Monday afternoon 4.45pm
Peru: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and good afternoon, dear colleagues. We’ve been working this afternoon just a few minutes ago on L3, Mr. Chair, and I’m happy to tell you that we have a good advance. We have an important number of para already agreed in informals. And even though we still have work to do ahead, I believe it’s a good time to bring you the agreed paras to you to the CoW for agreement.
Chair: I would suggest that we deal with the agreed paragraphs of the resolution given that much progress has been made in informals, so I would ask the room to confirm our agreement.
So your silence indicates agreement and consensus on that matter. And so, PP1 is agreed.
So PP2 agreed… PP3?
Is there any delegation that would like to take the floor on PP3? PP3 agreed
Any delegation that would want to take the floor? Sorry, but your silence is becoming a bit suspicious…PP4 agreed.
Is it agreeable that we delete PP5? PP5 deleted.
I’ll give you a little time to look at it again. I give the floor to the Russian Federation in the hope that they will continue to support the chair
Russia: Thank you, Chairman. We’d like to assure you have the support of the Russian delegation, and we are taking a constructive approach and agreeing to this resolution. We don’t have an objection to the current wording of PP5alt. We thought that the first document we’re referring to in the para should be called correctly. That is in line with it’s actual name, right now it’s abbreviated. And we’d like to express the hope that at a later stage, it will be spelled out in the correct manner. Thank you.
Chair: I thank the distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation and I would like to assure you that Editorial Services will deal with that. PP5alt – China
China: Thank you Mr Chair. Could you please invite the resolution sponsor to explain what does it mean ‘preventative alternative development program’ because a team of us are following all the resolutions and sometimes during informal discussions we might have omitted some information, could you please explain that. Thank you.
Peru: Thank you all such a distinguished delegate of China for that question. Well, when we talk about alternative development, We’re talking about two aspects for that concept. The one would be regarding the replacement of illicit cultivation with licit cultivation. And promoting policies and programs for alternative development. Which, while not affected by licit cultivation, could be affected by their proximity or by conditions that could be conducive to drug traffickers or those cultivators beginning work in those territories. In other words, it is the use of programs of alternative development in a preventive manner as is stated in the name so as to avoid the expansion of illicit cultivation into areas which for the moment may not be impacted by illicit cultivation but could be in the future due to various factors. Thank you very much, Chairman and I do hope that with that, perhaps, some of my colleagues would like to add something my colleagues from Germany or Thailand. With respect to preventive alternative development but for my delegation that would be the comments that we would have with respect to China’s question.
Thailand: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify what our distinguished delegate from Peru has said it is to us that development approach to prevent the areas that are prime for illicit crop cultivation, without the presence of illicit cultivation at the initial stage. so that will be a preventive program using alternative development approach.
Ecuador: As I take the floor for the first time on the CoW, I would like to express our support to you sir. Along the same lines as those before me, the matter of alt preventive alternative development is one which has been mentioned in resolutions for many years now. This is not new language. It is consensus based and essentially as the delegate of Peru has said it it it stipulates that policies and measures undertaken in the area of countering illicit trafficking, are not limited to illicit cultivation, but rather should pertain to neighboring areas which have the same conditions such that illicit cultivation could happen there, which is what is to be prevented, all in line with what has been done in the CND namely, combating not just the manufacturing production and consumption of drugs, but also acknowledging that there are international responsibilities. One by states, such that consumption of illicit drugs is prevented. Thank you.
Germany: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would just like to endorse what has been said previously by our distinguished colleagues from and co sponsors from Peru, Thailand, also Ecuador. This is definitely another concept that applies to all countries affected by illicit drug crop cultivation but mostly to adjacent areas to border areas. But it is also a principle that has been implemented in several countries in South America. Also in southeastern Europe, and some other areas and as has been mentioned before, at least for the past 10 years, this has been agreed language, This terminology in every AD resolution adopted by this commission here, and it won’t be the only paragraph in this resolution how it stands now where you will find it, it’s basically in every resolution order to reflect the twofold concept of alternative development the preventive aspect of it and reactive one, thank you very much.
Australia: Thank you Chair in order to try and help in relation to the question raised by a distinguished colleague from China and some of the debate has gone on. We’re just going to suggest a form of words that might help, but we wouldn’t wish to lock in a debate about them. So an alternative way this is to say, alternative development programs that prevent illicit drug cultivation, prevention, and related adverse outcomes.
Chair: I thank the delegates of Australia, China, you have had many delegations, making very good efforts to ensure that you have clarity and full comprehension of that phase. Are you satisfied?
China: Thank you, or your colleagues for your explanation so that we can better understand alternative development and all the efforts of the years. Thank you.
Chair: I thank the delegate of China, can we agree on PP5 alt? PP5 alt agreed.
Chair: Can we agree on that? So PP5 alt bis, agreed.
Chair: I guess China does not want the floor. PP6 agreed.
Chair: Do we agree to agree PP7 as agreed in informals? PP7 agreed.
Chair: Sorry i skipped PP7 bis. PP7 bis agreed.
Chair: PP8 agreed.
Chair: PP10 agreed.
Chair: Any comments from the room? If there are no comments, OP6 agreed.
Chair: I give the floor to the Russian Federation
Russia: Thank you very much, Chairman.Our delegation has a question with the term ‘properly sequenced’, we’d like clarification as to what was meant by the sponsors of the text is this addition necessary, because as far as we understand it. The matter of sequencing used for drug control polices, well, that is something that falls to member states to decide. The way we see it, we think this is a bit of a subjective term, we think it should be. So our proposal is to delete properly sequenced. If this can be supported by the co sponsors or perhaps they could at least provide clarification and we find a different word. Thank you.
Chair: I thought the delegate of the Russian Federation, the sponsors. They give clarification and I give the floor to Peru.
Peru: It’s true, properly sequenced is in addition to OP7, which is not part of agreed language but through the informals, it was submitted for consideration including the Russian Federation, and there were no objections to properly sequenced. It was an attempt to be more accurate with regards to the long term view. However, if the Russian Federation has changed its mind regarding the inclusion of the term properly sequenced Then the sponsors would have no objection to removing it. Because it’s agreed It’s a paragraph with agreed language from other resolutions, so we can show flexibility, chair, we can remove properly sequenced, but I would like to stress that this was dealt with in informal consultations and all delegations supported including the Russian Federation.
Chair: Thank the delegate of Peru. I would like to give the floor to the delegate of Germany, but if I understood clearly, that properly sequenced is subjective and country specific. and they would want to understand what properly set points means. And so I would be grateful if Germany could bring clarity and full comprehension, to the Russian Federation on this matter. And I believe that would end the matter.
Germany: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I give my very best About the subjectivity of the term, the term is agreed in the 2009, with integration plan of action also in the 2013 UN guiding principles on alternative development and the concept in term of proper sequencing basically means that drug crop farmers should not be left without any source of income and the phase of transition between licit, lively, illicit livelihood, illicit livelihoods. So that is what the term proper sequencing in the framework of alternative development means as our colleague from Peru has already stated, we did not include this in our return proposal. But we agreed upon it in informals because it does always make sense in the context of alternative development to think about proper sequencing. So we don’t think it’s a very subjective category of terminology because it’s broadly accepted.
Chair: I’d like to thank the delegate of Germany but before I give the floor to the Russian Federation, would want to know whether the explanation meets your full comprehension and whether there are other reasons, new reasons for that question. And if, at this juncture you intend to show flexibility, just indicate that and let’s move on. You have the floor.
Russia: Thank you, Chairman. We’d like to assure you that we’re not intending to reopen a text which had already been agreed in informals and fully support the idea that member states should work constructively in informals. And then we intend to do that in the CoW too. However, in this particular case, experts in the capital had questions. With respect to the agreed in informals. and that is the very reason that we put this question regarding the extent, the extent to which this addition was necessary for the co sponsors, if it was not about most importance for them and that they would be ready to delete it, we would be most grateful would be most grateful for sticking to the agreed language. So might we appeal with a request to the co sponsors that this addition be deleted? with the understanding that we acknowledge that there is agreed language from 2009 on this topic, and since we are quoting it we’d like to stick to it.
