L.2. Promoting comprehensive, scientific evidence-based and multisectoral national systems of drug use prevention for children
Chair: Welcome to the first CoW for the 68th CND session. This committee will have eight meetings, starting this afternoon through to Friday morning. We will suspend our work on Wednesday morning when voting in-person on agenda number 5.
A few notes on the liquidity concerns for this session: the CoW will work in English only, meetings held from 10am to 13:00 and 18:00 without extension. Evening informals will be held in the C building. The capacity to produce translations and services during the meetings will be limited.
Today during the afternoon and tomorrow morning, the proposals will be taken in chronological order with an initial reading of one hour each. Please, Chile, you have the floor.
Chile: We’ve made good progress, however the whole reservation is pending resolution from the USA. I also reflected in the text what was agreed in the informals. We will start with the agreed paragraph, pending reservations with the rest from the USA.
Chair: Great; Egypt, you can take the floor.
Egypt: We just want to highlight that while we are here in the CoW, there are three simultaneous informal dialogues. Delegations with limited capacity cannot manage all four sessions at once. We hope there will arise limited conflicts but wanted to bring this issue to our attention.
Chair: Thank you, duly noted. However I believe we are all in the same situation with the liquidity crisis; we hope for your understanding. Without further comments, we can proceed.
Title
*reads title* Are there any comments on this title? *none* I will consider the title adopted by the CoW. Please, USA you have the floor.
United States: We understand some discussion around the term ‘adolescent’, but we do not use this term in our jurisdiction and would prefer the term ‘youth’. However, perhaps, we would prefer to not use either term but rather “A National Drug Control Convention for Children of All Ages”.
PP1
*No Comments*
Chair: PP1 is agreed.
PP2
Chair: Moving on, are there any comments for PP2?
(…)
United States: As not every country is party to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, we propose ‘reaffirming the UDHR and noting the Convention of the Rights of the Child’.
India: Given some licit substances can be gateway, we suggest ‘to protect youth from substance use’.
Russia: We want to recognize the liquidity crisis and my delegation regrets this unfortunate development. In the first line of PP1, we suggest changing ‘reaffirming’ to ‘recalling’. Also, in response to India, when referring to particular articles, it should be word-by-word.
United States: With regard to India’s suggestion, we prefer to retain the original language as referred to in the respective treaties; otherwise ‘substance’ can refer to something too broad.
PP7
Chair: Great, this will be put to a sponsor in informals; the goal today is to get through the text and not engage in substantive debate on the specifics. With that, we move to PP7, the first paragraphs not already agreed upon in informals. Are there any comments on PP7?
United States: We find this is too prescriptive and our preference would be to delete the paragraph.
France: We’d like to put a reservation on ‘community and faith based organizations’.
Chile: The original text by Venezuela read ‘community-based, and faith …’ and we prefer to keep this original language.
Argentina: We had suggested to replace the mention of ‘gender’ to ‘sex’, to refer to the international treaties’ understanding as gender referring to the two sexes, male and female. Hence, we would support removing this paragraph.
OP2 bis
Chair: I would ask sponsors to continue this in informals. Moving to the next paragraph, unagreed, is Op2.bis, now open for comments.
Poland: Op2.bis was proposed by Poland, with additional proposal to ‘prevention coordinators and policy makers’.
United States: We recognize that we have not participated in informals and apologies it comments feel unexpected. We propose however that the paragraph can end at ‘policy makers’. And delete the end reference to ‘UNODC’ and other organizations.
Mexico: We would appreciate clarity on whether the desire is from learning directly from one another or including the aforementioned organizations as part of this resolution.
Egypt: We need to be more generic in our call for member states …
United Kingdom: Regarding this paragraph we had a fruitful discussion from our colleagues in Poland who expressed their utility of these institutions. However, at this time, this early in the CND without further clarity, we retain our reservations. However, we can change our reservation if we can end the paragraph after ‘systems’ and allow it to be more general.
OP2 ter
Chair: Great. Let us now commence to paragraph Op2.ter:
Russia: Russia has a proposal to the preambulatory part (not for Op2.ter) so that countries can discuss this ahead of the next round of informals; please, let us know when there is a time for this.
Chair: Today’s resolution is about considering the draft of this text; please, draft this and introduce it for a later session.
United States: In the 4th line, we prefer ‘youth’ not adolescents for the aforementioned reasons.
OP4 quarter
Chair: Let us now pass to OP4 quarter:
Australia: We have noticed that for … running national campaigns on substances (outside cannabis and ??) which are not widely used turns attention to these substances. Hence, running national campaigns as such is incongruent with evidence-based practice.
