Committee of the Whole, Wednesday morning / Thursday afternoon (L7. Advancing effective and innovative approaches, through national, regional, and international action, to address the multifaceted challenges posed by synthetic drugs, particularly synthetic opioids

USA: Thank you chair, we have had three sessions of informals and believe we have completed a review of the preamble so should be able to get through that but may need time or the operative paragraphs.

Chair: We will now move through L7, is there any comments? Title approved.

PP1

Australia: originally this pp was talking about fundamental aims (…) we are happy to move on

Pakistan: why can we not end the pp after “welfare of humankind?”

Colombia: we consider the words deleted hold value and we should retain it.

Belgium: we are also for the deletion made by pakistan as it is echoed throughout this document already.

Iran: This is a PP and therefore having a selective approach or cherry picking our ambitions isnt appropriate enough, therefore, we call for ending the paragraph after referring to “international drug control conventions”

USA: We think it’s important to keep the aim of protecting health and welfare so disagree with the further deletion by Iran

Iran: just as a quick reaction, the last three conventions on drug control talk about many things – if we want to discuss this we could list forever that is why we recommended the deletion.

Chair: Can we confirm this PP with flexibility from Iran and Colombia?

Iran: (Missed)

USA: The fundamental aim of the treaties is to protect welfare, we want to remain with the originally drafted language.

Iran: We know that the 3 int. conventions (…) hold two pillars, demand and supply reduction (…)

Chair: the other aims are prevention, rehabilitation also

UK: It’s quite disappointing this discussion clearly all conventions have an overarching view of protecting humankind so we should keep the statement in.

USA:  The overall goal is to achieve health and welfare of humankind.

Netherlands: Just to echo what was said by UK and USA, the overarching goal is indeed health and welfare of humankind. we should not play with the fundamental aims of the conventions.

Pakistan: if this was about supply demand and treatment then the deletion by iran would make sense but it is about health we think the original language should be kept.

Colombia: this matter has been addressed by the commission(…) we are not trying to change the language we are just trying to address what we have recently talked about|(…)

Canada: we want to lend our voice to UK, USA and others, we do not do these commitments (supply and demand) on their own they are done to reach our overarching goals.

India: We support the original text.

Iran: for clarification, the CND is functional. we are not here to echo our ambitions, we should address (…) that reflects our expertise on narcotic drugs. We want to accommodate everyone’s views(…)

Afghanistan: our point wasn’t to ignore the fact about supply, but here we are talking about the whole overarching goal that we have – they are two in the same, in this context it doesn’t fit to put supply(…)

Chair: last speaker is Pakistan – the PP has been bracketed.

Pakistan: we do not have a strong feeling on this – after conventions add “while recalling that parties to the convention are concerned with health and welfare of humankind” we hope this can address the issue.

Chair: Is the room ready to agree?

USA: it isn’t acceptable to us and makes it seem the parties are separate from the commission and our view would be to delete it all

Spain: The way pakistan has made the proposal makes it seem like just another concern, it needs to be included in the convention, when we approved L6 we said we shouldn’t play politics in resolutions – these are not drug free societies, it is impossible are we making technical resolutions but including political issues when we want to? we shouldn’t introduce political elements which are the most problematic. in that sense we align ourselves with the US and wish to delete this paragraph.

France: thank you chair, I’d like to echo our spanish colleagues. We must stop politicising these paragraphs. we must focus on the technical aspects.

Afghanistan: we’re here to stop the drug problem, not political aspects – we dealt with that last week. Let’s leave aside the political debates and focus on technical:

Pakistan: the reason why I jumped in – there is no room for exploring other options, I was trying to help you Chair

Chair: Delete first paragraph

USA: if ‘society free of drugs’ is struck then we’d be happy to keep the paragraph.

Chair: Ok delete. What about the last 2 lines, Colombia wants to keep it – I don’t think we have consensus on it. Iran proposed inter alia

France: Thanks, taking the floor again to reiterate my statement. If there is no consensus in the room, could we just delete the first 2 paragraphs to save time.

Chair: Can we delete? Yes – deleted.

PP2

Pakistan: I hope we don’t spend another 40 mins on this paragraph. We have no objections here, but a suggestion. Move sentence about 2016 sentence behind the sentence about the 2009 document.

Belgium: Propose to delete para.

France: I support Belgium.

Pakistan: Seems we’ve found fast track now – this is disappointing. What’s wrong with recalling the documents? Please explain why this paragraph causes problems. I’ll remind you that we have been lectured about not being political, but now these voices are politicizing this paragraph.

France: To reply – quite simply, we don’t want to restart these discussions again. I feel this approach was made concrete in ministerial declaration – we would like it to be like UNGASS, but we don’t want to bring this up again – prefer paragraph be deleted.

Pakistan: Thanks France but that’s not a straight response. I’ll remind you that you supported this reference last week. In the operative part of the MD, that delegation clearly advised us to include references to these 3 documents.

