CND68: Meeting 9
Economic and Social Council
Date: 14 March 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k19/k190pysjwp
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

CND · Chair [1:03:57]:

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. May I request you to please take your seats so that we can start? So, I'm just gonna Good morning. I think we have the last day of our deliberations today. Before we start the discussions, let me just say that it's wonderful to see all of you here again. And we've had four days of very productive and engaging discussions. We had wide-ranging deliberations on a range of issues before the Commission. We heard from civil society and other stakeholders, and I think we've had very productive and meaningful deliberations. And as we move into the last day, I would only maybe make a comment about the way in which we approach today's discussions. It is quite in the tradition in the CND that we work on consensus, but we also recognize, and I do hope that all delegations will agree with me, that even if we are unable to agree, we have ways of moving ahead. We can disagree without being disagreeable. And I hope that in our discussions today, in our presentations today, we will continue with that spirit and try and obtain as close as possible a sense of the membership of the Commission. Excellencies, distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, we will now resume consideration of agenda item 10, provisional agenda for the 69th session of the Commission. Ambassador Wetsig of Chile, the Vice Chair, had chaired the session yesterday, and the draft provisional agenda for the 69th session was considered by the Extended Bureau during its meeting of 21st February. and the chairs of the regional groups were requested to hold consultations with their membership. During its meeting of 12 March, the extended Bureau agreed to put forward the draft agenda as contained in the document with the symbol L/8. I understand, however, that yesterday there was no consensus on the proposed draft provisional agenda, and Since there is no consensus on this, I think that in order to save our time today, we will come back to this agenda item later in the day. We will now turn our attention to agenda item 12, adoption of the report of the Commission on its sixty-eighth session. We will now proceed with the adoption of the draft resolutions. Before doing so, I would like to wholeheartedly thank Ambassador Andranik Hovhannisyan of Armenia for having supported me by very ably chairing the Committee of the Whole. Ambassador, you have the floor.


Armenia · Chair of the Committee of the Whole [1:08:41]:

Ambassador Andranik Hovhannisyan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Committee of the Whole held eight meetings between Monday and today. Unfortunately, the Committee has not been able to find consensus on any of the draft resolutions tabled as documents L/2, L/3, L/4, L/5, L/6 and L/7. I would like to report, nevertheless, that the Committee has indeed made progress and found agreed language on technical issues and policy equations in every single resolution. leading to a considerable number of paragraphs that were agreed in the CAW, in all of them. I would like to thank sponsors and delegations for their hard work on this text during the past week. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Secretariat for its indispensable support, and, of course, Conference Management Services for their kind assistance. I would like also to thank the Chair of the Commission and colleagues in the Extended Bureau for all their support. Thank you very much.


CND · Chair [1:09:56]:

I thank Ambassador Hovhannisyan, and I do recognize that the deliberations that were held in the Committee of the Whole have helped all delegations have a very good understanding of the issues involved. And with that, We have concluded the consideration of the Kowles report, and now, before we proceed with the adoption of resolutions, I would request delegations to abstain from taking the floor for comments on editorial or translation matters and to provide comments on these matters directly to the Secretariat. Let me recall also the process for co-sponsorship of draft resolutions. Member States who want to co-sponsor draft resolutions can still do so online on eDelegate until the close of business on Monday, 17 March 2025, at the latest. In addition, Member States can also raise their country plate during the adoption of resolutions. I kindly ask delegations who want to co-sponsor a resolution to be patient and only raise their flags when asked to do so. I would also like to recall that the representative of the Financial Resources Management Services of UNODC explained in the pre-session consultations that there would only be statements of financial implications issued if there were implications on the regular budget. The Chair of CAW reported: In case there are no resolutions for which consensus has been found in CAW, according to past practice, we will take up the resolutions in the order in which they have been tabled. I now call on the Secretary to introduce the first proposal.


CND · Secretary [1:12:03]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. The Commission has for its consideration and adoption the following draft resolutions. Document L2, of which an official ref 1 was also submitted. Document L3, for which an official ref 1 was submitted. Document L4, for which an official ref 1 was submitted. Document L5, for which an official ref 1 was submitted. Then there is document L6, for which an official ref 1 was submitted, and document L7, for which an official ref 1 was submitted. And there is furthermore the amendment in document an amendment to document L-6 rev 1, which is contained in document L-9, and then an amendment to document L-9, which is contained in document L-10. As we already heard from the Ambassador of Armenia, the draft proposals were considered by the Committee of the Whole but have not been approved there. And the first proposal is contained in document L2-REF1 and is entitled "Promoting comprehensive, scientific evidence-based and multisectoral national systems of drug use prevention for children and adolescents" and has been sponsored by Chile as well as Albania, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Peru, Slovenia and Switzerland. If I may suggest, Mr. Chair, you can perhaps ask from the sponsors a confirmation that it is indeed REV-1 that they want to be put under consideration. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:14:07]:

Could the sponsors confirm the same? Peru, you have the floor. Thank you for the confirmation. Can I now invite the commission to adopt the proposal? I see the United States.


United States of America [1:14:36]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, my delegation cannot join consensus, and we would like to call a vote on L2. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:14:50]:

The delegation of the United States has called for a vote on the proposal on L2/rev1. We will now proceed with the voting on L2/rev1. I would propose that any statements by members of the Commission in explanation of vote, as well as any general statements, be made after the voting. We will now have the voting. In accordance with rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure of the functional commissions of ECOSOC, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. remind the Commission that in accordance with rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. According to the Rules of Procedure, “present and voting” means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. May I now call on the members? Only those in favor of the adoption of the proposal as contained in L/2/Rev.1 to raise their country signs and kindly keep them raised till the country name is called out.


CND · Secretary [1:16:16]:

Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Colombia, I think, was already mentioned, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, and Zimbabwe. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:17:30]:

I now call on the members of the commission not in favor of the proposal by raising their signs.


CND · Secretary [1:17:41]:

United States. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:17:45]:

Thank you. I now invite those members of the commission abstaining to indicate their abstention by raising their country signs.


CND · Secretary [1:17:54]:

Argentina. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:18:01]:

We will now tally the votes. The vote count is as follows: 46 votes in favour, 1 vote against, and 1 abstention. I therefore declare that the Commission has decided to adopt proposal L2 rev1. Does any member of the commission wish to make a statement in explanation of vote? Or any delegation wish to make a general statement?


Speaker 14 [1:19:47]:

The U.S.


CND · Chair [1:19:47]:

Has the floor. I recognize Chile first. Ambassador, you have the floor.


Chile · Ambassador [1:20:04]:

Thank you, Chair. Dear delegates, first of all, I would like to express our sincere gratitude on the adoption of this resolution. We truly appreciate the collective effort and the commitment shown by each delegation to secure this achievement. Drug use prevention goes beyond public health policies. It is a shared responsibility that involves the whole of society. Comprehensive prevention systems through different stages of life, taking into account gender realities, are an effective response not just to reduce the risk of substance consumption, but also to address other risk behavior. We tabled this resolution because we believe that prevention directed at children and teenagers is something that should bring us all together. We offer different options to address the different concerns and suggestions made. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get full consensus. on all aspects. We appreciate the excellent proposals that were made, and we regret that they were not all able to be included. Finally, we reiterate our thanks to all delegations for their efforts and contributions. With this spirit of collaboration, we would like to conclude and hope that we all continue to work together. Thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [1:21:51]:

I thank Chile for its statement and now invite the representative of the United States of America.


United States of America [1:22:00]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States strongly supports efforts to promote effective drug use prevention approaches for children and youth. We have, however, decided to call a vote on this resolution as we are concerned that This resolution is a reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans. The United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda. for sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and it will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. Finally, this text also fails to use precise language regarding the biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. For these reasons, the United States votes no.


CND · Chair [1:23:01]:

I thank the representative of the United States and now recognize the representative of Argentina. Ambassador, you have the floor.


Argentina · Ambassador [1:23:09]:

Thank you, Chair. Argentina would like to express its full commitment to promoting national systems of comprehensive drug use prevention for children and adolescents. I would like to thank Chile for the flexibility shown throughout the discussion of the resolution that has just been adopted. However, the final version contains references to subjects which my country would like to make its position clear about in the report. Argentina would like to say for the record that the word "gender" appears in international treaties when it refers to the two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society. Gender, for our delegation, has no other meaning than that. And for Argentina, Agenda 2030 is composed of aspirations which are not legally binding, and each state, in exercise of its sovereignty, has the right to pursue them freely. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:24:26]:

Thank you, Argentina. I see no other delegations wishing. I recognize the Ambassador of Egypt.


Egypt · Ambassador [1:24:43]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We express our pleasure at having the 68th session adopt this resolution on promoting comprehensive scientific evidence-based and multi-sectoral national systems of drug use prevention for children and adolescents. We are grateful to Chile for submitting this proposal and leading the discussions on the draft proposal. We had hoped that the proposal would be adopted by consensus. rather than voting in the spirit of Vienna. We have joined the voting in favour of this decision because we believe that prevention among children and adolescents is the cornerstone in protecting our society from this scourge in order to achieve a society free of drugs. The draft resolution affirms that Implementing evidence-based and multisectoral national systems of drug use prevention, such as CHAMPS, are important for protecting our societies. Egypt is the first country to implement the CHAMPS initiative based on its belief in the central role of protection services in order to adopt policies to combat the use of drugs. offer full support for the implementation of this resolution and support for partners in implementing it, particularly the UNODC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


CND · Chair [1:26:19]:

May I now inquire if there are any additional delegations that wish to co-sponsor? I see Brazil.


