Other Substantial Matters proposed by Member States
• Challenges to the identification of new illicit drugs: Discussion on strategies and approaches by laboratories to enhance the capacity of forensic personnel and harnessing technology to improve identification methods
• Harm reduction measures
• Drug Policy: social determinants, disproportionate impacts, and barriers to service access
• Current status of the critical review of Coca Leaf, as per the procedures of WHO
• The relevance of scientific evidence in the work of UN bodies and agencies in the implementation of the Global Drug Policy
• Challenges to the integrity of the international drug control system

---

Ms. Angela Me, Chief, Research and Trend Analysis Branch, UNODC: Alright, so the first topics I’m introducing here aren’t listed in any particular order of importance, but I’ve organized them to set up the discussion we’ll have later. First off, we’re talking about the role of scientific evidence in the work of UN bodies and agencies implementing global drug policy. When I saw this title, I thought, okay, it’s fascinating to focus on the concept of “scientific evidence” itself. What does it actually mean to rely on scientific evidence? In the UN system and in research generally, “quality” data matters, and by “quality” I don’t just mean accurate information and analysis that can shape drug policy. We’re also talking about standards—many of which exist even within the UN system—attributes that ensure impartiality, precision, and objectivity in the evidence that’s presented. This impartiality is especially crucial in a context like Vienna, where discussions on drug policy can get very polarized. We need evidence that doesn’t lean one way or another, but rather provides a scientific foundation. Scientific evidence also helps us gauge the impact of different drug policies, identifying what works and what doesn’t. Now, it’s rarely as straightforward as saying “this approach works” or “this one doesn’t” because policies are so context-specific. What might be effective in one country may not translate at all to another, and even within a single country, economic and social conditions can significantly influence outcomes. Generally, the scientific literature focuses more on demand-side approaches—there’s a lot more data on treatment and services than on other areas. Moving to a challenge within global drug policy: there are major data gaps, particularly in certain regions. The evidence we have often comes from high-income countries in the Global North, and this creates a risk of generalizing findings from specific contexts onto regions that may have very different conditions and needs. In some areas, we see a lot of evidence supporting certain drug policy issues, and as a result, those issues are prioritized. But that doesn’t mean those issues should always be the top priorities everywhere—context is key. Next, let’s look at social determinants of drug policy, the disproportionate impacts on certain groups, and barriers to service access. Social and economic factors—poverty, conflict, homelessness—have a widely documented impact on health, not just physically but socially and economically, too. We covered this in the World Drug Report in 2020, along with some recent updates. The cycle here is fairly clear: social and economic conditions impact people’s vulnerability to drug use, which in turn creates more barriers to accessing services. One important point is differentiating between drug use initiation and drug use disorders. Higher-income individuals are more likely to try drugs, but those from disadvantaged backgrounds—often affected by conflict or other risk factors—are more likely to develop drug use disorders. This disparity also extends to access to treatment services, where, for example, women face even higher barriers than men Now, onto a particularly sensitive topic: harm reduction. I know this is a charged term, often politicized and sometimes misunderstood as promoting drug use or even legalization. Harm reduction is sometimes used politically, but within the scientific community, it has a much clearer definition. Essentially, harm reduction is about reducing risk—it’s a principle that applies to many areas, not just drug policy. Think about seat belts in cars; they’re a harm reduction measure, not a promotion of risky driving. Similarly, harm reduction strategies in drug policy aren’t intended to promote drug use, but to mitigate risks where total abstinence isn’t feasible. nIn the scientific literature, we see harm reduction applied in contexts beyond drug use, including alcohol, tobacco, and even self-harm. For example, we see harm reduction for binge drinking in college students, clean razors for those engaging in self-harm, or nicotine patches for tobacco cessation. These approaches aren’t about endorsing these behaviors but about reducing harm when people are unable or unwilling to stop.The 2016 UN Outcome Document doesn’t explicitly mention “harm reduction,” but it does discuss measures to minimize the adverse health and social consequences of drug abuse. Scientific definitions from the International Society of Addiction Medicine and the World Health Organization underscore that harm reduction focuses on reducing the risks associated with drug use, not necessarily on stopping use altogether. This is an acknowledgment that not everyone can or will stop using drugs immediately or ever. For example, opioid substitution therapy and needle exchange programs significantly reduce the spread of HIV without requiring people to quit using drugs altogether. The evidence supporting these programs—like the 54% reduction in HIV risk with opioid agonist treatment—is solid and shows real, measurable impacts on public health. Harm reduction doesn’t encourage drug use; it’s simply a practical recognition that some people may not be able to stop. It’s similar to helping someone quit smoking: some will succeed in quitting entirely, while others might need alternatives to manage their addiction. So harm reduction strategies offer a structured, evidence-backed approach to reduce harm where cessation alone isn’t an option. This is the heart of harm reduction—taking into account people’s realities and meeting them where they are, in ways that support individual and public health.

Mr. Deus Mubangizi, WHO: I’ll be updating you on the WHO review of the coca leaf. To start, the WHO’s mandate for these assessments comes directly from international conventions, which authorize us to process reviews based on medical and scientific evidence. This is especially important with multiple UN bodies involved; each must adhere to its own mandate. Through the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, we assess the public health impact of substances, considering both risks and therapeutic benefits to maintain a balanced approach. This review was initiated by a formal notification under the 1961 or 1971 conventions, specifically triggered by a member state’s request on June 20, 2023, to conduct a critical review of coca. Another state also supported this review, which is set to conclude in 2025. Based on past experience and recognizing challenges in gathering evidence, we determined it would be best to conduct the review in 2025 rather than rushing it in 2024. However, we began gathering information early, discussing this at the 47th Expert Committee’s open session in October, where we received valuable interventions. The review will focus on the coca leaf and its preparations, as defined by the 1961 Single Convention, which includes coca powder and coca tea. However, cocaine and its preparations are excluded since they are already separately controlled under the Convention’s schedules. Following WHO guidelines for reviewing psychoactive substances, the critical review report will be structured around five main areas: chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, therapeutic use (including traditional use), and epidemiology. To support this review, we issued a public call for authors, which has now closed. We are finalizing the selection and conducting conflict-of-interest checks to ensure impartiality. Work on the critical review report will start soon, utilizing information collected from the recent open session. We plan to publish the report one month before the committee meeting, allowing parties to submit additional information. 

For those interested, the deadline for submitting evidence or data to support this review is December 9, 2024. The report will consolidate information from published sources, a member state questionnaire, and public consultations. The coca-specific questionnaire will be distributed in July–August of 2025, although submissions are welcome at any time. Public consultations will continue through the open session at the 47th committee meeting and submissions will still be accepted after December 2024. A draft report will be published in September for review, leading to the committee meeting in 2025.  To summarize, the timeline began with the 47th committee meeting announcement in May, followed by an open call for information, and will proceed through the selection of authors, publication of the report, public comments, and finally, stakeholder meetings in October. We cannot predict the outcome of the review yet, but we will make recommendations based on the evidence we gather.

Chair: Thank you – with this I open the floor. Singapore has proposed the topic of challenges in identifying NPS and strategies to enhance laboratory capacity for drug identification. I now invite the delegation from Singapore to introduce this topic.

Singapore: Forensic drug testing laboratories play a crucial role in protecting society from the dangers of drugs. The rapid emergence and evolution of NPS presents significant analytical challenges. Currently, over 1,200 unique substances have been reported globally, a sharp increase from fewer than 200 substances just 14 years ago. Unlike traditional substances such as heroin, cocaine, or cannabis, for which established analytical methods exist, identifying new NPS is difficult due to limited knowledge and evolving analytical needs. This inability to identify NPS leads to healthcare, legislative, and enforcement challenges. It’s essential for laboratories to maintain the capability to accurately identify these substances to counter drug-related threats.

Singapore has developed a strategy based on the “Three Cs”: Competency, Communication, and Collaboration.

1. Competency: To maintain a high-performing laboratory, Singapore has invested heavily in analytical equipment and upskills its scientists through technical training, overseas attachments, and forensic science conferences. Collaborations with universities enable the development of cutting-edge methodologies. Our laboratories utilize a range of instruments to identify substances even in the absence of drug reference standards, enabling rapid identification and mitigating societal risks.
2. Communication: We actively engage stakeholders, including law enforcement and legislators, to provide early warnings on new drug detections. For example, when our laboratory first detected a new NPS, we observed a sharp increase in its prevalence over three months. We promptly alerted law enforcement, which resulted in swift control measures that curbed its spread. This early action allowed healthcare institutions to optimize public health strategies and equipped frontline officers to protect themselves from exposure risks.
3. Collaboration: We work closely with UNODC and international partners, including the Asian Forensic Sciences Network (AFSN), to share knowledge, provide training, create drug testing manuals, and establish best practices. These collaborations foster robust, unified approaches to tackle drug trends.