Iran: We were not willing to delete the first paragraph, we’d prefer to have a strong resolution. This discussion should not be political – we believe the 3 conventions and key documents should be referred to on all resolutions at CND. We’re so sad and disappointed to see that this resolution would be week. These documents are cornerstones and we want them to be there.

Malaysia: We fully underscore the references to the documents. We can’t hear any strong justification as to why these references should be deleted.

Russian Federation: I uphold what Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia have said. Very surprised to hear that things that happened 10 years ago are not interesting to them anymore. These documents are like the bible, if you are going to avoid the bible, what would this be? We should respect American colleagues for draft resolution – there is no sense to delete these paragraphs.

Peru: We support the proposal by Pakistan – we know we’ve been repeating ourselves over and over again. We support the fact that this resolution should include refs to all key documents.

China: We also believe what Pakistan, Russia, Malaysia etc have said – we agree with their views. These docs are viewed by international community as important.

Afghanistan: when we wanted to delete the 1st paragraph, we did not get this pushback. The conventions should be compared with bibles, not the key documents. There are so many key documents, they just keep coming. It’s better to have the conventions in than the documents. We don’t need to mention all the documents in every resolution for the rest of all time. The most recent and comprehensive is the UNGASS document. If this paragraph can start with UNGASS document, we are happy to keep this paragraph. Really appeal to all to not politicize this.

Chair: Some want to keep it, some don’t, I think we need to keep it in brackets and move on.

PP3

Chair: I see no objection. Paragraph approved.

PP4

China: I wish to ask – the reference in this paragraph ‘broadening domestic and international control’ – I want to ask whether we should remain consistent and reference ‘non-medical use of opioids’. Add after synthetic opioids ‘for non-medical use’

USA: We do not oppose that suggestion – but it’s already contained in the work ‘such’ in the 5th line.

Germany: We agree with US. We prefer it stays with such.

China: If the delegates believe this about the word ‘such’, we do not disagree.

Chair: Paragraph approved.

PP5

Netherlands: 5th line add in ‘and minimize the adverse health and social consequences associated with their use’.

Norway: We support this proposal.

Chair: Can we agree on this paragraph with the new addition? I see no objection, paragraph approved.

PP6

Chair: Any comments? Paragraph approved.

PP7

Chair: Any comments? I see no objection. Paragraph approved.

PP8

China: We’re grateful for these efforts in the informals this morning. But – China still has different viewpoints. We’d like to suggest the deletion of ‘such as class-wide scheduling of fentanyl analogues’ so there will be no individual examples. This language has never been referred to in any documents. Second, this concept is not a legal or technical term. Third, no country has formally implemented class wide rescheduling we don’t believe this has any factual basis. Fourth, we think the concept is unclear, inaccurate and doesn’t represent consensus. We’ve never seen it in a CND resolution. It’s better not to use this expression, we think it should be deleted.

USA: Thank you china for your contribution, the term class-wide scheduling has been referred to in the expert meetings and it’s what we refer to in the US, we are trying to note and appreciate the efforts made by other countries. We aren’t trying to be prescriptive with this definition or limit the approaches, just trying to highlight successful practice which is our attempt with this paragraph

Germany: we align ourselves with the US and from what China said – we already make use of class wide scheduling.

China: I would like to thank the Germans and US for their clarifications, but the comments made by Germany saying they have already implemented the class wide scheduling, I have a question, we ask for an accurate definition or understanding as this term hasn’t been included in previous documents, we find it ambiguous. The US has already started implementing some temporary measures – all these measures are based on facts or legal facts – we need further clarification, (…) we agree to the addition of generic scheduling, analogue scheduling and temporary scheduling (…)

Chair: 3 delegations requesting the floor, we are closing this paragraph.

Pakistan: China raised several important points and questions, one thing is clear that some countries are using this as good practice, others are not. We do not believe the best way forward and align with China

UK: We’ve been looking into the UK situation and we have been described of employing class wide scheduling, we have scheduling based on psycho-activity and scheduling based on chemical structure. Maybe we could call it “what is known as – class wide scheduling” or something similar?

Brazil: Our delegation is supportive of including this in the resolution, (…) this discussion is linked to one we will probably have in a later OP so maybe we should have a more inclusive PP with reference to individual countries methods of scheduling and then leave the more generic paragraph for the OP?

Chair: This PP is put into brackets, any comment on PP9?

PP9

Chair: I see no objection approved.

PP10

Chair: Is there any delegation wishing to take the floor? Is the room ready to agree on this paragraph? I see no objection, approved.

PP11

USA: In reference to the 3 bracketed paragraphs (…) we included this paragraph, the next two are pulled directly from the UNGASS conference and Mexico put them forward. They are in brackets because we were unsure where to place them.

Chair: can I ask the room to remove the brackets? I see no objection, is there any comment on the first blue paragraph? Can we approve this paragraph?

France: Yes, we do have some hesitation in regard to this PP, it seemed very detailed for a preambular PP and wonder whether it’s really indispensable to have this here?

Egypt: This is agreed language from last year, it’s very straight forward and it’s an agreed upon message, why would we take a step back by not having it in this year’s resolution?

