Home » L.2. Commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development: effective implementation and future perspectives (Germany, Peru and Thailand)

L.2. Commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development: effective implementation and future perspectives (Germany, Peru and Thailand)

Chair: Welcome back. 

Thailand: Thank you Madam Chair. Unfortunately we did not manage to agree on any further PPs although we made some progress but it seems some of the delegation were holding onto some of the paragraphs to see the outcomes of the others. For now this morning we had PP11 written as agreed in CoW pending Iran and during informal consultations this morning Iran had already consented to agree to the paragraph so I think we can remove “pending” Iran from this paragraph.

Chair: Can we agree on PP11? It is so decided. 

Thailand: In the informal consultation this morning we ended at PP12. In the draft resolution we managed to agree to the first half of the issue pending the first meeting. Thanks to the Canadian delegations flexibility we solved that but then we had another issue which is the proposal by the Russian federation to delete the part on draft policy responses and developments at regional level and then the part from Iran regarded related crimes which he said that he would like to frame this paragraph into the script…so I’m not sure whether he’s in the room right now if so maybe we can work on that. 

Iran: thank you very much. I believe I need additional time. Thank you.

Chair: I propose that we begin where you have stopped so we begin with OP1. Do I have any comments on OP1?

United Kingdom: thank you chair. To reiterate we want to keep the paragraph. We would like to object to the highlighted language and want to retain reference to all in the third line, thank you. 

Chair: Thank you very much. Do I have any comments? Egypt wants to delete the first bracket “strongly”.

United States: We share the views from the United Kingdom. This resolution is about these guiding principles. The alternative development is not referenced here and we think the message of the commission should be that we strongly encourage member states to use that. With respect to deletion of “all” we are a bit puzzled as to what the difference is between using “all” and not using it so we prefer the original. We also object to the highlighted language. 

Chair: Thank you. Do I have any other comments? We have a lot of support to keep the original. Can we work on keeping “strongly” first?

Brazil: Yes actually I would like to also be added to keep the original after Italy. Thank you. 

Chair: I thank you very much. Can I go back to “strongly” to be deleted by Egypt. Egypt – can we keep it? I am looking into the first part of this paragraph and just asking Egypt, can we keep “strongly”?

Egypt: For us we would like to have only “encourages” and I think the issue of other countries wanting to support the original paragraph was because of the issue of transfer of technology and not my suggestion. So we prefer to have it here to be “encourages”. I thank you, chair.

Chair: Thank you. Can we just keep “encourages” without “strongly”? Do I have any comments?

Russian Federation: thank you very much, Chair, we very much support that language as this is the usual language for the CND. We also don’t know the language for ‘all’. 

USA: Thank you, with respect to the last intervention, we suggest it should move all to ‘all’ before member states and ‘all’ international orgs. The highlighted text should be removed too.

Chair: There is now proposal to delete ‘strong’ and move ‘all’ to in front off member states and international orgs

Iran: When we talk about this language my delegation supports the language ‘technology transfer’ as this is important to combating drug scourge. 

Germany: Thank you to the USA  for the pragmatic promposal and we support this proposal.

Brazil: We take the same position as the US. If we cut out all the contested language maybe we can have a consensus.

Egypt: Thank to the US for their addition. Minor changes to paragraph to make it inline with other CND resolutions. We propose ‘relevant’ member states and all ‘relevant’ international organizations. 

UK: Thank you, chair, we can agree to test as on the screen, with all the current strikeouts. We can maybe agree on text on as it stands and move onto next paragraph

France: We like the USA proposal to streamline the text and the Egyptian proposal is OK with us too.

Chair: Can we agree on the text on the screen now? We have proposals from the US and Egypt.

Iran: At the beginning of the text we have language that ignores transit countries that halt the transit of the scourge of drugs. We need transfer of technology to combat the drugs. I was in Kabul for many years and the technology was available there for combating the scourge of drugs and as a transit country we need access to this technology.

Chair: I thank you very much. I have the UK.

United Kingdom: Let me just thank the distinguished delegate from Iran. We agree that it’s very important for transit countries like these countries to focus on distribution. We think that’s already included. On technology transfer, that becomes a problem for the UK because we have some measures in place that we don’t want to go into where technology transfer becomes an issue. For that reason we want to keep it vague. I think that covers the concerns of Iran. Maybe we can think of it that way given that we have this difficulty with this language but if it came back we would have to object with Australia. And just to say we had a long conversation about this and it took many many hours so I hope we do not need to repeat that conversation but we will if we need to.