United States: We have similar concerns and listened intently to our colleagues comments.
(…)
Chair: Now that we’ve gone through ahead of time, are there any further comments?
Russia: *Proposes a recalling fo resolution 63/4 on promoting the involvement of youth in drug prevention efforts, including through the UNODC Youth Initiative.
Chair: I would propose to discuss this matter further in informals. I would defer to the sponsor for scheduling of more informals.
Sponsor: The informal session will continue tomorrow afternoon.
Chair: Two minute technical break before moving on.
(…)
L.3. Promoting research on evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders
Chair: I give to Thailand for introductory remarks.
Thailand: We have had success already in infromals, however with much work still ahead. Let us proceed with the agreed paragraphs, pending certain member states.
Chair: Thank you; are there any other comments? *None* Let us proceed as suggested.
PP1
Egypt: We propose to add ‘scientific’ before the term ‘evidence based’.
United States: The US would like to reserve on the title at this time.
United States: We would like propose to delete ‘goals and objectives’ from the language.
Chair: Any comments or suggestions for PP2?
PP2
United States: We’d like to add language ‘in accordance with the resources available of each Member State’ after ‘everyone has the right to social security’.
*back to United States*
United States: Highlight ‘and article 29 that everyone has duties to his/her community’.
Chair: Any other suggestions on this paragraph?
United States: The text should read ‘in accordance with the resources of each state.
Chair: Moving on to comments of PP2bis?
PP2bis
United States: We would like to propose the deletion of this paragraph.
Chair: Further comments on PP3?
PP3
United States: We’d like to suggest the deletion fo this paragraph.
Chair: Let us move to PP4. Any comments?
PP4
*no comments*
PP5
*no comments*
Chair: Moving to PP6; comments?
PP6
United States: change ‘recalling’ to ‘noting’ and we would retain our reservation on PP6.
Chair: Moving on to PP7; any comments?
PP7
Australia: We would like to propose a minor edit; to remove ‘1 in 11 people’ and replace with ‘1 in 18 women’ and ‘1 in 7 men’. This comes from the WDR 24’ and highlights the existing data/gap in treatment.
Chair: We will refer this paragraph back to informals.
Russia: We would like to put a reservation on the entire paragraph; there are contents which we find irrelevant to this resolution which will be explained during informals.
PP7 bis
United States: We request deletion.
PP8
United States: We keep our reservation awaiting guidance.
PP9
United States: We want to delete this paragraph. We want to highlight the work, not simply the collaboration between these entities.
PP9 bis
United States: We’d like to delete the 4th and 3rd document referenced. Started at ‘Treatment at care of people…’ running through the 4th one that ends in ‘People who use stimulant drugs’.
PP9 bis alt
United States: We would like to reserve this paragraph awaiting guidance
PP10
United States: We would request deletion of this paragraph.
PP11
Belgium: We can agree with the proposal on the screen. We had a reservation and can lift it with the condition that it will stay as it is — to clarify the reservation, for us ‘availability and accessibility’ of specific treatments…affordability is part of it. Access to treatment can be hindered by many barriers, included in the access to a certain treatment. Ti’s an ongoing discussion in these fora, we’ve always advocated for it. In the spirit of compromise, we could go along with having the phrase as it is here ‘accessibility, availability and affordability’ — under the condition the para stays as it is now.
France: As the Belgian colleagues we’d agree to lift the reservation if it stays as it is.
Switzerland: We can show flexibility on the term risk, and lift the reservation under similar conditions.
United States: we have small edits: ‘enhancing the availability and accessibility’ and delete affordability. We would like to delete ‘diverse’ and ‘gender and age sensitive’. Also delete the examples: contingency management, CBT and family therapy’. Change ‘stimulant use disorders’ to ‘stimulant drug addiction’.
Netherlands: We support the Belgian suggestion to lift the reservation if the paragraph stays as it is.
Germany: We thank the Belgian explanation and could lift our reservation if the paragraph is retained as originally seen on the screen and we could also in the same spirit of consensus lift our reservation on PP4 on the word ‘threat0’.
Argentina: I wanted to ask you to reflect on the screen the support for the deletion of ‘gender’ mentioned in this paragraph.
Norway: sas one of the sponsors its quite obvious we’re going back to informals and we will have to have some discussions before there’s agreement on these paragraphs. The flexibility shown by some delegations suggested we were going toward consensus. Several issues from the perspective of my delegation: we oppose the introduction of ‘stimulant drug addiction’ as proposed by America — I will not go into detail as to why we use this terminology, which is the commonly accepted terminology these days…we can discuss that in informals. Kindly note our objection.
