Home » L.4. Improving access to and availability of controlled substances for medical purposes, including for the treatment of children in pain, through the promotion of awareness-raising, training and data collection (Belgium on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, and Côte d’Ivoire)

L.4. Improving access to and availability of controlled substances for medical purposes, including for the treatment of children in pain, through the promotion of awareness-raising, training and data collection (Belgium on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, and Côte d’Ivoire)

Belgium: I suggest we start from PP9.

Chair: Thank you, let’s turn to PP9. Do I have any comments on PP9? 

Chile: Thank you for the floor. For Chile, a suggestion, instead of ‘hindering’ we suggest the language of ‘limiting’ as hindering has negative context.

Russian Federation: We could agree on the language from Chile. We think the language on children’s medicines doesn’t specifically fall under the drugs issue. So we ask to soften the language. 

USA: Please indulge me, madam Chair, we ask for a few minutes to get our experts in the room to address this issue. Thank you. 

Chair: We have language ‘safe and effective’ in Australia. Can we agree on this?

Russian Federation: What does the representative from Australia mean by ‘safe and effective’ practices?

Australia: I can’t find appropriate language or explanation in my notes, so can we come back once I’ve checked my notes and an earlier version.

Chair: I see we have an addition by the Russian Federation, do we have any comments? The language is ‘the implementation of international drug policy commitments and the’ achivement of SDGs. 

USA: We could accept this language, but I think the language Australia proposed sis morre helpful. For now can you please bracket ‘universal health coverage’.

Russian Federation: We would like to add ‘relevant’ before SDGs. We would like to remove the reference to SDGs, as only particular SDGs apply here. We will accept if others deem essential, but prefer adding ‘relevant’.  

Australia: SDGs are important and the 2030 Agenda is broader than the SDGs. 

Spain: We have significant concern about the lack of evidence of ‘age appropriate medicine’. It’s a very specific language. It may stand in the way of SDGs. This is one very specific issue applying to children but then applying them to a very broad SDGs, so it 

Iran: Thank you to colleagues for your inclusion. We would like to add to ‘Target 3.8, Achieving Universal Healthcare Coverage’ and Access to Safe Essentials Medicines, but we can keep it simple and just have a reference to SDG 3.8 as this is the most pertinent issue.

Chair: I thank you very much. We will probably have to read that later with PP4 which already includes this target and some explanation: UK you have the floor. 

UK: I must agree with our friend from Spain. We’ve started off with very specific issues and it’s just been boarded and broadened to an almost global level. I don’t know that there’s specific evidence to back any of this up. We would like to return to a minimal paragraph. It muddies the waters and I don’t know why I would like to do that. We would like to strike through all the additional evidence apart from the fact that this may be putting children’s lives at risk and leave it at that. 

Chair: thank you very much. Belgium

Belgium: Yes, thank you very much. I would like to thank the delegate from the UK and from Belgium for supporting this suggestion. 

Chair: I have El Salvador and then the US.

El Salvador: I would like to support this proposal.

Chair: I have US.

US: We also support the UK proposal. One of the things that troubles us is that universal health coverage deals with what is available. 

Chair: I also have switzerland

Switzerland: we would also like to support the proposal made by the UK

Netherlands: we would also like to support the proposal made by the UK
Chair: Can we then go back to Australia?

Australia: We could propose the UK too but we need to get rid of the comma. I would just ask the room whether we could say as well as safe and effective practice. 

Chair: So can we go back to the UK proposal based on Spanish comments and with the addition of the Australian’s comments?

US: Thank you chair. I think it’s been confusing in the formula right now. Perhaps we could say “as well as the lack of safe and affordable practices” thank you.

Chair: Could Australia clarify this lack of safe and affordable practice? Because otherwise I think we can agree on this shortened version of the paragraph other than the part on safe and affordable practice.

Australia: Thank you madam chair. I would like to hand it over to our technical expert. It’s just a change of the grammar that I hope will explain. It’s a lack of research and development that can guide effective practice. And if not guide, inform safe and effective practice. 

Chair: So now it is put there and explained. Russian Federation – is that ok with you? 

