L5. Strengthening early warning mechanisms consisting of monitoring and assessment systems to enable effective responses to the emergence of new synthetic drugs, new psychoactive substances, precursors and precursor substitutes
Chair: Good Morning.
Kyrgystan: Update from the informal consultations.
Chair: Thank you. Do any delegations wish to react? If not, then we can continue going through the present version. We already agreed on PP1 and PP2 as well as P6 PP7 PP9
PP4
South Africa: Than you for the new proposal, but we would like the retention of the SDGs.
Chair: I feel like we are not progressing. So you want to retain the whole paragraph – perhaps Kyrgystan can explain.
Kyrgyzstan: Sorry Chair, PP5 was agreed…
Chair: South Africa asked to please explain the removal of the paragraph on SDGs.
Kyrgyzstan: (incoherent)
South Africa: For transparency, we have been attending informal informals´and there has been no discussion of deletion of SDGs, so I ask why. This is a red line.
Chair: There was reservation by two delegations on this para, so I turn to you.
USA: We agree this streamlines the texts to the areas of most concerns. We are not able to agree to the inclusion of SDGs. We can reaffirm them or recall them, but there is no relevance beyond to early warning systems. We appreciate the proposal to delete it and we cannot support its reintroduction.
Chair: I was not privy to the informal informals. Thank you for the transparency. I suggest that we put this para in brackets.
France: We echo South Africa´s surprise and disappointment regarding the deletion of the SDGs. We would like it noted (and reflected in rev1?)
Colombia: On PP4, there is element in previous para that is not contained in this one. My concern is this one does not accurately reflect. We express concern with … previously mentioned non-medical use and that is problematic because that is not negative per se. If we say all these new things are negative, we are also referring to medicines. We’d like to know why it was deleted. Usually when we talk about precursors, we mention illicit manufacture of drugs. This sounds like we are saying all synthetic drugs are bad.
Chair: The question to Kyrgystan, why did you take out non-medical use?
Kyrgzstan: when we talk about NPS and designer precursors, we think it’s impossible to have medical use. It is clear for everybody. And maybe to understand NPS and designer precursor is not used in medicine. This is why we delete this option.
Chair: Thank you for the explanation.
Mexico: We are expressing concern and not opposing is because rapid technological development is putting us in a position of catching up. This makes sense for an early warning resolution.
Chair: Colombia, is the explanation that these substances and designer precursors are not for medical use…?
Colombia: I mean, that is true, for pre-precursors and new precursors. It’s not true about new synthetic drugs and NPS. For example, fentanyl is new and a huge problem but also used for treatment of severe pain. We are saying at the end of paragraph that we are expressing concern on public health and safety – but these things are not negative per se. We could put non-medical use after the substances, but we cant delete entirely.
Chair: I think that’s very elegant. I see others nodding.
USA: We agree to the use of non-medical use but the location just proposed is a little misleading, looks like only refers to NPS. If we placed it after “global spread”, we would expressing concern about that and the non-medical use, which would solve the issue linguistically.
Chair: Is it acceptable to Colombia? Okay.
Iran: We think with this placement, non-medical use seems like it applies to designer precursors as well. It seems this qualify applies to all the materials but this is not the case. It would be appreciated if colleagues could come up with a better formulation.
Egypt: We agree with Iran. Maybe we can put it… “the global spread of new synthetic drugs and new psychoactive substances” “for non-medical use, and precursors…”
Chair: I think this does the trick. I note that PP5,6,7,8,9 already agreed in CoW earlier. We look at OP1.
OP1
Kyrgyzstan: We have a reservation from the US and the question was about “frequently used in the illicit manufacture of drugs”. There was a proposal from China to change frequently. Maybe we identify it for the first time, and we are confused how we can use this word frequently.
USA: We had proposed that language “substances used in illicit manufacture of drugs, including…” because it was treaty language. Understanding that introduces concern regarding the use of frequently, we wonder if… adding “precursors, including…” so we focus on the gap we want to fill which is pre-precursors.
