Chair: Good Morning!
Chair: We have two resolutions still to be agreed this morning. I hope we can see good flexibility this morning as in the last few days. We have L2 of Thailand and L5 of the United States. I will start with L2 of Thailand. Before I start with specifics I want Thailand to brief us on the latest developments.
Thailand: We had another 5 hours of informals yesterday afternoon and we managed to agree on a couple of paragraphs, but we had some paragraphs reopen. There was a lot of flexibility shown and I hope the spirit of compromise will continue today. I would begin by going through paragraphs that have been agreed in informals starting with PP2bis.
Chair: As the paragraph has been agreed in informals I would propose to agree this in the CoW. Can we agree on PP2bis in the CoW? It is so decided.
We can now continue to OP7ter.
Thailand: With agreement on OP4bis we decided to add a paragraph OP7ter which is agreed in informals.
Chair: Can we look at OP7ter, and agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
Thailand: Now we can go to PP4bis, it was agreed in informals pending only one delegation.
Chair: PP4bis has been agreed in informals pending Iran. Do I have any comments?
Iran: We can’t go along with this proposal as in this package we are negotiating, pending other paragraphs we can agree but we can’t fully agree now.
Thailand: Next we can look at OP6alt. It has been agreed pending only one delegation.
Iran: The same applies to this paragraph.
Chair: We still don’t have agreement here, pending the outcome of other paragraphs.
Thailand: Let us try PP4. There was a proposal from two ends which contradict, so I would like to ask the room to consider returning to the original proposal by removing all the brackets in this paragraph.
Russian Federation: We would like to request a few more minutes so as to consider this paragraph further.
Chair: Do we have any other comments on PP4?
Australia: I wanted to confirm we would be happy to go back to the original without any of the changes.
Russian Federation: We are ready to display flexibility and return to the originally agreed language.
Chair: Can we agree on PP4 also in the CoW? It is so decided.
Thailand: Can we turn to PP3. There are two main issues in this paragraph. One regarding law enforcement measures, and at the end of the paragraph the reservation from the UK.
Chair: Has anyone decided they can remove their obligations to these parts of PP3 in the brackets? Do I have any comments?
Germany: My understanding from the informals is that the proposal that has been endorsed by many countries is to delete everything in the bracket after strategies and move ahead with “viable economic alternatives”. I believe this is the proposal on the table that we should discuss now.
PP3.
Chair: Can we look at this proposal and try to come to an agreement? The proposal of the sponsors is now on the screen. Can we live with this? I have no comments, so I understand we can leave this as it appears now on screen? What about the second part of the paragraph? Sponsors can you advise?
UK (?t: We are happy to lift our reservation.
Chair: Okay we keep “concrete” in the second part.
USA: We would need some more clarification what the added value of “concrete” is.
Iran: In informals, I proposed this and did jot have the time to elaborate. We would like to see a language that is much more focused. The reason is to focus on assistance that is needed for these purposes.
Canada: This doesn not make sense in english but we could propose “enhanced focus and better coordinated” as a formulation to express what Iran wishes.
Philippines: We do not object to the proposals, we just wanted the paragraph to be grammatically correct. Move concrete after enhanced would make more sense.
Iran: We prefer concrete rather than focused.
Chair: As on the screen?
Iran: It works for us.
Chair: Do we agree with this part?
USA: For the sake of flexibility, we can accept this language.
Chair: PP3 agreed.
Thailand: Could we have a couple of minutes?
Chair: sure.
PP6.
Iran: We can drop our reservation.
Chair: Thank you. So can we agree to pp6? I see on objections. Agreed.
OP8.
Thailand: This was agreed in informals and then was reopened by a delegation regarding a language that we have used somewhere else. So we are hoping some flexibility can be shown and this agreement will be agreed.
Iran: We can drop our reservation.
Chair: I see no objections. Agreed.
OP7bis.
Iran: We can drop our objections and agree.
Chair: I see no other comments. Agreed.
Sudan: At the end, we would add “illicit” please.
Chair: Any comment on the gabled 7bis?
Brazil: We proposed the paragraph and we have no problem with this addition.
Chair: Okay thank you, so it stays agreed.
OP3.
Thailand: Yesterday we agreed in CoW and then it was reopened by a delegation. We also have the footnote…well… We could use that in pp2bis but there is a reservation by a delegation there.
Chair: Okay, let us look into it and see if we can agree after all the consultations.
Iran: One of the comments we made is that the footnote might divide us on the understanding on the common terms we are using. We understand we sometimes have to go to footnote, if we have no choice, but there are legal implication of such decisions. We know Latin American countries have suggested this already and blabla (sic), but we are trying to avoid differing interpretations. We fear the footnote will be proliferated throughout the entire text.
Chair: I can take up this para a bit later.
Iran: Sorry for taking the floor again – just to clarify, our objection is about the insertion of the footnote, not that paragraph.
Chair: We are waiting for a final decision from your side if you are okay with the concept of the footnote.
Brazil: I think the ad ref for Iranian delegation can be withdrawn in paragraph 3 and only the footnote will still be pending. The footnote does not necessarily refer to OP3 but OP2bis.
Chair: So can we agree on OP3 in the CoW? It is so decided.
Thailand: I would like to go to OP1.
Chair: We have here “strongly” in brackets – can we keep it or lose it? Then we have member states or “all” member states.
Thailand: Compromise proposal would be to delete strongly, delete all, and delete everything after the word “Principles” on the 4th line.
Iran: We can’t go along with this proposal.
Thailand: In that case let us try the Australian proposal to delete strongly, all, and use the Australian proposal instead.
Chair: We now have a slightly longer proposal.
Iran: We can only consider parts after “technical support” being adjusted.
USA: We are not in a position to accept the last amendment made by Iran, we don’t believe there is a place in this paragraph for technology transfer. We just went through negotiations over the ministerial declaration outcome document and want to facilitate the work of the committee without complicating this.
Australian: We can’t accept either. This para is about UN guiding principles and we are not in a position to revise what the principles are. This includes actions and implementation measures and we have quoted verbatim one of those action items related to technical support. We are doing the best we can to accommodate what Iran is looking for within guiding principles.