Chair: Russian Federation – do you understand the term, as explained by Germany, And would that explanation be understood by capital? You asked for explanation, and they’ve given you explanation. And they’ve shown flexibility and they’ve said that, with or without the okay. You said that you appreciate that flexibility on their part. But do you understand what capital understand that is planned leisure they’ve given it is important in regional and so I would want to be assured that it is understood?
Russia: We partially understand the explanation but we may require additional time to study the document in which the term was used again, and thus would propose that it be excluded if it is not a principle of importance for the co-sponsors.
Chair: I turn to the delegate of the Russian Federation and I do not intend to have a proposal properly sequenced, or properly or not, and if any delegation wishes to get into that, I would advise that we do not however, I would give the floor to the United Kingdom, in the hope that you don’t complicate the process at this stage.
UK: Thank you, Chair and I’ll try to be as uncomplicated as possible. And taking the floor because actually it was the UK that suggested this change. And I remember it was about 10 days ago. So it’s been in the text for quite a long time. And I would be rather nervous if we started a tradition or a precedent of opening up text that’s been on the table and agreed for quite a long time. And at the last minute and that’s my first point, which I hope isn’t a complicating point I’m seeing let’s stick to the way we do things when it’s agreed it’s agreed. The second point is that as Germany has mentioned, what we’re asking, what we’re asking here is we’re asking member states to do something we’re encouraging them to take into account…. Why is this phrase ‘properly sequenced’ important. Well, this text is already all agreed but we’ve asked for properly sequenced because what we’re looking for is we’re looking for as much impact as possible in the language that we have here, and property sequence is a term that will be understood when it’s translated into other texts about what it is that we’re asking states to do what is required here. So I would really, if I would very much support keeping it in because it’s extremely helpful for the sponsors and what they’re trying to achieve. Thank you very much.
Chair: Thank the custodian of theEnglish language but you did not explain to us what the language means.On a lighter note, I would give the floor to Colombia.
Colombia: Thank you, Chair. I would like to share Colombia’s experience here because we think that the experience of properly sequenced is beneficial to the paragraph. We have had problems with alternative development programs because they focused on crops or on production or crop preparation or marketing and exports or market access, and they don’t take into account the whole sequence, when we’re talking about the long term context here. And so we think it’s important to remember that I understand the issues the Russian Federation has with the two words but we could find alternatives, well structured for example, we are flexible with language as long as it reflects the same idea. These are long term programs, and they have to take into account the whole sequence of the project. Thank you.
Chair: I thank the delegate of Colombia. I would like to give the floor to the Russian Federation. You have the floor.
Russia: Thank you very much Chairman. We’d say that we very much value discussion in the CoW. If only informals were necessary then I think that we would be without a correct idea of how the documents should read. So we’re very pleased with CoW discussions as well. I think I’m just responding. Well, I’m saying that we’re really not trying to complicate the process. We’d like to ask though, that for a bit of time, this remain bracketed, and that we can revert to you, Chairman. With a constructive solution. We’re grateful to delegations for their clarifications, we will need additional time though, so as to link up with experts in capital. Thank you.
I thank the distinguished delegates delegate from the Russian Federation, before Peru takes the floor. We should get this clear. The Russian Federation claims that capital needs a full comprehension of this terminology And it has been explained by a couple of delegates gation see if what Peru would say would not have add up or take away we would move on. Just as China did and came back to us that we could delete that phrase. We would leave it up to the Russian Federation to confirm to us subsequently and subsequently meaning that not too long. So that we can move on and if properly sequenced, properly sequenced is not a problem, a difficult problem for you. We would suggest that as constructive and as supportive as you are, you would come back on this matter with something that would make us comfortable. Let’s move on to OP7 The US would you like to speak?
USA: Yes chair just just to be constructive here. If it will be of assistance to our dear colleagues from the Russian Federation. Perhaps if they look at General Assembly resolution 68/196. In the appendix, paragraph 9 is referring to this in the guidelines themselves. It says states should ensure the proper and coordinated sequencing of development interventions when designing alternative development programs and in that regard should take into account issues related to the establishment of agreements and viable partnerships with small producers favorable climatic conditions, strong political support and adequate market access. And of course, as a general assembly resolution, it’s previously agreed. So I would suspect her experts in capital have familiarity with this Thank you, Chair.
Chair: Thankyou USA.
Chair: Any constructive input? OP8 agreed.
Chair: OP11 agreed.
Chair: OP13 agreed.
Chair: Any useful input? OP14ter agreed.
Chair: OP18 agreed.
Chair: OP19 agreed. At this point I would like to request the delegate from the Russian Federation, if any information has been received from Moscow, as to whether we should retain or not to retain proper sequencing.
Russia: The representatives of Moscow are now in Vienna, but we haven’t been able to coordinate so quickly because they’re on other meetings right now. So we will come to our next meeting of the committee. Looking at the resolution with a constructive solution. And we asked you to please be patient, and thank you for your understanding.
Chair: I thank the Russian Federation and will always be patient with the Russians. I served in Moscow, and enjoyed my stint there. So rest assured I will be forever patient with the Russians. I think we have gone through agreed language in a number of paragraphs and given the fact that we still have some time. I suggest that we look at other paragraphs and I would request to draw delegates attention to PP3bis If there are any forward looking comments on that paragraph. I give the floor to Australia.
Australia: Thank you Mr Chair. Australia proposed adding this paragraph to try to get a reference to the licit cultivation of drugs because of the poor wording of the paragraph. However, we are in the spirit of consensus and we are willing to withdraw this proposal. However, I do have a further PPbis to propose unrelated to this but it also draws directly from one of the conventions and is relevant to alternative development so if. With your indulgence can deal with this first and then I could suggested it with your indulgence Mr Chair.
Chair: Can we delete the Australian proposal? And then there is a Russian proposal as well.
Russia: We are in agreement to delete the part we had proposed because it was simply an attempt to find compromise, a way of building on Australia’s proposal. The idea was linked with his proposal but we could delete it. We would like to take this opportunity though, to say that deleting this segment does not signify that this is not our position. We think it is a very important provision of the 1961 Convention, which should be guidance for all members of the commission and Parties to the Convention. Thank you.
Chair: We thank the Russian Federation for the flexibility the paragraph is deleted. We now move on to PP three to Australia, you have the floor.
Australia: Thank you Mr. Chair as per my previous intervention with your indulgence, I beg your indulgence to propose an alternative PP3bis which fits in this position and this is drawn directly from the 1988 convention and refers to alternate developed alternative development. Is that okay?
Chair: It’s okay.
Australia: Suggested PP3bis alt “Further underscoring that also in accordance with the 1988 Convention The parties may cooperate to increase the effectiveness of eradication efforts, including, inter alia, and when appropriate, for integrated rural development leading to economically viable alternatives to illicit cultivation common with factors, such as access to markets, the availability of resources and prevailing socio economic resources and prevailing socio economic conditions to be taken into account before such rural development programs are implemented.” Thank you and apologies for for the late addition.
Chair: I thank the delegate of Australia. I give the floor to Germany.
Germany: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. and I would also like to thank our distinguished colleague from Australia for the flexibility to delete the previous paragraph. I am not sure how this relates to the content and the substance of the deleted paragraph because it was focusing on licit cultivation for the illicit production of drug crops for medical purposes and others. We have concerns about this new PP3bis because this new PP3bis does basically assign the role of alternative development to assess the effectiveness of eradication efforts. I mean, this text clearly shows is from 1998 and does no longer reflect the state of international debate and author of decisions of the CND. There are very, very few countries in the world where still eradication happens. Most countries I’d say do not do it in a way that is as we have discussed before properly sequence and eradication is definitely not the overall goal of alternative development as it is targeted towards the sustainable development goals and not exclusively to drug crop eradication goals. Therefore, we would like to put our reservation on this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair: I thank the delegate from Germany, and I give the floor to Thailand:
Thailand: Thankyou Mr Chair, Just to echo along the same line as our colleagues from Germany. I believe that these paras are also redundant. There are a lot of language that already reflects that there are too developed as part of the system, and also the aspect has already been agreed in the OP which is actually much stronger so I don’t really see the point of having PP3bis and I would like to ask for our colleague from Australia to be flexible and and to remove this thank you very much.
