Chair: Checking the substantive issues with the resolutions. Tabled by the USA. Any problems with title?
Russia: The title- would request should put in brackets, look at whole resolution then come back to ensure it responds to main body of the resolution.
Chair: Thank you.
Argentina: Change the word ‘Combat’ with ‘counter’.
The Netherlands: Title does not need to be in brackets. Invite to USA to explain what is meant by the private sector as it can be in the area of supply, in the area of harm reduction. Suspect in Europe we have a different system, so you need to explain this before we can start to discuss the paragraphs.
Russia: Encourage us to comment on all 3? Request the US delegation to insert para to recall all 3 political documents that are at basis of our international drug control. I can read it out or provide the language to be incorporate.
Iran: We assume the first PP is from UNGASS but not exact references of that document. We prefer the original language. In PP2, we can’t find reference to this statement. In PP3, we don’t think 2019 was only about taking stock so we should stop after CND on the 5th line.
Switzerland: Para3 re the ‘World Drug Problem’: it should be more reflecting on the way forward.
Belgium: We1d like more information on op7 specifically on the role of private sector in demand reduction and access. So, what is the scope and what is our scope?
Colombia: The last paragraph needs to make a reference to the principle of common and shared responsibility. In the same para, the ‘investigative leads’ we would like to add ‘control mechanism’
China: Recognizing private sector entities, we should add demand reduction. We hope a more general, broader expression can be included as some of the private sector entities may not belong to private sector entities in some member states, such as pharmaceutical companies. We can provide text to the USA later.
Netherlands: Add to Belgium about pp7 and would like to add about pp7 and pp8 which are vague and the terms are very general. What is meant by ‘private sector’ and the kind of ‘innovative approaches.’
Switzerland: Sentence which goes back to “underscoring”- should also include civil society. Regarding para starting with ‘recognising’ it would be necessary to add to ‘contribute to sustainable development’.
Canada: In para that private sector entities etc. Seeing opportunity to reduce stigma around individuals seeking treatment. Looking to take this up with the country sponsoring this resolution.
Russia: These paragraphs are focusing on the important work of INCB but with the scope on private sector, we should make reference to the UNODC’s work with establishing partnerships. We recommend to highlight the opioid strategy of UNODC and various projects that involve collaborations with private industries and this should go in a para before this one.
Colombia: The para “welcoming….” Is coming from OP6 so we’d like to include some language that is missing. INCB’s “strictly based on mandate” and we would like to include “prevent and counter” trafficking.
Switzerland: The last para says “non-medical synthetic opioids” so we wonder, what about synthetic stimulants?
EU: Regarding precursors, recalling a list of […] in the paragraph, it should also reference a list of precursors as well.
China: P18 is not so relevant to this concept as it is about broader partnerships and is focused on cooperation’s but not in specific kinds of drugs. We put more attention on NPS but we don’t think it appropriate to indicate only one kind of drugs.
Netherlands: In op1 about exchange of information, we have a lot of privacy legislations that prevent at least some information to be shared with industries so we need a caveat here.
Belgium: We align with what Netherlands just put forward. Data and privacy protection are of utmost importance for us, we are concerned with the role private could play in the training of healthcare professionals as we see clear conflicts of interest here. Regarding collaboration in the area of marketing – it is quiet regulated all over the EU, so it is not such a simple thing to do.
Colombia: Question re OP1. How should these partnerships be established and what exchange is being facilitated by this op para? We will need to get clarifications before engaging in drafting.
Switzerland: re OP1, the role of university also be mentioned. Re OP4, mentioning of the private sector and civil society:
Canada: OP4 see the opportunity to see ‘evidence-based’ in front of prevention efforts. Include reference to consider the impact of substance use stigma in accessing services.
Colombia: Re OP1, want to introduce sharing responsibility after ‘exchange’. Re op4, consider necessary to technical reparation of WHO on the approach to mental health. Consider necessary to introduce minister of health as authority. OP4, have same suggestion of including WHO.
Australia: OP5. Refers to issues with marketing. Too vague. Suggest wording like ‘marking promoting standards and practice’
European Union: To my first intervention on fentanyl-related substances, the board invited to share with ms, list of drug precursors, but drug already exists so need to amend the text to bring it in line with current practice.
Colombia: OP10, put after the INCB- ‘treaty based mandate’
Russia: OP para- seek clarification on op8- what kind of technical assistance would be provided by INCB and how the funding will be applied? OP10- ‘innovating methods’. What is the scope? Drugs in general or synthetic drugs?
France?: Taking into consideration the already existing list of precursors, we would like to reiterate a previous suggestion to put “within its treaty based mandate” after reference to INCB.