CND · Secretary [1:26:33]:

The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Thailand, Spain, Belarus, Egypt, Kyrgyzstan, Belgium, Ghana, Guatemala, Andorra, Honduras, Hungary, Portugal, Indonesia, Morocco. Can I kindly ask people, New Zealand, Thailand, European Union. I think this is on behalf of the members of the Commission that are members of the European Union. Armenia, China, Colombia, so Finland is already covered, France as well, Japan, Russian Federation, Singapore, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.


CND · Chair [1:27:29]:

Thank you. Those will be duly noted, and as was mentioned earlier, this sponsorship option is open until close of business on Monday, 17th March. That concludes our discussions on L-2. Now I call on the Secretary to introduce draft proposal L-3.


CND · Secretary [1:27:52]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have before us a text that has been tabled L3/1 with the title "Promoting research on scientific evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders", sponsored by Norway and Thailand, as well as Peru and Switzerland. Thank you. And you may wish to clarify, indeed, Mr. Chair, from the sponsors whether it is the version L3/REF.1 to be considered. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:28:29]:

Could the sponsors kindly confirm the same?


Thailand [1:28:33]:

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. We confirm the same draft resolution. Thank you. L3/REF.1. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:28:42]:

Thailand, the delegation of Thailand confirms the same. Can I now invite the Commission to adopt the proposal? I recognize the delegation of the United States.


United States of America [1:28:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would request kindly a vote on this resolution. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:29:14]:

A vote has been requested. on the proposal L3/Rev1. We will now proceed with voting on L3/Rev1. I would request that any statements made by members of the Commission in explanation of vote, as well as any general statements, be made after voting. In accordance with rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure, No representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. And in accordance with rule 58, a simple majority present and voting is required. And present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote, and members that abstain are considered as not voting. I now call only on the members of the Commission in favour of the adoption of the proposal contained in L-3. REV 1 to raise their country signs and keep them raised till their country name is called out.


CND · Secretary [1:30:19]:

Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Kingdom of the Netherlands, 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.


CND · Chair [1:31:35]:

I now call upon only those Kenya.


CND · Secretary [1:31:38]:

Excuse me?


CND · Chair [1:31:40]:

I now call only on members of the commission not in favor of the proposal to raise their signs.


CND · Secretary [1:31:47]:

United States and Argentina.


CND · Chair [1:31:51]:

I now request any members abstaining to indicate their abstention. Thank you. We will now tally the votes. The vote count is as follows: there is a total of 49 votes in favor, two votes against, and nil abstentions. Therefore, I declare the Commission has decided to adopt the proposal L3 Rev1. Does any member of the commission wish to make a statement in explanation of vote? United States. I recognize the United States.


United States of America [1:33:12]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States supports efforts to promote research on pharmacological treatments for those battling the harms associated with the nonmedical use of stimulant drugs. Our support notwithstanding, we have decided to call a vote on this resolution as we have concerns with language used throughout the text. First, the text fails to acknowledge the natural reality that there are two sexes, men and women. For the freedom and dignity of all men and women, we must stop using gender ideology-related terms. Second, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that constitute an overreach into national decision-making and is therefore inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans. The United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and the United States will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. For these reasons, the United States votes no. Thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [1:34:21]:

I thank the United States and now recognize Argentina.


Argentina · Ambassador [1:34:27]:

Thank you, Chair. The resolution has just been approved. contains references to subjects that my delegation would like to make its position clear on. Argentina would like to say officially that the word "gender" for us is as included in international treaties. It refers to the two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society. The term "gender" has no other meaning than that. With regards to the gender perspective, the commitment of Argentina to women's right is long standing and is included in its legislation and domestic practices that go beyond international standards. However, implementing sectorized perspective to human rights leads to inequities which are contrary to the goal of non-discrimination. For Argentina, Agenda 2030 is composed of aspirations which are not legally binding, and each state, in exercise of its sovereignty, is free to interpret them. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:35:43]:

Thank you, Argentina. Are there any other delegations, members of the Commission that wish to make a statement, a general statement? I recognize Thailand.


Thailand [1:35:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, on behalf of the Royal Thai Government, I would like to extend my deep appreciation to all CND members who voted in favour of this resolution entitled “Promoting research on scientific evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders”. The overwhelming number of support sent a strong signal towards enhanced international collaboration, particularly among the scientific community. academia, and private sector to join hands in effectively addressing the demand side of stimulant use. The resolution calls for increase in research, data sharing, exchange of best practices, technical cooperation, and capacity building. The resolution is rooted in people-centered approach with a focus on health care and treatment. as we believe that through medical treatment coupled with uplift in livelihood are the sustainable way for people to stay off drugs, particularly amphetamine-type stimulants, or ATS, which are prevalent in regions across the world and adversely impacting the youth and tearing down fabric of societies. We also like to extend our deep gratitude to all countries’ delegates who have constructively engaged at our informal consultations, even though your domestic stance cannot lead to the vote of support extended to the resolution. Notwithstanding this, Thailand appreciates your engagement in the dialogue of this inaugural resolution at CND. This resolution represents the first significant step of embarking on the joint research journey of stimulant use disorder in the future. We hope that our position on some issues can converge to advance this common cause. Last but not least, Thailand extends our deepest gratitude to Norway in co-tabling this resolution with Thailand. It is a reflection of a cross-regional initiative with a strong technical support of UNODC. Mr. Chair, I thank you.


CND · Chair [1:38:27]:

Thank you, Thailand. Norway, you have the floor.


Norway [1:38:44]:

Thank you, Chair. There is an urgent need for research on gender and age-sensitive treatment for stimulant use disorders. Despite the rising need for interventions, no medication has yet been approved for the treatment of stimulant use disorders to date. Additionally, the implementation of evidence-based psychosocial treatment remains very limited due to the lack of training of health care service providers, implementation challenges, and stigma. There is therefore an urgent need to bridge the global treatment gap for stimulant use disorders by developing and implementing scalable interventions, which this resolution seeks to address. I would like to express my gratitude to all members of the Commission for having adopted this resolution with a large majority of votes in favour, and to all Member States for their constructive engagement in the negotiations. I would also like to recognize the significant number of co-sponsors. Finally, I extend my gratitude to Her Excellency Pattaratong Kong and her entire team for our excellent cooperation and the stellar contribution from the Thai delegation. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:40:10]:

I would like to Enquire if there are any additional delegations wishing to co-sponsor.


CND · Secretary [1:40:20]:

Australia, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Australia, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, Ghana, Morocco, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Morocco, South Africa, Honduras, New Zealand, European Union. I believe this is on behalf of the members of the European Union that are members of the Commission. And Niger. And China. Apologies, it's not always easy to have everybody seen. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:41:11]:

We will now move on to the next resolution. I now call on Secretary to introduce the draft proposal L/4.


CND · Secretary [1:41:21]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next proposal, L/4, has also a ref. 1 version entitled “Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development”. sponsored by Germany, Peru, and Thailand, as well as Norway and Switzerland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you may wish to get confirmed from the sponsors whether indeed that's the version to be considered. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:41:56]:

Thank you, Madam Secretary. May I now request one of the sponsors to confirm that it is L4? Rev 1, that is indeed to be considered.


CND · Secretary [1:42:10]:

Yes, I see no Peru.


CND · Chair [1:42:19]:

Okay, I see that Peru has confirmed. Can I now invite the Commission to adopt the proposal? I recognize United States.


United States of America [1:42:37]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our delegation is not in a position to join consensus, so we would kindly request a vote. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:42:48]:

A vote has been requested on the draft proposal L/4/Rev.1. We will now proceed with the voting. Any statements may be made after the voting, including explanation of vote. In accordance with rule 61, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. And in accordance with rule 58, a simple majority of those present and voting is required. I now call only on the members of the Commission in favor of adoption of the proposal contained in L/4. Rev 1 to raise their country signs and keep them raised till their name is called out.


CND · Secretary [1:43:39]:

Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Kingdom of the Netherlands, 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. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:44:47]:

I now call upon those delegations that are against adoption of the proposal contained in L/4/Rev.1 to raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [1:44:58]:

Argentina and United States.


CND · Chair [1:45:01]:

I now call on those wishing to abstain.


CND · Secretary [1:45:05]:

Islamic Republic of Iran. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:45:10]:

We shall now tally the votes. The vote tally is as follows: we have 48 votes in favor, two votes against, and one abstention. I therefore declare the Commission has decided to adopt proposal L4/rev1. Does any member of the Commission wish to make a statement, an explanation of vote, or a general statement?


CND · Secretary [1:46:21]:

Guatemala asked first, Argentina, US.


CND · Chair [1:46:25]:

I give the floor to Guatemala.


Guatemala [1:46:29]:

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for giving us the floor, Chair. Guatemala voted in favor of the resolution complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development, which was tabled by Peru, Thailand, and Germany. Guatemala considers that this resolution aims to further the work of alternative development. We think that's important for our region. Guatemala believes that the characteristics, the nature, and the origins of the rights of indigenous peoples should be respected, including the recommendations made by the respective mechanisms. includes the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Special Rapporteur for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Therefore, we have reservations about paragraph 10 of this resolution. The term “local communities” is arbitrary and We think it's a surreptitious effort to not refer to indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples with an empty term such as local communities in a specialized forum cannot be accepted by Guatemala. There is no authorized source for this in international instruments. and it undermines the rights of indigenous peoples. So we would like this reservation to be included when this resolution is registered. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:48:30]:

Thank you. I now invite Peru.


