Conference of the Parties to UNTOC, 13th session [Meeting 10]

So now, we will continue with the adoption of resolutions under agenda item 9. We will first start with a resolution entitled Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee for the Purpose of Elaborating an Additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime to Tackle Illicit Trafficking in Wild Fauna and Flora, Including Timber and Timber Products, the Illegal Mining mining of and illicit trafficking in minerals and precious metals, and illicit trafficking in waste, with the number CT/OC/COP/2026/L.4/Rev.1. I now give the floor to the secretariat to inform the conference of the documents before it.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Conference has before it the revised draft resolution contained in document CT/OC/COP/2026/L.4/Rev.1. The Conference also has before it the amendments contained in documents CT/OC/COP/2026/L.10/Rev.1 and L11 and L12. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Thank you.

Before proceeding, I invite the secretariat to read out the statement of financial implications relating to the draft resolution.

Secretariat, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The present statement is made in the context of Rule 75 of the Rules of Procedure for the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The actions, decisions and requests contained in the operative paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 of the revised draft resolution would constitute an additional workload in 2027 and 2028 for the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management, as well as for UNODC and the United Nations Office at Vienna, and the Department of Safety and Security. The indicative cost estimates and their underlying assumptions on the requirements are provided in the annex to this oral statement. Resource requirements amount to 1.3 million for 2027 and 1.1 million for 2028. In addition, resource requirements estimated in the amount of 200,000 in 2027 and 184,000 in 2028 would be required under section 36, staff assessment. which would be offset by an equivalent increase under income section 1. Accordingly, should the Conference of the Parties decide to adopt the revised draft resolution, it would entail additional resource requirements under the proposed programme budget for 2027 and 2028 that would be submitted to the General Assembly for its consideration in accordance with established budgetary processes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I would also like to indicate that this statement was uploaded in the e-delegate for all details. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I take it that consensus has been reached on this resolution and the Conference can adopt the resolution?

United States of America.

Mr. Chair, the United States has put forward three amendments that are reasonable, measured, and pragmatic. First, we face a dire financial situation. Second, the Convention already has the tools to address environmental crime. And third, the treaty's core review mechanism is broken. The Secretariat estimates the review will take more than 70 years. Our great grandchildren would be the first to learn how states implement this treaty. That is unacceptable. In light of these realities, our amendments do three things. Our amendment to OP-1 keeps the door open in the ad hoc committee process to the other ways of strengthening our response to environmental crime, rather than assuming a protocol is necessary. Our amendments to OP 8 funds the ad hoc committee with extra budgetary resources so that the regular budget can focus on fixing what's broken and what's core to our current work. Our amendment adding a new subparagraph after OP 9 fixes treaty basics before spending money and time creating something new. In the same way that we wouldn't build a new floor on a cracked foundation, let's ensure our convention is working optimally before building a new wing. These amendments are common sense and give every state in this room a win, providing a path forward in an otherwise gridlocked debate. We urge all states to support our amendments. Thank you.

I give the floor to the delegation of South Africa.

Mr. President, thank you very much for allowing us to speak on this matter. In line with Rule 66, South Africa takes the floor to support L4 resolution, whose origins date back to 2012, when State Parties recognized the growing scale and harm of crimes that affect the environment and the need to have a single instrument that will enable the international community to have a common understanding and approach to deal with this crime that is scattered in many different frameworks. We thank Brazil for tabling this timely text, which shifted the discussion from identifying challenges towards negotiating concrete solutions. The intent of this resolution is clear. that is to close existing gaps in the international legal framework, strengthen cooperation, and ensure we are all equipped to address the realities of transnational criminal networks that exploit natural resources, cause major socioeconomic harm, and generate vast illicit financial flows that fuel organized criminal networks. We are talking here about illicit illegal enterprises committed by crooks and not legal above-board enterprises. Chair, developing countries bear the brunt of inaction, which is leading to further inequality, poverty, and I daresay, enslavement. A dedicated additional protocol is therefore essential to close these gaps. We have a historic opportunity to address these long-standing gaps. The international community should seize this moment and support the original text of this resolution. Failing to act with conviction and agency leaves us at the mercy of criminal syndicates, and we may inadvertently help them to continue perpetrating these offenses. degrading our environment and plundering our heritage. We must not feed the ambition of these networks, but place the well-being of our people at the center of our work. We urge all to support this resolution in its original form and reject the amendments. I thank you.

Thank you. I understand from the representative of the United States of America that there is no.

Consensus and the Conference needs to take action on the resolution and its amendments. The Conference will then now take action on the amendments before it. In this case, in line with Rule 68, I propose to take action on the three amendments in the order in which they were tabled, in other words, the ascending numerical order. We will now take action on the amendment contained in document CT.OC/COP/2026/L.10. May I take it that the conference wishes to adopt the amendment contained in document CT.OC/COP/2026/L.10?

Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Brazil would like to request a vote on this amendment.

United States, you have the floor.

The United States wishes to request recorded votes on all the amendments on this resolution, and we again urge parties to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you.

In accordance, in accordance, order.

Oh, the United States, you wish to take the floor again?

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to make correction. We encourage all state parties to support these amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

In accordance with rule 68 of the rules of procedure, when an amendment to a proposal is before the conference, the amendment shall be acted upon first. We will therefore now proceed to take action on the amendment L10. In accordance with Rule 59, decisions on amendments to proposals relating to matters of substance shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting. As the proposal to which the amendment has been submitted relates to a matter of substance, a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting is required for the amendment to be adopted. Rule 63. defines the phrase "States present and voting" as States Parties casting an affirmative or negative vote. State Parties that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. I wish to recall that under Rule 65, no representative shall interrupt the voting except to raise a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. I kindly ask all delegations to remain seated while we proceed. Explanations of vote or general statements will be invited after the voting. States parties are invited to select one of the following options. in favor of adopting the amendment contained in document ctoc cop/ 2026/ L10 against or abstain the conference will now vote electronically the secretariat will now activate the electronic voting system and the indicator lights on your microphone units will begin flashing. The voting window will remain open for approximately 2 minutes. I will give the floor to the secretariat in order to explain a bit further in case there's doubts on how the system will work. Secretary, do you have the floor?