Russian Federation: Thank you, chair, unfortunately my technical assistant is not in the room as she wasn’t issued a visa, even though she applied with all the relevant documents. The alternative language cannot be decided on yet.

Australia: when producing guidelines on clinical practice in nearly all countries, the prime purpose of any guidelines are to be ‘safe and effective’. 

Chair: I will send this back to informals

Iran: the links to this resolution and our commitment to health and wellbeimng and 

Egypt: before moving to PP10 Egypt would like to add, PP9 Ibis. Allow me madam chair, ‘reaffirming the importance to address, at the national and international levels, access to reduce the affordability of … limited financial resources, in regards their availability’. This is directly  from UNGASS 2016 PP2d. 

Chair: I understand this comes from UNGASS but suggest we discuss in informald even though it is all agreed language.

Australia: recalling is wrong, we are not ‘recalling’. ‘Noting’ is used when observed, language should be ‘as noted’ as we are referring to a report. We have opposed ‘reservation’ is not in the INCB report so that’s why we have restrained. 

Belgium: Let us come back to the core of this resolution and stick to focus on the key issues. We can accept ‘as noted’ and ‘recalling’ but other changes we cannot accept as it’s a direct copy of the INCB report. 

Chair: I thank you very much. I have US. 

USA: Taking note of what was just said, we have a somewhat lengthy proposal to add to this paragraph. We’re in your hands whether we should introduce it now or send it to be discussed in the informals. 

Chair: Thank you. Would this be a PP10 piece or an addition to 10?

US: It would be a fairly lengthy addition to 10.

Chair: then leave it to the informals. Do we still want to make lengthy additions? Belgium said that they would appreciate having the first part but then leave all of the other additions. But we are looking forward to your additions tomorrow in informals. I have egypt.

Egypt: Thank you. We can go along with the proposal made by Australia regarding taking notes. We believe that he has a stronger English than this delegation. Regarding the addition of some. We are still insisting on referring to this impediment as one of the major rather than THE major. In the report itself it shows that compared to or the supplement to the report 2018 the raising the awareness and training was higher but now its percentage has declined to I think 26% while other factors are particularly sourcing has increased to 31% compared to 2018 paragraph 2018 supplement report. So that’s why we are and we can go along without the reference to other impediments but again we will insist on having the PP9 which is addressing the affordability. 

Chair: I thank you very much. I have United States. No, El Salvador. 

El Salvador: As for Egypt’s proposal of access to and availability of the report also does refer to availability but we’re unable to accept the rest. 

Chair: I thank you very much. I think we can agree to the language until healthcare professionals because we have agreed on “taking note” and “some”. Do I have any comments on the second part of the paragraph? Australia you have the floor.

Australia: We could accept Egypt’s proposal.

Chair: I have South Africa. 

South Africa: We wish to express South Africa’s report and following availability and affordability of controlled substances. 

Chair: thank you. I have Iran.

Iran: Thank you Madam Chair. As a major impediments I would like to add an important one. We can have problems in sourcing and limited financial resources as well. 

Chair: Can you let me know where you want this to be included?

Iran: Yes, before utilization of technological advances or after healthcare professionals. Yes we can have problems in sourcing because 31% of people voted for this one and limited financial resources and trade control measures and we are fine if other delegations want to add impediments because all of them are important for us.

Chair: thank you very much, I have Belgium

Belgium: thank you very much I;d like to say the idea of this resolution the focus is the lack of training and awareness, the there are many other paragraphs, and would like to find a compromise that keeps the focus on training on 

Chair: is this from the (INCB) report? 

Canada: Thank you chair, I think this paragraph should focus on the core of issue here and not be a Christmas list or wishlist and suggest we focus ‘training and awareness’ and not be distracted with other issues 

Chair: we don’t need multiple Omnibus Resolutions here in Vienna from these resolutions. 

South Africa: poverty is not a shopping list and this is an important issue for developing countries. Underdevelopment and unaffordability is not shopping list for low and middle countries. 

Canada: Apologies to my colleague from South Africa, I didn’t mean to diminish the unaffordability issue, but don’t need it to be in this paragraph. More than happy to have it in another paragraph, just not here. 

