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: Welcome.
Pp1
Pp2
Pp3
Agreed? Not quite?
Kyrgystan: IIntrodcing L5 – https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.7/2026/L.5
Chair: Which paragraphs are close to being agreed on?
Kyrgystan: Maybe pp8.
…
Kyrgistan: We dont see an agreement here. Difficult.
Chair: Okay but I dont want to repeat the ocnsultations. Yesterday it looked like there is progress towards acceptance.
Kyrgyzstan: Maybe op2.
OP2
Chair: Yesterday there was a qfrom Colombia about multi-level. Can we agree to that wording now?
Kyrgyzstan: I am not sure that was contended by Colombia.
Chair: Looking at op2 and considering we were waiting for Colombia… and we are not, can I propose to delete drug-checking?
Colombia: For us, this is an important reference. A part of the multilateral approach is taking into account the need to check what is in the drugs. So we are talking about systems that are fed by data from the streets. It is crucial for alerts that we are talking about.
Chair: My problem is that here ate also those who vehemently object and it seems we can process further so I was just checking if there is some flexibility here, to maybe delete this very specific wording.
Canada: Echoing Colombia`s views, this is very important to us so we would like to retain this.
Russia: The whole purpose of our resolutions is that it should work for each and every delegation and we have different health systems and toxicological resources but what we cannot trespect is MS imposing elements of their systems. I cannot agree with you more, Chair. These outputs are laboratorial… I call on MS who insist on this reference to consider… this is a topical resolution that we really need to work on what is relevant to the work and not specifics that are important to some countries.
Chair: Delegations are not in a position to accep this, I see.
Colombia: Trying to find a common ground, maybe we can put “drug checking where they exist”?
Chair: I cansee that this is not acceptable for the Russian Federation so keep thinking.
OP3c bis
Chair: We tried some alternatives (…) “people who use drugs and the wider community” is getting deleted. “Affected communities and individuals” stay.
Russia: I would like you to prevent from closing this para, this proposal has been made 10 minutes ago and we have to check with our public health experts.
Chair: Of course.
OP3 bis
pic tba
Iran: (…)
Germany: Let us word it as “nonmedical use”.
USA: No objections to including this mention of overdose prevention at the end.
Chair: Okay, we can probably all agree that preventing overdoses is a good idea.
Netherlands: We agree with Germany´s proposal.
Canada: WE also prefer that, as opposed to “illicit use”.
Chair: Okay, is there anything that is standing out as non-agreeable to the delegations? That leaves us with the version on the screen.
OP7
pic tba
India: The conventional approach is that assistance to MS is on request. It is not for the UNODC to decide what an MS needs.
Iran: This proposal, thank you for this for India, we fully agree with this. This is a term we usually use but “according to their needs” is new for me. We cannot go with this edition, it is important to us.
South Africa: We also welcome the proposal. (..)
Egypt: We welcome the highlighting of support to developing countries, but it is alarming for us that … we hope for a better understanding
Australia: You can remove our reservation in the text.
Ghana: We still have to look at “upon request” critically – so a country self-assesses and requests support? So what do we determine, our needs? And on what basis?
Chair: I want to see if the spirit of comrpomize descends upon the room, lets try to come to agreement again on OP7 as it stands.
USA: Yeah that formulation would not work for us.
Chair: I promised to come back to OP3 – can we agree to it as amended?
Russia: Thank you for giving us the time. Here is our alternative: c bis alt add “drug related” before “public health”, change “warnings” to “alerts”, add “to relevant” before “communities”. Public health mechanisms and medical standards are different in each country – we in Russia are very cautious about sharing such information with the public, so we hope this is a middle ground for all of us.
Chair: Sponsors?
Colombia: We have to consult on this. Sorry.
Canada: We also reserve on this.
Australia: Same.
Switzerland: Same.
Chair: I forgot to return to OP3 bis before we move on! Can we agree to “reduce the risks of nonmefial usef og drugs inluding overdose prevention”? Yes. OP3 agreed in CoW.
Okay, we move to L3 rev1.
L3. Enhancing supply chain integrity to prevent exploitation of licit supply chains and shipping modalities for the illicit manufacture and traffic of synthetic drugs
USA: Introducing L3: https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.7/2026/L.3 The Chinese delegation had reservations on specific paragraphs, and we would like to see if we came to an agreement on OP7 and OP8?
China: We have to double check.
India: We also have to consult.
USA: This was not contentious during informals… we are a bit surprised about the reservations. We have suggested an alternative and our Chinese colleagues have been considering our proposals… so we are just waiting to hear back.
Chair: So do we change illicit to criminal? This is wording used in other resolutions as well if I understand correctly.
India: The first reference to exploitation…
USA: Criminal exploitation then also needs to be changed in the title. With the other terms, we are not quite there yet.
France: pointing out that the quotation is incorrect
Chair: (…) Im in your hands.