Chair: it’s obvious this resolution i’ll go back to informals. Let us see how to move forward the discussion.
Russian Federation: We want to flag that we have reservations against the proposal by the United States in the middle of the paragraph by deleting the list of psychosocial treatment — this is about stimulant use disorders so we need to be specific, as CND, on what interventions we0’re supporting.
South Africa: We’d like to maintain affordability in this paragraph.
Egypt: we support South Africa in the retention of ‘affordability’.
PP12
Australia: Technical comments on this. We have concerns that can be resolved with the sponsors. The statement that ‘no medication has proved’ is far too strong especially. It can be softened a little. There may be a communication issue. Or there’s something wrong in fact. At the end of the paragraph it says ‘to manage co-occurring psychiatric disorders and withdrawal symptoms’— which sounds like it’s addressing disorders during withdrawal. Suggest changing to ‘manage withdrawal and co-occurring psychiatric disorders. We want to soften the implication that there is no evidence that there’s no medication in terms of managing stimulant use disorders.
Chair: let’s discuss in informals
Russian Federation: Same concerns as just described by the Australian delegation. In informals we can come up with accurate language capturing the state of scientific evidence on the issue.
United States: Delete ‘further’ and include ‘ongoing’. Lots of data to analyse. Delete everything after ‘treating stimulant use disorders’ — we’re concerned about highlighting medications that are not yet approved.
PP13
Australia: Technical commentary here. A suggestion for cohesion in the paragraph. It comments by ‘addressing stimulant use disorders as a broad concept. The evidence suggests there’s treatment needed for adverse outcomes that may not be about dependence — that’s why the term ‘stimulant use disorders’ is used. So we’re not focusing only on dependence but the range of issues. It starts with stimulant use disorders and ends in stimulant dependence. We would want a range of treatment endeavours allowing us to treat a range of conditions including dependence or ‘addiction’ — but I would question why we would question dependence/addiction and not address psychiatric, sleep, nutritional conditions that may arise. Change that last line from dependence to ‘stimulant use disorders’.
Chair: Discuss suggestions for wording in informals.
United States: We would like to reserve PP13 and PP13 bis until we receive further guidance.
PP13 bis
Chair: Reserved by the US and not other comments. We go to OPs.
OP1
United States: We would like to — I guess we would join behind Argentina in deleting ‘gender and age sensitive. Change ‘stimulant use disorders’ to ‘stimulant drug addictions’ and end the paragraph there.
Canada: Many elements for our delegation are important here. This is the first OP in talking about the importance of further research. We would retain the important elements contained in the current draft.
OP2
United States: We would like to reserve this paragraph until further guidance.
Norway: Technicality. Can we consider this ‘agreed in CoW’ with the US reservation?
United States: Our preference would be to say no to that. We would like to go back to informals to have discussions and exchanges of views on this.
OP3
United States: We have edits. After ‘to provide’, delete ‘comprehensive and continued capacity building and’. So that we simply keep ‘training to health professionals’… At ‘stimulant use disorders’ change to ‘stimulant drug addiction’. After stimulant drug addiction, we can say ‘are provided with evidence based, effective, quality and timely treatment and care, tailored to their needs, and to significantly reduce any challenges those people may encounter’. We want to delete ‘including those in prisons and pretrial detention, are provided with…’.
OP3 bis:
United States: We would like to reserve this paragraph
OP3 ter
Russia: We would like to amend under the second line, add ‘health and social consequences of drug use disorders, including HIV and Hepatitis C’ and delete the rest of the paragraph.
United States: We see this as a resource intensive proposal and would like to reserve on the paragraph for now.
Chair: We move to the next, OP4.
OP4
United States: A few small edits: insert ‘appropriately’ after ‘amphetamine-type stimulants’ and delete the word ‘minimizing’ for ‘preventing and reducing’.
OP5
Egypt: We propose the inclusion of ‘efforts’ rather than ‘collaborations’ as was proposed at the beginning of these negotiations.
United States: The US would approve the Egyptian colleague’s request in deletion of reference fo the WHO, and replace’ stimulant use disorders’ to ‘drug addiction’ and end after ‘context’ (deleting ‘through … the #ScaleUp initiative’).
OP5 bis
United States: We’d like to reserve on this paragraph while awaiting further guidance.
