were involved (speaking too fast) i think we can proceed with the text and would like to thank those who have tried to edit the text but with no mandate maybe we should revert back to the language of the informal

Belgium: we support France in the removal of this paragraph

Peru: it was agreed upon amongst a number of delegates informally so do not understand why we are attempting to remove it. (…)

Mexico: we had requested setting aside some time to consider this paragraph (…)

Finland: We support France in this

Netherlands: we would like to echo what France and Belgium have said.

Pakistan: we are not sure how useful this paragraph is but would like to use the language used in the ministerial declaration

Peru: Clearly there is no (…)

USA: (…) This is something that capitals need to agree on but we don’t have consensus

Chair: repetition is not good but sometimes is needed for balance, but for the new language there is no consensus, i propose to remove this paragraph (…)

Peru: (speaking very fast) if you could move the UNGASS document up.  Just a minor point, France suggested including after 30th special (…)

Pakistan: when the min dec was supported we (…) move beyond this not productive (…) our concern with this paragraph is (speaking too fast) we should merge this paragraph with the proceeding paragraph and end it after the words world drug problem. take the first three lines and merge with the proceeding paragraph.

Guatemala: By adding language to this paragraph are we not opening up debate for a paragraph that we have already previously adopted

Germany: I would like to recall that we are discussing a very technical development(…) i would like to suggest we keep the paragraph as it is.

Chair: in response to Guatemala(…)

Pakistan: traditionally when we have come to the CoW(…) i would like to note you (chair) encouraged people to use language from the ministerial declaration and we suggest we delete the UNGASS paragraph(…)

Peru: Chair this resolution is in no way aiming to change anything previously agreed, when we submitted this we were building (speaking too fast) Pakistans suggestion of reaffirming the documents would be the simplest solution (…) we can approve the paragraph. (…)

France: We support Germany in saying we need two separate paragraphs so this proposal is not acceptable

Belgium: we are also in favour of mentioning UNGASS in a separate paragraph

China: We support our colleagues from Pakistan, we think the three documents should appear in the same paragraph

Thailand: we also support the proposal made by Pakistan.

Chair: We have two views, one to merge all three together, and the other to have the UNGASS language in a separate paragraph, we can go back to the previous formula(…) what is the preference of the room

Peru: (…) this changes the status of (…) the current wording is the most neutral and if this language isn’t suitable, then we can delete the paragraph.

Chair: Any other comment? for the deletion of the whole PP

Germany: we have a strong interest in moving ahead, i am fine with reducing the amount of text and agree to delete.

France: My delegation also has a positive view of the proposal put forward by Peru and Germany

Chair: Any more comments?

Thailand: We can move forward with Peru and Germany.

Chair: we will move forward with deletion of the whole paragraph

Mexico: we do want to be constructive, can we set this aside so we can consult on this – i don’t want to make a decision under pressure

Mexico: we don’t really want to keep the PP but we do not want to make a final decision at this point.

Chair: I propose that we put this in brackets but mention it was proposed for deletion.

Peru: perhaps we could move onto the following paragraph instead.(…) as you can see we have two paragraphs and we would like to have the yellow text deleted (…)

Peru: it’s actually the other way around, bring back the deleted text and delete the the part above.

Chair: any comments? Can we approve the text, the yellow one? yes i see no objection, thank you. we move to the next paragraph – the last preambular paragraph.

Peru: wed prefer to come back to this paragraph later when we come back to the operational segment(…)

Chair: any comment on the last preambular paragraph?

Pakistan: generally we aren’t comfortable (…) documents that are not really (…) reflect the membership of the commission(…) i request the sponsors please enlighten us on the purpose of adding this language

Germany: (…) we discuss it intently with our friends from Peru and Thailand and are aware that maybe this isn’t usual practice but there is a funding crisis and the EU is the second biggest donor on sustainable (…) we ask Pakistan to rethink their proposal.

Chair: we move to the first OP

OP1

Chair: is there any comment on this paragraph?

Uruguay: i simply wanted to ask why are we taking out the reference to UNGASS recommendations (…) this UNGASS chapter specifically refers to sustainable development

Peru: as was discussed in the informals the 2016 (…)

Chair: can we approve the text as it is? I see no objection

OP2

Peru: after engaging in consultations the co sponsors were of the view that this paragraph(…) we hope we can have consensus on this paragraph moving forward(…)

Chair: any other comment?