Peru [1:48:37]:

Thank you, Chair. I would like to sincerely thank all the Member States that supported the adoption of this resolution complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. This is an unambiguous commitment to inclusive and sustainable development as a key to combating growing and producing drug crops. resolution acknowledges that the world drug problem continues to evolve and requires innovative and sustainable approaches. The sponsors believe that we have to launch a process to complement the UN’s guiding principles in order to more effectively address environmental deterioration, loss of biodiversity, climate change, food security, a territorial approach, the empowerment of women and girls, and the participation of local communities and indigenous peoples. The central element is organizing a meeting of experts in alternative development in 2025 under the auspices of UNODC and to make specific recommendations, which would be action-oriented of proven efficacy in alternative development, and their findings will be presented at the 69th session of CND for the consideration of Member States. The resolution highlights the importance of international cooperation and technical assistance. And therefore, we invite all stakeholders to support this initiative with their experience, knowledge, and financial and technical resources. Only through cooperation can we support communities targeted by drug trafficking to have sustainable social and economic practices. I would like to acknowledge the work of Germany and Thailand. our partners along the way for more than a decade to position alternative development in a central point of the development agenda. Their support has been essential to provide a global response to the world drug problem, promoting sustainable and effective solutions through alternative development. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:51:09]:

I thank Peru and now invite Argentina.


Argentina · Ambassador [1:51:16]:

Thank you, Chair. The resolution that has just been adopted contains references to subjects which Argentina would like to make its position clear on in the report. Argentina would like to say that the word “gender” is understood as in international treaties, and it refers to the two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society. The term “gender” has no other meaning than that. For Argentina, Agenda 2030 is composed of aspirations which are not legally binding, and each state, in the exercise of their sovereignty, has the right to interpret and pursue them freely. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:51:59]:

The next speaker is United States.


United States of America [1:52:05]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States is concerned with language Reaffirming Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to rights and interests of Americans. The United States rejects and denounces the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals, and the United States will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. This text also fails to use precise language regarding biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. It is time for a clear and overdue course correction on gender ideology. This resolution goes beyond the scope of alternative development, which is to address illicit crop cultivation, and it reads more like a sustainable development resolution. Thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [1:53:06]:

Thank you, United States. I now recognize Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:53:13]:

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. While we note efforts made by the sponsors of the resolution to achieve consensus, however, we express our serious concern that this resolution, as now adopted, once again departed from the agreed text as reflected on similar resolutions tabled at the sixty-sixth session of the Commission. In this regard, we note with concern that this resolution suffers from echoing one of the major challenges that some Member States has with regard to the UCM imposed in contravention international law on these States. On gender issue, we have the similar approach that only in our view that gender restricted to the men and women. That's it. On sustainable development and SDGs. We do believe that while we have progress on the implementation of the SDGs, however, we are of the view that it is a political commitment as well as composing of all ideas, including respecting to the national laws, regulations, and policies of Member States, which should be highlighted in every effort in these kinds of resolutions. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:54:25]:

Thank you, Iran. I now recognize Germany.


Germany [1:54:31]:

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. In these challenging times, Germany remains firmly committed to the rules-based international order and to multilateral cooperation. It is in this spirit that Germany has been promoting the concept of alternative development for over four decades in close cooperation with our friends from Thailand and Peru. Thanks to this innovative and lasting partnership, alternative development, in short AD, is a firmly established evidence-based approach in global drug policy. The AD concept has enjoyed broad and continued support from Member States since the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on AD in 2013. The resolutions jointly tabled by Thailand, Peru and Germany are ensuring a permanent presence of development-oriented drug policy approaches on the CND’s agenda. Building on these efforts, we achieved a very important milestone today, and we would like to thank all delegations for their support and constructive engagement throughout the past weeks that have now brought us to the adoption of the resolution titled “Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development”. The aim of the complementing process is to include aspects which have become highly relevant in the implementation of AD programmes worldwide, but were not yet included in the Guiding Principles at the time of their formulation. This includes, in particular, environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, food security, gender equality, and the meaningful engagement of indigenous peoples and of local communities. Let me also reiterate that alternative development programs have contributed to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing endeavors. Germany has been and remains a steadfast supporter of the 2030 Agenda, the fight to eradicate poverty and promote sustainable development. Both in the political declaration of the SDG Summit and in the Pact for the Future, we have committed ourselves to accelerating progress towards achieving the goals, including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant additional funds. For us, these principles remain an important fundament for our actions. Germany, together with our partners, will continue to support and foster an inclusive process in this regard, and we count on member states' support along the way. On behalf of my government, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our colleagues from Peru for their great work as penholders of this draft resolution, as well as to Thailand for their long-standing partnership. And to all other delegations present today, thank you for your ongoing support and commitment towards development-oriented drug policy approaches here at the CND. We are looking forward to continuing the discussions on the constant evolution of alternative development. Thank you.


CND · Chair [1:57:38]:

I recognize Thailand.


Thailand [1:57:41]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, on behalf of the Royal Thai Government, I would like to join Peru and Germany to extend our deep appreciation to member states that voted in favor of this resolution entitled “Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development.” In 2013, Thailand and Peru submitted the United Nations Guiding Principles on Outward Development for the UNGA consensus adoption. Nearly 12 years on, outward development remains a successful model for development-oriented strategy in addressing illicit cultivation, production, and manufacturing of and trafficking in drugs. Moreover, with the continuing partnership with Germany, the cherished partnership remains steadfastly strong as the trioka of outer development advocates at the CND. Thailand views it as timely to complement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. We want to highlight Thailand’s effort to co-host the ninth Expert Group Meeting on Alternative Development and the hosting of the Royal Project International Conference “From Alternative Development to Sustainable Development Goals: Empowering Alternative Development to Address the Global Challenges” held in Thailand last year, which are well documented in this resolution. Moreover, The deliverable from the ninth expert group meetings paved the way for an inclusive process in complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development, taking into account the nexus with sustainable development goals and the new evolving drug economy. We would like to encourage member states to send their expert to participate in this inclusive process. It is through our collective effort that we can improve and update the guiding principles in the most comprehensive manner. Lastly, Thailand extends our deepest gratitude to Peru in your strong leadership and effort in bringing this resolution to a successful adoption. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [1:59:48]:

Are there any additional delegations wishing to co-sponsor?


CND · Secretary [1:59:56]:

Colombia, Japan, United Kingdom, China, Armenia, Honduras, Ghana, European Union on behalf of the members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, Brazil, Indonesia. Yes, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [2:00:22]:

Thank you. Those will be duly recorded. That concludes our deliberations on L/4. I now call on the Secretary to introduce draft proposal L5/Rev1.


CND · Secretary [2:00:36]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, for L5, there is also a Rev1 officially tabled with title “Safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic drug laboratories, in particular those involving synthetic opioids.” and it has been sponsored by Poland on behalf of the States members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, and Albania and Mexico. And you might indeed wish to ask the sponsors, Mr. Chair, on which version they want to be considered by the plenary. Poland is.


CND · Chair [2:01:18]:

Poland.


Poland [2:01:22]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We worked hard on this draft till yesterday afternoon, and also today in the morning, we tried to achieve consensus. We managed to achieve consensus on a number of paras, I will say vast majority of paras, including a very important one for our delegation as co-sponsors and for others. There are still some paras left, but we proposed language which is closest to our deliberations. So we would kindly ask you to take action on the recent draft that was presented after the CAU today. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:02:09]:

Can you confirm that this is indeed rev 1?


Speaker 82 [2:02:12]:

No, it's post.


CND · Chair [2:02:14]:

It's post rev 1? Can I request the Secretariat to put up on the screen, if you can, what has come out of the cow this morning and last evening? Do we have it? Are there any delegations that wish to take time to go through this, or can we go further with this at this moment?


CND · Secretary [2:03:30]:

L5, 14 March, 10:15.


CND · Chair [2:03:36]:

So this is the version of L5 that is date-stamped 14 March, 10:15. I presume that the delegations are willing to move ahead, can I now invite the Commission to adopt the proposal? I see the United States.


United States of America [2:03:55]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regretfully, we cannot join consensus on this version of L5, and we respectfully request a vote. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:04:11]:

A vote has been requested on the draft proposal L-5 as amended in the Committee of the Whole. Date 14th March, 10:15 AM. We will now proceed with the voting. Any statements by members of the Commission in explanation, as well as any general statements, may kindly be made after the voting. And in accordance with rule 61, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. And in accordance with rule 58, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. I now call on only the members of the Commission in favor of the adoption of the proposal contained in L5, amended in the Committee of the Whole, dated 14 March 2025, 10:15 AM, to raise their country signs and keep them raised till their country name is called out.


CND · Secretary [2:05:21]:

Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Kingdom of the Netherlands, 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. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:06:26]:

I now call on members of the Commission not in favour of the adoption of the proposal. to raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [2:06:35]:

United States.


CND · Chair [2:06:38]:

I now call on members of the commission who wish to abstain to raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [2:06:44]:

Argentina and Indonesia.


CND · Chair [2:06:51]:

We will now tally the votes. The results of the voting is as follows: we have 48 votes in favour, 1 vote against, and 2 abstentions. I therefore declare the Commission has decided to adopt proposal L-5, amended in the Committee of the Whole, dated 14th March, 10:15 AM. Thank you. I now invite any delegations that wish to make a statement. The United States.


United States of America [2:08:15]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States is concerned with language reaffirming Agenda 2030 and the SDGs in this resolution. Although framed in neutral language, Agenda 2030 and the SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans. Therefore, the United States will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [2:08:43]:

Thank you, United States. I now call on Poland.


