Home » Resolution L5. Strengthening information-sharing to increase international scheduling and the implementation of scheduling decisions

Resolution L5. Strengthening information-sharing to increase international scheduling and the implementation of scheduling decisions

Monday afternoon session 

Chair: It is my pleasure to chair the session of this committee. And I’m confident that we would work together to bring the important work of the committee to good results in accordance with the agenda and organization of work contained in document L1. This committee would have eight meetings starting this afternoon, through the morning of Friday 17th March.

In accordance with established practice, the Commission will consider draft resolutions in the committee of the room before they are submitted to the plenary. We will suspend our work on Wednesday morning, when the commission will address changes in control of substances and agenda item five and voting will take place in person. Before we proceed, I’d like to inform you that only resolutions finalized before 6pm will be edited and made available in all languages. Texts that are approved after that will be presented in plenary without editing in English only. 

As you’re aware, the chairs modality resolution is L2 on preparations for the midterm review to be held during the 67th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2024. It was agreed in informal consultations and will be considered by the plenary for adoption. 

Today I intend to first discuss the draft resolution contained in document is L5 and titled strengthening information sharing to increase international shuttling and implementation of shuttling decisions tabled by the United States followed by L3 entitled promoting alternative development as a development oriented Drug Control Strategy, taking into account measures to protect the environment, and recognizing the rights of indigenous people tabled by Germany Peru and and Thailand. 

USA: Today we continued our informals just prior to this session of the Committee of the Whole currently our resolution is still undergoing its first read through believe we went through O P five today. To date I believe we have only two paragraphs agreed in formals. So we are making slow progress to date. That’s where we are at the moment. Thank you.

Chair: In that case, I would like to suggest that we begin going through the resolution draft resolution from PP1, Is that agreeable? Are there any comments on PP1? I understand that some are calling for a major summer insistent that it shouldn’t be. Some have given alternative rendition. And so I’d like us to make some progress here. 


Australia: Thank you Chair I’m just in regards to the PP1 and PP2 to being merged suggested by some member states. Could you just add Australia after France, please. We’d like to make sure they’re separate. Thank you. 

USA: Thank you so much chair. I would just like to reference PP1 and PP2 . There was a spirited discussion about PP1 and PP2 and their possible merging but there was also a discussion about PP1 specifically and obligations, versus commitments versus goals and objectives, etc.

Chair: Thank the United States with that comment are we in agreement that we move on to consider PP1 and 2

Russia: We’d like to congratulate you on your election to chair the CoW of the 66th session of CND. And we wish you every success and we pledge you our full support. We are ready to work constructively on all the draft resolutions submitted. Read guarding the first line of the preambular paras my delegation had proposed to merge the first and second paragraphs because they are both about the three drugs conventions, and their goals. My delegation can be flexible and be constructive, and consider the possibility of subdividing the paragraphs.But to do we will wait and see what the second PP will look like. So we’d like to begin with PP2. 

Chair: Any more comments? Am i to understand we have agreed with what the Russian Federation has just said, if there are no comments – silence can mean consent. I give the floor to USA

USA: Thank you, Chair. I think we’re a bit confused. We were hopeful we could make some progress on PP1. but our understanding now is the there’s one delegation who doesn’t want to confirm PP1 but wants to see where we are with PP2 before we do it. If that is the will of the room, I suppose we could do that. But, you know Chair it would be our preference that we use this time in the CoW constructively and we reach consensus on each of the paragraphs as we go through them so that we can meet our deadline by this Friday to have an agreed text. Thank you chair. 

UK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I have to agree with our distinguished delegate from the United States and it is unusual to try and hold some paragraphs hostage against future discussions when we can have a constructive discussion on this paragraph here. And just to note that there is widespread support for this paragraph. So maybe we could find a way to use the time here wisely. Thank you. 

Chair: We are beginning from PP1 as I said, Now, some have recommended a measure, do we deal with the matched text in BP or two.  Do we deal with the merged text in PP1 or 2 If not, then we should then proceed with PP1.  Before we move on to PP2 then terms of chronology and coherence that’s how we approach things and so if and as I as I heard the Russian Federation saying, it will support me in the discharge of my duties and I don’t take that lightly at all. And so I give the floor to you.

Russia: My delegation doesn’t really understand why we’re being over accused of preventing progress. We’ve participated in all the informal consultations and we’ve tried to find a solution to all of the paragraphs. The only thing was that I asked for something regarding paragraphs one and two that basically took about the same thing, the three drugs conventions. That’s why we wanted to merge PP1 and 2. I know some delegations don’t agree, Therefore, as we have an issue with the second, PP, which is not a clear representation of the aims of the convention. We have a proposal for that, which I hope will be okay with the other delegations. And then, if, if that works, then I’m sure we can accept the first PP, thank you.

Chair: Thank you to the Russian Federation, are we in agreement to consider PP2 at this moment. Am i right to think the US wants to take the floor?  It is so decided that we should proceed with PP or two to see if we can make progress. Any comments?

Russia: Regarding PP1alt2 my delegation would like to propose the following. We would delete the first line, starting with its commitment to implement. Then we think that the main sense of this draft resolution is to reaffirm obligations arising from the three drugs conventions. As we know the this draft resolution talks about scheduled substance and obligations to implement them that we think we have to begin with obligations. And then in the second paragraph, explain how to fulfill those requirements. Thank you

Chair: I want to get something from the Russian Federation. Which second paragraph are you referring to in your session?

Russia: So my delegation based on your recommendation has made its recommendations or suggestions on the text on the screen. so PP1alt2 that is what we were talking about.

USA: As I stated during informals and as I would like to reiterate now and I failed to have this reference in front of me a couple of minutes ago. Our proposed alt is agreed text from OP1 of resolution 65/3. So we are using text that was agreed to I believe only last year in this body and it is very important to the United States to not only reaffirm our commitment to reaffirm obligations but also commitments because the goals because the treaties are inherently about the health and welfare of humankind. And so when we discuss the goals and objectives that is what we are referring to and that is fundamental to what we are trying to achieve both of course in this body and doing a disservice to all if we only discuss implementing the obligations and so it is our very strong preference to retain this agreed language on one year ago and discuss both our commitment to achieving the goals and objectives but as well as the implementing the obligations. 

Iran: Thank you Chair regarding PP where we talk about obligation, so we can put underscoring the obligation arising from or if the sponsor wants to have the commitment also we can reaffirming the commitment and before obligation putting under and under obligation arising from. 

Chair: I thank distinguished delegates of Iran for those comments. I’d like to find out from the Russian Federation, whether they are okay with the amendments made by Iran. 