Chair: I thank the delegate of Thailand, I give the floor to Peru
Peru: Thank you Chair. I would just like to add Peru’s position to that of Germany and Thailand. as co sponsors of this draft resolution. We share the opinions of our fellow co sponsors. I don’t think there’s really anything left for me to add. I’d also like to echo the words of our colleague from the Australian delegation and to please reconsider including this paragraph because it is really following in the spirit of what this resolution is pursuing. Thank you.
Chair: I would like to thank the delegate for Peru, and would like to hear from Australia and whether the appeals which have been made to you have fallen on a soft heart
Australia: Mr. Chair, we offered this in the spirit of trying to be helpful, it is language that directly draws from one of the conventions. It just with regard to Germany’s question it is not linked to our previous PP. It was offered completely separately not as a substitute, not as a rewording or revision intervention. it was a completely separate proposal. Maybe, Mr. Chair, we could leave it for a bit of this language that other patients have not seen before. Maybe we can leave it until tomorrow. So delegations have a little more time to have a look at it and consider it.
Chair: I thank the delegate of Australia I propose that we leave it, while was remaining cognizant of the fact that the delegates from Australia would also rethink about it. And this question remains as it is. We will decide on this matter. Tomorrow. I now, move on to PP3ter
Chair: Can we end the paragraph when we get to shared responsibilities, on the ninth line, and I realise that Colombia objected to it, and that you want to object again Iguess, you have the floor:
Colombia: It’s just to give some context. Colombia is flexible with regards to keeping this language in as a whole or not. But if this paragraph is going to stay, We think the second part of the paragraph should be deleted. But we understand there are delegations that are concerned about keeping this paragraph in the resolution. Thank you.
Chair: Indonesia, can we agree on the para as we see on the screen
Indonesia: Thank you very much, we’re actually flexible so it really depends on the consensus on this committee of the whole, it’s very flexible whether you’re going to remove.
Chair: Thank you, Indonesia. Colombia you have the floor.
Colombia: Thank you Chair. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but we can agree. On the paragraph. Can we agree on the paragraph, ending at ‘responsibility’? No, I’m sorry, chair.
Chair: Colombia, that was not what I was referring to. when you spoke I agreed. I said whether we could accept it as it was. Germany, I know you won’t mess up the situation.
Germany: I will do my very best not to do so. Just to understand what is now on the table here. Do we discuss the approval of PP3ter at this moment? That is exactly what we are doing okay, that people have shown flexibility. Okay, Indonesia just showed flexibility, so I’m asking if we should proceed. Okay.
Chair: For the sake of reaching consensus I will ask again, if it will create problems, if the paragraph is deleted. And I would like you to let us hear your voice. Sometimes we do not understand language which is not localised.
Colombia: Thank you Chair as I said the last time I took the floor, I did not present this. that paragraph. it’s not a Colombian paragraph. we have said if the paragraph is included, It has to be the whole paragraph. Otherwise, we’re happy to delete the whole paragraph but obviously you have to ask other delegations about that. Thank you.
Chair: I would love to hear from Peru and Thailand on this matter before we agree. Peru you have the floor.
Peru: Thank you Mr Chair We did have an interesting debate on this paragraph Throughout the informals before we came here, we did have an interesting debate on this paragraph throughout the informals before we came here, and it’s true that okay, not most I’d say a significant number of delegations as included in the text. I thought it would be timely to delete this paragraph. Because the subjects it deals with are covered in other paragraphs in their resolution. However, some delegations considered that it was good to keep it and we couldn’t reach consensus regarding on what regarding whether to keep this paragraph, or not. Peru’s opinion is that if possible, we would rather get rid of it. However, we know that some delegations have a different position. And I would therefore ask you chair, perhaps you could consult with those delegations that want to keep the paragraph to see if it would be really relevant for them or could we be flexible and possibly delete PP3ter Thank you.
Chair: Contrary to deletion and even though we have delegations that would want to take the floor, And as I’ve told you, I’m allergic to complications. And so as I give the floor to Guatemala, I hope and pray fervently that you won’t trigger my allergies. So Colombia you have the floor.
Colombia: It’s true. We don’t want to spark any allergy or hay fever, especially on a Monday. My delegation has always respected the intent of delegations who table resolutions. we think that if the delegations that have drafted or that have written this draft did not include the paragraph, then perhaps to their mind it was to show this subject in other paragraphs, it was covered in other paragraphs as Peru said and we’re very grateful for the way Peru organised the informants and the other co sponsors. We don’t see any issues if the main sponsors don’t have a problem. It’s their resolution. Obviously, it will belong to everyone, but for the time being, it’s theirs. I would also like to thank Indonesia for their flexibility. We know that there are many issues that will come to light This week, or that in recent weeks, and perhaps it’s good to keep them in mind and look at them and consider whether we can improve our wordings or resolutions in the future. but for the time being, we have nothing against deleting this paragraph.
Chair: I would want to hear from Thailand first indulge me to give the floor to Thailand.
Thailand: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo Peru. While we believe that there have been paragraphs that already covered this topic, I also have to say that this is not something that has been agreed and we’re still working on the language.
Chair: If they are flexible, I expect that in the Spirit, that same spirit will be reflected in the other delegations. that would want to take the floor. Even as I give the floor to Iran and Egypt, Iran first. I expect to hear something that would not move us back. We are moving forward.
Iran: Thank you Chair and thank you for your indulgence. I’m wondering why a comprehensive paragraph which is completely relevant as it is in the scope of this resolution. And also it is agreed language. So we strongly believe this is a relevant paragraph and should be included in this resolution. So please keep it, we can talk about this issue in an informal. Thank you.
Egypt: Thank you chair will view that this paragraph is as relevant and it’s important. However, we can show flexibility. Okay, And, of course for other paragraphs we still do not have this fast flexibility versus others that we will consider and so for the time being. We will go along with deletion. Thank you.
Belgium: Thank you Mr. Chair. We definitely also want to move forward. So we also support the deletion of the paragraph not only because it avoids redundancy, but also because it is in the spirit of the writing made by the sponsors and the co sponsors. Thank you.
Chair: Thank you Mr. Chair. We definitely also want to move forward. So we also support the deletion of the paragraph not only because it avoids redundancy, but also because it is in the spirit of the writing made by the sponsors and the co-sponsors. Thank you.
Russia: We too, would like to move forward fast on the on the resolution but unfortunately are unable to agree with deleting the paragraph. before we see how we’re going to agree and other portions of the resolution. We think that this document should be looked at as a package and we should see what we’re reflecting in it. That will allow us to be flexible. We think that this paragraph is extremely important. It reflects basic principles, having to do with alternative development with us would like to retain our support to the paragraph that was proposed by Iran, thank you.
Chair: I thank the Russian delegate. This point, no appetite in imposing the flow to the Russian delegation. I now request we move on to PP5bis.
Chair: Is this a sign of fatigue sets in or a change of mind that we have agreed to PP5bis. I take it that it has been agreed, do I use the gavel? Thailand you have the floor.
Thailand: Thank you Mr. Chair. I also believe that this is something that we are continuing to work towards the consensus in informal so I like to reserve this para as well.
Chair: Thankyou to the delegate of Thailand, I’d like to give the floor to the USA
USA: Thank you Mr Chair I must say I’m a bit confused now. We raised our flag simply to indicate that we are removing our reservation from this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair: I thank the delegates from the United States. I give the floor to In view of what we’ve heard from the US. What has Germany got to say?
Germany: It’s a series of of PPs that are part of the problem because they all contain very similar language unsustainable crop control strategies to what I just mentioned in my previous intervention. That’s why we because we could not agree on deleting the previous one that we have just extensively discussed. We will also put on the agenda with Thailand, our reservation here. And I think all those paragraphs that include language and sustainable crop control strategies, as suggested before by other colleagues, we need to find a package deal because they are still too massive and the text, thank you very much.
Peru: Despite the fact we’ve had the good news from the US withdrawing its reservation I’d like to support what the other sponsors have said. We will review some paragraphs where there is perhaps a duplication and concepts and then we’ll come back to you chair and we’re sorry that we can’t continue with the adoption of PP5bis right now.
