L5 Safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic opioid laboratories
Title
Chair: Agreed in informals
PP1
USA: We need to encourage explicitly fentanyl and nitazenes. It’s the only way for the commission to show that is aware of what is going on the world. We can have a reference to ‘additional opioids’
Chair: We’re going to informals
PP2
USA: Replace Noting with Recalling so that we have a practice of only noting prior resolutions.
Chair: Can we consistently agree that we will use noting instead of recalling? No objection
Chair: Paragraph agreed in COW
PP3
Chair: Agreed in COW
PP4
Poland: We would like to keep up the spirit of the resolution targeting synthetic opioids, no drugs like China had requested. However, we recommend adding a sentence ‘while remaining mindful of broader synthetic drug-related threats.
China: We are opposed to that addition. With regards to the opioids/drugs language, we would like to have language ‘synthetic drugs, in particular synthetic opioids’.
Singapore: We think the term ‘modernised’ is subjective, we would suggest ‘updated’.
Chair: Agreed in COW
PP5
United States: We are sympathetic to the issue of the dangers posed by a broader array of drugs other than synthetic opioids. The aim of this is to provide guidelines and if we broaden the scope to opioids
China: The threats mentioned in this PP are common to all synthetic drugs, not only synthetic opioids. Synthetic opioids is an issue in some member states, whereas synthetic drugs are a global issue and this is a resolution for all the work.
Chair: PP5 goes back to informals.
PP6
Chair: China has requested to delete this paragraph, does this view persist?
China: Yes. Precursors do not pose as much drugs as drugs themselves so we do not think this paragraph is necessary.
Poland: As far as we know some precursors also pose a risk for health.
Chair: PP6 agreed in cow
PP7
United States: We have a number of very small edits that will not change the tenour of the paragraph but are important to modify it slightly. Replace Recognizing with noting, replace role of UNODC with efforts of UNODC, plus several small syntaxis edits.
Iran: I need some additional time to think this over. Actually – let’s delete the word production.
Poland: Can we note “with appreciation” the work of UNODC?
US: No, we appreciate the work of UNODC but we want a consistent approach.
PP8.
USA: Several additions. Replacing Stressing with Welcoming, replacing combating with countering, removing manufacture.
China: We prefer the language of ‘Stressing’ rather than ‘Welcoming’.
USA: We’ll ask guidance from Washington.
Chair: This is going to informals.
PP9
Poland: Sponsor would like to take this to informals
OP1
Mexico: We would like to retain the terminology on production, which covers the entire process, Manufacturing only covers illicit goods.
USA: We would like to add ‘illicit’ within the language on ‘dismantling laboratories’. So it will be ‘dismantling illicit laboratories’.
Canada: ” We would appreciate more time to review this paragraph in informals, we think it is very convoluted and we see no clarity in what it is trying to chive.
OP1a
China: Insist on terminology around ‘synthetic drugs, including synthetic opioids’. Rather than jut focus on opioids.
USA: Opposed to this, and we would like to address fentanyl and nitazenes.
OP1c
Russia: Oppose reference to naloxone
China: Suggest using ‘otehr relevant medication, where applicable’.
US: We could show flexibility on referencing naloxone or substances with similar effect. But on our domestic experience. The evidence is irrefutable that having naloxone saves lives.
China: We should refer to synthetic drugs, not only synthetic opioids.
US: We oppose this. S
Mexico: With the advent of synthetic precursors we need language on production rather than on manufacturing.
Chair: I’m adjourning this because we only have 1 hour per resolution.
Canada: We need to add a reservation on PP2.
L7: Tackling the IMpacts of illicit drug-related activities on the environment
France: … After many interesting proposals from the delegations, we didn’t have enough time in proposals, so let’s start with the PPs with near consensus, starting with PP1
Chair: Let us proceed to the according texts, starting with PP1
PP1
France: PP1 is agreed language and we’d like to retain the original language, underscoring that the Single Convention is a cornerstone of int’l drug control.
