L3. Promoting research on evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders E/CN.7/2025/L.3
(…)
Chair: There are several paragraphs in this document that have been agreed during informals, so we will go through those first.
PP1
Agreed in CoW.
PP4
Agreed in CoW.
PP5
Agreed in CoW
PP8
Agreed in CoW
PP10
Agreed in CoW
OP5
Agreed in CoW
OP1
Chair: I open the floor for comments and suggestions. So there are some suggestions here in the text – I would like to ask the USA delegation if they can reconsider their position?
USA: We understand the intent behind the language, but we believe that the best way to achieve that is keeping the text calling men and women as is. We would like to retain our reservation.
Finland: We would like to add ourselves to those who would like to retain this.
Chair: Okay so this remains open.
OP2
Norway: Our version is supported by a large number of MS as opposed to the suggestion by USA so I am not sure we can resolve this yet. The sponsors would like to retain “drug use disorders” instead of “drug addiction”.
USA: We understand that the difference in text runs through the text. After conversations here in the room and with our capital, we retain our suggestion.
Chair: Indeed I see this formulation is used i other paragraphs and the USA has noted reservations in other parts. Do you have other suggestions or only “drug addiction” is sufficient to you?
USA: This appeared in the convention as is. We also use various use disorders, so we understand the suggestions and are aware of the different angles, but we are not able to change our position.
Chair: OP4 and 7 and 8 also have this reference, so let us take a loook.
Norway: I just wanted to check – I did this also earlier, as we are getting towards the end of the week. So in the paragraph, I would like to know if this is the only outstanding issue? Can we agree the paragraphs´ text pending this wording?
Chair: So do we have other issues that can be discussed too?
OP3
Chair: We have a deletion request from the USA for “capacity building”?
USA: Yes, at this time we retain our position
Chair: We also have a suggestion to add the following words “ tailored to their needs and to significantly reduce any challenges those people may encounter and end here”
UK: I wonder if we can try a different word, “technical assistance and training”. I think we are i this room to find consensus… at least we usually are… so I am here to offer alternative avenues to our colleagues to progress today.
USA: Yes, thank you. This gives us enough specificity and we can be agreeable to this wording.
Netherlands: Given that we have “technical assistance and capacity building” in OP4, I wonder if we can live with this there?
Norway: Is “technical assistance” cover what we mean? Health workers and social workers and relevant professionals need training and sensitization and other related development opportunities.
Norway: I thank the colleague from UK as I am not an expert… in this context, technical assistance’s scope… I am not sure. We don’t have a problem with the new wording but I really don’t know. Is this a question of finding different words for a phenomenon, for building capacity? Is it an unacceptable term? There is a long list of MS who would like to retain this term.
Mexico: Let me put this on the table: if we try “to support the creation of capacities”, then we avoid mentioning some of the things that delegations have objections.
USA: We support the UK´s edit and will continue to work on a solution.
Canada: We would like our support for the deletition of “addiction” to be reflected in the document.
France: Would “capacity development” be considerable by the US delegation?
USA: We are actively looking into this and are brainstorming a solution. At this moment, we don’t have an alternative proposal, but we will have soon.
(…)
USA: We can’t accept a reference to the WHO, but at your convenience, we might have a solution for OP4 and 3 so we are ready to engage. Our concern is that it means more of something but doesn’t specify what exactly, so we are trying to avoid that. Along the lines of “strengthening capabilities” might be better for us, as it is more in the spirit of this para.
Chair: So, on top of what UK suggested, do we delete everything except for “strengthening capabilities”?
USA: Maybe it will read better if it “encourages MS to provide technical assistance and strengthen capabilities of professionals”.
Chair: Any other suggestions? Can sponsors agree?
Norway: We still have outstanding issues i this para but if this works for the USA, we can carry on…
Japan: Would “strengthen capabilities and provide training” satisfy MS?
UK: I would suggest “including through training”
Chair: If the sponsors are in agreement, we can clean the text? I see no objections. In that case, can we do the same in OP4 for “strengthening capabilities”? Are there any creative ideas about the last parts of this paragraph about “disorders”? Can it be acceptable for all interested delegations?
