Tuesday morning session.

Kazakhstan: We have made progress in informals, but have no paras agreed in informals. We can start from PP1alt

PP1alt

UK: We thank Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan for the open nature of negotiations in informals.

Chair: I see a lot of brackets on the first para, there are a lot of brackets here.

Egypt: We would like to stick with “drug supply reduction measures”. Re unmanned/uncrewed – the word “unmanned” is well used in UN forums, so we would like to stick with “unmanned”

Russia: This supports the application of UAVs in law enforcement – including projects to track drug cultivation and drug smuggling. PP1alt – we think we are moving in the right direction, our delegation supports the scope of this resolution – we think “drug supply reduction measures” could appear in the title. We support what was proposed yesterday by the US and France.

Chair: Propose we look at the proposals made by Italy.

US: We support proposals made by Italy

Chair: Do we delete: “upon request”? Yes. What about the Indonesian proposal? Let’s move on to “prevent and combat drug related crimes” – Russia suggests to replace by with through

US: With apologies – in reference to the Indonesian suggestion on drug supply reduction measures – we can’t agree to this, it’s too broad – we want a narrower focus “mapping and detecting illicit cultivation, manufacture and trafficking of drugs” here

Switzerland: As our UK and Russian colleagues have said – we agree that this resolution is a positive sign to allow us to tackle new topics in the CND. In line with the US, we can’t agree to supply reduction text – it is not specific enough. The US support text is supported by us.

Mexico: We agree to narrow down the para, as this sets the framework for the resolution. We also support the more detailed text. In the fifth line, we need to replace combat with counter.

Russia: We understand that others don’t want to broaden the resolution. We suggest adding “as part of comprehensive supply reduction efforts” in line 3. We also support the use of agreed language on “counter”

EU: We are making good progress here. Russia suggested having supply reduction in the title, I support this, but not in PP1. We are close to a solution here. We had a suggestion on mapping crops, but we could add “manufacture of drugs and trafficking routes” – if we say this, then we can agree to that and not insist on limiting this to the mapping of crops.

UK: We’re happy to go along with that suggestion – the use of these vehicles can be wide ranging and can be altered depending on what they are used for. “Supply reduction” is too broad for us. We are happy to go along with EU suggestion, to take out suggestion in third line and be more specific to tracking routes in the para.

Switzerland: I think there is a way to combine the suggestions by Russia, Egypt and Iran – what about “through drug supply reduction measures in particular the mapping…”

Egypt: I support the Russian proposal. We will try to consider the issue on trafficking routes. Our preference is drug trafficking. Could we add “to provide technological capacity building programmes”

France: We support US and UK proposal regarding detection and mapping. However, and not wanting to broaden the scope, I’d like to replace “in particular” with “by”

UK: We’re going in the right direction here. UK has many capacity building programs. I can’t think of a case where drones are used to enable technical capacity building programmes.

EU: I support the French intervention – the Swiss proposal doesn’t work for us. Wondering about the linguistics here – if we keep drug supply reduction in this para (we are opposed to this) – we need to define with aspect of supply reduction is being discussed heere. We could keep it in the thrid line, keep “through mapping”.

Chair: So we keep supply reduction on the third line and delete it on the fifth line and use “through”. Egypt, could we find a place in an OP for your suggestion?

Egypt: Yes – I need to confirm with my capital.

Chair: I’d like an understanding of “routes” here – this can mean so much

EU: Drug trafficking – in general – is too broad for us. If there is a street dealer trafficking drugs, this is not what we want covered in this res. If we’re talking about drug trafficking routes, we’re talking about the movement of traffickers along routes.

Russia: We have another proposal – t add “production” – we are not only dealing with synthetic drugs, but also narcotic plants. Drones can track the activities of criminal groups – if a drone observes such activities, but it doesn’t’ fall under the term “trafficking routes” then we may be limiting routes. This is why we want to keep term drug trafficking. We think if the para ends with “trafficking” then we can respond to a broad range of issues. We are however willing to look into this further.