OP6
United States: We would like to delete the ‘WHO’ and ‘United Nations’ so it reads ‘as appropriate, with other relevant international and regional entities …’. … We already mention United Nations at the top and hence do not feel its necessary to list every other organization by name.
Canada: We also welcome edits in informals but are content at this point.
Chair: Moving to OP7
OP7
United States: We have an alternate paragraph to offer which I’ll dictate: ‘Notes that the purposes described above will need extrabudgetary resources in accordance with the rules and procedures of the United Nations and stresses that UNODC must utilize any such resources efficiently while continuing to make effective use of regular budget resources.
Chair: With no further comments I turn to the drafters of this resolution if there are more considerations to share.
Thailand: We will discuss this further tomorrow in informals and see how we can reach the spirit of compromise.
L4. Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development
(…)
Chair: Peru, you have the chair.
Peru: We just came from informals and went through the text again and tried to find resolution on the paragraphs and parts of the text that were contentious. Our goal today is to find agreement and move forward on the text, particularly what is already approved in the informals, and time permitting, to revise the parts which are most contention–for example, PP9. This refers to the scope of the complementing process; particularly referring to the topic of indigenous communities and gender. Also, another difficult paragraph is OP4, regarding the format on who will take the complementing process. Chair, we are in your hands to move forward.
Chair: We will proceed with the paragraphs already agreed in informals; the draft version we have contains no PP9.
Peru: Yes, PP9 became PP10 bis, sorry for the mistake.
Chair: Let us start then with the title: Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. *No Comment* Let us proceed to the PP1
PP1
Chair: Without comment, let us proceed with PP1 agreed upin in the CoW. Proceeding to PP2
PP2
*No Comment*
Chair: Let us consider this approved by the CoW. Proceed to PP3:
PP3
Egypt: We prefer to retain the original language, including ‘good governance, human rights, sustainable development’.
Saudi Arabia: We concur with Iran for the deletion of ‘good governance, human rights, and sustainable development’.
Russia: We concur with the deletion of Iran.
Chair: Without further comment, let this continue in informals. Proceeding to PP4:
Peru: Is anyone opposed to moving back to the original language; if yes, can we consider this agreed in the CoW? Otherwise, let us move back to informals.
United Kingdom: We have in the past in this forum we’ve discussed good governance, human rights, and sustainable development as part of the overall drug control strategy. We would then move to find consensus and agree to keep this language, given that the countries who want to delete also believe in these principles. That said, we are also okay to proceed without the language.
Chair: Let this continue then in informals; let us continue to PP4.
PP4
Peru: PP4 was well received save for reservations from Argentina and the US regarding the sustainable development goals; any further comment?
Argentina: Our proposal was to remove the reference to SDG; the room was not in agreement, so we hold our reservation.
Chair: Will move to informals then; let us continue to PP5.
PP5
United States: We retain our reservation and have particular issue with ‘sustainable’ as regards to crop control strategy. We believe it should be ‘forward looking’ not just sustainable and look forward to informals.
Chair: Okay, then we proceed with this to informals; now proceeding to PP6.
PP6
Chair: Without comment, we consider this agreed in the CoW.
United States:
Thailand: We would like to retain the recalling, as we’ve had previous plenty references to Alt. Development and hence this is nothing new, so recalling is fine.
Peru: We add our name to Thailand.
France: We add our name as well.
Chair: Moving on to PP7
PP7
Thailand: … (missed)
United States: We need to reserve on this paragraph and are seeking further guidance. We’ve had questions raised, including for more specificity including on what are the findings which are of concern.
Venezuela: We would like reference to particular inclusion of the certain areas … but retain reference to the environment.
Chair: Let us move to PP8
PP8
Saudi Arabia: Can you include a reservation under ‘addressing human vulnerabilities … social marginalization’.
United States: We also have reservations, also regarding the lines of ‘alternative development’. We just have the general concerns, will work on it, and pelase include us under a reservation for now.
Thailand: We want to remind delegates that this is approved language from past, last year’s, resolutions. Of course, crop substitution is a measure, but not just: we aim to address poverty, unemployment, and other social issues. … THis is not new to the United States as they have been sponsors of these practices around the world. Hence, this is honestly difficult now to hear that this language is now unclear, with respect. This work has been developed for over a decade and ti is difficult to hear how it is difficult to understand how this is no longer clear.
Chair: Moving to informals; now to PP10 bis.
Thailand: Apologies, this was in reference to PP10 bis and specifically also references multiple events from the last year regarding AD … and in response to a particular delegation misunderstanding.
Chair: Thank you. Does this concern remain valid with the United States? *affirmed* Okay, this will remain and move to informals.