Peru: Similarly to Australia the topic of technology transfer is important for lots of delegations and the Peruvian delegation can support it depending on the context. As mentioned, there is not a single mention of technology transfer in the guiding principles. Perhaps we can put the question in the most respectful and friendly way to Iran, what type of technology transfer are you referring to? Maybe a more specific explanation of the technology in this particular context could help us get a clearer idea of their particular interest in the context of this resolution. There is not a single reference to transfer of technology in the guiding principle. We can have a discussion made on a more solid framework if we understand this.
Sudan: We do have a reference to adequate financial support, technical support and increased investment which we would like to have included in this paragraph.
Australia: We are not prepared to rewrite the guiding principles.
Sudan: This is from the guidelines – principle 5 in the appendix of the guidelines talking about international guiding principles on alternative development. This is verbatim language.
Iran: A number of questions have been posed in informals. We should go to the letter and spirit of the guiding principles. What has been said by Sudan is exactly quoting from the guiding principles. We are quoting from the spirit and letter of the guiding principles. We can also support what has been proposed by Iran.
Chair: Would this proposal be acceptable and help alleviate the request from Iran?
Canada: Principle 5 deals with public policies and is mostly domestically focused. We could live with this as a PP, where we could state “recalling that” and then paste this inclusion. Countries that finance or execute AD programs and we’re not aware that Iran falls onto either category. If we must include this, let’s be true to the letter and spirit of the guidelines and recall them directly in a PP.
Chair: Can we move forward with this proposal?
Thailand: As it is Friday now, if the room doesn’t object, we can go along with this.
Chair: so the proposal of the sponsor is to delete the explanatory part. If we have this extra pp could we then not have “transfer technology” as proposed by Iran.
Iran: We cannot accept this. We would like to have transfer of tech and know-how. Under footnote, we are still recalling this. Two terms here have protection. Anyhow, we need to say transfer technology and know-how.
Chair: so an additional pp will not solve the issue.
Australia: We have no probemwith including the language that has been correctly identified, but we would like to treat it separately, as proposed by Canada.
Sudan: I would like to understand what you said, are we turning an op into a pp?
Chair: No, you have proposed some additional language. Canada proposed to put it as pp. There is no agreement on that. I am asking Thailand to give me advice how to proceed.
USA: We, as previously stated, have strong views on tech transfer and as a matter of principle sticking with what the AD guideline says. We can go with Sudan’s suggestion as long as we reflect the language faithfully in the guidelines.
Chair: Do we have everything in that para that you want to see?
USA: This seems to accurately reflect the guideline language now.
Sudan: For the sake of consensus, we have an issue in the same paragraph, a reference to relevant governmental institutions. So here we can include the other blablabla (sic) that addresses the concerns of MS.
Australia: Could we move this to the end? It is interrupting the flow of the original action item which is enhancing financial support, technical support… so it just makes more sense at the end.
OP3bis.
Thailand: Yesterday at informals, I would like to thank Brazil for their efforts, nobody was willing to compromise. Is anyone in the room willing to speak up?
Chair: We are trying to move forward, so?
Brazil: Maybe the change of environment can help… this is a polarizing situation with some wanting to move forward, as it is a sensitive subject… I propose keeping “druig related challenges” as it is broad enough for interpretation and we can keep half the paragraph. This is perfect to noone, but I would like to check if this is acceptable? We do not have a particular stance – we do not support or object to this paragraph.
UK: I thank Brazil. Sometimes the change of context can help, and we hope we can find a ray of sunshine today in the Cow. Given that this is a Brazilian proposal, we always look to them for balance, we can support this proposal. It is difficult to find a logical response, but seems like a reasonable way out.
Iran: I would like this meeting to be finished asap, particularly since we are fasting. To our colleagues who question this paragraph, this is an agreed text. Iran is not inventing anything here. We are bringing text that was agreed last year. These are innocent motions… we have to overcome all impediments, this is the issue of this agreed text. As far as it goes, when someone proposes something we consider it, but right now I can not go with it. I have clear instructions. I cannot accommodate delegations if they are attempting to dilute this text. We have political commitments, and we shall not forget about them. I wanted to say just this, we appreciate efforts, but if you ask us a hundred times, the answer will be the same a hundred times, we cannot change this.
Chair: So Iran insists on keeping this in pp3bis. I just want to say that there are other paras from last year that have not been taken into account. Any other comments?
USA: Unfortunately, we are not in a position to accept the language as is laid out. Delegations have debated this as it is quite controversial. We understand the concerns by Iran and in the interest of compromise, we can look at the language from the ministerial outcome document adopted last week as it is the most recent and relevant document. We are happy to work on additional language to facilitate our work.
Iran: This was a compromise to accommodate and I know how this language has been worked. We are asking for what was agreed last year to be included verbatim. Our approval of the MD des not mean we completely agree with certain paragraphs. This has eben mentioned in previous resolutions.
UK: You made a very good point that we are trying to break new ground it is trying to advance the conversation. We had this conversation last year and it resulted in the language we see here. Are we going to have this conversation every year? I would prefer to have positive changes about issues we share in common in the fight against drugs. If we delette this it still stands, we had the conversation last year and got here. It doesn’t undermine or change anything and it always will and we don’t need to have the same conversation every year.
Venezuela: We support this inclusion of this OP3bis.
Chair: I have decided to pause consideration of L2 in the CoW. I am hopeful we will find some solutions to the open L2. We will now take considerations of L5
Chair: We can continue with L5. We call on the US to brief us on progress made in informals.
USA: We have made a lot of progress in informals. We have agreed to almost all of the PPs, while we have many OPs open there is one issue remaining through most of these OPs. I recommend starting at PP1.
PP1
Chair: PP1 has been agreed in informals. Can we also agree in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP2
Chair: We can continue with PP2. Can we agree in this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP3
Chair: We can continue with PP3. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP5
Chair: We can continue with PP5. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP6
Chair: We can continue with PP6. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP7
Chair: We can continue with PP7. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP9
Chair: We can continue with PP9. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP10
Chair: We can continue with PP10. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP11
Chair: We can continue with PP11. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP13
Chair: We can continue with PP13. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP14
Chair: We can continue with PP14. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
PP15
Chair: We can continue with PP15. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
China: We have noted here there is an issue with civil society. I just want to confirm that “relevant” applies to all entities including civil society.