Russia: And let me to point out that on the goals of the convention, we’re talking about that in the second paragraph of the resolution in the preamble or section that’s on the convention. Thus, we think there’s a duplicate. We should focus the first paragraph on obligations in the second on the goals and objectives that convention so that was the proposal of my delegation. Basically, that was the reason that we had proposed the beginning of the second para as such that is discussed the goals and objectives and then the obligations however, the committee decided otherwise and we are ready to work on the paragraph in the manner in which it is they’ve been prevented, presented, but we don’t think that the goals and objectives of the convention should be mentioned in two neighboring paragraphs. That’s duplication. Thank you. 

Chair: I give the floor to Iran, but I must say that we have to make progress, and we shouldn’t focus on language, so much, we need to make progress, and I hope that the distinguished delegate of Iran is going to help us make progress

Iran: My addition was after up of underscoring in the implementation of obligations arising from just the underscoring the implementation of the obligation. 

Chair: Are there any other comments? is that to suggest that we’ve agreed on, on what Iran has proposed?

Russia: For the commission, it would be rather strange to emphasize the implementation of obligations, which are precise or the obligations to themselves and reaffirm them in the resolution. For that reason, my delegation is not going to be able to go along with Iran’s proposal, and would like to reserve our position with respect to the goals and objectives of the conventions in this paragraph. So the part that is on the goals and objectives, because, as we see it, we could reflect this in the second paragraph.

Mexico: Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon to you and your colleagues. And, Mr. Chairman, we are fully aware that you requested us to work on PP1 and PP2. But with your permission let me explain why we have we requested to change the PP because it’s related to the discussions that we’re having pretty much in circles. and why precisely we requested to change the beginning of PP2, as new PP1, for reducing underscoring instead of reaffirming, so perhaps by addressing that, then we will be able to go back and to fine tune the drafting for the current PP1.  So basically what we wanted to highlight it has been mentioned once and again is that we’re bringing out the essence the purpose of the of the conventions. And then why it would be important, but actually it would be better for people to be the new way. PP1 that is why because we’re referring to the essence or the purpose of the conventions, we would be underscoring it and not reaffirming. We don’t need to reaffirm the purpose and the nature, the essence of the conventions. And then the new PP1alt2 would reaffirm the obligations, the specific concrete obligations contained in the conventions. So that’s the rationale of our our delegates. And if I’m understanding that is basically the rationale being pursued also by Russia, and others. So, we express the spirit of the conventions, and we don’t want, we don’t need to reaffirm the spirit, but rather to underscore it are highlighted and then we reaffirm the concrete obligations containing the conventions.

Chair: To the delegate of Mexico – my question is we are altering the initial idea of working in some coherence. I am wondering whether you’d like us to put that on the screen to see whether we would reach some agreement on this formula paragraph. Regrettably, we cannot get Egypt online. There’s technical problems so I give the floor to my honorable chair. 

Colombia: At this point, who like to support a Mexico’s proposal of putting these paragraphs.

Russia: The Russian Federation fully is committed to concerns regarding the health and welfare of Russian citizens and the government of the Russian Federation attaches great importance to this issue. However, we would like to note that based on the conventions, human health and welfare are not the only minor concerns. We wouldn’t like that to be lost when we set out the objectives and goals of the conventions, which is what’s happening in this form, wording and for that reason, we propose instead of the wording which is now on the screen. We would use agreed language from the outcome document of the special session of the General Assembly on drugs 2016. It is in PP2 of the document. I’ll read it in English.  “We reaffirm our commitment to the goals and objectives of the three international drug control conventions, including concern about the health and welfare as well as individual and public health related social and safety problems resulting from the abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in particular among children and young people, and related crime, and we reaffirm our determination to prevent event and counter their illicit cultivation and trafficking.”

Chair: Is this for PP1 or PP2 only? 

Russia: As I understand, I think we’ve gotten it confused because we’ve changed the order. The para I proposed is going to replace the paragraph that is proposed by Mexico, what was discussed by Mexico, so it is the old PP2 now PP1alt3.  And my proposal only pertains to that para.

USA: I confess that I am a little confused why certain agreed language is more acceptable than other agreed language. Of course, this suggestion comes from the UNGASS outcome document, far be it from us to reject that. However, I think we need an additional moment to make a determination as to what we as the sponsor prefer. Again, I’m not sure that what was agreed to a year ago is now objectionable. I’m under the understanding that they are all on the same level. I also point to the single convention preamble line one concerned with the health and welfare of mankind. We are certainly of the agreement that the conventions referred to many different goals and objectives and certainly obligations what we are saying with this particular paragraph indeed the first paragraph is that at the foundation of the conventions, we are concerned about health and welfare of humankind. And we cannot implement obligations from the conventions without knowing the purpose of which we implement those obligations and the purpose or the goals and objectives are for the health and welfare of humankind. So I continue to be a little bit confused. and the sponsor would like to have an additional moment to consider this Thank you. 

Chair: I would like to have a few comments on this proposal while the United States reflects on this matter. I give the floor to the USA again.

USA: Thank you Chair for giving us the floor again, just one more comment.  Adding on to what my distinguished colleague said about health and welfare as the foundation.  I can understand I think we can understand some concern on the Russian delegations part about any ambiguity that we’re just focused on health, but when I read the proposed paragraph from the Russian Federation, all of the things that I see are really about welfare, safety of children, young people, and drug related crime. I and I think the reason that we strongly believe that this degree language the health and welfare of humankind gets to exactly what I think our our colleague from Russia would like to see is that welfare is a much more, all encompassing word than health, and it does cover all of the things safety prevention all of those things lead to welfare. So, thank you Chair.

Chair: I turn the delegate of the United States any more comments. I do not think this room is short of ideas, and I do not think we are talking about different things, The problem is that we want it in a particular way. I would yield the floor to Egypt in the hope that you would solve this crisis, and not worsen it. 

Egypt: Thank you, Chair. and thank you and I will try to have a new PP for this issue because I think you know, we need to move on. There’s other parts that are more important also in this resolution. So, this comes from an agreed language from 64/3.   Reaffirming the obligations contained in the single convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. As amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 convention, and then the 1988 convention, common in which states parties express concern for the health and welfare of humankind. And I think this can take that also all PP1, I think with PP2, and we can move forward with this concise and straightforward

Chair: Thank Egypt for that recommendation, and the comments of this.  And I would like to actually refer my question to the Russian Federation. Do you have any comments on this?I want to hear from the United States because the paragraph as proposed by Egypt as an alternative to what was proposed by the sponsors would work well for our delegation and we can go with it, I want us to get to some agreement on this. But if you would wish to ponder over what Egypt has suggested, you have the right to do so.