United States: As we noted in informals, we’re not prepared to underscore the conventions as noted in the preambulatory paragraph; the further we can go is to note them. We haven’t explicitly endorsed the referenced treaties under our new administration.
Russia: We’d like to keep the original language, as it’s been reproduced in many resolutions and is a foundation of many discussions in the CND.
Chair: It needs more work in informals; let’s move to PP2.
PP2
Mexico: Apologies for bringing this to substantive discussions, but it’s a recurring theme to need to here in the CoW. Besides political considerations, … we need clarification and the logic of why it’s only possible to underscore or note them, and not reference and use this language as has been done many times in the past; it’s affecting our work here in the CoW and outside too.
Chair: Moving to PP2 ter.
PP2 ter
Russia: We note that this is a cool to address also … root causes. Hence, it would be intelligent to recall this in a correct way. … We do not have strong sentiments on it in substance, but we do believe we have to correct it in the documents; we’d like to suggest another change to fully reflect the text to “these” impacts and not “those”.
…
Chair: Any opposition to the original language?
United States: We believe the inclusion of ‘root causes’ opens up a debate about the mandate of UNODC to concern ‘root causes’ and hence we have objections to this language.
Chair: Now to PP3 alt
PP3 Alt
United States: We needed time to review these paragraphs before stating positions; also to respond to comments about our position here, these are resolutions that are meant to be reached by consensus, and if all delegations cannot agree to language, that’s the nature of multilaterialism. We’re trying to be constructive and represent the interests of our delegation and we hope others can respect that.
Brazil: We thank the statements from our US colleagues. Regarding more time, this is not something that we have; regarding consensus, we are indeed seeking consensus. But, if we cannot agree even on the structural documents even on the sgtructural documents and language just from last year, there will be simply no time to reach consensus on what we need at this CND, leading to possible having to choose between not going for consensus. We’d like to not go for a vote, but for that, we’d need some more flexibility from delegations in at least on language, and especially just on the basics. Not even controversial language–this is needed if we want to move fast enough to reach consensus.
Chair: Can we ask delegations if we can agree to this change of just noting; okay with sponsors?
France: At the time being, we’re not ready to make this major concession, as we’re using this core (…) language; hence keeping our reservations.
Can we go back to PP2 ter, maybe as a gesture and try to reach smth positive, recallnig the Declaration, to add ‘inter alia’ and then try to break the paragraph after that so to avoid debate on ‘root causes’. Agreed by delegations?
Russia: We would agree if we put interalia after recognizes, if we put ‘inter-alia’ with affected local communities. This shows we are recalling it not in full, but in paragraph form.
Chair: Acceptable for sponsors and others?
France: Yes, we can agree with this and stop the paragraph after ‘local communities’.
Chair: Is this acceptable for all delegations?
Guatemala: My delegation still has a problem with the inclusion of ‘local’ and would have to bracket that word.
Brazil: We have again the issue that we’re recalling a text, which says it adversely affects local communities; it’s a fresh document just from last year, so we’d like to ask the delegates of Guatemala if we could stick with the language in this case.
Colombia: We’d like to retain the language of ‘addressing their impacts and the root causes’ because this is part of the outcome document; we’d like to keep these.
Saudi Arabia: We’d like to be next to Brazil on retaining ‘local’.
Chair: Without further comments, this moves to informals.
France: Let’s move to PP4; on PP4 we had much support but also many reservations; the suggestion would be to ‘bearing in mind’ or ‘recalling’ instead of ‘welcoming with appreciation’.
PP4
United States: No, this won’t work for us; we have opposition to any reference to any talk of a clean, sustainable environment, as there’s no reference or obligation to this in international law.
Russia: We cannot support this paragraph, as this was not a consensus paragraph, ti was voting. Even though we abstained we still have a large opposition to it; not to any talk of a clean and sustainable environment.
Mexico: If we start with ‘noting’, perhaps this would satisfy the delegation who only wants to see it noted.
Chair: Great; this should be done in informals and then go to the CoW with concrete suggestions.