Thank you, Mister President. Before the conference proceeds to the electronic vote, allow me to explain briefly how the system works. Only the consoles activated for the particular vote will be able to cast a vote. Each eligible state party should first verify that the correct country name appears on its conference unit by clicking on the small icon overhead showing in the lower right-hand corner of the screen on your consoles. When the President opens the vote, The available voting options will appear on the console display. Delegations will be invited to select one of the following options: for, against, abstain. The console display will indicate the selection made. A delegation may still change its selection while the voting window remains open. Only the final selection registered at the moment when the voting window is closed will be counted. The President will announce when the voting window is open and when it is about to be closed. You can also see the clock on the screen indicating the remaining time for casting a vote. Once the window voting is closed, no further electronic vote or change can be registered. During the vote, the voting item and the votes registered by states parties will be displayed on the conference room displays and the console. Should the delegation encounter a technical problem with its console, it should immediately alert the Secretariat by raising your country sign. The Secretary would come over to see if the matter can be addressed and will notify the President to put the voting on hold if needed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

So now I invite all delegations to cast your votes.

Is it open?

They're doing it from the other end.

May I please ask all delegates to remain seated while the voting is taking place. The voting window is about to be closed.

21 seconds. I ask the secretariat to close the voting system.

The voting is now closed.

Thank you. The results of the vote are as follows.

16 votes in favor, 61 against, 46 abstentions of the 77 state parties present and voting. The proposal is therefore rejected. We will now take action on the amendment containing document CTOC/COP/2026/L.11. May I take it that the Conference wishes to adopt the amendment containing document CTOC/COP/2026/L?

Just one second. We don't have the speakers list. I give the floor to Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Brazil would like to request a vote on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the delegation of Morocco.

Thank you.

Morocco, would you...

Yes, is it possible, Mr. President, to put up the amendment on the screen.

Please.

I give the floor to the Secretariat on this point. May I take it that the conference wishes to adopt... Okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

In accordance then with Rule 68 of the Rules of Procedure, when an amendment to a proposal is before the conference, the amendment shall be acted upon first. We will therefore now proceed to take action on the amendment containing document L.11. In accordance with Rule 59, decisions on amendments to proposals relating to matters of substance shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting. As the proposal to which the amendment has been submitted relates to a matter of substance, a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting is required for the amendment to be adopted. Rule 63 defines the phrase "States Parties present and voting" as States Parties casting an affirmative or negative vote. States Parties that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. I wish to recall that under Rule 65, no representative shall interrupt the voting except to raise a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. I kindly ask all delegations to remain seated while we proceed. Explanations of vote or general statements will be invited after the voting. State parties are invited to select one of the following options: in favour of adopting the amendment contained in document CT

Thank you, Mr. President. Brazil would like to request that this amendment is taken to a vote. Thank you.

In accordance with rule 68 of the rules of procedure, when an amendment to a proposal is before the Conference, the amendment shall be acted upon first. We will therefore now proceed to take action on the amendment containing document L.12. In accordance with Rule 59, decisions on amendments to proposals relating to matters of substance shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting. As the proposal to which the amendment has been submitted relates to a matter of substance, a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting is required for the amendment to be adopted. Rule 63 defines the phrase "State parties present and voting" as State parties casting an affirmative or negative vote. State parties that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. I wish to recall that under Rule 65, no representative shall interrupt the voting except to raise a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. I kindly ask all delegations to remain seated while we proceed. Explanations of vote or general statements will be invited after the voting. State parties are now invited to select one of the following options: in favor of adopting the amendment contained in document CTOC/COP/2026/L.12, against or abstain. The conference will now vote electronically. The secretariat will activate the electronic voting system and the indicator lights on your microphone units will begin flashing. The voting window will remain open for approximately two minutes. You are invited to cast your votes. The voting window is about to be closed. I ask the secretariat to lock the voting system. The voting is now closed.

Thank you. The results of the vote.

Are as follows: 16 in favour, 61 against and 46 abstentions of the 77 State Parties present and voting. The required two-thirds majority has not been achieved. The proposal is therefore rejected. I now open, no, no, no, wait. Sorry, the conference has now completed its consideration of the amendments. The conference will now consider the draft resolution CT0C/COP/12. 2026 slash L four slash rev one. In keeping with the conference preference for consensus based decision making, may I take it that the conference wishes to adopt this resolution as a this resolution. United States of America.

Mr. Chair, we request a recorded vote on this resolution and urge state parties to vote no.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution. As this resolution concerns a matter of substance, in accordance with Rule 58, a two-thirds majority of the state parties present and voting is required for the proposal to be adopted. Rule 63 defines this phrase, "State parties present and voting" as state parties casting an affirmative or negative vote. State parties that abstain from voting are considered as not voting. I wish to recall that under Rule 65, no representative shall interrupt the voting except to raise a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. I kindly ask all delegations to remain seated while we proceed. Explanations of vote or general statements will be invited after the voting. State parties are invited to select one of the following options: in favour of adopting the draft resolution, against, or abstain. The conference will now vote electronically. The secretariat will now activate the electronic voting system and the indicator lights on your microphone units will begin flashing. The voting window will remain open for approximately two minutes. You are invited to cast your votes.