Chair: any other comments?

Germany: We follow what our French colleague says but ask for flexibility from Egypt.

Egypt: when talking about synthetic opioids, capacity building is needed until we have a good overview of the challenge, we all need continuous capacity building when we have emerging challenges.

Pakistan: we see a lot of merit from the points made by Egypt, retaining the language here would only add more value to the draft resolution.

Spain: Germanys proposal in no way dilutes it but is sending the message resources need to be appropriately used. We have never considered that this means reducing this subject and we support Germanys proposal

Iran: we want to echo the voice of Egypt

Germany: Thank you for Spain, we need tailored capacity building and we need to ensure the need for capacity building

Egypt: we do not take offers unless we really like the offer and we do not like this one, we are noting that capacity building is needed – challenge the room to find someone who does not need capacity building – we cannot water this down

USA: we agree with Egypt, we would include (missed)

Egypt: We are putting caveats and it is quite difficult for us to accept – it is a general fact that we all need capacity building

Pakistan: The world drug problem is a continuously evolving challenge and that suggests the need for capacity building, we would not be comfortable in retaining the phrase “some”

Chair: can I propose to bracket this paragraph and move on to the next

2nd edition paragraph – PP9

Chair: Can we approve this paragraph?

Russia: We don’t understand why this paragraph is in this resolution – it makes no sense to us.

Mexico: Specific language on targeted interventions – it’s agreed language from UNGASS

Russia: It doesn’t have to do with this language […]

Mexico: This paragraph is related to informing our response with data – there is a need for it to be collected at national level. From our perspective this is necessary and useful in the resolution.

United Kingdom: We’ve spent a lot of time talking about data collection – the collection of specific data is important for specific policies – it’s very relevant here

Mexico: Regarding this proposal we believe the resolution itself is about pursuing responses to specific responses, and data collection can help us come up with solutions, and this should be maintained.

Colombia: We too support this proposal by Mexico – this data is very appropriate. It’s very valuable.

Russia: Simply in the spirit of consensus we can honestly keep it. If the authors believe it should be here it’s ok, but still we have some doubts.

PP10

[?]: After naloxone, please add in ‘and other measures based on the scientific evidence’

Chair: Can we approve with this addition?

Russia: I have slight corrections: it should be ‘highlight’ not ‘highlighting’. Add in, ‘based on scientific-evidence based response’.

[?]: Question about agreed language on naloxone

Russia: Why should we exclusively have here naloxone?

Germany: To our knowledge naloxone is the only opioid receptor antagonist

Russia: We’d still like to have the sentence, just remove specific reference to naloxone.

Germany: We already have agreed language on naloxone from 61/8

Russia: Life is passing on, we prefer what we suggested.

[?]: We’d like to have naloxone specifically mentioned here. It’s worthwhile here, and we require more work on its implementation.

Egypt: We support Russia, don’t see need for naloxone here. We are surprised to hear people now want agreed language.

USA: We appeal to delegations to use language from last year. If we don’t make reference to naloxone, it makes it seem like CND is out of touch. We seem to be fine relying from measures from 2009, but not from agreed language from last year.

Chair: Have two more speakers, then closing list for this paragraph.

UK: We support specific use of naloxone.

Russia: In the spirit of consensus, maybe we could add in ‘for example’ naloxone. In Russian language this makes more sense.

Germany: Thank you Russia, that shows flexibility. We are fine to add in ‘for example’

Egypt: We prefer to keep it bracketed, and come back to it.

Chair: Ok, bracket it.

PP11

Chair: Can we approve? Yes – approved.

PP12

Chair: Are we ready to agree? I see no objection – paragraph approved.

PP13

Chair: Last PP – any comments? Paragraph approved.

USA: We have not reached consensus on all OPs, but we’d like to start going through initial OPs

Chair: we move to OP1

Russia: I want to return to the first part regarding the first and second PP, “ensuring that the commission led follow up on the implementation of all commitments to address and counter the world drug problem made since 2009 is done in a single track” we believe this can replace the first two

Chair: We will move back to the OP’s and this is a discussion for the informals.

OP1

Brazil: our delegation is supportive of this OP, we would like to make cosmetic suggestions. Maybe we could describe the tool kit a little better (…) is there a possibility that we can add an “and: before invites or separate this paragraph into two? (…)

Chief of Laboratory and Scientific Section (UNODC): in the context of tool kits, it might be very useful to be specific and say the united nations took kit on synthetic drugs

Australia: We support the amendment by brazil (“and”) The toolkit follows in OP2 (…) we could suggest ending at “topic”.

USA: We think it’s a sound suggestion to separate the two paragraphs, if we can stop it at “addressing that challenge” (…) and then include the second part after OP2

Chair: can we agree? I see no objection and this OP is approved.

OP2

USA: This paragraph references the class wide scheduling so maybe we should leave this paragraph bracketed that we struggled with early and can re work this in the informals

OP2B

Kenya: we would just like to make a small proposal to make it more comprehensive, after drugs we add among “other relevant intervention measures.”