US: This paragraph is evolving over time, and with the reference to impedance. We oppose the ‘trade control’ issue.

China: Thank you, we believe in this paragraph. We believe many impediments should be referenced. As other delegates mentioned that this is not a shopping list. We would like to add the major impediments in middle of this paragraph.

Chair: Do we have any comments on PP12?

Belgium: We have shortened the paragraph here and have no problem going back to the longer language if it reaches consensus. 

Chair: Will add language if it means we can reach compromise. Let us copy the language. Please look at the entire language now which is copied from 66/3. 

US: For clarity, 66/3 contains a footnote. Does this addition include just paragraph or also include the footnote.

Belgium: Not familiar with the footnote, please let me check it (checks footnote). If it works without the footnote, we’re flexible. 

Chair: Can we please agree to PP12 in CoW as amended. I don’t see any objections. We can agree. It is so decided.

Chair: do I have any comment on PP13? Can we agree on technical assistance?

Iran: Are we referring to WHO and INCB? INCB does not provide technical assistance, but we have some proposals.

Chair: Can we take it out?

United States: Thank you Madam Chair. We would just like to point out to our colleague from Iran that the INCB does provide assistance to countries through the GRIDs program through one example, it’s not the only example so I’m not sure why we wouldn’t be able to put this in here. We’re agnostic on the technical assistance part so we also don’t have a problem with keeping the original language but should others prefer to keep the technical assistance part then we can say that.

Chair: Can we keep the original language? 

Netherlands: we would prefer to keep the original language for technical assistance. If we were to not keep that I would need to consult with my delegation first. 

Chair: Then can we keep the original language? Seems so, so I would propose that we agree to OPP13 in committee of the whole. And it is so decided. We have already agreed on PP14 and we are going now to OP1. Do we have any comments on OP1? Colombia. 

Colombia: Thank you chair. We’d like to go back to PP13. I was going to propose a PP13 bis. 

Chair: Ok, I was not aware of PP13 Bis so go ahead Colombia

Colombia: It’s welcoming the publication of the UNODC world drug report 2023. And the international narcotics control board 2023 report. While noting with concern its findings that large inequalities remain in the availability of internationally controlled opioids for medical consumption between developed and developing countries. Thank you. 

Chair: I thank you very much for your proposal. Belgium, you wanted to say something.

Belgium: I just wanted to agree with that. There are several places that wanted to introduce new paragraphs but I think that’s better placed in informals with respect to fairness. 

Chair: I thank you very much. Australia, you have the floor. 

Australia: Australia has already suggested a 13 bis so let’s call this 13 ter to clarify. 

Chair: I thank you for this. Can I now move back to OP1? Do I have any comments on this? There is included “use and abuse” opposed by Canada. 

Canada: Thank you chair. The main reason we oppose this is because we’re trying to move away from stigmatizing language. We can delete it while not losing anything that the wording would entail. Alternatively we could change it to moving them towards illicit channels. 

Chair: Thank you. I have Belgium.

Belgium: Thank you and we understand the concerns of the delegation of Morocco but we asked for information and you shared that it’s now preferable to use the term nonmedical use so if it should stay there we would prefer the proposal of Canada or similar. 

Chair: I thank you very much. United States please. 

USA: Thank you Chair we would echo what has previously been said about not needing to echo measures to prevent abuse here which is not relevant to the availability and access to. What we’re trying to get at is ensuring availability of and access to while preventing diversions and the commitments to preventing abuse are a separate commitment here. 

Chair: I have El Salvador.

El Salvador: Thank you chair. We also support the original wording according to the explanation of the UNODC. 

Chair: Thank you for all the proposals. I have heard a lot of you saying that we should stick to the original language. Can we just stick to the original language and finish with “their diversion”? China you have the floor.

China: Thank you chair. We suggest that on the one hand to ensure the access and availability and on the other hand to ensure prevention because these can be seen in our resolution 53/6 so we suggest to keep this text. Thank you. 

Chair: Can you repeat which language we should keep. I’m so sorry!

China: In resolution 66/3 “while preventing their diversion and abuse”. Thank you.