Chair: We have agreed to everything except “route” – can we agree, with that exception, we agree to the para?

Iran: It’s better to include illicit “drug” cultivation, production and manufacture.

France: We prefer the term “route” – and we don’t have any agreement on the term “drones”

EU: Unfortunately – we cannot agree to enlarging here – we can agree to routes. We can’t agree to Iran’s proposal, it is to broad.

UK: The issue with trafficking is that it crosses borders – we can’t agree to “and trafficking” as it crosses borders.

US: We are also supportive of the ‘mapping and detecting’ – this is familiar language from 2016 UNGASS document.

Chair: Can we find a way to narrow the suggestion of routes.

Egypt: Could we add “from the crops” after routes

[]: could we say “and trafficking routes for the crops”

Iran: could we add “inside national borders”. If we talk about mapping the routes (not the traffickers) it limits the scope of law enforcement forces. They want to follow the traffickers. Within national borders. It’s necessary

US: Could we say national jurisdictions, not borders. We can’t agree to “for the crops”, could we add, as appropriate

Russia: We agree that Iran’s proposal could address this problem. We’d like to go back to trafficking and remove the routes – as drones would not be crossing borders. We agree to “as appropriate”

Canada: One of our concerns is the scope of this resolution – can we retain the concept of tracking corridors rather than routes – rather than following humans, as there will be privacy concerns.

Egypt: We have to take this back to capital – we prefer to put supply reduction. All the components here have changed. For now, we have to wait.

Iran: For clarification – should we say ‘drug’ trafficking corridors. We’re prepared to put ‘drug’ before ‘cultivation’

EU: It’s changing very quickly – I would say we can have “manufacture of drugs and drug trafficking corridors”. Could we say within national territories. We can go ahead as it is on the screen now.

Chair: Ok, we can agree on this, pending the decision on unmanned/uncrewed, and Egypt is going to come back to us.

Egypt: Also on PP1 – we’d like to have comprehensive drug supply reduction efforts. Are we using routes or corridors?

Chair: Ok – we move on.

PP1

Chair: To clarify – we are deleting PP1. I see no objections. Deleted.

PP1alt

Deleted.

PP1altbis

Canada: We propose to delete this.

Russia: Preference to keep. If consensus is found in the room, we could delete this. What does Mexico think?

Mexico: Not to give the wrong message – UAS are used by drug traffickers – so we agreed to have just one para on this, to ensure we address this issue. Could Canada and others go along with this. We are flexible on language used to represent this. We’re fine with equipping.

US: We are sensitive to the concerns raised by Mexico – but we don’t think it’s appropriate as we don’t intend to provide training to traffickers, and this res is about providing training. PP2bis could have new language “including in some cases the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems”, rather than devoting an entire para to this

UK: This is a good solution. We recognise that these types of aircraft are being used by gangs.

Mexico: We are surprised by the US interpretation – the concern is that they are arming. We can work with this though.

Chair: Are you willing to have PP1altbis deleted, and the suggested text added to PP2bis? I see no objection.

Iran: Having ‘recognising’ – is this correct, or would ‘deeply concerned about’ is more appropriate.

EU: This para is evolving. We suggest delete “”including the development of NPS, methods of concealment and drug related criminal activities” and would add “in that respect” and we can lift our reserve on this para.

Iran: We can go along with this text, if we delete “in some cases”

US: Our preferences is to retain the text deleted by the EU. We aim to increase sophistication and worry we will not do this with this deletion.

Russia: I’m not sure whether our proposal will help or not. All the additions made strengthen the para. Could we use the term interalia.

Chair: I have difficulties with this – the focus of the resolution should be highlighted.

EU: Perhaps ‘in particular’ would be more apt here. I’d have to think about not deleting this text.

Iran: Is it correct to use “remotely piloted aircraft systems”?