El Salvador: Could we add Invites/Encourages at the beginning

Egypt: Can we have a reason from El Salvador?

France: we support both amendments made

El Salvador: Generally, officers and organisations are not invited then are encouraged to help member states

Chair: I see no objections.

OP3

Germany: We have agreed on this in informals, on the third line can we had “illicit” before manufacturing.

USA: Can we refer to the tool kit as the UN toolkit on synthetic drugs.

Chair: any more comments?

Brazil: Can we say “including” synthetic opioids.

Chair: Can we agree on this paragraph? I see no objection, approved.

OP4

Chair: Any comments? I see no objection, approved

OP4B

Brazil: Can we suggest taking this paragraph to informals.

Egypt: we are surprised by this as it was already discussed in the presence of Brazil

Brazil: we don’t have a specific problem, but it is a little confusing for us right now – parts sound odd when translated back to my language. Maybe we could move in some regions to the beginning of the second line.

El Salvador: Maybe we could move it after “tramadol”

Chair: is there any other comment? Can we approve? Approved.

OP5

Colombia: (Missed)

Chair: Any other comment?

Brazil: In informals we said we would use the specific name the INCB gives

USA: the language on the screen reflects the language used by the INCB

Chair: any more comments? Can we agree on this paragraph?

Singapore: Can we delete “uses” on line 4 please

Chair: Can we agree? Paragraph approved.

OP6

Japan: at the end of the 5th line can we add “where appropriate”

Chair: any other comment?

Chief of laboratory and scientific section (UNODC): Nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry (…)

USA: Can we say “and manufacture or analysis of narcotic drugs” added to the penultimate line.

Colombia: thank you, we think that the US proposal would not be in the right place as it would seem like the analysis itself is illicit and the word “narcotic” would be replaced by “Illicit” to make it clearer

Brazil: if you read the whole paragraph, it makes sense to say it how the US amended it.

Spain: We understand the categorisation of Illicit in drugs isn’t necessary, drugs can’t be typified as they can’t commit crimes, the crime is what is done with drugs, drugs cannot be a criminal typification per se, if we say illicit production and manufacture of drugs, (…) objects cannot be illicit, we don’t want to include “illicit drugs”

Chair: can we approve the text as it is now? We need more discussion in the informals I believe and so put this into brackets.

 

OP6

USA: Article 13 about taking measures about the trade in – used as a means of verifying the substances – our position is that Article 13 still covers this.

UNODC, Chief of Laboratory and Scientific Section: We are aware that NMR is being used, but this is one of many. Lumping together the analysis might be problematic. Might be used to tease out the analysis. High-res mass spectrometry is used in other regions.

Colombia: I understand the suggestion to look at this in informals – we suggest to delete the specific expressions of NMRS and tablet presses, also delete ‘or analysis’ and add ‘and psychotropic substances’

Iran: We want to raise a point on both OP6 and OP7 – we’re talking about use and diversion of equipment. We’d like to add in – ‘diversion of substance and equipment’

Germany: Just to clarify – what do you mean by substance, do you mean precursors?

Colombia: Maybe more appropriate to say ‘materials’ instead of ‘substances’ we have used this language before.

Iran: By ‘substance’ we don’t mean anything in particular ie. Precursors – it could be anything.

Colombia: in OP6 it says ‘production and manufacture’ – it should be ‘or’

Chair: Any objections…paragraph approved.

OP7

Chair: Any comments? I see no objection – approved.

OP8

Australia: We still need to talk about language on this one, could we leave it for informals.

Chair: Appreciate all your work this morning. This afternoon’s meeting will consider L8. Meeting adjourned.


21.03.2019

OP8

USA: I believe we need to remove the bracket before postal to consider the text on the screen.

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

OP9

USA: During Informal’s we agree on the text of this paragraph with the exception of business to business, we did not have the proponent of the language in this room at the time, and reluctant to strike it, yet there was consensus to not consider this language unless we heard more about that.

India: Here is considerable threat from business to business platform, when we say tech companies it’s a very wide range of companies, when we say business to business we focus on e-commerce companies

USA: Perhaps we should say those companies such as the business to business service providers possibly India could help us out whether we need platforms as well as service providers.

India: I think we can remove the square bracket.

OP10

Russia: As a technical amendment, in the third line from the bottom after prevent we want to include abuse of, to ‘prevent the abuse of’.

Canada: While we appreciate the technical amendment, we do not see that as necessary to adding much to the resolution, we already talk about prevention treatment and reducing the non medical use of opioids, and there is no reason to discuss abuse as discussed at informal’s and what is we are referring to in the title.

Russia: If I read it out, abuse would be to prevent the health and social consequences of synthetic abuse.

UK: Just to reiterate the point made by Canada, that the term non-medical use is not used throughout the text, therefore if we start playing about at this point it could have some impact, maybe we should just say to prevent the non-medical use of.

Canada: We want to say we welcome that comment by the UK

Australia: Just to support my colleagues from the UK and Canada, I believe it was complete as it stood. If we start playing with the wording we will have to make further additions.

