L6 Strengthening the global drug control framework: a path to effective implementation
Colombia: we updated the document to reflect all recent agreements from last night, we are still working hard with delegations to find consensus across the document
Chair: We start with deliberating the title, the floor is open.
Sudan: it was only 5 minutes ago that we finished deliberations, not last night.
USA: reservation to title
PP1
Argentina: reservation
Egypt: We just received rev1.
Colombia: the para we have in font of us is language agreed in 2024. In the 4th line we have “international” that was proposed by a delegation and there were no comments against this during yesterdays informal.
Chair: Maybe we can have that agreement now.
Sudan: Re PP2, we had the proposal, but it was not decided yet. We would like to see as PP1bis.
Colombia: In this version of the document, we didn’t see consensus as proposed. So this version is not reflecting that proposal.
USA: We would like to reserve on “underscoring”
Chair: Do we have a suggestion on replacing that word?
USA: “Noting”
Colombia: In the informals, we didn’t receive comments in favor of changing agreed language, except for the one I explained earlier.
Pakistan: This might be agreed language, we all negotiate in a circumstance where we are not all able to participate in all meetings.
Mexico: This is a conversation that’s been going on for many years, I would suggest to look into UNCAC or other agency´s documents that deal with this within their mandate.
PP2
Colombia: On PP2 we haven’t received comments against…we have reservations by the US but no other delegation. In the last CoW meeting, Guatemala and EU had reservations but I think it was attached to PP1bis as proposed by Sudan, so we propose t only have PP2 as is on the screen which is already agreed language.
Chair: I don’t see objections. Let’s agree on this in the CoW, having in mind the reservations by Argentina that are also reflected. Any suggestions for PP3?
PP3
Colombia: In PP3, in the CoW last time there was a suggestion by a delegation to change “reaffirming” to “noting” in the beginning and middle of the para. Others asked for retention of language. Last night we didn’t receive guidance on modifying agreed language.
Chair: Can we agree? Of course keeping in mind the reservation of arg.
PP4
Colombia: Same suggestion by delegation, change reaffirming to noting, also suggestion to add principal as it stands now in the text. As it was agreed language, the room wanted to stick to it as reflected on the screen.
Chair: Can we agree? Reservations of Argentina are registered.
PP5
Colombia: It was suggested the elimination of the findings of the World Drug Report. In discussions yesterday, there was appetite to keep it, it elevates the argument of scientific based information that we are providing in the paragraph.
Chair: Any views?
USA: We would like to retain our deletion of the World Drug Report. We would also note our reservation on the entire text.
Chair: Would the suggestion of the United States be acceptable?
Netherlands: We were among those who objected to the deletion in informals and we would like to reiterate that. This is a report that has a lot of authority that we look into.
Belgium: Agreed.
Switzerland: Agreed. It is a flagship report.,
Czechia: Agreed.
Portugal: Agreed.
Canada: Agreed.
European Union: Agreed.
France: Agreed.
Austria: Agreed.
UK: Agreed.
Spain: Agreed.
Australia: Agreed.
Greece: Agreed.
Poland: Agreed.
PP6
Colombia: We agreed in the last meeting including of course the reservation of the USA and Argentina.
Chair: Can we reaffirm? Seems so.
PP7
Colombia: Another one agreed in CoW in the last meeting with the same two reservations.
Chair: Can we reaffirm? No objections.
PP8
Colombia: There was a suggestion in informals to withdraw.
Chair: Any objections to this paragraph? See none.
PP9
Colombia: Here, the language was changed from the last version now it says “criminal groups involved in illicit drug-related violence”
Chair: Can we agree? I do not see any objections.
PP10
Colombia: All modifications were accepted in our last CoW meeting. Starting in the 3rd line from “societies” till “drug-related activities” we included new references and accepted new formulations regarding criminal groups, and the word “disproportionately” has been deleted.
