CND Chair. Today is the last day of our deliberations. Before we start, it’s wonderful to see you all here again. We had 4 days of productive, engaging discussions, wide-ranging conversations on a wide range of issues. We heard from CSOs and other stakeholders, and you had productive and meaningful deliberations. I will only make a comment about the way in which we approach today’s discussions. It’s quite in the tradition of the CND that we work on consensus, but we also recognise, and I hope you’ll agree with me, that even though we’re unable to agree, we have ways of moving ahead. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I hope that in our discussions today we will continue with that spirit and try and obtain as close as possible a sense of the membership of the commission. We will now resume consideration of agenda item 10 on the agenda of the 69th Commission. The Vice Chair from Chile chaired the session yesterday. The draft agenda was considered by the Extended Bureau on 21st February and were asked to hold consultations with our membership. I understand that there was no consensus yesterday on the provisional agenda. Since there is no consensus on this, in order to save time today, we will come back to this agenda item later in the day. 

We now turn to agenda item 12: adoption of the report of the Commission on its 68th session. We will now proceed with the adoption of draft resolutions. I thank the Armenian Ambassador for ably chairing the CoW. Ambassador, you have the Floor. 

Armenian Ambassador. The CoW held 8 meetings. We have not been able to find consensus on any of the draft resoliutions L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7. The CoW has made progress and found agreed language on every single resolutions, with many paragraphs agreed in the CoW for all resolutions. I thank delegations for their hard work and extend my gratitude to the secretariat for their able support and kind assistance. I thank the Chair of the CND and Extended Bureau for all their support. 

Chair. I thank the Ambassador and recognise that negotiations held at the CoW gave delegations of a good understanding of the issues at hand. We have concluded considerations of the CoW’s report. Before we proceed with the adoption of resolutions, I request delegations to refrain from taking the floor for editorial or translation issues. MS who want to cosponsor draft resolutions can do this online until MOnday 17th March at the latest. MS can raise their country plate during the adoption of resolution. If you want to cosponsor resolutions, only raise flags when asked to do so. The FInancial Resources and Management Services of UNODC explained that there would only be statements on financial considerations issues if these relate to the regular budget. The Chair of the CoW reported that if there is no agreement in the CoW, we will consider resolutions in order in which they have been tabled.

CND Secretariat. The CND has for its consideration the following draft resolutions: L2.Rev1, L3.Rev1, L4.Rev1, L5.Rev1, L6.Rev1, L7.Rev1. There is an amendment to document L6.Rev1 included in document L9, and amendment to L2 included in document L10. The first proposal is contained in document L2.Rev1: Promoting comprehensive, scientific evidence based and multisectorial national systems of drug use prevention for children and adolescents. It is proposed by Chile, Peru, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Albania [SORRY MISSED A FEW!!]. 

Chair. Can I invite you to adopt the proposal?

USA. My delegation cannot join consensus and we would like to call a vote on L2. 

Chair. The USA has called for a vote on L2.Rev1. We will now proceed with the voting. Statements and explanations of vote will be made after the voting. We will now have the vote. In accordance of the rules of procedure of ECOSOC, no one may interrupt the voting. In accordance with Rule 58, a simple majority of the members present and voting is required. This means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Those abstaining are considered as not voting. 

Those in favour of the proposal: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherland, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, UK, Tanzania, Uruguay, Zimbabwe. 

Those not in favour of the proposal: USA.

Abstensions: Argentina.

We will now tally the votes: 46 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention.

I declare that the Commission has decided to adopt Proposal L2.Rev1. 

Does any member of the Commission wish to make a general statement or explanation of vote?

Chile. I express our sincere gratitude for the adoption of the resolution. We thank the delegations for securing this achievement. Drug use goes beyond public health, it’s a shared responsibility. Comprehensive public health systems taking into account gender realities is an effective response to reduce the risks of drug consumption but also other risk behaviours. We tabled this resolutions because prevention targeted at children and teenagers brings us together. Unfortunately we didn’t get full consensus on all aspects. We appreciate the excellent proposals made and regret they were not all included. We thank your efforts and contributions and hope we can all continue to work together. 

USA. Thank you Mr. Chair. The USA strongly supports efforts to prevent drug use but we decided to call a vote because the resolution is a reaffirmation of the 2030 Agenda and SDGs. These advance a programme of soft global governance that is inconsistent with the sovereignty and rights of Americans. We reject the SDGs and will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. The resolution also does not recognise the reality that there are two sexes: male and female. So we vote no.

Argentina. Thank you. Argentina expresses its full commitment to promoting national systems of comprehensive drug use prevention for children and adolescents. I thank Chile for the resolution> however, the final version contains references to subjects that my country wants to make its position clear. The word ‘gender’ appears in international treaties when it refers to two sexes: masculine and feminine. Gender has no other meaning for our delegation. And the Agenda 2030 includes elements that are not legally binding.