In conclusion, comprehensive strategies focused on competency, communication, and collaboration are essential to address NPS challenges effectively. These strategies have yielded benefits in accurate substance detection, timely legislation, effective public health strategies, robust enforcement, and enhanced safety protocols, contributing to a strong system for public health and safety. Singapore stands ready to work with UNODC and other partners to advance global drug detection capabilities and protect communities worldwide.

Chair: Thank you. From now on, the three minute rule will be applied for statements from the floor – no discussion.

China: The Singapore colleague has highlighted the importance of enhancing scientific and professional networks for drug control. China emphasizes strengthening drug control through advancements in technical and competitive laboratory systems. Public Security in China has actively promoted the construction of a national drug laboratory technology system, which has greatly improved the ability to detect and identify new drugs. This national system continuously develops through public centers, professional networks, and technical collaborations, facilitating the detection and prevention of harmful substances. To strengthen these efforts, China regularly organizes high-level academic conferences and professional training sessions for drug technology specialists. With the continuous emergence of new substances and production techniques, China prioritizes the application of science and technology, such as advanced monitoring and automation, to enhance drug identification. This ongoing development provides a crucial scientific basis for timely and effective drug control responses.

Thailand: Thailand emphasizes the importance of enhancing forensic capabilities within its own country and neighboring regions, with support from international partners, including Australia, China, Singapore, the U.S., and the UN. With these collaborations, forensic laboratories in these countries have been equipped with new technology, and scientists have benefited from study visits and training opportunities, enabling better identification and response to emerging drug threats. Thailand invites cooperation from other states and UNODC to provide additional support to countries on the front lines of illicit drug production and trafficking in the Golden Triangle. Thank you.

Switzerland:  My statement focuses on the identification of illicit drugs. In recent years, the global narcotics market has rapidly diversified, largely due to traffickers adapting to evade existing classifications to meet generational recreational needs. This constant emergence of new substances poses significant risks to people who use drugs, as well as to public health. These new substances often lack adequate information, and increasingly contaminate medicines purchased online, amplifying the dangers. Before assessing the risks of these substances, the first challenge is to detect their presence in our communities. Traditionally, customs and law enforcement officers have handled this through border checks and arrests. However, new substances are sometimes only discovered following fatal overdoses. Today, I would like to discuss a tool we use in my country to mitigate these risks: drug-checking services. Since the late 1990s, these services—rooted in human rights and public health—have proven valuable in monitoring the drug market. In 2021, we conducted an evaluation of these programs, yielding several key findings: In a country of 8 million people, around 4,000 samples are tested annually in drug-checking facilities. Over half of these samples pose an increased risk to users.b Nine out of ten individuals reported they stopped using a tested drug after receiving a warning about its contents. A significant number of individuals shared these warnings with others, while critical warnings are also disseminated online. These services enable early referral of vulnerable individuals to appropriate support agencies. Finally, the systematic analysis of these samples provides valuable intelligence to law enforcement agencies.

Egypt: I would like to thank Singapore for raising this important topic. Our discussions have highlighted the critical role of scientific advancements and the need to enhance national capacities for detecting new NPS. Egypt values its cooperation with the UNODC and other partners in implementing training and capacity-building programs for national forensic laboratories to improve detection and control of newly emerging substances. These instances also underscore the importance of international cooperation. Egypt looks forward to continued collaboration with all partners, including Singapore, to share experiences and best practices in effectively addressing and countering these challenges. Thank you.

Colombia: The proliferation of new psychoactive substances and synthetic drugs poses significant challenges for forensic labs worldwide. These substances are often designed to evade regulation and produce faster effects, impacting current identification methods, response times, and public safety. While advancements in machine learning and chemical analysis tools offer promising solutions, their implementation remains limited, particularly in low-resource countries where forensic labs are often underfunded and understaffed, hindering their ability to handle the influx of new substances effectively. Colombia believes it is essential to build institutional capacity globally through collaborative efforts. This includes sharing technological resources, establishing standardized protocols, and creating accessible shared databases for timely data exchange. However, capacity building alone will not resolve these challenges; systems must become more responsive, enabling faster integration of new substances into monitoring frameworks. Without these reforms, the global response to the evolving drug landscape will remain fragmented and inefficient. I would also like to note that Colombia is expanding its drug-checking services and is looking to the Swiss model as an example. Our strengths are in our forensic labs, which is why we have offered the U.S.-led Global Coalition on Synthetic Drugs our labs as a primary hub for testing substances seized throughout Latin America. Thank you for allowing me to introduce this important topic.

EU:I would like to thank Angela May and the research branch for providing valuable context on this topic, as well as UNODC for Monday’s briefing on the issue. This statement will be complemented by a United Nations statement on behalf of a large group of countries. In response to the global drug crisis, UN member states are committed to promoting a balanced, multidisciplinary, and human rights-based approach to drug policies. Given the record levels of drug supply and demand and the rise of synthetic opioids, raising awareness and promoting harm reduction measures is essential. This is a matter that warrants the Commission’s attention, and we appreciate this opportunity. The European Drug Report 2024 indicates that over 83 million adults have used illicit drugs, with over 6,000 drug-related deaths recorded in 2022. These statistics underscore the need for a comprehensive approach that combines supply and demand reduction with harm reduction to protect public health and uphold human rights. Harm reduction measures are critical to minimizing the negative impacts of drug use on individuals and communities. This approach aims to protect people who use drugs and society as a whole by offering a range of interventions that address health risks and promote social outcomes over time. Harm reduction addresses the immediate needs of individuals facing dependency, mental health challenges, or other comorbidities. Evidence-based interventions such as needle exchange programs, opioid agonist treatment, and overdose prevention services have proven essential in saving lives, preventing infectious disease spread, and supporting recovery and reintegration, with consideration for gender-specific needs. e also emphasize the importance of harm reduction to prevent infections like hepatitis C and HIV. Liver disease due to hepatitis C accounts for over half of drug-related deaths, and those who inject drugs face a 14-fold higher risk of HIV compared to the general population. Roughly one in eight people who inject drugs worldwide has HIV. In light of these challenges, international cooperation to promote harm reduction is crucial. A unified approach—combining supply and demand reduction with harm reduction—will strengthen our response to drug use. The recent CND resolution acknowledging harm reduction’s importance marks a significant step toward a public health approach to drug policy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

USA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States thanks the European Union for their statement on harm reduction. I am delivering this statement on behalf of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. Harm reduction is a transformative approach that addresses substance use disorders and overdose within a continuum of care that includes prevention, treatment, and recovery. It employs community-driven public health strategies—such as risk reduction and health promotion—to empower individuals who use drugs and their families to lead healthier, self-directed lives. We commend the CND for its resolution this year recognizing harm reduction’s role in preventing and responding to overdoses, and we welcome further discussion on how this approach can mitigate other drug-related harms. Harm reduction focuses on direct engagement with people who use drugs to improve their physical, mental, and social well-being. It prevents overdose and disease transmission while providing low-barrier access to healthcare, including treatment for substance use disorders and other mental health issues. Proven to prevent death, injury, disease, and overdose, harm reduction aligns with the three drug conventions’ mandate to reduce demand for illicit drugs and alleviate human suffering. Harm reduction services achieve these goals by connecting individuals to overdose education, naloxone distribution, counseling, and treatment referrals. They reduce the spread of infectious diseases like HIV, hepatitis, and bacterial infections through the provision of sterile injection supplies and accurate information. A harm reduction philosophy prioritizes hope and healing, involving individuals with lived experience in service leadership and community building. Accessible harm reduction services provide an invaluable opportunity to reach those who might otherwise lack access to healthcare due to stigma or other barriers. Organizations practicing harm reduction employ strategies that meet individuals on their terms, offering pathways to additional services and support with compassion and humility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Netherlands: We are among the signatories of the EU statement, and I’d like to provide a national perspective. As a balanced country, we remain strongly committed to prevention. I want to highlight the prevention initiatives we announced in March, along with the extensive enforcement efforts the Netherlands is undertaking, as shared during the CND. Our country is also playing an active role in the global coalition to address synthetic drug threats, which I discussed yesterday. At the same time, we recognize that even the most effective actions will not completely eliminate drug abuse. I would like to thank Angela Me for emphasizing this reality. Our country has extensive experience with pragmatic, evidence-based harm reduction interventions, including syringe exchange programs, drug continuity services, safe consumption spaces, and substitution treatments with methadone and heroin-assisted therapy. We have seen the positive impact of these measures firsthand. Recently, we considered the inclusion of “harm reduction” in Resolution 67/4 on overdose prevention and response at the 67th CND session. This recognition is an overdue but important milestone. There should be no barriers to discussing harm reduction, learning from each other, and taking action. Last Monday’s briefing by the University, along with follow-up exchanges, offered valuable insights, and I thank those who organized it. Following the last CND session in March, we welcomed the adoption of Resolution 67/4, which officially recognizes harm reduction as an effective health intervention. This resolution represents a significant political commitment to rebalancing drug policy toward a public health approach. We stand alongside UNODC in supporting people in vulnerable situations and recognize that this shift is essential to achieving the 2026 strategy targets.Thank you.

