L.6. Strengthening the global drug control framework: a path to effective implementation
PP4
Egypt: We would like to add principled – role as the policymaking body.
USA: Support.
Saudi Arabia: Support.
USA: Would like to add “note” instead of “reaffirm”.
Netherlands: We would like to retain reaffirm as has been agreed language.
France: Would also like to retain reaffirm.
Egypt: Strongly call for reaffirm. Paragraph 8 also starts on that so would be strange
Belgium: Also.
Germany: Also.
Venezuela: We should mention the Commission if it isn’t mentioned earlier.
Chair: It starts with that.
Iran: Would like to keep “reaffirming”, support adding “principled”.
Saudi Arabia: Support retaining reaffirming.
Switzerland: Also
China: Also supporting “reaffirming” and “principled”
Chair: USA would it be possible for you to keep it?
USA: We appreciate the concerns but have to confirm with capital before we can compromise.
Chair: Move to PP5
PP5
Venezuela: Would like to suggest agreed language from high-level declaration as PP5 Alt.: “We recognize the world drug problem continues to pose challenges to the health, safety, security and wellbeing of all humanity”.
USA: Thank you for that interesting proposal. Not in a position to accept. All humanity is a bit broad. Delete reference to findings of World Drug Report. Say noting with grave concern.
Netherlands: Concerned we would lose the scientific basis of the world drug report.
Italy: Retain mention of the report. Not only because it1s the most important publication, but gives the reader some concrete reference on data and results of research that can be useful to understand why the OP exists.
Egypt: Fine with it.
Italy:
Colombia: We might be flexible on the US proposal, but ask to withdraw our name from that proposal for now.
Spain: Would also like to retain reference to WDR
Canada: We could look at a reformulation of the US proposal where the World Drug Report reference comes at the end to give greater prominence to the issues. Happy to work with the US on it.
Switzerland: RETAIN. Remain flexible on Canada’s proposal.
Germany: Preference to retain original paragraph.
PP6
Russia: Would like to keep “Recognizing” as this was used in high-level declaration
Saudi Arabia: Also.
Chair: Can the paragraph be accepted? I don’t see any reservations. Can we agree?
Argentina: If this is agreed in CoW, Argentina has a reservation
Chair: Let’s say it’s agreed by CoW with reservation from Argentina.
USA: Please add, we also reserve on the entire text.
Chair: Indeed, the reservation of the USA has been noted.
PP7
Chair: Para agreed with reservations from United States and Argentina.
Egypt: Can we add “further” after Recognising?
Chair: Yes I see agreement from the organiser
PP8
Venezuela:The characterisation of reshaping markets is lacking context. We would use the original text established in the World Drug Report. We would suggest going to the original paragraph 8 of the report to understand the specific conext of drug markets.
Chair: I suggest that Venezuela presents this in writing to the sponsors.
PP9
Egypt: We propose at the end adding ´criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking’.
Sudan: We support.
Venezuela: We support.
Chair: Paragraph will be discussed in further informals.
PP10
Italy: shift the language on societies that have disproportionately suffered
Russia: Remove disproportionately because it is hard to measure proportions. We should talk about all societies. We would like to add references to cultivation and manufacturer. And a reference to fighting against criminal groups involved in ilicit drug-related activities.
France: We support the language from Italy.
Egypt: Support Russian changes.
Sudan: Support Egypt changes.
PP11
Chair: Agree in COW with reservations by United States and Argentina.
Venezuela: We don’t understand machinery in this context.
Colombia: This is verbatim from res 9.1 establishing the Commission.
Venezuela: This is a resolution about reforming the system. Machinery could be applied to anything we have. This is a way too large mandate for us to be able to approve.
Mexico: ….
[…]: This cites the general mandate of the CND as given at the time. The mandate of the panel will be in the OPs.
Venezuela: The mandate will be established in the overall resolution. Preamble is integral for the creation of this panel. In a more legalistic approach, the title refers to the framework, not machinery.
France: We are comfortable with machinery. It is the mandate of the CND.
Netherlands: Agree with France.
Chair: Suggest to continue in informals.
PP12
Chair: Agree in COW with reservations by United States and Argentina.
PP13
Egypt: Would like to seek clarification. Paragraph 27 of the HLD that this is based on, what are the amendments that have been made to it?
Colombia: We aim to modify the verbs to fit the preambular style.
China: Add “and applicable domestic laws”, as it’s not just international laws that matter. Maybe change “propel” to “promote”.
EU: We just listened to Colombia say the only change is purely grammatical. If we open this now, that would be a quite substantial addition opening a can of worms. We’d rather not have that discussion here and prefer to retain the paragraph as is.
Switzerland: Remember lengthy discussion on this para. Prefer to stick to agreed language.