Netherlands: We are in favour as the language as it was, maybe without the repetition, in the spirit of compromise we could go ahead with repetition.

Brazil: We prefer maintaining the text, with prevent, and we agree with the previous speaker, if we are to add for clarification maybe we could add prevent use of synthetic opioids and providing treatment.

USA: After social consequences, place a common after use of synthetic drugs minimise the adverse health and social consequences. Achieve the same thing but more efficiently

Norway: I agree with the U.S. here, all this paragraph points to the non-medical use of opioids.

Canada: We are happy with the formulation, one slight modification to propose new drug practices, instead prescribing drug practices, just a grammatical addition.

Chair: Can we approve this text as it shown on the screen? I see no objection it is approved.

OP 11

Chair: Comments? Can we approve? Approved.

OP 12

Chair: Comments?

Russia: We would like to propose some amendments to bring the language closer to the UNGASS Outcome Document. Part A is mostly based on the operational recommendation 1.k, which doesn’t mention interventions to minimise adverse public health consequences. We’re fine with Part B. In Part C, we would use the UNGASS language too; for the sake of flexibility we could agree with this proposal but introducing, after “To implement”: “in accordance with the national legislation and international drug control conventions”.

Brazil: In Part D, the last line of the valid text says “its Resolution 61/11”; is this a CND resolution?

United States: Indeed, CND. 61stSession.

Belgium: We would like to have in 12. A, the mentioning of “in order to minimise the adverse health and social consequences”; because this is about exchanging best practices. Also, in OP12.C, when we mention naloxone, we recall resolution that says “naloxone and other evidence-based measures”.

Mexico: Following Belgium’s intervention; we agree too to that mention.

Canada: OP12.D, there was a lot of discussion in informals. We reached agreed language. The original language of OP1 of 61/11 says “in accordance to the national and regional context”. We beg for flexibility on “accordance with national legislation”. I know a number wanted to change “drug users” to “people who use drugs”. That’s Canada’s preference because it acknowledges it’s people and also grammatically correct. But we can agree to changes if we do this change.

Brazil: To build up on Belgium’s proposal on OP12.C., add “and other evidence based measures”.

Russia: We are not comfortable with “interventions to minimise public health consequences”. We talk about demand reduction, so this already is included here. We could say “a broad range of demand reduction initiatives”.

Mexico: Could I request an explanation? Is it the problem “interventions”? Could we just suggest “initiatives”, then?

China: OP12.D. As different countries have different priorities and activities based on legislation. We would ask to keep “in accordance with national legislation”.

Spain: This paragraph relates to national legislation as a whole. In this regard, it gives rise to possibility for maximum number of interventions by countries. So, we would request, as others, that in OP12.A. we include “minimize the adverse health and social consequences”. Because we already have “in accordance with national legislation” afterwards. In our national context, we can undertake these initiatives.

Mexico: We recalled that the problematic term for Russia was “interventions”, so we could have “initiatives in order to minimise the adverse health and social consequences”. Without the “demand reduction” part.

Netherlands: We would like to refer to the initial language “in order to minimise the adverse health and social consequences”. It’s a broader concept. The resolution is about innovative and effective approaches. This is innovative and effective! So we would keep the original text.

Japan: OP12.D. We would support the Chine proposal “with national legislation”. Importance of the controversial nature of “stigmatisation”. We used this wording before.

Russia: Our problem is not with “interventions” but we would like the whole continuum of measures here. As it stands now, it creates confusion. We talk about prevention and treatment. But then when talking about capacity building, we focus on measures to minimise the adverse health and social consequences. Where is prevention and treatment? Why do we pick some parts of demand reduction? We should focus on “comprehensive demand reduction interventions”.

United States: This was agreed in informals and we didn’t have detailed back-and-forths. I raised my flag about the proposal by Japan/China. We want to keep agreed language. If we could put the “in accordance with national legislation” in the chapeau: “Member States in accordance with national legislation…”. I offer this as a compromise because we were part of the resolution adopted last year. We concluded that “contexts” included legislation. But this is compromise.

Japan: We are flexible and accept this proposal.

Chair: Only some more consideration in OP12.A. May I ask the room that, considering the consideration of the Russian delegate, we delete the “in order to minimise the adverse health and social consequences”.

Mexico: We didn’t participate in any back-and-forths. Delegations recognised that “broad range of interventions in order to minimize the adverse…” was operational recommendation K of UNGASS.

United Kingdom: We have the same recollection. I don’t remember any qualms with this phrase, which is common in the Outcome Document. Deleting it dilutes the reason why we’re implementing these initiatives/interventions.

Colombia: We suggest a modification to overcome the obstacles. In the chapeau, after the word “efforts”: “aimed at minimizing the adverse public health and social consequences of drug abuse”.

Egypt: Unfortunately, the proposal would be very difficult to accommodate. We could try to, after “initiatives”, put “including in order to minimize…”.