Chair: I will allow for two more and then we move on.

Spain: We can start to clean it up as Egypt and others have said. Second part: we understand that the promotion of partnerships can be very apt. We compare that with technology transfer but however if that’s going to still be a problem then maybe we can set that aside. There does seem to be an issue in moving in despite the fact that the issue of the technology transfer was already discussed. 

Iran: I thank the representative of UK for the nice words but nice words don’t help the countries that are suffering from the sanctions. The public partnership program is not functioning for my country and for some other countries that are suffering from that. But I believe that mentioning of the transfer it doesn’t mean anything to this resolution because it’s not going to change the rules but if you have any problem with the transfer we could use another wording but technology should be there because you ask the stakeholders to do something but you ask for us to follow the rules and guidelines and what about the real activities in this case in order to assist countries that you are fighting with the drug traffickers?

Chair: I have Germany.

Germany: Two clarifications. First, the aim of the cosponsors is to give an overview of what is happening on the ground including measures of alternative development so I think this is broadly covered in other paragraphs of this resolution but also technology transfer but has never been a part of this and it is not mentioned in the UK guiding principles for alternative development so we kindly ask for support on this.

Thailand: There’s one proposal made by Australia and the word used there was “to enhance technical support” so if instead of the three lines struck out we could try that. I’m wondering whether it could be acceptable to the room. This line comes from paragraph 18AA by the guiding principles

Chair: Thank you. Sudan.

Sudan: Thank you madam chair and I have a proposal to make this paragraph stronger and it’s also from the language of the guidelines in PP3 of the UN guidelines about increased international cooperation. This can replace “partnerships” with “effective international cooperation”

Chair: Thank you. I didn’t see any issue with the partnerships to delete them. We have two proposals, can we agree to keep these and keep the rest?

United States: I think we could accept the proposal that was made by our colleague from Thailand but we’re not comfortable deleting ‘partnerships’ because that is specifically addressed in the guidelines and “effective international cooperation” seems to introduce other concepts other than international developments. 

Chair: I thank you, do we have any other comments?

Iran: I actually preferred after to put appropriate technology transfer in brackets. 

Chair: I actually believe we were trying to avoid the language of partnerships.

Sudan: We are flexible with the language.

Chair: can we please clean text and I ask Iran one more time if we delete technical transfer after..

Iran: I mean putting in the bracket so I can talk about it in the next meeting

Chair: OK we can clean text and put tech transfer in brackets

Australia: Please show that Australia is opposed to tech transfer as its not in guidelines and is not appropriate

Chair: it’s not in the guidelines and its 

USA: our deletion of strongly was based on the premise that tech transfer and all other bracketed language was deleted

UK: we will move it to the next session for discussion. 

Chair: Will put text back to the informals. Do have comments on OP2?

Chair: no comments, can we agree on OP2? 

UK: Apologies, Chair, I think in the last session the language ‘all’ was in front of member states.

Chair: will this work as the previous paragraph? Do we have something on ‘consider actively? It was proposed to be deleted by Indonesia. 

Indonesia: Is there any objection to the Indonesian proposal?

Chair: Any objections to changing from participating to participate? Any changes on to participate, as opposed to actively participating?

Australia: It’s simple and it works. Can we also add the dates of the meeting?

Chair: We have a bracket on ‘international drug policy commitments’

Egypt: Maybe we can add the following ‘add knowledge and best practices’ and we are encouraging MS to attend an international conference. Keep it simple and language on what the purpose is.

Mexico: supports this language from Egypt

Iran: We can use ‘best practice’ in this regard.

Thailand: We already have the SDGs in the title of the conference and have no objection from the delegation of Egypt.

Chair: we have cleaned the paragraph and taken care of the language of Egypt. Do we have anything on OP2? It is decided. 

Chair: Move to OP3. Any questions on OP3? We have an addition from Bolivia? Is Bolivia in the room:

Brazil: I wonder if you could try to see if there is consensus without all the additions, maybe coming back to the original if that is possible.

Chair: Indonesia do you want to take the floor?

Indonesia: I’m just waiting to see if there are any comments.

Chair: Can I ask the room if it’s ok to keep it as before?

Iran: When we are talking about the inclusive alternative development program, how come we are ignoring the national needs of the country? I believe it is essential to talk about the priorities for this part. 

Chair: Bolivia, please.