Denmark: We would like to register its support for retaining PP4 considering its high relevance for the scope of this resolution. We’d back France’s idea to put ‘bearing in mind’ at the beginning, but we’d like it retained.
Iran: With respect to PP4, we asked for the deletion of this paragraph at beginning of negotiations;
Netherlands: Denmark explained it well, this is so close to the core of the resolution so we’d like to retain as well
Colombia: We’d like to add after the Netherlands.
Germany: We’d like to add after Colombia:
Greece: We as well
United Kingdom: We as well.
Canada: We as well.
Austria: We as well.
Finland: We as well:
United States: Our name after ‘delete’, please; we cannot support this paragraph.
Slovenia: We as well after Finland.
Cyprus; We after Slovenia.
South Africa: We after Cyprus.
Lithuania: We in
Bulgaria: Same
Australia: Same
PP5
Denmark: Support the chair´s proposal
China: add ‘criminal´ to ‘activities’ and maybe the language will resist.
Venezuela: We have a conceptual debate. We still don´t know if actions that affect the environment are criminal in nature. There is no consensus on that. This body is not the appropriate forum to discuss this. Our suggestion is to delete this paragraph.
India: We understand the rationale from Iran. We would suggest adding ´could become´to a source of financing crimes.
USA: A lot of the interventions that have been made have raised issues. Many jurisdictions such as us do no thave a generate forfeiture statue, we have forfeiture provisions for specific crimes. We could accept the reference to criminal activities, but we would want some examples of crimes. But we could live with this paragraph being deleted.
Brazil: This is a very important paragraph. The language is balanced. It makes clear that the proceeds of drug-related activities are a source of some crimes that affect the environment, but not all. We oppose the list of having a list of crimes that impact the environment.
France: Just as a general comment, supporting the interventions of Brazil and Netherlands. We can go on with the proposal from the Netherlands to use language of ‘use as’.
Iran: We support USA and BRA language of ´financing for some crimes´.
South Africa: We think we should remove the reference to specific crimes at the end of the paragraph.
China: We are fine with removing the language on ´criminal´activities..We recommend to also remove all references to financing.
Belgium: I would like to highlight the proposal made by the NEtherlands, which makes very clear that the proceeds of crime are just one of the sources of financing.
France: Opposing the attempt of China to remove the reference to financing. The point of the PP is to highlight that this is a source of financing for harms to environment.
Paragraph at the end of this discussion:
PP6
Colombia: We need to recognise here that drug responses can also have impacts on the environment.
Germany: In this paragraph we have voiced our opinion that drug responses can have very serious impacts on the environment so we support
USA: We can’t support having drug policy responses. We don´t support listing several impacts on the environment.
Russia: We would like to delete this paragraph. We are stating more or less the same idea in the PP where we recall the high-level declaration
Chair: Send this to informals.
Saudi Arabia: We also want to remove reference to greenhouse gases and deforestation.
Belgium: We want to retain thisparagraph and the mention of all specific impacts.
Netherlands: Agree with Germany.
Venezuela: We would like a deletion to the reference to ‘and related drug policy responses’
France: Adding our name to retain the list. For the drug policy responses, I don’t see responses
Denmark: Echo Belgium. Retaining the end of paragraph. We would like to retain serious in the middle of the paragraph.
United Kingdom: We support Denmark,.
Paragraph at some point of the discussion:
Chair: continue in informals
PP8:
Canada: We’d prefer to retain the original paragraph as was agreed; we feel there are anumber of elements which are important and is a well-balanced list for hwat’s included.
Brazil: We’d like to also stress that’re many elements here of interest to amny delegations; by keeping the paragraph it’ll help us reach agreement, it’s based on agreed language, and human rights, soveriegnty, and the UN charter. It would be helpful if we all agreed to retaining this language and its element in the reosluton.
Morocco: Add us after Brazil; we agree this language is essential.
Finland: Add us after Morocco.
Chair: Is this acceptable for everyone, given the suggestion in the middle of paragraph by the United States?
