Committee of the Whole Resolution L7. Intensifying efforts to address the proliferation of uncontrolled and designer precursors used in the illicit manufacture of drugs (evening session)

Chair: Can the US introduce to us what are the agreements that you could reach during the informal consultations?

USA: thank you Sir. I think we’ve had an extensive discussion on the title, and I think we’re pretty close. We have some new flexibility that we want to offer so I might turn it to my colleagues, in Washington DC, to present our ideas largely based off some suggestions from the distinguished colleagues from China. Hopefully this will gain consensus so if it’s OK with you I’d like to start there

Chair: yes, go ahead thank you so much

USA:  As my colleague just suggested, indeed we continue to consider the title, and indeed I’d like to reflect briefly that over the course of the week, we’ve gone back and forth on the title quite a number of times, and twice now we have been able to find informal consensus on the title only to come to the COW and then have that informal consensus be suspended and retracted, so we really aim this this afternoon to come with some new suggestions to really demonstrate our sincere attempts to find a solution that can be agreeable for all and then also finalize in the COW. And before we conclude our informal session, this morning, we received another proposal from our distinguished delegate from China regarding the title and so when the US team had the opportunity to reflect internally, we decided to react specifically to that latest proposal that we had received. I’m not sure if it makes sense.

Yes, thank you so much for reflecting that on the screen. As we understand, from some colleagues, the inclusion of the concept of diversion is a priority. And of course we absolutely respect that and want to do our best to retain that particular idea, however what we now see in this particular version is that we are suggesting that designer precursors are being diverted from the listed market. We’ve already agreed in the COW that designer precursors are designed specifically to evade controls and therefore, legitimate industry doesn’t create designer precursors. They are created by drug traffickers, and therefore the concept of diverting designer precursors doesn’t really make sense in this context, therefore, for us it would be important to retain the concept of proliferation and what we would like to suggest is adding proliferation of, ahead of “designer precursors”. Moreover, briefly, on the word “frequently”, I believe we received this suggestion from the EU, in an attempt to be constructive. Waiting to take action against these substances until they appear frequently doesn’t make sense since our objective here with this text is specifically to get ahead of the bad actors and the drug traffickers so we would propose removing “frequently”. So our first suggestion Mr. Chair would be to work off of the edits that we’ve just proposed based on this latest suggestion we received before informals concluded. I have another option that I’m happy to offer to the room. Should this not find consensus, we did want to be prepared with another idea in case delegations need to take it back to capital. I’m happy to offer that at this stage and for additional consideration I’m also happy to wait and see if our latest edits to this version might find consensus.

Chair: any comments on this proposal by the US delegation? the Chinese delegation is asking for the floor

CHINA: we would prefer to have a scheduled and non scheduled precursors. The second line we would like to replace chemicals with precursors

USA: unfortunately this does not work for us. We’ve had this discussions I think a number of times. I’m not sure why we’re going back on this the word frequently. It was also a suggestion from another delegation. I’m not really frankly understanding why it is now a priority however as I mentioned we came prepared with an additional option which I’m happy to now propose for further consideration given that we continue to struggle to find agreement on this title. With your permission Sir, and I will read it slowly. It is short. Intensifying efforts to address non-Scheduled chemicals and designer precursors used in the illicit manufacture of drugs. It is clear that we cannot find agreement on all of the different options we have proposed and so this is the latest attempt to find something very streamlined that we would urge the room to seriously consider. Thank you so much.

Chair: I thank the distinguished delegate from the US. I would like to have comments on this new proposal titles as 5. There are some comments. China you have the floor

China: thank you Mr. Chair. When we have the suggestion from our distinguished EU delegate then we may accept it. Because for the diversion of non-scheduled chemicals, then if they have the “frequently”, we can possiblity use precursor, and then for this title if we may work from then we have some suggestions:. intensifying efforts to address the diversion of non-scheduled precursor. Let me read it slowly: “intensifying efforts to address the diversion of just graduate precursors and designer, not scheduled and designer precursors (just delete chemicals please), I’m sorry it’s just some technical issue. Thank you, then “frequently” yes thank you, I want to add the word “frequently” here thank you

USA: The US apologies Mr. Chair I’m not sure that we requested the floor but we are just consulting briefly internally to see if we would like to respond at this point one moment please. OK I was informed that you were asking for the floor but doesn’t matter

CHINA:  I will read it slowly. designor precursos cannot be just like those not scheduled precursors. Then another suggestion is that we just intensifying efforts to address the diversion of non schedule precursos  frequently used in the illicit manufacture of drugs and the proliferation of designer precursors used in the illicit manufacture of drugs

Chair: now the European Union you have the floor

EU: thank you very much Mr. Chair I think I have almost exactly the same proposal as the colleague of China, of course not scheduled precursors, but scheduled chemicals.. I think, in the light of what we have been discussing the whole day and since and it may the compromise, that is acceptable to to all of us.