US: This is taking note of intersessional discussions that happened, I understand using the term relevant when forward looking at which organisations may be present but we are here recalling something that already happened and it stands to reason that the civil society were all relevant to the discussion. I don’t think we should be looking back at previous meetings and qualifying whether some of them are relevant or not.
China: We are flexible but we think it would be more precise as there should be some civil society related to something here.
Iran: We can’t agree.
Armenia: As a way out, we suggest to erase the comma before the word “and” so that relevant will apply to civil society as well.
Netherlands: We agree with the comment made by USA and maybe the solution proposed by Armenia could work for us as well. It could be a constructive ambiguity as it was explained that this event has already happened.
USA: We are comfortable with the formulation on the screen.
Chair: I thank Armenia for their proposal.
China: We dont think that the comma can be deleted because UN entities and CSOs are not the same and should not be under one umbrella. We do not accept the deletion of the comma, but we can live without “relevant” before civil society.
USA: We can be more specific with the para and say “and representatives of participating civil society”.
Chair: I see it works for China.
Iran: I am sorry, we cannot agree to that. We did not want civil society as such – without hierarchy. There should be relevant society, that is very much important to us.
UK: Its a bit unfortunate that we have this on the final day as this has not been a discussion so far. We do not want to lose reference to civil society. We can accept the proposal made earlier but we do not accept the removal of civil society.
Chair: Civil society stays in. China agreed tot his yesterday in informals.
Egypt: In the outcome document we just agreed on, we have stock taking B – we express gratitude to the chair persons of xx sessions for facilitating thematic discussions with a view to accelerating … then we extend thanks to participants from various UN agencies, relevant international organization as well as relevant nongovernmental organizations. So maybe we can use the same language, directly from the mid-term review. So instead of civil society, we could say relevant nongovernmental organizations.
Netherlands: We would like to support the US suggestion. Relevant to us is not acceptable. -we can be flexible on nongovernmental orgnoizations instead of civil society, to be flexible and find a way out.
Austria: To echo Netherlands, it is very essential to keep the reference to civil society. We could also support the Dutch proposal. We have discussed this in informals so we urge the room to move forward.
Belgium: We insist on keeping the reference to civil society. This meeting has already taken place so this is not about actions to be taken.
USA: Everyone who participated has been accredited in this meeting, so to then exclude, or make allusions that some participants were not relevant, would be a falsehood. As the sponsor, we would like to move the text forward. We heard board support for the paragraph as is presented. The delegate from China seems to have agreed to move forward as drafted., We would move forward with noting the objection by one MS.
Chair: To not lose time, we can move …
Iran: Im sorry, we cannot go along with that. The Egyptian suggestion is workable for us, but the terminology is used by MS today will not help.
USA: The formulation proposed by the Egyptian colleague may be language that comes from a document but it is not accurate as it excludes the private sector, it excludes academia, so this is not reflecting what actually happened.
Egypt: I think I don’t understand, but we agreed on this document 5 days ago. The delegations that have issue with this language have approved this exact language 5 days ago – it´s been there for 3 months. It is accurate. My position is accurate because it is written so. If you have an issue with this, you could have stated that during our months long negotiations. Sometimes we change language as it suits us and sometimes we don´t agree with anything that doesn’t suit us. When it´s agreed, they don’t want it.
Chair: I would like to stop this discussion.
USA: The previous intervention mentions we have all agreed to this language. I would laos note that all delegations agreed to this language last night. I ask that we move on to another paragraph.
PP16
Chair: This has been agreed in informals. Can we agree on this in the CoW?
Iran: At this juncture we have to consider this further.
PP17
Chair: This has been agreed in informals. Can we agree on this in the CoW? It is so decided.
USA: Now we can return to PP12. There was a long discussion last night and we were very close to consensus. We had one concern around the words “and socioeconomic”. Others in the room may have taken up this discussion on the margins and I would like to see if we can take this paragraph forward.
Venezuela: We have listened to comments from Ireland and Belgium and we would not completely agree with this but to show flexibility we can agree with this.
Chair: Can we agree on PP12 also in the CoW? It is so decided.
USA: I suggest we move on to the OPs. You will note these are not agreed in informals. Yesterday evening we did not move on from the OPs and we made an attempt to resolve what has become the central issue of the resolution which was the issue of harm reduction. We ask for your forbearance on this issue and would like to move forward with OPs that do not contain this reference.
OP2
Chair: Can we agree on OP2 in the CoW?
China: I think we should go through this paragraph by paragraph. I think we need to discuss OP1 first. This is a working matter for us. We should follow the sequence and we hope we can find flexibility to finish as soon as possible.
Chair: I am trying firstly to resolve the paragraphs which are close to being resolved.
China: Maybe we need to take this back to informals as we did not discuss these paragraphs. For us it is important to follow this sequentially. This issue is the basis of the discussion for other issues so all the paragraphs are related to each other, without a good basis it is hard to discuss the related issues.
Chair: The normal working method was this way all week.
USA: If it works for the room we can take one of the proposals from last night. We weren’t quite sure this was ready for the CoW but if China wants to resolve this we can support this attempt.
OP1
USA: We tried… we took in all feedback from the room by tabling a revision. We have seen today that enjoys consensus and is taking into account the further discussions, we tabled a new revision yesterday evening so we have in front of us what we believe the closest we can get to consensus. We provide a footnote to the resolution that would explain the term harm reduction – as a compromise. So if we could add a footnote to OP1, I will email the text to you quickly.
Russia: The sponsors of the resolution have chosen a very relevant topic: reducing mortality from overdose and building healthy societies. We support the main idea behind this resolution, that Member States must take appropriate measures under the conventions to address the world drug problem. Since the beginning of negotiations, we have shown extreme flexibility; we met many delegations halfway and we welcome many of our proposals reflected in the text. Indeed, harm reduction has been contentious. We call on Member States to consider what is a priority: saving lives or arguing over terminology. In terms of ensuring good faith and international cooperation based on trust and mutual respect of each other’s priorities, will the commission allow a group of member states to impose their view on others that oppose many UN values? This would cause a divide in the commission and impair the drug control measures of states. We are confident that our fragmentation will benefit drug criminals alone, who flood the markets with lethal substances which will claim more lives. Let’s focus on what unifies us – it is all in our hands. The responsible members of the commission will prevail in finding a way forward. Regarding the sponsor’s proposal, Russia cannot agree with the mention of harm reduction, including footnotes. We also have another remark in the text; please let us know when we shall voice that?