USA: Thank you, chair. We do appreciate the suggestion from our distinguished colleagues of Egypt but to us it’s not a compromise because we’ve previously stated that one of the references we would like to see in this resolution is a reference to the aims and objectives are the goals and objectives of the of the convention. And this particular proposal omits that. So we would like to go back to our previous proposal, which was also agreed language, to see if the room would be supportive of that. Thank you

Chair: thank the United States for that comment.I would like to ask whether there is any difficulty on goals and objectives And is there we that we could put in those goals and objectives and the recommendation that has been made

Egypt: Thank you chair. I would like also to put here that this is also a great language. The problem is that both of them are good language, but how to move forward. Okay. This is the problem that is facing us which is the objectives and goals, while the obligations have both the goals and objectives. So I think it doesn’t take out this issue because I think through obligations we have, we have goals and objectives that we’re obligated to do. So I think this is compromised text, and we can move forward, because I think the resolution is very long, 

Uruguay: I think that bringing things here today that took us a long time to agree on in the past doesn’t really help much. We already talked about goals and objectives in the past. And the best way to do things is to keep PP1 and PP2, the way they were without any kind of change. So we would like to keep them as they were

Chair: I thank the distinguished delegate of Uruguay and I appreciate the way you will reverse process at this time. What I do not quite understand is to the agreed language, but why wouldn’t we have a compromised by an agenda? Would that alter the original intent of PP1 would that be in would Russian Federation have a problem with that? Or do you call it suggestions that you make in agreed language? I need us to make some progress. We cannot be going round on this issue for a long time. 

USA: If we could take that first clause from PP1 to the reaffirming its commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of and then add that into PP1alt5 in the beginning, and then and continue with and its obligations 

Chair: Is there any allergy on the use of those words? I give the floor to the Russian Federation. 

Russia: My delegation can definitely work with the text when it comes to English and what the commission is. And for that we’d like to replace it in the first line with reaffirming their commitment and then before obligations should also be there. Then I’m wondering, if the Commission decides to adopt the paragraph, will that mean that PP2  would be deleted or we’re going to continue discussing it?

Chair: I thank the distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation, but I would want you to answer that question for me because I have seen elements of PP2 in the PP1. And so what do you make of it? Does it mean we should repeat PP2 or we should keep it as this, and delete PP2?

Russia: Chairman, that we actually my question. So if the paragraph is replacing PP1 and PP2 then the Russian Federation agrees with that, because the content of both paras have been merged into one. And then I just basically wanted confirmation PP2 is going to be deleted. 

Chair: Thank you, the distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation. Other comments at this stage on what we have on screen 

USA: We would confirm that it would be our intent that this paragraph would then replace both the first and second and I believe that because of the way we have formulated this now in the second to last line where we say express it probably should be past tense so it expressed concern. And in the first line, with the recent change, perhaps instead of saying reaffirming the commitment, it should be reaffirming the commitment of Member States.

Chair: I want to ask one simple question. And that simple question should be given as simple as Do we agree to the text as it is? And if there are no objections, No comments. It means we have agreed.  It is so decided.


Russia: We expect that during the informals ‘for full implementation of the three international drug control conventions’. The reason was that as you can see, recently, a number of countries and delegations feel the conventions can be implemented partially. So we think that this is an important addition we could though be flexible and you will see agreed language of the UNGASS outcome document. As the co sponsor said this is agreed language and so we’d support it. Thank you. 

Chair: So it seems to me that you agreed to PP3. And if I do not hear any comments, the gavel will fall, are we in agreement?  I give the floor to the distinguished delegate of China.

China: Thank you Mr Chair.  We believe that the domestic legislation should be added because countries around the world while implementing drug related policies should follow their domestic legislations. 

Chair: The delegate of China –  any more comments?  Before I give the floor to the United States of America. I’d like to pose the question to China – is it very critical to have the domestic legislation there. Other than maintaining a great language, is it something you cannot do away with that it ought necessarily to be in the texts? Because that is the only thing which, in my view, as I look into the room is holding a zone. And if it is something that we can do away with. Would you be considerate for us to proceed. 

China: We believe we can preserve this language if you can allow Mr. Chair. We would like to have a couple of minutes to consider that if we can agree with the agreed language. 

Chair: United States of America would you still like to have the floor

USA: Thank you Chair. We withdrew our flag for that. 

Chair: Thank you to the United States. I now give the floor to Guatemala.

Guatemala: Thank you chair. We would just like to wait and for China’s answer to see if they can live with a paragraph as it stands in agreed language. If that is not the case, then we will have a comment to make, thankyou

Chair: And at this stage, I don’t know how much time we have today to let us make progress on issues.  Can we move onto the other paragraphs first?


Chair: I would like to ask questions if you are not willing to talk on issues that you have raised But before the United States will take the floor On this matter, I would like to ask, Iran whether they insist on the recommendation with regards to PP3bis

Iran: Please repeat.

Chair: Yeah, I think since you were distracted, you would make us move faster.  Could we do with the original language for PP3?

Iran: So please keep this paragraph, I also think they have consensus on this issue that we talk about internationally controlled substances not any other controls scheduled.

USA: If I may, I would like to briefly recall the discussion that we had during informals as I’m not sure everyone was present for that. And what we said was that when we refer to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We are actually referring to internationally controlled or to international controls because we’re referring to a narcotic drug under 1971 Convention.  When we use the phrase internationally controlled writ large, we bring in the concept of precursors, and I do recall that other delegations had mentioned this, as well. And so in fact, when we say the original phrasing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, we are already referring to internationally controlled items without the reference to precursors, which was the purpose of this particular PP as I understand it, as proposed by Australia If it is important to certain delegations to explicitly say internationally controlled. We can add internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to make it abundantly clear – and I wonder whether that is something that works. 

Egypt: Thank you Chair. I think in this paragraph we can know the intention of the USA in this particular paragraph. Maybe we can make it more general. So we propose to say, recalling all commitments, related to the availability of an access to controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes while preventing their diversion. And I think this is a good paragraph that can be considered by my colleagues, thank you.

Chair: I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt But I do not want us to enter into  new texts in that area. If we can add or subtract, that would be my preference. So we make progress. We have spent a lot of time not making much progress.

USA: Thank you chair just in an effort to hopefully clarify things. Article 12 of the single convention speaks about responsibilities of the board with respect to the availability of drugs for medical and scientific purposes, and the term used in the treaty is just ‘drugs’. As we are dealing with both the single convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on psychotropic substances, it would make sense to refer to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. and that is treaty language so again we would appeal to the room to rely on treaty language and accept the draft as it was, as it’s been proposed. 

Chair: Now on the screen we have internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Do we have any objection to it? And i believe Guatemala is going to help us move forward

Guatemala: Thank you chair, well for us it’s a bit difficult to understand the redundancy present in this paragraph.  What am I referring to when I see redundancy in the first line, we can read a key objective of the international drug control system.  So we are saying its the international system.  So, why do we need to talk about internationally controlled? Because we’re already referring to the internationally controlled system. Secondly, as the US delegation said, we could work with the languages or the language of the conventions. I do agree with the Islamic Republic of Iran that in documents and conventions the wording can be improved, but I’ve always said, Mr Chair, that you don’t make it stronger or better just by seeing it more times are repeating it more often. So we do not see the need to add internationally controlled drugs and psychotropic substances, because we’re already talking about the international drug control system. So, I don’t know if I’ve helped you, but that is my opinion. Thank you.