Japan: thank you Mr. Chair giving me the full so I agree with the European Union proposal, So for Japan so like I have a substances are desirable but we can’t compromise with the chemicals thank you

Chair: China you have the floor.

China: Mr. Chair we did have a proposal including the chemicals, but that was in op 4, however, if they cannot use this version and then combine them together like a short title, then we cannot accept that lines. If we use this title then we have to strongly stick to precursors. Thank you

Chair: Are there any other comments?

USA: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here in terms of what was on the table and what has been agreed to, or, you know deemed to be acceptable because yesterday in the afternoon there was a proposal made by China that included the term chemicals, and then when we came into the room this morning, that was not agreeable and then later in the afternoon in the informals, the proposal of China was one that included chemicals. We were prepared to accept that. Our one concern was the reference to diversion, on the one hand, without discussing proliferation on the other, and somehow we went from that conversation to the removal of chemicals again, which is why it’s just very confusing to us so I wonder if we could ask China perhaps to explain to us how we can use the term chemical in this title to their satisfaction thank you.

China: yesterday during the informal, yes, we did have a suggestion but it wasn’t accepted. That’s why today when I talked to my boss, he only agreed to have the non-scheduled precursor today and then in the evening I also tried my best and then that’s why I have the offer of the proposal of the title. I would like to just delete “frequently” and then we can add proliferation of. That’s why we have to have it back to precursors, so, thank you very much for your understanding. And I only have the authorization in that title without the pretty formation, but in other titles I have to stick to the precursos. Thank you very much

UK: So I see that we’re in a weird conundrum here I am and I’m going to make a proposal. it’s not the most beautiful English, but perhaps if we absolutely have to use the word frequently and it doesn’t make sense in this part of the sentence. So if we move the word to intensifying efforts to address the frequent diversion of non scheduled chemicals used in illicit manufacture of drugs. Now I’m going to explain the reasoning for this. The problem that we are trying to address here is the proliferation of new chemicals that are being used to make drugs. It is not that we’re addressing frequently used, or known chemicals, we’re addressing the future pipeline and because criminals are innovating at a faster rate that we can schedule and they’re innovating so quickly that we can’t wait until they’re frequently using these chemicals. We need to be able to act and it’s a call to action as soon as they’re using these chemicals or in or in advance, so that what we’re trying to do is prevent the proliferation so that’s why and hopefully if the word frequently needs to be in here, we can put it in the first part of the sentence thanks.

Chair: any other comments?

CHINA: I did try to use the precursors here but as I said I always want to do my best to try to persuade my boss, to accept some proposal and at least try to use the precursos here, but as I said, I did my best to try to persuade my boss for the proposal. So, Chair, I woukd like to reply again for the title module, that we can’t have “frequent ” here.

USA: Thank you so much Mr. Chair, and I would like to also thank our UK colleagues for their very constructive suggestion. I’m afraid that we continue to not make progress on the title and and we are maybe not using our time as efficiently as we could be and reflect on further paragraphs. I just wanted to offer one last thought before moving one. When I started my intervenional, the outset, is that now we have continuously acted to the most recent proposals we have received, and we have continued to offer versions based on that. I understand that perhaps our colleagues are not in the position to react in real time and you need to consult with capital. That is completely understandable. Perhaps we could’ve asked or request that due consideration be given to the versions that we offer at the outset for consideration of this resolution. It is of my knowledge that this could be something  that were not previously considered in the capital of your countries.

Chair: I think, the distinguished delegate from the US, I would like to have comments on this new proposal title. China, you have the floor.

China: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me read it slowly: Intensifying efforts to address the diversion of the scheduled precursors… and designer precursors.

Chair: Any comments on this proposal? The UK, you have the floor. 

UK: Back to the point raised by America, designer precursors are only manufactured illicitly or made for the illicit manufacture of drugs. So I don’t see why we would add frequently here. Not wish to delay things further ’cause I appreciate it, but it’s very difficult to get a consensus on this, but I don’t understand the logic, it doesn’t seem to make sense. Why we’d need frequently? Thank you very much.

Chair: China, you have the floor.China: Thank you Mr. Chair, and also thank you, the distinguished delegate from the UK. Well, if you think the designer precursor… they cannot be just like those not scheduled precursors. Another suggestion is that we just intensify efforts to address the diversion of non-scheduled, frequently used in the illicit manufacture of drugs and the proliferation of designer precursors, used in the illicit manufacture of drugs. That’s all for accessibility. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much, distinguish delegated in China. Now the European Union has the floor.