Chair: Any further comments? I see none. Can we agree, pending reservation from Argentina and USA? I see no objections.
PP11
Colombia: There was a suggestion to modify agreed language and add “existing machinery”.
Venezuela: We insist we see this word pejorative and would prefer “framework”.
Colombia: The delegation of Venezuela yesterday withdrew this very proposal, and that is why the text is so on the screen.
Chair: Can I ask for flexibility?
Venezuela: This is a resolution that calls for reviewing what we have decided and in this specific context – not using machinery, which impies pejorative approach, would be more productive as to tackle for the panel.
Chair: Is this acceptable to the other delegations?
Colombia: The message received in informals was to stick to agreed language from the basis of this commission, and that has been reflected in the proposal including this word.
UK: We are happy to stick to agreed language, but maybe we can bridge the gap with “methods of work”.
Venezuela: That is acceptable for us, yes.
Colombia: We can take it back to more consultations.
Chair: Okay then it moves to informals.
PP12
Colombia: That was agreed at the last meeting of the CoW.
Chair: Can we confirm? I see no objections.
PP13
Colombia: We didn’t receive further comments on this during informals.
PP14
Colombia: Yesterday it was decided by those present that it is better to stick to agreed language from 2024 and that is what we see here on the screen.
USA: We have advocated for the deletio of “capacity building” and would like to offer “strenghten capabilities” instead.
Chair: This is what we adopted provisionally on other resolutions as well. Is this acceptable to the room? I dont see any objections. It is so decided, pending reservations from the USA and Argentina
Colombia: Since we decided to have the proposal from the USA, even there we will still have the reservation
USA: Change is acceptable, but we would still keep reservation on the entire text.
Colombia: Better to keep open language and see the possibilities in informals in a comprehensive way.
Chair: Not agreed, continue discussions.
PP15
Chair: I don’t see objections. Agreed in CoW.
PP16
Chair: Can we agree, keeping in mind reservations? Agreed in CoW.
OP1
Colombia: Previously PP17 will now be OP1, we begin operative part.
Chair: Any views?
USA: Negotiations have demonstrated the commission is not ina position to adapt high level selected by the secretary general which would shift it to new york in the GA. we think this would undermine CND. we appreciate colombia1s efforts, but no one knows the instruments as well as those of us in the commission. In that spirit, we would propose an alternative OP’
OP1 alt
Request the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to convene meetings of an open-ended intergovernmental group of experts, subject to the availability of extra budgetary resources and to be held no more than once a year in all six official languages of the UN to provide recommendations to the 70th session of the CND on enhancing the effective implementation of the international drug control framework to address the most pressing challenges posed by drugs, particularly synthetic drugs.
Colombia: Yesterday we discussed this proposal in depth and know this will not take us to consensus. So I would like to take us back to the original OP1 and focus the attention of the room. Not talking about review, but enhancing the implementation. With this in mind, it is important to keep flexibility and collective work we have done here. The text reflects proposals from several delegations. It is not about changing anything from what we already have. We have the policy commitments, so it was important to make specific language and also the importance of having this panel and the recommendations for the review in 2029. This addresses most of the concerns without losing the essence of the resolution.
Pakistan: We have reservations on the draft that was just uploaded before the start of CoW. We would like to make a reservation on OP1. Thank the USA for OP1alt, and we will get back on that. In the original, we would propose deletion of “obligations of…” We propose deletion of “other international instruments”.
Netherlands: Thank Colombia for the new OP1. We think it is a great effort to reconcile, lots have been incorporated. I speak also on behalf of the European Union as my colleague had to leave, so this goes for all the EU Member States. It is an acceptable compromise for us. I will not go into details here, the most important is including both the conventions and the commitments. On the proposal of Pakistan, I would ask what the purpose of deleting the “obligations” is? Does that imply the conventions don’t have obligations attached? We are in favor of retaining that reference. On the proposal of the USA, I don’t think we are at a stage where we can look at a new proposal, we have been negotiating for a while. If the text doesn’t reflect the independence we expect from the panel, that will not be acceptable.