Bolivia: Thank you. We would like to maintain our addition. We understand that it is an important addition to the paragraph and we think it is necessary to add an end at the end. Thank you. 

Chair: Can we agree on the proposal of bolivia?

Germany: We would like to go along with the proposal made by Brazil. We want to maintain the original proposal by the cosponsors. Regarding the concerns of Iran, from our point of view the national priorities are already reflected in the first paragraph which is to understand that these will include national needs and proposals. To respond to Bolivia it is not quite clear what is meant so we would like to go back to the original proposal.

United States: Like the previous speaker we look at the language proposed by Bolivia and we are not sure what that means. And in terms of how we would translate that to our agencies it just raises questions. And on the needs of national priorities we agree, this is alternative development so it is the countries coming together and their needs and priorities are fundamental, they’re already there. 

Chair: So Bolivia can we have more explanation on your proposal?

Bolivia: Yes, thank you very much. For us it’s important to ensure that we take into account the importance of attaining consensus. That is a balance between policies underpinning fighting drugs, equally the view of the underlying cause of consumption. We could look at an alternative, a wording alternative which we could submit subsequently if that is agreeable but for the time being we would like this proposal to be retained thank you. Apologies. Just one more thing. Yes we would like the following to be taken into account: the asymmetry between the energy that we invest in combating drug production and trafficking. That doesn’t really give us a positive outlook until we are able to attain a symmetry between these both policy areas between these policy solutions. What we have is an asymmetry between the policies used for fighting drugs and those used for fighting drug use. So once again that’s what we have to work on.

Chair: I thank you very much. I now have Sudan on the list. 

Sudan: Thank you, on the third line from below, there is something missing here; to ‘accelerate the progress made’. 

Brazil: thank you for elaborating. I suggest something more simple; ‘balance, comprehensive inclusive policies’ will this work?

USA: Could live with the proposal from Brazil, but doesnt get to the issue raised by Bolivia. This about the type of alternative development programs, but if there is alternative programs to reduce broader issue of  for drugs

Russian Federation: Thank you. We also think the issues raised by Bolivia are relevant. Maybe a further paragraph and we have a proposal ‘and balanced demand and supply reduction’. This is language the help Bolivia help with their proposal. After viable alternative development we’d like to add ‘based on national needs and priorities’ this is from UNGASS. After the word ‘environment’ we ask to include ‘according to national priorities’, as the environment is not the main priority of alternative development.

Chair:  Do we have any comments? Does silence mean consensus? Germany?

Germany: Reading it is it now ‘according to national need’ is a caveat and we put an objection here:

Bolivia: Thank you to our colleagues for their input. We are flexible, but for the time being we’d like our proposal to be included. Bolivia has had alternative development in place for many years, it’s part of our constitution. We propose adding ‘inclusive, alternative development programs’.

France: before sending this to informals, France wants to object to a caveat around protecting the environment.

Chair: We have reservations proposed by Iran and several objections by member states.

USA: Thank you, madam Chair, this paragraph is not acceptable to us.

Australia: We change our reservation to an objection.

Germany: We follow Australia and add an objection to the caveat after the environment.  

Iran: The farmers under the sanctions have lost their jobs on both sides of the border, Iran and Afghanistan. If these farmers lose their jobs they will move to the kitchen to make methamphetamine. This is a human rights issue and Iran cannot support farmers on its own, but needs help from international communities. Sanctions are affecting alternative development of farmers in Iran and Afghanistan.  

Chair: I still have Germany and then I will pass to the next paragraph.

Germany: Thank you. Such sanctions regimes do affect development. In the case of Afghanistan it is well known to us but there is alternative development programs ongoing and UNODC and thats independent from any ongoing sanction regime so I don’t see why the situation of Afghani farmers would require an additional paragraph since I can’t think of any place anywhere where farmers would be effective so I would maintain our justification but also want to question the issue.

Chair: Putting this in the paragraph but moving to OP4.

Chair: I would love to move to OP4. Brazil would you like to take the floor?
Brazil: I would suggest that we go for the formula that it apparently gained consensus before so it encourages all member states and relevant NGOs and all the relevant stakeholders and I think that would solve the only contentious part of the paragraph and maybe this way we could reach consensus on it. Thank you.
Chair: I agree with the proposal. We had it twice already. If that is it I would propose that we vote on OP4.