Chair: I call on everyone to check on the footnote that I do not see imposing on other states. Please make your remarks now.
Russia: We support this para but we propose removing drug checking equipment. We are on the view that such practices are aimed at the persistence of drug abuse and the recognition that drug use is a normal phenomena and this in no way helps reduce fatalities, on the contrary, it contributes to drug use so we do not support.
Ireland: we strongly oppose deleting reference to drug checking. This is a scientifically validated practice that helps us detect trends. We have accepted the world harm and harms, we have also seen reduction appear over 13 times. These are basic concepts and I have difficulties digesting why this is such a contested phrase. The UN supports recovery but it is hard to recover when one is dead. That is where harm reduction come in, keeping people alive.
USA: If we can go back to the textual edit proposed by Russia…during the informals last night, the Russian delegation has expressed concerns and said they will come back to CoW with suggestions. I would ask the room if we can accept this, showing we do not want to impose anything… can we accept scientifically validated public health services?
Holy See: Turning to the footnote, we prefer to not have any mention of harm reduction because we are convinced that focus should be on preventing drug use.
Germany: The reference to harm reduction in text is acceptable to us, and we appreciate the proposal of a footnote. We would also like to keep the reference to drug checking but in the spirit of compromise, we are ready to compromise.
Switzerland: Some of the remarks made indicate that we are imposing harm reduction on countries that do not reignite this method. This para contains a record number of caveats – we encourage MS, not impose anything. I am struggling to understand this stance, seeing all these caveats. If we have a footnote, we have an other caveat by recognizing that harm reduction is not permissible under some MS domestic legal concept. We cannot understand how this implies anything?
Spain: We support the concept of harm reduction, harm reduction works and in this text we are not imposing anything at all but just want to see our position that harm reduction works is reflected. We therefore will not stop calling for its inclusion.
Czechia: Drug checking is very important for us but in the spirit of flexibility we would be able to go along with the US proposal, but our preference is to include it in the text. The position of us on harm reduction we are flexible on where it will be included but it is absolutely crucial to have it in the text. In the spirit of consensus and flexibility we should have this reference in the text.
Norway: I want to note there is a large majority of MS with harm reduction practices and many have expressed support for the inclusion. Our position is not only to support the practice but to support the terminology to use the proper words to describe what we are doing. We don’t operate with red lines but this is as close to a red line as we will come. We believe Vienna consensus is not best served by a small number of countries blocking this consensus. If we find ourselves to be a small number of delegations blocking something we will not block this issue, but because we are in the majority we insist on this being included.
EU: This is a resolution about overdose prevention and harm reduction is precisely about saving lives. This is precisely why this is so important for us. It says explicitly if this is not allowed domestically then you don’t have to do it. There are caveats over caveats so it is really impossible to argue against this in good faith. There is no attempt to impose this on you. There are still misconceptions as to what this means – someone said it is about legalising drugs. We also had discussions in informals yesterday and we believe it does not make sense to add more caveats in the informals. We don’t think the footnote is helpful but we suggest we should have a definition to give more guidance on what is meant here.
Netherlands: This is an important resolution for us to save lives. Harm reduction is about saving lives. We have a long history with this approach and it is all evidence based, we are not inventing things but working scientifically to help people save lives. We are standing for harm reduction. We have had long discussions this week and there are a lot of different approaches across countries. The text drafted reflects all of these differences. We thank the sponsors for trying to accommodate everyone. We want to get along and we want to support the text as drafted.
Finland: Unfortunately, our small delegation could not participate in informals last night. We had this discussion for a long time but for the first time, we are really having it. We are having it because people are dying and we all need to find our own scientifically evidence supported ways to deal with this. We are not imposing anything here. We can go with the US´s suggestion of deleting drug checking, because we cannot have this in our country (sic). We also stand for mentioning harm reduction – the critique against it has been that we don’t know what it means but a footnote would be giving clarity. All these caveats acknowledge limitations, and harm reduction is what is happening around the world.
Austria: I echo what the Dutch colleague said. Regarding the elephant in the room, we also want to keep hark reduction in this para. We all agree that substance use disorder is a complex disorder and not a question of willpower. There are a lot of treatment options, and they work for some people, for some other, other measures are needed. Harm reduction is not about legalizing or helping people use more drugs but about accepting the fact that some people are using drugs and you need these measures to help them survive and live better lives.
Venezuela: In the para where we suggest removing equipment, we support. We don’t all have the same access. On the topic of harm reduction, we support the removal of this – not because of the working but because it is something we all understand differently. It is nice to save lives and all but it is not obvious enough. It is not just one MS wanting to get rid of this.
New Zealand: On drug checking, we support Ireland´s comments. We have now legalized it and not just for harm reduction purposes but also for collecting intelligence, so we find it incredibly useful for our law enforcement. I recognize that the sponsors are okay with deletion and we dont want to block consensus. We are a strong supported of harm reduction. We have supported this resolution for all the reasons others have mentioned today, so we support the paragraphs as proposed.
Portugal: we support the text as is currently. We have always done harm reduction in Portugal and we think it is very important to be named in this text. If we consider what happened in the 90s in Portugal (…) we would like to have drug checking retained as it is very important measure to save lives and collect data, but we can live without it.
China: I would like to ask UNODC if they have a definition for this term. Can UNODC confirm if the WHO definition can be used in UNODC documents?
Singapore: This is a very important resolution and addresses important topics. We are very keen that we can find common ground. My delegation has been consistent and clear, we have heard impassioned statements about why it is important in their context to save lives. We have different view and strong concerns about harm reduction and what it involves. We have made some proposals that have been rejected. We had a discussion last evening, a very interesting proposal from Mexico with language we could look at. This language and anything that approximates it can’t be supported by us. We have some suggestions my colleague can read out in a second. We are trying to reach common ground here we have concerns about the term here and it is a term we have not used before. We need to think about the impact this would have on our policies. We understand others’ concerns but ask that they consider the impact on our delegation. My colleague will suggest a new paragraph that would not be a footnote:
USA: We are cognizant of the translation time left in the CoW. This discussion has taken over. I ask if L5 can move on from this conversation and return the CoW to other discussions. We would like to have some informal discussions and return the CoW to L2.