Russia: We seek clarification from the sponsors of the resolution, what kind of technical assistance would be provided by ICNB and how funding would be adjusted. Op11: innovative methods, clarification please and also the scope of drugs.
Switzerland: OP9 talks about affordability, but it is not within the mandate of CND so we suggest to use already existing language. We can dictate if we go line by line. In Op10 we would like to broaden the scope and include NGOs so it also covers organizations such as Red Cross.
Iran: We have to examine the issue of synthetic drugs. On the issue of affordability, we would like to examine the previously agreed language and see if adjustment is needed in P9.
China: OP7, the list of fentanyl related substances with no recognized medical uses is in the beginning stage. More evidence-based date and evidence should be provided to this list. We should clarify what is the main focus of this resolution, is it on a broader concept of drugs or a specific kind?
Colombia: OP12, we’d like to clarify that strategic interventions should be according to regional and international efforts. Argentina said “combat” replaced by “counter” and the same applies here. OP14 we want to introduce “and technical assistance”
Iran: P11 it is not clear who “other relevant stakeholders” refer to.
Russia: OP13, we have the same clarification question about the specifics of assistance for INCB and we also need to clarify budgetary issues here.
Canada: OP11, we’d see merit in specifying the tools are for preventing […] OP14 we’d like to remove “extrabudgetary” and make reference to the provision of resources.
Chair: First reading concluded.
Peru: In the perimeter section, should include new para dealing with the new political declaration. Suggest taking para 15 of 2009 political declaration which refers to composition of reliable data.
Russia: clarification on pp3- what type of ‘expertise’ is required in regard to entities.
page 3, pp12-15
Russia: first para, delete it or to make it more general with a focus on enhancing coherence on UN System on data collection.
Russia: OP3, ‘responses to address and counter the world drug problem’.
Russia: We have reservation to this paragraph and would prefer OP9 to be deleted.
Russia: We have a clarification question regarding what kind of assistance will be provided by INCB.
Iran: We need explanation on technical assistance and capacity building. We’d be happy to work with the sponsors in this.
Switzerland: How do you want to proceed with so few delegations due to Corona, we are working on a limited capacity. It is a bit difficult now to cover COW because we have a number of informals happening currently. Could you explain us how you planned to work around this?
Chair: Of course, it is a special circumstance. We will have a first reading for all resolutions. I haven’t seen a lot of comments so it is really just to take the temperature of the room. There have been rounds of informals – these serve the improvement of texts before we handle them here si they are very welcome. I know you prefer to have informals before the resolutions go to COW, but we will continue today for a bit. The second reading will begin with the Russian resolution as we agreed earlier. The US also signaled the willingness to have their resolution discussed right away. A round of informals will take place now organized by the Dutch delegation on L3.
No issues with the title.
pp1-4, page 1
USA– pp3- refers to article 12, the language should be changed to its application to third parties. Should have ‘internationally controlled’ substances.
USA: right to health, Universal declaration doesn’t refer to the right to health but to the standard of living. Ask the drafters if the intent was to bring in reference to the highest attainable standard of health which was cited in the Omnibus Resolution.
Norway: Have informals on L4 now. Why are we doing first reading now when there are currently in informals?
Chair: Would prefer to hear substantive comments even if the informals are ongoing.
USA: Introduction of palliative care which is an important aspect. We note that later on in resolution, introduction of ‘emergency medical care’. Try to be more consistent in what the scope is. Note this in several places.
Iran: pp9, pp11: What is the source of these paras especially when talking about more than 40 people require palliative care….
Russia: pp9 and through all paras. Instead of ‘pain medicines’. ‘medication for the relief of pain’ which is more correct.
USA: We are concerned about references to WHO and perhaps the paragraph could be reworded so it’s a broader scope not limited to palliative care. We think it would help focus the resolution.
Colombia: P3 – its important to recognize health authorities as well as scientific societies.
Singapore: Is PP16 a repetition of PP12?
USA: We think 17 and 18 can be deleted to shorten the resolution. We think there is an OP addressing the same issue.
Russia: We prefer to delete this para “Welcoming…” or we can propose different language that doesn’t preference the work of this task team.
Iran: We agree 21 should be deleted. We don’t see the relevance of 20 regarding the MoU.
USA: We think we could delete “noting with appreciation” and expand more on the toolkit.
Columbia– OP4- make reference to the technical role of the WHO
USA: op2- could be focussed more on the language that comes from the treaty themselves.