Uruguay: the text in purple is this coming before or replacing the previous paragraph, paragraph two has been agreed upon, yes?

Peru: I thought we had finished (…) apologies chair

Uruguay: well then my comments are on paragraph two, our idea was that we would add language (…)

Pakistan: we are willing to go along with the language as it was in the spirit of helping the sponsors – in the second line can we insert “comprehensive, integrated and scientific evidence base” and then delete from human rights all the way through.

Colombia: (Missed)

Ecuador: we also prefer the original text prior to Pakistans proposal

Peru: (…) we don’t have consensus then we must go back to agreed language (speaking too fast)

Thailand: we would also like to go back to the original language

Germany: This is agreed language and suggest we go back to the original wording.

Afghanistan: we also support moving back to original language

Chair: can i suggest Uruguay move back to the agreed language

Uruguay: it is worrying the fact that we are refusing a references to a human rights based policy geared towards sustainable development(…)

Chair: I ask can we approve the text?

Pakistan: we have discussed several times at the commission (…) if we want to deal with all aspects we have to promote a comprehensive and holistic approach (…) when we try pick selective references (…) such an approach would not be useful in our work which is why instead of cherry picking a few elements (…) i have hardly heard any delegation questioning the importance of human rights

Secretary of the committee: I have been asked by Australian to say in MOE5 further discussions are taking place

Chair: we move to OP2B

OP2B

Pakistan: this language doesn’t capture what we were trying to fully catch here but to be helpful we will join the language presented by Peru.

Chair: we move to OP3

OP3

Chair: i see no comment we adopt this paragraph –

Germany: i was just told we are missing one word after illicit drug related activities there should be an and included

USA: could we go back to the previous paragraph we just passed (OP2B) (…)

Peru: (…) when we refer to commitments made over the last decade(…) if there is any request for amendment (…)

France: we also think indeed that it would be good to be more comprehensive here(…)

Peru: in light of the comments made by the US, yes CoW had adopted this paragraph and given that it was adopted already we would say to stick to the wording and proceed.

Chair: was that clarification satisfactory to the USA?

USA: yes it was fine, (…) just a question of the drafting but believe France also raised an issue

Chair: can we approve again our approved paragraph?

France: i call on other delegations who have not spoken what they think as we feel it important to stop at commitment

Peru: I agree chair(…)

Chair: is there any other delegation wanting to comment?

Belgium: we support France and wish not to refer to documents older than a decade(…)

Chair: can we accept the amendment? I see no objection

Pakistan: we wont object but lets put this on record(…)

Chair: I request not to reopen paragraphs that have already been approved. we now move to the next paragraph

OP4

Colombia: we want to keep the wording as it stands as it is UNGASS language, we would like to take out the words measurable and significant

Germany: (…) we think to make it easier we stick to the language that has previously been used in years before

Chair: any comments?

Iran: (…) these two words have come from political declaration of action from 2009 (…) therefore we find it helpful to (…)

Chair: any comments?

Peru: the recommendation made by Iran is reasonable but it will not enjoy consensus (…) we would like to urge the adoption of the original text

Spain: after the adoption of this PP (…) we now have a ministerial declaration that uses this specific language and suggest we use the exact language

X: (Missed)

Peru: i have to say i’m a little confused, the min dec was not a new policy doc(…) lets be honest in regards to what has been adopted (speaking too fast) we urge to keep the text as it is as.

Guatemala:  I would like to agree what was just said by Peru. (…) what we want to do here is send a strong tangible political message(…) it seems to us the wording (elimination) is the correct term (…) this is not the right place to start raising political questions (…) in light of the work we would like to leave the proposal as is.

Colombia: As a number of previous speakers have said the current wording comes from a political (/…) the important matter is the socioeconomic environment changes. (…) this is an attempt to reopen something that has already been accepted and believe we should keep the original language from UNGASS

Vietnam: we support to keep the language as it is (…) we are flexible with the two words being removed but we would like to keep the original text

Uruguay : the reference made by Spain working towards its elimination, the issue of (…) its a more time consuming process working towards the elimination of these cultivations.