Chair: Given the complexity, I would ask not to go into the substance of this, as this discussion would take hours.
Egypt: Align with the proposals of Pakistan. Please reflect our reservation on the entire paragraph.
Switzerland: Please add after the EU.
Czechia: We see the current draft reflect many of the tabled proposals from 2 weeks of negotiations. This is the core paragraph of this resolution. Main idea is a panel that would not look like an independent group of experts. We are not in a position to support the US proposal.
Sudan: Please add our reservation on the whole OP1. We were talking about enhancing the implementations of the conventions. The sponsors are talking about a collective exercise, and we wonder how it would be collective if it is not consensual? If it is not consensual it will not be actionable.
Venezuela: Add to Egypt and Pakistan on the two suggestions and reservation on the entire paragraph.
Argentina: Please reflect our support for the proposal.
Canada: support for the original without the amendments, reservation on USA proposal#
Russia: We are in position to consider the operational part in its entirety, and we would like to add our reservation to this para and further paragraphs. The document circulated in the morning, we support the amendments by Pakistan, we believe the conventions should be implemented in their entirety, it’s not just about obligation. We support deletion of other instruments. We agree to focus of the whole para on policy commitments. A solution would be to keep references only to “international commitments”.
Chair: I have more speakers on the list. Time allocated for this resolution is coming to an end.
Saudi Arabia: Put us next to Russia, supporting references to other instruments. Reservation on the entire para.
Singapore: References to obligation is rather unusual so we would like to reserve on this and the para i its entirety because frankly we havent had time to read it.
China: Please add our name next to Singapore.
Belgium: Please add our name next to Ntherlands.
Australia: Add us behind Canada and France, supporting the original.
Costa Rica: After Canada and France and Australia. We are aligned with EU. As regards to other relevant international instrument, we would liek to retain.
Austria: Add us behind Portugal, supporting the original.
Uruguay: …
Pakistan: deleting “of the obligations” – when we talk about enhancing.
Czechia: Also support retention of obligations and oppose deletion of other international instruments.
Mexico: We do not only have a reservation, we oppose the deletion of other international instruments, this is counter to the interest of this commission.
L5. Safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic opioid laboratories
Poland: Yesterday informals were quite fruitful, so we can consider today the agreed paragraphs – the first two PPs are not agreed yet, so we can start with presenting you the ones we agreed, and maybe we can accept them here?
PP5
Iran:I see some reflection in the text of our discussions, but some of our proposal has been deleted and many other text should not be considered agreed – we consider it as a package. Our suggestions have been deleted but others not added, so we can go through already agreed text, but we might oppose…
Chair: Nothing is agreed until it is agreed. Noted. So those delegations that cannot agree to specific paragraphs can reflect this view and we can mention this here. I apologize if your views are not properly reflected. The text is still in negotiation.
Iran: We didnt maintain reservations on certain paras because we considered them part of a larger discussion. The text is no longer balanced because our suggestion has been struck through. Our approach is balanced and if we do not specify a reservation, we mean (…) and so none of that is agreed.
Chair: Yes. We had with cases with other delegations who couldn’t agree to the text as a whole until negotiations conclude, this is very much practice. In these cases, we suggest making reservations on whole texts. We are seeing if some delegations can come to agreement while keeping in mind that others cannot. I understand you, and we can go para by para to see how we can progress, if that is acceptable to you? Thank you for that. So we start with the title – it is agreed. I would like to specify that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So can we confirm we have an agreement on the title?
PP1
Poland: This is the rewriting of the previous proposal, just sorting out issues we saw yesterday, so proper naming substances and simplified text.
China: We think it is too complicated. What if in the second line we say “inparticular” instead of “as well as” all the way to “other synthetic drugs”.