The voting window is about to be closed. I ask the secretariat to close the voting system.

The voting is now closed.

Thank you. The results of the vote are as.

Follows: 83 in favour, 12 against and 27 abstentions of the 95 State Parties present and voting. The required two-thirds majority has been achieved. The proposal is therefore adopted. I now open the floor for any explanation of votes or general comments.

Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wishes to explain the vote against the draft resolution contained in document L/4/Rev.1. At the outset, we express our appreciation to the bin holders for their efforts and reaffirm our commitment to combating transnational organized crime through effective international cooperation under the Convention. Throughout the negotiations, our delegation engaged constructively and in good faith, putting forward concrete proposals and alternative solutions aimed at bridging differences and achieving consensus. Mr. President, we remain concerned that the establishment of a new protocol covering the three elements addressed in the draft resolution is premature, particularly given the outstanding questions regarding its scope, definitions, relationship with existing international legal frameworks, including multilateral environmental agreements, and potential legal, institutional, and financial implications. These fundamental These fundamental issues warrant further examination and consultations before embarking on negotiations. We emphasize that the intergovernmental expert group established by this conference in its last session did not reach any consensus recommendation with respect to the possibility, feasibility, and merits for additional protocol. Furthermore, we have serious concerns regarding the operative paragraph 7 on decision-making, which departs from the consensus-based approach reflected in resolution 12/4, previously adopted by this conference by consensus. We firmly believe that consensus must remain at the heart of any process aimed at developing any international legal instrument. Consensus is not merely a procedural preference, but an essential mean of ensuring broad ownership, legitimacy, and confidence in the development of international legal instruments, particularly among states with different legal systems and national circumstances. We are particularly concerned that the proposed arrangement could allow fundamental disagreement on the scope and substance of a future protocol to be resolved through voting rather than through genuine efforts to reconcile the position of state parties. In our view, the existence of significant differences should call for further consultation and constructive engagement, not a procedural means of moving forward without resolving those differences. A process intended to strengthen international cooperation should not, from its outset, risk creating divisions among the very states whose cooperation will ultimately be essential to its success. Mr. President, our vote against this resolution should not be interpreted as opposition to international cooperation or continued discussion on this important subject. Rather, it reflects our conviction that such effort must proceed through an inclusive, carefully considered, and consensus-based process. We regret that neither sufficient time nor the needed number of informal sessions were allocated to discussing this resolution in comparison with other draft resolutions that were observed during this session, leaving significant divergences unresolved despite our constructive engagement and sincere efforts to reach consensus. We thank you, Mr. President, and we request that this statement be reflected in the report of the conference. Thank you.

I now give the floor to the representative of Jordan. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, President. We abstain from voting on this resolution in its current version. We are of the view that this requires further legal consideration, in particular regarding the terminology used therein and legislative consequences related to matters under the Convention. We believe that the resolution calls for the adoption of additional protocol before properly defining its scope of application. We are not opposed to any protocols that might be adopted in the future and will participate in all actions constructively in order to improve upon the terminology and definitions. and in order to ensure compliance and to take into account the national legislation of all countries. Thank you, President.

I thank the delegation of Jordan. Now I give the floor to the United States of America.

Thank you, Chair. The United States recognizes the increasing threat of environmental crimes that generate upwards of 200 billion USD annually for transnational criminal networks and foreign terrorist organizations. Even now, our interagency is hard at work detecting, investigating, and prosecuting perpetrators of these crimes, in many cases in partnership with governments represented in this room. We did not oppose this resolution today for lack of understanding of the urgency of this threat, but rather precisely because we do understand. Time and resources could be used to apply the tools we already have by strengthening domestic legislation, law enforcement, prosecutions, and by reforming a review mechanism that currently does not function, instead of negotiating a new protocol that may fail. We do not believe that forcing this through by a vote and via a procedure that ignored legitimate views and concerns is a successful path forward to most effectively addressing these issues, which is reflected in the countries that opposed or abstained from this vote. It is clear there is a lack of broad political support for this effort. While this body becomes distracted with new negotiation obligations, the United States will continue detecting and dismantling the criminal networks responsible for these crimes through existing tools. We expect the countries that force through launching this new process by a vote to fully cover its associated cost. and will remain open to dialogue on the appropriate domestic legislation and effective application of the UNTAC to these crimes. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the delegation of Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Brazil would like to thank all delegations that engaged in the discussions that led to the adoption of this resolution, especially those that supported this historic resolution. In particular, we express our gratitude to the 25 Member States and the 15 civil society organizations of the Coalition for Multilateral Action Against Crimes that Affect the Environment. Their commitment and leadership were instrumental in bringing us to this moment. It is equally important to recognize the leadership of the Amazonian countries. Among those most directly confronted with the impacts of environmental crimes, we have naturally been at the forefront of this initiative. This achievement is a reflection at the multilateral level of the untiring efforts and strong sense of responsibility that exists across our region to protect the world's largest tropical forest from the growing threat posed by transnational criminal organizations. Brazil would like to pay special tribute to civil society organizations, which for many years have been at the forefront of efforts to place crimes that affect the environment on the international agenda, as well as all those individuals that through their extraordinary work and dedication have made the difference. They were key to making this outcome possible. Mr. President, as we celebrate today's achievement, we must also recognize that this is not the conclusion of our work. It is the beginning of a new and equally important stage, the negotiation of the protocol itself. From the outset, Brazil has advocated for a legally sound, practical and effective instrument, one capable of strengthening international cooperation and responding to the urgency of the challenge before us. This objective should continue to guide our work. As negotiations move forward, we should remain focused on the clear mandate established by this resolution. A well-defined scope is not only important for the outcome we seek to achieve, it is also essential for ensuring efficient and productive negotiations, avoiding the waste of time and resources. At the same time, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The Convention provides a solid foundation and the existing protocols offer valuable precedents. We should build upon these achievements and make full use of the tools already available to us. We must also continue to promote, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Convention, the participation of civil society organizations in this process. Let me reaffirm Brazil's unwavering commitment to the negotiation of an effective, balanced and operational protocol. We will engage constructively with all delegations to ensure that this process delivers an instrument actually capable of strengthening our capacity to tackle organized criminal groups. Mr. President, today is a landmark moment for the fight against transnational organized crime, for the conservation of the environment, and for multilateralism itself. 25 years after the adoption of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, The decision to launch negotiations on a fourth protocol demonstrates that the Convention remains a living instrument. As criminal organizations adapt and diversify their illicit activities, the international community must also evolve its response. We have come to better understand the links between organized crime and environmental harm, and the ways in which criminal networks exploit ecosystems and natural resources for profit. Today, at a time when international cooperation often faces significant challenges, we send a powerful message. We reaffirm our determination to work together against shared threats and our conviction that multilateralism and the United Nations remain indispensable tools for addressing common challenges. Allow me once again to thank and congratulate all delegations. Today, we collectively have done the right thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for your statement.