Armenia: We do not have a strong position disorder vs addiction, but I would like to suggest a possible way out, to approach the issue from the perspective of science. If we speak about a disorder, it is a treatable mental disorder that affects the persons behavior and physical properties, etc. When we talk a bout addiction, that is a symptom – it can go from moderate to severe. If we approach from this perspective and we add “use disorder and addiction” we can maybe find middle ground.
Norway: Thank you for this input. There is some merit in this. It is a major concern for us and it is an issue throughout the entire resolution and it may or may not be appropriate in some/all places. Nevertheless, as it stands now, “stimulant use disorder and addiction” would be inaccurate. I am not a medical doctor, so excuse me, but this is still the view of the sponsors to use the term “disorder”.
Mexico: Thank you for the proposal to find a solution. We have taken careful notes of what delegations have mentioned. We do see Armenia’s point. As a commission, a huge part of our work pertains to the use of illicit drugs (…)
France: From our side, we support “disorders” and believe is enough and comprehensive.
Chair: Taking note of what the sponsors have suggested, I see two versions there – “including/and addiction” after stimulant use disorders. Can that be agreed?
USA: Thank you for trying to be constructive with us. At this point we don’t have guidance, we need to send it back to capital.
France: Something that was previously considered was “use disorders”. If the concern is differentiating, if addiction is the extreme phase of disorders, maybe we could clarify the difference in a separate paragraph, and we could use “disorder” throughout resolution. A paragraph like “Recalling that addiction is an extreme phase of bla bla bla..”
Chair: I suggest this discussion takes place in informals. The last paragraph we have not considered is PP2. Indeed, we haven’t considered OP10. Floor is open. USA has an objection to this whole paragraph. Do you still sustain it?
USA: Yes, the US proposed a new formulation and updated language that reflected the times of our more resource constrained environment. Indonesia and Norway helped with edits to our proposed para and we didnt have flexibility at that time to say if the edits worked for us, so at this time we have to hold our reservation on this para as we await further guidance.
Chair: This needs further time in informals, so I refer it back. With that, we go back to PP2. US suggested “in accordance with… the
USA: We made this edit in informals and it was very important for our delegation. Articles 22 and 25 are great, we inserted that language because the right to social security requires resources. Art 3 right and freedom comes with responsibility, they are two sides of the same coin. Our initial edit was simply Article 29 that everyone has duties – question whether that captured the essence of Article 29. Thailand suggested we finish the line and include the entirety from 29, which we thought was good.
Chair: Can we take those one by one? First one, after social security, add “in accordance with the organization and resources of each state.” Any comments? Can sponsors agree with this inclusion?
Mexico: We will not stand in the way of reaching an agreement, but the reality is we are affirming an article, we are not speaking about full implementation. We are aware that the implementation will always depend on resources and capacity to do so. We understand the limitations of the US, but in our view this would be pertinent when we are addressing implementation, not affirming. Won’t stand in the way if it works for sponsors.
Norway: We are now discussing only the first? Okay. From our point and finding consensus among everyone, we know there was significant support in informals for the original wording. We have nothing in principle against this wording, but wondering if there is other agreed language that we can find that captures the same.
France: I looked through Article 22 again. If i’m not mistaken, in the original paragraph is the realization of this right that is in accordance with resources, not the existence of the right itself, as is now written with this proposal. So we would add “is entitled to its realization”.
Chair: Clearly this needs to be discussed further in informals. So will close consideration of this for now and move to L2.
L2. Promoting comprehensive, scientific evidence-based and multisectoral national systems of drug use prevention for children
Chair: Several paragraphs have been agreed in informals, we will consider them first. Opening with the title. I see it is agreed in informals. Any objections? I see none. Agreed on CoW. PP1: I see it is also agreed in informals. Can we agree? I see no objections. It is so decided. Let us move to PP4, marked agreed in informals. Can we agree? I see none. Mark as agreed in CoW. PP4 bis, can we take this can be agreed? Seeing no requests for floor. Also agreed in CoW. PP4 ter? I see no objections. It is so decided, agreed in CoW. PP5 – are there any views? It is so decided. PP5 bis? This is also agreed in CoW. PP9? No objections, it is so decided. PP10? Can we agree in CoW? It is so decided. OP1? No objections, it is so decided. OP2? Agreed in CoW. OP2 bis? No objections, agreed in CoW. OP2 ter? No objections, it is so decided. OP3? No objections, it is so decided. OP4? No objections, agreed. OP4 bis? Agreed in CoW. OP5? I don’t see any objections, it is so decided. OP6? Agreed in CoW. OP8? I don’t see any objections, it is so decided. That brings us to the end of all those marked as agreed in informals.