Thailand: We have been working on a package with a number of delegations. Many of you have seen us running around this room doing shuttle diplomacy. I am afraid we will not reach agreement among the main concerning delegations. We have a proposal we really wish to invite the room to look at and we believe is closest to consensus. This has been agreed among the original sponsors. We would propose this final package to the room:
Iran: With the footnotes included Iran can consider this but deleting these paragraphs. We can’t go along with 3bis and we would like the paragraph as it was last year. We can’t agree with paragraph 1.
Finland: We can support this compromise.
Belgium: We can express our support for the package deal as it is negotiated.
USA: This is not an ideal proposal but we are anxious to reach consensus and thank Thailand for their work.
Australia: We can reluctantly support this package.
Denmark: We can support this package deal.
Brazil: We can also support this package deal.
Netherlands: We can also support this package deal.
Austria: We can also support this package deal.
Guatemala: We can also support this package deal.
Spain: We can also support this package deal.
Poland: We can also support this package deal.
???: We can also support this package deal.
Canada: We can also support this package deal.
Norway: We can also support this package deal.
Colombia: We are consulting with our capital on this proposal and we would need some more time to give our clearance.
Chair: With a lot of support for this package I ask for flexibility.
Iran: We can’t support this.
Thailand: I am a bit perplexed by the statement, though I don’t want to single anyone out. Thanks for the support during this process. We will continue to table this proposal and we would take it to consideration of the plenary. Since this is the only resolution on supply reduction tabled I think that needing to vote on this will send a perplexing signal to the international community, traffickers, cultivators. I invite everyone to consider further this proposal before we consider this before the plenary.
Russian Federation: We would like to propose an alternative. On the one hand we note that the agreed language from last year’s resolution can’t be accepted again. We support the agreed language as a principled position. If we agree on something we should remain committed to it. We are trying to find compromise so we would propose the following language for the preambular paragraph to resolve the idea reflected in 3bis. The proposal is as follows:
Iran: What has been said from Thailand has surprised us, we have always supported this resolution. We are now hindering us and making barriers to countries tackling illicit trafficking. Countries on the frontiers of trafficking are being punished. We are battling in different fields including those who are pioneers of sanctions. There is no agreement on this resolution, there is no consensus. If it goes to the plenary the resolution only comes from the sponsor but has no consensus. Our proposal is concentrated on these two paragraphs. We don’t want to go paragraph by paragraph but want to concentrate on certain things, but there is no consensus here. We have not made any proposals on previously endorsed paragraphs but now two paragraphs are being singled out. Bear in mind Iran has constructively engaged. If it goes to the plenary we must check with Tehran how we will address this.
United States: We are moving closer to consensus, we would like to propose variant as follows:
(The web stream has lost connection)
Egypt: We will try our best to close this. I would like to add “particularly addressing” instead of “reference”
Australia: Thank you for these suggestions. I think it´s good to have app to match the OP. We prefer the proposal by the US.
Chair: Okay can we agree to this?
Iran: Even the Russian proposal doesn’t enjoy our support as we have not been consulted.
Chair: Okay it is going to plenary. Dear colleagues, I ask for 5 more minutes of your time because I think L5 can come back now.
Chair: Before we move to L5, it is planned that Plenary will start at 3pm but they will not start before we conclude.
We have made all the effort to accommodate all perspectives voiced during the negotiations. A quick apology to the room, as soon as I started chairing informals, I committed to a transparent process. We had, during the break, an informal informal with a number of countries and I apologize for not conducting that in a more transparent matter. What we have on our screen is what we believe is the closest we can get to consensus. With some flexibility on both sides of the harm reduction debate, I hope we can move forward. If we can turn to OP1, please.
OP1.
USA: We previously removed checking equipment with respect to the opposition expressed by some in the room. Here, we can replace harm reduction with “other public health interventions to address the harm associated with illicit drug use” in OP1 and OP7. Can we accept the edits in OP1?
Chair: So we have OP1 with edites as on the screen, removing drug checking equipment and replacing harm reduction as a terminology.
Canada: Thank you to the sponsors for their maximum flexibility. We find it very unfortunate that science based interventions that save lives have now been removed throughout the text. We are confident we are moving in the right direction so Canada would like to cosponsor the resolution.
EU: I echo the words of my Canadaian colleague. We are not really sure if this brings us closed to consensus, if we delete in 3 instances and leave it in one. We are unclear how to proceed… we are not comfortable to go throught the ones where harm reduction is deleted and then focus on only one, as it is a package and we would like to considerit it in its entirety. I can also announce that the EU and its member states are happy to consponsor.
Chair: USA, do we consider it as a package or do we go para by para?
USA: I suggest we clean it up as much as possible, so if we can havy any paragraphs agreed in the CoW, we would like to and if we reach one where we cant, then that os where we will end up.
Chair: Okay, so the first two speakers propose they won’t agree on this until, they see how it goes.
Switzerland: We are not happy with these deletions, but I think if this helps bring the resolution forward, we can show flexibility.
New Zealand: Thanks to the sponsors for all their hard work. We are also not happy that the number of harm reduction mentions have been reduced to 1 but perhaps thats the sign of good diplomacy that nobody is happy. We will also consponsor.
Norway: Similar position as previous speakers. We would like to cosponsor as well.
Australia: We are also not happy where we ended up, given the significant evidence and the effectiveness of harm reduction measures in reducting overdose deaths. We are aware of the need to move forward though. We will cosponsor.
Guatemala: We can support the proposals to change the texts. We are not happy with it but we can join consensus and would like to cosponsor.
Peru: We are not going to express any positions regarding our feelings on the resolution but we commend the US on their work and we are ready to accept the amendments and we would like to cosponsor.
UK: We have already cosponsored. This para now, given the change of the terminology, is very altered. There were 7 caveats to mitigate the harm done by harm reduction… now I think it is a bit ridiculous, so I propose the deletion of those caveats as follows: “ as appropriate”, take our “taking into consideration domestic…” and take out “ in accordance with domestic laws”.
Colombia: We would like to see more mentions to HR in the new text but we understand the need to remove some of these to meet consensus. We would like to cosponsor this resolution.
Egypt: We can go along with the current formulation and we think we should take out the other caveats as here HR is not mentioned.