We have a long list of speakers, so.

Can I please ask delegations to keep their statements as brief as possible so we can proceed?

With the adoption of all the pending issues.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you have the floor.

Mr. President, the United Kingdom voted in favor of the resolution, reflecting our support for closing the gaps in the global response to serious transnational organized environmental crime through opening negotiations on an additional protocol. We are grateful to Brazil and the co-sponsors for their leadership and constructive engagement. We welcome that the resolution that has been adopted sets a clear limit on the duration of the ad hoc committee, references established budgetary procedures, commits to minimise additional regular budget requirements and encourages voluntary contributions. Notwithstanding that, the United Kingdom nevertheless wishes to set out that, in the context of the significant financial constraints across the United Nations system, we have a collective responsibility to avoid placing additional unfunded financial pressures on the UN's regular budget. If we fail to do so, we risk our ability to deliver effectively on the mandates that we have already agreed. We want UNODC to be effective, responsive and capable of addressing the evolving challenges of transnational organised crime, including environmental crime. Accordingly, our abstentions on the proposed amendments reflect this balance of considerations. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for your statement. Now I give the floor to the delegation of Japan, followed by the European Union.

Thank you, Mr. President. My delegation expresses sincere respect to the effort of lead sponsors for this resolution, L4 Rev.1. Having said that, Mr. President, Japan voted against draft resolution. Allow me to take the floor to explain why. Japan is firmly committed to combating environmental crime. For instance, in cooperation with UNODC, Japan supports projects against illegal fishing in South America and projects tackling security risks linked to mining-related crime in Southern Africa. The question is whether a new protocol is the right next step. Three considerations guide Japan's position. First, We need a clearer common understanding of which acts should trigger new criminalization obligations. The intergovernmental experts group has not yet reached a common and shared view of the proposed recommendations for an additional protocol. Second, we must make better use of the frameworks already available. Existing obligations under environmental agreements and UNTOC need to be implemented effectively before we can judge what further legal instruments are necessary. And third, a new protocol would entail significant financial and human resources from both the UN and member states. Its feasibility, costs, and added value must be assessed carefully, particularly at a time of pursuing UN reform. To put these cost elements in perspective, I wish to share the context was a bit different though, that Japan's contribution of its own was approximately 1.5 million US dollars in four years from 2021 to 2025 in the process of establishing the new Kyoto Model strategies on reducing reoffending. The enforced annual financial implications of approximately 1.5 million USD cannot be set aside in its actual impact. Japan is firmly committed to combating environmental crime. Japan wishes to seek the right next step. Mr. President, Japan is not against the fight for the environmental crime. At the same time, Japan is of the view that a new legal instrument must rest on a demonstrated need for its creation. That need has yet to be clearly identified. Our priority must be effective action against environmental crime. Japan continues to be a constructive partner in this endeavor. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the delegation of Japan. Now I give the floor to the European Union, followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. European Union, you have.

Thank you, Mr. President. The European Union and its Member States welcome the adoption of the resolution establishing an ad hoc committee tasked with elaborating an additional protocol on crimes that affect the environment. We thank Brazil and all other co-sponsors for their leadership in advancing the work of this Conference of Parties on such a critical and pressing issue for the international community. Crimes that affect the environment have evolved into a highly sophisticated, industrial-scale form of transnational organized crime. They generate billions in criminal wealth, fuel corruption, strip local populations of natural resources and their livelihoods, and have severe impacts on ecosystems, human and public health, the rule of law, and international security. Associated challenges encompass not only wildlife trafficking, unlawful waste dumping and trafficking, as well as illegal mining, but a broader spectrum of crimes that affect the environment, which directly accelerate the triple planetary crisis of pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. The European Union and its Member States reaffirm their strong commitment to protect the environment and strengthen the global response to environmental crime through criminal law and its enforcement. We stress our responses should be inclusive and evidence-based, ensure meaningful participation, and consider the needs and leadership of women and girls, children and youth, persons with disabilities, and persons in vulnerable situations. Environmental human rights defenders and environmental activists who are at the front line of environmental protection are facing severe threats. It is crucial that attacks against environmental and land defenders are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted, and that national authorities have the capacity and tools to protect those at risk. The European Union welcomes the establishment of an ad hoc committee for the purpose of elaborating an additional protocol to the Palermo Convention as a critical multilateral step towards strengthening international cooperation to prevent and combat crimes that affect the environment. Mr. President, as we embark on this process, the European Union advocates for a protocol with a broad scope addressing trafficking of wild fauna and flora, including timber and timber products, the illegal mining of and illicit trafficking in minerals and precious metals, and illicit trafficking in waste, as well as other crimes that affect the environment, consistent with General Assembly resolution 80/227, adopted by consensus on 18 December 2025. We believe that the future UNTOC protocol should strengthen international cooperation harmonize criminal justice responses, and complement existing international instruments, while providing for effective technical assistance and capacity building, including through the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and all relevant UN agencies, without interfering with existing multilateral environmental agreements. Mr. President, in conclusion, the commitment to the rule of law and the preservation of our environment as the foundations of our lives are two sides of the same coin and must go hand in hand. The European Union stands ready to engage constructively in the future ad hoc committee to achieve an ambitious, comprehensive and effective instrument as a crucial contribution to the rule of law and the protection of the very foundation of all our lives. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your statement. Now I give the floor to the Islamic Republic of Iran, followed by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Iran, you have it.