Chair: I thank the distinguished delegate of Guatemala, and I believe the United Kingdom is in this room.  The little I know about English language, is that tautology is a literary device and it is for emphasis, and so long as we can go by that redundant phrase, or do you call it in the the texts? If it doesn’t hit any one of us for compromise and for agreement? I do not think it’s a problem. What I’m asking and I believe you agree that if we can live by it. We should leave it or not start tearing it up, you know, and so. If we are okay, which that part of the PP3 bis as it is. I appreciate the alacrity with which the Russian Federation would like to affect that we okay with it. You have the floor.

Russia: I had wanted to note that this paragraph wasn’t finally agreed in the informal is actually my delegation. As you can see, we didn’t express our opinion on the para. We had considered that the sponsors of the resolution, we’re going to hold yet another round of informals so that the paragraph could be put into the form that would allow us to all agree with it because for my government, the matter of accessibility, for medical purposes is a main priority. So the wording that will be used in this paragraph is going to be very important for the Russian Federation. As the para stands now, it will be simpler to work on Egypt’s proposal because it’s more concise, ore user friendly and covers more issues and has less disputable points in it.Through you, Chairman, I’d like to call upon the sponsors to think about though if we shouldn’t discuss this 

Chair: If I would reiterate, my question relates to only internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and we want us to progress phase by phase. I don’t want us to take everything together. if that is okay with you. We would have made some progress. Is that part of the resolution, the PP3 bis. Okay, with the Russian Federation, or not. 

Russia: We’re in your hands naturally will follow the approach you suggest. But we think that the paragraph as a whole looks such that the Russian Federation could not agree with it. The internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, maybe in and of itself isn’t a problem for us, but if we agreed to that phrase, it doesn’t mean we can agree to the rest of the para because there are plenty of other issues in it. In particular, we’re talking about the objectives of the conventions which we just covered in PP1, so I don’t really think my delegation right now is going to be ready to just agree on that particular single phrase Thank you.

Chair: In fact, the more you talk, the more I get confused because in the first session, you indicated that you don’t have a problem with internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.If you don’t have a problem. With that we can proceed with the with other aspects of PP3bis, and then when we have agreed about what should be the ingredients and PP3bis You could then if you so wish, determine alternative language, which does not deviate on what we agreed to do. And so that it my approach. Any delegation would like to take the floor, other than what I have just spoken about?

I believe that silence is consent, but will go back to China

China: We will still prefer to keep the expression domestic legislation but we can also be flexible. Thank you Mr Chair. 

Chair: As you said you would be flexible we have chosen to leave that out. Is that okay with you ?

China: Yes

Chair: So that means that the room agrees with the text as, as an as is stated in PP3.  Now let’s move on with PP3 bis. Are there any further comments on that part of the resolution? Tthe Russian Federation indicated that it would not be able to go along with the rendition as it is in PP3 bis. But has no issues with internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. So if there are any further comments that you have on the PP3bis would be willing to hear those comments and any constructive suggestions, most importantly. I give the floor to the USA.

USA: Thank you chair. And we recognize that this paragraph got a little bit messy during informals. And so I would like to perhaps just clarify now that we have agreed on the phrasing in the first part or in the first clause. What would then follow what we would like to see as the sponsors is ensure the availability of an access to phrase for medical and scientific purposes, while preventing their diversion into illicit channels. and I just wanted to make that clear. Now that we have agreed to the first half, we can then proceed to the second half which was indeed dependent on the phrasing that we, we needed to agree to thank you 

Chair: I thank the United States. Any comments And when I say comments, I mean constructive those which will help us improve on the texts…and not commentary. If there are no comments should I take it that we have agreed to PP3bis as it is, i give the floor to the Russian federation.

Russia: Well, as I had said earlier, it would be preferable for us to work on the alternative that was proposed by Egypt. However, we’re mindful that other delegations prefer fine tuning the text that was proposed. During the informals.  So, that’s fine. We can work on that in a constructive manner as the Chair has urged, we would like to add after diversion into illicit channels and abuse. And with that addition, our delegation can consider the para.

Chair: I thank the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Any constructive comments on what the Russian Federation has said. I give the floor to Egypt.

Egypt: Thank you. Chair. I think the problem here is to state narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. So I believe in order to move along with this paragraph, maybe we can live with internationally controlled substances. And I think it takes all everything it takes narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and everything along. I think this is a good proposal from my side, that can be considered by all colleagues, thank you. 

Chair: Iran, is that okay?

Iran: It’s ok, thanks

Chair: And the USA?

USA:  Thank you chair we are taking one moment to consider this if you’ll indulge us for one second.

Australia: We cannot support the word abuse. Instead we would prefer to use illicit use. Thank you.

Chair: I thank the delegates of Australia. I would like to ask the delegate of the Russian Federation, whether illicit use is a substitute, is it okay for you. 

Russia: Thank you, Chairman. We’d like to point out to delegations that this wording is agreed language from an outcome document on the para having to do with their accessibility, diversion to illicit channels trafficking and abuse. Again, if we don’t want to be having a terminology session but this is agreed language.

USA: For the reasons that we offered previously, just using the phrase internationally controlled substances is not what we want to reference here. So again, narcotic drugs, drugs and psychotropic substances is treaty language. And that’s what we would prefer. And it would still refer to the internationally controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. And then secondly, we are using the word abuse is treaty language. we’re very sensitive to it because it has been used in ways that have contributed to stigma and ways that that are counterproductive to what we are trying to do, but we do recognize its treaty language and we think in this, in this context we could accept it.  Thank you chair.

Chair: I think we’ve come very far with PP3bis, but given the time at our hands, we would have to stop the consideration of this draft proposal for today. I hope that the agreement or convergence that we see on PP3bis will not be reversed, when we trake this up. Could the sponsors at this point inform the room when the next informal consultations is scheduled? 

USA: Thank you, Chair. My understanding is that the next informal consultation is tomorrow morning at 830 until 1030 in the Press Room. Thank you.

Chair: I thank the United States of America that I thought thank you all for your hard work this afternoon. I think I would appreciate if we move in a progressive manner as we consider the draft resolutions and as you know, going back and forth, would not help us.

We will now move onto L3 promoting alternative development oriented Drug Control Strategy, taking into account measures to protect the environment and recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples tabled by Germany, Thailand and Peru.  

We will take a couple of minutes.

Tuesday afternoon session

Chair: We’ve agreed to proceed with OPs that have been agreed in informals.