Russia: Can we take a look at the whole para on the screen? First of all, apologies for not being able to attend the informals. What does it mean “other relevant actors” besides law enforcement personell?
Iran: We do not have problems with “other personnel” but MS should be helped where their capacity for this issue need to be increased.
USA: We think the edits by China strip away some of the meanings of the paragraph. High-toxicity is the point of the resolution – they are widely available and dangerous. We don´t want to lose this emphasis.
Chair: This para seems to need more consideration.
PP2
Chair: USA, do you sustain your reservation?
USA: Unfortunately, I am not able to show flexibility on this suggestion to “note” rather than “recall”.
Australia: We would like to keep “recalling” for now.
Canada: Same. This was in the original language.
Chair: Okay.
PP3
Agreed in CoW.
PP4
Agreed in CoW.
PP5
Agreed in CoW.
PP5
Chair: We are back
China. We also agree. Just to the colleagues who highlighted high toxicity, it is said here.
Chair: Agreed in CoW.
Iran: Let´s go back please, we need to add “including through international cooperation” at the end of line 2.
USA: I fail to see the connection. I would like to take it under consideration, it seems out of place to me.
PP7
Agreed in CoW?
Iran: We need some more time, something is missing for us.
PP8
Chair: Agreed in CoW?
China: No “ensure”
Mexico: Yes “ensure”
Chair: Maybe the word “improve” can solve this impass?
China: We are just saying nothing can be 100% but of course we are in favor of improving.
Poland: Acceptable.
Iran: Whatever measures we are taking should be in line with national laws and regulations, so “improve as appropriate” would be preferred to us.
USA: We think it is always appropriate so we would like to strike this suggestion as it weakens the text. We agree with China´s comment, ensuring is impossible, so we could say “ensure, to the extent possible” or “ensure, to every extent possible”.
China: What if we “endeavour to ensure”?
Iran: Not acceptable to us. “Make necessary effort to improve, as appropriate” is a language we prefer.
Chair: I suggest the sponsor takes this back to informals.
PP9
Iran: We had a proposal about technology transfer but I am not seeing it reflected on the screen. Please add “technology transfer” to the last line.
USA: We cannot accept this most recent edit.
Iran: Instead of “noting”, we should be “emphasizing” the critical importance.
Canada: Add us to the supporters of deletion of recent edit.
Australia: same
Finland: same
Netherlands same
UK same
Belgium: same
Japan: same
Portugal: same
Czechia: same
France: same
Greece: same
Slovenia: same
Finland: We considered this during informals and our preference is to delete this recent edit. We proposed a compromise earlier this week, so maybe we can have that on the screen – this is agreed language from the last high level segment. This might not bring us to consensus, but we can have this as a basis of discussion. We also oppose Iran´s suggestion at the beginning, we are fine with “noting”.
Cuba: Last agreement at the high levels as a compromise, we have established this not only i this commission but other bodies´ conferences. We will not accept this formula in any document. Do not put it as a consensus and do no use it as a way of solving anything. It was a different situation, almost an impulse at the end of negotiations, so let us be clear and loud, we do not accept this.
Iran: I am sorry, this is an interactive discussion, this necessitates to respond to evolving situations. Last year, indeed, we had an evasive strange language accepted but it will not fly anymore.
OP1
Iran: we would like to “encourage” MS and not “urge”. After prioritize, “as deemed necessary”.
China: Delete from “such” to “materials”.
USA: We would like to note our objection to these edits. As governments, we have a responsibility to our first responders to ensure their safety. Part of the resolution is to describe the dangers of these laboratories and that includes not just the drugs themselves so we would like to keep “such as…”
Iran: You cannot impose what should we prioritize for us. All these concepts have been omitted. Look at international laws. We suggest “encourage” so that MS can prioritize according to their national realities.
Poland: Regarding the consensus on the second part, this has been discussed in previous meetings, and we have asked for technical expert’s support and UNODC consultation and this has been confirmed as a real danger.