US: With regard to including – interalia – could we add, ‘as well as’. Systems refers to the system on the ground, as well as the aircraft.

France: On the words “development of NPS” – I don’t really see the link to the use of drones.

Mexico: Mexican drug traffickers are benefitting from drones transporting very small doses of drugs – so NPS is important here.

France: I now understand. I don’t have a new proposal to add.

Egypt: Thank you for your patience. During informals, we’d agreed to limit the scope and focus on remotely piloted systems, but are not entirely comfortable here.

Chair: Are we in agreement here? I see no objection.

France: I just wanted to place a reservation – still need time to think about this.

Chair: We’ll leave the text as is, and hope we can move forward in next seating. We will move on to PP3.

PP3

UK: We suggested to end the para earlier.

Wednesday Morning (11.30am)

Chair: We’ve given Egypt more time to consider ‘trafficking routes’

Egypt: We’ve checked with capital, between the difference of routes/corridors – we prefer routes, and not just focus on drug trafficking, and to keep it general. We’re still considering this. We don’t understand the difference between routes and corridors

Spain: We reiterate – we’d like to end the para with routes/corridors

Armenia: We’d prefer to discuss the title when we have a better scope of the resolution. We’d prefer a more general title, and more descriptive

Chair: We’ve decided to look at the title at the end

Chair: Kyrgyzstan – could you tell us how you went in informals.

Kyrgyzstan: We made progress on PP3alt and PP4 – but we’re stuck on PP4bis and PP4bis alt. We recommend to start from PP4bis. At 2pm we have a side event “” – we will explain our use of UAVs.

PP2bis

France: Yesterday we wanted to replace the term NPS with “including the concealment of NPS” – given the small size of NPS

US: We understand that this is supposed to replace “including the development of”? We would prefer, “after concealment, and trafficking”

Egypt: Add “illicit” trafficking

Switzerland: We have a question – is it the trafficking or the substances that are illicit?

Egypt: “Trafficking in illicit NPS”

Chair: Switzerland are you happy (nod)

Armenia: “new illicit NPS” – also, should we continue the para – it mentions concealment again [twice]

US: We can’t support the addition of illicit – as they are new, they are not yet scheduled and therefore can be illicit

Chair: Egypt is in agreement – we’ll take of “illicit”

Chair: Let’s discuss ‘corruption’
Switzerland: A link to corruption in a res on drones is confusing to us – could Armenia explain what they’re getting at?
Armenia: At this stage we’re not ready to agree to []. Re “due to corruption” – we are proposing they’re related to the new challenges. We’re talking about new methods of concealment. We really want this included in PPs.
Chair: We’re not discussing the title now
Egypt: For us – when we suggested ‘potential use’ – it’s important to leave it in, as this issue is new to us in CND. Probably the best way forward is to keep this in, in case we want to use it. Re Armenia’s proposal – I can’t understand the purpose and I don’t think this is what we’re talking about – this is another branch of corruption. I’m relatively confused and don’t know the purpose of this – could Armenia suggest a new PP?
Switzerland: This is about monitoring corruption due to drones – we find it difficult to understand this concept
Armenia: We still have to see – we’re trying to be flexible – we’re trying to talk about the persistent issues. We want to look at this para as is. We want to focus on new challenges, and border control. There are many cases of corrupt border control.
Chair: As the para stands now – are we in agreement? I see no objection – pending text on remotely piloted aircraft systems

Armenia: Yes, we agree, and to continue discussion on corruption.

PP3/alt

Chair: Sponsors have informed us to delete PP3 – so we will discuss PP3alt

US: “methods” was not a US proposal – we support this word, but not ending the word at this para

Armenia: Our position remains the same. We propose to delete the middle of the para

Canada: We can’t go along with this proposal “altered traditional drug trafficking routes” – re what they’re doing with growth areas.

