CHAIR: Iran, you have the floor.
IRAN: I would like to congratulate you for your election to chair this important committee im confident that under your leadership we will have a great result. We previously explained that there is no room for our delegation to remove impediments, and so, under the two pragraphs, we can work on PP4, but it is not our goal to remove the impediments, but this is essential for our delegation.
CHAIR: Taking into account there is no agreement on this paragraphs, not even to accept one and not the other, please Noland, continue with the consultation of the two paragraphs and lets move to PP6
PP6 is agreed in informals. Are there any comments on this? PP6?
I see none. So, let’s consider this paragraph agreed in COW: PP6. Now, lets move to pp6, there are some different proposals there. Am PP6? We continue with PP6, Colombia and Venezuela. Colombia firs.
We are already considering this as agreed on cow, but yes, you have the floor.
COLOMBIA: We just wanted to say that we cant accept these impediments, so we suggest to continue in the informals. Thank you
CHAIR: That’s about pp5, thank you. Venezuela?
Venezuela: My comment is about PP5 but Alt. I said last time in informals that we said we cannot agree on PP5 on the mention in the principle of shared responsibility part. The impediments do not have to do with this. This is the part that we cant accept the paragraph. And I will raise my flag from now on so that you can see me.
CHAIR: Im sorry. We are considering PP7, because PP6 had already been agreed in the COW.
More comments on PP7?
Nolan, can you explain this paragraph?
US: Thank you. I think we will need more consultations in informals. The debate is the reference of the treaty mandated of the INCB, which articles can go first and second. Mexico has had a good approach on this, but there are fundamental disagreements still. I think we should not take it for discussion in the COW now.
CHAIR: Taking into consideration this. Let’s move on to PP8
There is an agreement in informals. Any comments on PP8 and the following, PP9?
I see none.
Lets consider this two paragraphs, pp8 and pp9 as agreed in COW
Let’s move to PP10. It was also agreed in informals. Any comment about this paragraph? PP10?
Agreed in COW because there are no comments
Let’s move to PP11
OK, there are a lot of comments.
Noland, can you present this paragraph to us?
UNITED STATES: In PP11, It is an important paragraph to the US. We are trying to get to the idea that as the INCB make scheduling or control proposals, they provide information of altnerative chemicals that can be used. I think we are closer to reach an agreement of PP11 alt, so I would ask the room if it is ok to proceed on pp11 alt, and as I dont think we can reach an agreement on PP11, so I would put in consideration to prescind along the lines of PP11 off.
CHAIR: Thank you very much nolland. Any comments?
Can we accept the proposal just made by Noland of deleting PP11? Russia
RUSSIA: Just to clarify that Russia was very engged in the discussion of PP11 and PP7, which we decided to postpone to informals. The treaty language is not quoted partially, but rather than we include older relevant provisions of the treaties, so we have agreed with pp11 alt, but we have not agreed on pp11. We cannot agree to this paragraph at this stage and we will continue engging with the sponsors at the informals.
Chair: The idea is not to agree pp11 alt now, it is to delete pp11 and continue working on the basis of pp11 alt. Can you support that Russia?
RUSSIA: Yes. We can delete pp11 and continue with pp11 alt
Chair: Ok, lets delete pp11 and continue with pp11 alt later in informals. Now, pp12.
UNITED STATES: For PP12, 13 AND 14, We are referring to the various political commitments on UNGASS 2016, Ministerial declarations, etc. For pp12 and pp13 there was no problem with listing these commitments, but the issue was the order. There is still no agreement if 2015, 2016, 2009 should come first. PP12 and PP13 is agreed in content, but not in odering. For PP14, we are still in some debate about how to best reflect the political commitment in the 2009 plan of action and if certain language should be copied and pasted or not.
CHAIR: Ok, do we have an agreement on how to quote each of the commitments? The order in which we call it, or is there still much difficulty with that? Do we need more time defining the order of these commitments and the way in which they are cited? I see none.
Let’s consider the 12, 13 and 14 as agreed in substance but it needs more work the ordering of the political commitments and citations there
We suggest to order them in chronological order. Are there any objections? I see no. Lets consider 12, 13 and 14 as agreed in substance but it needs to repair the order of the political commitments.
RUSSIA: Apologies for having to take the floor so often in this discussions. Just regarding the ordering of the paragraphs, Russia is among the delegations that requested the political commitments to start from 2009 to 2013 or vice versa, we do not have a preference on that, but we know that if we don’t put it in chronological order we might give a wrong message. Having said that, I would like to confirm we do not have objections. We can agree on this.