Pakistan: I wanted to comment on the proposal by Colombia. Demand reduction does not only minimise the adverse health and social consequences. The scope is much broader.

Russia: We could agree with the Egyptian proposal, and take out the Colombian proposal off the chapeau. One more time, actually, demand reduction shouldn’t be limited to measures to minimise the adverse health and social consequences of drug abuse; but also prevention, early intervention, etc.

United States:Just a technical edit. Because we have “in accordance with national legislation” in the chapeau, no need for it in Part D.

Chair: Can we approve?

Colombia: English is not our mother tongue, but the expression “including…” seems odd.

Chair: I use my power to call for delegations to come up with a solution to avoid two “including”.

United States: Perhaps the second “including” could be “such as”.

Chair: Paragraph approved.

OP13:

Australia:This was a late addition that we had not quite finished, and almost finished in Informal’s and have a number of small amendments we have discussed with colleagues. We had initially preferred encourages but prefer urges with regards to the small amendments. Then to take further steps to prevent the non-medical use of synthetic drugs, when appropriate we can delete through, we would add relevant after of, training of care professionals in place of public awareness we have public education. We can now delete the word appropriate as we have it at the front. The further steps would include measures.

Germany:We for sure have to reflect on that paragraph we would like to suggest non-medical use and synthetic drugs should be changed to ‘steps to prevent non-medical drugs’

France: We accept the proposals that have been made

Egypt:We’re not very comfortable where appropriate, we also think that public education is a bit different from public awareness, we would like to keep raising public awareness, we’re fine with having both together, but we think they are two separate things.

Belgium: In line with the distinguished delegate, we also believe raising public awareness though we’re not sure what public education means, what does it mean? Educating schools? Educating the public?

Brazil:Simply raising education and awareness, instead of education and public awareness, raising educations and awareness

Germany:We want to agree with our Belgian delegate, this is quite complicated, in Germany there is mass media campaigns, therefore it should be deleted

Australia:I think that is precisely our concern about public awareness, it would mean wide public awareness campaigns with untold public consequences. We would like to keep that, and we could keep both.

USA:Keeping where appropriate is also important to us, like other delegation we would not raising education, but awareness through the schools, but we do not have strong feelings to that.

Egypt:We prefer where appropriate to be moved after professionals, as we believe the training of professionals something we must all do. We are happy to keep both education and awareness. In Egypt we have a programme where we go to schools and warn the troubles of drugs, and synthetic opioids.

Australia:We need to add and before where appropriate so it modifies the last.

Chair:I see no objection it is approved.

OP14:

Chair: I see no objections it is approved

OP15:

China: We have some slight editing requests, in accordance to with member states, in accordance with national legislation, remove with in their mandates after has organisations.

Germany:Fifth line after synthetic drugs insert for non-medical use, as this is what were interested in getting data on.

Egypt: We don’t just want information on illicit drugs and synesthetic drugs, even if they are for medical use they are being made illicitly being produced, we understand the concern of Germany, but we believe it does not apply here, and we need to gather information in general. I ask if we can remove that mention here.

Germany:We are flexible on that

Russia:With regard to recent Mexican proposal, it would be better to say illicit consumption trends, illicit production.

Chair:Can we approve the text?

UK:With reference to the addition by the Russian delegate, we believe this may preclude other types of consumption over prescription. Can we be flexible with regards to not including illicit in front?

Canada:We would like to agree with the UK, the illicit reduced the scope of trends that we’re looking for, not all forms of consumption are illicit, and laws differ by country, therefore keeping it broad captures greater trends. We would prefer to drop illicit to get the data that we need.

Brazil;We would like to echo the previous statements made by the UK and Canada.

Chair:I see no objection this amendment is approved. Can we agree on this paragraph?

OP16

Germany:To be consistent, in the last line it should be non-medical and scientific use.

Chair:I see no objection it is approved.

OP17

Chair:I see no objection it is approved

OP18

Chair:Last operative paragraph, can we approve this paragraph? I see no objection, it is approved

Chair:Now we move to the pending paragraphs, is there any comment on this a paragraph

France:We still have an issue with this paraphs because we believe, because we’re looking at a resolution where we had a technical framework that was defined, and I do not see the purpose of this added paragraph and the following because in our view this is something that hasn’t been addressed in this resolution.

Belgium:We agree with France.

Peru:My countries position is well known, we request that both paragraphs be deleted

Germany:Both paragraphs should be deleted

Colombia:In line with previous speakers we would like to have these two paragraphs deleted

Russia:We believe both of these paragraphs because they create a political framework for resolving all aspects of the drug problem, even those touched in the resolution, therefore we retain support for keeping these paragraphs

Austria:We align ourselves in the position with France, Belgium and the other’s on this matter.

Argentina:If we can’t find consensus we believe the best solution would be to delete these two paragraphs.

Italy:We join other speakers in deleting these two paragraphs, we think this discussion does not belong here

UK:We had this discussion over the last few weeks, we’ve come to a view on the relationship, this is a technical resolution if we can’t agree we should must delete them, as the current expression confuses the situation

Egypt:We don’t understand actually how come we are having a disagreement on the subject, we have been using this language for the previous three years. Why is everyone taking a step back, are we taking back the decision to have a single track now?