Armenia: We suggest deletion of word methods – to keep it more applicable to different situations

UK: It seems the issue is a lack of equipment – I think we need to look at the end of the para again – look at ‘primarily’ “which may have altered traditional drug trafficking routes and made them less easily accessible to law enforcement which poses new challenges”

Egypt: Thanks UK – but we’d like keep the text as is. We’re talking about the difficulties we’re facing due to new methods in the illicit market. It’s important to us as a developing country to have access to new technologies.

Armenia: Thanks UK – we can look at this proposal, maybe just some minor changes. In the PP parts of this res, we should be very descriptive for the OPs. If we make details, we might miss something. But we are flexible here.

Chair: Let’s look at the technical issues.

UK: We’d like to take on board the concerns of other MS. We suggest “which poses challenges to them and which may be exacerbated by a lock of or limited access to”

Chair: Are we in agreement now?

Egypt: We would like to retain the last part of the para as it is, we discussed this for one hour in the informal, so we can’t accept the UK suggestion

Turkiye: It’s not good to limit the para. We’d like to have “included but not limited to”

Chair: Egypt, are you comfortable with Turkiye’s addition?

Egypt: We’re not uncomfortable, but our point is a different one. Today there is backtracking, and no agreement. We’d like to retain the original language

US: Could we have clarification – we could go along with this para as is, but having considerable concerns in providing equipment if there are dual uses – there are too many limitations (for this preliminary resolution) – we thought the res is to focus on training, which we support

Egypt: This addition is not in anyway a call on other MS to provide us with modern tech – it’s to highlight that we don’t have access to it. Yesterday, the US made no objections to this. Could this be adopted as discussed yesterday? We also took on the UK suggestions yesterday. We can make it “primarily, interalia”

Chair: It’s not a call for other states to provide equipment

US: We won’t block the room from accepting this text. For the record, we did object to this text yesterday.

Chair: Yesterday, you didn’t object – you asked a question. Now you don’t accept this?

US: We are flexible.

Australia: Not discounted the need for this in developing countries – doesn’t the UK’s suggestion make this clear, as a good solution?

Chair: I don’t want to go back where there is tension. I’m frustrated with this back and forth. It’s not everything that one would get. If you don’t accept it – say you don’t accept it

Armenia: We could say “created additional difficulties for the law enforcement”

Chair: Does everyone accept this now?

(?): Could we say particularly, not especially

Chair: Are we in agreement now, for the second time? Should we retain the para, for the third time? For the fourth time – so agreed

PP4

Chair: The Russian Federation is not here in the COW.

Armenia: We’re ready to go along with Russia’s suggestion here, on the perspective of training. Equipment can be arranged by the countries on their own. We’d like to keep out the second part of the para

Chair: Please give us language – we can’t go into your mind and read what you’d like it to be

Armenia: could we put “could enhance their technical capacity” – and delete the last part of the para

UK: This is close to what we were going to suggest – could we insert [uncrewed aircraft systems] and add “effectiveness” and remove technical capacity. We want to make sure there’s good grounding in human rights

Egypt: The addition of ‘ethical’ would give a negative connotation that UNODC gives unethical advice. We’re very uncomfortable with hinting that this could be the case. In addition, I’d restore ‘equipping uncrewed aircraft systems’ back in the text.

Chair: Whether remotely piloted, we haven’t decided.

Egypt: I was referring to after the word ‘ethical’, there’s ‘equipping…’. Restore that. 

Chair: I’m saying that the technology to use that would not be determined. We’d leave that in brackets.

Egypt: I meant it’s about the ‘equipping’ expression.

Chair: Find a different work that’s not ‘ethical’. It creates allergies.

United Kingdom: WE doubt not imply UNODC will give unethical training. ‘Adequate’ is a low bar. What would be a formulation to describe this training. Now we talk about ‘equipping’. We must talk about ‘training’, maybe ‘suitable’ or ‘human rights based’ or whatever. Or about ‘equipping’, they’re two things. This is very muddy and we want to keep ‘training’, in which case we can drop ‘ethical’. 

Chair: Can you provide language without giving me a description of what you want.