Iran: OP1 lanauge is most technically wrong and not accurate. All of the resolutions start with the commission on narcotic drugs reaffirming its commitments to effectively implement recommendations of the UNGASS. We believe UNGASS is not CND commitment but of the Member states. We belive we need to improve the language here.
Russia: OP4, what kind of technical support whould be provided by INCB and what are the funding arrangements?
Singapore: OP8, can we include domestic legislations and international drug control legistlations. OP 9, ‘within their respective mandates’.
Russia: OP9, what is meant by ‘financial assistance’ and how will it be provided?
Iran: OP9, what do we mean by ‘and other relevant international organisations’. Issue of financial assistance needs to be clarified.
Chair: I know that the informals are ongoing. We will now proceed with L5.
On the Title
USA: Perhaps a word is missing here: “drug use” or “drug abuse” and this is a general comment that throughout the resolution, these two are mixed up. We think we should be consistent but it is just a suggestion as we see different documents are referenced.
Switzerland: We did not receive the invite for the first informal. We support this effort but we miss the scientific evaluation of such programmes. We miss a para on data collection and we miss a link a link to the SDGs. Regarding the title, in our youth and young people are interchangeable, however child is different and the UN is defining age brackets differently.
Sweden: Change youth or adolescents to “young persons” in the whole resolution to emphasize young people are individuals who are people in their own rights and are in their capacity actors.
Canada: In a few places, the resolution would benefit from adding language from existing resolution concerning mostly stigma. We would like “evidence-based” added to the title. We agree with the USA to add an additional word, our preference is “drug use”.
… : Children and young people seem to be used for different groups, so would like to have some explanation on how to define them.
Sweden: pp between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. Children and young people being mentioned. Would like to add convention on the Right of the Child, article 12. Views of child being given due weight given the maturity of the child.
Canada: pp4- reference to policy documents. Dates that they were adopted should be included and some of the verbs used.
Switzerland: pp1- delete ‘drug related crime’ or ask sponsors to explain link to crime as does not seem obvious, especially when related to children. Doesn’t seem very coherent with the rest of the resolution. Pp2- Why does this para only talk about the work of the UN. Could add the levels of national implementation of drug policy programmes. Pp3- world programme of action of youth- many others definitions- UNESCO etc. pp4- we would also like to quote plan of action 14(b).
Colombia: Very aligned with the aim of this resolution. Pp4. Seeing that there is some ref to political dec 2009. But we need to ref to those young people in special condition which is why we taking ref to doc 2009 to add this ‘also provide specialised training for those who work with vulnerable groups, such as those with psychiatric problems..’
USA: Concerns about other definitions- pp3. Maybe a translation issue. When lifting language from UNGASS, would like references to be completely accurate.
Canada: pp5- references 2 para from UNGASS, but not a complete extract, so when we go through detailed review, will have additional language to propose from UNGASS document.
France: Like Switzerland, we were unaware that a first reading has already taken place. The 2019 declaration is not a policy document, in keeping with the agreement made last year, so it should not be refereed to in the same manner as the others in this para.
Chair: This is the first reading of all resolutions. They have been presented on Friday morning and sponsors are free to consult however they can.
Australia: We propose a new pp referencing 2018 agreement where MS promote a participatory role for young people with organizations that work with and for them.
Canada: The exact location of the language is open for discussion but we’ d like to see an inclusion of reference to stigma, recalling earlier resolutions, that touch on specific needs of young women.
USA: Could the sponsors link p8 to drug abuse?
Australia: On pp11, replace “likelihood” with “increased risk” of unemployment.
[Yemen?]: We ask the sponsors to provide evidence on life expectancy. The text about countering of criminal activities, how it links to the rest of the resolution? About “talents and potential” we would like some sources, otherwise we’d prefer to delete it.
USA: pp11, we ask sponsors to explain “high exposure”. We don’t dispute some of these things to be possible conditions but we are reluctant to have a list like this.
Singapore: We would like to clarify SDG or remove “… society” in pp9
Canada: We agree with the US regarding “high exposure”. We also agree on the list – stigma associated with drug use should be include if we insist on having a list.
Netherlands: pp12- have clarification on adolescence. Would be good to have context.
USA: Question on the International Standards of Drug Use. Note that there was has been 2nd updated edition. Would be appropriate place to enter in pp13.
Canada: in pp14, language used focused on drug prevention. Youth empowerment is also relevant. Specific language to propose, and would like to introduce references to youth promotion and youth empowerment. New pp added at end of section that would reference UNODC 1st campaign.
Singapore: pp13- include national policies after mentioning UNODC.