Chair: I take it this needs to be further discussed.
OP2
OP2alt
Iran:
Chair: Can we add that this is agreed pending reservations of Iran, as we have done so far.
Iran:
Chair: Okay, then we do not put anything at the end of the paragraph. There have not been any specific amendments proposed, but it is pending.
Iran: We can say pending to be finalized.
Chair: Agreed in CoW, pending to be finalized.
OP1a
Agreed in CoW.
OP1b
Agreed in CoW.
OP1c
Poland: We have a new, clearer and grammatically correct alternative.
USA: Previous versions noted “handling of precursor chemicals” which is a term of art… some of them are scheduled so they required certain handling. We can go along with this para as long as it is made clear somewhere else in the text.
China: Synthetic opioids are part of drugs, they are also synthetic chemicals so maybe we can delete “associated”
UK: It is critical for us to talk about synthetic drugs and precursors that are part of the process of creating those drugs, so it is either precursor or associated chemicals. Please retain it.
China: “their associated precursor chemicals”
USA:
Chair: back to informals then.
OP1d
Russia: We would like to discuss this further in informals, so please reflect our reservation.
OP3
Agreed in CoW.
OP4
Finland: What we overlooked in the informals is that we don’t mention UNODC in this para.
Iran: During informals, we mentioned a lot of documents re international cooperation so we object to “voluntary basis” and instead of “continue” we would like to see “promote international cooperation along with effective action”. Soft law doesn’t have repercussions, so this will not fly in this juncture. All this obligation are equal and are pertaining to all of us.
China: We are a bit confused by the second part because of INTERPOL. We suggest deleting “and their precursors”.
USA: Precursors are trafficked around the World, so if we delete this, we are calling on MS to not take on scheduled substances. We are omitting a whole portion of efforts this body is making by deleting this essential part of the para. We oppose the proposal by Iran at the beginning, we don’t want to create new obligations, we would like MS to continue what they are already obliged to. Earlier in the para it says “joint operations” and UNODC does not engage in such, while INTERPOL does.
Chair: We have exhausted the time allocated to this resolution, we have one last statement.
Canada: It is imperative to retain reference to precursors.
Mexico: We are talking about support, not wide engagement of UNODC, so we insist.
Finland: This para is very extensive, and we feel UNODC is very relevant. We are happy to continue to discuss this in informals.
Chair: Okay, we will proceed after a technical break
L4. Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development
PP5
Argentina: We can go along with this if we delete SDGs
Egypt: Where there is a difference between the text we consider and rev1, I would appreciate clarifications.
MS: If SDGs are deleted, we can accept.
Germany: In response to Egypt, this para is retained as originally proposed by co-sponsors, we support the retention.
Netherlands: We know the SDGs are there, we are only recalling them, we do not agree to the deletion.
Chair: Any other views?
USA: We are not in a position to remove the objection to the term.
Chair: Am I correct that those who advocated to retain it still insist?
Peru: After listening to the US, maybe we can make an effort to clean the text on the second part of para. We discussed in informals the insertion of “forward leaning and all-encompassing” and … which was the request made by the US.
Germany: In the spirit of moving forward, and transparency, we listened to the concerns of one delegation and took on one of the proposals which is now in the second part. We would like to retain “comprehensive”. And hope “forward-leaning and comprehensive” can be acceptable.
Chair: Can I ask about the US views?
USA: For the sake of flexibility, we would be able to accept Germany’s proposal.
Chair: If there are no objections, we can clear that part of the text. The US has an objection on “sustainable”. Can I ask the US if there is any other word they can suggest to replace “sustainable” as a way of finding a compromise?
USA: Perhaps we could say “progressive”.
Germany: Alternative development programs have a long history, and in the past they were not implemented long term and in a sustainable way. E.g. programs that only focused on crop substitution, and these did not have the desired results. We suggest replacing “forward-leaning” with the word “progressive” to reach a compromise,
Chair: We already cleaned up that part and there were no reservations.
