Home » Committee of the Whole. Resolution L2. Promoting alternative development as a development-oriented drug control strategy, including measures to protect the environment (cont.)

Committee of the Whole. Resolution L2. Promoting alternative development as a development-oriented drug control strategy, including measures to protect the environment (cont.)

15/3/2022 CoW – L2.
Promoting alternative development as a development-oriented drug control strategy, including measures to protect the environment


CHAIR: No comments – agreed in informals

OP1 & OP2:

CHAIR: Agreed in informals – agreed language from previous resolutions

OP3 & OP4:

CHAIR: Agreed in informals


RUSSIAN FEDERATION: We have a technical change – instead of ‘based on’, we would like to see ‘with regard to’

CHAIR: No comments in response – we will approve OP5 with amendment made.


ARGENTINA: Two queries – which version of text are we working on? We haven’t received any updated text since last Thursday, since Friday’s informals.

CHAIR: I have received updates

Secretary: Every night we send the text to the delegations who are registered – so as a registered delegate you should be getting our emails sent from the CND platform – perhaps you could check your spam

Russian Federation: We tried to achieve a compromise on these paragraphs and were hoping to see flexibility from other delegations – however our capital would like to retain reference to the context of drugs control. We propose after AD programs, to add, ‘in the context of long-term, comprehensive and sustainable development-oriented and balanced drug control polices’

Chair: Thank you. Comments on this paragraph? I see no comments, so I conclude this approved.

Thailand: This para has been negotiated over the course of the week and yesterday we agreed to end the sentence at “…sustainable development” as agreed in the informal meeting. The rep of the Russian delegation was also present in the room when we agreed so I think it is best to keep it as it is agreed upon.

Russia: After yesterdays informals, the draft with the open paras were studies by experts in our capital and we were requested to ask it to reference – these are instructions we received this morning.

Germany: This is the second op we are opening that has been agreed on prior. I do not really see the value of the edit. We understand that we receive instructions at different times, but I think this reference is explained abundantly in previous text and there is no doubt for any reader that AD is a pillar of long-term drug control strategy… otherwise we wouldn´t talk about it at CND so we agree with our colleagues from Thailand.

Chair: Okay we send it back to informals.

OP7 & OP8

Thailand: 7 and 8 have been suggested to be merged so a version is listed under pp8. Most delegations came to an agreement to work on a merged version and now we have a text proposed by the USA and supported by many, though some delegations have expressed concerns and requested some phrases to be deleted. We have not come to a consensus, but this is where we are now – as on the screen.

Chair: We don’t seem to be close to consensus. What we could do is clean up the text a bit and lump 7 and 8 together, if you agree?

Thailand: We should be considering an alternative to these two paragraphs as many delegations asked for the deletion. An alternative is quite close to agreement, so I suggest working on (…)

Chair: So we delete op 7 and 8, so we work on the alternative. I see no comments, it is decided – we delete 7 and 8 and OP8alt1. So OP8alt2 will be discussed in informals, and we move on. We have the paragraphs on screen that are agreed on in informals. I see no comments, these paragraphs are approved.

OP11  & OP11bis

Chair: Now on to OP11 and 11bis – both have been agreed on in informals. I see no comments.

OP12 & PP13bis

CHAIR: No comments – we can consider these agreed in CoW

OP13 & OP14

CHAIR: I see no comments – both agreed in CoW

OP15, OP16 & OP17

CHAIR: No comments – these are now agreed by CoW.


CHAIR: No comments – therefore we will agree in CoW.


THAILAND: Could we start with PP2 and try to get agreement


GERMANY: We were just waiting on Iran – are they able to withdraw their suggestion? The previous text was agreed in previous language.

CHAIR: Iran, can you accept the original language? Iran does not seem to be in the room. Thailand, would you like to take remaining paras back to informals?

THAILAND: It seems we can’t get further on PP2 or PP12 – maybe the committee could see if there are any comments on OP8, if there is no further progress we can take back to informals.

CHAIR: Let’s work on OP8alt which is what is left from deleting OP7 and OP8.


GERMANY: Where is the basic conflict line for everyone – there are proposals to let the para end after ‘taking account’ – we insist on keeping more detailed reference at end of para – the mechanism of payment is not from a textbook, it is what we implement in Colombia with the UNODC. We do not see why this should not be reflected when it is already in place on the ground. The title reflects the importance of going into detail.

THAILAND: I would like to echo Germany – this is very important in advancing and implementing the alternative development approach and is essential for the draft resolution, to advance the work of alternative development in practice and engage communities. But we can be flexible on the language to those delegations that don’t understand alternative development in practice.

CHAIR: Bearing in mind the comments from different delegation, I will take of my Chair’s hat and speak as Colombia – I join the comments of those that want to keep the detailed text. Russian Federation, could you show some flexibility here?

Chair: Now, I would like to take my chair hat off and speak as the delegate of Colombia and join those who say keep this part – of course as chair I won’t make any further statements, but I look towards the Russian delegation to show some flexibility.

Russia: Our position is based on the opinion of experts who know more about these matters. Here, with carbon credits, these are only used by some countries and for the time being there is no universal understanding on how these should work. This matter is subject of future talks of specialized international forums. We seem to be pre-judging the outcome of those discussions. Only when experts have discussed this in detail will we be able to discuss this properly. CND shall not impose on other specialized commissions´ mandate. We are open to making it simpler, streamline the proposals, but we are not able to agree on the text as is. Given that we heard about best practices, maybe it would make sense to refer the need to study these practices and the possibility to implement it in other states. This stage, we should be attempting to find a golden middle ground when it comes to this para. We should continue discussing this para in informals.