EU: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I think I have almost exactly the same proposal as the colleague of China, except of course instead of non scheduled precursors on scheduled chemicals that would make, I think, in the light of what we have been discussing the whole day since, and it may the compromise that is acceptable to all of us, but yeah. So, can I have it on the screen? Yeah, exactly, thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much, distinguish delegate from the European Union. Japan, you have the floor.

Japan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the European Union proposal for Japan, so a substance is very desirable, but we can compromise with chemicals. Thank you. 

Chair: Thank you very much. China, you have the floor.

China: Mr. Chair, we did have a proposal including the campus but that was on Oct 4, however, if they cannot use this diversion, and then combine them together like a short title, then we cannot accept the chemicals. That’s my authorization to have this, and then if they win this title, then we have to strongly stick to precursors. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you, distinguish delegate from China. Are there any other comments? The US, you have the floor.

US: Thank you, Chair, Wondering if perhaps there’s a misunderstanding here in terms of what was on the table, and what has been agreed to. You know, deemed to be acceptable because yesterday in the afternoon there was a proposal made by China that included the term chemicals and then when we came into the room this morning that was not agreeable, and then later in the afternoon in the informals the proposal of China was one that included chemicals and we were prepared to accept that our. One concern was the reference to diversion on the one hand without discussing proliferation on the other and, somehow we went from that conversation to the removal of chemicals again, when it’s just very confusing to us. So I wonder if we could ask China perhaps to explain to us how we can use the term chemical in this title to their satisfaction. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from the US. China, you have the floor.

China: Thank you very much. Yesterday during the informal we did have a suggestion, but it wasn’t accepted. That’s why today when applied to my boss, he just agreed to have the non-scheduled precursor today, and then in the evening I also tried my best and that’s why I have the author of the proposal of the title old, but why you ask sponsor late just delete frequently, and they add proliferation. That’s why we have it back to precursors, so thank you very much for your understanding I only have the authorization that in that title without the proliferation, and have frequently that I can use the chemicals, but in other titles, I have to stick to the precursors. Thank you very much.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from China. And now I have a request for the floor from the UK. The UK, you have the floor. 

UK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So I see that we’re in a weird conundrum here, and I’m going to make a proposal. It’s not the most beautiful English even though I’m many to the speaker, but perhaps if we absolutely have to use the word frequently, it doesn’t make sense in this part of the sentence. So if we move the word frequently to intensifying efforts to address the frequent diversion of nonscheduled chemicals used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, now I’m going to explain the reasoning for this: the problem with that we’re trying to address here is the continuing proliferation of new chemicals that are being used to make drugs, so it’s not that we’re addressing frequently used or known chemicals, we’re addressing the future pipeline and because criminals are innovating at a faster rate than we can schedule and they’re innovating so quickly that what we can’t wait until they’re frequently using these chemicals. We need to be able to act and it’s a call to action as soon as they’re using these chemicals or in advance. So what we’re trying to do is prevent the proliferation so that’s why hopefully if the word frequently needs to be in here. We can put it in the first part of the sentence. Thanks.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from the UK. Any other comments? China you have the floor.

China:  I did stick try to use the precursors here, but as I said, I always want to do my best to try to persuade my boss to accept some proposal, and I try to be practicable so I would like to reply again for the title tomorrow that we can’t agree to have “frequent” here. We may try to see what we may have to frequently use in the original position where it was.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from China. The US you have the floor.

US: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I would like to also thank our UK colleagues for their very constructive suggestions. I’m afraid that we continue to not make progress on the title,  and we are maybe not using our time as efficiently as we could be, and reflect on further paragraphs. I would like to just offer one last thought before we have to move on if that is what you think might work best, and that is just what I started my intervention at the outset which is that we have now continuously reacted to the most recent proposals we have received and we have continued to offer versions based on that. I understand that perhaps our colleagues are not in a position to react in real-time, and do need to consult with capital, of course, that is perfectly understandable, and so perhaps we could ask or respectfully request that due consideration be given to the versions that we offered at the outset of the consideration of this resolution. It is my understanding they have not been previously considered in the capital of all countries. I would just like to offer that as an idea, but really, we are in your hands, Chair.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from the US. I will prefer to go to the other parts in which we have already agreements. Could you please indicate to me where are? So can move them and put those paragraphs that are already agreed in informal. Can we ask the Iranian delegation to express its position in this paragraph? Iran, you have the floor.