Germany: We are talking about funding in this paragraph and are getting lost (…) But still to make life easier (…) we ask to reconsider and if we cannot agree upon agreed language that we have agreed three times in the past (…)

Iran: we have carefully listened, actually the notion behind our proposal was (…) what we have committed for we have addressed that unfortunately the cultivation is a growing matter and we should reduce this significantly, unfortunately(…) for the sake of the compromise, we would just (…)

Chair: may I propose to the room to accept the text as it is.

Spain: Our understanding any policy strategic approach(…) i will go along with the flexibility shown by Iran and withdraw our proposal

Indonesia: we would like to accept the text as it is.

OP5

Chair: is there any comment on this operative paragraph?

Uruguay: this is a familiar paragraph, we don’t understand why some have participated and others not, we should reflect all the (…) after unemployment it should say exclusion, social disintegration and after marginalisation its should say lack of services, in-fractional needs, drug related violence and then after drug related crime include in order to contribute to the promotion of peacful and inclusive societies.

USA: (missed)

Colombia: Thank you Uruguay for adding the language, the language as it was originally submitted (..) it would be more appropriate to use the original language (…)

Peru: it does seem to me that Colombia provided an accurate representation of why the text is the way it is(…) this paragraph has already been discussed and agreed upon and prefer to revert to the agreed text.

Chair: does any delegation wish to take to the floor? can we approve the text as it was agreed in the informals. agreed we move to the next paragraph.

OP6

USA: we didn’t have an opportunity to participate in this however, we will not object to its inclusion.

Ecuador: this paragraph in the last line, we would like to include alternative development programmes including (…)

Peru: we have no objections and would like to thank the US for the flexibility shown on this issue, the expert group on alt dev was open for participation for all member states and was open for full discussion

Mexico: my delegation would like clarification from Ecuador, we cannot find that language used by the “expert group” please explain further

Ecuador: simply to point out after UNGASS 2016, when referring to alt dev the notion of preventative development was taken on board(…) in this context referring to urban areas we feel it would be most apt.

Germany: (…) it was legitimate to include in the text (…) its fair enough to put it into the text so we are fine with it.

Pakistan: (…)

Chair: can we approve the text with the new addition? i see no objection

OP7

Chair: is there any comment on this paragraph?

Colombia: this text comes from operational recommendation 7 (…) if we are enhancing the text referring to men and women that would be an improvement but would mean modifying previously agreed upon text (…)

France: i fully support Colombias remarks. we propose that this be deleted (…)

Peru: i believe we have already had this discussion and there could be a point in replacing men and women with all individuals and take out measurably and significantly.

Pakistan: we want to retain the phrases measurably and significantly (…) we have shown considerable flexibility we are here to defend what is important to us our humble suggestion would be that the addition of these words does not change anything

Canada: id like to echo the words of Peru and retain the original language but change men and women to all individuals

Germany: I would like to agree with Peru and Canada and also revert back to the UNGASS language used and the addition of the new words adds nothing

USA: we extend our voice to those against adding measurably and significantly(…)

Belgium: Belgium supports the opinion of Peru, Canada, the US and Germany

France: we also follow what Belgium has just expressed

Chair: are we in a position to agree to paragraph as was discussed in informals? I hope that everybody hears me, measurably and significantly removed.

OP8

Peru: OP8 takes into account UNGASS and enjoys support of co sponsors and hope it garners further support.

Chair: Thank you Peru, are any other delegations wishing to take to the floor?

Colombia: not all of the paragraph comes from UNGASS, the last part comes from the original text is that right?

Peru: indeed, Colombia is correct (…) there was an agreement and i hope this delays colombias concerns

Germany: that last part identified as non- UNGASS language (…) it was included from a donor point of view and would make sense to include it here.

Chair: is there any other delegation wanting to comment? can we approve?

Pakistan: we don’t have any concern with the concept or language and share the view that (…) serve the purpose for which they are designed. i do want to flag for consideration – in the second to last line the phrase accountable use seems strange to me – it is unproblematic to us, maybe we could replace the phrase

Chair: the proposal is to replace accountable with effective, can we agree?

Colombia: (…) we find the word accountable in the original text and wish to stick to it

Germany: i think to change the word would change the meaning of the phrase so suggest go back to guiding principle language and use the term accountable

Chair: can we approve the text as it is? approved.