Chair: I thank the delegate of Peru, PP5 this is reserved to be reviewed at the informals. I now move on to PP9 We have up to 615 So, I would want us to be a life to carry on. I give the floor to Iran.
Iran: Thank you chair. This is a very very good paragraph. Good, good concept everything good, but it is not related to the subject of this resolution, so we asked for deletion of the whole paragraph
Guatemala: Thankyou chair, for us. It’s the opposite. It’s a paragraph that is linked to alternative development because as part of government policies alternative development could be part of the public policy of any country and for us as a country. Fostering alternative development policies is something that requires caution. We have to respect the rule of law, human dignity and the basic freedoms of all people because it is a state policy. And it is based on a constitution in our case, the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala. So we do see a link between alternative development, and drugs policies and their implementation. So we would like to add Guatemala’s name to the list of countries who wish to retain this paragraph. Thank you.
Switzerland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I fully support what have been said by our distinguished colleague from Guatemala. And I would like to stress what just have been said by our distinguished colleague from Iran that it’s a very good para, actually. And we’re talking here about the PP. It’s not an OP, so therefore we ask if the distinguished colleague from Iran could show some flexibility, thank you.
Peru: Thank you chair, please, I would like you to add Peru, after Guatemala’s name on the list. This preambular paragraph that we took from the 2019 ministerial declaration that co sponsors of this resolution, all believe it to be relevant. The communities and families who are affected by illicit crops and drug trafficking as a whole have seen human rights suffer because they are essentially being held captive by illicit crops because of lack of other opportunities. Drug policy including alternative development gives these communities and families a chance to emerge from illicit economies into and work in licit economies and activities, and improves their standard of living and would enable them to enjoy all the human rights, therefore this is a relevant paragraph it is completely in line with the objectives and goals of the resolution, and it’s really important for us to keep it. Thank you.
Australia: Australia notes that it has also supported the PP and it maintains and supports it, but in the interests of trying to reach some sort of compromise, a suggestion of language. We note that in a number of the explanations, the emphasis kept on being put on alternative development. And the objection is it relates to alternative development. So one way perhaps of resolving this would be to say at the end there the rule of law in the development and implementation of drug policies, ‘including alternative development’ or ‘especially alternative development’. Australia maintains its support for the resolution for the PP but it is making this suggestion as an attempt to reach a compromise in the spirit of Vienna. And in the spirit of what has been said by different parties in this.
Brazil: Even though it has a focus on alternative development, many aspects of the fight against the world drug problem, and we’re addressing many of them in this resolution including the human rights of Indigenous peoples the environment, biodiversity, among others, But I think that’s reason enough why also dimension to human rights is important here. So I would ask you to add Brazil to the support for this paragraph. It acts or strengthens the connection of human rights which we can also support the proposed language
Chair: I now give the floor to Peru
Peru: I wanted to thank my distinguished colleague from Australia for his proposal. I think it’s constructive. I think it clarifies the doubts that some delegations may have on the relevance of this paragraph And I think it is setting us up to reach consensus. So Peru, fully support the proposal made by Australia, thank you
Chair: I now give the floor to Iran
Iran: In this phase we cannot go along with this paragraph. So we’d better to continue discussing this issue in the informals. and I should I should mention that the consensus and cooperation is a two side road and not one side so one from one side to show flexibility and not for the previous paragraph so we continue talking about these issues in the informal. Thank you.
Chair: I thank Iran, but ask that you reflect on what they have said and we are here to reach consensus and consensus we all understand. We’ve been to diplomatic school. We know what consensus is, you give and take. And that is what and you want the language to take into consideration your particular preference or interests. And so this is what I urge subsequent delegations which will take the flow to do and not to repeat objections and approvals without as the way I was treated. On that note i give the floor to Ecuador
Ecuador: Thank you for your kindness to doing the floor. Resolution 65/1 of 2022. that means last year, negotiated and approved last year. On PP3, we have less, the same text that the sponsors of this solution has presented in PP9. We’ve seen that somehow we have a base in the negotiation and we have text negotiated regarding the respect of fundamental human rights. So I think maybe if we were to go to informals for paragraph, we should take into account that we already have text, agreed in these Commission. Thank you, Mr President.
USA: Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. Two points. One has to do with going back to informals. And just to remind the room that here in the cow, we have interpretation that we have when we go to informals. And so we really does a disservice particularly to the smaller delegations and those for whom English is not a native language for us to revert back to informals our differences rather than using the conference or the Committee of the Whole. So that’s point number one. And the other point we wanted to raise was that previously, Iran had proposed a paragraph from UNGA resolution 72/198, which I believe we accepted. And that same resolution has quite a lengthy paragraph. Dealing with human rights and so there’s clearly a link. I don’t think we would want to insert that. I mean, certainly we could. It starts out recall a reaffirming its unwavering commitment to ensuring that all aspects of demand reduction and related measures supply reduction and related measures and international cooperation are addressed in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the charter and it goes on and it references the principle of non intervention, preferences fundamental freedom, all human rights inherent dignity of all individuals, adding of course, considerably to the length of this if this document if we stuck with that paragraph. So again, chair, we would appeal to the delegation of Iran to please consider that there is an established link with the document that they thought was relevant, and so we think it should be included. Thank you.
Chair: We have exhausted our time and if we continue deliberations will be in English and I do not, in turn that we do so. So our last speaker would be the UK
UK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I completely agree with you about the requirement and the use of translation so that everybody can particular would just like to reiterate what our distinguished friend from the US said about the cow. I think that the cow is a forum in which we can all have sensible discussions, and which we can all engage in a translated forum and set him setting so that we can really have discussions will be rich gaps, and I really think that as the chair of the committee would like to gaps that sometimes data and create a constructive environment. I think when it comes to this issue of human rights, it can sometimes be a bit misconstrued in these important discussions so we thank you very much for that.
Chair: You’ve heard all the delegations and I do not know what else we would you would say in cow that would make a difference. So I would suggest that we ponder closely and even when you go to come to the informals tomorrow morning, you should still look at it. But this is the place where decisions are to be on that which is before us. On this note, I would want to thank you all for the hard work that you have deployed in this work, you see the lights are going off an updated schedule, for tomorrow will be shared, the session would resume meeting tomorrow morning at 10am in this room. The meeting is adjourned.
Tuesday afternoon – 5pm
Peru: I’m sorry to say we haven’t made much progress in agreeing paras – just one agreed – but we’ve had very fruitful discussions in the informals on paras in regard to Indigenous communities. I think these paras are close to being included. But we do still need to work on res further.
Russia: We did make progress – we’ve changed to “in a properly sequenced manner”
Chair: Great – agreed
Peru: in order to make swifter progress, I suggest PP13
Chair: Russia – is this agreed?
Russia: We have had enough time and we participated in these discussions
Chair: PP13 agreed
Chair: Any comments?
Thailand: I believe this is being considered with PP3ter – we’d like to pick one or the other, but not have both. So we still need a bit of time on this.
Chair: Let’s look at this now
Thailand: In the spirit of being cooperative, we’ll go along with this
Chair: Do we agree, we keep the para? I see no objection – agreed.
Chair: In the forth line, there is a bracket – do we delete?
Australia: We do not support this bracket – we propose it be deleted.
Canada: Canada accepts that this is agreed language, but we believe it is stigmatising language. 61/11 – promoting a society free of drug abuse, we suggest: “the health and welfare of mankind” instead – we believe this language is more inclusive. The use of health and welfare of mankind 64/5, among many others. Also included in the three treaties.
Egypt: We don’t think drug abuse is stigmatising language – my proposal is that we retain this language, or delete the whole para. We can’t change agreed language.
Russia: Chair – we made a proposal on this para – we wanted to say that we cannot agree to the deletion of this text – we believe that promoting a society free of drug abuse is something we should all work to, and we don’t think it’s stigmatising. We should not take half measures – this language, proposed by us, is from 65/1, and in response to some of the interventions, the 2019 Declaration agreed to working towards a society free of drug abuse. This discussion is not appropriate here. We’re in favour of keeping the text.
Iran: Every time we need to find flexibility here. Egypt and Russia eloquently explained that our eventual goal is to have a society free of drug abuse – I have researched this and don’t think it is stigmatising. We’re not in a position to change agreed language here. We can only go along with the original text. We’re not in favour of removing it. If there is no consensus, we suggest to remove the para.