Iran: Thank you Mr. Chair. My colleagues were supposed to take charge of this resolution, but our position on this paragraph is clear. Here it is CND resolution and it’s not this party. We are not in human rights concern like the General Assembly, to talk about human rights here, to bring up these relevant paragraphs. We would like to strongly records to be deleted from the resolution. Thank you.

Chair: Portugal you have the floor. 

Portugal: The way you are conducting these works for us this paragraph makes sense and we believe that all the landmark documents of the CND haven’t mentioned human rights, although they were negotiated in Vienna and several times also approved (most recently 2019), so  I don’t think that argument holds that much water in our view, not only human rights and rule of law applied to all aspects of drug policy as in this case that we are talking about control of substances that will entail or might entail rules and procedure rules. These rules and procedures need to be in accordance with the rule of law and the rule of law requires that legal processes are consistent with human rights, and this is usually peaceful across the world, so we very much would like to keep this paragraph. Thank you very much. 

Chair: Taking into account that there is no possibility to have an agreement just now with this, let’s move to the following one. I see, sorry, before doing that I see the US and then Sweden. First the US.

US: Thank you, Sir, I had requested the floor first to kind of try to introduce it, and I think that’s already been gone over by my distinguished colleague from Portugal, the initial proposal was from Portugal to include general UNGASS language on human rights then we had suggested some more specific language, which does mention supply reduction issues and that is the relevance to this resolution. That’s where we thought the relevance would come in, and then Iran had objected, and so we really were hoping that the EU delegation members could have a discussion with Iran and we would leave it in your hands, Chair, if we could come to an agreement here, but the initial idea was not from the USA, it was initially a Portuguese suggestion but we do see a connection with supply reduction issues. It’s quite clearly mentioned at the beginning so I had to introduce this stuff so that was my intention in raising my flag at first. I think there was another delegation in the room to that, he requested the floor after me.

Chair: Yes, Japan. Japan you have the floor.

Japan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I fully agree with the US delegate that this is a 26216 document and that is a special session for drug issues, so the proven and quite obvious is that this is really want to leave. So Japan supports this paragraph, and please add Japan after the portal. Thank you very much.

Chair: Sweden, you have the floor. 

Sweden: Would like to concur with our colleague from Portugal on the importance of keeping this paragraph, we also think as it has been amended in accordance with the UNGASS declaration that it fits well into this resolution. So please put our name also after Japan in support of this paragraph. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you very much. Please move to another paragraph. Nolan, please introduce the next paragraph.

US: Thank you, Sir. I might propose that we save this paragraph until last this is an extensive discussion between the Colombian delegation and the Iranian delegation. On the word impediments, our feeling is that if there’s no agreement and this is also similar to something we’ve said before and informals, if there’s no agreement then the sponsor could certainly deal with the entire paragraph. We might need to discuss this further later on in the discussion. Let’s please present all the paragraphs that were agreed on informal and let’s try to have the agreement here please. Thank you, Chair, just give me one moment to consult my notes. I just wanted to let you know that he requested that I jump in, we had the opportunity to discuss this paragraph in informals as is reflected on the screen and indeed we did agree to it this morning. So I believe we are ready to agree to it in the CoW as well. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from the US. So the paragraph PP7ALT version is approved, CoW let’s move to the following one. Yes, the US.

US: Just to say, I think we also reached an agreement on this one. The Chinese delegation showed some flexibility and we also at the end showed some flexibility to keep manufacturing heroin and cocaine, so hopefully, this one could be agreed upon in the CoW as well.

Chair: Thank you very much. I see no comments, let’s consider this one as approved in CoW. Let’s move to the following one PP21, comments on this paragraph, preamble of paragraph 21. I see none, let’s consider this one approve also approved in CoW let’s move to the following one very single delegate of China. China, you have the floor.

China: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to remind you that in some paragraphs like PP22 or some others, they still have some words they are discussing because of the title, so I just wanna remind you that. Thank you very much. 

Chair: Thank you very much. The US.

US: Thank you, Sir. I just wanted to point out that I think the next one was PP1. To respond to my distinguished colleague from China: Yes, we fully realize and acknowledge that the language that’s highlighted in yellow is corresponding to the need for further discussion in the title, and we will of course reflect whatever agreement that we have there. There are a number of those and we’ve tried to highlight them in yellow throughout. I said to reflect the agreement the PP 22 was not agreed upon due to reservations from the Russian Federation and the Turkish government we have some additional flexibility here that I think will solve the issue, and I’ll turn it over to my colleague in Washington DC to present our idea.

Chair: Go ahead.

US: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I asked my colleague just mentioned perhaps I’ll briefly offer additional edits that we hope will address at some of the reservations that were expressed, so I’m starting on the second line where it says within so where it says within there we would like to change that too within its treaty mandated roll and delete the US and then after the INCB, we would add as well as other relevant international organizations and entities, as appropriate. Thank you so much.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegate from the US. Comments about the paragraph P22 as it appears on the screen? Russia you have the floor.