Egypt. We express our pleasure at having our 68th session adopt this resolution. We express our gratitude to Chile for its proposal. We had hoped the proposal would be adopted by consensus in the spirit of Vienna. We voted in favour of this proposal because prevention among children and youth is critical to achieve a society free of drug abuse. Egypt is the first country to implement CHAMPS. We offer full support for the implementation of this resolution, in partnership with UNODC.

Chair: any additional delegation wishes to co-sponsor this resolution?

Secretary: I see Brazil Netherlands Thailand Spain, Belarus, Egypt, Kyrgyzstan, Belgium, Ghana, Guatemala Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Portugal, New Zealand, Thailand, EU on behalf of the members on the Commission, Armenia, China, Colombia, Finland, France, Japan, Russia, Singapore, UK, and Uruguay.

Chair. That concludes discussion on L2 and we now start on L3.

L.3 Promoting research on scientific evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders 

Secretary: L3 resolution is sponsored by Norway, Thailand, Peru and Switzerland. You may need to clarify whether it is L3 Rev 1 that we are considering.

Chair. The representative for Thailand confirms.

USA. My delegation requests a vote on this resolution.

Chair:  We proceed with voting. I request explanations of vote be made after the vote. According to rule 58, a simple majority of those present are required to pass. I ask for those in favor to raise their country sign. 

Secretary. I see: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe.

Those not in favor: US and Argentina

Chair. The vote counts is as follows: 49 in favor, 2 votes against and NIL abstentions. I declare the Commission has decided to adopt the proposal L3 Rev 1. Does anyone wish to make an explanation?

USA. The US supports efforts to promote research on pharmacological treatments for those battling stimulant drugs. WE have concerns with language used throughout the text which fails to acknowledge the reality that there are 2 sexes. We must stop using gender ideology terms. Secondly the SDGs constitute an overreach onto national decision-making. The US rejects and denounces the SDG agenda and the SDG and the US will no longer affirm them as a matter of course. As a result the US votes no.

Argentina. The resolution that was just approved contains references that our delegation wishes to make clear, that “gender” is as included in international treaties. It refers to the masculine and feminine and has no other meaning than that. Argentina’s commitment to women rights is longstanding and goes beyond international standards. However, implementing a sectorised approach goes beyond our constitution. Each state in exercising its sovereignty is free to interpret requirements.

Thailand. I would like to extend my deep appreciation for all CND members who voted in favor of this resolution. The overwhelming number of support sends a strong signal towards enhanced collaboration particularly amongst the scientific, academic and private sector in addressing stimulant use. The resolution calls for more research and capacity building. It is rooted in a people-centred approach, calling for medical treatment and emphasising support for livelihoods helps people to stay off drugs. Stimulants cause negative impacts on youth and tear down the fabric of society. We thank member states for their collaboration during the informal and are grateful for the dialogue on this resolution. This helps us to embark on further research on stimulant use disorders going forward. Thailand extends deepest gratitude to Norway for co-tabling this resolution. It is a reflection of a strong regional initiative with the support of the UNODC. 

Norway: There is an urgent need for research on gender and age sensitive approaches. No medications have been approved for treatment to date. Implementation challenges and stigma. Developing and implementing scalable interventions, which this resolution aims to address. Gratitude to all delegations to adopt this with a large majority in favor and a large number of cosponsors. Thank you to the Ambassador and the Thai delegation for excellent collaboration.

Chair: Any others wish to co-sponsor?

Secretariat. I see: Australia, Colombia, Cote D’ivoire, Japan, Russian Federation, UK, Ghana, Morocco, Brazil, Chile, Morocco, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand, European Union, Niger, China.

Chair: We now move to the next resolution. I invite the Secretariat to introduce L4.

Secretariat: L4 also has Rev 1 version, sponsored by Germany, Peru, Thailand as well as Norway and Switzerland. 

Chair: Can sponsors confirm the version? Peru has confirmed. Can I invite the Commission to adopt the proposal?

USA: Our delegation is not in a position to join consensus, so we would kindly request a vote.

Chair: A vote has been requested on L4 Rev 1. We now proceed with voting.

In Favor: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zimbabwe

Against: Argentina and the United States.

Abstaining: Islamic Republic of Iran.

Chair: Tally is as follows. 48 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention. The Commission has decided to adopt L4 Rev 1. 

Guatemala: Voted in favour complementing guiding principles on alternative development. This resolution aims to further the work of alternative development and we think it is important for our regions. Characteristics, nature and origin of rights of Indigenous peoples should be respected, including recommendations made by Permanent forum, ÍRights Mechanism and Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples. We have reservations about Paragraph 10, the term local communities is arbitrary and referring to Indigenous peoples with a term like local communities cannot be accepted, there is no precedent and undermines the Rights of Indigenous peoples.

Peru: This is an unambiguous commitment to inclusive and sustainable development and combating drug crops. The sponsors believe we have to launch a process to complement the UN guiding principles to more effectively address loss of biodiversity, rights of women and girls and participation of Indigenous people. Under the auspices of UNODC, organizing a special forum and their findings will be presented at CND. We invite stakeholders to participate through their capacity and resources. Acknowledge the work of Germany and Thailand for more than a decade to promote sustainable and effective solutions to AD.

Argentina: The resolution contains references to subjects which Argentina would like to make its position clear on. The word gender as understood in treaties refers to sexes, there is no other meaning than that. States have the right to interpret and pursue them freely. 

USA. We affirm our reservation to the 2030 Agenda. It’s a programme of soft global governance that is in conflict with the US sovereignty and the SUA will no longer reaffirm them. The resolution also fails to reflect the reality that there are only two sexes, male and female. This resolution also reads more like a sustainable development resolution, rather than an AD one.

Iran. We express our concern that the resolution includes elements from the 66th session of the CND. We reaffirm the need to question UCMs. We also are of the view that there are two sexes, male and female. We make progress towards the SDGs, but these are political commitments. 

Germany. In these challenging times, we remain committed to international cooperation, and we remain committed to promoting AD over 4 decades with Thailand and Peru. AD is a firmly established, evidence based approach to global drug policy. It enjoys continued support by member states. The resolutions tabled by Thailand, Peru and Gemray ensure a presence to AD at the CND. The adoption of this resolution is a milestone today and gives us an opportunity to complement the Guiding Principles on AD, bringing new concepts to the Principles. This includes environmental protection and biodiversity protection, food security, gender equality and the protection of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. AD has contributed to the SDGs. We remain strong supporters of the 2030 Agenda to find against poverty. Both at the SDG Summit and Impact for the Future we have reaffirmed this goal and committed to mobilising funds. Germany and partners will continue to support and foster partnerships in this regard. I thank our colleagues from Peru as penholders for this resolution and Thailand for their partnership. Thank you all for your ongoing support for development oriented drug policies.

Thailand. I join Peru and Germany to extend our appreciation for States voting in favour of this resolution. In 2013, Thailand, Peru submitted the Guiding Principles to the CND for adoption. AD remains a successful model. With the continuing partnership with Germany, the partnership remains strong to advocate for AD at the CND. It is timely to complement the Guiding Principles. The de expert group meeting paved the way towards the process of complementing the Guiding Principles. We encourage member states to send their experts to participate in this inclusive process to improve and update the Guiding Principles in a comprehensive manner. We thank Peru for its efforts on this resolution.

Chair. Additional co-sponsors: Colombia, Japan, UK, China, Armenia, Honduras, Ghana, EU on behalf of members of the CND, Brazil, Indonesia. That concludes deliberations on L4. I call on the Secretary to introduce L5.Rev1.

CND Secretariat. There is indeed a version L5.Rev1 sponsored by Poland on behalf of the EU States that are CND members, Albania and Mexico.

Poland. We worked hard on this resolution, including this morning. We managed to achieve consensus on the vast majority of paras. There are still some paras left but we proposed language closest to our deliberations so we kindly ask you to take action on the recent draft that was discussed at the CoW today.

Chair. The newer version of Rev1 is now on the screen. This is the version of L5 dated 10:15 on Friday 14 March. Can I invite delegations to adopt the proposal?

USA. We cannot reach consensus on L5, we request a vote on this resolution.

Chair. A vote has been proposed. We will now proceed with the voting. Any statements can be made after the voting, according to rule 61 and 58. Those in favor from the Commission please raise your country signs.

Secretariat.

Those in favour: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.

Those not in favour: USA.

Those who abstain: Argentina and Indonesia.

Chair. The results of the voting: 48 in favor, one against and two abstentions. I declare the Commission has decided to adopt L5, amended in the CoW, dated 14 March 2025.

USA. The US is concerned with language affirming Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Although framed in neutral language, these documents constitute soft global governance and against the sovereignty of the US and we will no longer affirm these documents.

Poland. We express our gratitude to the officers working on this resolution, in the negotiations. The threat by synthetic drugs particularly opioids is one of the greatest of our time. Law enforcement personnel, first responders and others operate under extreme risk, with highly potent substances that can have fatal consequences. This resolution underscores international cooperation and encourages the sharing of expertise, data and resources to increase the capacity of member states to manage drug laboratories. I thank to all those who supported, voted, and collaborated in the negotiations.

Argentina. Argentina reaffirms its commitment and the importance it grants to the safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic drug laboratories – that is why we abstained. However the resolution contains references to questions that we wish to make known. Agenda 2030 are made up of aspirations that are not legally binding and each state has sovereignty and is free to pursue.

Mexico. We requested the floor as co-sponsor first and secondly to thank the government of Poland and Mexico for presenting this and to express our thanks to the delegations that participated in intense conversations with this delegation acknowledging the challenges posed by synthetic drugs and precursors. That is the challenge that requires us to question how we handle dangers in our country because these substances are not traditional ones therefore we are grateful for the support received on this resolution.

Chair. I now invite those who wish to co-sponsor.

Secretariat. Armenia, Brazil, Australia, Colombia, Japan, UK, Ghana, Morocco, Switzerland, Ecuador, Honduras, and New Zealand.

Chair. To save time, given the amendments put forward for L6, we move forward to L7.

Secretariat. L7 is on the impacts on the environment and has been tabled by France, Brazil and Morocco.

Chair. Can i ask one of the co-sponsors to confirm L7 Rev 1.

France. Yes we confirm.

Chair. Can we adopt this resolution?  

USA. We request a vote.

Chair. A vote has been requested on the proposal. I request that statements to explain their vote be made after, in accordance with rules 61 and 58. I ask those in favor to raise their country signs.

Secretariat.

Those in favor: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe.

Those not in favor: Argentina and USA.

Those who abstain: Indonesia

Chair. There are a total of 48 votes, 2 against and 1 abstentions. Therefore I declare the Commission has adopted L7 Rev 1. 

Guatemala. Guatemala voted in favor of the resolution tabled by Brazil, France and Morocco. This initiative tackles a very important subject on the environment, promoting evidence-based policies on the impact of ecosystems. However any reference to indigenous peoples must respect the nature and origins of the rights of indigenous peoples. The permanent forum on indigenous issues and the special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. Therefore we have a reservation on para 8 because the use of the term ‘local communities’ is arbitrary and a surreptitious term for subsuming indigenous peoples. In a forum such as this, this cannot be accepted by Guatemala, and there is no authority for such a term. Therefore we request this reservation be recorded.

France. Allow me to thank all member states. This is the first resolution covering the impacts on the environment, affirms the role of the CND and takes forward Agenda 2030 which France supports. It covers the consumption and elimination of drugs. Drug trafficking and organised crime cause serious impacts and we hope that better understanding of the impact of drugs on the environment will allow us to push back better. Also on the impacts of youth and drug use. We express gratitude for all those who took part in the discussions on the resolution and particularly for Brazil and Morocco.

USA. The USA recognises that illicit drug related activities can adverse;ly affect the environment. Unfortunately this resolution deviates from this goal, so we voted no on this resolution as much of the text violates US policy. It refers to the SDGs. They advance a programme of soft global governance that runs against state sovereignty. A real and present problem is not going to be addressed by the SDGs. Gender is also not aceptable to us, we consider two sexes: male and female. The resolution also calls for UNODC to support activities that the US is evaluating the utility of.

Argentina. This resolution contains references to questions on wich we want our opinion to be recorded. On gender, this refers to two sexes: masculine and feminine, it has no other meaning. The 2030 Agenda is not legally binding and each state has the right to pursue it freely. 

Morocco. I thank all members of the CND for their efforts and active, positive and constructive participation in this resolution. I recall the rationale for this resolution: based on the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document, High Level Declaration of 2024 and 2022, 2023, 2024 editions of the World Drug Report which report on the impacts of drugs on the environment and the nexus between drugs and crime and impacts on the environment. The objective here is to open the debate on this topic which has remained unaddressed until now. This initiative also stems from our conviction that the CND is the most appropriate forum to address such concerns to develop policies that are best suited to meet our needs on the world drug problem. The world drug problem is complex and requires a holistic response to achieve the goal of the convention to protect the health and well-being of humanity.

Brazil. From the beginning Brazil and the cosponsors have tried to reach consensus on this resolution. I would like to thank all delegations that have engaged in the negotiations of this resolution, in particular the USA. We made efforts. Unfortunately it was not possible to reach consensus. I want to register my gratitude to France and Morocco for their partnership, and the importance for Brazil and many other countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere of the importance of having this resolution which addresses the impacts of illicit drug activities on the environment. Direct impacts and indirect impacts, including the connection between drug trafficking and other crimes affecting the environment. It also includes effects on health, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. I must mention that we still face great difficulty in this commission to find good language that can satisfy all countries on the treatment given to Indigenous People. I appeal to you all that we engage with the aim of building an understanding that can take all of us onboard because we should be able to carve language where every country has their concerns reflected. Thank you for all your efforts.

Iran. Iran as a member of the CND, and on the basis of my country’s role in combatting drugs as a neighbour of Afghanistan, the decision of the CND is important to us. But my delegation actively participated in the meetings, the informals, and we tried to harmonise the text. We tried to reflect concerns from my delegation and all members. But unfortunately the majority of these concerns were reflected by the cosponsors. In any case, we joined the resolution and wish you success.

China. With regard to the resolution just passed, we voted in favor. We also participated in the co-sponsorship of some of the resolutions. During the negotiations, although China has its own ideas and proposals for some of the content, we are very flexible and proactive in participating in the drafting of the resolutions. We have made our own contribution to the successful passing of the resolutions by majority, an overwhelming majority. We emphasise that China has a positive attitude towards the content of the above resolutions. On the SDGs 2030, China together with the other developing countries and member states of CND actively supports them and that they should be emphasised in the resolutions. We support emphasising the importance of development issues and the importance attached to them by countries in the Global South. We continue to push for the importance of development issues at the CND.

Costa Rica. We thank France, Brazil and Morocco for bringing this issue to the CND. We are proud to support this resolution about the impacts on the environment and human health. It refers to the UNGASS 2016 and the right to a healthy environment, and resolution 76/300 tabled by Costa Rica. It also refers to the 2019 Declaration and the impacts of the consumption of drugs on the environment. We support the references to human rights and sovereignty of member states, and evidence and science, as well as the administration of justice in relation to crimes of drug trafficking and which affect the environment. In COP2024, environmental protection was also referred to.

Chair. That concludes the statements. Any co-sponsors?

Secretariat. I see: Colombia, Switzerland, Ecuador, Cote Di China Japan, UK Ghana Bolivia and Honduras.

Chair. We now move to L6 Rev 1

Secretariat. L6 Rev 1 is tabled by Colombia, Ecuador and Switzerland. There is an amendment tabled contained in L9 by the US to revise L6 Rev 1. There is another amendment tabled by Colombia in L10 as an amendment to L9.

Chair. This is a unique situation. I would like to clarify with Colombia whether they would like the resolution to be taken up and thereafter amendments to be voted on, or beforehand. Some members have asked when a co-sponsor tables an amendment, whether that replaces the resolution.

Colombia. L10 is an amendment to L9 therefore according to the ECOSOC rules of procedure therefore L10 is in line with article 73, and L10 should be the basis of discussion.

1. The US amendment must be considered before the Colombian purported rule 64 in longstanding ECOSOC practice. When 2 or more amendments are moved, the amendment furthest moved shall be considered first. The Colombian amendment is very minor. Our amendment replaces the entirety of the operative proposal. There is therefore no ambiguity as to which amendment is furthest removed from the original proposal. The US amendment must be considered first. If the Colombian amendment is considered first, we would create an absurd precedent for this body going further whereby an amendment could be amended by an amendment, with the intent to jump the queue. This can continue ad infinitum, undermining the orderly management of this body.

Mexico. As you said, and the delegation who took the floor before us, this is unique. The distinguished delegate of US refers to the absolute unambiguity in rule 64. We agree. Given the substance of the Colombian proposal is an improvement to the substance of the amendment by the US, where the proposals are different are on the details of the modality. I wish to ask the US in English: are you in favor of the substance of this initiative, to improve the functioning of the existing framework or are you against and therefore the furthest removed from the substance. Or is the US calling for a different approach to achieving the same objective?

Chair. I don’t want to open up a process of negotiation on what amendments have been placed. Written available, oral would be difficult to take up, we don’t have the time. Colombia referred to rule 74. Assume meant 63? 

Colombia. In Art 63 of rules of procedure it is established what constitutes an amendment and what doesn’t. Therefore it is in alignment with rule 63 which establishes order of amendments. 

Chair. Might have been a problem with translation. Now clarified. Issue is Colombia has proposed an amendment and the US has also, both are before us. I’m inclined to look at rules of procedure when 2 amendments are available. On the order of voting, when 2 or more amendments are moved to proposal, the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal should be voted on first, then the amendment second furthest and so on. 

Colombia: Thank you for bringing up rule 64. It is obvious L10 is related to L9 and it is the biggest difference, therefore we should deal with L10 before L9.

Chair: I noted the difference, however I take the view that amendments are based on an underlying proposal and have to be seen in connection with that proposal. Without that, the purpose of an amendment would become meaningless. The proposal we have under consideration is L6 Rev 1 and the Commission has before it two amendments to L6 Rev 1. We have to be guided by Rule 64 which gives specific guidance. We will look at which amendment is furthest removed in substance from the original proposal. I am convinced that the proposal made by the US represents an amendment that is furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and therefore will be voted on first. 

Colombia: Bearing in mind divergence on the guidelines we interpret from the rules of procedure, we would like to appeal your decision and submit that we start with L10.

Chair: I appreciate the spirit, but if we adopt the Colombian approach it would be difficult for us to invite other oral amendments, and someone would put forward another, and we would go on and have no conclusion. We have two specific amendments, rule 64 is explicitly clear. I’m not able to understand why this poses a difficulty for the delegation of Colombia.

Colombia: We believe L10 is the furthest removed from L9 and that is the procedure to be followed. We don’t want to get involved in the procedure of oral and non-oral amendments, we would like to see a decision made on the basis of UN legal documents and based on what the plenary of the CND decides. I understand your views, but there is a difference of opinion. 

Chair. I think Colombia’s perspective is very clear . As the delegation that proposed this resolution and we should respect the spirit in which these discussions are happening. The resolution is before the consideration of the Commission, to which the US has proposed an amendment. Procedurally speaking, any member state can propose amendments. But we have an underlying resolution. You are proposing to have your cake and eat it too. Let us be guided by common sense and the substantive purpose of this Commission. Let us look at the resolution where there is a divergence of opinion by another member state. I ask Colombia not to resort to procedural finesse. We are looking to get our work done by looking at the procedural rules laid out by our forebears.

Mexico. I won’t go to the procedural finesse as you call them, we need to look at the substance. The substance is about the review of the framework and there is not a substantive difference. So L9 is not as far removed as L10 is. We have heard from the promoters of L9.

Chair. I agree about the substance being at the centre and modalities should help us come to the substance.

Russia. I support the statement you said that all amendments from the first proposal essentially fall under the amendment by the US and that will have to be dealt with first according to rule 64. It is quite clear when you look at the first two amendments that your assessment is correct.

Brazil. Rule 64 doesn’t give a clear distinction to see clearly which proposal is more distant from substance. Colombia mentioned rule 62 and there is rule 42. It is crystal clear, we should vote on the matter.

Colombia. When you broached this issue, we referred to rule 42 which established the possibility of appealing the Chair’s decision so that is the context that we made our intervention.

Chair. You should have raised it as a point of order, a mere reference to rule 42 would not have brought me to raise a point of order. Am i correct in understanding that you wish to raise a point of order?

Colombia. May we clarify your proposal: after considering L9, would we immediately afterwards consider L10?

Chair. Yes that is my understanding: that we look at the amendment under L9 and thereafter look at L10 because both amendments need to be discussed

USA. We support your decision but may we clarify that we are proceeding according to rule 64.

Chair. Yes it is my understanding that when two amendments are moved according to rule 64 the amendment furthest removed are put to the vote.

Colombia. I will speak in English. The problem with rule 64 is the second part because it may be understood … .So it would seem that if L9 is voted in favor then L10 would not be considered. If L9 would be considered as well as L10 then we can proceed.

 

Chair. My understanding is that the US amendment doesn’t necessarily reject your amendment so both would need to be put to the vote. As Mexico points out, both amendments are similar in terms of their impact therefore I think that L9 would not be a rejection so L10 would also need to be put to a vote.

USA. Subject to rule 64, we don’t want to presuppose an outcome to our amendment but depending on the outcome of those deliberations, if we followed rule 64, it is not necessarily certain that we can vote on the other amendment. We agree with Colombia; the interpretation of the words in rule 64: “Where, however, the adoption of one amendment….”

Chair. If I understand Colombia correctly, you have no difficulty with the US amendment being put to the vote if the Colombian amendment could also be put to the vote.

Colombia. That was a question on your ruling because in order to have a clear view, we need to understand if L10 will be considered after a vote on L9.

Côte D’Ivoire. I want to understand what an amendment is. It means there is an original proposal, which is then modified by points of views of others? Then another amendment is made, which is the US point of view. If the US amendment is adopted, then it is adopted, period. We wouldn’t then ask the CND to adopt an amendment that runs counter to the amendment just adopted. So if the US amendment is adopted, why would we then vote on the Colombian amendment? I don’t get it.

USA. The delegate of Cote D’Ivoire said it magnificently.