Chair: Iran’s submission is akin to that proposal made by Egypt so we are left with retain, don’t retain, remove the entire paragraph. We should stick to these three options. I don’t want to hear repetition, it won’t help us. Please bring something new to help us move forward or make a choice on these options.
Turkey: The term “society free of drug abuse” is agreed language in resolutions 65/2 and 65/4. We also invite delegations to refrain from any misinterpretation of the term “stigmatization”, stigma doesn’t disclude this term. This will also change the term “stigmatization” in agreed language.
US: We are in favour of removing this language. Would also go along with the proposal to remove the whole paragraph.
Norway: We support the proposal of Canada to remove this sentence, and if not possible to remove the whole paragraph.
Germany: Would like to support the proposal made by Egypt and Iran, as it was seen on this text we also have a reservation on the wording of “society free of drug abuse” and think it best to remove this paragraph.
Peru: We would also be ready to accept the removal of this paragraph entirely.
Algeria: We would like to keep the wording “society free from drug abuse” as this is not stigmatizing and has no link to stigma at all.
Uruguay: The fact language is agreed doesn’t mean it applies everywhere in different contexts, we are against this concept as it stigmatizing to people who use drugs. We prefer this concept not be included and to delete the paragraph.
Canada: We appreciate comments thus far – and would like to correct the error to state that it is “humankind” and not “mankind”. We also believe this language is stigmatizing and if we can’t agree on this language, to use “humankind” and remove “society free from drug abuse” we should delete this paragraph
Russia: We listened with interest to this discussion and note with surprise that, even last year, the same delegations were able to agree to this terminology. How is it that this year this term is a source of stigma? We would insist on including this paragraph and will not be withdrawing it as it is an important provision. This is an integral part of this resolution.
Chair: We know where the drift is going but we have to reach consensus. There are two sides, remove or not remove the entire paragraph, so please focus your interventions on this question.
Indonesia: This is an important part in the draft resolution. It is difficult to understand differences in opinion on this. “A society free from drug abuse” is agreed language stated in the Ministerial Declaration 2019. We suggest that we keep PP6bis and we stop at the word “challenges” in line 4.
Egypt: We have flexibility so we can agree with the proposal made by Indonesia.
Netherlands: I concur with what was already said by Canada and Germany so we would remove the whole paragraph if we keep this “free from drug abuse” terminology.
Chair: Indonesia made a proposal, and Egypt supported it. If we take away “society free from drug abuse” and stop at challenges, are you comfortable?
Peru: We support the proposal from Indonesia of PP6bis up until challenges
Russia: No unfortunately we are not in a position to display flexibility and we can’t agree to half of this paragraph. The aim of building “a society free from drug abuse” is contained in the guidelines on Alternative Development and this is an important element of Alternative Development. Some of the members refusing to accept the paragraph to be included are devoid of any sound reason. We would like to keep this section.
Colombia: We are able to support proposal from Indonesia and would propose keeping the last part of para, so we would like to also keep from “it is integral part” onwards, which is language from guiding principles on Alternative Development.
Australia: We find this language outdated and an unattainable concept so we thank Indonesia for this proposal and can accept the proposal, and accept the Colombian addition.
Chair: This situation has been messed up by all of you. Now I ask if we delete the paragraph. Some are saying retain, some are saying shorten. We can’t shorten, retain, and delete at the same time unless you can show innovation to make these come together. I propose we delete the paragraph. Any delegation proposing against deletion should propose an alternative.
Russia: We are innovative in some areas, in others conservative, and urge consideration of our opinion on this paragraph. We can’t agree to deletion in full or in part. We express our surprise on this discussion. We didn’t have an opportunity for detailed discussion in the informals and this is the first we are hearing of concerns about this paragraph. We were busy with other paragraphs in informals, so this is a pity. We are prepared for flexibility in other areas but not here.
Egypt: This term was in last year’s resolution so it is not outdated and reflects the reality. We can’t go along with the new inclusion proposed by Colombia. For us, we delete or keep as it is. We are in favour of deleting this as a whole.
Iran: This resolution is on promoting Alternative Development. Our experts say we can’t remove this paragraph, if we do this goes to other perspectives on this issue. We can’t remove all paragraphs which contain different views so we can’t accept removing this paragraph on principle. We would like to keep the original text. We are sorry for complicating discussions but this would make agreeing to other paragraphs difficult. We can’t apply this deletion to other paras without consensus. We would like to keep this paragraph as it is.
Chair: If we continue discussing this matter, I would leave this matter this way – there are two sides, ones that retain, ones that don’t. Are there comments on PP9?
Iran: If we want to follow this approach – I don’t want to prolong this discussion. There is no possibility to accept this para.
Netherlands: We fully support this para to be here.
France: Just like my Dutch colleague – we also support keeping this para. This para lets us uphold certain principles that are important in AD
Colombia: We recall that in informals, we hadn’t decided on the final text, or if we should wait for the res to ripen further.
Chair: The fruit is very ripe, it’s getting rotten
Colombia: Then we hope to keep the para.
Chair: I want to make progress. I ask the Iranian delegation to give me a sound understanding of why the para should be removed. I want to understand you so that I know what I’m doing here is sound enough.
Iran: We’re following instructions – we’ve raised our arguments. Our arguments are clear – this text is not relevant to AD programs. We’re not in Geneva to talk human rights – this is irrelevant. I don’t know why everyone else is married to this. I’m not in a position to accept this kind of wording.
Chair: Ok, understood.
Guatemala: We request this para stay in the text. Nobody’s requested an explanation from me, but I’d like to recall that we are in the UNODC – but by saying we are in the UN system – we’re not in a forum in my country, we’re in the UN. In Geneva, there are resolutions discussing drug policy. Drugs don’t affect vehicles etc – we’re trying to address humans, and communities. 15 delegations on the screen want to keep this language – we are purely reiterating that human rights and human dignity be respected here, in regard to AD.
Peru: Following the eloquent statement by Guatemala, there is little else to add. This is not a para from Geneva, this text is from PP5 from 2019 Declaration – one of the key docs from CND. So the context is more than clear. We understand that some delegations have a different perspective on human rights, but it’s hard for me to understand how these delegations accepted the 2019 Declaration. Programs for AD are one of the core guidelines in drug control policies. For the para to be more clear, I think there was a proposal from Australia, to specify that we’re being clear about AD. This text is supported broadly by many delegations – for us it’s important for the positions of delegations to be intelligible to other colleagues. We need to make progress towards consensus.
US: The question on whether or not human rights is relevant – Article 14 1988 Convention, para 2: this is exactly what AD is, and it says, the measures adopted should respect human rights. It’s not only relevant, it must be respected.
UK: The UN Guiding Principles on AD – we need to address human rights instruments. Here is more evidence on the relevance of human rights.
Russia: We note with surprise the quoting by some delegations on the 2019 Dec and the guidelines on AD, but these delegations don’t wish to apply agreed language to PP6bis
Chair: We are balancing interests – we’re all diplomats here – you have to give and take. If I leave every delegation to give their views, we wouldn’t make any progress. In PP6bis and PP9 – this is the tension. We’re quoting resolutions on all of these issues. Can we balance PP6bis and PP9? And we have a give and take, and move forward. I want to see a language of balance. If you’re persuaded to think that we can find balance, let’s do that.
Iran: Colleagues here mentioned there is no difference between Geneva, New York and Vienna. I propose a paragraph agreed from the resolution approving the SDGs. I will dictate this:
“Strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial, or trade measures that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.”
I am aware these resolutions have not been agreed by consensus but have been approved in Geneva. If you can approve this we can go along with all other paragraphs.
Chair: I am surprised where this is going. There is tension between PP6bis and PP9. In order to satisfy all sides I think we should not allow these resolutions to come into play.
Peru: We are putting on the table a package deal between PP6 and PP9. We can accept this proposal made by the chair but wanted to clarify our position, particularly with PP6bis. We are not against agreed language, however we believe the resolution is extending beyond what we hoped for. In the spirit of consensus and to cooperate with work we can accept your proposal of PP6bis and PP9 as a package deal.