Chair: So it is language from 63/3 and it includes “and abuse”? But maybe we can try the other formulation that was used today, “their diversion into illicit channels” or “nonmedical use” as proposed by UNODC as well? We have the Russian Federation.

Russian Federation: when it comes to the Chinese proposal we’d like to go with that at the end of which there would be an addition “while concurrently prevention their diversion, abuse, and trafficking”

Chair: I have the Netherlands

Netherlands: Thank you madam chair 66/3, ‘prevention of diversion and non-medical use’ is agreed language. 

Chair: Thank you. 

Canada: In response to proposal from Russian Federation. We are not doing the UNGASS Outcome here and ask delegations to use non stigmatizing language and delete ‘abuse’. 

Chair: Can we agree on language without all red letters?

Iran: I think it’s a good proposal, but in 66/3, diversion and abuse are together, I need time to consult with my capital.

Egypt: Wonder if we can adopt language by Belgium and Canada as a compromise; non-medical use and diversion into non-medical channels.

Iran: We need additional time to consult with capital. 

Belgium: Kindly ask if we can discuss this in informals before opening up in CoW.

Chair: We will go to OP3. Any comments on OP3? We have an change instead of stresses, we ‘urge member states to take into account’

South Africa: Sorry to take you back. Can we please go back to OP1. Following the issue of affordability is not included clean. SA wishes to propose ‘affordability’ before ‘as well as affordability of controlled substances, this is agreed language from the 2019 HLM.

Belgium: I appeal to move this discussion to informals.

South Africa: We’re flexible.

Chair: Thank you for flexibility. We are back in OP3. There was a proposal by the US, can we agree on that? Another one is ‘in accordance with national legislation and domestic law’. Belgium you have the floor. 

Belgium: We think it’s clear enough without this. 

Iran: We prefer ‘stresses the importance’ we can go with either ‘national legislation’ or domestic law’

Australia: Iran’s proposal suggests that some countries have legislation taking into account the specific needs of children, and we oppose this addition.

Iran: When it comes to ketamine there are different recommendations from both INCB and WHO. Some countries allow it, and others ban it. This is why we include this additional language.  

Chair: I thank you very much. I just understand that this paragraph talks about taking into account the needs of children when taking into account and developing your own policies. But I understand that is your opinion. Do I have any other? Philippines.

Philippines: Thank you for giving us the floor. Firstly congratulations on your role in taking us forward. On this OP paragraph 3 we have heard the argument from both sides and in our usual attempt to bridge gaps perhaps without going into so many words at the end of this paragraph we can just consider on the third line “assessing, developing, and implementing national policies” to indicate that these policies are made at the national level without stating so much that national and domestic laws have to be taken into effect. This is also because the laws might not be laws but more rules or guidelines. It may just be helpful for everyone to say this rather than drilling into what types of proposals these are. IF this is helpful, take it. If it brings us more confusion, we are not married to it. 

Chair: I have US followed by Spain

US: Thanks to the Philippines for that constructive proposal. I think we can live with that. In our view rather than confining policymakers to existing legislation we would want them to examine existing legislation to see what is impeding access so we think keeping that language “in accordance with” sends the wrong message but the proposal of the Philippines addresses our concerns. 

Chair: I still have Spain,

Spain: I have the same comment. I agree with the comments made by the Philippines. 

Chair: Iran, can you agree with this?

Iran: Legally speaking when you ask someone to implement something you have to ask them to take into account their national laws. 

Chair: I thank you very much. I will now try to make this paragraph with all the proposals and I will pass this back to informals. Give me two minutes. I hope I have now taken into accounts all of the comments on OP3. We will send the schedule on CoW and the informals later tonight. I would like to thank you for all of your hard work this afternoon. We will resume tomorrow afternoon because tomorrow we have voting in the afternoon. And we will consider L3 and L5. schedule for informals and schedule for the CoW will be sent out tonight. Thank you very much and the meeting is adjourned. 

Belgium: We have made quite some progress. Several paras agreed in informals thanks to willingness to compromise. We can go through these paras and agree in CoW. Some are very close to consensus so hopefully we can reach consensus in these negotiations. 