Thank you, Mr. President. An overly broad scope of the proposed protocol would create new problems and make international cooperation complex and harder, not easier. The most serious problem is the absence of universally accepted definitions for the subjects covered. Nevertheless, we want to make it clear that oil and gas, their derivatives, related industries, trade, export, import, and any other related activities do not fall within the scope of such a protocol. It is a source of profound concern that after decades, the established practice of consensus has been broken. We must avoid recourse to voting in the future. This is particularly important for the negotiations of the proposed protocol. While our concerns about the scope of the proposed protocol remain, we will participate actively and constructively in its negotiations. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, followed by Singapore.

Thank you very much, President. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to explain its vote against the resolution under discussion. We share The concerns regarding the preservation of the Amazon restate our commitment to environmental protection, to sustainable development, and to combating the various manifestations of crime. In strict compliance with the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, international law, applicable international law, and respect for the sovereignty of states, it is indispensable to further deepen our consideration of the relationship between the various forms of crimes against the environment and transnational organized crime. National realities diverge and not all equally affect the environment and necessarily require the involvement of complex transnational criminal structures. In many contexts, in many situations, these events are based on local circumstances, specific circumstances, which require differentiated responses. Equally, It is vital to recall that the Convention was designed as a criminal justice instrument for international cooperation in order to combat transnational organized crime. And therefore, we must carefully study whether a potential additional protocol is the most appropriate mechanism in order to tackle the complexity of crimes that affect the environment, which pose economic aspects as well as social, territorial, institutional aspects. which fall outside of the criminal justice purview strictly. Therefore, we restate our concern regarding issues related to recovery and remediation of environmental damage, recalling their importance, but at the same time warning of the legal and technical complexity of such matters when it comes to allocating responsibilities, establishing baselines, and evaluating transboundary impacts, as well as quantifying damage. including ecosystemic damage, and are therefore of the view that these matters should be addressed rather in the appropriate environmental justice contexts. For Venezuela, it is therefore indispensable that we continue with an objective, stringent assessment of potential legal loopholes which would justify the adoption of a new legally binding instrument, as well as assessing whether the Issues that have been identified might be more effectively addressed through the further strengthening of the implementation of existing international frameworks. And finally, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela restates its readiness to continue participating constructively in debates regarding this matter, promoting approaches based on international cooperation, national capacity building, exchanging information and ensuring the effective implementation of existing international instruments. We shall continue contributing to regional efforts for environmental protection and combating the illicit activities affecting this, always on the basis of respect for state sovereignty, national responsibilities and the principles of dignified multilateralism. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the delegation of Singapore, followed by the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, Singapore recognizes that crimes that affect the environment are an issue of great concern to the international community. We take these crimes seriously and share the objective of strengthening international cooperation to address them effectively. However, my delegation's view is that further assessment is needed before embarking on negotiations on an additional protocol. Resolution 12/4 mandated the expert group to consider the possibility, feasibility and merits of any additional protocol to the Convention. The group did not reach consensus on any recommendations. We believe more time is needed to identify the specific legal or operational gaps that cannot be adequately addressed through the existing UNTAC framework, and to establish how a new instrument would address those gaps. Any eventual instrument should remain firmly anchored in UNTAC's mandate and focus on serious crimes as defined under the said convention, with due respect for national circumstances and policy space. Singapore continues to be open to constructive discussions and committed to effective international cooperation on this issue. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much.

To the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Chairperson, distinguished President. The Russian Federation values activities or efforts to protect the environment in the context of combatting transnational organized crime. Proof of that is our active work in the relevant intergovernmental group of experts. We share the concern at the scale of the problem, including for the countries in the Amazon region. The importance of decisive action is clear to us. Nevertheless, our delegation abstained and we wish to explain our abstention, which was for the following reasons. Firstly, we note the absence of universally agreed intergovernmental approaches to the terminology. The concept of crimes that affect the environment is not as yet defined in international law. The universal codification of individual environmental standards is governed by specialized agreements under the auspices of the UN Environment Program, which is the UN system's core environmental protection body. In that connection, in our view, it's inappropriate to entrust this structure with a mandate for harmonizing environmental legislation. The issue needs to be looked at through or should not be looked at through the prism of transnational organized crime. Additionally, the national legislation of the on-talk states parties features different approaches to criminalization of activities that are harmful to the environment. There will arise a problem with defining the scope of the future protocol due to the absence of an agreed definition of crimes that affect the environment. this issue will arise. And secondly, we are also concerned with possible duplication of existing environmental agreements. Such multilateral agreements as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna and the Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal are optimal instruments for minimizing risks related to illegal activities. with respect to environmental assets, timber, and waste. These conventions could be sufficient for facilitating international cooperation to enhance the effectiveness of efforts to protect the environment. against harm. At the same time, the majority of the States parties to the Convention supported the resolution. We fully respect that decision. It's only together with joint efforts of all parties that we can effectively counter crimes against the environment. And we look forward to finding acceptable formula for that, acceptable to all. We stand ready to engage in collective efforts in the framework of the ad hoc committee and we'll search for compromise solutions around enhancing stability for the benefit of all countries. Thank you.