Saudi Arabia: We can go along with this paragraph but we would have to keep “in accordance with domestic law”
China: We would echo the delegate of UK and we can support this. However, we think even if it is voluntarily developed we should follow domestic law and agree with the Saudi suggestion. We think under the three international drug control conventions is very important, so we should also keep this.
Philippines: With the current formulation it appears we are keeping with domestic law, do we still need the other mention of domestic law in the middle of the paragraph? The first mention of domestic law should cover everything that follows.
Chair: Can we agree with what we have on the screen now, that we delete some caveats.
UK: I agree with the Philippines from a grammatical perspective this should be removed.
Iran: We will need to think as we have not been involved in the package. We need to see what has happened in the other paragraphs.
Iran: To be clear we did not propose anything but we did not change the proposals and cleaning the text could imply there is agreement. Please do not tidy the text as we are having discussions on this still.
USA: Perhaps we can indicate this has been accepted pending Iran and move to the next paragraph.
China: I want to clarify if this is a package or not?
USA: As noted previously the full intention was to negotiate this in complete transparency. I have not been aware of any conversations about a package deal.
China: We are close to consensus and very flexible for all of these issues. We can support this paragraph.
Chair: Can we say this OP is agreed, pending Iran?
Iran: We can not say agreed, it is pending.
Canada: We’re agreeable to this paragraph but we would suggest saying “harms” plural.
USA: With respect to pending this means there is no consensus but we have reached consensus bar one delegation.
Iran: It is not helpful to be so specific against one delegation. They are inventing concepts in the UN literature when it is not such. I don’t want to polarise the meeting. This paragraph might harm the Iranian delegation.
Chair: We move now to OP6
OP6
Chair: This is one of the paragraphs where harm reduction has been replaced. Can we agree to OP6?
China: We have a question for the sponsor as to what is meant by “outreach initiatives” here.
US: This is related to initiatives and good samaritan laws.
China: In the spirit of consensus and flexibility we can agree to this.
Canada: Here again we suggest harms instead of harm.
Iran: We are still unable to accept this paragraph as with the previous paragraph.
Switzerland: As said before we are not happy with removing harm reduction but we can accept what is seen on screen.
(…)
Chair: We have the same situation as in OP1 so I would propose to do the same with OP6 as well and proceed to OP7.
OP7
Chair: Canada wants to suggest “harms”. Thank you Canada. I don’t see any comments on OP7.
Iran: It is unfortunate that in the three paragraphs the term “harm reduction” has been dropped. We still do not have any reference to that.
United States: Thank you Chair. The ambassador from Iran has indicated that the reference to harm reduction has been deleted from this paragraph and he is correct. If you would like to see a reference to harm reduction I would suggest that following this discussion we can go to OP3.
Canada: In the last line we could remove the word “narcotic” just for more generality here. And as the UK observed for OP1 or OP3 now that we’ve chosen some more universally agreed language, maybe we can dispense with some of the caveats that are getting in the way of comprehensibility of this paragraph. So we would take out “in accordance with domestic law” through “conventions” as we already have that higher up.
United States: Apologies for our sloppy drafting skills. We have left a redundant reference at the end so we would suggest cutting off the last part starting with “measures”.
Switzerland: Sorry to take the floor again. My delegation would like to announce that we are co-sponsoring this.
Iran: Before “civil society” I think maybe it should say “relevant”. We also may not want to delete both of the caveats; perhaps we can bring back the first one.
Chair: Can we move to another OP? As proposed, let’s move to OP3.
Canada: We would propose ending the paragraph after “illicit drug use”
OP3
United States: We tried to resolve the issues around the term “harm reduction” and in the end we have landed on a formulation that was acceptable to no one so we hope that this single reference will bring us to consensus.
Russia: From the very beginning we have been sensitive to what other delegations have told us and we are listening carefully to the needs of other delegations and we’ve heard that an important aspect is their discussion around the topic on different practices and ways for us to save lives. You’ve seen that the majority of the time in the CoW we have spent discussing this concept. Russia has expressed its own position on those measures but we haven’t prevented others from highlighting their achievements in this area. We see how other delegations value this and we see that by adopting this we encourage further discussion and exchange of ideas in this area. In particular in one of the last OPs there is information about an open ended intergovernmental working group convened to discuss this topic so there will be plenty of opportunity and Russia encourages this to discuss the achievements of other delegations. We have shown flexibility on the caveats. I have several times expressed that Russia does not need caveats in this resolution. We want to make it as operational as possible. I would like to say that it seems that some other delegations don’t understand what position they are leaving us in by leaving the term harm reduction in an operative paragraph which is still unacceptable to my delegation so we won’t be able to be on board with this if this reference stays in this part of this resolution. So now we are to decide whether we want a good resolution, a good discussion or we want ruined international cooperation.
Iran: We have said that we will try to explore as far as possible the consensus but of course consensus does not mean that we have to compromise the principles. There is a reference here about harm reduction. I understand that if we find a compromise across it that is better but anyhow we have to understand the limitations. The margin of appreciation to all of us is not too much. So as far as this operational paragraph has a reference to harm reduction we would consider another paragraph. We should understand the concerns of all delegations and we are willing to work with Russia as well as others. And we pay a price for that.
United Kingdom: The UK has been listening carefully without being too actively involved when it comes to the issue of harm reduction. We believe that disagreements are what the discussions are all about here and it enriches our experiences. If we didn’t disagree there would be no need for the UN but we’re here to learn from each other and we’re here with an open mind to try to accept practices from other places so that we can improve our own efforts to tackle these important issues so I hope we can have a more positive approach when it comes to tolerating the views and practices of other places. I think that the UK in particular has been very open to language that would not be our first choice but that we are open to accepting because we try to understand that everyone is different so I would like to commend the efforts that have been made by the Russian delegation but from everyone else in innovative and diverse ways. There will be no ruining of the Vienna spirit.
Germany: We subscribe to what our colleague from the UK said. We also showed a very constructive approach and remain silent on many things but if we are going to discuss harm reduction and other measures in an open ended intergovernmental expert group I found it quite strange that we are not able to mention one of the topics we are going to discuss in that group in this resolution so for us it was already hard to see that the term harm reduction has disappeared from this resolution in many paragraphs and now we are going to delete it in the last one where it remained and I think that is not a procedure that my government would be ready to support.