Chair: Thank you for the suggestion. Do we have all the relevant substances and precursors covered here?
USA: Editorial note: “and” should come before “precursors”.
OP2
Kyrgyzstan: The question was to include “public health monitoring” and not “drug checking output” as it is confusing to our delegation – we don’t have this option in our country so we believe it would be confusing to many constituents. Yesterday there was a proposal to delete this “drug checking” and include “public health monitoring” instead.
Chair: Yeah I believe this was a topic yesterday. I see the effort from Kyrgyzstan to find consensus, a more generic description of such phenomena as drug checking laboratories.
Russia: Thank you to Kyrgys colleagues and friends for preparing the revised version that we hope will ring us to consensus and adoption in the Plenary. Regarding OP8 and “public health monitoring” is confusing to us. In Russia, this is done by the health sector and them alone. In OP10 we reference data protection. This is something we are very careful about in our country. This might send the message that public health data might be monitored by other entities. My suggestion is to delete these 3 words. We totally note and respect the position of other delegations who have different practices but we think this is covered by toxicology and forensic laboratories. So, we believe it is already accurately captured there.
Chair: Again, the question is how far we want to take this discussion… I am wondering, looking at the clock, in the spirit of compromise – can we live with it?
Colombia: This was important to my delegation and we are concerned about the overall balance of the resolution so we are not ready to close this paragraph without seeing the whole text. I would ask to move forward and decide on this para later.
Chair: We will do that.
OP3 (c)
Chair: That might be a call to delegations to address concerns about wordings and specificity versus universal applicability.
Canada: We spent lots of hours on this proposal and we think it’s worth retaining a version of it. We had proposals that were flagged as being too specific, so we made it less specific but then MS couldn’t really understand the relevance. We think we can find a happy medium – there were many proposals put forward that are worth considering.
Kyrgyzstan: regarding simplifying the text, maybe we go “ and, as appropriate, to affected communities and individuals”.
Chair: Hopefully this takes care of the concerns.
Canada: Support for Colombia´s proposal.
Egypt: It is a bit problematic for us. It feels a bit too prescriptive. Maybe we could add “in accordance with domestic law” and remove “individuals”.
Switzerland: We have the means and domestic law to address individuals. At the beginning of the OP we already have the caveat “within their means”… so… we can accept the repetition if we keep “individuals”.
Germany: I wonder if we miss new synthetic drugs in (a)? To stay consistent with the title, my proposal is to add a reference at the end of the sentence.
Chair: Did we manage to make everyone equally unhappy?
Iran: We need more time. We think we are talking about two different things within the same paragraph. Maybe, if Colombia insists, they can work on the language?
Chair: I would think that if this issue is shared by others, we could solve it with a bis para “Development and dissemination of public health warnings, in accordance with domestic law, to affected communities and individuals.”
Chile: We wanted to see the temperature of the room – our other suggestion would have been to follow the idea of referring to both. If it works as a (c) bis, we are equally happy.
Chair: So does this phrasing cover everybody’s concerns? We have to move on… can we agree? Seems so. (gavel)
OP7
US: In sub para a, we would delete “in particular developing countries” for reasons already said in this room.
Egypt: we are for retaining this.
South Africa: We support Egypt for the retention.
Germany: Recommend to (d) to use “To develop” instead of “development” just from a language view.
Chair: thank you for this amelioration of the text
China: We also support retaining “in particular developing countries”
Chair: We are going nowhere on (a) because this is an old discussion, I see no way out. Let’s think about it at some point, unless someone has a brilliant idea. At this point we can’t agree on OP7, go to OP8.
OP8
USA: We would propose an alternative. OP8alt: “Invites Member States to provide information received through early warning mechanisms to the relevant international drug control entities, to support the timely scientific assessment of new psychoactive substances, precursors, including pre-precursors and designer precursors, and to generate scheduling recommendations as appropriate.”
Chair: This brings back most og the language we considered and didnt come to any conclusion.