Croatia:We also support the deletion of these two paragraphs

Bulgaria:We also would like to have the paragraphs to be deleted

Norway: We also believe this should be deleted

Finland:We would like to align with the previous speakers, we do not see the need for these paragraphs in this resolution

USA:We have mixed feeling and it’s clear that the room Is divided, and we wish to move on, and we’d like the focus to remain on the opioid crisis and therefore support to delete these.

Switzerland: Supports the deletion of these two paragraphs

Russia:As some of other delegation, we’re surprised by the series of voices in favour of removing these paragraphs which were only agreed upon last week. It seems a lack of commitment to one’s own decisions. I haven’t heard any convincing explanations why to delete these proposals, of course it is feasible. The Russia will then insist on the removal of sections which in our opinion have been covered sufficiently well in last week’s declaration. Let’s go back to the text and go through it once again, and our position will be less flexible.

Namibia: Support our colleague Russia and Egypt, if it was agreed last time, why should it now be deleted.

Iran:For the sake of the entirety of the resolution, we would suggest to retain the paragraph as it was drafted

Spain: Requesting the deletion of these two paragraphs means no way were in agreement of the paragraphs, we’re suggesting the suitability in the content of this solution. The focus should be prioritised when dealing with paragraphs of a technical nature. Its not that we’re not in agreement, they’re perfectly valid, but here we are adopting a different focus, and given the lack of time for resolutions left, we should focus on remaining resolutions rather than discussion  of a political nature.

France: I would echo the wisdom by everything said by my Spanish colleague, in no resolution have I seen this discussion, I don’t know why we are stating once again, we understand the conclusions, there is no point in reviving this debate, and has no reference to synthetic drugs and opioids.

Chair:I kindly request candidates to cancel their request before

China:The Chinese delegation believes the expression made by Russia received China’s support they provided sufficient reason to keep these two paragraphs, China believes if we spend too much on these two paragraphs we should keep these and move to the next.

Romania:I would kindly like to ask you to delete the two paragraphs

India: If we cannot find an agreement, maybe we should keep them bracketed and have further discussion about them in the Informal’s.

USA: I wonder if perhaps there could be a compromise here, delete these two paragraphs, but instead recalling the ministerial declaration adopted at the high level segment of the CND held in Vienna March 14/15, 2019.

Sweden: I was also going to intervene along the line of previous speakers, that there is nothing against the two paragraphs’, as it is rightfully agreed, but as was also pointed out that this is the technical solution, and does not add much value to this resolution, so in line with this we agree the deletion of this, but could also go along with the U.S. we could adopt a short and concise statement referring to the ministerial statement

Cuba: as for us we would support Russia, we understand this is a technical resolution, however this does not exclude reference being made to the political document and as many have said this represents agreed language recently adopted, also we appreciate the U.S. effort to find consensus though we are more in favour of retaining the two paragraphs.

Panama:In the spirit of compromise we could go along with statement made by the delegate of the USA.

Norway:We believe this is a good compromise and would support the proposal put forward by the USA

Pakistan:our reference is to retain the two, however we are conscious of making progress and could go along with the proposal put by the USA, yet our proposal so we would propose it with the previous paragraph. … In which member states have committed to ensure that, with this we could support the proposal.

Russia:Two things, first I entirely agree with my French colleague discussing this issue, the thing is that he started this lengthy and unproductive discussion as for the substance I believe Russia could support Pakistan’s sensible proposal.

Colombia:And we thank the delegate of Pakistan for this proposal, unfortunately it does not cover our what we would like to see in this paragraph and therefore prefer the original USA proposal.

Belgium:We already had this discussion on the relationship on the documents and we do not see the value of adding these errors, we already have adopted other solutions without mentioning the two documents, it is possible to move forward, and waste not anymore time. It is preferred to delete rather than maintain.

Chair:We must move on, all three will be placed in brackets and we will move on to the next.

UK: We had support for the US proposal which we thought was a good compromise.

Chair: Sorry, I have to stop these discussions.

Peru: Don’t want to prolong discussion, but Canada proposed a very practical solution elsewhere, could we consider this here?

Chair: If we have time

PP4

USA: From informals – how we phrase class-wide scheduling. We brought this up with China, and tried to be more precise – worked closely with them to propose this paragraph to show we have specific terms.

Chair: Any other comments?

China: Thank you US delegate – this para is interconnected with OP2. We have some amendment proposals to make, to recall UN toolkit. It’s enough to just describe what’s contained in the toolkit. My proposal is to delete ‘that are … substances’ and add something to the OP para.

USA: Unfortunately we can’t agree to this now. Please leave bracketed.

Russia: I support Chinese proposal, and suggest removing ‘innovative national legislative models’ – I don’t know what this is, and couldn’t possibly comment on something I know nothing about.

Germany: Thanks US for explanations. I explained this many times in the informals. We think this text should stay.