Chair: I ask one more time can we keep harm reduction in OP3?
China: I remembered this morning I asked a question but I haven’t gotten the answer. I asked a question to UNODC about the definition of harm reduction and also when there is a definition that hasn’t gotten any common consensus can it also be accepted by UNODC or because we are here we can’t have just 50 countries make a decision for over 200 countries.
Russia: We cannot support this paragraph with a reference to harm reduction measures.
Chair: We cannot receive consensus on the fact that we would have “harm reduction” in “OP3” but we also cannot have OP3 without HR so that’s the impasse.
Germany: To show our flexibility we would be prepared to move “harm reduction” from this OP and to put it in the OP where we have the open ended intergovernmental working group and then it would fit what Russia is wanting.
Russia: My delegation never said that we would be willing to put harm reduction in any paragraph in this resolution. What I said is that we would be willing to listen to our delegations and what they highlight during forthcoming meetings provided we adopt this resolution by consensus. Therefore there is no place in this text where Russia could support the insertion of harm reduction. Our proposal would be whether we can use the same elegantly developed alternative that we developed for OP1 and CND will stay functional.
United States: This was a very carefully considered location for the term harm reduction and I would ask Germany if we could not move the term as we considered very carefully where and whether to place this.
Norway: Our position that we have stated earlier has not changed and I don’t believe that we are in a position where the many member states have changed their opinions. I had a similar impression to that expressed by Iran that we consider these amendments together. We would have preferred to have harm reduction in all these OPs but were willing to accept it in one. But we will not accept the removal of the term harm reduction from this OP.
Czech Republic: Clearly we listen to each other. A compromise has been made and we are also not happy that harm reduction is not in every sentence but we are willing to compromise. We still insist on keeping harm reduction in paragraph 3.
Egypt: In OP3 we want to have “encourages” instead of “also calls upon”.
Venezuela: Your summary makes sense. Following up on the question by China, if we do have a clear definition, such as “harm reduction is those actions we take to avoid or save health,” can we take the word “harm reduction” and substitute this by its definition in the text? Whoever can tell us what the exact definition is, maybe we can just put this definition in place of the term harm reduction. Because I don’t think when anybody explains that harm reduction is “to save lives” then nobody is going to be against this. As long as there’s not this undefined term it will be easier. I think it’s not so difficult for those who promote harm reduction; they can define it easily.
China: We share the same opinion as our delegate from Venezuela. Maybe if we try again to compromise in some other paragraph that’s a way.
Chair: I will take the three speakers and then I will conclude.
Singapore: We want to support the edits and would like to introduce a footnote which would read “recognizing that there’s no generally accepted definition of drug-related harm reduction and should not be carried out at the expense of other important activities designed to reduce the demand for illicit drugs, for example, drug abuse prevention, treatment, and recovery”
Mexico: I am not going to comment on the text anymore. I just want to express my delegation’s respect for your job and dedication. I want to express to all delegations that we have been part of a very intense debate and unfortunately we have only reached consensus on two of the issues and it has not been because of lack of will from the chair. It is solely on our side of the responsibility that we have not been able to reach a consensus. Regarding this resolution I want to express to the sponsors that Mexico thinks that they can make a very brave stance on this problem and Mexico would support this if taken to a vote.
New Zealand: I wanted to comment on what China and Venezuela have said. I was doing some research online and this is from 2000 from the UNODC’s predecessor. There is a demand reduction glossary of terms which has a definition on harm reduction and quite a lengthy definition. I don’t know if that will move us forward but I just wanted to express that from my understanding there is a definition.
United States: We have concerns with the footnote proposal because it’s not an accurate statement. In addition to the UNODC statement there is a definition that has been approved within the WHO and just to remind the room, the WHO Is one of the orgs that we cooperate with as listed in the treaties and the rule is to guide us on scientific matters. So while they’re not charged with giving us definitions we should look to them for expertise so we would propose to say something in a footnote like “harm reduction as understood by the commission on narcotic drugs includes only those measures intended to minimise the negative physical and social impacts including the transmission of bloodborne disease incurred by behaviours related to the misuse of drugs, that are consistent with parties obligations under the three united nations drug control conventions”
Egypt: We can go along with the footnote introduced by Singapore. We think it’s fair enough that concerned parties should put their concerns there and we should be balanced. So if it’s introduced here it’s fair for the other party to give somewhere to adjust their worries. Right now we’re in the CoW so we’re going to go for the plenary and have a vote for the first time in several years. Last few years we stayed at the CoW until 3AM so we would like to continue and we have done this in the past in order to reach consensus and we want to preserve the Vienna spirit and not pressure the delegations to do something that will have a negative repercussion. So we would like to preserve the Vienna spirit and have another round of consultation between the delegations. Maybe we can do something creative between the concerned delegations so this is my proposal, Chair, if delegations want to preserve the Vienna spirit.
Chair: We have already been discussing this for quite some time. I am happy to sit here until 3AM but I don’t think there is much support for it.
United States: In our previous informal meetings the positions of member states were made clear and it does not appear that further discussion in the CoW will be fruitful. I recognize the comments made by our Egyptian colleague and I applaud the idea but I think the positions are clear to the sponsor. We are in your hands but what the sponsor would propose is to clean the text and keep the footnote that is the accurate representation of the WHO position and then ask the Chair if you could move the clean resolution to the plenary.
Chair: Thank you we will go to the beginning to clean it.
Russia: Building on the intervention of our colleague from Egypt I would like to say that Russia has been a responsible member of the CND since its establishment. We can tell you for sure that never has the spirit of consensus been broken but I have to be frank at this point in time since the decision is to move it forward. Since it will be moved forward we will vote against it. We still have time until the plenary so if we can recommend anything we would suggest taking out the controversial term “harm reduction” in case they want the resolution to be adopted by consensus and preserve their mutual trust and respect in the commission which is currently and has been for almost 80 years a feature of Vienna and we were proud of it. We believe that we still have time for the right decision to be made, everything is in our hands, so let’s use this time wisely.