USA: Point well taken – we are fine with removing criminally and criminal exploitation. When quoting prior resolutions, it is okay for us.
Chair: Can we dispense in pp2 with the word criminal.
China: Have we discussed the tile already?
Chair: Yes, we thought we ha da solution for pp2 but … you agreed with USA to use to word ciminal, but France has pointed out that this word does not appear in the quoted resolution. The good news here is that in the title, we can retain it. And we can agree to pp2? Yes. Agreed in CoW. Do you want to discuss the title?
USA: No, op7 please. Can China lift their reservation?
OP7
Chair: We would like to show cooperation and flexibiity, so yes.
India: We would like a reference3 to evidence to be included in some form.
Chair: Looking at the text, I would think that most MS would wish that to be on the basis of some sort of information… Is this about the formulation? I am not fully clear what the problem is here but please, liaise with the US delegation.
OP8
USA: As far as we kow China lifted their reservation, so how about the others?
China: Chemicals to drug precursors… we suggested that yesterday to be added.
USA: this phrase appears at various parts of the resolution and the EU flagged it, it is in the document in brackets – we have consulted yesterday and we have a formulation to propose: “substances frequently used in the illicit manufacture of drugs, as well as the equipment and materials, including designer precursors used in the illicit manufacture of drugs”. The idea here is to rely on treaty language as much as possible.
Chair: What treaty?
USA: 1988
Iran: We have an issue with “chemicals”. Whenever it is possible, disclose in real time, so “as close to real time as technically possible” to be added to the text please.
China: Basing on the language of the relevant treaties, we prefer “precursors”, because “substances” is complicated. “Including designer precursors as well as the equipment and materials frequently used in the illicit manufacture of drugs”.
India: A precursor is a product that essentially when we schedule, the networks that operate will develop a similar product to evade the scheduling and that is a problem. I am not too sure how we would be able to address this. I would definitely would like to add “narcotic” to the manufacture of drugs.
Chair: Well there is a qualifier there that these ar used in production, preparation of drugs. It is always good to start from a place that is in the treaty or some language already agreed on. I suggest we leave this for later discussion.
USA: This is treaty language so we kindly request an explanation for the introduction of “narcotics”.
India: The actual reference we would like is very long, including reference to psychotropics…
USA: We will take your advice to leave this for now. We can move on to pp5 and would like to add pp5 quat the following. “Underscoring the need to ensure that MS exercise any discretionary legal powers under their domestic law relating to the prosecution of persons for drug related offences, including offences related to exploitation of the supply chain, to maximize the effectiveness of law enforcement measures in respect to those offences with due regard to the need to deter the commission of such offences”. The source for this is agreed language in (???) and is respodong to proposals to include law enforcement into the resoltuion.
Mexico: Thank you for including our requests to include law enforcement. We will have to check with our colleagues, but again thank you for providing us a text we can work with.
Colombia: We just reviewed the convention and the wording is slightly different in paragraph 3. We ask to bracket the beginning of the paragraph while we consult with our capital.
Australia: I would like to reserve while we discuss some (other elements).
Chair: Okay, we will take note of this new idea so I give the floor for remarks. Keep it short, we are not gaveling anything in yet and we have a lot to go through.
Iran: We concur with Colombia. (grammatical remark)
China: We reserve, it is different from the original intention of the convention.
Chair: Okay, the paint is still freash on this para. We move on.
PP5 ter
Mexico: We have been in talks with US colleagues and we have a new proposal.
PP5 ter alt.
Mexico: “Acknowledging the potential economic, biological, security, and safety impacts of criminal exploitation of supply chains. “
USA: It seems in line with what we are thinking, we will confirm shortly.
OP3
USA: “and as appropriate” between “domestic law” and “to adopt where appropriate”.
Chair: So, can we delete the previous chinese proposal about the virtual currency platforms?
USA: Ours was an attempt to appease those who were not comfortable with those measures, although they are important to us. We can work on Canada´s proposal, that sounds acceptable.
India: (…) it is going into too much detail, so we join the bracket, along with China.
Colombia: I have a proposal for pp5 quat.
PP5 quat
Colombia: “Encourages MS to ensure that any discretionary” and then the para can continue. This brings it closer to the convention.
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
https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.7/2026/L.2
Mexico: Thank you, particularly to the delegation of China, for getting where we are today. Let us discuss the title.
Chair: Okay – title agreed in informals? Seems to be the case.
Mexico: Thank you.
PP2
Agreed in informals. Agreed in CoW.
Iran: Can we go back to the title? The last production is redundant.
Mexico: Yes thank you that was a type-o.
PP3
Agreed.
OP1, OP1 ter
Mexico: This is a delicate paragraph. We appreciate China USA Canada Singapore and others for their collaboration. We will not push for adoption now.
Chair: So this is a result of meaningful discussions and deliberations. Thank you. Hopefully tomorrow morning, we will reach consensus.