United States: To clarify: as we see it, there;s been an insertion to suybstutue ‘state’s legal obligations’ to the full list that follows. It also lists an array of documents and references the SDGs which aren’t on par with the Univ. Dec. of HUman Rights; we think its’ stronger to reference based on states’ obligations rather than the list that follows.
Chair: Would a deletion of this section be agreeable?
France: We’re unsure if delegations will be comfortable to cut this; we’d move to retain this language.
Chair: Moving to informals then; thanks for understanding. Soon we’re moving to the next resolution, next will be L6.
L6: Strengthening the global drug control framework: a path to effective implementation
Colombia: We have gone through several rounds of edits, etc. … As in all cases, we aim for a consensual text and thank you all in achieving this objective.
Chair: Let us begin with the preambular part, and title of the resolution. I open the floor for comments.
United States: Regarding the title, we understand this hasn’t been discussed in informals, and given the uncertainty re: this resolution and its final message, we’d just suggest to bracket the text for now and at the end of the reading we’ll better understand what the title should be.
Chair: Moving to first preambular paragraph, PP1:
Russia: We thank Colombia for their constructive approach and bringing the language to as close to agreed language as possible. However, we’d like to introduce before ‘instruments’ as ‘relevant international instruments’ as it’s important for us to keep the reference to ‘international’.
United States: We’re still awaiting instructions from Washington, so let’s place a reservation for now.
Chair: Moving to PP2.
PP2
Argentina: We expressed that we must see how negotiations evolve; we have reservations to the whole resolution. Wanted to share with the room.
Chair: We should continue with the understanding that Argentina has reservations overall, to be addressed in informals.
Singapore: We thank Colombia for their work. As expressed in informals, we’re unsure of the need of this resolution, but look forward with moving together. However, we’ve not actually discussed the preambulatory text.
Chair: noted, there are multiple general reservations; are there specific comments on the text?
United States: Our concern with this paragraph–and all preambulatory–we’re seeing this for the first time, hence had no time to get guidance on the specific proposals. Based on guidance from the past though, fairly confident we want to change ‘recognizing’ to ‘noting’; but without guidance, we cannot be sure. So, we will need to express a general reservation and still go paragraph by paragraph.
Chair: Okay; any comments or suggestions overall for the preambulatory part? Would help with the sponsor in informals with moving forward.
European Union: We’ve taken note of the general reservations and specific changes expressed; particularly, the general use of ‘noting’ by the United States, but in general we prefer to keep the original text (‘recognizing’) because ‘noting’ is too weak of language for the means of this text.
United States: Our reservation referred to PP2 and the ‘noting’ to PP3.
European Union: Noted, (…) still preference for keeping the original language.
Sudan: (…) *introduced PP2 bis*
Netherlands: Almost all the comments have been incorporated, my remark here concerns PP3 and the remark from the colleague from the EU re: agreed language; we find this very important and would like to add the Netherlands to this support. Most of the preambulatory text is agreed language and we believe we should stick to that.
United States: Can we return to PP1 bis, some clarity here would be useful, if it’s intended to be an alternative to PP1? This language is just not acceptable for us, as the original intent was to focus on the abiding thread of the 3 drug control conventions, namely the concern for health and wellfare of mankind. This notion of the concern for all parties for ensuring respect for these conventions is fundamentally a statement about international law, as all parties are responsible for upholding their party to the conventions; hence this is (…) and we would not support this language.
European Union: We would like to add the EU after the USA for the same reasons given by the USA delegation.
Russia: We’d like to support the proposal from Sudan, we agree that the 3 international drug control conventions are broadly discussed within the resolution, also within operative paragraphs, and we’d like to be clear that state parties would comply with their provisions and ensure respect for the conventions.
Guatemala: Our delegation is also opposed to the inclusion of this paragraph.
Chair: Thank you, a reminder, we’re discussing PP1 bis, PP2 and PP3. We would suggest to discuss in the start of the afternoon L6, rather than L4, now after the afternoon break. Mind other changes to the schedule regarding changes to the informal dialogues. With this, the meeting is adjourned.