USA: At this point we can’t accept this compromise. In 2016 negotiating UNGASS we were not in this position. This choice between human rights and drug free society we have decided we need reference to human rights. As you can see, the phrase “drug free society” does not have consensus. We need to find another way forward rather than pitting respect for human rights against drug free society.
Chair: What is the alternative you propose? We have to have a language which makes others comfortable, so the other side is comfortable. This is all about consensus and standing at this position does not make others comfortable.
Belgium: We are in favour of keeping PP9. In the spirit of compromise we can narrow this down to include, in particular, what is the relevance of human rights in Alternative Development. If we specify, the link is very clear. We propose narrowing down PP9 and then removing PP6.
Chair: I hope that you heard Russia clearly, for them PP6bis is non-negotiable. Hence I asked to find a way to deal with this as well. Any other comments?
Egypt: PP9 is agreed language and we have no room to remove it, it is very hard to even change any of it. This paragraph has been negotiated a lot and we wish to keep it as a reference to most of our resolutions. The previous colleague was trying to help as it is hard to change anything. Maybe if we say “Alternative Development programs” instead. It is your decision, but I believe we can move on from PP9 as it is hard to change or find a solution.
Chair: I was not alluding to change. I can see what is happening, you all know why this is happening. I don’t need to repeat this, I am simply trying to get us to move forward.
Russia: In reference to a “society free from drug abuse”, the opposite of this would be a society in which drug abuse is promoted – are we trying to seek this? We should focus on measures to clarify issues related to drug abuse, preventing drug abuse through treatment, and discussing all issues related to drug abuse. Rejecting this agreed language from just last year is surprising. We underscore that we strive to achieve these aims, in our view objecting to this concept says we want to promote a society in which drug abuse is common. In our view this is a very rational approach.
Iran: Firstly, on the package we don’t agree that you remove this. I don’t understand why the language I gave has disappeared from the screen without permission of my delegation. I gave language which is completely relevant to the resolution, talking about the Alternative Development program which illegal sanctions made have a negative impact on countries targeted such as Iran and Afghanistan. I am astonished that the language proposed by my delegation was removed.
Chair: I don’t want us to proceed with discussions on PP9, this should go back to informals.
Peru: We have a long debate on the two paras (PP11alt and PP11bis). I believe we’ve presented good wording. Can we work on this instead of the original PP11
Egypt: I was going to have a proposal on the other para, I forgot to put my nameplate down.
Chair: Any other comments – is it agreed and there are no objections?
Australia: We could withdraw our reservation if some of the reservations are lifted in some of the paras further down.
Colombia: I’d like to give context – we – as it says in the text – as there are many other parts of the PP11 that have been deleted and were going to be added to the OPs. If this happens we don’t need to reserve this para as we have made important concessions. If you are okay with this, you’re okay with it. We can proceed this para with the understanding that our concerns will be considered in the OPs
Canada: I agree with Colombia – the discussion in the informals – talking about the environment and rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands – then we can agree to the para as is
China: Can we change “crop” to “crops”
Peru: We thank Colombia, Australian and Canada for their flexibility – I assure you that your concerns will be addressed in the OPs.
Russia: In the third line of this para, we would like to remove the capital letters for Indigenous Peoples – we could just as well capitalise “A Society Free of Drug Abuse” if we wanted to
Chair: Editorial services will handle this
Australia: It’s normal practice to capitalise nations, and Indigenous Peoples are nations – it is also a sign of respect
Russia: We have great respect for Indigenous Peoples – but we don’t use capital letters. If this is common practice in the UN, we’d like to see evidence. We think it should not be capitalised here
Egypt: I think this debate is also in other fora’s. It’s a Pandora’s Box that should not be opened.
Chair: Can we find agreement on this, to leave it to editorial services.
Guatemala: I believe we have always shown flexibility – I joke that we are acrobats. Our only red line, is when there are attempted breaches in human rights – if this was an editorial issue, we wouldn’t have the UNDRIP. With a great deal of respect – for those countries without the benefit of having Indigenous Peoples – we ask along the same lines of resolutions from CND, CCPCJ, ECOSOC – we ask that we follow to process to capitalise. The CND should not be the first body to remove this respect. If we are going to approve this para, it must be with capital letters.
Chair: I appreciate the sensitivity. I served in NY also – Ghana was the co-chair on this issue. However, we need to make progress. We don’t achieve everything in a day. I have consulted the Secretariat and I have information but I don’t want Egypt to take the floor on this again. I will let Russia take the floor once more, and then I will make a decision. Canada, I don’t want you to take the floor either.
Russia: We would like to state that in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation – we have hundreds of Indigenous Peoples in the Russian Federation. We will consult capital and come back to you on this. We’d like to confirm that we have the deepest respect for Indigenous Peoples.
Chair: Guatemala – I need to have a word with you in public. I’ve gone through the UNDRIP – I’ve seen practice of Indigenous Peoples in small letters, when it is referring to a descriptive and not a proper noun. I’d like you to accept this.
Guatemala: We never show red lines – but we want to see something – to see progress – we prefer 50% of something rather than 100% of nothing. We can go ahead with using small letters – this hurts more than you can imagine. This same level of contortionism – out of extreme contortionism.
Chair: We should all learn from Guatemala. Russia, you called for small “I” and small “P”.
Australia: I believe we should take standard practice in the UN, in fact taking the usage of the leading UN agency on indigenous people, who use capitalization. This is good advice that we take this standard UN practice.
Canada: I would like to refer delegates to the editorial manual on capitalization in English, when referring to cultures, communities, land, practices, etc. “Indigenous People” is clearly referenced as being capitalized.
Chair: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, where it is capitalized differently throughout. I would like to conclude that we have agreed on this paragraph, pending capitalization or non-capitalization dependent on consistent practice implemented by editorial services.
We no longer have interpretation so we should not continue. I thank you and thank specifically Guatemala for showing flexibility. The session is adjourned.
Wednesday afternoon, 5pm
Chair: I understand that a few paras have been agreed in informals
Bolivia: We can go ahead and delete our pending comment on this
Chair: Could you remove the pending?
Bolivia: Yes, we can also agree to delete this para.
Iran: I see everyone in the room is happy. So we will withdraw our reservation in this para.
Bolivia: We just discussed this largely. I’d like to state that the world drug situation is agreed language – so this is not new. We suggested “world drug situation and problem” but this was not agreed. What I bring here is something that has been agreed. We can put situation and problem.
Chair: Can the room assist us here?
Peru: We’ve made huge efforts over hours on this issue as to the most appropriate wording. I made a very emphatic appeal to delegates – many understand that the term is not as relevant from the beginning of the 1990s. My suggestion (which was well received) is that it’s just one year until with have the mid-term review – at the intersessionals, how we could update the term. We don’t think it’s the time to update this language. Next year there will be more space for this discussion. We everyone to ask this later in the year.
Iran: I’ve heard the points made by Russia. I’m not an expert in that field, but I’ve asked for a legal opinion. “Traditional licit uses” does not fit into the conventions. I don’t know how to resolve this but we think it will open the door for a good excuse for some drugs, e.g. poppy, it is a drug.
Chair: That’s right, you and I are not experts in the field. I hope Russia has come up with a construction.
Russia: I’d be pleased to provide a constructive proposal, but at this stage, we don’t have one. Parties to the convention can temporarily allow for coca leaf production – but this should be stopped. In accordance to the 2007 INCB Report – clarifications were made on this matter, which says, during the 1961 Convention – was a means to reduce the production of cocaine at an international level. Some states are now stating that they wish to produce coca bush, and for scientific and medical use. Table 1 of the 1961 Convention states that the production of coca bush is not allowed.
El Salvador: My proposal is to eliminate after health services ”preserving their traditions”
Venezuela: Where it says “including, health practices” – 1988 Convention, Article 14 explains what is listed and what is not. If that solution helps, we’d be pleased, otherwise we could delete it
Egypt: We would delete the rest after health practices.
Chair: We’ve gone in circles. Is Russia in agreement with the last construction?