OP9

Peru: we need to remove those brackets as it was approved in the informal

Chair: can we agree on this paragraph? i see no objections

OP10

Uruguay: we would like to suggest an extra paragraph which would take up the adopted text of UNGASS that would be OP7L – (…) (switching between languages) we suggest this text that recognises the importance of civil society.

Uruguay: please add “promote partnerships and cooperative initiatives with the private sector, civil society and international financial institutions to create conditions more conducive to productive investments targeted at job creation in areas and among communities affected by or at risk of illicit drug cultivation, production, manufacturing, trafficking and other illicit drug related activities in order to prevent, reduce or eliminate them and share best practices, lessons learned, expertise and skills in this regard.”

USA: (Missed)

Peru:(Missed)

Pakistan: (Missed) (asked about the relevance of the addition of Perus proposed paragraph)

Chair: I can see there is no consensus.

Peru: we would like to thank Uruguay on this proposal – we would urge flexibility if there is no consensus maybe we could take it out.

USA: the addition is previously agreed upon language (…) we see merit in its inclusion

Germany: i don’t think the proposed language is controversial at all. (…) however we would ask Uruguay to reconsider as we believe it doesn’t add much either.

Thailand: we have no problem with it but as it has been proposed at the last minute we ask Uruguay to reconsider.

Afghanistan: this paragraph is good and can support it but added so late on would take us back to the informal – there are two options, reach consensus or use in later proposals.

USA: the purpose of this forum is to discuss (…) it is only Tuesday so there will be more time through the week to reach consensus

Chair: (…) at this late hour if we want to continue the formal it will take us a very long time

Peru: this resolution was submitted months ago(…) we could support the text if there were consensus but there isn’t

Colombia: similar to Peru – it is an important paragraph (…) its inclusion will give rise to further meetings if no consensus we vote to delete

Guatemala: we also are of the view as the US has said there are still 3 days remaining and 5 more resolutions and many more (…) at this stage we do see added value in this but we have also seen no consensus in this room, we are of the view of after holding three long informals coming up with a proposal of this nature standing in the way of consensus – we would prefer to take out the paragraph (…)

Iran: (missed)

Uruguay: you are putting me under pressure, when it comes to saying this is submitted at the last minute – this is always the recourse that member states have and it should be included, the elimination might mean taking out references to job creation which is v important to sustainable development – i haven’t heard one delegate oppose it just state that if theres no consensus take it out (…)

Chair: I try to facilitate your work and bridge the gaps

Indonesia: we share the views of the sponsor – after listening to other delegations it seems there is no consensus

Mexico: (…) it seems to us time shouldn’t be the criterium that determines the merits of a proposal – delegates have all expressed support (…) perhaps we could set aside some time to discuss the merits of its inclusion in a more informal setting ?(…)

Peru: as has been said we have no problem with the wording but some delegations have expressed disagreement (…)

Chair: does the room agree with the proposal?

Nigeria: (…) i want to join Peru, if we cannot find consensus we should delete the paragraph

Chair: are we accepting the paragraph or not?

Colombia: as there is no consensus we wish to delete.

Peru: I encourage that we accept the additional paragraph.

Guatemala: its UNGASS, we are more than willing to keep this if there is consensus

Chair: can we approve this additional paragraph?

Argentina: for the sake of flexibility we can keep it.

Chair: any other comment

Philippines: we are also willing to agree to its conclusion

Chair: we approve the new text.

OP10

Pakistan: (…) it should be applied across the board as it is previously agreed language, the focus of this res is on alternative development (…)

Chair: Is the room ready to approve? Approved.

OP11

Chair: Is there any comment on this paragraph? Approved. We have two pending paragraphs

Peru: In the paragraph that was deleted and the delegates agree on the deletion so can be approved. (Missed)

Chair: is there any comment?

Uruguay: we would like to thank the flexibility shown by peru and sponsors and to add the paragraph on human rights (…) as you all know we are against (inaudible) why do we need to mention (…) to not block consensus we can agree.

Brazil: (missed) (agreed to consensus)

Canada: we thank peru for the compromise.

Chair: any other comments?

Germany: we would like to find all delegations for trying to find flexibility (…) i would be happy to accept this proposal that seems to reflect the many different opinions in the room.

Chair: Can we approve the text? yes approved.

France: I would like to thank co sponsors, specifically Peru for being flexible and also Canada, (…) we also accept what was proposed

Chair: before we endorse this for plenary (…) approved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.