Russia: We also have a proposal in response to PP10 bis, as we believe it would be logical to reference the expert meeting on alternative development and (??) meeting held in Thailand, and would be prudent to take this to the CND. For the operative part, the language is not suitable and would be better fit for the ambulatory part; but we can keep this comment just on this section and consider just for the ambulatory part.
OP1
United States: Our preference is to stop the paragraph after ‘trafficking and drugs’. And delete everything from ‘including through…’.
Peru: The sponsors included this paragraph in the resolution, an operative one, reaffirming the whole wording included in this OP, because it was the OP9 of the resolution last year. It’s the last agreement. It’s comprehensive on the aim of the resolution.
Chair: Let’s continue consideration in informals.
OP2
Peru: This is agreed language from last year’s resolution. We received 2 comments to change ‘noting’ instead of ‘reaffirm’. We prefer to keep original language on the question of the Guiding Principles being ‘a crucial instrument’ — it’s already on the screen.
Chair: Any questions about retaining the paragraph’s original language? Does silence mean that the suggestions made by the US are no longer valid? You have to indicate that.
United States: Our comments on the paragraph are still valid so we would keep the reservation on the text.
Chair: OK, goes to informals.
OP3 
Chair: Can we remove the suggestions and clean this text?
United States: Our preference would be to end this paragraph after ‘drug related activities’ and delta everything thereafter,
Chair: Comments? Reactions? This looks like it goes to informals.
OP4
Chair: Complicated, goes to informals.
OP4 alt
Peru: We’re still working on the alternative
OP5
Chair: No requests from the floor?
United States: We keep our reservation. We need guidance from capital. We want to strike some of the language related to the actual promotion of synergies and perhaps civil society organisations. We just need a bit more time to reflect on this.
Chair: Can we say it’s agreed upon at the CoW pending reservations from the US.
United States: No, we would benefit from more discussions in informals. So we don’t want it marked as such.
OP6
Peru: This paragraph was accepted in its formulation during informals. Commentaries not on the ordering but the placement. Italy suggested moving it elsewhere. Iran did the same. And the Russian Federation agreed to the latter — moving it to a PP. We are open to delegations’ solutions on this.
Costa Rica: I’d like to go back quickly to the previous paragraph — OP5. We’re using ‘organisations’ and ‘organizations’ — just noting we should harmonise spelling.
Venezuela: On OP6 I raised a question not on the substance but the form. I don’t know if its common practice to take note with interest, or that it isn’t binding, or that it isn’t the position of everybody.
Chair: Reactions?
United States: We share the same concerns. We would simply ‘take note’. Moving to a PP is something to consider because if we’re taking note, then there’s no operational activity.
Germany: We have mentioned in the past that the cosponsors who have tabled are always mentioned in the operational section. In principle we can be flexible with the ‘with interest’ addition but we would like to keep it in the operational part because we aim for the consideration of the recommendations made in the expert group meeting also mentioned in the PP to be taken into account for the complementing process of the UN Guiding Principles. Pertinent to keep it in the operational paragraph part.
Venezuela: It’s not operational. There’s no mandate to consider anything. It doesn’t reflect consensual views. We can move to the preambular part.
Chair: Also, Russian Federation suggested moving it there. Suggestions?
Russian Federation: It could be PP10 bis — PP10 bis would become PP10 ter.
Netherlands: On this OP, we know that CRP is important to the update of the Guiding Principles and to make use (…).
Peru: We would support that and keep it where it is.
France: I would like to keep ‘with interest’. If we have an operational paragraph here is because we have interest in this document rather than taking note simply as a bureaucratic paper. I’d add France after Peru, Italy, Germany, Thailand, etc.
Spain: We add our support regarding what France said about the beginning of the paragraph, and add our name to the list of countries supporting the prior view.
Colombia: It’s common practice to acknowledge the CRP’s as operative paragraphs. WE would stick to this proposal.
OP7
Peru: This and OP8 are closing paragraphs. These are basically procedural paragraphs.
United States: With respect to OP7, the US can lift its reservation.
OP8
Chair: Comments?
OP8 alt
United States: We suggest the following language. Notes that the purposes described above will need extra-budgetary resources in accordance with the rules and procedures of the United Nations, and stresses that UNODC must utilise any such resources efficiently while continuing to make effective use of regular budget funds.
OP7
Chair: Can we agree OP7 in CoW? No objections. Agreed.
OP8alt
Chair: OP8 alt has just been suggested so I suggest sending to informals. End of our work today.