Russia: We agree with the Egyptian suggestion
Colombia: We’re not happy with this proposal, but we can accept El Salvador’s proposal, and think about Venezuela’s. We could say “taking into account of traditional licit uses of plants containing narcotic or psychotropic substances as accorded in Article 14…”
Peru: We think these are good proposals – at the same time, we are surprised we have to delete this – it’s clear language in Article 14. We are prepared to continue working if necessary. We thank the other co-sponsors of this L3 resolutions.
Chair: Thank you – now, I want to stop the discussion. I see a lot of interest in taking the floor. I have a few questions to ask. Is Russia comfortable with ‘taking into account, Article 14 of the 1988 Convention’
Russia: As far as we understand we already referred to this para in PP3 – we think it is sufficient as a reference to Article 14.
Bolivia: I support what has been said by Mexico – the right to maintain should not be deleted. The right to maintain tradition is part of the rights.
Ecuador: We can go along with these proposals – this para is very important. We want to propose ‘taking into consideration the articles proposed in Article 14’
Chair: In PP3 it’s been referenced – can we reference it again?
Egypt: For us, we can say including traditional health practices, and that will be the end.
Iran: I’d appreciate if colleagues help me – what does it mean by ‘traditional licit use of plants’ – in Article 14 – I can’t see this in the Article.
US: It is good to see the various comments made here. We must be cognizant that we are CND and what we agree is then policy for the entire UN community in regards to drugs. There is tension between the three conventions and rights of Indigenous People. We can see this somewhat in the three treaties. The first has reservations which have now expired. The second has reservations which are unlimited. The third convention has provisions addressing eradication of traditional plants with psychotropic properties. We must have protection of traditional practices, bound by 1971 and 1961 conventions. We must keep reference consistent with or in accordance with conventions. We could certainly cite Article 14. We are supportive of the Egypt language proposal as not limited to traditional health practices. 1961 Convention is clear that restrictions on use don’t apply to medical use, but medical use is not defined, each state decides this definition. Traditional medicine is not excluded. We can support “traditional health services” but can’t support language referencing traditional or customary practices not related to health.
Chair: Are you comfortable with what is on the screen or would you add language?
US: Add “In accordance with three international drug control conventions, including, in particular, Article 14 of 1988 Convention”
Russia: We can’t work on the proposed language. However, the 1988 convention says each state will take measures to eradicate plants and these accounted for human rights and traditional licit uses. This means we are respecting human rights but not re-stating their right to traditional, illicit uses. We can continue work on this part of the paragraph to reiterate this right. We are okay with the mention made to the three control conventions. We would like to revisit this paragraph after consulting with experts in Moscow.
Colombia: Like Russia, we can’t work with language as it stands. Part of PP3 at the very end, can be repeated here and we can find language to include everyone. “Measures adopted shall account for fundamental rights and account for licit uses”. We continue to be prepared to work on this paragraph.
Bolivia: I am not going to add anything. The US has been very constructive to put these terms and we have no problem to delete “traditional customs” and keep “traditional health practices”, and the mention of the three conventions, in particular Article 14. We think we can proceed and include Colombia addition although perhaps this is not necessary if we keep the terms as it is.
Peru: We also are able to accept amendments proposed by the US as we think this is constructive. As for the Colombia proposal, who think this could be more explicit in reference to Article 14, but we think this is explicit enough. We are close to reaching consensus and I would appeal to delegates to think over their positions. Perhaps we can close this afternoon with PP11 and take it to be completed.
Chair: Does the room agree with the paragraph as on screen?
Colombia: Not able to agree with this language, if you can proceed subject to our future approval but we can’t right now agree.
Guatemala: We agree with paragraph as it stands and we are interested in showing flexibility. If this is the view of the room then perhaps we should consider this to be agreed subject to approval of Colombia. We are referring to Article 14. We are prepared to move forward with this.
Algeria: We can’t accept this paragraph, however we support the proposal by Egypt, and perhaps Bolivia, but as the paragraph is we can’t accept it.
Egypt: We also give reservations so long there are other reservations so we can consult with our capital.
Russia: Paragraph with current language is a good basis for further discussion but we can’t give it our agreement.
Chair: We have made progress but not agreed. We will move on to PP12.
Chair: Are there any comments?
Iran: For the record, on the previous paragraph, we have reservations and will consult with colleagues. On PP12 as discussed we put a lot of time into this paragraph. We strongly believe this does not have relevance to this resolution and should be deleted. We propose agreeing with Egypt and considering the second part of this paragraph, resolution 2019, it is ECOSOC resolution and hear arguments from others, we should look at context, purpose, and aims of resolutions. We see many paragraphs in this resolution which is the result of compromise between delegations. We have many concerns with this resolution so we can’t show flexibility to go along with the second part. Depends on other colleagues if they wish to prolong this discussion.
Chair: Where does the first part end?
Iran: We propose full stop after “programs”.
Sweden: Agree with a colleague from Iran that we have spent too much time on this paragraph and we have failed to understand the original problem. CND does not exist in a vacuum, there are other resolutions which we need to take into account, we have agencies here but also need to account for the bigger picture so we would like to maintain reference to ECOSOC resolution 2019/2 in this paragraph.
Mexico: The only possibility to move forward is to understand if all delegations respect ECOSOC. We can’t reach consensus, can’t accept that CND goes against ECOSOC, and can’t accept resolutions by the mother body. Does this delegation not respect ECOSOC?
Chair: There is no consensus, we move to OP2.
Chair: Any comments on OP2?
Bolivia: In the previous consultation just an hour before, we kept, with UNODC consideration for this phrase. In this position we should wait for UNODC.
Chair: Refer the matter to UNODC for comments.
UNODC: We have checked and the wording is absolutely correct and we can proceed.
Iran: I would like to reference the “mother body” of this commission. Do we also accept the general assembly? If they accept the general assembly, we will go along with all resolutions proposed. I would like to thank the Secretariat and we can take out our reservations.
Chair: Do we agree with paragraph OP2 as stated on the screen?
Bolivia: UNODC stated position and this was subject to inclusion of Bolivia proposing deletion of psychotropic substances as phrasing is not the case of the 1971 Convention. We are all in agreement on this.
UNODC: To clarify, we have verified wording of “production of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Can check agian if we can delete one or both.
Peru: I share your appetite to continue, we have convened in formals but this is a better place to keep working. We can keep working in CoW if others agree.
Chair: Do delegates want to go to informals or continue in CoW without interpretation? Can we confirm this language is okay as it is on the screen?
UNODC: Verified that this is the correct wording.
Chair: Do we agree with language as it is on screen?
Bolivia: In this case we agree.
Chair: Any comments or objections? I can see a new compromise proposal on screen.
Russia: We have the same concerns as previously, it is a miscommunication that it is reflected here that Russia agrees. “Taking into account traditional licit uses where there is historic evidence of this use”. We need to make reference to the three drug control conventions.
Chair: Any further comments while the Secretariat transports this language to this paragraph?
Germany: We would like to delete German reservation to this language as we agreed on language in informals.
Mexico: We don’t see the point of the proposal from Russia to take into account three conventions when not mentioning licit use, as stated in Article 14 of 1988 Convention.
USA; Can we take due account of the environment “enable indigenous peoples and local communities … consistent with the three conventions” and our preference is to stop there. If we don´t keep the UNdrip, it confuses the issue as to what our treaties permit.
Chair: Can you give us some clarity how it should read in its entirety?
USA: Sure, so…”taking due account of traditional uses as well as the protection of environment, enable communities to strengthen their institutions … in accordance with the three international UN drug control conventions.”
Russia: The proposal by colleagues, we dont have problem with keeping “illegal drug production” but we are talking about promoting sustainable alternative programs. It is a big goal. After that we are going into details – what is the value of adding traditional uses and envirnoment? This is kind of cherry picking. We are also referencing conventions? This does not make sense to us, so we propose to delete the proposal. We don’t believe it has any added value.
Bolivia: I am in agreement with the american proposal but I think we have to clarify two aspects: taking into account the conventions, but before that we stated to be consistent with obligations. We have also obligations to takin into account the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. So I would like to include that. Also, when we say “illicit drug crop cultivation” it is difficult for us to understand because there is not really such a thing. It has been said in a previous paragraph, “plants used for the illicit production of narcotic drugs”.
Brazil: We maintain the “illicit drug cultivation” and rela<ted criminal activities as this was agreed in informals.