Thank you for your intervention. Now I give the floor to Canada, followed by Gabon.

Thank you, Mr. President. We congratulate Brazil and the co-sponsors on the adoption of this resolution. Canada recognizes that crimes that affect the environment represent an increasingly concerning form of transnational organized crime. We also recognize the growing international momentum toward strengthening the international legal framework, including via the elaboration of an additional protocol to the UNTOC. Canada believes that the UNTAC provides a relevant basis to address these crimes and that our efforts should focus on more effective implementation of the convention. At the same time, we must acknowledge the context in which we are currently operating and the real constraints on resources, both for the UN, but also for member states. As such, Canada calls for judicious consideration of resources required to establish an ad hoc committee. We are committed to working with others for a cost-effective, pragmatic, and inclusive process with the participation of relevant stakeholders, including civil society and indigenous peoples, recognizing they can be particularly affected by these crimes. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the delegation of Gabon. And I also remind everyone that the statements of explanation of of vote should stay as brief as possible as we do still need to adopt other resolutions. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, President. We welcome the adoption of this resolution, which is an important milestone in our efforts to strengthen the legal framework to combat transnational organized crime. As an exceptionally biodiverse country, we are very much aware of the challenges that are posed by crimes against the environment, notably exploitation of flora, fauna, forest resources. These crimes are a major threat to our national heritage, our natural heritage. and to the achievement of our sustainable development goals at the national level, we are engaging in efforts to prevent and to counter these crimes. However, given the transnational nature of the crimes and the link that exists with money laundering, strengthened international cooperation is essential to having a coordinated and sustainable response. With this in mind, we reiterate our full support to the efforts to establish this ad hoc committee. We encourage all states to participate in the process fully in the spirit of shared responsibility. and with due regard to their technical capacities. We firmly believe that it's only through joint action that we will be able to durably protect the environment for the benefit of existing and future generations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to the delegation of France, followed by Peru.

France congratulates Brazil and welcomes the adoption of L4. This resolution is the fruit of years of work and efforts and decisions of the international community, which once again has mobilized in the face of this international threat. We recently adopted 12.4, which was submitted by Brazil, Peru, and France in order to establish an intergovernmental expert group. The work that was led by Carlos Sanchez of Peru, whose commitment we welcome, were based themselves on excellent documentation and research that was produced by UNODC. The exchange of views allowed us to have a shared diagnosis of the issues and to come up with concrete solutions. One of those solutions was that of an additional protocol, and we examined it in detail. This will not replace existing tools or research, training, and so forth, nor will it substitute existing regional and bilateral cooperation, but it will enable our practitioners who have asked for it to be able to the full panoply of instruments offered by the Palermo Convention to combat environmental crime. We call for the rapid establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee and for a swift commencement of its work. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to the delegation of Peru, followed by Sudan.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, President.

...Dear colleagues. Today, this conference has made history. By adopting this resolution, we have taken the first collective steps towards negotiation on an additional protocol to the Palermo Convention addressing some of the most destructive forms of transnational organized crime. For the first time, the international community has agreed to develop a dedicated instrument to confront crimes that affect the environment together decisively and effectively. This is more than a procedural decision. It is a clear declaration of political will. Organized criminal network must no longer be allowed to exploit and destroy our natural heritage with impunity. It is also a commitment to close the legal and operational gaps that allow environmental crimes to flourish across borders, evade accountability, and inflict lasting harm on people and nature. For Peru, an Andean, Amazonian, and megadiverse country, this achievement carries profound significance. Environmental crime threaten our extraordinary biodiversity, undermine the rule of law, fuel corruption and violence, and endanger indigenous peoples and local communities. Our commitment reflects a fundamental conviction, Mr. President. Protecting the environment is inseparable from defending justice, human dignity, and the future of our societies. As chair of the Intergovernmental Expert Group on Crumbs that Affect the Environment, I had the privilege to lead this extraordinary journey. Through two years of intensive dialogue, we identified critical gaps, explored possible responses, and strengthened our common understanding of these challenges. Our collective work helped lay the foundation for the historic decisions we celebrate today. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to all delegations that participate constructively in this process, UNODC, civil society, and all of our partners who made this achievement possible. Mr. President, allow me a personal reflection. After five years representing Peru in Vienna, this historic decision coincides with the conclusion of my diplomatic mission. I could hardly imagine a more meaningful way to close this chapter of my professional life. I leave with profound gratitude, pride in my country's leadership, and renewed faith in multilateral diplomacy. Let me share, Mr. President, a reflection inspired by the wisdom of the ancient Peruvians. Long before environmental protection became an international priority, Our ancestors understood a fundamental truth. Humanity is not separate from nature, but an inseparable part of it. In the Andean Amazonian tradition, Pachamama, Mother Earth, embodies a relationship founded on respect, gratitude, and reciprocity. That wisdom call us to see this resolution not as an endpoint, but as a promise The negotiation ahead must give that promise substance. Strong rules, effective cooperation, and accountability that reaches across borders and into the networks that profit from destruction of nature. The forests, rivers, and communities most at risk cannot wait for our resolve to fade. To conclude, Mr. Chair, may this achievement stand as a testament to what nations can accomplish together when they choose cooperation over division and share responsibility over indifference. And may future generations remember that at this defining moment, we chose to work together to protect not only our planet, but life itself. Today is my birthday, Mr. President, and I could not imagine such a beautiful present today. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your intervention.