China: I want to go back to OP3. I wonder if there’s any more further compromise on this because we have also tried our best to delete the term “OP3” and use the same term as OP1 and then in the footnote we can say that these types of measures may be taken as harm reduction in some countries. I hope that can help because we do appreciate all of the efforts and compromise and flexibility that have been shown in this room. And we do appreciate harm reduction measures that have been taken in some countries and our biggest concern is just ambiguity. Unless there is a real definition we cannot have it in the text but if we can have it in the footnote that some countries are using it then we may be comfortable.
Sponsor: May I ask for five minutes of the CoW’s time?
Chair: Yes
Chair: We are back. We have agreed PP1, PP2, PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, PP7, PP8, PP9, PP10, PP11, PP12, PP13, PP14, PP15 agreed in informals. Can we agree on PP15 in CoW?
Iran: We have already suggested “relevant” civil society.
USA: We suggest moving forward.
Chair: PP16 is also not agreed in CoW – can we? I see no comments. PP16 agreed in CoW. PP17 agreed in CoW. OP1?
USA: We propose deleting “as appropriate” to clean up the text. Delete “taking into account…”. And please just continue with cleaning up the text. We would ask if the room could consider this paragraph?
Iran: We are not in a position to agree with this para.
Chair: We continue with OP2.
Russia: We have suggested deleting “drug checking equipment” and for some reason it is now back in the text. We believe these practices condone drug use. CND could no adopt measures that could be seen as promoting drug use.
USA: Russia has objected to it in OP1, not in OP3, but in the spirit of comrpmoise, we can take it out.
Iran: We object as well.
USA: OP2 is not agreed in the CoW.
OP3
USA: Sponsor proposes accepting Egypt edits. Is this now acceptable to the room, without the footnote?
Russia: We can not accept it.
Chair: Can we accept the footnote?
USA: We don’t believe that the footnote is necessary.
Chair: Can we agree to OP4? Agreed in CoW. OP5?
China: I am just a little confused by “including”.
Chair: Probably was added during our discussions.
USA: For clarity, we can remove “including” before “toxicology”. And then the second “including” was taken up to satisfy one of the delegations during negotiations, so I would like to put it to the room to adopt.
Chair: So do we accept OP5? Agreed in CoW. OP6?
USA: We accept the suggestion on the screen “other public health interventions to address harms…”
Iran: We also suggested to include “transfer of technology”.
USA: The sponsor would propose moving forward, understanding that this is not agreed in CoW.
OP7.
USA: We propose removing “relevant” and accepting the text with removing the brackets.
Chair: Can we go with this text?
Iran: Regarding civil society in this paragraph, we insist on “relevant civil sciety”
USA: We recommend moving forward and noting it is not agreed in CoW.
Chair: OP7 is not agreed. OP8?
Russia: Can we propose a minor addition to make the language consistent, just to add “scientific” before evidence based.
Sudan: After “organizations” add “within their respective mandates”.
USA: In the spirit of consensus and being flexible, we can incorporate these suggestions.
Saudi Arabia: We requested the deletion of “other UN entities” earlier and it was approved last night.
Chair: This is the text that we have now.
Saudi Arabia: I remember it being removed last night.
USA: We noted that there was some objection to the term but very limited so we retained that language.
Chair: Can we then agree to OP8?
Iran: We will have to insist on our deletion and I would like a few minutes to talk to our sponsors.
USA: The US wants to incorporate as many perspectives as we can so we’re happy to take on the edit proposed by our colleague from Saudi Arabia and we ask if the room can accept this.
Saudi Arabia: thanks to the US for their flexibility.
Chair: Can we agree to OP8 in the CoW?
Iran: Yesterday we asked about OP8 and we have not gotten any answers from the sponsors and therefore the whole paragraph in our view does not need to be here. Finally if we must consider this proposal it should not be confined only to scientific reports. This is another thing which we have to consider, just off the cuff, I do not want to propose but I was thinking if we get some concrete answers then we might be able to adjust this.
United States: We note the comments however we have been dealing with this paragraph for weeks and we would like to move forward noting that OP8 is not agreed in CoW.
Chair: I am noting that OP8 is not agreed in CoW and moving to OP9.
Venezuela: Back to OP8 we don’t see the part that shows that everything will be in all six UN languages. That is the only way we have done it and it’s very important to us. For my delegation English is not our first language so for us to be able to participate it is very important.
US: We would be happy to be flexible here as long as the translation into UN languages is caveated with “subject to the availability of extra budgetary resources” so as not to put a burden on UNODC in a liquidity crisis. We would ask the room if they can accept this language.
Chair: I am asking if you can accept this change with the understanding that OP8 is not accepted in the CoW.
OP9
Chair: Can I ask the room if we can agree to OP9? We can agree to OP9 in the CoW. We have gone through the resolution that is not agreed in its entirety. US, you have the floor.
USA: We would ask that the chair pass this resolution as currently drafted to the plenary.
Chair: I will transfer the resolution..
Title
Russia: We haven’t yet considered the title. If we can take a look at it. Russia has a proposal on the title. I feel that the current spirit in the room and their attitudes to what my delegation is saying is bad. I feel there is a consideration that Russia is rigid in the room. We prefer a shorter title and as I have been consistent throughout our interventions I would suggest that we need no caveat in the title. It’s the first time I’ve seen a caveat in the title. I would propose to consider ending this paragraph after “approach” in the second line.
Chair: Can we agree to this?
Canada: We can agree to this deletion and if we could add “harms”.
United States: I apologise for neglecting to address the title and thank you to Russia for bringing this up. Throughout this resolution we have been explicit that the terms and recommendations and the invites throughout this resolution are intended to be within the context of each member states internal situation in accordance with their circumstances. The US does not object to the removal of the last part, it makes it shorter and more readable but I would welcome it if others intervened from the floor if they think that this caveat in the title helps them with the resolution. I would put it to the floor and welcome delegations to be candid about this.
Sudan: This is about OP8. My understanding is that this is not agreed. So there is a minor thing in OP8 that I wanted to add if possible.
USA: If we can continue with the title, I would hate to not accommodate a single letter – can we see if anybody has any issue with the title? Then I would like to revisit OP8.
Chair: Can we agree to the title as is on the screen now? (maybe add title) Agreed in CoW.
OP8.
MS (?): I think international challengers have been forgotten.
Chair: Can we accept this, despite op8 no being agreed in CoW?
USA: Yes.
Chair: Thank you. We are sending this to plenary.