UK: We are trying to have a long term impact here. We could say “impactful and effective”…”that have a long-term impact”.
Netherlands: The problem with progressive as a substitution for sustainable might limit the strategies you can apply. There are strategies that have been around for decades but have proven effective.
Thailand: Along the same line, I believe the word sustainable is very very crucial. If we look at long-term reduction, it is always the people at the center, and we can’t just look at hectares. Sustainable reflects that we also want to address people’s livelihoods.
Russia: Echo Thailand. It is agreed language used since 2009 and exactly the language we use in the context of AD programs. Crop control strategies should be sustainable, the idea is it is long-term with sustainable funding – if you break it after 2 years, it doesn’t work. It is agreed language of Thematic Chapter 7 of UNGASS Outcome Document.
Colombia: There is no more room to expand arguments. Add our support to retain.
Switzerland: Please add after Colombia.
Chair: May I ask sponsors to work on the wording presented by the UK? Can we build on that? I do understand the strong feelings to retain.
Peru: This is an editorial issue, but the sponsors presented a rev1 yesterday afternoon and received this morning. One of the issues was on “progressive” in the last part. We suggest “progressive” and.. I am getting out of ideas, Chair, considering that “sustainable” is the cornerstone of our work and has been used many times in many contexts. It is vital. I understand the US cannot go along with this but I kindly request they bring us proposals. Because this is becoming a circular discussion, I ask for alternatives to move forward.
US: This is certainly something we could work on.
Chair: There were some suggestions from the UK. Can we agree on those? (HIGHLIGHTED PARTS)
Egypt: If that will bring us to consensus, we will support the UK proposal.
Chair: Can we accept the highlighted text instead of “sustainable”?
Thailand: I made the position of Thailand very very clear, but in the spirit of compromise we are willing to go along with this.
Peru: As a matter of compromise and to see flexibility in other paras, we can go along with the UK proposal.
Germany: In line with Egypt, Thailand and Peru, we would be able to go along with the UK proposal.
– Water spills all over Chair and documents —
Chair: Sorry. I was excited we are coming to a compromise. Thank you for your flexibility.
Peru: I’m not going to be a troublemaker. If the preference is “forward-leaning”, we can go along with that, just please tell the editors.
Chair: With these edits, can we agree? It is so decided. PP5 agreed in CoW.
PP7
Peru: This para refers to the World Drug Report 2022, 2023, and 2024 highlighting linkages between drugs and environment. Our initial proposal referred to 2023 special chapter on the Amazon basin and the 2024 special chapter on the golden triangle. However, we received comments that preference would be to have no mention of regions. We tried to exercise a general para but keep underlining linkages. We received an interesting proposal from Italy to mention the special chapters without mentioning regions. Then, Colombia proposed to add drug-related policy responses. Some delegations were not in favor of that. Some preferred to finish after drug economies, without mentioning the nexus. Two alternate paras from Russia and the US. Our preference is the first one by the Chair.
Chair: Open floor on Chair’s proposal.
Brazil: Regarding Italy’s amendment, request for clarification. It mentions the special chapters of the World Drug Report in 2023 and 2024. We are limiting what we are considering with grave concern. We are missing something by putting only the special chapters.
Italy: We suggested this wording to give the reader a more direct reference on what we are talking about. The 2022 report addressed the issue of environmental impact. 2023 and 2024 reports have special chapters for this topic, so it is worth mentioning. I think it’s worth giving that special address to the reader. Not that we are not concerned with the full findings of the 2023 and 2024 reports, but these are not the issues we are dealing with here.