Italy: Thank you for raising the issue of harm reduction in this session over the past three days, starting with UNODC’s briefing last Monday. Norway and Switzerland have shown a strong commitment to this discussion, even though it has introduced differing perspectives. This only highlights the importance of honest, ideology-free dialogue on this topic. I would like to focus on an important aspect emphasized by Italy: the conceptual basis for “risk and harm reduction,” as used extensively in the EU statement. National and international policies on drug use and its health and social consequences should ultimately aim at complete recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration of individuals with substance use disorders. Furthermore, as has been underscored, prevention should remain a fundamental pillar of any effective drug policy. We believe that harm reduction alone, if not coupled with comprehensive risk reduction, is not enough. Integrating risk reduction measures highlights the need for early intervention and prevention—addressing problems before harm occurs and mitigating the underlying risk factors. Embedding harm reduction into a full continuum of care—including prevention, treatment, and recovery—ensures a holistic approach. The ultimate goal of this approach must be to protect the physical and mental health of people who use drugs and, in the long term, to foster their autonomy and fulfillment through full social integration.

China: While we support strengthening research into harm reduction, it is crucial that such initiatives be based on scientific evidence and that harm reduction is not used to justify or encourage drug abuse. I would like to pose two important questions. First, since there is no universally accepted definition of drug-related harm reduction, how can we build a common understanding of what constitutes harm reduction? Second, considering the political factors involved, how can we foster mutual trust and ensure that the conversation stays focused on effective solutions, free from political influences?

Australia: Australia thanks the Eu for emphasizing harm reduction measures and supports the US statement, with additional comments. The global drug situation remains complex, and it is essential to allocate resources to evidence-based approaches, including harm reduction. Australia’s national drug strategy has long committed to harm minimisation, recognizing that drug use exists on a continuum with varying levels of associated harm. Harm reduction policies acknowledge that some individuals will use drugs, and in severe cases, may not be able to discontinue. This approach does not condone drug use but aims to reduce risks, especially from adulterated substances like synthetic opioids. Interventions like needle and syringe programs and opioid substitution therapy are proven to reduce the spread of HIV, viral hepatitis, and other blood-borne diseases. These services also connect people who use drugs to broader healthcare and social support systems, helping to reduce stigma and improve access to treatment. We encourage member states to expand evidence-based harm reduction interventions in their national approaches to drug-related harms.

Norway: We would like to thank the European Union for raising this important topic and align with the EU statement, as well as the statement delivered by the United States on behalf of several member states. Mr. Chair, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of providing evidence-based, non-discriminatory, and gender-responsive harm reduction services, particularly for the most vulnerable and marginalized populations. In my country, we recognize the need for further research and knowledge on harm reduction. I would like to thank UNODC, and specifically its research branch, for their presentation today, which addressed the various misconceptions surrounding harm reduction. This highlights the need for comprehensive and accurate data. Norway calls on UNODC to ensure the collection of disaggregated data on access to harm reduction services and on experiences of stigma and discrimination among people who use drugs, and to include this in its annual reports. Furthermore, we believe that international drug policy should prioritize a public health-based approach grounded in human rights. The right to health, highlighted in this year’s World Report, is directly linked to harm reduction. In this context, Norway urges UNODC to enhance its focus on the human rights dimensions of drug policies and to collaborate with OHCHR to systematically assess the human rights impacts of drug policies, providing recommendations and capacity-building for governments. Thank s.

Ghana: I would like to briefly share my country’s engagement with this topic. Ghana is one of the few countries that has adopted a harm reduction approach in law. Inspired by the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, Ghana passed the Control Act in 2020, transforming our drug policy framework to treat drug use and dependence as a public health issue. This includes the implementation of harm reduction responses as part of a balanced approach to drug policy. Following the passage of the bill, work began on its operationalization, with financing from the Global Fund and support from other international partners. I am pleased to report that Ghana’s first harm reduction services were launched in 2023, as part of a broader prevention, treatment, and recovery-oriented continuum of care. These services include syringe exchange programs alongside general health services, outreach support, and referrals to other services, with the goal of preventing overdose deaths. By the end of August 2024, over 5,000 individuals had already been reached through these services. I would also like to highlight data from the latest Global State of Harm Reduction report, launched recently by Harm Reduction International. 94 countries now support harm reduction in their national policies, 93 countries provide needle and syringe programs, and 34 countries offer opioid substitution programs. However, many African countries still lack access to these life-saving interventions. Harm reduction is a key component of the EU’s 2020–2025 Action Plan on Drug Control and Crime Prevention, and we hope it will remain a central part of the new action plan next year. Finally, we urge continued efforts to remove unnecessary barriers to the availability and accessibility of essential harm reduction services, particularly in the African region. Thank you for your attention.

Venezuela:  My delegation wishes to once again express concerns about the promotion of this topic within our agenda. Many topics closely related to the core objectives of the international drug control framework have been discussed, yet we are taking a long time to work on harm reduction. It is important to note that harm reduction, as an official strategy within the drug control system, is not supported by the conventions. The conventions are based on prevention, treatment, and social integration, which should remain the primary focus of international drug policy. We must continue to work within this framework and avoid unintended interpretations. Venezuela opposes efforts that promote the legalization or decriminalization of certain substances for recreational purposes, including cannabis, as these policies do not align with our national framework or health priorities. While we recognize the sovereign right of states to determine their own policies, we insist that influential policies should not undermine the conventions. We call for a focus on prevention, the protection of public health, and respect for international control mechanisms. We urge all members to uphold the integrity of the conventions, resisting approaches that deviate from established principles and could harm the well-being and security of our societies. Thank you for your attention.

Russia:Dear colleagues, in recent years, we have witnessed a growing trend of a controversial concept being proposed globally as a universal solution to the drug problem. This concept focuses on mitigating the consequences of drug use rather than addressing its root causes. In our view, this approach only encourages drug abuse and leads to its normalization. Opening supervised consumption sites, offering drug-cheating services, and other such interventions set misleading goals that do not contribute to resolving the drug problem. We are interested in learning from countries that have opened supervised consumption rooms: is there scientific evidence showing a reduction in drug abuse and long-term recovery among drug users? Does this truly help reintegrate people into society? Is there sufficient evidence that harm-reduction measures, such as needle exchange programs and opioid substitution therapy, contribute to recovery within the context of a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to demand reduction? It is crucial to emphasize that the selection of relevant, practical measures is  the sovereign right of each member state. The international drug control conventions specify such measures, while new international standards on treatment, such as opioid substitution therapy and needle exchange programs, are presented as voluntary options. Attempts to impose these on states are unacceptable. Many of these programs are not suitable for addressing substance use disorders related to synthetic drugs, which are on the rise. In Russia, the abuse of synthetic drugs, like methadone mixed with other substances, has caused a significant increase in drug-related deaths. The amount of seized synthetic drugs rose from 59 kilograms in 2021 to 706 kilograms in 2023. Although these drugs are not produced or used for medicinal purposes in Russia, they remain a growing concern. Therefore, we would like to ask those countries implementing opioid substitution therapy what measures they have taken to prevent the diversion of methadone and other substances.