Poland [2:08:49]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is, of course, a general statement, not an explanation of vote. It's with pleasure that I address you today on adoption of the resolution on the safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic drug laboratories, particularly those involving synthetic opioids. First, allow me to extend my deepest gratitude to all delegations for their tireless efforts, constructive dialogue, and unwavering commitment throughout this process. The dedication and perseverance demonstrated in the negotiations reflects our shared determination to confront one of the most pressing challenges of our times: the threat posed by synthetic drugs, particularly synthetic opioids, to public health and security. This resolution stands as a testament to our collective resolve. It is a declaration of our commitment to safeguarding the brave officers who dedicated their lives to combating illicit drug production. Law enforcement personnel, first responders, and other frontline actors operate under immense risk, often in highly dangerous environments where exposure to toxic chemicals and highly potent substances can have fatal consequences. By adopting this resolution, we recognize their sacrifice and reaffirm our responsibility. And to affirm our... Okay, this resolution It also underscores the importance of international cooperation, technological innovation, and evidence-based practices in addressing the complexities of synthetic drugs production. It encourages the sharing of expertise, data, and resources to enhance the capacity of Member States to dismantle illicit laboratories safely. Let me again thank you, Mr. Chair, Ambassador of Armenia, the Co-Chair, Secretariat, UNDC Scientific Lab, co-sponsors of this resolution, all delegations that voted for the resolution, as well as those engaged in the process of negotiations. I thank you.


CND · Chair [2:11:11]:

I see no further comments. Now I open the floor for any delegations wishing to co-sponsor to... Argentina wants to speak. I'm sorry. I apologize. Argentina, you requested the floor.


Argentina · Ambassador [2:11:25]:

Thank you, Chair. Argentina reaffirms its commitment and the importance it grants to the safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic drug laboratories. And that's why we abstained. However, the resolution contains references to questions about which we would like to make our position known in the report. for Argentina, Agenda 2030 is made-up of aspirations which are not legally binding, and each state, in exercise of its sovereignty, is free to pursue them. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:12:12]:

I now give the floor to Mexico.


Mexico [2:12:17]:

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. We requested the floor as co-sponsors, first, and secondly, to thank the Government of Poland and Mexico for presenting this, and to express our thanks to the delegations who participated in intense conversations with this delegation, acknowledging new realities and challenges. posed by synthetic drugs and precursors, including designer precursors. That is the challenge which requires us to question the way in which we handle dangers in our countries and in CND, because these substances are not traditional ones, and therefore we are grateful for the support that this resolution received, and we'd like to thank Poland. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:13:24]:

Yes. Any other statements? I see none. I now invite those delegations that wish to co-sponsor to raise their country names.


CND · Secretary [2:13:34]:

Armenia, Brazil, Australia, Colombia, Japan, United Kingdom, Ghana, Morocco, Switzerland, Ecuador, Honduras, New Zealand. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:13:56]:

Thank you. That concludes our discussions on L5. As you would be aware, on L6, we have received some amendments and some procedural issues need to be deliberated upon. So in the interest of efficient organization of our work and saving time, I now intend to move to L7. May I now request the Secretary to introduce draft proposal L-7, please?


CND · Secretary [2:14:29]:

For L-7, Mr. Chair, there is indeed also a ref. 1 being tabled, addressing, the title is "Addressing the impacts of illicit drug-related activities on the environment." And it has been tabled by Brazil, France, on behalf of the States members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, Union, Morocco and Albania. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:14:58]:

May I request one of the sponsors to indeed confirm that it is L7/Rev1 that they would like the Commission to consider? France.


France [2:15:07]:

Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, I confirm.


CND · Chair [2:15:10]:

Thank you for the confirmation. Can I now invite the Commission to adopt the proposal? United States.


United States of America [2:15:20]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We request a vote, please.


CND · Chair [2:15:26]:

A vote has been requested on the proposal L7/Rev1. We will now proceed with the voting. I would request that any statements by members of the Commission in explanation of vote, as well as general statements, be made after The voting is concluded. In accordance with rule 61, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. And in accordance with rule 58, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required, and members that abstain are not considered as voting. The present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. I now call only on the members of the Commission in favour of the adoption of the proposal contained in L-7 rev 1 to raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [2:16:29]:

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


CND · Chair [2:17:41]:

Members of the commission not in favour of the adoption of the proposal to raise their signs.


CND · Secretary [2:17:49]:

Argentina and the United States. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:17:53]:

May I now request members of the commission abstaining to indicate their abstention by raising their signs?


CND · Secretary [2:18:01]:

Indonesia.


CND · Chair [2:18:07]:

We will now tally the votes. Thank you. There is a total of 48 votes in favor, two votes against, and one abstention. Therefore, I declare the Commission has decided to adopt proposal L-7/Rev.1. Are there any delegations that wish to make a statement? Guatemala.


Guatemala [2:19:38]:

Thank you, Chair, for giving us the floor. Guatemala voted in favor of the resolution entitled “Addressing the Impacts of Illicit Drug-Related Activities” tabled by Brazil, France, and Morocco. Guatemala considers that this initiative tackles a very important subject, the environmental impact of illicit drug-related activities, promoting the development of evidence-based policies to mitigate the negative impact on ecosystems. However, for Guatemala, any reference to indigenous peoples must respect the characteristics, nature and the origins of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the work and recommendations made by established mechanisms. to safeguard everything relating to indigenous peoples, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And therefore, Guatemala reiterates and expresses its strong reservation to operational paragraph 8 of this resolution, especially because the use of the term local communities is arbitrary and just is a surreptitious attempt to subsume Indigenous peoples, the term Indigenous peoples with a phrase empty of explicit content such as local communities, and a specialized forum such as this cannot be accepted by Guatemala, as there is no authorized source in international instruments, and it undermines the acknowledged rights of indigenous peoples. Therefore, Chair, we would like this reservation to be recorded. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:21:40]:

I now recognize France.


France [2:21:45]:

Thank you so much, Chairman. Excellencies, colleagues, allow me to first thank all Member States of the Commission who supported this resolution tabled by France, Brazil, and Morocco on combating the impacts of illicit-related drugs activities on the environment. This is the first resolution on drugs and environment adopted by the CND. It affirms the role and relevance of the CND and the UNODC regarding a very crucial issue. It is also part of our joint efforts so as to attain the Sustainable Development Goals. which France supports unreservedly. At each stage in its life cycle, illicit drugs impact local ecosystems and biodiversity, in addition to a direct impact on culture, production, manufacturing, transportation, trafficking, commercialization, consumption, manipulation, and elimination of drugs, trafficking, and organized crime. have a direct impact on crimes affecting the environment. Global reports on drugs of the UNODC have highlighted these very serious impacts year after year, which impact all regions. We hope that better understanding of the impact of drugs on the environment will allow us to push back against these better, through better international cooperation. and better awareness amongst youth regarding the environmental impact of drug use. Finally, I would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to all delegations for the constructive spirit present in the negotiations, and in particular, I thank our partners Brazil and Morocco for everything we've done together. as well as our partners from the European Union and all countries who co-sponsored the resolution. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:23:57]:

United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [2:24:03]:

Thank you, Chair. The United States recognizes that illicit drug-related activities can adversely affect the environment. Unfortunately, this resolution deviates significantly from the worthy goal of addressing that. Therefore, the United States called a vote and voted no on this resolution because much of the text violates current United States policies. The primary concern of the U.S. has about this text is the reference to sustainable development goals. SDGs advance a program of soft global governance that is inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans. Indeed, citizens of all member states should be concerned by the inclusion of SDGs in this text. which is ostensibly focused on addressing the impacts of drug-related activities on the environment, a real and present problem that will not be resolved through the SDGs. This text also fails to use precise language regarding biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. Most concerning is the mention of the terms gender, disaggregated data, and gender-sensitive policies and programs, concepts with no agreed-upon meaning. Moreover, these terms are used to endorse divisive cultural causes and champion viewpoint censorship online. Lastly, we are concerned that this resolution calls for UNODC to continue activities for which the United States is still evaluating its support for, both financially and politically. I thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [2:25:42]:

The floor is with Argentina.


Argentina · Ambassador [2:25:47]:

Thank you, Chair. The resolution that has just been adopted, and Argentina voted against it, contains references to questions about which we would like our opinion to be recorded. Regarding the use of the word gender, Argentina believes It is used in international treaties to refer to two sexes, masculine and feminine, in the context of society. The term gender has no other meaning than that. For Argentina, Agenda 2030 is composed of aspirations which are not legally binding, and each State, in exercise of its sovereignty, has the right to interpret and pursue them freely. Thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [2:26:38]:

Morocco, you have the floor.


Morocco [2:26:43]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, I would like to thank all the members of the Commission for their efforts and active, positive, and constructive participation during the process of negotiation and for their support to this resolution, the first of its kind on the impact of drugs on the environment. I would like to recall the rationale of this resolution is based on 2016 United UNGA Special Session outcome document, the High-Level Declaration of 2024 Midterm Review, as well as the 2022, 2023, 2024 edition of the World Drug Report, which provide an overview of the direct and indirect impact of the drug on the environment and highlight the nexus between drugs and crime that affect environment. Morocco, France, Morocco, Brazil, from three different continents, have decided to present this draft resolution with the objective of opening the debate on this topic, which has unfortunately been under-addressed until now and which concerns many countries around the world, especially developing countries that are most affected by the world drug problem and which subsequently suffer more than others from the environmental impacts of drugs. This initiative Shall I recall, also stems from our conviction that the Commission is the most appropriate forum to address such concern with a view to developing reflection and response that are best suited to meet the challenges posed by the world drug problem. It also stems from our belief that the global drug problem is complex and that only holistic Response addressing the aspect of this problem can guide us to achieving the goals and the International Drug Control Convention, namely safeguarding the health and well-being of humanity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [2:28:51]:

The floor is with Brazil.