Russia: We understand this is agreed language. After WHO, we suggest inserting “and facilitate informed scheduling decisions by the CND” – we also propose removing the reference to the ECDD – since it’s not just that committee involved in that decision

Chair: Russia, as usual, I have questions – why didn’t you bring this up in formals? You were not there? Okay

UK: Russia wasn’t there today, we’ve been working tirelessly on this. We’ve been working on this for 3 weeks. This language is widely accepted by MS. What use is this language? Why do we need to make this change now?

Chair: In this house, I am the only one that asks questions – so please don’t ask any further questions. Russia – is this something that you very much need? In your statement, you stated clearly, that this is already agreed language, and that your purpose is to enhance it. Without your enhancement, would the language be damaged? Let it rest.

Russia: My delegation’s position is that the CoW is the body where we discuss submitted resolutions. By including this harmless wording, … if delegations object to this language, could you tell us why?

Chair: In the supreme interest of humanity, if the language is harmless, and if there is an opportunity in the future to enhance it, why don’t we just leave it? But having said that, I would ask the room, if there are any other comments, apart from the UK, at this juncture. Do we open it up, tear it up, adapt, multiply – or leave it as is?

China: Well, during informals 2-3 weeks ago, our colleagues from China were following up, and there is a time difference to Beijing. The consultations were online, and there are sometimes problems with the information. Therefore, even if it is written here, we still have the right to make amendments. Being present at the CND, we know there are informals alongside the COW, and we don’t have so many delegates to keep up with the meetings. Here, the COW is the last decision making organ. Sometimes we haven’t been able to participate – so even if it’s written agreed, it might not be agreed by everyone.

Chair: Other delegations agree with you – this is why I try not to send things back to informals. But here, in one breath, you tell us that it needs to be discussed here, and in the same breath, you say it should go back to informals. Do you have more language to give us? Why did you take the floor?

China: We just wanted to share our concerns – our opinion is that we should still be able to make amendments?

Chair: Do you have any substantive additions or subtractions to OP6?

China: OP6? Well, we think Russia is making the para richer, so yes, I think we can keep that.

US: I just want to make one clarifying note, as the chair of the informals. Throughout, the US has invited constructive contributions to the text, and we understand the difficulties working online, and with time difference. Re the challenges of the Chinese delegation, I reached out to the delegate, and she sent me suggestions. We’ve made every effort to provide opportunities for textual edits.

Chair: Do we agree is should remain as is?

US: With respect to the first proposal (to delete reference to ECDD) – we have concerns with this. There might be other offices that contribute, but the decisions are made by the ECDD. As far as “facilitate informed scheduling decisions” – we can accept this. We’ve agreed to many paras in informals today – this was the vehicle to suggest new text.

Russia: If I may, I’d like to respond. We don’t see this as a major compromise – this resolution has to be accepted by consensus. The purpose is to bring the text to a state that all the MS here agree with. The body responsible for reviewing the new harmful NPS is the WHO – not structural components of the WHO. If we are t go through the paras that have already been agreed to – I would seek your assistance and patience.

Chair: Russian input is very welcome and we can give you ample time to speak. What do we do from here? Am I to believe the Russian Federation is okay with this, or is not?

Russia: We support paragraph as it currently stands.

Iran: I didn’t understand, if the same wording is accepted or not, if not we have a small proposal.

Chair: Wording has been agreed. If there are no further comments I will not hesitate to end consideration of this paragraph, but I will give two or three minutes as the Iranian delegation has been considerate on this matter.

No objection, OP8 is agreed. Could the US clarify the last but five lines in the text – which one was agreed upon?

USA: The text was agreed to be read “and/or”.

Chair: I thank the US. Any comments, enhancement or redaction? Do you need time? Should we agree?

We will now move to OP11.

Are there any comments on OP11?

China: Thank you chair. In the paragraph OP8 which we adopted, there was a word “reference samples”, and we would like to hear clarification of this term.

Chair: We have had time for consideration of this chapter.

China: We have been prompted by our expert that this term is different than we understand it so we want clarification.

Chair: The US should clarify, we shouldn’t open what is agreed and I would like to move forward.

US: We can turn to the expert in the room from laboratory and scientific services in the UNODC to explain this.

Chair: Can the UNODC clarify?

UNODC: These samples have characterized contents that are defined, they are control substances to confirm analytical results that are received.

Chair: China are you content with this?

China: We can flexible but the word we used to use is not reference samples, it is reference materials.

Chair: What exactly are you telling us about being flexible with this differentiation? Should we keep or revisit?

China: Can we take some more time? When we analyze that we need standard material, we also use term reference material to identify certain properties. But to identify content and purity by international standards what we use is “certified reference materials”. Use of “reference samples” may refer to comparing samples rather than to identify purities.

UNODC: “Reference samples” used because in certain cases certified reference materials are not always available so reference samples can have known composition but might not be a certified reference material, which is a more explicit term, hence use of “reference sample”.

China: I think we can use this term in reference to the publication of the UN in 2009, guidelines on samples and detailed explanations on the use of substances in laboratories. We can be flexible with this term, but we are trying to come to an appropriate term. We didn’t notice this term originally.

Chair: Are you flexible or not?

China: We can be flexible but we believe the other term is more appropriate.

Chair: China is flexible so we have agreed again on OP8 and move to OP11.


Chair: Any comments on OP11? China you wish to take the floor?


Chair: Are there any comments? I don’t want anyone to come back to this. Agreed.


Chair: Any comments?

Russia: We recall that you asked not to ask question – but cold we ask for clarification – in Russia, laboratories that test drugs are not independent. So what does “independence” mean here?

US: This mainly means scientific independence. Labs can be led by and range of government and private agencies. We want to support the scheduling decisions.

Russia: We need more time to reflect on this – since the word independence can be interpreted as independent to state bodies. We will need to determine whether this word is suitable for Russia.

Chair: The Russians aren’t listening or looking at me. You said that labs can’t be independent of the state. But we’re talking about scientific independence.

Russia: We discussed what term to use in English – I checked in our country. We prefer to go back to the term autonomy. We don’t know what the best English term is here, in Russian we would say “academic autonomy”

Guatemala: We’ve closely listened. In the UN system, we always encounter problems with translation. We’re speaking about an autonomous entity here. My country considers “autonomy” as economic autonomy, such as the Guatemalan Olympic Team. This is where we prefer to talk about independence. Funds are not given to a private laboratory. We prefer scientific independence.

Iran: I need some clarification – what is the added value of this?

Canada: With respect to the term “academic autonomy” – the term does not apply here. Scientific or technical independence can work – I personally support changing to scientific independence.

Colombia: I need to understand the references made by Canada. It could be “scientific objectivity”

USA: I’d like to return to the fact that this para was agreed in informals. The US is quite flexible on the phrasing. We can go along with scientific/technical independence. We’re open to a variety of language, except for academic autonomy. Key point here: we’re asking MS to endeavour to ensure ‘independence’’

Chair: Is scientific independence a term we can all agree on? Russia?