Singapore: The data and research on harm reduction and its impact are crucial for addressing the global drug issue. It is important to frame our work within evidence-based research to guide our approach. The latest drug report highlighted that harmful drug use can lead to drug use disorders. In 2022, approximately 64 million people worldwide were suffering from drug use disorders, a 3% increase since 2018. This is a significant issue. The term “harm reduction” is used differently across countries and encompasses a variety of measures. Singapore recognizes that many countries have adopted their own interpretation of harm reduction to address their domestic drug and health challenges, including high overdose death rates and the transmission of communicable diseases. However, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the global drug problem. The measures some countries choose may not be suitable or effective in other contexts. Ultimately, each country has the right to determine and implement policies best suited to its specific needs.The UNODC made an important point in its briefing last week, emphasizing that harm reduction alone will not ensure global health. Harm reduction should be part of a comprehensive continuum of care. Singapore firmly believes that harm reduction should not be prioritized over other key elements of the global drug control strategy, such as prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. The ultimate goal of our policies must be to eliminate drug abuse. We do not implement harm reduction programs,. Our strategy focuses on drug prevention education as the first line of defense to raise awareness, particularly among young people, about the harmful effects of drugs. We also invest heavily in rehabilitation and reintegration programs to support individuals in overcoming addiction and improving their lives. Drug addiction results from the complex interaction of biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors, and cannot be addressed solely as a mental health condition. There is a wealth of evidence supporting the effectiveness of prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation, which must remain the cornerstone of the global drug strategy and be prioritized

Greece: We fully align with the EU and US statements and our national capacity. We would like to add the following points: every day, we face challenges in the drug field, including new drugs and evolving drug-related issues. International cooperation is crucial to foster integrated approaches in risk and harm reduction, enabling us to respond more swiftly to drug use and addiction treatment. We emphasize the recent CND resolution on harm reduction, which recognizes a public health approach to drugs and people-centered policy. Greece, among others, has made significant progress in expanding harm reduction policies over the past three years, enhancing accessibility to services for all key groups. This includes the establishment of the first drug checking services across Greece, the expansion of supervised consumption facilities, and increased harm reduction outreach. These efforts have led to positive outcomes: over the past two years, there have been 57,000 visits to supervised facilities, more than 300 lives saved from overdose, and over 1.1 million syringes distributed, surpassing the WHO target. Greece is also committed to eliminating HCV and advancing public health goals. Harm reduction is an essential first step in addiction treatment, forming an integral part of the therapeutic process and contributing to a healthier, more inclusive society. Our goal is to provide integrated and comprehensive addiction treatment, where risk and harm reduction play a crucial role in minimizing the negative impacts of drug use on individuals and society. With the establishment of a new national organization against addictions, Greece is working to centralize addiction treatment and care. This will streamline services and integrate mental health care with addiction treatment, ensuring greater access and continuity of care. Now, more than ever, there is a need for global collaboration and initiatives to address drug demand and supply challenges. By sharing data and exchanging information, we can advocate for a stronger, more effective approach to meet both individual and community needs. The importance of harm reduction is undeniable. We now have the data to support its benefits and are committed to further enhancing harm reduction policies for the benefit of people who use drugs, their communities, and public health, while respecting human rights and providing direct access to services for all.

Colombia: Harm reduction is a scientifically supported approach in drug policy, and the evidence for the benefits of harm reduction measures on public health is overwhelming. Despite this, harm reduction continues to face resistance in many countries. Evidence-based strategies such as needle exchange programs, supervised injection sites, and opioid substitution therapies have been proven to reduce overdose deaths, disease transmission, and stigma. However, many countries still refuse to implement these meaures due to political and ideological opposition, leaving people who use drugs without crucial support. Colombia advocates for a global drug policy that prioritizes human rights and public health. The reluctance to adopt harm reduction measures perpetuates a punitive system that targets marginalized communities, exacerbating health crises rather than addressing them. To create a humane and effective drug policy, we must prioritize health and provide people with safer, evidence-based resources. Harm reduction is not a supplementary approach; it should be a foundational component of any public health-focused policy. Thank you.

MExico: On the topic of harm reduction, the concept is well reflected in the policy. There are other political commitments, and we are in the process of reviewing the standards for the implementation of these commitments. For example, the action plan includes convincing member states to integrate drug dependence care services into their healthcare systems. Action 16 of this plan calls on member states to provide treatment as an alternative to incarceration. My concrete question is whether any delegation opposes any of the political commitments or rejects documents such as the political declaration of 2009. Thank you.

WHO:  I just realized that I missed a slide – we have data on indigenous communities having used coca leaf for a long time as a healing ailment. It is important to know, this is not the first time we are reviewing the coca leaf. In 1993 the committee decided to schedule under the single convention of 1969.

The mention of harm reduction goes back to 1994. There is indeed a definition. There is a document that will be circulated – in the context of “alcohol and other drugs” the term is used particularly for policies and programmes that aim to reduce the harmwithout necessarily directly addressing the underlying drug use. The example used was needle and syringe exchange as well as self-inflating airbags in automobiles.

Angela Me, UNODC: I think China had a very good question – how can we bring everyones trust on this terminology. HArm Reduction is not meant to replace prevention and treatment, it is an addition. This could be a good starting point.Many of you have asked, “Where is the evidence?” I believe, it was mentioned, the evidence is clear: harm reduction reduces drug-related harm. The objective of harm reduction, as was also mentioned, is not to reduce drug use itself, but to reduce the harm caused by drug use. This is a crucial point to emphasize. In an ideal situation, prevention works and there is no drug use… That is not the reality. So there we need the recognition that harm reduction doesn’t aim to specifically reduce drug use, it is meant to save lives and safeguard health. I think here we can definitely find consensus.

Chair: Thank you – I implore the members states to fund research into this topic so we have more evidence. And with that I invite Australia t introduce our next substantial matter.

Australia: Drug-related prevention and treatment programs that focus on changing individual behavior are important but may have limited effect if consideration is not also given to the social and environmental factors that create the conditions in which drug use occurs. Examples of these conditions include low socio-economic status, adverse early life experiences, childhood maltreatment, lack of access to education, unemployment, underemployment, stressful working conditions, unstable housing, contact with illegal and criminal justice systems, weak social support, and stigma and discrimination. These social determinants of health account for an estimated 30-55% of health outcomes, highlighting the importance of a collaborative, multi-sectoral approach to addressing drug-related harms, especially in communities disproportionately affected by drug use. Investment in drug treatment and support services must be paired with investments in sectors linked to social determinants of health, such as housing, education, and employment services, in order to address the conditions that increase susceptibility to drug-related harms. It is crucial that this approach is applied at the client pathway level. Drug treatment and harm reduction services should provide person-centered, trauma-informed care, as well as connections to wraparound services like social and counseling services. By addressing the specific conditions that contribute to drug use, we can achieve better patient outcomes. We also recognize that specific populations, including indigenous peoples, are disproportionately affected by drug use and the broader social determinants. This must be considered when developing effective responses. Data collected on the social determinants of health plays an important role in identifying priority populations and informing the development of effective service models. Insights can also be gained by linking this data with drug prevalence, treatment, and sociological data on practices, attitudes, and behaviors. Additionally, we stress the importance of tailoring services to meet the needs of specific communities and priority populations, removing barriers to access, and improving outcomes. This includes adopting peer-based services and using messaging that reduces stigma and discrimination, another well-established barrier to treatment and support services. Addressing drug-related harms is a complex and multifaceted issue. We reiterate the importance of adopting and implementing responses that take into account the social determinants of health. This is essential to improving the effectiveness of drug policy and generating positive outcomes. We look forward to this afternoon’s discussion on this important topic. Thank you.

Thailand: I would like to highlight the significant challenge in Thailand regarding drug policy. The legal reform process, which consolidated related laws into the new party code that came into effect in 2021, was a monumental task taking over five years. This reform adopts a health-based approach to drug control, recognizing drug users as patients rather than criminals. This shift involves managing changes and uncertainties, particularly in addressing the mindset, work processes, and practices in dealing with people who struggle with drug use. Currently, there are around 100,000 people in Thailand receiving treatment for methamphetamine use. Relevant agencies continue to strengthen the mechanism, with more than 9,000 screening and primary care centers, over 1,000 treatment centers, more than 200 rehabilitation centers, and over 4,500 reintegration centers nationwide to improve accessibility to services. However, a significant challenge remains in finding medicines for methamphetamine treatment. We would like to seek support from member states and the UNODC to promote and share relevant resources for developing effective treatments for methamphetamine use disorder. Thailand appreciates and supports the UNODC initiative to scale up interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders. We remain committed to cooperating with member states and relevant international organizations and believe it is our responsibility to put people at the center of these efforts for their safety and well-being. Thank you.

USA: We welcome the consideration of this topic by the Commission, as the United States places great importance on the consideration of social determinants of health in designing responses to drug-related challenges. We know that substance use has no single cause but is influenced by factors at the individual, family, relationship, community, and societal levels. Increasingly, the science points to the social determinants of health as key factors affecting health outcomes, including substance use and overdose. Social determinants impact underserved populations who face barriers to accessing prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services, particularly due to a lack of transportation, childcare, or access to behavioral health services. As the functional commission of ECOSOC tasked with addressing drug-related matters, we cannot ignore these social and economic factors. In the United States, we have prioritized integrating social determinants into our public health response to the substance use and overdose crisis. This includes funding and resources for housing and transportation as key components of treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services. We have expanded access to health insurance, including for economically disadvantaged individuals, so that those struggling with substance use and mental health can get the support they need. We have also published a digital toolkit to help communities integrate social determinants into substance use prevention efforts and are investing in early childhood education, positive parenting programs, and economic supports to ensure strong starts for families and resilience for children. Thank you.