Brazil [2:29:03]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. From the beginning, Brazil and the co-sponsors have tried to reach consensus on this resolution, and I would also like to thank all delegations who have engaged in the negotiation of this resolution, including in particular the United States. We made efforts. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach consensus, but I want to register First, well, my gratitude to France and Morocco for the good partnership on this resolution and importance for Brazil, and I am confident that from many other countries, not only from the Amazon Basin, but from Africa and Asia, of the importance of having this resolution, which addresses the impacts of illicit drug activities, not only production, but the whole chain of illicit drug activities on the environment, direct impacts and indirect impacts, which include the connection between drug trafficking and other crimes that affect the environment. It also includes the effects on human health, on indigenous peoples and local societies. In that particular, Mr. Chair, I must mention that we still face a great difficulty in this Commission to find a good language that can satisfy all countries who are concerned about the treatment given to indigenous peoples. I make an appeal to all delegations that we engage with the aim of building an understanding that can take all of us on board, because we should be able to carve language where every country has their concerns reflected. Having said that, Mr. Chair, I thank again for all the support. we are really satisfied with the final result of this resolution. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:31:39]:

Thank you, Brazil. I now invite Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:31:43]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Actually, on the reaction of my delegation decision on L7, I should mentioning that Islamic Republic of Iran, as a member of the commission, and on the base of the activities of my country as a front line of the combating narcotic drugs in the region and being a member, as a neighbor of the Afghanistan situation, I should tell you that the decisions of the commission is very important for us. But in the meeting, my delegation actively participated in the meetings, in the informals, and we tried to harmonize of the text, and we tried to harmonize that and reflecting concerns of my delegation and the concerns of the all members, actually, but unfortunately, the majority of that, or I could say, none of that concerns reflected by the co-sponsors. But in any case, we joining to the decision and wish you all success. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:33:20]:

Thank you, Iran. I now recognize China.


China [2:33:28]:

Thank you. The Chinese delegation, with regard to the resolutions just passed, we have voted in favor. We also participated in the co-sponsorship of some of the resolutions during the negotiations of these resolutions. Although China has its own ideas and proposals for some of the content contained in the resolutions, however, We are very flexible and proactive in participating in the drafting of the resolutions, and have made our own contribution to the successful passing of the resolutions by majorities, by a landslide, overwhelming majorities. We would also like to emphasize that China has a positive attitude towards the content contained in the above-mentioned resolutions. On the SDGs 2030, China, together with the other developing countries and member states of CND, actively support SDG and actively support that the resolutions of the CND should emphasize SDG in its resolutions, emphasize the importance of development issues in its resolutions, and emphasize the importance of and on the importance attached by developing countries and the Global South to the development issues. China will continue to work with the Global South countries and the member states of CND to continue push for the development issues, in the work of the CND. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:36:42]:

Are there any other delegations that wish to make a statement? Costa Rica, you have the floor.


Costa Rica [2:36:51]:

Thank you, Chair.

We would like to thank Brazil, France, and Morocco for bringing this initiative to CND. Costa Rica is proud to co-sponsor this resolution that deals with the impacts of illicit drug-related activities on the environment and human health. It refers in its preambular paragraphs to the results of the special session, the UNGASS 2016, and the right to a healthy environment, and resolution 76/300 tabled by Costa Rica. It also refers to the high-level declaration of the 2024 mid-term review and establishes the link and the growing concern about the impact of production, consumption of drugs on the environment. We also support this resolution referring to human rights and the sovereignty of states, and the operational part wants to see more environmental protection included in drugs policy, and we support evidence and science for this, and strengthening the administration of justice regarding crime prevention and trafficking in narcotics and crimes that affect the environment. And finally, we would like to recall the discussions that took place in the UNTOC COP in 2024, where environmental protection was also referred to, and in concordance with Costa Rica’s principles, we confirm our support for this resolution. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:39:05]:

That concludes our statements. I am now opening the floor for any delegations that wish to additionally co-sponsor L/7.


CND · Secretary [2:39:18]:

Colombia, Switzerland, Ecuador, Cote d'Ivoire, China, Japan, United Kingdom, Ghana, Bolivia, and Honduras. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:39:36]:

Thank you. We now close our deliberations on L7 Rev. 1, and now we will move to L6 Rev. 1. May I now request the Secretary to introduce it?


CND · Secretary [2:39:54]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, we have before the Commission L6/rev.1 with the title "Strengthening the global drug control system: a path to effective implementation", which has been sponsored and tabled by Colombia, and also sponsored by Ecuador and Switzerland. As we already mentioned this morning, there is also an amendment tabled, contained in L6/rev.2, L.9 by the United States of America, tabled as an amendment to revised draft resolution L.6/1. And there is another amendment that has been tabled by Colombia, contained in L.10, tabled as an amendment to L.9 as an at least amendment to revised draft resolution L.6/1. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:40:57]:

Well, as members of the Commission would appreciate, this is a somewhat unprecedented situation in the sense that we have an amendment that has been moved by the sponsor of the resolution, Colombia. I would like to clarify from the delegation of Colombia as to whether they would like the resolution to be taken up and thereafter amendments to be voted, or would they like their amendment to be taken up first? Do they see this as a... Some delegations have expressed the view that, and the Secretariat has considered the proposition, that when a sponsor makes an amendment, does that necessarily remain as an amendment, or is that a new rev? So I'd like the representative of Colombia to clarify on this matter.


Colombia [2:42:06]:

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving us the floor. For Colombia, L.10 is an amendment to L.9. Therefore, according to the Rules of Procedure of ECOSOC’s functional commissions, L.10 is in line with Article 73, and therefore, L.10 should be the basis of the discussions. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:42:34]:

Is there any other delegation that has a view on this matter? I see the United States.


United States of America [2:42:45]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The U.S. amendment, in our view, must be considered before the Colombian purported amendment to the amendment, in accordance with rule 64 of the Rules of Procedure in long-standing ECOSOC practice. According to this rule, when two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal shall be voted on first. And that's a quotation from the rule. The Colombian amendment is a very minor amendment to their revised proposal. It simply changes a couple of words. Our amendment replaces the entirety of the operative clauses in the Colombian proposal. There is therefore no ambiguity whatsoever as to which amendment is furthest removed in substance to the original proposal. The U.S. amendment must be considered before the other tabled amendment. If the Colombian amendment is considered first, we would create an absurd precedent for this body that would make it ungovernable going forward, whereby every amendment could be countered with an amendment to an amendment, restoring the original text of the proposal, perhaps with a few minor and insignificant edits, and with the intent of jumping the queue. then an amendment to the amendment to the amendment could be introduced by the proponents of the original amendment, seeking to restore the amendment's priority. This could continue ad infinitum, undermining the orderly management of this body. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [2:44:46]:

Mexico, you asked for the floor.


Mexico [2:44:51]:

Thank you, Chair. Yes, as you yourself said, and the delegation that took the floor before us, this is unique for this Commission and its work in Vienna. The distinguished delegate of the United States referred to the complete absence of ambiguity in Rule 64. We agree, and therefore, we would like to ask that delegation, and I will ask it in English. given that the substance of the Colombian proposal is an improvement in the work, the functioning of the current framework and the substance of the amendment proposed by the United States, unless we understood the contrary, is the improvement of the existing framework, where the proposals are different, are the details, are the modalities to achieve that, this central goal. English now.

Of the United States is, are you in favor of the substance of this initiative, which is to improve the functioning of the existing framework? Or are you against and hence there is furthest removed from substance? Or the American proposal is only, as we think and as we understand, a different approach for achieving the same objective. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:46:25]:

I thank Mexico, but I don't want to open up, as the Commission would appreciate, a process of negotiation on the contents of what amendments have been placed. The written amendments are available. Oral amendments would be difficult to take up because we do not have the time to do so. Would like to, before I do so, I just want to be very clear because I heard the Colombian delegate refer to rule 74. I assume that he meant rule 64.


Speaker 144 [2:47:01]:

63.


CND · Chair [2:47:02]:

63. 60.


Speaker 146 [2:47:03]:

63, right? 63.


CND · Chair [2:47:09]:

Yes, Colombia.


Colombia [2:47:13]:

Thank you, Chair. Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure. It is, it estab that establishes what constitutes an amendment and what doesn't. Therefore, an L10 is an amendment to L9. It is in line with rule 63 and rule 64. which establishes the order of the questions to be considered by the Commission first. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:47:46]:

The Secretary indicates that perhaps there was a problem with the translation, because I think the translator mentioned 73 or 74. Anyway, it's now been clarified that you are referring to rule 63. Are there any other delegations that wish to comment on this matter? The issue, therefore, before us is that we have, as the Colombian delegate has clarified, they have proposed an amendment, and the United States has also placed an amendment. Both those amendments are before us. These are both written amendments. I am inclined to look at the rules of procedure when there are two amendments available for consideration. And the rule that governs us, and I'll request the Secretariat to kindly project that rule, it gives very clear guidance, as far as I can see, on the order of voting on amendments. And it says that when two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal shall be voted on first, and then the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and so on until all amendments have been put to the vote. Colombia, you have the floor.


Colombia [2:49:38]:

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for bringing Rule 64 here. To clarify, for Colombia, it is obvious that L-10 is related to L-9, and it is the biggest difference between L-10 and L-9. Therefore, we should deal with L-10 first and then L-9. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:50:06]:

Are there any other comments on this matter? I have noted the comments from Colombia. However, I am inclined to take the view that amendments are based on an underlying proposal, and amendments have to be seen in connection with that underlying proposal, because without it, the very purpose of an amendment would become somewhat meaningless. So I would take the view that the proposal that we have under consideration is L6/Rev1, and the Commission has before it two amendments to L6/Rev1. If we were to look at it from that perspective, then we have to be guided explicitly by Rule 64, which gives specific guidance in cases where we have two amendments that need to be considered. And therefore, we will have the opportunity to look at which amendment is furthest removed in substance from the original proposal. And I have seen both the amendments. I suspect all of you have seen that, too. And I am convinced that the proposal made by the United States under EC7 CN.7/25/L6/Rev.1 represents an amendment that is furthest removed in substance from the original proposal, and therefore will be voted upon first. Colombia.