OP7
Chair: Moving to paras with no agreement. I suggest OP7, during the consideration of L3 we found a formula that could be helpful for this paragraph. That formula suggests to add “strengthening capabilities instead of technical assistance and capacity-building. “ Any comments?
USA: The issue here is not exactly the same as the context of L3. Here we are talking about what we are asking UNODC to do, and technical assistance is part of what they bring to the table in addition to normative guidance. Prefer to keep it in, ideally right after normative guidance, and add “measure to strengthen capabilities”, “strengthening capabilities” doesnt seem to make sense in this context.
Chair: Any other views? Can this suggestion be acceptable to sponsors? I see Iran have made comments in the document, but I do not see Ian in the room. I see no objections. It is so decided.
PP2
Chair: Any constructive or creative ideas how we should address this para? It is not clear from the version on the screen who made which suggestions – maybe delegations can identify themselves?
USA: We would go back to our original proposal human rights obligations “AND NOTING” as we never affirmed them, so reaffirming would be weird.
Russia: It is strange to reaffirm a declaration while simply noting the legal obligations. Now it seems that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds higher value than the convention on the rights of the child. It is clear that all these articles should be implemented by those MS who are parties to that convention. As a way out, we could use only one word “noting” to both documents.
Mexico: As mentioned, I dont know if there are different options or is it just an identity crisis? Can we “recall” the documents? This would make it a factual thing.
USA: We appreciate the suggestion from the Russian delegation but as we look at the para, it is mostly about articles that are reflected on the convention on the rights of the child, so we were wondering if we could have a perambulate paragraph that takes note of articles that apply to parties? So we distinguish between the two – as some take issue with “noting”, we could come up with a different, stronger verb, but we are focusing on particular articles.
Russia: We are not against splitting the paragraph, but our issue i the first pace stays. We believe a way out could be the suggestion by the colleague from Mexico – we can simply “recall” such and such things mentioned in particular articles, so that we are not imposing anything, we just recall what has been said. “Noting” will not go for my delegation. First we would reaffirm the declaration and then in the other pp, we can recall what is stated in the convention of the child in a factual way.
Chair: So in PP2bis we are “recalling that…”. Is this acceptable for the sponsor? I see nodding.
USA: There is some wordsmithing that needs to happen in the middle of the para so it all reads a bit more thoughtfully. “Recalling that in the CRC resolution 44/25 in article 4” and then we remove the “in which” but leave the article identification.
Italy: We can go along with these proposals, but still, we have issues with the wording of the whole.
Chair: We are amending on the screen – can we agree to this in CoW? I see no objections. PP2 agreed in CoW.
PP3
Chile (explaining suggestions in blue): The problem is very clearly in the wording, I think this paragraph might need work. We will try to listen to other delegations and are conscious we need to work on this one.
Chair: Can we do “those in the..”?
USA: From our perspective, we have problems with this para. Simply agreeing to the words highlighted is not going to resolve our concerns. What this says is way beyond the capacities of any of us. We would delete it.
Chair: Is there an agreement on deleting this paragraph?
Netherlands: We would object to deleting this.
Italy: Agreed with Netherlands. This is an alternative version of a much longer paragraph. We came to this one to accommodate one delegation. We can go back to the more descriptive one.
Australia: Also like to retain.
Malta: Agreed.
Belgium: Agreed
Canada: Agreed.
Switzerland: Agreed.
Norway: Agreed. Also supporting Italy’s statement, willing to look at original longer text.
Germany: Agree to retain.
Greece: Same here.
Argentina: We can support the original proposal without the changes in blue. If those remain, we support US proposal to delete.
Austria: We prefer to retain.
Sweden: Also.
Bulgaria: Also.