Colombia: I would like to share the latest findings from a social survey in Colombia on drug use. While drug use is prevalent across all socio-economic classes in Colombia, problematic drug use is concentrated in the most vulnerable groups. This underscores the importance of addressing drug use in the context of social determinants such as poverty, lack of education, access to healthcare, discrimination, and domestic violence. Unfortunately, drug policies often fail to consider these factors, focusing instead on punitive measures that do not address the systemic drivers of drug use. This approach disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, criminalizing rather than supporting them, and perpetuating cycles of poverty and stigma.Restrictive policies create barriers to accessing essential services such as healthcare, housing, and employment, further marginalizing these communities. Colombia asserts that an equitable drug policy must address social determinants and dismantle barriers to essential services. Policies rooted in criminalization only perpetuate these cycles, while harm reduction approaches provide opportunities for individuals to escape them. It is essential to shift our policy framework to prioritize social equity, health, and human rights, supporting individuals rather than punishing them.

Bolivia: The coca leaf is a vital part of our cultural heritage and natural state. It is an emblem of our identity that has resonated with our culture for centuries. However, in 1961, based on a narrow scientific and colonial perspective, the coca leaf was classified without consultation or justice, condemning it unfairly. Despite this, the coca leaf remains resilient, defended by those who understand its true value. The 1961 classification was not only a historic error, but an attempt to erase indigenous traditions, restricting access to its health benefits and limiting the potential of products derived from this ancestral plant. In 2013, we took a step forward in defending our rights by rejoining the 1961 Convention with a reservation to protect the traditional use of the coca leaf in its natural state. This was a significant move in securing the rights of indigenous peoples and defending the nutritional and medicinal value of the coca leaf. In 2023, with the support of Colombia, we formally requested the UN Secretary General to call upon the who and the international community to engage in an inclusive dialogue that integrates both traditional knowledge and scientific evidence. This request marks a critical act of justice in reconciling the international drug control system with the rights of indigenous peoples. The coca leaf was wrongly classified as a narcotic in 1961, without scientific evidence or a deep understanding of its cultural importance. The review we seek is an opportunity to correct the distortions that underpinned this classification. The coca leaf, in its natural state, should never have been condemned with stigma. In recent years, we have compiled scientific documentation aligned with the WHO’s five key criteria—chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, epidemiology, and therapeutic and traditional uses of the coca leaf. This body of research, supported by numerous studies, shows that the coca leaf is not harmful but rather a safe and highly nutritious food. Chewing the coca leaf has been shown to supplement essential vitamins and minerals, repair cell membranes, prevent disease, reduce fatigue, and promote longevity and health. In September 2024, Bolivia hosted an International Symposium on Inter-Scientific Dialogues on the Coca Leaf, where international researchers presented scientific evidence on its health benefits and industrial potential. The symposium highlighted the importance of reconsidering the coca leaf’s classification under the 1961 Single Convention. I also want to thank WHO, made valuable comments regarding the need to balance the assessment of potential harms with the recognition of the medicinal benefits of the coca leaf, considering its traditional uses. It is crucial to note that the 1993 pre-review of the coca leaf did not introduce new research but relied solely on outdated reports from the 1950s. This underlines the importance of critically reviewing the evidence, as this will be the first time the WHO has raised such a critical view. The WHO’s comprehensive report on the coca leaf’s classification is expected to be available in 2025. This report will include updated scientific evidence on its pharmacological properties, toxicology, therapeutic uses, and public health implications, potentially paving the way for a reassessment of the coca leaf’s status under the 1961 Convention. These reviews offer a promising step toward correcting past misclassifications and recognizing the cultural, nutritional, and medicinal significance of the coca leaf. It is essential to clarify that any reclassification does not mean reducing controls on misuse or illegal activities, but rather providing a respectful, evidence-based acknowledgment of the coca leaf’s cultural and medicinal value while ensuring safety and regulation. We urge all nations to stand with us in endorsing this crucial reappraisal of the coca leaf.

Mexico: So WHO mentioned that they will review the coca leaf but not coca paste – so is this a recognition that cocaine, that requires a chemical preparation, is different from coca leaf?

Peru: In Peru, the traditional use of coca leaf is respected, not criminalized, and free from stigma. Around 10% of coca in my country is legally used for traditional or industrial purposes. However, the remaining 90% is diverted to drug trafficking for the production of cocaine. This diversion fuels organized crime, contributing to environmental destruction, deforestation, soil and water pollution, corruption, and illicit financial flows. These illegal activities disproportionately impact indigenous families, who are caught in the economic web of drug trafficking—precisely the people we seek to protect. Peru aims to contribute a responsible, constructive, and evidence-based approach to the discussions surrounding this sensitive issue. Our views were presented in detail in October, with a focus on the double plant dependence. We welcome today’s WHO presentation on the results of the 1993 pre-review and appreciate the consideration of key factors, such as substance toxicology, potential for abuse, medical use, public health concerns, trafficking, and national and international controls. We are confident that the WHO’s timely assessment will help safeguard the health of people and the well-being of future generations, particularly those of indigenous communities, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of the illicit coca economy.

Colombia: Colombia supports Bolivia. It should be noted that the CND mandate is limited to considering medical and scientific evidence when making decisions under the 1971 Psychotropic Convention – as already mentioned today (by WHO?). However, the review is conducted under the rules of the 1961 Convention, which allows for a much more limited scope. The CND can diverge from WHO recommendations by majority vote, but cannot alter the recommendation itself. Even if we consider the need to comply with human rights, including indigenous rights, there is no risk to these considerations unless the WHO itself includes them in its assessment. Thank you.

Chair: Okay. Now you can introduce the next topic if you are ready.

Colombia: The principle of scientific evidence has increasingly become hollow rhetoric, and we cannot allow alternative truths to persist in this critical policymaking forum, where decisions impact millions of lives. My delegation firmly believes that we cannot permit scientific evidence to be hijacked in service of drug policies and programs that not only fail to be effective but cause more harm to human life than drugs themselves. Our work here at the CND requires us to urgently and honestly reclaim scientific evidence as the essential foundation for developing informed, humane approaches to address drug-related issues. Unfortunately, despite core research supporting evidence-based interventions, the work of some, including the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, often lacks consistent alignment with scientific findings. For instance, Colombia has been conducting aerial fumigation to eradicate coca bush crops since around 2000, using glyphosate. At the time, there was limited scientific evidence on the health and environmental impacts of glyphosate. However, numerous national and international studies have since been conducted, leading to the banning of aerial fumigation with glyphosate in the Eu in 2009 and in Colombia in 2016. The WHO has also classified glyphosate as potentially harmful, recommending states ban its use. This disconnect between scientific findings and policies perpetuates harm against marginalized communities and fails to address the complexities of drug use and trafficking. Decades of research confirm that punitive drug policies focusing on criminalization have not curbed use or trafficking. Instead, they have led to incarceration, human rights violations, public health crises, and increased overdose deaths. Evidence-based approaches such as harm reduction, public health-centered interventions, and social support systems are crucial. Colombia calls for a renewed commitment within UN bodies to prioritize scientific evidence in policymaking, ensure transparency, and foster accountability. This includes mechanisms to hold agencies responsible when policies deviate from established knowledge, robust data collection, and collaboration with civil society. Without such alignment, global drug policies risk remaining ineffective and harmful.

USA: The United States reiterates the importance of science and evidence as foundational elements of global drug policy. Effective deliberations at the CND must be guided by scientific expertise to advance global responses to the world drug problem. As a functional commission of ECOSOC with treaty-mandated responsibilities, the CND must be responsive to scientific evidence. However, negotiated resolutions often reflect outdated concepts and language, failing to align with the current understanding of the drug problem. The U.S. urges member states to embrace science, not inertia, in addressing drug prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. The UNODC plays a critical role in providing evidence through its Research and Trends Analysis Branch, Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Section, and Laboratory Scientific Services Section. Accurate, unbiased data is essential for informed policymaking. The U.S. also commends the WHO for its role in evaluating the relative risks of substances to inform scheduling decisions. As we confront today’s challenges, it is vital to use all available scientific tools and research. Let us ensure that our policies are informed by evidence, enabling a more effective global response.

UNODC: Internally, we have accountability measures in place. For example, we follow a quality assurance approach to research, ensuring that defined systems and quality standards are applied throughout the research process, from inception to publication. Additionally, accountability within the UN system is a broader commitment. To address concerns, we are conducting an ongoing audit on research to ensure transparency and uphold quality standards. In response to the question about the water report, I want to clarify that it’s not a case of lacking evidence. There are scientific studies supporting both sides of the issue. It was important for us to present this balanced perspective to ensure that no single narrative dominates the conversation. I hope this helps address concerns about maintaining the integrity of the international drug control system and the challenges we face.