Russia: Yes…we’re going to talk to our translators on how to translate this into our language. But yes.
Chair: We’ve agreed on OP12


Chair: Are there any comments on OP13? Is there any delegation that wants to take the floor?

UK: This is the jeopardy of revisiting previously agreed in informal paragraphs. Our intention today was to include the language which was just deleted. We entered informals with a constructive spirit and were happy to go on with this language. Now we are revisiting these conversations. Why should we agree to anything on informals? Torn on whether to include the last part of the paragraph here in the CoW or be flexible and leave it as it is?

Chair: Flexibility is the mantra of the CoW so please be flexible. Are there any comments, or do you need more time? Should I gavel? Some delegations are looking away. Okay, agreed.


Chair: Does anyone contest this? No, agreed.


Chair: Any comments on OP10?

China: We would like to suggest the “corrective” in the last line be replaced as this word is too strong, maybe we can replace it with “to evaluate and improve their own performance”. This might be more acceptable as the word corrective is somewhat condescending to accuse something that needs to be corrected.

US: We did indeed have this identical conversation several hours ago to evaluate and take corrective action. My technical expert will explain again why “corrective” is suitable here. This is not punitive but a technical measure.

In the field of forensic laboratories there is a certification process, the process to use “corrective action” is not negative, there are no negative connotations. After evaluation, you evaluate your own process and procedure to enhance and improve it, and continue on to the certification and accreditation process. Corrective action is a standard terminology in the accreditation process needed to move on to the next step to complete the process.

UNODC: This is technical language through the processes of a response to evaluation of performance by laboratories, self assessment of their performance. They see this through their own evaluation and self assessment. It takes into account that action may not be necessary.

Chair: Does “corrective action” still connote negative interpretation for China?

China: We should use a qualifying term to ensure there is no negative connotation perceived by readers and we encourage native English speakers to come up with better terms.

Chair: Now it is just “corrective action” keeping us back. Perhaps those with the King’s native language can give us some alternative synonyms.

UK: We have heard that “corrective action” is the correct term. Perhaps we can move “appropriate” in this paragraph to make this “appropriate corrective action”

Canada: Per the English dictionary, “corrective action” is appropriate measures to improve a process or outcome, so corrective action is suitable here.

Chair: We should be precise on “corrective action” terminology, I don’t want commentary on the terminology

US: I don’t think I can improve on Canada’s intervention, I can’t do better than the dictionary definition. We would just like to say we are also happy with the suggestion made by the UK if this helps the negative connotation at all.

Chair: Are you happy with appropriate corrective action? In the spirit of flexibility and “corrective action” as defined in the dictionary?

China: As we read documents in Chinese we need to see improvement of expressions like this in documents in Chinese. In Chinese this means “continuous improvement”, and such expression will be fine for us.

Chair: At this point I see convergence, it is just a matter of translation. Should I take it that we agree with the paragraph as it stands on screen?

China: I am very sorry, I don’t know if I was clear but I hope we can replace “corrective action” with “continuous improvement” or an expression such as this. We don’t have to use this but something like this. For us “corrective” is not appropriate to use here. We are looking for appropriate expressions here.

Finland: I am trying to reassure China that this is terminology that is technical and includes both terms, evaluation and corrective actions. These are not dangerous terms. We would appreciate “corrective actions” to stay.

US: In the spirit of maximum flexibility, we can also go with “take appropriate action” with no further qualifier as “appropriate” should be sufficient.

China: Can we take some time?

China: We can accept the text on the screen now.

Chair: OP10 agreed.


Chair: PP3bis or PP3bis alt?

US: PP3bis – we believe this is the one with the most agreement.

Netherlands: For us, illicit use is not a good term – in Holland, we’ve decriminalised the use of drugs. It should be “and the use of illicit drugs”

Belgium: Agree with Netherlands – could just end at diversion into illicit channels.

Australia: Support the suggestion of the Netherlands “the use of illicit drugs”

Russia: If you will recall, yesterday we discussed this para. We suggested the end of PP3bis. This is language from the conventions. Apart from diversions from illicit trafficking, illicit use needs to be prevented. For compromise, we suggest language from the convention. Should I propose it?

Chair: I’d like to continue as is.

Russia: In that case, we insist in keeping “and abuse” at the end of the para.

Australia: Another alternative: add misuse and remove abuse
Canada: We support the changes made by Australia

Russia: Unfortunately we are not in favour of this term, as it is not the right term. Misuse refers to misuse of medicines, so this is nonsense. We must use the word abuse.

Chair: Can we be constructive – the only thing in our way is the term abuse

Australia: There is previous language on misuse in the terms of narcotic drug use, in resolutions 62/4 and 64/4

Chair: We are looking for something to close the gap. We are close to reaching agreement on this.

Australia: Given this is also agreed language – Australia will accept Russia’s proposal. We’re happy to concede as this language is on medicinal and scientific purposes

Netherlands: My concern now is that illicit is also related to abuse. I suggest “preventing their abuse and diversion into illicit channels”

Chair: Are we in agreement? PP3bis agreed.


Chair: Are there any comments on PP4?

Netherlands: I am repeating myself, illicit use, I find it hard to read the paragraph now with the track changes, but illicit use is still there and I made a remark about that.

Colombia: In an effort to reach consensus and being aware that the wording may be interpreted as stigmatizing against consumption of certain substances, that mention of “use, abuse, illicit use”. Illicit use may be problematic so we would like to propose changing “threat” for “consequences” to remove stigma. For us it is an issue to recognize as a security issue of this consumption. In this instance threat produces stigma

USA: I recall spirited debate over the first several lines of this paragraph. We discussed in internal dialogues a shorter alternative if you would indulge us to get around concerns by other delegations. We are also happy to withdraw if it is unsatisfactory. We took a look at past language and found a paragraph about concern with synthetic opioids and non-medical use of prescription drugs posing threat to health and safety. This resolution is about detecting and placing substances under international controls and it is intended to be broad resolution but we suggest 

“deeply concerned that synthetic drugs and non-medical use of prescription drugs pose increasing risks to health and safety, as well as scientific, legal and regulatory challenges, including with regard to the scheduling of substances.” 

This comes from the 2019 Ministerial Declaration and, as I explained, we propose to adapt this to the context of this resolution, which is more broad than synthetic opioids. 

Chair: Any responses to this new proposal?

Colombia: Think this new text goes along with the spirit of the original text and we are happy to go along with this proposal. 

France: We would like to indicate that we support the US alternative proposal made in the spirit of compromise which allows us to move forward on this resolution.

Spain: We also believe this proposal from the US facilitates understanding in this paragraph and makes it much more specific. 

Egypt: We would like to support PP4alt and would like to thank colleagues from the US to propose this.

Chair: Are there any more comments? I see none, agreed?