USA: pp15- Note that this handbook on youth participation is old- published in 2002 and has outdated material. Could sponsors describe what the intention is if there is a plan to revise this document as this could be undertaken here rather than welcoming such an old document. Explanation on that would be useful. Like to offer an pp16 where we welcome universal prevention curriculum.
France: After pp14. Would like to propose 2 new pps in order to support the WHO and UNODC intiaitves to raise awareness regarding preventative measure taken for oyuth, family members and for surrounding communities. Hav eporposals making along those lines once in drafting.
Portugal: Were in informals last week. We agree with all comments. When we mention outcomes of certain strategies, should be evidence based. With reference to not stigmatising youths. Should also take into account other vulnerable groups. Consider that participation in any initiative should be voluntary. Mention ‘Listen First’ Campaign by UNODC.
Canada: pps would benefit to include the role played by civil society in addressing the world drug problem especially the age-related challenges.
Netherlands: pp1-2. Understand and support the experience of youth giving the information to their peers, but it shouldn’t be the goal. Drug prevention should be the goal.
USA: In OP2, note that some of youth are under 18. If dealing issues with health information, that will involve parents and guardians in protecting privacy rights. Would need reference to parents and family.
Portugal: Would like them to be grounded in evidence-based. Quoting UNODC on youth participation. Reduce the likelihood that children will be involved in drug use. Both aim to increased resilience to drug use. OP3, would like to add treatment and recovery and measures aiming in reducing social consequence of drug use.
USA: We thinks this could be massaged a bit; the youth statement is taken into account but it doesn’t bind states. The referred documents need updating that reflect on today’s challenges (eg vaping).
Portugal: op7 would benefit from a reference to parents or broader family.
USA: We’d like to ask the sponsors to explain op9 and how it relates to the rest of the text. We have a preference to delete this paragraph.
Canada: Additional language regarding non-stigmatization and reference to gender is needed. Accordingly, we will propose two additional paragraphs.
UK: There is an opportunity in pp8 to include stigma and we also prefer op9 to be deleted.
France: There is a lack of reference to technical assistance and awareness raising campaigns. We will submit proposed language changes.
Indonesia: We prefer to use “drug abuse prevention”.
Portugal: Give more freedom to organizations to work. Raising awareness of UNODC is important but these might entail resources that could be used for more pressing issues. Link to exploitation of children, we are a bit skeptical but we are open to exploring new language.
Venezuela: apologise, but I couldn’t observe the date is for the draft resolution we are looking at. Co-sponsor this resolution and we don’t see this reflected in the title.
Russia: I would like to share some information first. There are several delegations wishing to add their country names as co-sponsor. Advised us to read the least out at CoW. With your permission, may I read out the delegations: United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Vietnam, Syria, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Nicaragua. We are grateful to all delegations that expressed their support to the draft resolution. We are planning to hold the first round of informals where we plan to work on the language tomorrow 10:00 at M5.
Chair: I wonder if there is delegations who can confirm that they co-sponsor the resolution otherwise we put in brackets so that we have this informal information, but we will need agreement or something in writing that these states co-sponsor.
Secretariat: All co-sponsors asked to signed the respective forms in Room M122 where the delegations have chance to sign the co-sponsorship forms.
Peru: We will sign, but we would like to have our name reflected on the screen.
Chair: The MS can send you their new paragraphs today so that they can be incorporated properly into the resolution for the informals.
Russia: We support the idea behind this resolution. Pp4, we haven’t used this term “important milestones” so we will need to clarify this.
USA: In pp7 our preference would be sticking with past formula to refer to these groups.
Singapore: op2 appears to be taken from a previous CND resolution so we should adjust language.
Russia: We agree with Singapore and add the agreed language.
USA: We know there is a collection of data regarding root causes so our preference would be to broaden it to major causes.
Russia: Op6 needs “driving factors for illicit crop cultivation”.
USA: Extrabudgetary resource language.
Chair: We close the first reading of all Resolutions.
Second Reading: L2
Chair: Some comments concerning the title. Do you have suggestions?
USA: Thank you for the feedback during the first reading. We would like to share some thoughts. We are pleased to table this resolution. The CND has contemplated the topic of participation with the private sector. This is a very important topic. With that said, we are looking forward to using the resolution to define what the private sector will be. We will endeavour to provide that definition in pp7. We will accept the proposal to change the title in brackets.
Brazil: We would like “address and counter”.
France: Seems that there is confusion on how to proceed, since we had understood informals would take place this afternoon which was announced a few minutes ago. Pertaining to the title, we would like to amend it and add after “intensifying”, “national”. Then we would like to delete “the world drug problem” and replace is with “illicit drug trafficking diversion of precursor chemicals”” and after “partnerships with” to add “all relevant stakeholders, including the private sector”
Chair: Would the USA like to comment on the title?