Chair: Thank you very much. The ideas of these meetings is to intervene as needed does not matter how many times. Is there any opposition to have the . Having the agreement of the substances, to find a criteria for the ordering will be enough. Do you agree to use the chronological criteria to order the political commitments? I see no ojections. Can we agree on ordering the political commitments in regard to the chronological order? Ok
USA: At this time we are not prepared to accept the chronological order, as you said. We can choose 2009 to start, but I believe we need further discussions. We cannot accept it as such.
CHAIR: Ok, Russia wants the floor?
RUSSIA: Apologies. We do not want the floor. We have expressed our position on this issue
Considering the substance of PP12, 13 AND 14, as agreed in cow. Ok france
FRANCE: Actually, in ling with our colleagues from USA, I think we shoud discuss this in informals as US suggested. I wanted to mention that something that has become common practice so far, to start refering to the most recent international commitments.
Chair: For me that’s also a way to order it in the chronological way, but it doesn’t matter. Lets be clear. We have agreed on pp12, 13 and 14 in content. We will continue discussing during the informals about the order of the inclusion of these commitments. Do we agree with that?
UNITED STATES: I think we are, as France suggested, ready to go long from 2019 going down. If the Russian delegation has flexibility, we can advance.
CHAIR: Thank you. Russia had said that they could accept this, but its not my role.
RUSSIA: Just to confirm that we are ok with ordering the commitments starting with 2019 and going down.
CHAIR: I think we have an agreement on the content and order of PP12, 13 AND PP14. Do you agree with that? Lets consider paragraph 12, 13 and 14 as agreed in COW
Lets continue to PP16
UNITED STATES: The major disagreement on PP16 is how to reference the INCB guidelines paper. There are many different options. There was substantial debate if we should. I think we don’t have an agreement on this and we should skip this.
CHAIR: Lets proceed to PP17 then to save some time. Please Nolan, introduce to us to this paragraph
UNITED STATES: PP17 is very similar to the proceeding. This time we are simply taking note on the synthetic drugs of UNODC. We should not mention the entire strategy. I think the US is taking note and appreciation of the entire strategy.
CHAIR: Could you accept and support paragraph PP17 as it is now? I see no objection. Consider this agreed in COW. PP18 and 19 were also agreed in informals. I open the floor for comments. I don’t see any objection. Consider PP18 and PP19 as agreed in COW.
Now, PP20 and PP21. Pp20 AS you can see there, it was agreed in informals. Any comments? I see none
Lets consider PP20 also agreed in COW. PP21 seems to not have any comments on it but there is an alternative paragraph
UNITED STATES: Ill turn to my colleagues in DC to discuss this paragraph
UNITED STATES: Thank you. Regarding PP21 and PP21ALT, the discussion in previous informals was regarding the intensity of this paragraph and how it complements PP21. We addressed how precursos can have a number of sustitutions. The concern is that it might
The US delegation would have small suggestions to add and carry over a couple of tiny items from the original PP21 that were not reflected below. If you’ll indult me, Im happy to read adaptations working on PP21 Alt and where those additions might be
- Recognizing that the existing scheduling system established by the 1988 has been efective in preventing diversion of known precursos, to illicit channels, while those precursos can be replaced, ere we want to add “an almost infinite number”. So it would be, after replaced by, “an almost infinite number” substitutes including “many”, and then delete “those”, with no legitimate uses, and acknowledging that it may be “neither” feasible nor desirable to include such an ever growing number of chemicals in the tables of the 1988 convention.
- With this suggestion the idea that we are trying to capture is really a practical one, which is reflected in this particular phrasing, and we want to suggest that the scheduling system is not one that should be using any opportunity, but to acknowledge the lack of practicality in doing so with this ever growing number of chemicals.
CHAIR: Thank you very much US
Let’s do this in this way. Let’s first consider the deletion of PP21, as it is on the screen. Are there anyone against the deletion of this paragraph? I see no objections. Please, delete PP21. Now, I ask if there is any agreement on this paragraph pp21 ALT, in the way in which it was changed by the US delegation
RUSSIA: Thank you. We are very greateful to the sponsors of the resolution to try to reach consensus on this paragraph. Our intention with the original pp21, was to avoid the impression that the commission will no longer use the scheduling system to put new precursos under control, which is why we tried to draft the language in a way that we could acknowledge the effectiveness of the current system, but also the challenges. This was not envisioned in 1988 when the treaty was created. We come back to the same proposition which erodes our concerns in the first place. Im afraid we will need to work further on this paragraph during the informals.
IRAN: Thank you. Very briefly. In the same line as Russia, we have new elements in this paragraph, so I would like to make the same request, to continue in informal consultations, because our delegation is in no position to accept this language.