Russia: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are grateful to the sponsors for showing flexibility and for trying to accommodate the concerns of many delegations including ours. We can work with the language proposed, we suggest to add also regional organizations because we believe that at least in our region there could be a role for such organizations in working on this issue, and another question would be we initially opposed the mentioning of but will not remain in this paragraph right if the show is deleted from. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you, distinguished delegator of Russia. Any other comments? OK, there are no comments, can we consider this one as a proving CoW. I see no objection to that let’s please consider approving. The US.

US: Thank you. I think we’re ready for 1 BIS, I think we agreed in principle to move that down to ALT 6 and combine 6 and one 1, I think that was the next one that was agreed in informals. Maybe we can just get an agreement that one this could be moved to  6 the combined version with.

Chair: Let’s see, but those partners are agreeing CoW, which one do you want? 

US: Sorry, Sir. I might have been a little confused. I just saw one bis still on the screen, so I think we can maybe just make sure that that’s accurately reflected. So maybe we can have a discussion there, I think maybe we can reach an agreement on the two alt and two alt bis, there were some reservations but maybe that has been agreed by now so let’s see if that’s the case. 

Chair: OK, let’s consider the operative paragraph to hold first any comments on this, there are two reservations soon. Iran and China preserve this paragraph can I know your position about this paragraph? Please China, on the floor.

China: Thank you, distinguished Mr. Chair. They have been divided and it’s just from article 13 and it is totally the same as the original text. Then we may agree with that however, it just has a very important message of something they have omitted, a very important clause here in the original text. They have the substance listed in table one and table two, and it was in the original text. It was read as that the manufacture transport or distribution of equipment materials or of substances listed in table one and table two after that they have been knowing that they are to be used in, so it’s from the third line from the bottom between materials and knowing that between them they should be one sentence substance listed in table one and table two that’s from the original text. 

China: On substances, there is an o between distribution and off, I mean from the original text follow… there is no o before materials it’s just a comma, no no no no, I mean the materials is before or after distribution I noticed the transport manufacture, transport or distribution, yeah I’m sorry of equipment. That was exactly from the original text in a convention. Thank you. 

Chair: Thank you very much. Any comments? Iran you have the floor.

Iran: Thank you, Sir. Good evening dear colleagues, in the informal, I told the colleagues that we have no objection with all two all pieces, so I don’t know why they put around the reserve on this, and regarding the addition made by distinguished colleagues from China, we have no problems to withdraw our reservation. Thank you. 

Chair: Thank you very much, distinguish delegate of Iran. The US.

US: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. We would like to propose additional edits to this paragraph, we heard many concerns previously about reflecting articles in this in their entirety. I would like to recall that we already cited the obligation contained in this particular paragraph in its entirety in the PPs, and so when we approached this particular OP, we did so with the intention to focus specific action on a particular aspect of our obligations that we find to be most relevant to our resolution, and therefore we very intentionally focused this OP on that aspect of the treaty obligations, therefore since we continue to hear concerns that perhaps we are not reflecting, the article in its entirety although. I would like to note that we are indeed reflecting it precisely and accurately. We would then suggest striking in accordance with article 3 of the 1988 convention and focusing on calling upon member states to adopt such measures. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 

Chair: Let’s try to approve this paragraph as it is. (PP11)

Russia: We definitely understand what is meant when you talk about such factors, as education, families, etc. our preference would be to have here the same categories as I mentioned in the international standards on prevention on the page 2 and namely individual and environmental factors risk and protective. As I understand environmental covers both communities and society so individual is something related to a person, and everything the rest relates to environmental factors and in our view this is also element which is used in the standards and which would be, I hope, acceptable for other colleagues thank you.

Chair: any comments on this? I see no coments.

USA: We are keeping language that is found in the standards and we hope that we can continue that that approach elsewhere where it does come up I would just note that the reference that was just made to individual and environmental is found in the standards. It is from page two of the standards, which provides a general overview of the entire spectrum of drug prevention activities and these references to social environments and things like that occur specifically in the part of the standards beginning in Page 11 that deals with infancy and early and middle childhood, so, again we would prefer to keep social, as I said, we’re prepared to accept. Thanks to UNODC for the explanation of how these individual factors interact with the social and environmental factors but we would really request to leave in social following the intervention that we just received from you and UNODC on the importance of the social environment, but we could go along with it as it is presented here: individual, social and environmental risk and protective factors. Thank you chair

UK: Thank you very much Mr. Chair I’d just like to concur with our distinguished colleague from the United states. I think it’s a good compromise if we go for individual, social and environmental risk and it also reflects the presentation that we had from the UNODC which I think is respectful. Thank you very much.