Mexico: Not trying to make it more difficult but it will be shorter and more to the point if we say “encourages all relevant states, relevant stakeholders and NGOs” 

Chair: I thank you for that. Do I have any comments on that? I have brazil.

Brazil: I thank the Mexican delegation for their suggestion but can we see if there’s consensus with the prior formula because we had issues with this before which is very sensitive. Can we try to see if there is consensus?

Chair: I will first give the floor to Mexico.

Mexico: I am not going to teach English to the British so I will withdraw my proposal.

Chair: to continue in the good spirit let’s agree on OP4 with the language. 

Australia: I think the comma after inventions is not required. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you, Russia.

Russia: Thank you chair. We would agree with the wording that was used in previous paragraphs about states and international organizations. “To address and counter”, that’s because there are challenges that require more decisive action, thank you. 

Chair: Are we okay with “to address and counter”? I don’t see any comments. Spain.

Spain: Sorry. We are saying “to counter trends”? Because it’s to address and counter trends?

Chair: Thank you. Russia.

Russia: We think that to address and counter has to do with challenges and challenges have to be countered particularly if they’re negative and if it’s a negative trend then they need to be countered so we think this is balanced wording.

Chair: Do I have any other proposals?

Brazil: I don’t think that all challenges are necessarily bad or you should counter all challenges. Sometimes you have a challenge that you face with a positive attitude. But I understand what Russia means to let’s try maybe after counter “when appropriate” or something like that. “To address and when appropriate, counter”.

Chair: Sudan.

Sudan: we prefer to use the previous one. 

Chair: This was trying to solve the concern that some of the challenges are positive. I found that if we have to have something I found it useful here but yes please Sudan. 

Sudan: For me, “countering challenges” is preferred. 

Australia: I would delete ‘trends’ and stick with ‘challenges’. 

Mexico: I understood Australia’s comment was to delete ‘countered’. The paragraph should be read to address drug-related challenges. 

Brazil: First of all, I’m flexible. But there are some challenges you cannot counter. For example, people who do not have enough money, this cannot be countered.

Russian Federation: For drug related crime, we need this changed but we could also use “tackle”.

Thailand: I want to echo the previous speaker. Alternative development is internationally recognized. Integrated development is something that I do not know about and I believe a number of colleagues do not know what it is so I would suggest that we stick to the agreed terms and if the Bolivian delegation wishes to introduce the term then maybe it should be elsewhere. I think we should stick to alternative development here. 

Chair: UK

United Kingdom: thank you chair and obviously we understand and respect the position of the delegation of Bolivia. The first line talks about “within their efforts,” so hopefully that’s okay for them but I could suggest something like “within their respective efforts,” so that might be helpful within the Bolivian delegation. Thank you. 

Chair: I have Colombia.

Colombia: Thank you very much. Regarding the concerns raised by a number of delegations regarding the connotation and scope of this concept. In colombia after having tried various types of approaches in alternative development we saw the need to braided this approach not only to approach to rural development but equally placing the source of income and this applies to urban areas where there are also people living in vulnerable situations who need some type of income replacement that was previously on illicit crop cultivation. We understand that this is being further developed by UNODC so this isn’t novel and we believe these paragraphs should reflect this.

Bolivia: for many years now we have had integral development programs because it made it possible to integrate if you’ll allow me to use that term, differing visions and to understand that it wasn’t only about developing a programmatic solution that fails to take into account integral programs as such. The other term lacks resonance in our countries because we understand these programs as being integral development programs and not alternative development programs. We understand that this is new for some people and in the sake of flexibility perhaps somewhere in the context could offer a description of Bolivia’s specific program and perhaps here we could offer a footnote for Bolivia’s integral development program.

Chair: Thank you. I have Colombia 

Colombia: I appreciate the contribution of the delegation. It nails what I was trying to put forward. Land rights are important in not only rural environments but the development of alternative income in urban areas also depends on land ownership sometimes, especially in slums and other places where land ownership is not quite established and its really development on this kind of thing to provide alternative incomes for individuals so that’s why in urban and rural areas it makes sense here.

Chair: I give the floor to mexico

Mexico: there’s an issue of the management of CP lands and public lands. Taking into account the placement of people from urban to rural areas. Need to take into account the contribution of agriculture. We need to understand the impact of alternative development projects. 

Chair: I thank you. We have had a wonderful debate on all these topics. On new expressions, on the revolution. I propose that OP7 goes back to informals. And I would like to continue with the discussion of resolution L4

Leave a Reply

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