Venezuela: Thank you Italy and Others. We want to clarify our position, .. We are reacting to an original text that was put forward at the beginning of the session. We are reaching the end of this CND. We are advancing positively towards a resolution dealing positively with the responses of states to crimes that affect the environment. We do not consider that any of these paragraphs belong in this resolution. There is another resolution right now specifically about the crimes that affect the environment. We are very concerned about the findings, very in favor of such a resolution, we are not in favor of having a specific reference here. In that sense, we call for the deletion of PP7 chair’s proposal, alt1, alt2 and call on delegations to engage on the other resolution that is beautifully crafted and almost reaching consensus.
Peru: Just to give feedback why we have this. This is not new wording and even within this resolution, in 2022 there was specific language we are using on AD. This is a tool and has an impact on the environment. This particular para has been present in many resolutions before too, just so other delegations are aware.
OP8
Chair: So let us discuss the alternative proposed by USA and also let us see the original one. If the US continues to sustain its reservation, I can ask delegates to consider the alternative.
Venezuela: I did not have the opportunity to the Peruvian proposal and actually we can continue working on this proposal. We can remove our reservation, after listening to the Peruvian explanation.
Russia: I would also like to comment on OP7. We proposed an alternative and this has been agreed in informals, we believe this to be a good basis for our discussions here. We encourage colleagues to consider this carefully as we think this could be useful for other resolutions as it gives a more comprehensive language regarding the World Drug Report and other research and relevant documentation of the UNODC.
Chair: So we are talking about PP7alt. It is marked as supported by Venezuela, but I heard something different from the Ambassador, can you clarify?
Venezuela: We support and can work on the proposal by the Russian Federation and the chair of the group.
Chair: Sponsors?
Peru: I cannot talk for all sponsors but my delegation can go along with the Russian proposal, but there is an editorial issue – effect vs affect.
Germany: In the spirit of collaboration we are open to working on the Russian proposal, but we would like to add “and drug policy responses” after “illicit drug-related activities”
Colombia: Considering the position of the sponsors, we are also agreeable.
Egypt: From our point of view, the language agreed in informals for L7 would also be fit for our purposes here.
Venezuela: We talked a lot about mentioning the WDR. We have not been able to find any reference in WDR to drug related policies as it pertains to the effects on the environment, so we are looking for clarity as to where this is coming from? So we reserve on “including AD”. And we object tp “policy responses”
China: same as Venezuela
Peru: In booklet 5 of WDR 2022, the whole report is built on the impact on the environment as it comes from policy responses. The whole document approaches measures as responses to the World Drug Problem. We also take into account our national experiences so we would like to reflect the reality, so we want to put forward evidence-based claims.
Germany: I would like to give some explanation to the inclusion “policy responses” and quote the WDR itself “providing comprehensive overview (…) of the effects (…) as well as drug-policy responses on the environment”. We want to reflect that we can unintentionally harm the environment.
Chair: Is this new inclusion, in the spirit of compromise, acceptable to delegations?
Thailand: We thank Russia for the proposal, we can go along with that. Same for the German proposal.
MS (Belgium or Netherlands?): This is building upon agreed language, so it makes a lot of sense to retain it here.
Venezuela: I have two legal points. WDR is not a consensual state produced document, it is a report. Booklet 5 cannot be a basis for legal activities – actions that are legally based cannot be in the same legal footing as illicit activities.
Iran: Can we ask that we refer to the latest research, so 2024 rather than 2022? What is the reason we are referring to a specific year. This report is not a negotiated text, so it should not be recalled or recognized as it doesn’t reflect the MS views.
Germany: add “as well as” before “drug related policy responses”
Chair: Can sponsors consider keeping the last version? Can we accept the change proposed by Germany? I see objection from Venezuela, so I ask Peru to further consider this para in informals.
Peru: Okay. In OP4, we almost reached agreement, pending Venezuela´s position.
Venezuela: We keep our pending comment, we need more time.
Chair: Can we put a note that we agreed in CoW pending that reservation. For the consideration of operation paragraphs, we will return at 3pm.
Peru: Update. We will not have the informal scheduled for 2pm today.