Chair: any other comments?

Can we consider as approved and agreed this paragraph, PP11, as it is on the screen?

I see no comments. I see RUSSIA

RUSSIA: So according to the explanation provided, he believes that social is a part of environmental factors. In this regard our proposal is individual and environmental including social. We would like to indicate that social factors are part of an environment .

Chair: thank you delegation of Russia. Any comments on this?

Ok let’s try again. No comments? Agreed in CoW PP11

SLOVENIA:  Next will be PP11Bis about social marginalization. It provides settings for defining social marginalization and then OP2 and OP 5

Chair: Can I ask Canada with regard to the reservation of this paragraph. PP11bis

Canada: from Iran asking for the deletion can we ask those two delegations to present their current position or their countries on this issue?

Chair: turkey 1st and then Iran

Turkey: This social marginalization from OP2 to end and that’s why it was proposed like PP 11 bis but unfortunately as we mentioned also in the previous meetings the term social marginalization is a very controversial term and we cannot find any reflection in our national system that’s why our position is the same we want to delete this paragraph to get there with mentioning social marginalization in OP 2 and 5. Thank you

IRAN: We have the same observation that my colleagues from the Turkish said .

Usa: In previous discussions that we just had, we do think that it’s important that our work here is driven by science and evidence, and in that regard, we would draw the attention to again page 11 of the of the international standards on drug use prevention which I think we have all agreed represents the best available evidence from science on prevention, which refers to the fact that children may develop vulnerabilities interalia through difficulties associated with poor health or financial or other hardships, especially in a socially or economically marginalized environment or a dysfunctional family setting. The standards are quite clear that a socially or economically marginalized environment. It is a key risk factor notably using the word, especially to indicate that this is particularly relevant in the interest of being driven by the science. We suggest that we keep this reference to social marginalization from this resolution that was agreed by everyone just last year again. Here we’re simply recalling this resolution and it was adopted by consensus last year and it is relevant based on the international standards. So our preference, our strong preference, would be to keep this paragraph and also to keep the references to socially and economically marginalized environments related to the vulnerability of children to substance use disorders later in the resolution.

Australia: We support the intervention from our US colleague precisely on the grounds that this terminology in this is taken from the prevention standards, and we also note that the issue, as a colleague mentioned has been included in previous resolution resolutions in in previous CNDs we also note that whilst it might be considered by some delegates as terminology that’s contentious again we will refer to the outcome document at the 2016 United Nations General Assembly special session on the world drug problem where and it’s actually one referred to earlier where we talk about evolving reality trends and existing circumstances emerging insistent challenges and threats where it is intensify efforts and I’ll then cut to including unemployment and social marginalization so again we find that his term that is referenced as an important issue in relation to the prevention standards. It’s a well recognized term in the prevention science which we refer to and it’s also referenced in the 2016 United Nations General Assembly, so this is not language that’s not accepted language. It’s language that’s used in the General Assembly it’s language that’s used in previous CNDs. it’s language that’s also used almost exactly by UNODC in the prevention standards. Thank you, chair

CANADA: They don’t want to go on for too long because I believe my colleagues. From both the United States and Australia have set out the very strong rationale of why this paragraph is quite important is as they mentioned throughout previous resolutions policy documents as well as prevention standards themselves. EP 11 this is verbatim text previously approved by member states last year and a show of flexibility Canada would be supportive of the proposal by the United States and OP 2, so we will withdraw our proposed language in OP 2, related to social marginalization, and is related with some of the discussions that have happened over the past week.

Denmark: I’m puzzled about this discussion besides all the arguments which are already mentioned by my previous speakers I honestly don’t understand but what was explained here some of the distinguished delegates always stick to the concept of talk, of using this language. I mean we just call now here the title of the resolution which was adopted by the single last year and I’m sorry but the title talks about social marginalization. We just cannot delete it now it’s just the title of the resolution and secondly, well, unfortunately I lost the picture off of the text but as far as I remember now there’s certainly last lines according to national legislation. So if a member state does not have a national legislation or a concept or whatever, I don’t understand the rationale behind the discussion now here in germany also very much supports the attempt of this PP and we would also like to keep this thank you very much

Turkey: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman ,very briefly, I want to just explain some points. First of all it is very surprising to see that the allegations who had the tendency to change the very angry term world drug problem into work drug situation is now defensing a great language the second point is that regarding the discussions we had for the resolution 64/5 we had a paragraph which was trying to define the term social marginalization and I very well remember that in this paragraph it was mentioning people with black color woman and people from other religions. This term was an agreed term but until last year we had no problem with this term but after seeing the discussions that we conducted here and how it is interpreted by some delegations in a very discriminative way. Unfortunately a big hesitation occurred in several delegations for this term. In this regard it is not acceptable for my country re on such a discriminative actually maybe it was not discriminative in the beginning part, after last year, it became unfortunately very discriminative and labeling of people so after how we see that how it was evaluated by some delegations this formulation is not acceptable.