Egypt: The aim of this OP is to encourage implementation of policies that promote sustainable develpment for indigenous territories, ok? I don’t see that we take into account traditional use as a poit because it is not related to the paragraph. So maybe for us to accommodate, we suggest “and that will enable a maintenance to” various things and “including, traditional medicine” or something like that. We had a similar issue in the previous pp. We don’t need “in accordance”.
Russia: We have some doubts that the measured described here will enable indigenous people but we do take into account that there is such a need. We would like to keep the agreed term “illicit drug crop cultivation” and we can “taking due account of traditional uses where there is historical evidence” and we would like insert “in accordance with the three UN drug control conventions” and we would like to emphasize there is no need for a comma after “environment”. And, “taking due account of aspirations and needs of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures … and promote their development” This is a proposal for the consideration of the room.
USA: The latest proposal of the Russian Federation might work for us. Listening to the room, it seems it is important to have a reference to the declaration on the rights if indigenous people. For us, the treaties are binding so accordance “with” is correct. If we retain the declaration, we suggest language such as “in line with” or “taking into account”.
Mexico: We support the balance regarding the conventions and declarations.
Indonesia: I hope to not complicate your job but we actually prefer the original op10. Please see the chat function of our proposal.
Chair: I am afraid I am not interested in a new paragraph. If you could work on the paragraph as it is?
Indonesia: I will read it then. (…)
Chair: I am afraid you are too fast.
Indonesia: Change “indigenous land” with “areas” … it is a bit confusing, if you coud refer to the chat?
Chair: Please collect your thoughts and come back to us.
Member State: I think it was very thoughtful of the USA to suggest what they did but I think we don’t need it. It is about rights, not aspirations. Therefore what Indonesia was stating, it is true, it is getting very difficult to understand so we would prefer to leave it as such.
Guatemala: I was going to ask the same. I can not see the previous proposals and how the pp is amended now. Could we see the proposal by USA and Indonesia? It is in the chat, could we see them?
Chair: Let us have the clean test first and then we will consider the alternative paragraph.
Canada: We support the Bolivian suggestion to delete this section. We feel “aspirations” is not reflecting the level of engagement we would like to see.
Peru: I echo what colleagues from Bolivia raised. It is true that the declaration refers to rights but it also refers to needs and aspirations so I see no contradiction here. I don’t want to complicate your job but I want to clarify that this language is in the declaration.
Chair: So are we OK with the language on the screen now?
Iran: Maybe I should change seats. Could you look our side of the room too?
Chair: Nobody is discriminated against.
Iran: Inshallah it was not deliberate.
Chair: I do not want this.
Iran: We do not want to be ignored.
Chair: Nobody is ignores you. As long as we see you, we will give you the floor.
Iran: Of course, it is our solemn right to speak.
Chair: I want constructive engagement.
Iran: On the proposal by Indonesia – can we see that on the screen? It is our right to see that. We are not in the position to recognize indigenous peoples, here is not only about decorations of rights… indigenous issues only belong to one part of the world, so we cannot fixate on this issue. We can not go along with the text as it is.
Brazil: I would propose that instead of “illicit drug crop cultivation”, we have “illicit drug production and trafficking” as used in other parts of the text.
Indonesia: Can you reflect our changes as an alt and states can consider this further. This is the best way to work constructively. We are not forcing member states to agree, but at least reflect this on the screen.
Peru: How Iran is denying the insertion of a UN document which has been adopted with the vote of Iran is difficult to understand. It has no rationality. This is a position which has been adopted by Iran. This is a binding document but is being rejected by the representative here. This is simply a personal reflection.
Bolivia: We thank Brazil for the addition of “production and trafficking”. We can agree with this and delete the former proposal. Would also like to keep the text of the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples as we must take these rights into account. Those rights have been abused within the 1961 Convention and Bolivia has been stating this in the Plenary this week. We will fight for the rights of these Indigenous Peoples. We have to take this into account in relation to alternative development. We also wonder why Iran is questioning something previously signed by Iran itself.
Chair: I don’t want to go in circles on OP10. The work we are conducting is a collective enterprise. Member states decide what we should do. My role is to be an umpire and ensure we reach an agreement. That is what I am doing, nothing else. We have on the screen the work done on OP10 and have some suggestions made by Indonesia. From my perspective on OP10 and what Indonesia has suggested goes beyond consensus. It is up to you íf we continue work on OP10 or move on to rendition Indonesia is given, it is your choice.
Brazil: Appreciate constructive suggestions but would prefer to continue work on OP10 as this is closer to consensus.
Colombia: We see merit on some elements introduced by Indonesia which we can reflect in OP10. The commission has used “indigenous lands” before but the aim of the paragraph goes beyond simply indigenous lands. In Colombia Indigenous Peoples are not impacted by cultivation not on their indigenous land.
Iran: Some misunderstanding from my intervention on the Declaration. I have never denied the declaration but look at our mandate. Here is not the right place to talk about Indigenous People and link with drugs. We fully support the proposal of Indonesia as it is more balanced and can go along with this.
Peru: Do not agree with Iran re this being to combat the world drug problem. We have mentioned this many times; this is not difficult to understand. Advancement of cultivation is impacting livelihoods and rights of Indigenous Populations. These are also stated in the reports of UNODC in many countries, particularly Andean countries. I support the chair in continuing work on OP10 as I believe we are close to consensus. We accept the amendment by the Colombian delegation.
Colombia: We correct our proposal to change “areas affected” and not “illicit drug cultivation”, change language on areas affected by cultivation.
Indonesia: We are flexible to work with OP10 and happy to support the Colombian proposal.
Chair: Are there any comments in this paragraph on screen?
Russia: After “taking into account”, we suggest deleting the last part starting from “maintain” going until “development”. We understand it is important for some MS to keep this reference, but even in the declaration, there are some constraints so to say, for example in national law. I am not correct in quoting the declaration but I think these caveats can help us come to agreement.
Chair: I need language. Is this acceptable as is on the screen?
Russia: As you understand, the issue is very sensitive for our delegation. I am trying to find the right language, I still need confirmation from capital but this is what I can do for now.
Chair: Okay, we leave it as it is and move to OP10.
Iran: you are right, I will change my seat. I wanted to put this para in brackets because it is a matter of national security for us. The misuse of this wording… the realities in our region is very complex… I raised this before many times. I would like to keep the first part as there is consensus, but we cannot consider the other part. The proposal made by Russia – I have to share it with capital. The only thing we can justify in this resolution is having local communities, so we can apply this to them. It is a matter of national security as I said, so you cannot ask us to for more flexibility. Here taking about cultures, traditions… what is the relevance of this with this place, the CND? This is a question that was raised by our experts. What is in the mandate of this body that we should deal with these terminologies. If there is consensus, we will send it to capital, but there are these questions.
Chair: I don’t see any utility in going around in circles, but as it is you, MS who decide where we go, I will give the floor to Bolivia.
Bolivia: So to include the Iranian concern, if we put “encourage MS to implement concrete policies for indigenous peoples and local communities”, I think we could get closed to the end of this discussion.
USA: Thank you, Bolivia, that is a helpful suggestion. We have concerns about the issues raised about “areas affected by cultivation”. We have a hard time understanding how production and trafficking leads to AD: We need to have a reference to cultivation.
Chair: What is your proposal?
USA: We would like to stick to the wording as it was originally proposed. We are open to other suggestions and explanations but we really need to keep cultivation in there.
Venezuela: I think our concerns are taken care of. There is one line though: “as well as the protection of the environment”. This might be at the wrong location, we don’t see how this is connected to our topic? As you said, it might have to do more later in the editorial.
Chair: Do you have a language proposal? Or a placement proposal?
Peru: I believe it is possible to fit all options into the paragraph: illicit crop cultivation, manufacture and trafficking. These are the chains of the world drug problem, so we think they can coexist.
Mexico: Just to answer the question. AD has been done since a long time and it has to be done in respect and with care to the environment. That is why we are referring to the environment.
Chair: We cannot connect to Japan online, so we are at the end of our consideration of this draft resolution. We have not been able to conclude on OP10 and I leave it to the sponsors to deal with it in informals. Tomorrow at 10am, we will look at L4. Meeting adjourned.