Colombia [2:52:23]:

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your clarifications. bearing in mind that there is a divergence on the guidelines we interpret from the Rules of Procedure, we would like to appeal your decision and submit that we start with L-10. Thank you. And that's in reference to Rule 42. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:53:00]:

While I appreciate the spirit behind the Colombian decision, we would then be, if we adopt the Colombian approach, it would become quite difficult for us to refuse to look at inviting other oral amendments. And then I am sure somebody else would put up another amendment. and we could go on till the evening to decide on which amendment we would vote, and would have no conclusion on that matter. So adopting the Colombian proposal would imply that we listen to a series of amendments and not be able to decide which amendment we should vote upon. I therefore propose once again for the consideration of the House that we have two specific amendments. Rule 64 is explicitly clear that the amendment that is furthest removed should be voted upon first, and thereafter other amendments could be considered. I am not able to understand why this poses a difficulty for the delegation of Colombia.


Colombia [2:54:39]:

Thank you, Chair, and thank you because I know we're all working to implement the Rules of Procedure. However, we believe that L.10 is the furthest removed from L9, and that that is the procedure to be followed. Chair, we don't want to get involved in to a procedure of oral or non-oral amendments, which is because really we're here to consider L6. We would like to see decisions made on the basis of UN official documents that have been sent in by delegations, and that which we can tackle once and for all and make decisions based on what the plenary of CND decides. So I understand your reasoning and your arguments. Here at CND, we consider that there is a difference in opinion and that the Rules of Procedure should guide us when it comes to considering the Chair’s decisions on the order of things? Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:55:55]:

I think it is very clear what Colombia’s perspectives are on this matter, as you have been the delegation that has proposed the resolution. And therefore, I think it is important that we also appreciate the spirit in which these discussions are happening. You have proposed a substantive resolution. This resolution is before the consideration of the Commission, and another delegation, in this case, the United States of America, has proposed an amendment to your resolution. Now, procedurally speaking, it is clear that any number of delegations can propose amendments to delegations. But the important point here is that we have an underlying substantive resolution, and you are proposing to have, in a sense, your cake and eat it, because you both want to have your substantive underlying resolution to be considered and at the same time to take up an amendment to that same resolution. Now, let us also be guided by common sense. and substantive purpose of this Commission, it is to look at a resolution, and that resolution has been presented by Colombia. And we have a very substantive difference of opinion through an amendment by another delegation. So I think I would respectfully request the delegation of Colombia not to resort to procedurally finessing this mechanism. Because I don't think we are looking at a procedural finesse. We are looking at trying to get our work done, using the rules of procedure as our guide and relying on the wisdom of our forebears who have come up with these rules, explicitly providing for guidance in this situation. Mexico, you have the floor. And kindly, we will not get into the substance of the.


Mexico [2:58:07]:

Thank you, Chair. I won't go to the procedural finesse, as you called them, but we need clarity on the main point of discussion, the substance. is the review of the existing framework, and in our opinion, and that's why we asked the question, there is not a substantive difference between one proposal and the other. It is the modalities, the details that change. And from that point of view, L9 is not that distance, not as far from it as L10 is. So let's -- we've heard the promoters of L9 who are moving further away from the substance. Substance is not the modality, but the central aim of the resolution. Thank you.


CND · Chair [2:58:59]:

I agree and I endorse with Mexican colleagues' comment about the substance being at the center, and that modalities should help us to come to the substance. I invite the learned Ambassador of Russian Federation to give us his views.


Russian Federation · Ambassador [2:59:20]:

Thank you so much, Chair. I would like to support what has been said by you, sir. It’s evident that all the amendments from the first proposal essentially fall under the amendment made by the U.S., and that is going to have to be dealt with first, as per Rule 64 of the Rules of Procedure. It's quite clear when you look at even the first two amendments that your interpretation, sir, is correct. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:00:03]:

I thank the Ambassador of Russia and now invite Brazil to give its comments.


Brazil [3:00:13]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that Rule 64 doesn't give a clear distinction of which, doesn't allow us to see clearly which proposal is more distant from substance. And I understand that Colombia mentioned Rule 42 and appealed against the ruling, and Rule 42 says that the appeal shall be immediately put for a vote. So for me, it's crystal clear we should vote on the matter.


CND · Chair [3:00:53]:

Any other comments? Did I hear the Colombian delegate specifically call for a vote? I think I heard you say that you appeal my decision.


Colombia [3:01:20]:

Thank you, Chair. When you broached this issue, we referred to Rule 42, which establishes the possibility of appealing the Chair’s decision. So that was the context in which we made our intervention. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:01:41]:

Well, in that case, you should have raised it as a point of order. A mere reference to Rule 42 would not have led me to a point of order. So, am I to understand that you raise a point of order?


Speaker 164 [3:01:58]:

Senor Christiane.


Colombia [3:01:59]:

Chair, before continuing in this discussion, I would like to be absolutely clear about what you have decided after considering L-9, the U.S. proposal. Immediately afterwards, we would consider L-10, that's Colombia's amendment. Is that what we should be understanding?


CND · Chair [3:02:50]:

That was indeed my understanding, that we will look at amendment that is proposed by the United States under nine first, and thereafter look at your amendment as proposed in ten, because both the amendments will need to be discussed. The United States, you have the floor.


United States of America [3:03:17]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification on what you just indicated, and we fully support your decision, of course, but that we would proceed according and subject to Rule 64. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:03:45]:

I think it is, yeah, my understanding that When two amendments are moved, as per 64, we vote as in my judgment, the United States amendment is furthest removed from the original proposal, and then the next amendment that is next furthest removed therefrom is the Colombian proposal, and so on until all amendments are put to the vote, which means that two amendments will be put to the vote one after the other. Colombia, you have the floor.


Colombia [3:04:16]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to speak in English. I hope to do it right. So, the problem with Rule 64, and after what we have heard, it is the second part, because then it may be understood that, however, the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another amendment, the latter shall not be put into a vote. So, after following the presentation made by the US, then that will imply that L-10 will now be longer be voted if we address L-9 first. So that is our concern, Mr. Chair, when addressing this issue. But if your ruling is that if we are going to address first L-9 and then L-10, then probably we can come to an agreement and move that way, Mr. Chair. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:05:08]:

Well, in my understanding, the adoption of the U.S. amendment does not necessarily imply the rejection of your amendment, and therefore, in my sense, in my understanding, it would have to be put to the vote as well. Because the U.S. amendment is to your original proposal, and thereafter you have an amendment, and to my mind, that amendment does not necessarily imply a categorical rejection of the amendment that has been proposed by you. In fact, I think as the colleague from Mexico pointed out, both the amendments are reasonably similar in terms of their impact, and therefore, i do not assume to speak for everyone, but I think the sense of the Commission would be that it does not mean a rejection, and therefore will be also put to vote. United States.


United States of America [3:06:17]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to just clarify, subject to Rule 64, we don't want to presuppose the decision of this commission on our amendment, and we would certainly welcome the opportunity to introduce our amendment, but I think that depending on the outcome of those deliberations, If we followed Rule 64, it's not necessarily certain that we would be able to vote on the other amendment. And we wanted to make that clear because I think we agree with the distinguished delegate of Colombia in his interpretation of the sentence "where, however, the adoption of one amendment" and then further. So, from our perspective, we are fully in your hands, and we support your ruling. And at your request, we are prepared to introduce our amendment. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:08:11]:

I thank the distinguished delegate of the United States for his comment. If I understand the delegate from Colombia correctly, you would have no difficulty in the U.S. amendment being put to the vote if subsequently the Colombian amendment is also put to the vote. Am I correct in that understanding? Yes, please, Colombia. Colombia first.


Colombia [3:08:52]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was more than an assertion, a question on your ruling, because what we heard is that when you mentioned the ruling that you have said about how are we going to proceed business. So in order to have clear views on how Rule 64 is going to be applied, then it is that if we consider first L9, then we will consider L10, and that is my understanding, and that there will be no challenges, let's say, for the consideration of L10, whatever the outcome of L9 is. So it was more a clarification of understanding that if that is the way how we can proceed, then we will continue the conversation, Mr. Chair. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:09:39]:

I thank Colombia and invite Cote d'Ivoire for its input.


Côte d’Ivoire [3:09:48]:

Thank you very much, Chairman. We're going to vote on an amendment, but I'm trying to understand first what an amendment is. It means that there's a proposal, an original proposal, right? And then the original proposal is then modified by points of view of others. Then a second amendment is made, which is yet another point of view. That would be the U.S.’s point of view. So, if the amendment made by the U.S. is adopted, then it’s adopted, period. And we wouldn’t ask the CND to adopt an amendment that runs counter to the one that’s just been adopted, right? How is that going to happen? If we go straight to voting and we adopt the U.S. amendment, then why would we vote again on the Colombian amendment? I guess maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get it.


CND · Chair [3:11:02]:

Any other comments? United States.