United Kingdom: ‘recognising that providing professional training…’. Take out ‘equipping’. We can come back to ‘equipping’ in a different context.

Russia: On this paragraph, my delegation does not agree with a number of delegations trying to focus only on training. When it comes to training law enforcement in the use of UAS, countries have to have the equipment to undergo the relevant training. It’d not be possible to train people in the use of complex equipment if the equipment doesn’t work. So, supplying appropriate equipment is an integral part of technical assistance by UNODC in countries who spoke before me. WE concur with Egypt. We need to ensure that we focus on equipping member states and provide professional training. In addition, we share Egypt’s view that adding ‘ethical’ is superfluous. At the 60th CND, a resolution on training was approved. We can say ‘professional’, not other adjectives.

Armenia: We maintain the position of focusing only on training. The addition of ‘ethical’ works perfectly but because of concerns we would attach ‘ethical’ to the usage, rather than the training. ‘In their ethical use in line with human rights norms…’. We don’t need the latter part of the paragraph if we add this. We propose deleting the last part of the paragraph.

Chair: We’re beyond ‘ethical’. This brings us back. Unless it’s a firm position, please let it rest.

Italy: We were going to propose a similar solution. 

Australia: My points have been covered by US, Italy, others. When it comes to supply, people can provide drones bilaterally. As CND, should we endorse UNODC to provide equipment? This is the first resolution on drones. We should focus on training. Universities give ethical training…it’s not unheard of.

Pakistan: We share the views of Egypt. When we say ‘ethical’ training, we’d delete that and focus on ‘appropriate professional training’.

Mexico: UNODC is part of the UN development group. Maybe we can include ‘bearing in mind the common minimum standards for multi stakeholder engagement in the UN Development Assistance Framework’. That’s the phrase. Looking at the paragraph, we could put it after ‘authorities’. And drop the ‘ethical’ or other qualifiers.

Chair: I don’t feel the language placed in the paragraph is appropriate. It makes it not easy to comprehend. Better structure and place needed.

United States: Interesting proposal. We need to take a look more closely at the standards to see how they’re relevant to the kind of training we envision. I took the floor we would accept ‘professional’ and that would be our preference. These are skills subject to regulation, certification and, perhaps, ICAO. Where UNODC provides training, that training should be cognisant of international law requirements.

Egypt: Thanks to Pakistan for the ‘appropriate and professional’. It includes what all states envision. Re: ‘equipping’ —once again, this is a preambular paragraph. Let’s not get distracted. It doesn’t begin with ‘invites’, ‘requests’, etc. It’s a problem mentioned. Not an OP. A PP. Highlights a problem.

Kyrgyzstan: Important stage of our joint activities because we’re creating a new text which will be supportive for countries like mine. Briefly, I inform you since 2020-2021, we have these trainings in the country with support from UNODC —for us, equipment is important. How can we only focus on information? We need support with training too. We want to keep this in the text. Possibility of having equipment. If we could retain this paragraph, because we have a lack of equipment.

Chair: I suggest dealing with training in this paragraph and then we can consider issues of whether or not we provide equipment in other paragraphs.

Russia: On the comments by Mexico, unfortunately it’s outside of the context of this paragraph. I quickly had a look at the document and it talks about interactions between different entities of the UN system at the regions level. This paragraph is not about the UNODC. But on the whole about these systems. In Russia, we provide all necessary equipment. In our view, this addition is irrelevant. 

Pakistan: The ‘equipping’ can be from national authorities. It doesn’t have to come from technical cooperation. It’s not a demand om international authorities.

Chair: Mexico was trying to help us. ‘Appropriate professional training’ seems to be accepted. So maybe let’s remove the UN Development Assistance Framework mention. As I give the floor to France, I do not expect that you will draw me back.

France: I’m trying to be constructive. Let’s say ‘appropriate professional and specific training on monitoring and mapping to national law enforcement’. To specify which type of training we’re talking about. It could serve everyone if we remove the end section if we focus the training on ‘monitoring and mapping’.