Russia:  The Russian delegation would like to highlight concerns regarding the evolving complexities of the global drug situation. Cultivation and trafficking remain matters of great concern, and collective action will only be effective when grounded in a shared understanding of our goals and obligations. The international drug control system, which has served us effectively for over 60 years, now faces significant challenges. Chief among these are the actions of certain member states that disregard their obligations under the conventions, specifically the mandate to restrict the use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to medical and scientific purposes. We are deeply concerned about the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis, which diminishes public perceptions of its dangers worldwide. Additionally, we note that human rights discussions are increasingly being introduced into drug control debates in both Vienna and New York. To clarify, Russia is a strong advocate for human rights and freedoms in all contexts. However, we are concerned that this important concept is being misused to justify the weakening of the international drug control system. It is important to emphasize that human rights commitments are fully compatible with the obligations under the drug control treaties and should be implemented in good faith. Some member states appear to downplay the political commitments made just months ago at the high-level segment. For example, the ongoing debates on resolutions in New York concerning a society free of drug abuse seem to hold little value for certain delegations. We must clearly state that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Member states must have the flexibility to tailor their drug control policies to their unique social and cultural contexts. However, we continue to witness efforts to impose controversial practices, such as harm reduction and the removal of criminal sanctions for drug traffickers. Furthermore, the synthetic drug crisis demands urgent and coordinated action. Unfortunately, some countries face unjustified restrictions on accessing technical assistance, capacity building, and information exchange, as well as denial of legal assistance instruments. These restrictions undermine global Counter-Narcotics cooperation. Efforts to downplay the conventions were evident during recent briefings in Vienna. The integrity of the international drug control system is under threat, and the gaps in understanding among governments are growing. Meanwhile, drug cartels continue to flood global markets with dangerous substances, exacerbating the challenges we face. It is vital that we address these issues comprehensively, uphold the treaty-based mandates of international organizations, and continue to assist member states in their efforts to comply with their obligations. Only through coordinated and unified action can we counter the challenges threatening the integrity of the international drug control system.

Venezuela: We extend our gratitude to the proponents of this agenda item. Venezuela reaffirms its support for the principles of respectful and effective cooperation among nations. We emphasize the importance of depoliticization in addressing counter-narcotics operations. The challenges referred to by the Russian Federation are also of concern to us, and we are motivated to participate in today’s discussions. Our position, as reflected in the ministerial stance, underscores the necessity of avoiding political conditions in this matter, which is a principle my country firmly upholds. We stress the importance of ensuring that the international drug control system remains integral and grounded in genuine collaboration. Venezuela rejects the imposition of unilateral measures, the creation of rankings, and lists that undermine international solidarity and the rights of nations. We also highlight the critical need to safeguard uninterrupted and safe access to controlled medicines, ensuring that patients in need can receive their treatments without undue obstacles. My delegation reaffirms our commitment to the objectives of the international conventions and to constructive cooperation among states.

USA: The three UN drug control conventions form the basis of the international drug control system, and they anchor our efforts to keep our citizens safe, as we all know, they are founded on the principle of protecting the health and welfare of mankind, and this principle is everlasting yet time and again. Here, some countries call our foundational documents outdated – we rejects those claims. What is our work if not protecting our people as signatories to the conventions? Our collective actions support those aims and objectives every day. Thanks to the flexibility of those documents, the United States has been able to confront the proliferation of illicitly manufactured synthetic drugs, a new and modern threat that simply did not exist decades ago. Thanks to these flexibilities, the US has embraced a public health approach and pursued harm reduction measures backed by science. Some MS decided to opt for decriminalizing and others have opted for a more restrictive approach, prioritizing law enforcement responses believed to curtail drug use. as we heard from Angela Me earlier in this session, what works in one national context may not work in others, and different national approaches are not a threat to the integrity of the international drug control system. Rather, they are an example of the system working as it was intended. In other words, this flexibility ensures that we were all able to apply the same decades old treaties to our own present day, unique domestic context. This is the key strength of the international drug control architecture. The treaties recognize that unique national realities and evolving challenges call for individualized national approaches, and ignoring this fact in favor of a one size fits all approach to drug control denies this flexibility. This approach leaves us with an international drug control system that is rigid but brittle and likely to fracture. The real threat is when we are distracted from our central aims and when countries try to redirect our efforts away from implementing our obligations and away from international cooperation. Let’s not be distracted, and let’s keep working together. Thank you. Chair.

Turkiye: I would like to begin by underscoring our full commitment to the three international drug control conventions. Their full and universal implementation remains crucial to ensuring the effectiveness of the international drug control system. The CND serves as the primary policymaking body, and the UNODC plays a pivotal role in guiding international drug policy efforts. It is of utmost importance that the UNODC continues to operate independently and impartially. Similarly, the INCB must maintain its vital role in upholding the conventions. We also emphasize the need to address the expanding and diversifying nature of drug markets, including the growing threats posed by the trafficking of synthetic opioids and NPS. There is an increasing concern about the normalization of drug abuse, which runs counter to SDG Target 3.5—to promote a society free of drug abuse. Ensuring the full and effective implementation of our commitments is essential. Turkey is particularly concerned about the challenge posed by the legalization of drugs, especially cannabis. The PKK terrorist organization, for instance, considers cannabis cultivation a highly lucrative activity, with revenue from drug trafficking serving as a primary source of terrorist financing. The nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism is a critical dimension of this issue. The PKK’s involvement in drug trafficking exemplifies the symbiotic relationship between terrorism and transnational organized crime. We call on our partners to intensify their efforts to disrupt the financial structures and resources of terrorist organizations. In this context, information sharing is essential in our collective fight against transnational drug trafficking. We must ensure the full and effective implementation of the conventions. Our discussions and actions must not undermine the conventions or their ultimate objectives.

Iran:  Our statement addresses two key topics: harm reduction and challenges to the international drug control system. Therefore, it is presented in two parts: demand reduction and harm reduction. 1. Demand Reduction: Our priority is primary prevention. Key activities under our prevention strategy include: Promoting various child-rearing methods and life skills for families. Developing a national hotline for addiction counseling. Including educational materials on addiction prevention in school textbooks. Establishing student associations, known as “Helpers of Life,” to raise awareness about the harms of addiction. Training specialized personnel. Implementing community-based projects and exhibitions. Additionally, we ensure access to drugs for medical purposes within the framework of the three international drug control conventions while preventing their diversion. Our demand reduction policies aim to minimize the negative implications of drug abuse and promote public health, forming an integral part of Iran’s balanced strategy. 2. Harm Reduction
Iran’s treatment plans include maintenance therapies using methadone, buprenorphine, and opium tincture, alongside residential and outpatient psychosocial interventions. These programs incorporate various scientific methods for the treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with substance use disorders. Key harm reduction initiatives include: Mobile centers providing essential services such as sanitary items, bathing facilities, and sleeping shelters. Distribution of methadone for home-based treatment. Targeted support for individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. Coordinated programs for people who inject drugs. Specialized addiction treatment clinics focus on managing synthetic drug users and addressing severe psychiatric symptoms through medication-assisted and psychological interventions. Currently, there are approximately 7,000 Addiction Treatment Committees across the country, comprising residential, outpatient, and inpatient centers, serving nearly 42,000 individuals. We emphasize the importance of sharing comparisons, experiences, and lessons learned with other countries. To this end, the UNODC has designated one of our treatment centers as a regional center for treatment studies on drug use disorders. We reiterate that the CND is the primary policy-making body of the United Nations with the responsibility for drug control matters, and the INCB is a treaty-mandated monitoring body in this field. We fully share the INCB’s understanding, as stated in its 2022 report, that the three conventions explicitly outline how human rights must be observed in drug control. These conventions reflect the international community’s consensus that the most effective way to promote human rights in drug control is by limiting the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes. It is imperative to emphasize the interdependence of human rights, including the right to development, and to consider the negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs). Evidence suggests that UCMs have adversely affected the availability, affordability, and accessibility of drugs and pharmaceutical components for scientific and medical purposes, including for the relief of pain and suffering. Such measures may also inadvertently fuel consumption trends toward riskier substances. We are deeply concerned about the legalization of cannabis for so-called recreational purposes. We fully endorse the INCB’s assessment that the growing trend to allow the non-medical and non-scientific use of cannabis contravenes the 1961 Single Convention and constitutes a significant challenge to the international drug control framework. We remain committed to upholding the international drug control conventions and ensuring their full and effective implementation.

China: For years, state parties have worked together, and China recognizes the importance of international control commissions in maintaining the integrity of the international drug control system. China calls on the international community to strengthen cooperation on international drug control, based on fulfilling obligations as outlined by the Drug Control Committees. We urge governments and communities to work together to implement the 2019 Declaration and promote the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We also emphasize the need for stronger governance and accountability, particularly in reducing demand and supply, while ensuring fairness, authority, stability, and growth. Drug-consuming, producing, and transit countries must collaborate more effectively to address the growing issue of synthetic drugs. This requires open, inclusive cooperation and trust, ta king into account the specific conditions and developmental stages of different countries. We encourage the promotion of innovation in policies and actions, and the coordination of efforts to combat drug-related money laundering. Together, we can face new challenges and work towards a drug-free, secure world.