Venezuela: My delegation can not be present at all informal consultations and unfortunately when this was discussed, we were not present. Were we present, we would have supported Russia´s stance. For us, my country doesn’t know anything about these alternative funding mechanisms, so Chair, could you please add our name next to Russia´s.

France: For us it would be helpful to add a concrete example that is drawn from projects that are currently implemented. Payment for eco-system products or carbon credits work quite well and it would be good for the text to reflect best practices to encourage more countries to use them – it is a win-win situation. For us it is extremely important for these references to be retained.

USA: I wonder if we can address the concerns of the MS who doesn’t have experience by adding “as appropriate”?

Venezuela: I thank the US for this suggestion, however, what she has said is “those who have experience with it could share it” the proposal doesn’t actually say that. We could reconsider if there was a possibility for (…)

Chair: Could Venezuela come up with a suggestion for wording?

Thailand: We would like the two parts together because what we are trying to do is say that we can increase the financial support for AD programs, especially through climate finance. By implementing this scheme, we can point out how we can get access to climate finance. It is very important for us to have a what and how in this text. This technology is not new, the terminology must have been heard in all countries… we are trying to address the climate situation globally, so this is nothing new. I believe it deserves to be here. We are flexible in making this a reference, but we insist on keeping both a reference then.

CHAIR: Sweden has technical issues. Australia? Ok no luck with Australia either

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thank you for your experts – maybe you are more experts than we are in environment. Is there some sort of universally recognised system for financing – and what elements does this include – could links to the related documents be provided?

CHAIR: Apparently Guatemala has a proposal in the chat – but I can’t access the chat. Ok, now I can. Can the Secretary

SECRETARY: Guatemala writes ‘enhance cooperation and share best practices and share best experiences, as appropriate’ after climate finance, in the chat. Thanks Guatemala.

CHAIR: Thanks Secretariat

SWEDEN: We would like to keep the addition. Please add our name after UK.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: Thanks Guatemala. The proposal is what we were saying earlier – hopefully in the future we can put forward more concrete proposals. We’d like to support Guatemala’s proposal.

COLOMBIA: We could include ‘as applicable’ after ‘inter alia’

EGYPT: Maybe we could put ‘in accordance with their domestic legislation’ after ‘narcotic plants’ – we are trying to help finish this para

GUATEMALA: I’m in the plenary so I am struggling a little. The reason for our amendment is because some countries do not have the mechanism mentioned. We can delete our proposal and perhaps use Egypt’s proposal.

GERMANY: What is the original sense of this para? To encourage member states to take action where appropriate – therefore it’s not about sharing best practices. We have tabled a conference room paper which sums up the key findings and insights on alternative development and the environment, which shares best practices. We are not trying to bring up anything new. We appreciate the suggestions but would like to delete the references to best practices/experiences

Russia: We are grateful for Germany for clarifying that the related best practice is included in the document from this years expert consultation. Given that there is a reference to OP14, we believe that should be sufficient. Our delegation is ready to include a reference to the document in OP8alt2, unfortunately though we are not able to make a reference to concrete practices such as the carbon credit system as it falls into the realm of other international bodies – talks are still ongoing. We do not have a mandate to go further than a general reference to the financing.

Chair: I see no further comments, Australia will use the chat to make an intervention. Let me make a comment in the meantime, please. This paragraph is for those MS that need to have AD programs. It is not a general call to all MS, nor is it a wide-spread policy. It calls on countries that need to design such program to take into account the environmental impact of those programs. We need to see not just public funding but other sources as well. It is about adaptability with regards to climate financing. The approach we are taking in this paragraph is not that all countries or AD programs must have this kind of financing, it is just saying all countries who wish, want, or need – hence the addition “as appropriate” – must ensure it is not detrimental to the environment. There are lots of caveats there with “as necessary” and “as appropriate” so it doesn’t affect those how don’t want or need AD. It doesn’t say anyone has to do anything; it just says to take it into account. I am saying this as a representative of a country that uses AD to combat illegal crops. I ask you all to take into account the true dimension of this paragraphs. I apologize for interrupting, I won’t do it often, but it is important for you to hear from a country that has lots of experience with AD. I see no further requests from the floor, so I give it to the Secretariat to read Australia´s intervention.

Australia: There are two important ideas in this paragraph: designing AD that are win-win mean efforts toward illicit crop eradication while at the same time protecting the environment; doing this, you can attract additional income that make AD economically feasible when it wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

USA: Can we go through the PPs so we know exactly which ones remain open?

Thailand: We seem to be in a deadlock regarding 3 paragraphs. We have 4 paragraphs open and we don’t seem to be making progress, so I have no choice but taking them back to informals.

CHAIR: Thank you Thailand, please do that – take the 4 paras to informals. Secretariat – is there another resolution we can work on this morning? Ok, we don’t. We depend on the timetables of delegations. We ask that informal consultations convened by sponsors are attended with an open mind so that we can make progress and achieve consensus in the CoW.

UNITED STATES: We will be ready to go ahead with L7 – we could use the remaining few minutes or start this afternoon

CHAIR: Of course, we can use the next 35 mins if you are ready.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *