-L3-
Chair: Some questions have been cleared through the informals.
PP6bis
Chair: Agreed in CoW
PP10
Chair: Agreed in CoW
PP12
Netherlands: Discussion on the UN system. MS had discussion on compromise you can see below. We can agree on it here.
Chair: Invite comments. We have 3 different proposals. We can accept part of them. Shall we lift the brackets?
USA: Our position has not changed. We should use the agreed language made in December. PP12 alt is the preferred position.
Russia: We have the same position as the USA. We cannot join consensus on pp12 as it is shown on the screen. The only option out of the proposed paras is alt PP12. That is language from the resolution of the GA in December. All states supported this resolution by consensus.
Finland: We suggested the alt where refers to the task team but not to the common position at all. For us this is already a compromise
Nigeria: We agree with Russia.
Norway: We would like to expect reference to the Task team. Our priority would be to keep either the original lang or the finish alternative. We believe these are helping mechanisms.
Singapore: We cannot move away from original para.
Canada: We support the finish. we would like to see reference to the Task team. We may be able to simplify the language. We can work on alt pp12 using the lang from UN docs capturing the essence of the data and evidence based policymaking. We open to work with others on that.
Switzerland: We support the common position and ask UNODC to implement. The existent of the Task team is a fact. We prefer the original language or the finish proposal.
Chair: It seems that the original PP is the most controversial.
Iran: We cannot go along with pp12 we suggest to delete
Kyrgyzstan: We believe that pp12 needs to be deleted in this form and we are in favour in including the old paragraphs.
Mexico: We prefer the original language. Please don’t delete but bracket it. For us in not only an issue regarding to the Task team and the common position, but UN system is addressing this including with mandates from this Commission. Is about what the Task team will be doing. We go on the Canadian suggestion to be able to work on it.
Turkey: We agree with the alt pp12.
Spain: We are talking about coordination. Perhaps the proposal from the US could be complementary and support other initiatives.
US: Can Canada explain the lang about “tasking”? The MS should be giving the mandates to the organisation.
Egypt: Joining USA, Russia in favouring the language regarding the discussions in the General Assembly.
Portugal: The task force and the CP exists. Asking to be efficient and coherence. When the effort is made, some of us don’t like the result. This effort is a very good one. Not the first task force and good effort to ensure coherence. Would like to keep this one or if not pp12.
New Zealand: We support pp12 as it stands. As a compromise, can go for alt 12 in reference to the task team.
Belgium: Agree with Portugal. We think the original should stand. If not then Alt2.
South Africa: Support to Alt 12 with USA and Russia.
Chair: Do not have consensus. We can take one of the PPs as the basis of our agreement and try to work on it. Difference is between the emphasis put on ms and UNODC and UN System. We can try to see how we modify alt pp12 or alt 2 pp12 so we have leading role of MS or UNODC as tasked my MS.
United Kingdom: Hope to prolong this discussion. Clear that this is a controversial issue, and MS feel strongly on both sides. The task team has happened and noting is an acknowledgement of it rather than an endorsement. I can see this is going to be taken back to informals.
Chair: We have to agree on which version to work on. That will be for informals. If Canada feels ready to provide us with more suggestions?
Canada: Took language from CEB 2018/2. The language and conclusion in para 21. The language in Alt2 reflects the data side of things and that alternative para I read out- I can read out and dictate the para, but I worry if people want to look at the document first.
USA: That does not help address the concerns. CEB is not a MS driven process. This is was the SG took on himself. Our position is the opposite of that. The result of the SG instruction to UN agencies has come up with a set of policies. For other parts of Common Position on death penalty and harm reduction. The citation confirms our concerns.
Netherlands: It is important that the task team of UNODC coordinating the efforts is the essence. That is important to mention. Would prefer to work on finished proposal which covers most of ideas.
Mexico: We think there is a need for the clarity on what was suggested by USA. It is states that determine the political orientation on the international policy on drugs. There is a common position and joint events that is never reflected what the drugs policy should be which should be the responsibility of states. It is calling for coordination of member states themselves.
Nigeria: We think that PP12 Alt is agreed language. They had to find compromise around that language. They are fundamental issues that we cannot change the text. I suggest that our delegation will not go into any negotiation into this para and cannot accept any amendment to this para.
Chair: We will need informals. We will work on old PP12. When I look at Alt2 pp12, I see that if we delete the language “through UN system coordination task team”, it will be weakened but it could accommodate all requests, so that we still have notion of coordination.
Mexico: We could like to refer to as keeping text proposed by Finland. My delegation has a strong preference that appears in pp12. So would like to insist that we could work with alt 2, but using the complete language.
Canada: We need to keep eye on the big picture. It doesn’t prejudice any MS. Taking note of is an elegant way of acknowledging but not endorsing. We have clear preference for the text. We could amend language a bit and use “including through UN system…”
Nigeria: Original proposal is more acceptable to us. We don’t want the reference to the UN Task Team. We have issues with its actions. We prefer what was proposed by the Chair.
Finland: We were keen to the Canadian proposal including the note. The point is to follow the Common Position. One problem has been that we have not been properly informed of the work of the Task Team.
Chair: We can request a presentation by UNODC on the tasks of the Team.
Belgium: We agree with Canada. The Task Team is a reality.
Australia: (..)
Russia: We have listen carefully other MS. Firstly regarding Finland we think the “welcoming” is a bit premature. Second we do not understand why is so important to mention this particular structure. This resolution if very important to strengthening the collection of data. We like the original Dutch outcome.
Chair: the sponsors can work on this para with all new suggestions.
Switzerland: Responding to Russia, in the pp part we outline the basis where we built upon the op.
EU: IT has been mentioned during the opening, the mandates intersect many UN entities. The EU supports the Common Position. It is important to underline the interagency cooperation.
Mexico: We have a strong preference on the original language on para 12 but we can work with finish alt. It this just a question of words? We would like to propose against our own position: delete Task Team and add “Chiefs Execute Board for”.
Nigeria: pp12 is an agreed language. We are surprised with Mexico for trying to find consensus on a language when we don’t think the Resolution will find consensus. We cannot go with all these proposals and amendments.
Canada: We take note from Mexico and Nigeria. The US para is not objectable. The old pp12 is about strengthening cooperation but the point here is to make reference on how these coordination improves collection. We propose a proposal on the old pp12 by fin). We don’t want to enter an exhausting discussion on mandates. But are the activities of the Task in support of the coordination then? Lets acknowledge UN activities and focus on the important stuff.
Finland: We could delete the world Task Team but we want “coordination within the UN system”.
Chair: To me feels repetitive.
Australia: We welcome the suggestion from Finland. The intend was to ensure that the pp relates to the purpose of the resolution. It is important that we make this reference on the basis to move forward.
Nigeria: We prefer the original pp12 alt.
Mexico: We prefer “within the UN system”
Chair: How about “including within the UN system”
Russia: Our preference is the use of harmonised language. We couldn’t just welcome all of the efforts by UNODC to strengthen coordination within the UN system. This is very high level of compromise.
Chair: We have a proposal which is accepted by the sponsors.
Nigeria: Can we keep the para bracketed please.
Chair: We will go through the text and come back.
Add. Pp
Chair: Accepted in CoW
OP1
Netherlands: Agreed in informals OP1 where we got agreed language on understanding that we have OP1 bis too.
Chair: With this can we accept OP1 and OP1 Bis?
Iran: It is necessary to add “encountering and addressing the world drug problem”.
Chair: OP1 and OP1 Bis agreed in CoW
OP9
Netherlands: If we can agree pp, then we adapt the language in op9.
OP13
Russia: Made an amendment to this para but had a long discussion on various resoltutions and other delegations convinced us adding language they couldn’t support the decision. We are ready to show compromise and return to original language.
Australia: Wish to draw attention to secretariat to make changes to grammar. Ask for amendment of language on OP 8 ter as currently the language does not make sense.
Chair: Finalise OP13 now.
Russia: Would like “extrabudgetary” to remain.
Chair: Agreed in CoW
OP12
Nigeria: I cannot make a decision on the para now. I should be able to have a position tomorrow.
Chair: We will discuss first thing tomorrow morning to agree the language in the CoW. CoW adjourned.