China: If we check the previous language in the HLD, we notice that propel was actually promote. Domestic law wording is indeed not there, but it would be great if we could add it to make the text more balanced. But we are flexible on that.
Chair: Maybe you can sort it out bilaterally in informals.
PP14
Algeria: Objection on the conditionality of technical assistance because that is not aligned with international law ‘ so removing the language “taking into account international human rights obligations.
Pakistan: Agree
Saudi: Agree, we don’t agree with the element of conditionality that we see here.
United States: After technical assistance we would remove ‘capacity building’, we believe technical assistance is sufficient to include ‘capacity building’. We also have a concern with the line ‘in accordance with the 2014 Joint Ministerial declaration”. The language “in accordance with” is normally reserved to international agreements. So we would remove everything after human rights obligations.
Iran: Retain capacity building and add ´transfer of technology and equipment, material support. Support the removal of human rights obligations.
France: We would like to retain ´taking into account international human rights obligations´.
Spain: We agree this is the right place to mention it.
Canada: We agree and support this. We are flexible about capacity building.
Brazil: We would like to retain capacity building. This notion is aimed at enhancing long-term abilities.
Switzerland: We support keeping the reference to human rights obligations.
Austria: Us too.
Netherlands: us too
Italy: added. It was not the intention of the proponents to link the respect for human rights to the provision of technical assistance.
Czech Republic: We also support
EU: I heard what Italy said. But I want to be clear that the EU being one of the largest providers of technical assistance. We can’t provide any assistance that is no tin line with human rights.
Venezuela: We agree with retaining capacity building. We would like to include the word ‘ápplicable international human rights obligations’.
Russia: We would like to propose an alternative paragraph based in para. 38 the 2024 HLD document. ´Reiterating its commitment to increasing the provision of technical assistance and capacity building to member states, upon request,in particular those most affected by the world drug problem, including by illicit cultivation and production, transit and consumption.
Sudan: I was going to propose para. 37 of the HLD, but I can also support this.
Australia: We would like to support PP14 as originally submitted. The proposal of the Russian delegation looses key elements.
Portugal: We also support the text originally submitted.
UK: We also support the original.
South Africa: We would like to support capacity building. We would also like to retain language on international human rights obligations
Cuba: supporting the deletion of human rights obligations. We want clarification from sponsors that there is no intent to condition technical assistance to human rights.
Canada: We object to the caveat on “applicable” proposed by Venezuela. We also like the original paragraph better.
New Zealand: We support PP14 as originally drafted.
Pakistan: We support keeping capacity building. We also support the proposal made by the Russian delegation.
Egypt: We support the retention of capacity building. We support the algerian proposal to delete the international human rights obligations. We support the US proposal to end the paragraph before ‘in accordance with the 2015 JMD. We also support the
Denmark: We strongly support the original proposal.
South Africa: Russian proposal should be bis
Czechia: We do not like the Russian proposal,
Japan: Retention of term capacity building. With regards to reference to 2014 JMD; we support removing it.
Netherlands: We support initial PP14.
China: We support text proposed by Rusia.
PP15
USA: We would like to see the list of stakeholders deleted, it doesnt need to be there.
Netherlands: PP15 is a para with agreed language from HLD. Important to have list in there, shouldnt be too difficult.
Portugal: I would like to add to Netherlands, this is important to the text.
Switzerland: Same
Finland: Same
Sudan: We understand it has been inspired by Para 11 of HLD of 2014. One thing missing is “our joint commitments”, we would like to have it as in the HLD.
EU: Retain stakeholders.
Austria: Agreed
Czechia: Also retain. Important to include civil society, sometimes they’re not remembered enough
Spain: This is very editorial. Whatever editors suggest we’d fo with it.
Canada: Also retain.
France: Also.
Japan: Also.
Australia: also, Would prefer para as drafted originally.
Greece: Same.
Germany: Same
New Zealand: same
Chile: same
PP16
Chair: Don’t see any comments. Can we say that it is agreed with reservations from Argentina and the United States? I don’t see any objections. It is so decided. Based on the sponsor’s suggestions, I suggest to stop deliberations on L6. We will come back on operational part.
L.4. Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development
Thailand: We could agree on OP. Will have informals so hopefully can return tomorrow. … Maybe we could consider OP4? Maybe it can be adopted in CoW?
Chair: Been informed agreement has been achieved in informals. I see no objections. OP4 agreed in CoW.
Thailand: Thank you Chair. We don’t wish to consider further. We will return from informals tomorrow.
Chair: Thank you. Now let’s wait for Poland to bring their representative to discuss L5.
L5 Safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic opioid laboratories
Chair: L5 is currently in informals and delegations are refusing to move here. So we apologize for keeping you here and will adjourn and continue tomorrow.