Chair. Rule 63 says that an amendment has to delete or revise another proposal. My understanding is that the US amendment adds, deletes or revises L6 Rev 1 and is definitely an amendment. The Colombian amendment is also an amendment that adds, deletes or revises from L6 Rev 1. The question that we need to take a view on now, is the order of voting. The order should be according to which amendment is the furthest removed from the original proposal, and will be voted on first. Thereafter, other proposals will need to be voted up. The question raised on whether the first vote will reject consideration of the second. I propose that we accept that rule 64 requires us to consider the US amendment first – we should not prejudge the outcome. Once the amendment is passed, we need to take a call on whether this implies a rejection of the Colombian amendment. How we do this rests with all of us. It is quite possible that we all decide that it is a rejection. We would need consultations after this with the interested parties. That is a subjective judgement in the rules of procedure. It is difficult for me as a Chair to decide. Whether an amendment is the furthest removed also has a subjective judgment proceed as follows: we put the US amendment to the vote thereafter depending on the outcome of the amendment we would decide to take up the amendment proposed by Colombia. ‘Depending on the outcome’ means that if the US amendment doesn’t pass we would automatically proceed to the Colombian amendment. If it does pass then the Commission needs to decide whether it constitutes a rejection of the Colombian amendment.

Colombia. I don’t think that we agree that L9 is the furthest removed. In our view L10 speaks to L9 so we consider L10 should be considered first.

Chair. This is what I meant when I said that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. I suggest that you take my proposal otherwise it is difficult to understand.

Colombia. What I am saying is that L10 is not the furthest removed from the proposal, but it is the furthest removed from L9. Since L10 speaks to L9 then it should be considered first.

Chair: Let’s go to the guidance in writing – it says that “furthest removed” refers to the original proposal, which is L6.

Brazil: It is clear that our work is not clear and I think it is up to the member states to make the decision. I appeal to the decision based on rule 62 and request a vote on the matter.

Chair. Rule 63 says that an amendment has to delete or revise another proposal. My understanding is that the US amendment adds, deletes or revises L6 Rev 1 and is definitely an amendment. The Colombian amendment is also an amendment that adds, deletes or revises from L6 Rev 1. The question that we need to take a view on now, is the order of voting. The order should be according to which amendment is the furthest removed from the original proposal, and will be voted on first. Thereafter, other proposals will need to be voted up. The question raised on whether the first vote will reject consideration of the second. I propose that we accept that rule 64 requires us to consider the US amendment first – we should not prejudge the outcome. Once the amendment is passed, we need to take a call on whether this implies a rejection of the Colombian amendment. How we do this rests with all of us. It is quite possible that we all decide that it is a rejection. We would need consultations after this with the interested parties. That is a subjective judgement in the rules of procedure. It is difficult for me as a Chair to decide. Whether an amendment is the furthest removed also has a subjective judgment proceed as follows: we put the US amendment to the vote thereafter depending on the outcome of the amendment we would decide to take up the amendment proposed by Colombia. ‘Depending on the outcome’ means that if the US amendment doesn’t pass we would automatically proceed to the Colombian amendment. If it does pass then the Commission needs to decide whether it constitutes a rejection of the Colombian amendment.

Colombia: I don’t think that we agree that L9 is the furthest removed. In our view L10 speaks to L9 so we consider L10 should be considered first.

Chair: This is what I meant when I said that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. I suggest that you take my proposal otherwise it is difficult to understand.

Colombia: What I am saying is that L10 is not the furthest removed from the proposal, but it is the furthest removed from L9. Since L10 speaks to L9 then it should be considered first.

Chair: Let’s go to the guidance in writing – it says that “furthest removed” refers to the original proposal, which is L6.

Brazil: It is clear that our work is not clear and I think it is up to the member states to make the decision. I appeal to the decision based on rule 62 and request a vote on the matter.

Chair: I express disappointment that a delegation as well-versed in multilateral matters as Brazil will introduce a procedure to the Commission that will complicate our work. We will proceed to a vote but we need to clarify on what we are voting for and after that, rule 43 applies. The decision is that we proceed with taking up rule 64, the proposed amendment by the US. I was trying to get a consensual outcome but in the interest to move ahead, let’s take a vote on whether the amendment L9

Singapore: Can you clarify when you speak of L9 and L10, and the country name.

Chair: We are proceeding with ruling 64 on amendment L9.

USA: Can we get the clarification on what a “yes” vote means and on what a “no” vote means?

Chair: A yes vote means we take up the US amendment as the first amendment to be voted upon. The Secretariat has clarified that the ruling is that we proceed with L9 first. Brazil has appealed against the ruling so when you vote yes, you agree with Brazil that this will not be the case, that the Commission should vote first on L10. Yes means we vote Colombia first and US second. No means we vote US first and Colombia second.

USA: To clarify, voting ‘No’ means we support your ruling.

Chair: We now vote on Brazil’s challenge to the Chair’s ruling.

Secretariat: Those who vote in favor: Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay, Guatemala, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Portugal

Those who do not vote in favor: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Côte D’Ivoire, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Morocco, Peru, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tanzania and the US.

Those who abstain: Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Iran, Korea, UK, Slovenia, Zimbabwe and Tunisia.