United States of America [3:11:09]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the distinguished delegate of Côte d'Ivoire who said this magnificently, and I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:11:23]:

Any other delegation that has a view? Well, I think what is before us is a matter of procedure. The Rules of Procedure clearly define an amendment. And as under Rule 63, it's very simple. An amendment has to add or delete or revise another proposal. My understanding is that the U.S. amendment adds, deletes, or revises L-6, Rev. 1, and is therefore definitely an amendment. And my understanding, which I submit before all of you, and which should clarify matters to our colleague from Cote d'Ivoire, is that the Colombian amendment is also an amendment that adds to, deletes, or revises from L6/Rev 1. So we have two amendments. This is the fact of the matter. They are both in writing in front of all of you. The question that we need to take a view on now is the order of voting. And the order of voting, the amendment that is furthest removed from the proposal is to be taken up first. And that is why I proposed that the United States amendment, which is furthest removed from the proposal, will be voted at first. Now, thereafter, other amendments would need to be voted up. There is now a genuine query that has been raised by the delegations from United States and Cote d'Ivoire as to whether the adoption of the U.S. amendment is a rejection of the Colombian amendment. I think this is a matter that I would not like to prejudge the voting of the Commission. I propose that we proceed as follows: We accept that we have two amendments, as per Rule 63. We accept that, as per Rule 64, we will have to take up the US amendment first, as it is furthest removed from the proposal, and thereafter Without prejudging the outcome of the Commission's decision, it is not necessary that the amendment be passed. It may be passed. That is a decision that rests with all of you. Once that amendment is passed, we have to take a call on whether this implies a rejection of the Colombian amendment. How we do this is again a matter that rests with all of us. It is quite possible that you may decide that it is a rejection. It is possible, I think we would have to have consultations after this, perhaps with the interested parties. We would have to look at whether this implies a rejection, because that is a subjective judgment that is in the rules of procedure. Now, it is very difficult for me as a chair to pronounce there is clarity on what is an amendment and what needs to be taken up first, because even the issue of whether which is the most, shall we say, furthest removed in substance from the original proposal has an element of subjectivity. But in this case, I think we could agree that the US proposal is most furthest removed from the original proposal. So I, therefore, I therefore propose for the Commission to proceed as follows: We put the U.S. amendment to the vote. Thereafter, depending on the outcome of that amendment, we would decide to take up the amendment proposed by Colombia. And when I say depending on the outcome, I basically mean that if the amendment proposed by the United States does not pass, then we would automatically proceed to the amendment proposed by Colombia. But if the amendment proposed by the United States were to pass, then before the Commission is a decision as to whether this represents a rejection of the Colombian amendment. I hope this is clear to all delegations. Thank you. I think we have agreement that we proceed to a decision to move ahead with. Colombia, you have the floor.


Colombia [3:16:40]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The thing is that you, and I understand fully your considerations and so on, but I don't think that there is a part in which we agree, and it is that our L10 is, or L9, sorry, is the farthest from the original proposal. In our view, L10 speaks to L9, so it is a complete departure from the text that is proposed in L9. So we still consider that L10 should be addressed first by the Commission because it is related to L9. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [3:17:20]:

Thank you, Columbia. But this is what I meant when I said first, that you can't have your cake and eat it. So you're saying either you take my proposal or you vote on my amendment first. I mean, and I think this would not be in keeping with the spirit of this forum. I would really submit that you reconsider this position, because that essentially means that, you know, we don't agree that the, and, you know, in a sense, you have proposed a resolution, and you also proposed what you are claiming, an amendment that is furthest removed from that resolution. Now, this is a little difficult to digest and to understand. Do you have a resolution, or do you want to go with something that is furthest removed from that resolution?


Colombia [3:18:13]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that maybe I didn't express myself properly. What I am saying is that L10 is not the furthest from the proposal of L6/REP-1. It is the furthest from L9 because that is why it was introduced to L9. Our proposal is to revise L9, an amendment to L9. That is why it is the furthest away from it. So that is why, and the rules of procedure are clear about what should be addressed first. So since L10 speaks to L9, then it can, should be addressed first by the Commission. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:18:51]:

Thank you for that. I think we again go back to what is provided as guidance in writing. It says very clearly, in substance from the original proposal. So the original proposal is L6. I don't think there should be any difficulty. We wouldn't be having this debate if there was no L6. Then we would all go home now, having passed all that was with us. There is L6. That is the original proposal. And you might argue that your amendment is to L10, L9, but there is no system whereby an amendment is proposed to an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. That way, as I said, we don't have a process. That will not work. We have to understand that there is an underlying proposal, which is referred to in the rules as the original proposal. And the original proposal is L-6. We should have complete clarity on this matter. Okay? Thank you. Brazil, you have the floor.


Brazil [3:20:00]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's clear that our work is not clear. There's lots of confusion. And I think it's up to the Member States to make the decision. I respectfully, and I say it again, respectfully, appeal from the decision. And based on Rule 42, I request a vote on the matter. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:20:37]:

Well, we will proceed to a vote, but let me say as Chair that it is very disappointing that a delegation that is so well versed in multilateral matters like Brazil would choose to try and introduce processes within the Commission that are essentially only likely to lead to non-consensual outcomes on how we proceed with our work. I mean, Rule 43 is there. It is there for everyone to use. Brazil has called for it. We will have no further discussion, and we will proceed to a vote. But at least we should have an idea, Brazil, as to what we are voting for. And I was trying to clarify. So before jumping the gun, could we at least decide what we are to vote for once we have that clarity? Sure, Rule 43 is there. So, let me just then summarize for the intents of the vote. The decision is that we proceed with first taking up, as per Rule 64, the amendment proposed in L/9 by the United States of America. Brazil has called for a vote. on this decision of the Chair, which I have now been forced to translate into a decision. I was trying to get a more consensual outcome, but in the interest of moving ahead, let us now have a vote. I request the Secretariat to conduct a vote. The ruling is that we put the amendment L.9 We take up voting on L9 first, and I request all of you to vote on this matter and hand it over to the Secretary. Please show us your point of order from Singapore.


Singapore [3:22:39]:

Chair, could you just clarify when you speak of L9 and L10, the country name so that everyone is clear which proposal we're talking about?


CND · Chair [3:22:48]:

Thank you. Thank you, Singapore. We would be proceeding as per the ruling under 64 with amendment L9 proposed by the United States of America. United States.


United States of America [3:23:06]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification on what a yes vote means and what a no vote means. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:23:16]:

A yes vote means that we will take up L-9 proposed by the United States under Rule 64 as the first amendment to be voted upon. Okay, so the Secretariat has clarified, and let me clarify again. The ruling is that we proceed with L-9 proposed by the United States first. Brazil has appealed against the ruling, so when you vote yes, you will agree with Brazil that this is not to be the case, that the resolution, the Commission should first vote on L-10. Let me just clarify here. Let me just clarify here that we are not voting. We are not voting. Can I go, Secretary, to put it on the screen, please? Let me try and be very simple here. Yes means we vote Colombia first and U.S. second. No means we vote U.S. first and Colombia second. United States.


United States of America [3:25:19]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a small legal clarification. No means we support you, because we support your ruling. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:25:30]:

I thank the United States for that. We will now proceed with the voting. No means you stay with the Chair's decision to go with the U.S. resolution first. Point of order from Colombia? No? Sorry. Okay. We will close the discussion on this matter now and proceed for voting. I now call upon. Are we ready? I think that clarifies matters very abundantly. I thank the Secretariat for that. May I now call upon the members of the Commission in favor of the ruling of the Chair?


Speaker 191 [3:26:39]:

No, no, no, in favor of the Sorry.


CND · Chair [3:26:45]:

I have a script, I have a script which is not kept pace with the reality. I now call on members of the Commission that wish to concur with Brazil's challenge to the Chair's ruling to vote yes and raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [3:27:12]:

So, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay, Guatemala, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa. And Portugal. Portugal.


CND · Chair [3:27:34]:

May I now request delegations that do not?


CND · Secretary [3:27:41]:

Just give a.


Speaker 196 [3:27:45]:

We do.


CND · Chair [3:27:45]:

Okay. That do not agree with the proposal by Brazil to raise their country signs.


CND · Secretary [3:27:55]:

Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Morocco, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States.


CND · Chair [3:28:31]:

Is there an abstention? Yes. May I now request those who wish to abstain to raise their country signs?


CND · Secretary [3:28:39]:

Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Italy, Kenya, Lithuania, Malta, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Poland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Zimbabwe, and Tunisia.


CND · Chair [3:29:21]:

We will tally the votes. What's the C&D without a little excitement? Thank you for waiting. The tally of the votes is as follows: 10 votes in favor, 20 votes against, and 20 abstentions. With that, we decide that we will go ahead with L9/US voted upon first, as per the Chair's ruling.


CND · Secretary [3:33:21]:

Canada, Mexico, and Canada.


CND · Chair [3:33:25]:

We have, I think, a couple of countries who want to explain their vote. Is that what it is? Because are we getting into the substance of it? If it's an explanation of vote, I would request you to keep it very brief so that we can proceed with the work at hand. The floor, Mexico.


Mexico [3:33:42]:

To the point, my delegation voted in favor and not in a devious way, because we were not against your chairmanship. We voted in favor because L9 and L10 followed exactly the same procedure, and the U.S. delegation confirmed with their silence that they were not opposed to the substance of the resolution, which is the review of the framework. So we are talking about two modalities, not the substance. Therefore, L-9 and L-10, in our point of view, are equidistant. And therefore, we voted in favor of L-10, which was the last which chronologically had been received by this commission. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:34:46]:

Mexico, Canada, you have the floor.


Canada [3:34:49]:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Canada takes a principled approach to the application of the Rules of Procedure in the United Nations. In this case, we abstained because it was unclear to our delegation the full extent of what we were being asked to vote upon. In our position, the appeal by Colombia and the request for a vote by Brazil under Rule 42 should not have been put to a vote on the substance of Rule 64, but rather on the Chair’s ruling on Rule 64. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:35:21]:

Let me clarify that the vote was indeed on the Chair’s ruling on Rule 64. Brazil.