Belarus:  The three international drug control conventions are the cornerstone of the international drug control system, urging state parties to comply with their provisions and ensure their full and effective implementation. We underline the principle of the CND as the policy-making body of the United Nations with primary responsibility for drug control matters, as well as the INCB as the mandated body in the field of drug control to ensure compliance with party obligations. We categorically oppose any revision to the current international drug control system, including the legalization of cannabis, the increased consumption of heavy narcotic drugs, and the legalization of narcotic drugs for non-medical purposes. Effective international cooperation is fundamental in preventing crime. We emphasize the need to develop effective, non-politicized international cooperation in addressing global drug issues. It is also crucial to remove international barriers, particularly unilateral coercive measures that are not consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, while strengthening such cooperation. Unilateral coercive measures have restricted access to vital imported medicines and basic pharmaceutical components for scientific and medical purposes, including pain relief. These measures affect the accessibility, availability, and affordability of essential medicines for medical use and scientific purposes. We urge the international community to refrain from actions that undermine cooperation, as they pose a serious challenge to the implementation of UN commitments and the shared responsibility of addressing drug-related issues.

Algeria:  One of the key challenges we face is the growing complexity of addressing human rights issues within the international drug control system. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate Algeria’s full commitment to the international drug conventions, which remain the cornerstone of our comprehensive approach to the global drug system. The international drug system continues to face persistent and evolving challenges, and it is essential that we maintain a strong commitment to effectively addressing these issues. This can only be achieved by ensuring the full implementation of the international drug conventions and building on the relevant international achievements. One of the most significant challenges is the diversion of medications from their intended medical use to purposes related to addiction. The diversion of drugs, including cannabis, is a widespread problem affecting regions across the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia. We must strengthen legal and regulatory controls to address this issue, aiming to reduce the supply chain while ensuring that no individual is left behind. Regarding cannabis, Algeria is concerned about the growing movement to legalize recreational use. The evidence regarding cannabis use and addiction shows significant risks, including its association with psychosis and other adverse health effects. Research indicates that cannabis can also be implicated in physical and mental health issues. We believe the normalization of cannabis use poses a serious threat to public health, security, and the fundamental human right to life and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. We emphasize the importance of involving civil society in the conversation and in the adoption of policies that strengthen the international drug control system.

Cuba:  Cuba has made confronting the global drug problem a priority for many years. We have developed an integrated, preventive, interdisciplinary, and multi-sectoral policy, which involves cooperation between our institutions in public health, education, culture, justice, and internal order, with active participation from communities, families, and civil society organizations. In this regard, provincial programs have been developed with positive results. Cuba remains committed to combating the possession and illicit trafficking of drugs. From our perspective, the fight against this issue cannot be limited to just one set of actions; it requires a broader approach. Therefore, we present a challenge to the current international regime. Cuba is fully committed to defending the three core conventions, which remain the cornerstone of the international drug control framework. These legal instruments are still vital in combating this global issue, despite claims that the international legal framework for drug control conflicts with international human rights instruments. In fact, the conventions ensure the social conditions necessary for the full exercise of human rights. While we recognize that the global drug problem must be addressed in a multi-sectoral manner, we do not favor the politicization of this issue, nor should it be approached solely as a human rights matter. We also emphasize the importance of avoiding the use of vague terms whose definitions may vary across member states, as well as the emergence of terms with financial implications that could undermine the rights of our people, particularly the right to life, health, and development. We are deeply concerned about the harmful effects of cannabis use, which has caused irreversible damage to the health of millions. The legalization of drugs does not guarantee a reduction in drug-related harm, nor does it address the structural problems within countries that contribute to the spread of illicit production and trafficking. The drug problem cannot be solved simply by changing the regulatory framework. Instead, we must take measures at both national and international levels to promote social justice, participation, and inclusive well-being—conditions that will help overcome the drug problem. Cuba believes that international cooperation is essential to address the global drug issue, based on the shared responsibility of all states. This cooperation must be in strict accordance with international law and the principles of the United Nations Charter, such as respect for state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in internal affairs. We must avoid imposing a single approach and instead work together in unity. Failure to do so will only lead to confrontation and undermine the international drug control regime. We cannot remain passive in the face of this challenge. It is our duty to continue working together to eradicate the global drug problem once and for all.

Pakistan:  We also extend our appreciation to the Russian Federation for introducing this important topic, which is timely and critical given the evolving dynamics that threaten the foundational principles of the international drug control regime and the three drug control conventions. These conventions provide a comprehensive legal framework to limit the use of controlled substances to medical and scientific purposes. However, the integrity of this framework is increasingly being challenged. We are witnessing a growing trend of cannabis legalization in several jurisdictions, which poses risks by creating regulatory gaps that could be exploited. Pakistan is also concerned about the selective emphasis on certain aspects of drug policy, without adequately addressing both supply and demand reduction, and law enforcement. We continue to hear repeated calls for scientific evidence-based approaches in drug policy discussions. While Pakistan acknowledges the importance of scientific evidence in informing effective strategies, we must remember that the underlying dynamics of the drug problem are complex. At its core, this is an issue of supply and demand—simple economic principles. We must focus on reducing demand while addressing the more complex task of preventing supply. As we often say, the focus should be on managing the consequences of drug use, rather than solely trying to eradicate the root causes. Pakistan strongly supports the enforcement of the integrity of the drug control system through unified, comprehensive approaches that tackle both the overall problem and its symptoms. We urge all states to uphold their treaty obligations and ensure the system remains resilient. The integrity of the international drug control system is essential in addressing the drug problem effectively. We must continue to monitor and promote full compliance with the three drug control conventions.

Singapore:  it is estimated that 292 million people worldwide used drugs in the past year, a 20% increase over the previous decade. Approximately 64 million people are suffering from drug use disorders, and in several regions, young people have been the most vulnerable to drug use and are more severely affected by the abuse of illicit drugs. We have observed a concerning shift in risk perceptions among young people, with many developing the mistaken belief that drugs are either harmless or less harmful. This trend is especially worrying given the potential impact on their health and well-being. Addressing the global drug problem requires policies grounded in scientific and medical evidence. However, some jurisdictions are ignoring scientific evidence and legalizing recreational drug use, which not only undermines international drug conventions but also contributes to misconceptions about the risks of drug use. Evidence links the legalization of cannabis for recreational use to higher rates of substance abuse and mental health issues. The international drug control conventions must remain the cornerstone of the global system. A comprehensive approach is the way forward for us to collectively address the drug problem. Countries must be allowed sufficient flexibility to carry out control policies that address modern challenges and their unique circumstances. However, implementation must be respected by all state parties. We continue to believe that a society free of drug abuse, where all people can live in health, dignity, safety, and security, is achievable. We will continue working towards these goals.

Ukraine:  Ukraine is actively exploring the introduction of a human-centered model of drug policy and the decriminalization of drug use to reduce the negative health and social consequences associated with drug use. This approach aligns with the decisions made during the special session. We are grateful for the collaboration with international partners and donors to address the rising challenges of drug use, such as the increase in drug-related harms. Despite the ongoing threats of Russian missile attacks, needle exchange programs continues to show positive results. We invite international donors to support the implementation of drug-related programs and encourage a collective effort to combat the illegal narcotics trade while providing relief and assistance to individuals struggling with drug addiction. This requires the support of relevant international expertise and resources.

USA: We apologize for taking the floor again, but we feel compelled to respond to a statement made in the previous intervention. The statement referred to the treaty-mandated role of the CND and its interpretation of the conventions. The views expressed cannot be taken as representative of the current practices among the parties to the Convention. The accusations made against our country are not appropriate for this venue. This is not the place to politicize the issue at hand. We would prefer to provide a written response in due course. We are mindful of the time and do not wish to extend the discussion unnecessarily. Thank you.

Russia: The accusations leveled against our country are not conducive to a constructive dialogue in this forum. We believe this is not the right setting to politicize the issue. We would prefer to submit our response in writing. We understand the time constraints and do not wish to prolong this discussion. Thank you.

UNODC: I would like share best practice examples from Argentina. We specifically work with the Ministry of Security of Argentina within the framework of the implementation of a program against synthetic drugs. We provided technical assistance to the Ministry of Security in Argentina to help craft the framework, which was enacted by Resolution 307 in 2024. The main objectives of this initiative are to strengthen the technical and scientific capabilities of forensic laboratories, particularly regarding synthetic drugs, and to improve physical infrastructure. This is essential to enhance the capacity of forensic laboratories to detect controlled substances in the country and facilitate the rapid exchange of high-quality information among them. This initiative plays a crucial role in strengthening Argentina’s warning system, which is fundamental for designing and implementing evidence-based public policies. In April, we held both theoretical and practical workshops on forensic analysis of synthetic drugs, with approximately 200 participants from federal and sub-national forensic laboratories. As a result of implementing the federal network of anti-forensic laboratories, the system has issued six alerts and is currently working on two more. The program has provided valuable technical assistance.