Chair: The votes counted are 10 in favor, 20 against, and 20 abstentions. We decide that we will go ahead with L9 being voted for first in support of the Chair’s ruling.

Mexico. We were not voting against your ruling. L9 and L10 in our view are equidistant that is why we voted in favor of L10 because it was the last received chronologically.

Canada. It was unclear to us the full extent of what we were voting upon. May we clarify.

Chair. Let me clarify the vote was indeed on the Chair’s ruling.

Brazil. Allow me to say that Brazil has always and will always support multilateralism. But we support the rules of procedure and we followed those. We also support your chairmanship, we just don’t agree with every ruling. I want to highlight that we felt the need for more clarity and I am glad we have voted on this issue.

United Kingdom. agree with what we heard from Canada. We’re not here to try to rewrite the rules, we should go back to the substance. We don’t think the vote should have happened in the first place, which is why we abstained. 

Chair. It was our efforts all along not to go to the vote. It is incumbent on us if the matter is raised under the rules for us to move ahead with that request. When the request was made to vote, we had no other option but to go ahead with it. My understanding of Colombia is that they had not asked for the vote, they made an appeal. Now we have laid down the procedure, we will move forward.

CND Secretariat. The text that is now before the CND is contained in document L9 as the US amendment to revised draft resolution L6.Rev1. 

Chair. Can we agree with the document? I invite the CND to adopt the proposal.

USA. Thank you for allowing me to introduce L9. Before I speak to the details, it’s unfortunate we had to bring this amendment to the plenary. We had introduced this proposal in informals and CoW. We had support to discuss the proposal but the cosponsors refused this consideration. We tried to negotiate in good faith. As the procedural vote showed, this resolution is simply not ready for this CND’s consideration today. We have not exhausted all efforts for negotiations to reach consensus but the co-sponsors are forcing us to adopt this today. The resolution is not right for a decision today, but this amendment is a good faith attempt for this body to reach a decision today and reach consensus. It follows past practice of this CND, which can consult with experts and the process outlined in the amendment lays out how this has been done in the past and how we can continue to do it in the future. THe amendment preserves and protects the integrity of this body under the 3 UN drug control conventions. NO one knows this commission and treaties as much as this Commission and therefore a review should be done by this commission. All three of our treaties originated in the CND. Third, this amendment protects the mandate of the organisations outside of this CND. As a CND we should not expand the roles of other international organisations to do things outside of those mandates. This discussion belongs in Vienna, in the body created to hold these discussions. We can invite other experts to come and discuss this with us. But the sponsor’s proposal proposes a politicised and overly complex process. The US recognises the need to discuss how to strengthen our efforts, this CND is the appropriate forum for this. If we must vote on this amendment today, a vote yes is a vote to affirm the integrity of the international drug control conventions, to maintain our sovereign rights to implement the conventions, and to protect this body’s role here.

Colombia. On L9, this session has been testament of how Colombia has worked hard to work on consensus. We worked for more than 2 weeks, making great concessions and try to accommodate all in the spirit of consensus. Today we have seen where consensus is heading to on various resolutions. We have had several opportunities for delegations to raise concerns, and bring proposals. Unfortunately, something similar to L9 was introduced quite late in the process and it did not move us into the path of consensus. Rev1 is the way in which we can address the best consensus possible. We are not able to join L9 and request a vote on it. 

Chair. We now proceed with a vote on L9. 

Those in favour: Argentina, Japan, China, Russia, USA, Singapore, Ghana, Morocco, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia

Those against: Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Bangladesh, Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Finland, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay

Abstentions: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Iran, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Peru, Korea, Qatar, UK, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia.

Chair: 12 votes in favour, 25 against, and 17 abstentions. L9 rejected.

Colombia: For the Colombian delegation, L10 is very important because it is a step further towards consensus. We believe that it responds to the needs of their delegations. So please allow a vote.

CND Chair: Can I invite the Commission to adopt proposal L10?

United States: You indicated we were proceeding to a vote in accordance with Rule 64 so I am confused.

CND Chair: We are following the same procedure for everything. We ask if there is consensus and if not we go for a vote.

United States: We call for a vote.

CND Chair: We now move to a vote on L10. I think you are aware of the procedures. Under rule 68, a simple majority is required. 

In favour: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada chile, Colombia, Côte D’ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy Japan, Lithuania, Malta Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Uruguay.

Against: Argentina, India, Ghana China, Russian Federation, Singapore, Indonesia, United States

Abstentions: Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Qatar, and United Republic of Tanzania, and Zimbabwe.

Chair: 31 votes in favour, 8 against, and 13 abstentions. L10 adopted. L6 as amended by L10 is adopted.

United States: We want to clarify that actually we just wanted a vote on L10 not on L6.

Chair: We will come to this later.

(…)