Chair: I will ask which paragraphs to discuss. PP1alt says agreed in informals. Any comments on PP1alt. If not I propose we agree in CoW. It is so decided. 

I continue with the new PP2, also agreed in informals. If there are no comments I also propose we agree to this in the CoW. It is so decided.

PP7bis has been agreed in informals. I don’t see any comments. I propose we also agree on this. It is so decided. 

I have OP6bis. Correct me if I am wrong. I am picking up firstly the ones agreed in informals. I don’t see any comments. I propose we agree in the CoW. It is so decided.

I have missed OP5, apologies. I propose we agree on OP5 in CoW. It is so decided.

I am glad to make this fast process. I now move to PP7 pending an issue from China. 

China: We would suggest in line 3 use the word “appropriate” instead of “adequate”. If adequate it might suggest that  medicines prescribed are not adequate, but apart from inadequacy we also face the problem of overprescription. 

Belgium: We can support appropriate, and include “appropriate dosage forms and formulations” and we believe that should help us to reach consensus. 

US: We are fine with additions made, with your indulgence we gaveled through OP5 quickly. We did have concerns raised this morning in informals about appropriate intro for UNODC. We shouldn’t “encourage” UNODC, we should “request” and “invite” other entities. UNODC shouldn’t base their priorities against the priorities of other member states. 

Chair: Can we go to OP5.

USA: In place of “encourages” UNODC it would be “request”. We take out “together with”, replace with “and invites” and then continue as it was. 

Australia: In front of “mandates” can we put “their respective” mandates.

Chair: Can we proceed with these changes? I see nodding. We have China.

China: We have noted after the modification this would create a duplication, is there any way we could avoid that. 

UK: In relation to the first request, this relates to UNODC. We invite UNODC and other orgs to assist member states and the assistance is upon request of those member states so the two, although repetition, the requests are two different entities and so are necessary. Perhaps put “upon their request” as the request from member states is in relation to strengthening and developing member states capacity. 

Chair: Does this resolve the question from China? Can we continue agreeing with OP5. It is so decided.

We are at PP7, we have added appropriate, changed forms and formulations. Is this now agreeable to everyone?

Russian Federation: Proposals by other delegations suit our delegation. This para talks about children with certain syndromes. Delegates highlighted that this restricts scope of the resolution. We propose we delete working “in pain” as it is not exclusive to children in pain.

Chair: I propose now that we agree on this in CoW. It is so decided.

Belgium: On the next PP8 we were also very close to consensus. We would also propose adding “…in appropriate dosage forms and formulations and with consideration to problems…”

Chair: Belgium has cleaned the language. Can we check if this works for the room? I don’t see comments. I see Russia.

Russian Federation: We also agree with deleting in pain in this para, nonetheless in the final line before use we would like to add wording “rational prescription and use” indeed this is terminology issue open in this res. For us this is important. When it comes to use of medicines, this is not just applying to their prescribed use. 

Belgium: As mentioned by the Russian colleague there is no compromise on how we reflect this term on resolution. We can be flexible and consider the Russian proposal. We can also say “rational use, including prescription”.

USA: With caveat this is outside our expertise, this is within WHO. In practice this is rational use, and that is understood to include prescription. We don’t agree with the Russian Federation proposal, we can agree with Belgium but think this is unnecessary.

Russian Federation: We are grateful for the Belgian proposal. I note this suits our delegation as a middle ground proposal and we would be willing to use this term throughout the whole text.

Chair: As I understand this should be used through the whole text. Can we clean this text? I don’t see any comments. Can we agree on PP8 in CoW? I have China.

China: We are not from the health sector so we want to make sure our Belgian colleague has confirmed this term rational use and if it is already a fixed expression the WHO and in previous agreed language. 

Belgium: This is fixed terminology in WHO.

Egypt: We need to refer to experts regarding this inclusion. 

Algeria: We don’t need to add language “and formulations” 

Belgium: I want to give the floor to our colleague who will give more information on why it is relevant. 

Thank you, the term form refers to the number of milligrams of compound, it can also refer to the form of administration. Formulation is mostly specific to the way the product is packaged, slow release or other inclusions with the product. With children for example, we would not recommend alcohol is included.