This brings us to the end of our consideration of L5 today- Peru wants to disrupt concluding remarks. Peru you have the floor

Peru: Thank you and sorry for interrupting. I just want to take advantage of the opportunity in the CoW and conclusion of L5 to say we are now in a position to co-sponsor this resolution of the United States.

Chair: Thank you to Peru for this addition and thank you all for flexibility, innovation, agreeable language in consideration of this resolution. Consideration of L5 is now adjourned.

Wednesday Afternoon Session

United States: In the informals we have gotten through to about PP12 and a few of us had already agreed to these paragraphs. We started on OP5 and proceeded until the end so we still have some earlier OPs to go through. There are also some more PPs awaiting confirmation from other delegations.

Chair: Thank you – are there any delegations that want to take the floor? No, so we will continue looking at PP5alt2. Are there any comments on this paragraph?


Russia: Our delegation was not in informals when this paragraph was up for discussion, and apologize that we could not be present. Our proposal relates to the part speaking about “raising public awareness of risks related to these substances”. We propose the following language after “raising awareness”, to add “about their negative public health consequences”. I think that we could leave it here, but before the comma we would like to have this wording talking about health consequences of consuming synthetic drugs.

Chair: Any further comments on this paragraph? 

United States: We are comfortable with this addition and would propose that after “awareness” the comma needs to be removed.

Canada: We believe that this constrains us, we could raise awareness about much more than just public health consequences and we should not elaborate on all of these potential awareness raising efforts but assume these are implied.

UK: We agree with Canada. Each state should decide on awareness raising campaigns without tying their hands to specific topics. We can’t look forward and tell all countries what their awareness raising campaigns should be in relation to. We propose, along with Canada to leave, the language as it is. 

Russia: When we started discussing this resolution many delegations reminded us that the main goal is the health and wellbeing of populations. In this case, the state’s priority is raising awareness about harm caused by drug consumption. We haven’t discussed other issues in this resolution, therefore we believe this is an important addition. In Russia these campaigns are carried out annually. We could propose language adding “in particular” at the beginning of this addition. 

UK: I would also propose, “including” at the beginning of this addition. 

Canada: In the spirit of flexibility we could potentially agree to “including” but we also discuss precursors and these do not have specific public health consequences.

Spain: We agree completely with Canada and the UK. It is not just an issue of public health to introduce substances to the conventions. We would add “including, among others, about their public health consequences” 

Russia: We find it strange these comments are coming from countries insisting that the world drug problem specifically relates to health. This paragraph starts specifically with the non-medical use of drugs so we can’t agree with this argument. Our preference in this case would be to mention that the population primarily needs to be informed about negative health consequences as there is a high death rate in some countries. The maximum we could agree to is “in particular” as this aspect is most important. Using “including” might imply this is a matter of secondary importance whereas this is the most important part of these awareness campaigns. 

China: We think that to solve the world drug problem we need to reduce supply and demand so we suggest using language adding “demand” after the 4th line-

Chair: Please wait until we have agreed on this initial language firstly please.

US: One option would be to move the concept of public health consequences to the beginning of the paragraph so it is adjacent to non-medical use of synthetic drugs, to be clear there are public health consequences to this non-medical use. If this is not helpful we are happy to withdraw. 

Mexico: We find this very important. This looks at consumption and we understand what Russia has proposed, there are consequences for public health. We agree with the US proposal to put this at the beginning of the paragraph. We can see this very clear correlation between the two.

Algeria: I agree we should maintain the idea of public health consequences, indeed any awareness raising campaign is meant to show the dangers of illicit use and addiction. We are talking about non-medical use but it is illicit use that has an impact on human health. It is necessary for us to mention public health consequences. 

Australia: We welcome and support new US wording, we would add the word “adverse” before “public”.

Russia: Thanks to colleagues for the attempts to reflect in this paragraph the ideas which we deem necessary. We are not against mentioning the consequences at the beginning of the paragraph. We need to be specific to know how a resolution should be implemented. Our addition is to clarify what these campaigns would look like so the main focus would be public health consequences, this wouldn’t be the only aim but we do need to be specific. We would like to keep the language we proposed.

Chair: I appreciate the US for trying to move us forward

UK: I was going to support the Mexican suggestion to have public health consequences at the top of the para. I hesitate on this though – we need to see treatment and recovery added too

Chair: Could we qualify “public awareness” to move on?

UK: I don’t think we need to qualify this – each country will be different. I’d leave the domestic efforts to the Member States.

Chair: Russia – can you show some flexibility, at this stage?

Russia: Everything we do at the COW is to make you happy. We have, on many occasions, shown flexibility. We need to understand what to do when we go back to capital. We have different kinds of synthetic drugs. Therefore, we think that where we highlight ‘primarily’ or ‘in particular’ the public health consequences – this would suit all delegations. We can support the UK’s suggestions – we could have “public health consequences, as well as treatment and recovery options” – added after “public awarenes

Canada: Perhaps as an alternative option, from ”domestic efforts” in particular including about the negative public health consequences of synthetic drugs, as appropriate

Mexico: We think we’re talking about two different things – this is almost micromanagement

Chair: I only want constructive language, I want us to solve the problems

US: all of this language needs to go after “national campaigns” – that’s just the grammatical suggestion. After ‘including’ , we would say ‘as appropriate, about this negative…’ and we would include prevention here too

Egypt: We agree with what the US has proposed – maybe we could include, ‘addressing their negative’

Russia: Now we have another caveat, ‘as appropriate’. We need to acknowledge that drugs have negative consequences.

Canada: This is why the earlier solution was a good option – I agree with the UK, it really is within the jurisdiction of each member state to decide what occurs domestically. If we’re going to add these qualifiers, we should add harm reduction, as it is also an option.

Chair: We’ve spent 45 mins on this simple thing. We’re in ties and suits – but what we’re doing is in the interest of people in the streets. We can’t spend this much time on one para. To optimise time, I ask Russia, if it can do with ‘as appropriate’ – otherwise we will move on.

Russia: Yes chair, we are prepared to consider this, but think it sounds odd. We need to ensure that national campaigns are related to negative health consequences.

Chair: So you are okay with it

China: We suggest that at the third last line, add demand reduction, after supply reduction. We believe that this is the agreed language.

Chair: Any comments? I see none.

Russia: Thanks China – this is not typical language for us. So now we have demand reduction, we can remove public health.

Chair: Para is agreed.


Chair: Are there any comments in the room on this paragraph? 



Chair: Are there any comments on this paragraph? No comments or objections? 



Chair: Any comments or objections? 



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?



Chair: Any comments or objections?

China: The purpose of this resolution is to enhance international scheduling so we should add “international” before “scheduling”. 

US: We had this specific discussion in informals this morning. We discussed how scheduling considerations include both domestic and international as this is important at all levels. In some parts of the world there is also regional level scheduling. The general consensus from informals is to have a very broad phrase recognizing that scheduling is happening at all levels. We hope this clarifies this position.