Slovenia: Also.
Czech: Also.
France: Also
Poland: Also.
Finland: Also.
Lithuania: Also.
Denmark: Also.
USA: US does not support the 2030 agenda for sustainable development nor any reference. We think it is time to start talking about real development, so sustainable doesn’t cover the movement we would like to see. This will remain an inflexible position for us.
PP6alt
Chile: We proposed this alternative because there were some concerns, so this language is in line with the concerns, we think this is clearer that we are referring to prevention approaches, it is a very technical PP.
Chair: Can we agree? It is so decided. PP6 alt agreed in CoW. We can remove original PP.
PP7
Canada: We discussed in informals, for Canada we see relevance and attach importance to reflecting and ensuring our approaches are gender and age sensitive, responsive, specific… but given the position of others, we indicated we could show flexibility given the retention in the OP where we have retained these references. If those remain,as has now been agreed in CoW, Canada will be flexible to remove the proposed text referring to this.
USA: We have some difficulties with the list provided, and rather than trying to expunge some, we would propose ending this para after health and deleting everything that follows.
Chair: Is this acceptable to others?
Chile: We would prefer to discuss further. Civil society, academia etc are in the OPs, but it is important for the resolution to talk about individuals, families etc, particularly in this PP. We don’t agree to stop the para after health.
Chair: Thank you, fair enough. Encourage you to continue discussions.
USA: In light of Chilean proponent’s suggestion, we would amend our last suggestion to add the para after individuals.
Chair: Is this acceptable?
Chile: We would prefer not to move too quickly now, this was already a proposal from a proposal.
PP8
Chair: I see there is a proposal on the screen. It is not clear who it is coming from but the point is to remove text referencing the SDGs. Can we agree to this?
Netherlands: In the informals, we were discussing this and the thought process was that, having heard the USA’s objections, we feel that we should discuss those paras jointly in informals. We couldn’t agree to the previous PP so we don’t feel comfortable bringing this one up now.
USA: We suggest a revision to the highlighted line and add “international efforts” and also instead of “multi-sectoral” we would prefer “cross-sectoral”.
Chile: We agree.
Chair: Can I also hear views on the USA`s recent suggestion?
USA: As this is a discussion on SDGs, we still prefer to include those.
Chair: This brings us to the end of the consideration of this resolution. We will continue to discuss this at the next opportunity, and let`s set up for L7.
L7. Tackling the impacts of drugs on the environment
Chair: Let us go through the paragraphs that have been agreed during informals and see if we can agree on them in CoW.
OP1
Agreed in CoW.
OP3
Agreed in CoW.
OP11
Agreed in CoW.
OP12
Agreed in CoW.
OP6
USA: We just discussed this, and we have just informed colleagues that we are not able to accept his para.
Chair: Can you maybe explain your point of view?
USA: We have issue with a few parts – 5th line “environmentally responsible” is a nebulous term so we are talking about adjusting that entire clause and then starting with “bering in mind…” we are not willing to reference that strategy (UNODC Synthetic Drug Strategy 2021-2015).
Chair: Thank you. Now I suggest we start discussing OP2.
OP2
Russia: We have suggested some text that is now in a preamb. We are in your hands, mr.
Chair but we just want to flag we had a suggestion for OP1is.
Chair: I understand this was just made, so we didn’t have time to integrate this. We will come back to this.
Russia: We are of course comfortable with how the discussion goes, but it is not a recent suggestion.
PP5
Chile: It is agreed language and is not precisely in the resolution, we have no problem with this as is.
Chair. Can Russia consider this as a preamb?
Russia: We would like to see this in the operative part. We respect the sponsors´view on the environment, but the commission should not forget that we shouldn’t have an action oriented para without the root cause, illicit drugs, without the MS resolve to their commitments. This deserves to be in an OP.
Chair: Okay so we will continue on this issue in an informal setting.
OP2
USA: Our reservation in the firs part, we would like to lift that. For the second one, we reviewed it in the context of our domestic law, and the only thing we would maintain is the deletion of “biodiversity”. The scope of this resolution has been debated extensively. We believe in compromise.
Netherlands: We appreciate the USA´s flexibility so we are willing to go along with this proposal.