CHAIR: Ok, lets go to pp22
UNITED STATES: This is our summary paragraph. I think we are close to an agreement but differences are in the way we are mentioning WHO, and we need to work further on the role of the WHO and we are not quite there yet, so we should skip it
CHAIR: Ok, let’s skip it and move further to the first operative paragtaph
UNITED STATES: This is the first operative paragraph, urging member states to intensify efforts. I think we are very close to agree on this, just I might give a proposal that can solve any related issues. The first issue is the word “urges /encourages”, we should use “calls upon” instead of either of those, and after “intensify their efforts to address”, we might add “as appropriate” instead of “when possible”. There is a line at the end that was saying “where there is a high risk that these chemicals may be converted to or used as a substitute for a controlled precursor” that has seen opposition from china and the UK
CHAIR: Any comments on this? Can we support these modifications?
CHINA: I don’t think we have a consensus in this paragraph, so maybe we need more time in informals. If we are to say that there is a high risk that the chemicals may be converted to, or be used as substitute, can be too broad.
Iran could go along with some proposal modifications by the US. We can go along with this paragraph if we consider the additions made by the UK. The short version of this paragraph is more understandable.
USA: I just wanted to highlight that the sponsors have put in consideration to delete the word “control”, but I’ll refer to my colleagues in UK
CHAIR: Ok, are there any representatives of the UK in the room? Or from somewhere else? No?
Ok, Sam, you have the floor.
UK: Back on this I’m afraid because it was proposed by one of our colleagues and we just need to read through this a bit more carefully I’m afraid that he’s been struck down with COVID but we’ll come back to this in informals and if I’m able to to look at it while we continue and I can perhaps leave a comment in the chat, a statement in the conversation bar, if that’s suitable
Ok, can we delete “urge” and “encourages” No comments on that? Let’s proceed. The other is “as appropriate”. Any objections on that? No? Ok
The only thing would be to finalize the lines before “international control”.
EUROPEAN UNION: I would like to say on this first OP1, the revised proposals is very good, and we can accept those modifications, and if we could indeed deleted the last lines on where there are differences, so that we can reach a consensus.
UK: We are happy with that line to be deleted
CHAIR: As far as I understand, do we have an agreement of the paragraph as it is on the screen? Is that true?
Nolan, can you introduce us tu op2?
NOLAN: Probably, we will need to skip this one too. It is another not fundamental difference, but more about the order and the number of agreements we are listing, but we need to work more on it.
CHAIR: Ok, let’s continue with paragraph 3
NOLAN: I am more hopeful that we can reach to an agreement with OP3, but I may be wrong. There was some discussion of the choice. We have some dramatical stylistic changes that we want to suggest. In the 1, 2, 3 and 4 line, after “national drug control strategies”. Instead of promote the sharing, the sponsors suggest including “share” best practices, we would delete “and” and add the word challenges, (coma), and the results of those efforts. We would be fine with accepting all the deletions, from on voluntary basis, all the way to thrugh channel,and we would suggest to phrase in accordance with national legislation and regulations. And with those suggestions, I leave it in your hands Chair
CHAIR: Thank you. Are there any comments on this paragraph?
EUROPEAN UNION: Thank you. I had actually raised my flag a time ago. We would like to propose an additional OP but I don’t know if that could be possible now, or if we should debate it in the informals.
CHAIR: Sorry I didn’t see your flag. I would prefer you do it in informals.
My remark about the flag was not meant to be rude. My intention was to mention that I wanted to introduce this before we moved to another paragraph
CHAIR: Ok, are there any comments on that?
Ok, this paragraph is agreed in the COW as agreed
CHINA: I want to extend our thanks to the US sponsors. We want to change “apply” to “make use of” in the first line of this OP.
CHAIR: Any comments on this Chinese proposal?
No comments. It is acceptable for all of us.
IRAN: Thank you Chair. We can go on with the proposal of China and modifications.
CHAIR: As far as I know, it remains in the text, so, lets consider this as agreed in the COW
And lets move to the paragraph number 4
There are two reservations on that. Could you introduce us to this paragraph Nolan?
UNITED STATES: Just for a minute, I wanted to put into consideration if we could go to OP3, I believe there is a discussion of “legislations and national regulations”, I believe we are ok with only leaving it with legislations, if the Chinese delegation is Ok with that.
CHINA: We would like to leave “legislations and national regulations” as legislation and regulation are not necessarily the same.
Chair: Can you accept that?
UNITED STATES: We do have concerns with this because one of the impetus behind this is that these recommendations would be taken on board, so it is likely that most states will not have regulations, so if you have to do this consistent with the regulations, and you do not have regulations, it is a way of securely saying “dont do anything”. That is why we are inclined to national legislation, which includes the law, but is not restrained to modifications that restrain them, as far as modifying legislations to address the situations.