China: We still prefer if this resolution would be targeted specifically at international scheduling so would like “international” to be recognized here. Also, in the beginning of the paragraph mentioned “acknowledging” and would like this to change to “recognizing”. In the informals mentioned that we are unsure if there are gaps or challenges. 

Chair: I thank China for adding a new issue. How do we also take into consideration regional scheduling, or should this not be considered at all?

US: If “recognizing” is preferred, we are agnostic on this. Regarding international scheduling, the room very much agreed that we could not include this language as we must include domestic scheduling. We must include as well, specifically, “domestic and regional” and we can be as specific as the room would like us to be. 

UK: Thank China for the change to “recognizing”. Whilst we are scheduling substances here in Vienna we need domestic action and there is a process domestically to review substances and give recommendations on these. We also need to specify domestic and regional. Where do we implement these scheduling agreements? We implement it on the domestic level. As a matter of the King’s English we could say simply “scheduling concerns” to cover all of this. 

China: Chair we need additional time to consult with our capital.

Chair: While we wait we should agree to delete PP5alt and PP5alt2

Chair: I give the floor to the US while we wait for China. Should we continue with PP6?

US: We are comfortable continuing with PP6.

China: Apologies, because of timezone differences we need more time.


Chair: Any comments or objections?

US: We did have a spirited discussion on PP6 in informals, as is reflected on screen this is agreed text from Resolution 50/4 PP1. It would be more prudent to revert to original language which is not controversial and was previously agreed. There has been consensus among countries to accept agreed language. Our preference is to return to the original language.

EU: For us it is very important to add the inclusion of “drug precursors”, in the EU it is not clear if labs include actual precursors. We have a specific network for precursor information sharing, and need to make clear that when we include labs, we also include precursor chemicals.

Chair: Thanks EU – do we agree?

Russia: To show flexibility – we would agree to the proposal by the sponsors, from res 50/4. If not, we wish to remove “policymakers”

Chair: The only preclusion is drug chemicals and precursors

EU: In the EU, we have a competence on precursors, and we speak on behalf of the 27 countries. 50/4 is more general – I have a mandate to include precursor chemicals. I think in good spirits, we could add this.

China: I still haven’t received advice from capital


Russia: We’d like to make the end of this para more general and end with laboratories.

Chair: Any more comments on this paragraph? Are we agreeing to this text as it is?

Iran: We are of the view that we insert “authorized domestic laboratories”.

Canada: We are not sure who authorizes domestic laboratories and this is not applicable in the Canadian context.

Iran: Each country has a number of laboratories, drug labs are very specialized and limited. When we share information our goal is to share among drug laboratories, not beyond this. The government ministry of internal affairs authorizes this. 

US: We agree with Canada that “authorized” does not make sense in this context. Part of the reason for the use of “domestic” rather than national is that in the US labs are not just at the federal level but at state level too, so this refers to labs at some level of authority but not restricting it to just the national federal level. We use domestic in many Vienna and CND contexts. This is the first time we have heard any concerns with “authorized”  in this resolution at all. We could also agree to end paragraph after “laboratories” so could remove the word “authorize”

Australia: We support the US input.

Iran: We can’t agree with this wording.

Chair: Is there a possibility to give other language options to reflect your interests?

Iran: We would need more time. Let me have time with specialists in Tehran. 

US: In lieu of “authorized” we could add “as appropriate” at the end of this wording.

Chair: Iran, please factor this suggestion into communication with Tehran. We are now waiting on China and Iran for two paragraphs. We look forward to you coming back expeditiously to these paragraphs. 


US: We were very close to agreement to PP13 in informals, we ran out of time discussing a grammar issue. Now with clarification on our part perhaps we will resolve this issue. We could agree on the wording “importance of treaty facilitated process”. The phrase “may require amendment to schedules and tables” would be added to this. The issue when we ran out of time was simply grammatical placement, between international control and secretary general this is correct.

China: Different countries have substances that need to be scheduled nationally, is this scope too broad? To better facilitate our work and effectiveness we should add limitations to substances as “harmful” substances, or after “international control”  to make some additions but insist on this wording.

Chair: Please give the language exactly as proposed. 

China: Amend to “most harmful substances” under international control.

US: This concern is new, it comes as a surprise to us. The additional language is not acceptable in this context. The point of the paragraph is that state parties provide information, and the WHO reviews this information in a scientific manner and makes recommendations based on this. We believe we exclude precursors here. The information relating to substances not yet under control is precise and is an accurate characterization within the conventions. 

China: We will need to further reflect this issue to Beijing. 

Chair: Aside from China’s future feedback we have agreed to language in this paragraph.We would then move to PP14

Iran: Unfortunately we have no response from Tehran. Our comment now is on the previous paragraph as I asked for the floor but was not seen by the chair. Question is about “facilitated”, we should include “treaty defined processes” or something to this extent. 

Chair: We have moved on and this is now a different Iranian delegate to before. We have moved on and this matter remains outstanding. I know what you are trying to do, to enhance the text. If it is a matter that you don’t consider very serious, let us leave China to come back. Thank you. 


Iran: As I have heard from my colleague we have asked to keep reservations on “facilitated” because we did not hear anything from Tehran. We can accept now “for facilitating the process” with reservation awaiting further instruction from our capital. 

Chair: The paragraph is still open so we continue to PP14

Chair: Any comments?

Russia: The wording “chemical trafficking” hasn’t been used before – so could we distinguish between the two? And add “and the diversion of precursor chemicals”.

Chair: Thanks Russia – any comments? I want constructive inputs from those delegations that have made reservations.

US: We are having difficulty here – we would delete “production, manufacture, trading”

China: I need some time to consult and confirm with colleagues

US: Many precursors don’t have a legitimate use – I think in here we could modify the sentence, “the latest trends in trafficking and misuse of a drug and chemical in the production of and manufacture of drugs”

Canada: I see what you’re trying to do, US – you can’t really traffic in uncontrolled substances. Could we go back to language “latest trends related to NPS and new precursor chemicals”

US: We can go along with new suggestion from Canada, and then delete “and whether there is evidence of legitimate use”

Iran: We are in a corner, so it’s hard to see. We are satisfied with first pass – but what is the second?

Russia: I need to specify one aspect – – was the proposal to end at recommendations?

US: Our proposal is to retain “as well as scheduling recommendations”

Russia: Yes, thanks, we understand – but we need to repeat a verb “provide” scheduling recommendations

US: I don’t know if “provide” is the right word – “about: the latest trends related to NPS an new precursor chemicals, as well as scheduling recommendations”

Russia: It’s not clear here – we suggest removing this

Chair: I suggest in informals that you look at this as a matter of language. To wrap up – I’m still waiting on China on PP12alt and Iran on PP7alt, and China again on PP13. Thanks, we’ll take a short break.

El Salvador: We wish to cosponsor this res.

Chair: 5 min break then to L3.

Leave a Reply

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