Egypt: It will be difficult to reply right away.

Chair: Can we do an agreement ad ref pending agreement from Egypt? Thank you. 

Belgium: We proposed to delete PP9 as it was duplicating other aspects of the resolution. Australia had a reservation on this.

Chair: Could we move to PP6? Iran, do you have comments?

Iran: What is the intention of mentioning ‘gender in drug policy’? 

Belgium: This PP was deliberately introduced as we discuss controlled medicines and children. We used agreed language to explain why we think age and perspective is important. We didn’t want to change agreed language so we kept gender there. In informals, it became clear gender also has an important role so we introduced it, as it is relevant for the next paras that are following this resolution.

Sudan: This is fine-tuning: we should use exact agreed language ‘a gender and age perspective’ (with a and without s at the end of perspective). 

Iran: there are different connotations on gender. At this juncture, I cannot remove my reservation, I will convey the information provided by Belgium to capital.

Russia: Yesterday we discussed whether this is one perspective or whether there are several perspectives. In our view, gender and age are different perspectives. In the 2019 Ministerial Declaration we use ‘perspectives’, in plural. I request that we keep this as this PP sets the scope for the resolution to a certain extent. 

Canada: I am not sure why we need to discuss this in length. We used the exact same formulation in the Outcome Document last week. I would suggest we do that this time around, just a few days after agreement. 

Chair: Belgium, please advise us on which paragraph to consider next.

Belgium: PP13bis had a reservation from China. This para comes from Resolution 63/3 but does not mention the whole contents of the resolution, which mentions ‘while preventing diversion and abuse’. So we should emphasise the balance of the text. 

Australia: We will remove our reservation on PP9. So PP9 can be deleted. 

Russian Federation: We thank China. It would be advisable to completely reproduce the text of the corresponding para from Resolution 63/3 which also contains reference to the INCB learning project. We had a discussion during informals and an understanding that this learning project would be reflected in the PPs of this resolution. Replicating the entire PP would help address this matter. 

Egypt: Thanks to China for completing the text of the first segment of PP23 of Resolution 64/3. We agree to bringing on board the entire PP. There was also a request during informals by Russia for an OPbis on the INCB learning programme. We can have it as a PP to merge it with PP13bis. So we take note with appreciation of this addition by Russia. 

Belgium: There was indeed an agreement in the room that we would reflect this INCB learning project in the PPs. 

Chair: Should we replace PP13bis with PP13alt as proposed? This is now done. Can I ask if we can approve PP13alt?

USA: We are more than willing to accept PP13alt, except when it speaks to ‘while preventing diversion and abuse’. We believe it would be more appropriate to replace it with ‘while prevention diversion and misuse’. This is a change but the terminology is a decade old and does not reflect the current context and practice. 

Belgium: I understand the comment of the USA, and we support that. We have evolved on the term ‘abuse’, UNODC also stated that we should use ‘non-medical use’. But we also note here that the term is used as the official title of the joint global programme, so it should remain as is.

Australia: We can accept the text as it currently stands and are happy with the proposed US change.

Russia: As we are somewhat changing agreed language, I propose that we add a reference at the end of this para the specialised module of the INCB on availability of controlled substances which was launched last year. Regarding abuse and misuse, we should use ‘illicit use’ as ‘misuse’ is more geared towards the abuse of medicines. 

Egypt: We understand the concerns of other delegations pertaining to the term ‘abuse’. But we are changing the title of something that already exists. We already had a different debate in a different resolution on why we should change something that is already existing. It is not appropriate. It is there, it is in the title and on the website still. I don’t know how we can change that. For the time being, we are in favour of retaining the language as is as we don’t want to open a pandora’s box to amending what is existing and factual. We of course support the addition proposed by Russia as it is factually correct.

Mexico: I understood we worked on agreed language but will now make a couple of comments. We should use ‘misuse’ instead of ‘illicit use’, notwithstanding the name of existing programmes. On the Russian amendment, we believe it’s a pertinent suggestion, but because of the topic of the resolution, we should also mention the module on the e-learning programme. 