CHAIR: Thank you. The delegation of china could go along with this explanation and accept only legislation?
CHINA: We do not think it means that only if the state has legislation or regulation, then they can follow. It means that if theres legislation or regulation, they can take any of those as a base, which is why we would like to keep it.
CHAIR: Lets continue with paragraph 4
We have two reservations: china and Russia. Coud you please explain us?
CHINA: Thank you Mr. Chair. OP16 and OP4 mention support from both UNODC and INCB, so that is why we would like to combine them.
CHAIR: Ok, the Russian Federation?
RUSSIA: Regarding OP4, Russia has concerns that UNODC and INCB are two different bodies with very distinct mandate. We propose to outline two very specific roles of this two bodies. We agree with China that the actors in these two paragraphs are very similar, so we should also come up with one operative paragraph mentioning the role of the two bodies.
CHINA: I just want to go back to op3, in accordance with national legislation and regulation, we would like to propose if we could use “or”.
CHAIR: Thank you. The US could accept formulation?
UNITED STATES: We are consulting one minute and we will get back to you.
CHAIR: Ok. Let’s continue to OP5. Nolan, can you introduce us to this paragraph?
UNITED STATES: I can go now with OP3. We might be able to agree in the COW for this.
CHAIR: Ok, lets go back to agree in CoW. Are there any objections? no?
Ok, lets move to paragraph 5 and 5 ALT
UNITED STATES: I also wanted to mention that Russia and china acertains of combining op4 and op16 are correct, so we probably will be ok with deleting OP4, and working on the basis of OP16, but we can follow up on that.
For OP5 I think we’re fine to work on the basis of the ALT and maybe we can agree on alternative paragraph suggested by the EU and others.
CHAIR: OK, lets go first to the deletion of paragraph 5. Are there any comments on that?
Can we delete paragraph 5 as it is on the screen, and continue working with paragraph 5 alt?
I see no objections. Please delete paragraph 5. Any comments on 5 ALT?
No comments on paragraph 5 alt?
Can we agree on the paragraph 5 alt, as it is on the screen?
The European Union delegation.
European Union: We have put some examples, but as it has been said by the INCB, we could actually delete these examples. It may be better in the end so yes we can delete it, that is acceptable for us and it may even be better.
CHINA: Thank you to the INCBs great efforts on this regard. Is it possible for INCB to provide recommendations simultanouesly? After “the INCB recommends”, we would like to add “which have been discovered that have been used to convert to”
CHAIR: Are there any comments about this proposal?
European Union: Thank you. While we agree with china that this is a very challenging task to the INCB, it is necessary to start to consider it. Some proactive research will have to be done. We understand why they do it but it would limit the purpose and aim of this paragraph too much, so we cannot agree with this addition. What we want to cross here as a message is that before substances are even discovered, you cannot on a basis of analysis, to prevent what criminal groups or organized groups do to control. We would like to come back to the original wording, knowing that it will be more challenging to the INCB .
CHAIR: Uk, and US then.
UK: I was going to comment the same as the EU. It is really important that this paragraph is closely analyzed. We can use the Chinese language “have been” or “could be”, so that we incorporate the substances that are being identified. We can act as fast as the criminals that
UNITED STATES: Thank you. We would like to say that we have a similar view to the EU and UK. There is no agreement to discuss this, so we should discuss it in informals
CHAIR: Please move to paragraph 6. The US delegation could introduce this paragraph to us please.
USA: For OP6, there was a pretty strong sense in the room to keep the language. We could start there and see if the original language could be retained.
CHAIR: Can I ask china if they could accept to keep it? China? Not answering.
CHINA: I am sorry I am the representative 1. My other representative is not here
CHAIR: Lets move to paragraph 7
UNITED STATES: We are talking about data collction here. Our distinguished colleagues from Colombia proposed a disposition that we accept, and I think my colleagues online will make contributions to this document.
UNITED STATES: In the last three lines, where it says “including the annual report and INCB”, we propose switching the order, and starting with “in accordance to the INCB” in line 12, and then including “through”
Venezuela: Regarding the text proposed by Colombia in the second line, (paragraph 7), we are concerned on the lack of acaviat to States, which is regarding national law. By leaving it open, it may have concerns of the
So the proposal would be to add “in accordance with national law”
CHAIR: Can we consider that this paragraph, as it is in the screen, is approved?
USA: I believe we agree with the proposal made by Venezuela. Can we say domestic law instead of national law?
Venezuela: It would work for us
CHAIR: Thank you. Paragraph 7 agreed in cow.
Let’s finish here because it seems paragraph 8 will be a long discussion. So, thank you very much for the work this afternoon.
The next session of the CoW will focus on the discussion of L2 to be followed by L3 at 10 am