Brazil [3:35:29]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please allow me to say that Brazil has always supported and will always support multilateralism, that we support the rules of procedure, and we have acted strictly according to the rules of procedure, but also that we support your chairmanship, Mr. Chair, but does not necessarily mean that we agree with every ruling. I think that's part of the game. I would like just to highlight that we felt the need for more clarity, and I am glad that we have voted on this issue. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:36:12]:

Yes, we indeed do have clarity. We will now – sorry, United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [3:36:19]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Let me just fully agree with what we just heard from our distinguished colleague from Canada. We're not here to try and rewrite the rules, so I think it's best if we move from.

Process and get back to substance, if it's possible. So we don't think that that vote should have happened in the first place.

That's the reason why we abstained.

Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:36:42]:

As the distinguished colleague from the United Kingdom would appreciate, it was the Chair's effort all along not to go into a vote, because we understand that these votes are only options of last resort. And it is indeed, however incumbent, once the matter is raised under a certain rule, that we follow the procedure, because otherwise we do not have a process unless we respect the rules of procedure. So when the request was made for a vote, there was no option under the rules to do anything otherwise. But the effort was always before that. Because, if you would recall, the delegate from Brazil had even earlier raised that point, at that point cross-referencing Colombia. And my understanding of Colombia is that they had not asked for that vote, but had made an appeal. Nevertheless, now that the matter has been resolved, and as per laid down procedure, we shall move into substance indeed. We now have before us I request the Secretary to introduce L-9.


CND · Secretary [3:38:07]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the text that is now before the Commission is contained in document L-9, and it has as title: United States of America, Amendment to revised draft resolution L/6/Rev.1. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:38:33]:

Could we agree with this document? I now invite the Commission to adopt this proposal. I have Sorry. We will now have comments. First, I would request the United States.


United States of America [3:39:07]:

Chair, thank you for allowing me to introduce L.9, an amendment to L.7 Rev.1. Before I speak to the details of this amendment, I must first note how unfortunate it is that we have had to bring this amendment to the plenary in this way. We introduced this proposal during informal negotiations and then in the Committee of the Whole. The proposal had support from Member States to be considered in those rooms, but unfortunately, the resolution sponsor refused its consideration. We introduced the amendment to negotiate in good faith with all members of this commission in an effort to reach consensus on the sponsor's resolution. To be honest, as the procedural vote just showed, this resolution is simply not ready for the commission's decision today. We have not exhausted all efforts to reach consensus. But unfortunately, the sponsor is forcing us to prematurely consider it today. The commission should continue conversations on this resolution into the intersessional period. While we believe the resolution is not ripe for a decision today, this amendment is a good faith attempt to help this body make a decision today and reach consensus. Let me explain how. First, this amendment follows the past practice of this commission. This commission can consult with experts, and the process outlined in this amendment is how this commission has consulted with experts in the past and how we should continue to do this in the future. Second, this amendment preserves and protects the integrity of this Commission as the treaty body of the three international drug control conventions. No one knows the treaties like those of us in this room, and therefore any conversation about the effectiveness of the implementation of the treaties must start in this Commission. We are the UN body that was established for the very purpose of considering changes than may be required to the international drug control framework. In fact, all three of our international drug control treaties originated in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Third, this amendment protects the mandates of the organizations outside of this commission. We as a commission should not expand the roles of other international organizations to do things outside of their mandates. As I said before, these discussions belong in Vienna, in this body, which was created to hold these discussions. We can invite experts, including those from other international organizations, to join us here, to this technical body, to discuss the challenges we face, The sponsor's proposal introduces a politicized and unnecessarily complicated process that would undermine the technical work of this commission and the mandates of other organizations. While the United States recognizes the need to discuss how we strengthen drug control efforts, it maintains that this commission is the appropriate forum for such discussions ensuring that any reforms are guided by the expertise of the members of this body rather than by political dynamics. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, 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 national sovereign right to implement those conventions, and to protect the institution of this Commission as the austere UN body responsible for Member State deliberations about the Conventions. Thank you to the Chair and all the members of this Commission for your consideration today.


CND · Chair [3:43:42]:

Colombia, you have the floor.


Colombia [3:43:45]:

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and thank you for giving us the floor. On L9, just please let me start by saying that this session of the CND has been a testament on how our delegation has been working with everybody in order to come to a consensus. on the resolution L6. We have been working for more than two weeks with everybody, making great concessions and trying to accommodate everybody in the spirit of consensus. That has been one of the main goals that we have proceeded when discussing the resolution. And today we have seen where consensus is heading to in different resolutions. On this matter, Mr. Chair, let me mention that we have had several opportunities in informal consultations for delegations to raise their concerns, also to bring proposals. Unfortunately, something similar to what is included in L9 was introduced quite late in the process of consideration of L6. And it didn't hit us or move us, all of us, into the path of consensus. What we think is that Rev-1, it is the way in which we can address a vast consensus, the majority possible. So in that regard, we are not able to join L9, and that is why we have to request for a vote on it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


CND · Chair [3:45:22]:

A vote has been requested on the draft proposal, L.9. We will now proceed with the voting on L.9. Any statements by members of the Commission in explanation of vote, as well as general statements, may kindly be made after the voting. In accordance with rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. And in accordance with Rule 58, a simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. Present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. I now call only on the members of the commission in favor of the adoption of the proposal contained in L-9 to raise their country signs and keep them raised until their country name is called out.


CND · Secretary [3:46:30]:

Argentina, Japan, China, Russian Federation, United States, Singapore, Ghana, Morocco, United Republic of Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, India, and Indonesia.


CND · Chair [3:47:18]:

I now call on those not in favor of the proposal to raise their signs.


CND · Secretary [3:47:26]:

Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Bangladesh, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Guatemala, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and Uruguay.


CND · Chair [3:48:13]:

I now call on those wishing to abstain to kindly raise their countries’ names.


CND · Secretary [3:48:21]:

Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Peru, Republic of Korea, Qatar, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tunisia.


CND · Chair [3:50:46]:

Well, we have the vote count here. Number of votes in favor: 12. Number of votes against: 25. Number of abstentions: 14. I therefore declare that the Commission has decided to reject proposal L-9. In the interest of time, I propose that we move directly to voting on L-10, because we do have, we already passed the clock. So we will request that any explanation of vote, et cetera, be considered after the amendment. So I now request a point of order.


CND · Secretary [3:51:41]:

Just as a clarification.


CND · Chair [3:51:43]:

Yes, Columbia.


Colombia [3:51:46]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the Colombian delegation, L-10 is very important because it's one step further towards consensus. We kept on working with some delegations and we believe L-10 responds to their needs. So please call the vote on L-10.


CND · Secretary [3:52:07]:

Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:52:10]:

Allow us, Colombia, to present L10. I will invite the secretary to present L10, please.


CND · Secretary [3:52:24]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, the text is contained in L10, and it is tabled as Colombia, amendment to L9. That's the text we will be voting upon.


CND · Chair [3:52:39]:

May I now invite the commission to adopt proposal L10? I see no one wishing to take the floor. United States.


United States of America [3:53:11]:

Just a question, Chair. I'm confused because you're asking if we want to adopt this, yet we called for, or I'm sorry, you indicated we were proceeding to a vote in accordance with Rule 64. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:53:25]:

Yes, but since we came to the conclusion that after L.9 was voted upon, we follow the same procedure for everything, which is that we ask if there is consensus, and if not, we will go for a vote. You have the floor.


United States of America [3:53:42]:

Thank you, Chair. We would call for a vote.


CND · Chair [3:53:46]:

Yes. So now that one delegation has requested a vote on the draft proposal L.10, we will now proceed with the voting on L.10. I would propose that any statements made by members and explanation of votes, general statements, be made after the voting. And I think you are aware of the procedures in terms of the, I will just say that under Rule 58, simple majority present and voting is required. I now call upon only the members of the Commission in favor of adoption of the proposal contained in L-10 to raise their country signs and keep them kindly raised till their name is called out.


CND · Secretary [3:54:31]:

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Colombia, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Uruguay. Thank you.


CND · Chair [3:55:21]:

I now call on members of the commission not in favor of the proposal to raise their signs.


CND · Secretary [3:55:29]:

Argentina, India, Ghana, China, Russian Federation, Singapore. So India and Indonesia, I already said. Russian Federation and United States. Singapore was already. Indonesia, we had to play that, right? Okay, yes.


CND · Chair [3:55:56]:

I now request members of the Commission abstaining to raise their country names, please.


CND · Secretary [3:56:03]:

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


CND · Chair [3:56:34]:

We will wait for the votes to be tallied.


CND · Secretary [3:57:35]:

In favor, eight against, and 13 abstentions.


CND · Chair [3:57:38]:

The results of the voting are as follows: 31 members of the Commission in favor, eight against, and 13 abstentions. I therefore declare that the Commission has decided to adopt L6, rev. 1, as amended by L10. I think this point is well understood, but the Secretariat wishes to clarify that what we have adopted is L/10 and it replaces L/6, and this is the document that has been adopted by the Commission. Okay. We will resume discussions after lunch. I think I recognize that Cote d'Ivoire wants to have the floor, but I believe that if we open up this discussion, we might have other countries that would want to take up the floor. So in the interest of interpreters who've been working for very long, I also recognize the United States, and we will keep the floor open for those who want to make any statements on this. We haven't closed this agenda item. We will come back to this discussion at what time? At 3:15 PM. So I look forward to seeing you all at 3:15. Thank you.


United States of America [4:00:45]:

Mr. Chair, point of order. Point of order.


CND · Chair [4:00:51]:

I would request that we have that when we reconvene, unless it's very, very short. Okay, you have the floor.


United States of America [4:00:57]:

Very short.

It's to clarify that under the rules of procedure, what we just adopted was the amendment, not the resolution. And so the resolution will still need to be considered. Thank you, Chair.


CND · Chair [4:01:11]:

We will come back to you on this question.