RUSSIA: each year so we know that current resolution have different favorite agreed language. In this sense, we probably could propose to consider PP 11 bis and PP 11 tre together because we know that some delegations had reservations with regard to one of the paragraphs and it may be a fair compromise to agree on both of them, but I don’t know whether this proposal could be acceptable for other delegations but in our view both paragraphs contain agreed land which and present different or concepts which are close to the heart or different deliberations thank you

Chair: lets think about the recent proposal made by Russia, and to consider both of them PP11bis and PP11ter. Any comments? Slovenia

Slovenia: Of course solutions like this are always appealing to me if we would do this we could solve a couple of issues and this would also mean solving an issue in OP 2, just to explain now that we are also referencing P 11tre there was a reference to the text you see in PP 11 sure and OP 2 and the delegations decided to work rather on a PP so we would propose this was the chair’s proposal to delete the text. I can reference later in OP 2 and move it as a PP but if we could include this into PP 11 bis something, as a facilitator, I would welcome thank you

CANADA: We are going to demonstrate extreme flexibility and can go forward with the proposal by the Russian delegation to keep both paragraphs in the PP as long as it’s also acceptable to all member states if PP11 cannot remain, then we would have to even keep our reservation with PP 11.

RUSSIA: Technical amendment which we would like to propose in 11 keep it for me reaffirming and in the outcome document it was used our determination and we also have the same in some resolutions reaffirming our determination and in the third line reaffirming also reaffirming and in 11 BC I believe the issue of the introductory ward is to open so England probably we could use recalling as with regards to other scenes resolutions thank you and evidence based it should be written through hyper is it in there second line from the bottom and every one more time evidence right thank you

TURKEY: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman we cannot agree on such a proposal at this point we want to reserve at that point and come back to this issue later on thank you

UK: Thank you very much Mr. Chair and I can understand this looks like a good compromise and we’re not gonna stand in its way I just think the last amendment by the Russian Federation to change its to Howard determination is slightly over stating our position in that we don’t really agree with the with the general premise of this PP but we can agree with agreed to it and i think it’s refers to the commission whereas our refers to member states so if we could go back to its we would appreciate it thank you

USA:  it did take me a few minutes to go through this resolution 64 / 5 and I can’t find the list of people that was referenced by the distinguished delegate from Turkey so I’m confused as to what specifically this reservation is based on again this reservation this resolution was adopted by consensus and was agreed to and the resolution means precisely what is in the resolution I don’t think that it is not in the resolution it can be a basis for discussion on this resolution so we are very confused by that statement and again our preference would not need to to link these two together but we won’t stand in the way of emerging consensus I think we would agree with the UK what they just said now reaffirming his determination is is more consistent with how we talk about the Commission and I think that in the third line at the end I think that would need to be changed it’s as well just consistent with how we talk about these things in the Commission so that’s our perspective at this point thank you chair OK thank

Chair: paragraphs need more work I wonder if the distinguished delegate on the Slovenian delegators, you know, could indicate us if there is any other pending matter but before that, I give the floor.

RUSSIA: since resolution 64 -5 which sounded nations. I’ll be the link to refer to 11 bis including nine of these resolution are reused reaffirming our determination and twice so we believe that if we agree to these a couple one year ago a problem to use the same terminology in this in the resolution as he’s here so this is a great plan which goes from the ungass outcome document and also the grid language used in their information seen here is 64-5. Our preference is to keep our determination here thank you in both cases

Chair: I ask Slovenia to indicate to us which are the next points

Slovenia: Because we have addressed the social determinants and we have now a compromised language here so we could move to OP1. OK let’s move to a big one and you see we have bracketed in the red so we would delete this and we would write social and environmental, including social risk and protective factors. This is the last thing that was open in the paragraph so it is ready for adoption.

Chair: any comments? No?

OP1 approved in the CoW

 

Slovenia

OP2

So if PP11TER  is to stay where it is we would need to delete the bracket that in the lower part of the para it says also connected to PP11 and it’s bracketed so we would need to delete that if PP 11 with the state and then we also need to address again the question of social marginalization that you see bracket that in the upper part of this paragraph.  And there’s a facilitator I would propose, perhaps a solution here and this is language agreed language from last year’s resolution and we would say especially for people impacted by social marginalization and we would delete the rest.