USA: We want to bracket the proposed amendment now to assess whether the e-learning module is truly relevant to this para. We’re not referring to the actual title of the programme here, so we can use the most modern terminology or the actual title of the programme.

Canada: We support the proposal from the USA.

Sudan: This is a long discussion on terminology. Some countries see it one way, others see it the other way. We are in an international forum and if we are to choose one national view on terminology (like Bolivia did on L2), it would be difficult. We understand the concern to use misuse rather than abuse. But this is the title of a programme that exists. We understand the concern that there is a background of negative forces and measures. If we seek evolution, we should consider everything that is appropriate. But we cannot do this with new terminology that is not adapted to all national contexts. There is no agreement on this new language. 

Australia: We are not using the actual title here, we’re discussing the programme overall. We want to do a contemporary refresh of the words we use here. 

Chair: So we now turn to Belgium for guidance on how to move forward.

Belgium: We will try and seek a compromise that addresses concerns. If not, we will go back to the agreed language.

Russian Federation: Since our delegation introduced some changes to the para, we would be willing to support the idea of going back to the original text from Resolution 63/3.

Chair: We have a proposal for my compromise still for everyone to be happy (everyone unhappy!)

Belgium: We can continue to OP3. We were moving towards consensus. “Urgens MS to take into account the specific needs of children when assessing, developing, implementing, domestic policies relating to…”. We need to be more action oriented in this language. Since we have added domestic and we all assume domestic policies in compliance with law so the end of the paragraph is redundant. We hope this gets agreement.

Chair: Please check the language and if you have any comments. If there are no comments can we agree on this language?

Iran: Thank Belgium and for the sake of flexibility we can agree with this paragraph. 

Chair: Can we agree on OP3 in the CoW? It is so decided. 

Belgium: We would like to go to OP10. We propose as a compromise “calls on MS to continue to work with UNODC…” we hope that this new language satisfies the room. 

Chair: Can you please look at this proposal on the screen.

Australia: A minor tweak to say “their” commitment in the second last line, per the 2019 Ministerial Declaration. 

Iran: We are very close to consensus. I want to add “in line with their relevant drug policy commitments”.

Chair: Are there any comments on this proposal? I have the US

USA: Normally when we say relevant commitments we are referring to the relevant drug policy commitments so this would be our preference. We are not sure if we need relevant, rather “in line with all their international drug policy commitments”

Russian Federation: I think the proposal by Iranian delegation is appropriate, we should be speaking about international drug policy commitment. As regards to “relevant”, it would imply we are talking about only commitments regarding availability to access to controlled drugs. We would support the proposal by the USA.

UK: We had accelerating implementation, we are fine with the wording but with the addition of “to accelerate commitment in this regard”. We urgently need to ensure obligations are reached. 

Belgium: We cannot agree to deleting the reference to accelerating commitment as the idea is to call upon MS to continue their work to accelerate implementation. This is important and we really want to keep this part. 

Austria: We would like to support Belgium on this and believe we have agreed on this on Friday in the HLS. 

Chair: Can we agree to this language in OP10?

Australia: Minor editorial to include “accelerate implementation in this regard”

Egypt: We support the language but wonder if we can add after continue “, within their means”. The capacities of MS are different and ability to undertake all aspired measures are different. As a developing country we want to make sure we are supportive but with consideration for our capacities. 

Mexico: We are not opposed to this but think it would be better after “enhanced” to not have a caveat on our means to work through the commission. 

Chair: I propose to agree to OP10 in the CoW. It is so decided. 

Belgium: For us we would like to continue informals and discussions bilaterally before we move on to other paragraphs. 

Chair: So this is not agreed?

Belgium: No this is agreed! We would prefer to continue the rest in informals. 

China: One small question – before we start informals could the colleague share the latest version of the text for more efficient work in informals. 

Belgium: We will have to delay informals for one hour and start at 3 instead of 2. 

Chair: Thanks for a wonderful session. Belgium will start informals at 3 instead of 2. It is important to have some time to see what was agreed upon. I thank you all for your flexibility this morning. I will stop considering this draft proposal. We will begin CoW again at 14:45.

Leave a Reply

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