Chair: What to do with the other part of the paragraph.

France: My proposal is focusing ONLY on training.

Egypt: Question: we requested removing the strikeout on “equipping and competent…”

Armenia: We’re not able to continue with the last part of the paragraph. We don’t want to prescribe which activities should be for training. It’s very much dependent on circumstances and where it will happen. We cannot have a unified approach. We would suggest focusing on training, removing the latter part. The ‘equipping’ part we could keep. Maybe ‘equipping competent national law enforcement agencies with necessary knowledge, skills and capacity…’. The latter part is not acceptable for us.

Chair: Too many words in this paragraph. Not many additions to what’s being communicated. I read a little English in university and I don’t think that’s how you add words in English. It’s too much! We can say it with fewer words!

Pakistan: We can’t agree more. These words are already covered. Re: specific —this is about drones! It’s already specific. Specific is redundant.

Chair: Just contract the language. Take out phrases and it remains the same. ‘Equipping’ is not giving equipment. Help us with language, UK.

United Kingdom: ‘Recognising that suitably equipped and professionally-trained national law enforcement agencies are more effective at using [remotely piloted aircraft systems] at mapping and detecting…’

Chair: Do you want to take the floor?

United States: We want to support this proposal by the UK.

Chair: How can you provide language that can make us all comfortable? We’re close to deciding on this. 

Armenia: We have a constructive proposal. We hope this will open a way perhaps.: Recognising that equipping competent national law enforcement agencies with appropriate equipment and providing professional training…’. Hope colleagues agree.

Chair: Could you read out the whole proposal slowly?

Armenia: ‘Recognising that providing competent national law enforcement agencies with appropriate equipment and professional training could further enhance their capacity to effectively use the relevant skills and knowledge.’

France: We could add at the end ‘on mapping and monitoring the illicit cultivation of drugs’.

Egypt: We’re not talking just about illicit cultivation. Add — ‘illicit drug cultivation, production and manufacture, and drug trafficking routes within national territories as appropriate’.

Chair: Why don’t you want the end of the paragraph? Why is the end of the paragraph not necessary. 

Armenia: Many reasons. When we focus on specific uses, we prescribe the use of these technologies. We should not take up issues that are of the fields of UNODC and CND. Different technologies with concerns with human rights implications. We believe having prescriptive regulations through this resolution could be problematic. The field is not effectively and appropriately regulated in many other fields. CND is not the right place to start this regulation. We propose a constructive ambiguity on skills, effectiveness, knowledge, training. We don’t want issues of regulation of these systems here. We want to be helpful to move forward. If we maintain the constructive ambiguity, we can advance on this paragraph. 

Chair: I want to understand why the inclusion of these are unacceptable to your delegation. I haven’t fully understood. From my perspective, it is only Armenia that does not want that included. If we understand, we can accommodate.

Armenia: To clarify further, I have mentioned we are speaking to matters related to the UNODC and CND mandate. But it’s extremely new. This is not regulated in other forums. Huge concerns with regard to human rights implications, actors involved. We need to make sure we have strong safeguards in the context of application or keep constructive ambiguity focusing on training, knowledge and skills…without prescribing applications of the technology. Yes, it’s confined within national borders, but there should be many other safeguards on usage of these technologies. This is to be regulated in other fora that we don’t want to name. This should be regulated somewhere else.

United States: We would propose to say something like ‘equipment…in conjunction with professional training…’. We’d need language on limiting this on counternarcotics activities and specifically the ones we have identified in this room as being suitable.

Chair: Would’ve been helpful if you could provide language to amend the last part of the paragraph. That language as you stated is suitable perhaps to Armenia. 

France: Important to confine the scope and range of applications of drones solely to mapping and monitoring of drugs, as this is relevant to CND. We could, however, end the sentence by having ‘on mapping and monitoring drug trafficking’ to make it more broad than just ‘illicit cultivation of drugs’.