France: My delegation opposes the deletion of the reference to WHO. WHO is an organisation mandated by the drug treaties, namely 1971 Convention. On Tuesday, we were invited to vote on substances through WHO recommendations – this makes no sense not to mention WHO. We call to delete OP8alt and retain OP8.
Switzerland: In support of France.
Germany: Also more happy with original OP8, more in favor to delete OP8alt, however we have propose language to alter OP8alt: “to the UN Secretary General in accordance with…” and remove “relevant international drug control entities”. Assessment is carried out by WHO, so add “by the WHO and to generate”
Belgium: Also more happy with text proposed by sponsors. It is well framed and is the reality as it stands now.
Colombia: The WHO was also mentioned in the early iteration of the text in PP9 and what is now OP9 and it has been deleted at the request of one delegation. Hearing the concerns we accommodated. The WHO still exists and still has a role. We cant just keep deleting things because one of us is not comfortable with how the conventions are drafted. That is a discussion to have in another forum.
Iran: We need to be consistent with the title of this resolution. We need to add new synthetic drugs and precursors/chemicals, including pre-precursors and designer precursors and “to generate scheduling recommendations as appropriate.
Mexico: Our invitation for having technical backup from UNODC and WHO when playing with terminology… We don’t see an alternative but there would be a possibility to combine those two. If member states want to entertain that possibility.., If we are not willing to consider recommendations from WHO, what will happen next year? We already voted on them this year, but what about next?
Chair: We will finish the list of speakers and turn to UNODC to give some technical clarification on roles and mandates.
Russian Federation: We would flag to delegates and to you Mr Chair that WHO has no role to play with assessing precursor chemicals. Under the conventions this is the responsibility of INCB, and we believe this is already affected. We could add precursor chemicals to the paragraph on INCB. Here, we believe this is not the right place to do that.
US: INCB is the relevant entity for scientific evaluations of precursors, pre-precursors and designer precursors. As opposed to striking this reference, I’d propose retaining it in OP8. Support Mexico’s suggestion to consider OP8alt in OP8bis, noting that precursors are not assessed by the WHO. Not necessary to specify who does the assessment. (pic tba)
European Union: We oppose the deletion of WHO in OP8. We are mixing two different things, the scheduling recommendations and the important guidance of WHO in early warning systems. We could agree to the addition of new synthetic drugs, but would delete now precursor, .. as that is for the INCB.
Canada: This is one of a trio of paragraphs on INCB, UNODC and WHO. If we go to OP6, that talks about INCB role within its mandate. This is 3 paragraphs together.
Chair: We now turn to collective wisdom.
UNODC: The role of WHO is the scheduling of … for precursors the scientific assessment is carried out by INCB, as reflected by several delegations.
Germany: Not in favor of striking out the World Health Organization. We would propose OP8bis to find a consensus… We heard last night from some delegates that the way of information was not accurately displayed. So we figured it out and it’s through the UN Secretary General and then WHO. We need to be clear in the name of the most relevant authorities, we can’t replace them with general terms.
Chair: We are going round and round as we have done before. In this world that we have constructed, there are a number of international organisations and specifying their role is logical. The trick would be to be specific what the mandate in this framework would entail. If we could find language for that… I want you to think about this logic.
Iran: We would like to withdraw the proposal on precursor chemicals. We caN HAVE a specific paragraph on WHO, but I’m informed we already deleted para on INCB. We will talk with cosponsors to see the reason behind deletion on the mandate of INCB. We just refer the delegation to the Convention of 1971…
Chair: We are approaching the limits of time allotted to this resolution. I’m reminded Turkey wanted a new OP. It’s late in the day and it’s a pity it hasn’t been done. There are two different things here. There are those who oppose mentioning this organization in this resolution and those who say that in the world we live in, this organisation exists and has a mandated role that should be reflected if we do it for the other. I have a chair’s proposal on OP8 for your consideration, trying to stay close to treaty mandate: “Invites the World Health Organization, ina ccordance with the drug control conventions to monitor and assess data, including from early warning mechanism when conducting medical, scientific and public health evaluations of substances, and provide recommendations to the relevant drug control entities.” From my experts, this is as close as possible to the treaties.
Turkiye: A similar OP was added but we just wanted to see how the room reacts to our (…)
OP9
Turkiye: (uninteligible)
Chair: I have a little problem with the timing – we have a whole new para at this time of the day is a bit difficult but I open the floor for delegations to respond. Okay I see no reactions and we need to work on L2 so I encourage Turkey to work on this and deliberate if this is a necessary addition – talk to the sponsors and consult with the room later. I hope we can consider this in the afternoon. We have one more paragraph that I would like to address about the extrabudgetary resources, OP12. In the previous drafts, there was an OP10 and it had bracketed text. I offered an alternative that you can find in front of you.
USA: We are not able to accept. Add “in particular those that have not made increases to extrabudgetary resources”
Chair: Thank you, can you explain.
USA: UNODC more and more mandates and requests to take on more and more activities. The resources have been disproportionately provided by a small number of MS. Countries that have not stepped up to support this work are tasked to come up with the resources to implement the resources to see the programmes they want to see.
Egypt: We dont see… Thank you for your efforts, but we… It is an invitation. Rev1 of L6 doesnt include “also with the view” for example… and not in resolutions regarding AD. From our point of view, there is a need for consistency. There is no need for this addition so we prefer to strike this wording.
Mexico: First we should have the goal of broadening the base, then inviting the ones who contribute. So a formulation here should follow a logic.
Chair: I was reminded by the Secretariat that I skipped the consideration of further paras:
OP9 for one. Is this acceptable to the room?
Colombia: This is the para that mentions “other entities” but maybe it makes more sense to say “relevant entities”?
USA: We agree with the deletion. We would also add (grammatical corrections).
Chair. Okay. Seems to be an egreement in the room. (gavel)
OP10
Chair: Can we live with this?
Colombia: I am not obejcting to the para, but its important to highlight that we are missing references to stigma, just for the consideration of all of us and to stress that we have been showing huge flexibility.
USA: We request the insertion of “obligations” after “human rights”.
Chair: With those amendments, do we agree? Agreed.
OP11
USA: Instead call upon we think its more appropriate to say encourage.
Chair: Good. Agree? Agreed in CoW.
Chair: I thought we agreed on OP6 but we still have to look at (b).
USA: Can we go back to OP10?
Chair: Can we do this first?
Chair: OP6 agreed in CoW.
OP10
USA: Apologies, I was referring to OP11.
OP11
USA: We were a little confused with the presence of the bracket in this para and it remains… we were not entirely clear that it was adjudicated at the time so we would like to retain our brackets.
Chair: Okay that means it is not agreed in CoW. This is an element we had long discussions on.
South Africa: In that case, my delegation would like to maintain “calls upon”
Chair: Okay, then look at the title?
Title
USA: We would like to add “precursors including” before “pre-precursors”.
Chair: That makes sense. Acceptable? We have a title. (gavel)
China: We had a reservation but in the spirit of progress, we can go along with this.
South Africa: I would like to make a comment on OP12.
Chair: I think we have dealt with that?
South Africa: Yes we just want to support Egypt and Mexico.
Chair: Okay, so we have two paras open. One is pending the eternal issue of “developing countries” and the other is the reference to WHO. So we either solve this or it goes to a vote. It is as simple as that. I give this back to the sponsors and I call on delegations that feel consensus is still possible to work with the sponsors. I think battle lines are clearly drawn and we brought it as far as we could as a committee. I dont necessarily want to see this coming back to the CoW unless we can find a middle ground. It is regrettable but this is the state of World Affairs.
India: Am I to understand we are discussing L2?
Chair: Almost, Ambassador. Almost! I thank everyone working actively to achieve consensus. Many delegations have been explicitly flexible today. I thank the sponsors as well.
Germany: I would like to recall to the beginning of our meeting. We agreed on PP4 and there were some delegations who were concerned about the deletion of the 2030 agenda and I am not sure this is appropriately reflected in the revised version. We are also against deleting this reference, so I would like to see this reflected for the upcoming discussions.
Chair: Thank you. Indeed, that is an important point of discussion. With that we move to L2.
L2. Measures to implement article 13 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 to prevent the diversion of equipment and related materials used for illicit drug manufacture (Mexico)
Mexico: So far we are the only sponsors. We worked on engaging as wide as possible, had useful conversations on the remaining paras. Let us start at OP1 ter.
OP1 ter
Mexico: The issue was expressing the consensus properly in english.
South Africa: My delegation still believes that “affordability” is equally critical. We insist a reference is included.
Mexico: We took note of SA´s suggestion and we agree this is an important issue. We are not able to reach consensus at this point within this resolution. This wording is not going to become the new consensus due to the delicate nature of the issue. We invite SA to join consensus.
India: I support SA. Affordability is equally important as accessibility in our eyes.
USA: A minor technical fix – “protects”.
South Africa: In response to Mexico, this argument is not only for this issue, it is an important addition and cannot be isolated.
Chair: Is the inclusion of “affordability” acceptable?
USA: Can we see it on the screen? Thank you. We are not able to accep it in this context as it is not part of our treaty mandates.
Egypt: We align ourselves with South Africa. Maybe “protects affordability” can be considered?
Chair: Interesting… I am not sure that addresses the concerns of the USA?
Belgium: (…) we prefer the deletion of affordability.
Egypt: It is agreed language. Appreciating the principle, the importance to developing countries… it is just (…) to see MS now challenging this.
Chair: I dot think the importance was challenged. I think it i8s just difficult to fit it in in this context.
India: I just wanted to state, as a country that prides itself on making medidnes available and affordability, we also monitor medicines and nonmedical use closely.. the burden of compliance would be transmitted in the supply chain and so affordability is not a fringe concern. It is central and currently already under constraint… given the global environment, we are looking at an enviroment where all these three are issues so we think they all should be retained.
Colombia: MAybe we can say after “pain and suffering” that “they dont become obstacles for their affordability. It could be grammatically improved but the idea behind the proposal is that the mesures shouldnt pose an obstacle to affordability.
Chair: I would like to give delegations to consider this so let us look at another para.
Mexico: The only pending para is OP3 and we are already proposing language…
OP3 bis.
Mexico: We have a few reservations, so we ask CoW to consider the new text.
USA: We originally proposed this para and it was amended towards the end of the Commission´s session and we are not able to agree to it as it stands. Our proposal referred to the implementation of the convention. “Also underscores the importance of implementing the three international drug control conventions, including with regard to the offences referred to in Article 3 of the 1988 Conventino in conformity with MS obligations under applicable internaitonal law (includinf international human rights law) – res IRN RUS”.
Russia: We are not able to lift our reservation.
Mexico: We can consider compliance versus implementation. We have no issues with it, but we would see a problem with losing the reference to international human rights law.
Chair: Noted.
Iran: May I suggest to change “conformity” to “consistent” for the time being. We also second the Russian proposal to delete the latter part of the text (ref to human rights).
OP4 (i)
Mexico: “Cooperate with World Customs Organisation for the consultations regarding the unique Harmonized System codes for specialized equipment, and once available, to utilize them as appropriate, for improving the monitoring of international trade an verify the legitimacy of individual transactions (IN) in order to prevent potential diversion into illicit drug manufavture (res CHN).”
India: We are concerned that this is a sweeping mandate to give INCB who I am fairly certain doesnt have the resources to monito international trade. We have a problem with the entire fourth line, we would delete from after appropriate until in order.
Mexico: This formulation was double checked by INCB. We are looking forward to the opinions of the members of the CoW however. We would like to hear China´s reservations or see if it can be lifted.
Chair: Good. Is the text acceptable as amended by India? Seems so. (gavel)
OP5.