China: We need expert opinion on OP1 ter.
Mexico: Ok.
Chair: Let´s see tomorrow.
OP4
(…)
PP4 (i) (j) (k)
Chair: Agreed in informals?
USA: Complicated.
Mexico: We appreciate language support from the native speakers.
Chair: So are you able to come up with an alternative?
USA: Delete “consider to” and keep “utilize”.
China: …
Chair: Okay, so it goes back to the sponsors to see how far we can go before Friday.
Mexico: Just delete that its agreed ininformals and we will continue our negotiations.
India: I would liek to qualify the programs and projects. Maybe put “relevant” before “projects and programmes of INCB”.
Chair: Agreed on 4k? Agreed in CoW. Where are we on 7?
PP7
Mexico: We agreed in in informal, but then other delegations have flagged that we need to be more homogeneous formulation, so I leave it to you to find an appropriate formulation. We are flexible. It begins now “Invite MS, in particular those who have not made increases to extrabudgetary resources, and other donors…”
Chair: My proposal is “Invites, also with a view to broadening the donor base, MS and other donors to provide …”
Australia: It is hard to follow I am afraid. I am happy to liaise with capital. We had a reservation in other resolutions on “???” and we wanted to make sure its marked here as well but let us see if capital is comfortable with this.
France: We are not really satisfied with this wording, we need to check.
Egypt: It was not acceptable to us and we need to highlight the need to fingerpoint to some of the beneficiaries (sic).
South Africa: Looks good but we have to confirm.
Chair: Good. Let´s sleep on this.
Mexico: We are in your hands.
Chair: Looks like you are half way. That is good news!
L4. Appendix to Complement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development
https://docs.un.org/en/E/CN.7/2026/L.4
Thailand: PP5 and OP4 demand particular attention. The sponsors considered Chinas proposal regarding synthetic drugs and suggested to move the reference to end of OP4 instead. This needs to be discussed at the expert group meetings.
Chair: Please make a specific proposal.
Thailand: “…examine the application of AD in the context.” And PP5 delete “spreading of synthetic drugs”.
Spain: This looks like a very good proposal but since we dont know yet bout the application of AD in the context of synthetic drugs so maybe we say “the potential application of…”
China: We would like to show our flexibility by allowing to remove reference to synthetic drugs. I also have proposals for minor language revision: “examine the challenges brought to AD…”
Peru: I was gonna support the addition of “potential” but now there is a new proposal on the screen so let´s allow a few minutes to consider this.
India: I am a little bewildered as to what my Chinese colleague is seeking to suggest, so I am seeking clarity here as to the intention.
Chair: Agreed.
Thailand: We welcome the proposal by Spain. Also confused about China.
Colombia: AD is actually a positive development. Are we trying to say that synthetic drugs are a challenge to AD? In that case we also have to use “potential”…. Depending on what we are trying to convey. That being said, we could have supported the original proposal.
Peru: Maybe lets go back to Spains proposal… We could put “…including the potential application of AD in the context of synthetic drugs”
China: We can show flexibility to Peru´s suggestion.
Chair: Thank you. Could the Secretariat highlight this text for us? Can we agree?
Thailand: I dont know what else we can take up today. We had extensive discussions and the potential for agreement has been exhausted.
Chair: So what is your plan?
Thailand: We are ready to get this to the Plenary for voting.
Mexico: Homogeneity…
India: I would like to go back to OP2. I was wondering if there is an intention to indicate there is something here other than the appendix? If so, what is the document? My suggestion was, for standardization purposes, to refer to the same thing.
Chair: We need a specific proposal to reflect your concept.
Colombia: We should use the same formulation. When we are talking about the guides, it should be clear that we are referring to the annex or the guide and principles… or both?
Germany: We take due note of these questions. The intention is indeed that the annex complements the principles. Ideally, in the future, both will serve as reference for MS. Could the Secretariat clarify what is a correct wording?
Chair: The Secretariat will probably suggest that the MS decide. That is what we are trying to do. We will see.
Peru: For us, who use the guiding principles already, we understand that we are going to encourage the use of the complemented one. We will try to cmoe up with a wording that is acceptable for everyone.
India: We dont have an issue with the substance of it, just clarify what we expect the private sector to do.
Chair: So that means you have some homework to do. So this document is ready to go to the Plenary without agreements on the whole. I suggest you spend some more time negotiating your resolution.
Colombia: Conceptually we support the resolution. The draft as is on the screen is accpetable for us.
Chair: Thanks for this comforting remark. So for now, we have exhausted consideration of this draft resolution. I encourage the sponsors to keep working on it. What is on the screen is factually correct. Delegations are welcome to refer to this as the Complemented Guiding Principles.
Tomorrow, the sponsors will have to decide. My intention is to bring the resolutions as close as possible to consensus. I need your cooperation but I am in your hands. I will see you tomorrow at 10am. Adjourned.
(…)