Chair: Okay, how far along are we?

USA: We recommend starting on the title, we have plenty of suggestions and as this is one of the biggest outstanding issues, I hope we can make substantial progress.

USA: (…)

EU: We wanted to announce that we intend to co-sponsor this resolution.

China: We can not go along with this text. We have expressed many times that “nonscheduled chemicals and precursors” are the appropriate wording. We suggest to leave this issue to be discussed at a later stage.

Chair: Okay, lets move on to the parts that were agreed on.

EU: I would like to come back to the title anyhow. We are puzzled by the discussion as the language we used is already agreed on in many instances. We can all agree that the products on the international surveillance list are very much the focus of the discussion here, so we would like to leave no room for confusion to anyone reading this text. We would like to use the well-established language.

USA: I understand this was discussed during informal, the title we suggested was one that China said they can go along with… I am confused. I believe USA showed great flexibility considering what China preferred yesterday. Why is this an issue today? The goal is to agree on a title and use that language throughout the text. We would like to still offer that if the term “nonscheduled chemicals” is problematic, we can consider “nonscheduled substances” which indeed is much broader. We understand the point of this resolution was to have a focused scope, but we are open. Chair, we are looking to your guidance.

Chair: I am putting the new title up for discussion where “chemicals” are swapped for “substances”.

EU: We also find it very regrettable that “illicit trafficking” was deleted. In the spirit of compromise, we can live with it, but we do think this is a step backwards that we firmly regret.

Chair: Ok, so title is agreed in CoW.

China: We can not go along with “scheduled substance” as it is even broader than the previous wording. I have no authority to show flexibility here so I suggest to consider other paragraphs first.

Chair: Do you have a specific proposal to resolve this?

China: We would like to use the words in the original text.

Chair: Okay, I invite the USA to respond. In the meantime, UK?

UK: This is treaty language, something we all agreed and committed to… The references to chemicals have been used even yesterday so we support including these references.

USA: The UK just made the comment I was going to make, referring to language in 2009 and 2014 policy documents (re nonscheduled substances)

Chair: It seems like we won’t be able to make progress here right now, so we move on.

PP1

Russia: Due to technical reasons, we did not participate in the informals so we can not join the consensus. We have previously suggested the use of “reaffirming our obligations arising from”. We remain firm because this resolution is based on the ´87 convention and the issue of countering nonscheduled substances is within our scope there. The suggestion is to make a firm commitment to the scheduled and unscheduled substances and extend that somewhat to psychotropics.

USA: I recall discussing this PP at length and I fear we are repeating arguments. I propose we draw upon he language that was agreed on just an hour ago – I understand there was a similar debate.

Russia: I would just like to note that references to conventions don’t necessarily have to be identical. This text is just fine, we have no obligations.

Chair: I see no further comments. PP1 agreed in CoW.

PP2

PP2bis alt

Iran: I am not in a position to agree to this. (technical issues)

Chair: Okay, are there any other PPs that were agreed in informals?

PP7, PP7 alt, PP7 bis

USA: PP7alt was not agreed to, however it is a word for word recitation of article 21. I retract our suggestion in line 2 of PP7 bis in reference to article 5.

Chair: Open the floor for PP7 bis as is on the screen. I see no comments.

Russia: We would like to make some purely editorial changes to make it closer to article 12.1. “Mindful that in the article 21 of 1988 convention, it is authorized….”; put “it shall” in line 3 (…)

Chair: I would just like to remind you that we are discussing PP7bis. I see no comments on that, so PP7bis is agreed.

PP7 alt v2

Colombia: As this para stands in isolation, it is not clear what it refers so we suggest to put “the commission” instead of “it” in the 2nd line.

Chair: No more comments. Agreed.

USA: We have to bracket the language “authorized” as opposed to “treaty mandate”. If we make reference to functions, we use this language always, eg. for INCB and WHO. If we don’t use the same terminology, it could seem we are lowering the responsibility of the commission. We appreciate the efforts here, but we need time to consider this.

Guatemala: The commission in treaties is never “mandated”, it is “authorized” to consider matters… We insist on the use of the treaty language.

Chair: If you allow me, we refer exactly to where it authorized so it is clear that it is about a mandate from the treaty.

USA: We need some time to consider this.

Chair: Okay. Let’s move on for now.

PP11 alt

Russia: Instead of “to communicate” we suggest “it shall communicate.

Chair: I see no comments. Agreed.

PP16

Chair: I see no comments. Agreed.

OP5 alt

Chair: I see no comments. Agreed.

OP6 alt, OP6 alt bis

China: I have the instruction to add an amendment to OP6 alt bis in line 3: “where appropriate” to be added after “domestic matters”.

USA: We have no issue with this suggestion.

Chair: Great, we reached the end of our consideration on this resolution. Let´s try to go back to the title?

Japan: We support the title as agreed yesterday but we are open to the suggestions of the USA.

Chair: Okay, so consultations will continue. We may have to work beyond 7pm this evening.

Secretariat: We need time to consult about the program for this evening, but we will inform delegations as soon as we are able.

L7:

USA: given late hour, does not want to keep pressing this issue if no consensus. Willing to be flexible. Understand OP8bis which complements original idea. So willing to withdraw this para as cant find agreement.

Pp8alt deleted.

OP8bis

Iran: Send it to capital for consideration. Not received response. Please put reservations on it and get back to you.

USA: Have final edits propose to OP15 in spirit to what agreed in OP2. Offer those to room if possible then close here.

Chair: ok

USA: Working off edits on screen, starting with 2nd line ‘and in consultation’ ‘and in consultation with the INCB, and other relevant UN entities, as appropriate’. Delete up until ‘within’ . Then can go forward.

Iran: Put it in the brackets after confirmation from capital.

Chair: there was no reservations to this para.

Iran: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This is our national position we cannot go along with it until confirmation with capital. We will express our position.

Chair: It is clear that you are allowed to have a position. But it is clear we are negotiating. If there is no objection it seems which you did not mention. I respect the position of all delegations. If you are not in position to proceed. Please include reservation of Iran onto this para.