Mexico:
Chair:
South Africa: It was our understanding that the three elements, technology being one of them, capacity building an other… are they saying the provision of equipment is technology? In our eyes it means more.
Egypt: We have the same question.
Mexico: When you have equipment and the trining, then of course you learn to handle technology to operate the equipment… The most engaged delegations have put this proposal forward and we really appreciate active collaborations. There are some concepts that would tip the equilibrium of the text, so we ask for flexibility.
Chair. Noted.
USA: We are also not clear on what this precisely mean. We had the same approach to capacity building. We would prefer to be more specific about the activities. We are open to display flexibility on the issue of capacity building however.
South Africa: We would not agree to the deletion of capacity building.
Chair: Okay. Others agree? Agreed in CoW.
PP7
Mexico: I would like to wait for the outcome of informal discussions to go forward. If it is not possible, also applyin this to the other open issues, we will bring the closest-to-consensus version to the Plenary floor.
Chair: From my perspective, it would be rather silly to have a nonconsensus resolution when you agree on all paragraphs but one. So where does that leave us, dear Secretary?
Chair: So we return to the issue of affordability.
India: I wanted to go to OP1 ter… we havent addressed the reservation. We do have an issue with “legislative matters”. As you would appreciate, they are supposed to give broad guidance, so I would request to open it again. We could drop our reservation if the word “legislative” is removed.
Chair: Yes, noted. Yesterday I was in a position to conclude the discussion. I ask delegations to take note of what you said. If there is agreement on your proposal, I would be happy to cater to that but I would like to prevent a whole new discussion on this. So, is there a general approval?
Mexico: We have been open and flexible to reflect on mistakes and misunderstandings. We have been aware of the delicate political conversations pending. The delegate of India was not in the room yesterday where we discussed this issue and were able to find consensus. If the CoW decides to precede, we have flexibility. As sponsors, we would not like to open the door to going back on issues that have been already negotiated.
Chair: Understood. At this point, I think we should look at OP1 ter again.
South Africa: Maybe “ensure” can soften to “promote”… that is our compromise.
USA: We are not in a position to agree to that. It is inconsisten with the consensus reached in CoW on other topics.
South Africa: As India already pointed out, for developing countries, these three concepts are intertwined. This para also refers to the supply chain resolution, so our point is cost reduction… legitimate interest and licit use… we insist on the inclusion of “affordability” especially whent the other two terms are mentioned.
Chile: We were hoping that we can reflect that these measures should not mean an additional cost burden so it should not burden affordability. So our proposal would be “do not present additional cost burdens that may hinder access”. I am happy to withdraw if it doesnt bring us closer to consensus.
China:We are struggling to uplhold the Vienna spirit. Affordability is important for some developing countries so I invite the only one against that addition to reconsider.
Belgium: I dont think anyone is arguing that affordability is an important issues. We found a way to adequate describe it in L6. But here, the addition would mean redefining what that means. So do we go back to agreed language or…? These proposals are taking us fruther form what we would like to see.
Mexico: After extensive consultations, we see that this is not easily resolved. We are not shying away from reality and we dont want to impose on other agreements. IF the consideration of this resolution finds consensus, we can consider new additions. If not, we have to reflect the broadest possible agreement.
Chair: Fair. At this stage, I ask the room – would it be possible to add something to the preamble? Think about this over lunch. We break and finish the conserations… umm Mexico?
Mexico: We would like to thank you for your leadership and all colleagues for their proactive engagement. I will come back to you with an outcome from our informal meetings.
India: I just wanted to offer an editorial comment. I am surprised to note that the language of the resolution uses the concepts mentioned in the title in an interchangeable manner. It is confusing.
Chair: It is a result of collective work. If we have reasons to revisit after lunch, the CoW stands ready. We resum at 3pm with L6. After that we will look at L3. My goal is to finish our work at 6pm. Some fundamental issues are still outstanding, but everyone is fully aware of where and why disagreements exist. See you at 3! Adjourned.
(…)