UNAIDS:  The world’s response to the pandemic has, in many ways, been impressive. However, not everyone has benefited from these successes, and in many cases, people who inject drugs are among those left behind. In July this year, we published the most up-to-date data on the HIV response. The new data shows that people who inject drugs are still about 14 times more likely to acquire HIV than the rest of the adult population. The median prevalence of HIV among people who use drugs is around 5%, which is more than seven times the global average among adults and can be as high as 32% in some countries. This is despite the fact that effective and affordable prevention options exist. However, only around 1% of people who inject drugs live in countries that meet the recommended coverage for opioid substitution therapy, needle and syringe programs, and other services. Among reporting countries, only about 1% of HIV funding goes to programs for people who inject drugs, which is significantly less than required. These inequalities are driven by stigma, discrimination, and criminalization. In 152 countries, drug abuse and possession for personal use are still criminalized, and 17% of people who inject drugs in reporting countries avoid healthcare due to the stigma and discrimination they face. The Secretariat of the UN HIV/AIDS program is in close cooperation with the UNDCP, WHO, and UNDP to support countries in reaching the global AIDS strategy goals related to people who use drugs. However, to end AIDS as a public health threat for all people and to sustain these gains beyond 2030, significant additional investments in human rights are required. In 2025, we will develop the next strategy to take us to 2030 and beyond. We will shift to a more sustainable response, focused on ending inequalities with human rights at the center. The next five years will be critical to ensure that countries create the enabling environment needed for the HIV response, including removing laws and policies criminalizing people who use drugs, reducing stigma and discrimination, addressing violence, and reducing gender inequalities. We look forward to continuing this important work with our partners, all member states, and civil society during this challenging period of policy development. Thank you. 

VNGOC, Ann Fordham, International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC): I make this statement on behalf of the International Drug Policy Consortium, a global network of 100 organizations grounded in social justice and human rights. This statement relates to the earlier discussion on the critical review of the coca leaf. This review comes nearly 75 years after the UN banned the traditional uses of the plant by listing it in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic Drugs. This decision was made despite the fact that the coca leaf has been used for millennia by indigenous peoples in the Andean and Amazonian regions for traditional, religious, ancestral, and medicinal purposes. At the time, the decision to place the plant under strict international control was based on deeply problematic colonial and racist prejudices, as further explained in Bolivia’s dossier and its request for the review. We were able to address the ECDD at their open session last month and called on them to correct this historical wrong and explicitly distance themselves from the past racist arguments made by WHO officials regarding the plant. Since 1961, extensive research has shown that the coca leaf does not result in health harms, but may, in fact, have positive benefits, including as a medicine, food supplement, and for social, cultural, and religious purposes. Furthermore, the basic premise of the 1961 Single Convention is that plants should only be scheduled as narcotic drugs if they are considered to produce harmful effects similar to other scheduled substances. This is certainly not the case with the coca leaf, especially when compared to the effects of cocaine use. Various UN entities have increasingly recognized the need to decolonize drug policy and align the UN drug control regime with human rights, including indigenous peoples’ rights. This includes statements from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, and resolutions from the UN General Assembly, the CND, and the Human Rights Council. Moreover, international guidelines on human rights and drug policy outline the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditional knowledge and practices. As with all UN bodies and entities, the WHO is also bound by an obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, which is one of the overarching pillars of the UN. Therefore, any scheduling recommendation by the ECDD should also take human rights considerations into account. We welcome the decision made by the ECDD to consider the traditional uses of the coca leaf as one of the key topics of the critical review report. We hope this ensures that the traditional knowledge and culture of the Andean and Amazonian indigenous peoples are recognized and seriously considered as the ECDD conducts its critical review and recommendations on the plant. I conclude with some recommendations regarding this process. There is a need to ensure a transparent and inclusive process that enables meaningful participation by indigenous peoples at all stages of the critical review. This includes inviting indigenous experts to participate in specific segments of the 48th session of the ECDD that relate to the coca leaf, and not just the public hearings. We urge member states that have objected to Bolivia’s reservation on the coca leaf in the 2013 review of the Single Convention to reconsider their position, as Mexico did in 2018 and the Netherlands in 2023. We encourage member states to initiate a much-needed discussion on the potential benefits of a legal global market for the coca leaf and its derived products, to avoid the risk of corporate capture and to protect the rights of indigenous peoples in the Andean and Amazonian regions. I invite you to read the IDPC’s advocacy note on this issue, available on our website, which further elaborates on the points I have made today. Thank you very much.

VNGOC, International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC): Ensuring the adequate availability of these scheduled medicines is a central purpose of the drug control treaties. Member states that form part of the 87% of the world can adopt evidence-based governance solutions to ensure availability. The fact that not only wealthy countries in Western Europe but also low-income countries such as Malawi and Uganda, as well as regions like Kerala in India, can report safe and adequate availability shows that member states with political will can meet those treaty obligations. Their success is based on regular, constructive engagement between government agencies, civil society, and academia.The IHPC, my organization, is a global civil society organization of palliative care practitioners in more than 149 countries. Our individual and institutional members can help their governments overcome deficits in availability. We welcome invitations to convene multi-stakeholder consultations with drug regulators, ministries of health, education, finance, and foreign affairs— all of whom need to be at the table. We have coordinated such workshops, in partnership with INCB, in many countries, particularly in Latin America. These workshops have been followed by measurable improvements in the safe availability of controlled medicines. The IHPC will assist any member state willing to engage with us to improve the lives of populations who need essential medicines listed in the schedules of the drug control conventions.

VNGOC, International Law Students Association:  I speak on behalf of the NGO European Law Students Association, which was founded in 1981 and represents 43 European countries. It is an honor to address this conference. This statement relates to the topic of harm reduction measures within a framework that prioritizes human rights and public health practices. We are clearly aware of the present need for comprehensive reforms in drug policy, especially the adoption of harm reduction strategies that have proven effective in minimizing the negative consequences of drug use. As part of the international community, academic institutions must engage with the work of international bodies such as the United Nations on drug control. The current approach to drug control interests both supply-side enforcement and demand-side interventions, with harm reduction measures at the forefront. These measures, including needle exchange programs and drug consumption rooms, have been shown to promote safe practices. Law universities have the responsibility to ensure that the next generation of legal professionals has the knowledge and skills necessary to advocate for evidence-based drug policies. This can be achieved by incorporating harm reduction into law curricula, hosting symposiums on the subject, and facilitating internships with organizations that focus on harm reduction. Moreover, law students have a vital role in advocating for national and regional policy changes, drawing from international legal instruments such as the three drug control conventions. By pushing for legal reforms that embrace harm reduction, students can help shift the conversation from punitive measures to compassionate, evidence-driven approaches. The global drug issue is complex and requires a holistic and compassionate response. Universities and students are well-placed to contribute to the global movement toward harm reduction, collaborating with international organizations on research, advocacy, and educational initiatives. Through this, law students can help shape drug policies that are grounded in human dignity, public health, and respect for international norms. This is essential to create a more just, humane, and effective response to a real problem facing our world.

VNGOC, The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies :  Harm reduction is gaining worldwide acceptance as a strategic approach, but despite its growing implementation as an essential measure to reduce the health and social consequences for people with substance use disorders, there is still no generally accepted definition. On the contrary, in several countries and contexts, harm reduction is subject to various political and ideological interpretations, leading to misunderstandings and confusion. The lack of consensus and clarity has created unjustified fears about the effectiveness of harm reduction, negatively impacting public health. For some, harm reduction is viewed as the first step toward treatment, with the goal of recovery, as if those who engage in harm reduction are resigned to drug consumption and the improvement of the general conditions of drug users. From my perspective, harm reduction should be recognized as an essential practice aimed at minimizing the negative health and social impacts associated with drug use. Experience and evidence show that every intervention, even when the individual does not yet have the will to stop using, is vital in avoiding irreversible harm. It decreases the harmful consequences of drug use, allows the individual to stay alive, and keeps them in a condition where they have a chance to pursue a recovery path. The goal of therapy must align with the individual’s current conditions; it cannot demand the impossible. A compassionate, humanitarian approach, based on science, should guide the health and medical aspects of harm reduction as the first step toward a holistic continuum of care. How can we return harm reduction to its medical and humanitarian roots, setting aside ideological approaches? Is it possible to explore ways to build consensus among the international community on one interpretation and definition of this vital practice? We believe this is necessary.

Chair: (Summary) Wonderful three days. Thank you everyone. Meeting adjourned.