Chair: comments on this proposal?

Russia: important element here. We lose the focus on early prevention if we are continue to work on the mission proposal secondly we believe that the issue of social marginalization has been covered or almost has been covered in the preamble are part of this resolution we cannot agree to such a broad formulation and in this sense we believe that the proposal mistake, and it was a proposal of Turkey: vulnerable members of society especially children, was the most elegant and clear solution here and the language on ground vulnerable members of society, especially or including children. It was taken from the last year’s resolution 64-3. Thank you chai.

TURKEY: I was about to mention is already very elegantly explained by the Russian delegate and our position is the same, the object of using social marginalization here in PP 11 in OP 5 that we will object and even if it is necessary we can even delete these paragraphs. Thank you very much.

USA: Thank you chair. This is another example of where we do think that it’s important to be led by the evidence and led by the standards, and indeed, the standards do single out socially or economically children in an economically or socially marginalized environment as being particularly vulnerable so with that in mind I think we could go along with the suggestion of vulnerable members of society, as long as we were able to retain, especially among children and socially and economically marginalized environments, and once again this is coming it’s a direct quote from the standards we heard that it was important for many delegations to retain quotes, direct quotes, from the standards so we hope that we can get support for this once again being led by science in our deliberations here and going where the evidence leads. Thank you chairman

COLOMBIA: Colombia also agrees with this proposal by EU, maybe we can agree in the use of the term vulnerable or marginalized members of society that’s a language that comes from the General Assembly resolution 76 / 136, Thank you

AUSTRALIA: It’s the proposal made by the USA, which includes compromising language, which still communicates the key issues that are critical to effective prevention. Thank you chair

Chair: thank you very much distinguished ambassador of Australia.

SLOVENIA: I believe this was language that you originally included in the draft resolution which we were quite supportive of and then through multiple discussions that we’ve had over the past, essentially three weeks, we were trying to find as Member states some new language that would work and as I mentioned before in my previous intervention in PP11, and about the expression of flexibility by Canada. We would need open to the United states language of vulnerable members of society especially in children. Socially and economically marginalized environments using language that is recognized by all from the standards, and we would support that type of language.

Uk: We support the remarks by the US as we also believe this is a very important concept

Russia: We have one more question which does not relate to different options but it’s more about the message we would like to send here, to expand capacity of vulnerable members of society. I’m not fully sure that I understand is this sense of this message or do they mean capacity of people who work with vulnerable members of society, I would appreciate an additional clarification in this. We want to be precise in terms of what we need here thank you.

Chair: any more comments? No.

Slovenia: We would just tackle the last lines of the paragraph as we already have a consensus solution on this so as you see in the third and second line from the bottom, we have the social and environmental determinants again and we would again use the agreed language in previous years and that would be starting addressing another individual, social and environmental is… I’m sorry I’ve read the wrong line. It’s also getting late to me so I am addressing this small bug individual and environmental, including social risk and protective factors.

Chair: can we accept that paragraph as agreed in principle?

See no request for the floor so basically taking into account that we already agree on that formulation in another paragraph, I think it is agreeable here also today. I thank you very much to all

USA: We want to build consensus and compromise on this text and we announce that the United states would like to Cosponsor this text and we have prepared and sent an over ball in that regard to the secretariat.

CHAIR: other comments? No. Thank you. Good night.

AUSTRALIA: Thank you for your chairing and for our colleagues on the delegates who acted to ensure we end up with a much better resolution and we particularly thank you for your chairing and and wish you well

El Salvador: We would like to co-sponsor the resolution.

Honduras: We also want to express our interest to cosponsor the resolution.

México: we are working together with Iran with our colleague which has already left, you will understand that we both have to consult our capitals and with the time difference between Tehran and Mexico City, they agreed to call each other tomorrow morning to confirm whether we can have a solution. If that is the case, my suggestion, my kind request to you under the secretariat would be to allow us to let you know if we have that final fix very half step but we need to get in order to finish our resolution and to be called to be someone to the couch at that point as soon as possible to finish and to actually liberate the room for other resolutions that perhaps need a little bit more time and attention at the count so that would be my kind request and of course as soon as I get word through my capital, I’m here and I would let you know what is the outcome, particularly if it’s a positive

Chair: I will prefer to start at 10 with Slovenia, and then at 11 the Mexican resolution, and in the evening the L7 resolution.

Colombia: we want to inform that our government has decided to cosponsor this resolution, so please add our names to the list of countries. Thank you.

Chair: I wonder if there are other interventions. No. Thank you, good night.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.