USA: Would like to keep this bracketed until gone through the whole resolution.
Iran: Replace the language with the exact language from the UNGASS which is pp8 of UNGASS document, so should be ‘Underscoring that the single convention on narcotic drugs on 1961, as amended by the 1972 protocol…and other relevant international instruments” Would prefer the agreed UNGASS language.
USA: We note this pp was drawn from the referenced pp from UNGASS so we can except these changes as proposed.
Chair: No more comments. This PP is accepted by the COW. We move on to the next one.
Singapore: We would like to include “Reaffirming the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action on international cooperation towards integrated and balanced strategy to counter the World Drug Problem and the Joint Ministerial Segment of 2014 high-level by the CND of the implementation by MS of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action and recalling the resolutions adopted at the 12th Special Session of the General Assembly. “
France: We don’t understand this proposed amendment given that this is the same as proposed under pp4. We suggest it to be taken out. On pp2 we have an amendment for after “General Assembly” add “in 2016”.
Russia: We would also like an additional para after pp1 and we suggest to use the language from the 2009 declaration, reiterating the 3 documents and their complimentary nature.
Chair: Indeed, the Singapore proposal is similar to pp4. How would you like to see it? Think it over, please. We want to highlight that all documents are complementary, so we think that different messages expressed than in pp4.
USA: pp2,3,4 are drawn from first 3 paras of Dec 2018-2018 UNGASS res A res 74 178. We used 3 first paras in the order in which the docs are cited on UNGASS drugs resolution. Is it our intent that drawing from this recent resolution that we would be able to acheieve concensus.
France: Respond to proposal made by Russia. We cannot support that proposal and we prefer the approach by the original author of the text.
Iran: We believe that having Ministerial declaration from last year, we can go along with this language. We can have the deletion of 2,3 and 4 together. We can have a shorter resolution and I assume that all of the ideas in the pp 2,3,4 in the new language proposed by Russia.
Croatia on behalf of the European Union: EU and MS think this process going too fast and will continue with 2nd reading tomorrow. We reserve the right to adopt the text tomorrow.
Chair: we only have 15 minutes, so no text will be adopted today. We proceed the proposal to replace pps 2,3,4 with different language. This will be discussed in informals tomorrow.
Croatia on behalf of EU: We don’t want to replace with language suggested. We want to keep all other pps which send different messages.
France: Location of this para. Not the best place for this para. Could be put after pp recalling the convention, but can also go along with Croatia regarding reservation to consider entirety of the text.
Chair: No comments. Can put down that is is agreed in CoW.
USA: As have drafted for consideration, there are many resolutions that have considered different actors involved in supporting in countering world drug problem. We want to highlight how private sector engagement. Want to maintain focus on unique role of the private sector.
Iran: First, we propose to make this paragraph as general as possible so maybe we can delete the public/private dimension. Second, what do you refer to with “all levels”?
USA: We will take this issue to informals.
USA: We recognize that there were questions regarding the scope of the private sector so in this paragraph we attempted to describe that. We welcome language suggestions.
Canada: We would like to recognize that addressing stigma is a critical component of effective demand reduction measures so we would like to see some specific language expressing that. We will discuss this at the informals tomorrow.
Colombia: We had a suggestion to an other para actually.
Chair: pp7 is for the informals then, now pp8.
Colombia: The private sector “based on the principle of common and shared responsibility” and then after “investigative leads” put “control mechanisms”.
Chair: COW agreed on pp8?
Russia: we prefer this to go to informals as well. We are seeking further clarifications on a number of language choices. In the spirit of the EU’s request, we would like to also encourage not to adapt a paragraph today before the informals.
….: Quote vague. Who is coordinating and would like some clarification.
Chair: this will go to informals as well.
Columbia: We had a proposition to cinlude “based obn the principle of common and shared responsibility”.
France: pp9- Given that this discussed in informals. Like some clarification on “information exchange” and “investigative leads”. Right to privacy and data collection.
Chair: Proceed with pp11.
Chair: No comment.
Columbia: Include common and shared responsibility as stated previously.
USA: Like to note that the pp is previously agreed language from resolution 64 para 14. Based on its status as previously agreed, we would like to request consideration to continue using that agreed language.
Columbia: We accept to remove our proposal.
Russia: We will still need clarification on the focus of this resolution as the mentioned resolution was focused on synthetic drugs but this resolution is based on braoder range of substances.
Chair: CoW adjourned. Will resume further reading of L2 resolution tomorrow. There will be round of informals tomorrow.