Chair: We’ll move to next para.

PP5

China: in regard to this para, I need clarification. The last few words ‘effect based controls’ – I don’t think they are agreed words

USA: In informals we thought it would be useful to list all approaches listed in UNODC toolkit

Pakistan: Usually we try not to be prescriptive here. We think this language is quite loaded. I’m not sure if it an exhaustive list – could we simplify the language. Drop ‘including by implementing …effect-based controls’

Canada: We don’t support this (…)

(?): We support original text – just remove ‘and innovative’ from fourth line

China: Proposal by Pakistan is good, but we can be flexible, however one point should be clarified – UNODC Toolkit text reflects this – there are 5 approaches.

Russia: We know in the Western Hemisphere, especially in it’s northern part, the opioid crisis exists. But there are complexities here, we do not have a deep understanding of ‘innovative’ approaches – we can’t adopt it as we don’t understand it. We could be positive on this if we drop ‘with appreciation’ from first line.

USA: We find great importance with reflecting what’s in the toolkit. We want resolution to be informative and can help national action. But we can be flexible – we could drop ‘innovative’ and ‘with appreciation’ – we will be flexible here

China: My question was to ask UNODC and US delegate that the 5 approaches are consistent as what’s listed in the toolkit. These approaches should be checked by delegate.

Chair: UNODC rep is not available

USA: UNODC is en route and could speak to China’s point.

PP6

Pakistan: Concern with 3 words – doesn’t reflect our message. Delete ‘in some countries’

Chair: Agree on paragraph? Approved.

PP7

Chair: Comments? Can we approve? Approved

OP2

Chair: Comments?

Brazil: A matter of clarification. What does it mean to operationalise and disseminate interventions in the toolkit by incorporating its interventions into its technical assistance. Could we say “incorporating them”?

Pakistan: After the world “incorporating”, include “as appropriate”.

Canada: A matter of formatting. 3rdline: “UN Toolkit on Synthetic Drugs”.

Pakistan: We can delete “as appropriate” at the end.

Colombia: To respond to the question of Brazil, we would like to know what is the idea behind the word “operationalise”.

Russia: We struggle to understand what “interventions” mean in this regard and “disseminating them”. We disseminate “information” about the interventions, rather.

Canada: When discussing the Toolkit, it’s comprised of comprehensive interventions of different sorts. These can all be translated into programmatic services available to MS through WHO, INCB, etc. It’s encouraging use of the Toolkit.

Chair: It is approved.

PP6

UNODC: The Toolkit lists the major interventions at the national level. We talk about the major methods used in each countries. But there’s another component categorised as “Other measures”. Countries pick measures suited to their own purposes. “Consumer act” in New Zealand, for instance. The rationale behind this is about classes (of chemicals, of effects, etc.).

China: We thank UNODC for the explanation. This resolution mentions on many occasions the Toolkit. Necessary to bring experts into the room for explanation. When we talk about “temporary controls / emergency controls” in the Toolkit, is this the language of the Toolkit?

UNODC: Model on temporary bans on NPS or rapid procedure processes. It’s processes to expedite the control or bans of substances whilst it’s assessed. These are the emergency procedures. One is permanent, one isn’t.

Germany: It’s clear that the Toolkit explains different measures and shows examples. So it seems reasonable to work with “class-wide scheduling”. These approaches are named in that way in some countries.

Chair: I request to keep the text as it, as agreed in informals, and agree the text.

Germany: As most cases, we’re flexible.

Chair: Thank you for your flexibility and cooperation. Approved? Yes.

PP5

United States: Consider this preambular paragraph in the context of an OP3 bis. We think it needs to be considered in a similar way.

OP3 bis

Chair: Ready to consider this new paragraph? Approved?

China: This paragraph is entirely new, so after careful reading just now, we’re of the view that in this paragraph the concept of generic controls is too wide. I offer an alternative suggestion: After synthetic drugs… “particularly scheduling fentanyl-related substances by class,”. And delete “and other that are intended to control classes of substances”. And to replace “bans” with “controls”.

Russia: With regard to this paragraph, same problem as the preambular paragraph. We do not understand the concept of “innovative legislative models”. We would say “regulatory approaches”, without “innovative”.

Chair: Can we approve?

Brazil: Request for qualification of addition by China. When you say “particularly scheduling…”, do you mean “particularly when scheduling…”?

China: I’m flexible on that. But one more edit: Replace “opioids” with “drugs”.

Germany: “Synthetic opioid for nonmedical use, particularly when scheduling…”

Chair: Approved.

PP5

Russia: We would change “innovative national legislative…” to “regulatory approaches”.

China: We’d delete the last sentence: “that are in some countries aimed at achiving control of classes of substances.

United States: To find consensus. Perhaps using OP3bis language here: “in some countries aimed at achieving scheduling fentanyl related substances by class”.

China: Here, as explained before, this is about the Toolkit and the models of legislative approaches; for instance these. I do not see emphasis of some countries. Or what kind of substances.

Chair: Approved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.