Germany: In the spirit of compromise and is expressed by cosponsors, we can go along with this suggestion as well and we regret biodiversity is no longer reflected in the text.
Chair: Can we agree on this para as a whole?
France: Just to say we are aligned with Germany. Biodiversity was a very important issue for my delegation but in the spirit of compromise, we are willing to go along with the suggestion.
Chair: So we agree? It is so decided.
Chair: The suggestion of Russia and Brazil helped us to move forward. Are there any more views on this part?
USA: Thank you for the creative solutions, however they do not address our concerts in a wa that allow us to change our position about the paragraph.
Chair: I open the floor for further comments.
Brazil: Different options are presented here. Our suggestion is <ADD PHOTO>
USA: When we are talking about natural resources, we have to further study the issue, so we retain our objection here.
France: We can remove our reservations and go ahead with the compromising language made by Brazil, but we would like to keep the end part of the para.
UK: We appreciate the dexterity and compromise. We would like to definitively reflect the existence of the tools, whether MS use them or not is not
Netherlands: Yes, add us after Canada.
Morocco: You can add us after NLD.
Italy: We support the highlighted part as suggested by Brazil.
Chair: I see a lot of support, so maybe we clean the middle part of the text.
France: Thank you everyone, I think we are close to achieving consensus. What about replacing “resources” with “tools” to accommodate the concerns of certain delegations. “As applicable” is fine, but maybe not necessary here.
Morocco: You can remove our deletion suggestion.
USA: Tools require financial resources and our foreign aid policies are being reviewed, so we are not in a position to agree to this. We would certainly not be able to call out specific platforms that are under review of US support. We do recognize “tools” as a replacement gets us closer and we have heard helpful suggestions, but we are not there yet. Maybe we can remove “clandestine laboratory program” so to get closer.
Brazil: Add us to retaining the language.
Finland: If we dont give money to this purpose, that is okay, but this is how we work here, we decide nationally where we give money. We have no issue with this wording, it just empowers MS to consider giving resources.
Chair: I see this paragraphs needs further consultations.
Iran: The number of requests for retaining and deleting this para are both numerous. I was wondering where are we leaning? If we keep it, we are ready to work on the language and come back to you.
Chair: My understanding is that we are working on the wording, yes.
Australia: We have made a lot of compromise here, and we showed our support for the retention of this language here. We know indigenous people are highly affected, we cannot support the caveat put forward.
Brazil: I would like to speak to all MS who have been contributing to this para, that we recognize that the lack of understanding of this language (local communities and indigenous people). We do not mention indigenous people here, so it makes no sense for us here to not find understanding on this. The main interpretations behind the language is a big barrier. My suggestion is that we benefit from the benefits we could have if we could just allow ourselves for each delegation to read what they want behind these words. My request for everyone is to just read the words. Thank you.
Canada: As colleagues also noted, we spent a lot of time in the pst days and nights to look very carefully at this language, making considerable compromises. The importance of seeing indigenous people reflected on this resolution is very important to some of us. We have seen this in OP8. It was not where we wanted it to get to, but we appreciate the reference. We cannot accept the caveats introduced today, so please move CAN to the in-support-of-retention list.
France: As a facilitator of these informal consultations, we have made a long way. Add us after Canada, please. Can we ask all Ms to look at the text and let us know about the problems with accepting it without the caveats.
Armenia: I see there are two caveats. The first one – I do not see a necessity, it is encouragement, not a guide, not a must. Instead, we could add “where appropriate” so to take into account there are countries where there are not local or indigenous communities. I understand the distinction between these communities are very important to some countries, so this is a humble suggestion.
Netherlands: We appreciate the efforts to move to consensus, although it has been stated that for the countries that do not have Indigenous peoples, this would only harm countries that have specific situations in this case. Also please add us after France.
Iran: … We could support this idea, but as mentioned by Armenia, in some parts of the world there are Indigenous people, some parts not, but accepting as appropriate … We would like to keep the first one.
Algeria: It seems there is no agreement, so I would withdraw our proposal not to further complicate the discussion.
Morocco: Thank You Armenia for efforts. We support the original.
Chair: Suggest we stop here for today.