Egypt: PP4 is an appropriate base. We support the proposal from France. Agree on limiting the scope. My proposal is ‘mapping and monitoring drug trafficking’… ‘and manufacture and drug trafficking routes’… Nothing here is prescriptive on regulating the use of drones, so perhaps this allays the concerns of Armenia.

Russia: On the prescription of the scope alluded to by Armenia, we would add, after the Egyptian proposal, to say ‘within national territories’.

Chair: Armenia, kindly tell us if you’re comfortable with what we have now?

Armenia: (…)

Chair: Are you OK with the wording now?

Armenia: Ending the paragraph after capacities would be good for us.

Chair: If you do that, the paragraph does not complete an idea. It leaves everything hanging. That is the issue.

Armenia: Let’s delete this paragraph and move on.

Chair: The paragraph has been made as loose as possible. What are you looking for? What is your objection? Let us say there is no agreement and move on. We cannot spend time on this for longer. We all acknowledge the importance of equipment and training —but on what? Do you agree this is to counter the scourge we have? If you don’t, I am not interested in pursuing this consideration any longer and we can move on. We’re at the top of reaching an agreement. I give the floor to you.

Armenia: No. If we end the paragraph with new challenges and trends’… We suggest the PPs focus on new trends, challenges, references to conventions, human rights commitments, technical equipment. Not prescribing on how to use and apply something that should be regulated somewhere else.

Egypt: Agree with your assessment, Chair. I fail to understand what’s the prescriptiveness alluded to. I don’t think we’re speaking about the same paragraph because this para doesn’t mention anything about ‘new trends and challenges’. This is about training and specifying the scope. If we stop at ‘capacities’, we broaden the scope to a point it’s useful.

Chair: The paragraph should not be deleted. This should be discussed on informals. Should we discuss PP4bis or PP4bis alt.

Kyrgyzstan: Should we try PP4bis? PP4bis alt was supported by many countries.

UK: Very happy to withdraw our suggestion for PP4bisalt if it helps with advancing this resolution. On PP3alt, we’re happy to withdraw if it helps with agreement. We’re extremely flexible.

PP4bis

Chair: Comments?

United Kingdom: We would like not to delete the paragraph, as suggested by Russia.

Russia: We remove our objection.

Chair: Other comments? On the question of ‘areas referred to in paragraph 2…’.

Russia: Initially, we proposed to share expertise in the areas mentioned. The convention has the words on the screen. We can agree to either one of the options proposed on the screen.

United States: When we refer to a specific area of the treaty, it’s difficult to know what we’re referring to. Rather than deleting, we suggest expanding it to say ‘those areas…including their expertise in, inter alia, routes and techniques used by persons suspected of being involved in certain drug-related offences and appropriate countermeasures and modern law enforcement techniques’. These come from the specifics of article 9, para 2. We didn’t include all of them but focused on the most relevant.

Russia: We’re grateful to the United States and agree with this proposal.

Chair: Any comments? Agreed in CoW. Moving to PP5.

PP5

Italy: We would like to discuss these PPs. We have 13 more PPs citing different policy documents, treaties, resolutions. We should try to streamline the text. To do that, we ask your indulgence. We suggest discussing this in informals to determine which one of these paragraphs are really needed and which can be streamlined.

Chair: Can’t be done here but yes at informals. The issue at stake is PP5. Any comments on PP5?

United Kingdom: We’d like to delete this.

Chair: Retain or delete?

Egypt: The issue is one to be taken from a comprehensive standpoint. I agree with Italy that there are a lot of paragraphs that seem extremely redundant and repetitious. We should not handle them all in a package. But if we delete one or the other, we need to have an extensive conversation about what is retained and what is deleted.

Chair: Since you didn’t consider this before and acknowledging we have 7 minutes more, I suggest we adjourn the session and allow you to streamline the resolution and bring it back to CoW. We will return at 15:00.