Happy birthday.

And since delegations are making their statements quite long, now I have to close the speaking list. So we have Sudan, Madagascar, and Argentina, and that would be it.

Thank you.

Sudan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. My delegation supports the statements rejecting the additional protocol to on talk. We need more deliberations among the state parties to ensure a common understanding on the purpose of the proposed protocol and the scope of implementation. It's very important to clarify the scope and definition listed in the proposal in order to avoid any divergent interpretation. It is important to ensure that this proposed protocol does not run contrary to any international treaty or any regional convention that we are a party of to avoid any dual jurisdictions and while preserving the sovereignty of states. We align ourselves with the statements rejecting the proposal and we call for the continued discussion before taking any additional steps towards this proposed protocol.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Now I give the floor to the delegation of Madagascar.

President, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Madagascar voted for L4 because our nation is fully exposed to the illicit exploitation of our exceptional natural resources, be that our precious timber, our precious stones, and our fauna and flora, which are unique in the world. This is being done by international criminal groups. They are threatening not just our biodiversity, but also our security. They are undermining our economy, and they are stealing the futures of our future generations. The isolated response of one state is never going to be enough. Joining this initiative It improves our strategic position in responding to this crime and organizing the tracing of the financial flows that feed these networks and will help us to adopt strict national directives against organized transnational organized crime and crimes against the environment. By co-sponsoring L4, We reiterate our utmost commitment alongside the international community to combating this. We urge all parties to give as much support as possible to this text so that we can take action against environmental crime where that's needed. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to Argentina. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, President. The Republic of Argentina is of the view that it is too early to start elaborating an additional protocol to UNTOC on the subject matter in the adopted resolution. There are various multilateral environmental agreements with specific mandates addressing, on a case-by-case basis, the issues posed by crimes that affect the environment and which establish means to combat such crimes within their respective specific areas for action. Accordingly, we do not feel it is appropriate to promote the extension of the applicability of a multilateral framework that is geared towards combating transnational organized crime to apply to crimes that already are covered by sufficient conventional frameworks that address them. Regarding the crimes that have already been criminalized in prior environmental agreements, there is no need to engage in a further consideration at the international level to combat such crimes outside of these primary frameworks. establishing separate approaches aside of UNTAC and outside of the international framework by adopting additional tools. Given the current budget and financial crisis and given the need to make more efficient use of available resources, we are of the view that any new mechanism should not lead to additional expenditure posing a burden on the regular budget and should therefore be supported by extra budgetary. Accordingly, we will constructively cooperate in the implementation of the resolution, and we stand ready to exchange views with the proponents in order to allay the concerns that have been voiced by all states. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Very briefly, I would-- oh, sorry. I thought the microphone of Armenia was on. OK. So since there are no other delegations calling for the floor.

Are there any other delegations wishing to co-sponsor the resolution who have not already done so? If so, please press the request to speak button on your microphone unit. Please do not press the button on your console again unless you wish to withdraw your intention to co-sponsor the resolution. The Secretary will read out the names and include the information in the final report.

Spain, South Africa, Namibia, Kenya, Zimbabwe. Spain, South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Kenya.

Thank you.

We will now move to our next resolution. Okay, so now we move to the resolution entitled Strengthening Results-Based and Effective Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, while Enhancing the Efficiency of the Conference and its Subsidiary Bodies. CTOC/COP/2026/L.8/Rev.2. I now consider the draft resolution. Now I give the floor to the Secretary to inform the Conference on the documents before it.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Conference has before it document CTOC/COP/2026/L.2/Rev.2 sponsored by Honduras and the United States of America, Ecuador, Lebanon, Poland, titled Strengthening Results-Based and Effective Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, while enhancing the efficiency of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies. It also has before it document CT/OC/COP/2026/L.13, amendment to revise draft resolution CT/OP/2026/L.8/Rev.1, as well as CT/OP/2026/L.14, amendment to revise draft resolution CT/OP/2026/L. 8/Rev.1. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Before I proceed.

Any further, I invite the Secretariat to read out the statement of financial implications relating to draft resolution CT.OC/COP/2026/L.8/Rev.2.

You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. The present statement is made in the context of Rule 75 of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. The decisions and requests contained in operative paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the draft resolution would constitute an adjustment to the workload for the Secretariat starting in 2028 and may entail adjustments to resource requirements accordingly. In this regard, a holistic and detailed assessment would be required to quantify the financial implications resulting from the paragraphs referenced and listed in this oral statement. Furthermore, the decisions contained in operative paragraph 5 would constitute additional meetings workload to the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management in 2027. Implementation of the mandate would entail additional resource requirements estimated at $80,500, excluding staff assessment. in 2027 for interpretation in six languages for 10 meetings in excess of the existing entitlements of the Conference. Should the Conference decide to adopt the draft resolution, every effort will be made by the Secretariat to meet the additional requirements in 2027 within available resources, including through extra-budgetary resources, and there would be no programme budget implications for 2027. Any adjustment in regular budget resource requirements for 2028 and subsequent years will be reflected in the proposed programme budgets under the respective budget sections in the relevant years for consideration of the General Assembly. The full oral statement has been uploaded in the e-delegate platform. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Thank you.

May I take it that consensus has been reached on this resolution and the conference can adopt the resolution?

Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Despite Rule 56 of the Rules of Procedure on decision-making by consensus, the sponsors of this draft chose to bypass the Committee of the Whole process and stop negotiations at some point in time. Therefore, some of our concerns remain. I wish to seek clarification on two specific issues from the Secretary through you, Mr. President, if you allow me. Does the proposed, and I quote, "result-based," unquote, approach mentioned in the text not entail financial and reporting implications, including staff time, documentation, and monitoring requirement? Could the Secretary clarify how these implications have been assessed and how the associated costs would be covered? Second, the sponsors of the resolution have clearly indicated their intentions to reform the conduct of the conference including for allocation of resources, budget implications, and cost-effectiveness. This is clear from the title and the content of the draft as well. To my delegation, this makes the resolution a decision on budgetary issues as well. This understanding is also confirmed by the budgetary implication statement just made by the Secretariat. Can we seek clarification from the President and the Secretariat on this understanding? Does this draft resolution constitute also a budgetary issue within the meaning of the Rule 58 of our Rules of Procedure? I thank you.

I give the floor to the Secretariat,

if they may respond.

Just give us a second. I will give them a second. Secretary, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and please let me try to clarify the question raised by the distinguished delegate of Iran in relation to the statement just read. Through the statement just read, what was clarified is that the resource requirements for 2027 which would have been the resource requirements leading to program budget implications, will be managed within the budget that is being proposed to the General Assembly for approval. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I did not receive the answer. We carefully followed the statement of the Secretariat and we understand what they are saying about 2027. I'm asking about the follow-up of the implementation of the resolution beyond 2027. Would that be a budgetary issue? Would that constitute a budgetary issue?

Regarding the follow-up to the adoption of this resolution, a detailed assessment would still need to be still required. At this moment, we cannot provide financial implications regarding the follow-up. Thank you very much.

Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm pretty sure the Secretariat is fully aware that we cannot adopt resolutions without having the knowledge of full financial implications. If the financial implications are unclear at the moment, so please remove it from the list. We cannot adopt it here. We need to have financial implications as a whole before we can proceed with its adoption.

Distinguished delegates, I wish to recall that Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure provide where efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted, decisions in matter of substance shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of state parties

present and voting, except for the adoption of budgetary issues, which require unanimity. In considering the application of this procedure, a distinction should be drawn between decisions concerning budgetary matters falling within the competence of the Conference and decisions that may have financial implications for the regular budget of the United Nations. The fact that a proposal may entail financial implications does not in itself necessarily mean that its adoption constitutes a decision on a budgetary issue within the meaning of rule 58B. Decisions concerning appropriations under the United Nations regular budget fall within the competence of the General Assembly. Does this fulfill your question?

Thank you, Mr. President. The question remains, can or can we not adopt a resolution when we do not know the financial implications for it? I understand we first have to make clear that if it has or it does not have financial implications. To my knowledge, this resolution is about the reform of the whole conference. It intends, I don't know, cost effectiveness, we've been discussing that even the OPs at the very end is specifically referring to the funding adjustments. I'm pretty sure it would have one

should or should not fall under Article 58B?

Iran, you have the floor.

Yes, that's the question, Ambassador.

Sorry for the delay. I see the United States calling for the floor.

Thanks, Chair. The Secretariat determined in advance that all resolutions before this body are substantive in nature, requiring two-thirds vote, not budgetary, requiring unanimity. If the issues in these resolutions are considered budgetary, nearly all resolutions before this body would be considered to affect the budget and require unanimity. This goes against the spirit of the rules and would bring all progress to a halt. This is not a genuine question that the conference needs to address. Thank you.

I give the floor to Iran.

Thank you, Mr. President. Not all the resolutions are trying to amend the whole process of the conference, but may I ask and may I seek and ask the President just to have a 10-minute suspension of the meeting for consultations?

Okay. 10-minute break. Delegates. A request for more clarity on this issue was requested, so I give now the floor to the Secretariat to respond.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to recall Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, that provides that where efforts to reach consensus have been exhausted, decisions on matters of substance shall be taken with a two-thirds majority of representatives present and voting, except for the adoption of budgetary issues, which require unanimity. In considering the application of this provision, a distinction should be drawn between decisions concerning budgetary matters falling within the competence of the Conference and decisions that may have financial implications for the regular budget of the United Nations. The fact that a proposal may entail financial implications does not in itself necessarily mean that its adoption constitutes a decision on a budgetary issue within the meaning of rule 58B. In this regard, decisions concerning appropriations under the United Nations regular budget fall within the competence of the General Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. President. Iran, you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, President. I'm sorry to delay. I know many of the delegation wishes to go back to home, so I will be brief and I will try to be constructive. After hearing all the explanation, our understanding of the rules of procedures has not changed. We are adopting a resolution blindly and without knowing which are the implications. And specifically to the last comment of the Secretariat, so I understand so far we have never adopted a budgetary issue resolution so far. So I don't know why it's that in the rules of procedure at all. But something that the Secretariat brought to our mind is enlightening, and I would like to take that with me. So I understand the budgetary issues is going to be discussed and adopted in a special session of the conference in 2027. So if any budget implications for 2028 and afterward would come, it would fall under the rule 58.2 of the rules of procedure, and it will apply there. So at this juncture, we're not going to block the adoption of the resolution, but we will disassociate from its content. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. With that, can I take it that the conference wishes to adopt the resolution? I see, I hear no objection, so it's so decided.

I now open the floor for any explanations of votes.

Sorry, it's too stressful now. So this one, right?

Yeah. So are there any other delegations wishing to co-sponsor the resolution who have not already done so? If so, please press the request to speak button on your microphone unit. Please do not press the button on your console again unless you wish to withdraw your intention to co-sponsor the resolution. The Secretary will read out the names and include the information in the final report.

Australia, United States, Italy, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Norway, Morocco, and Japan.

Delegations may now unpress their buttons. Are there any general statements for the resolution just adopted? I give the floor to the European Union, followed by Iran and the United States of America. will ask please be as brief as possible in your statements. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. We would like to thank the United States for their efforts in advancing this important initiative, as well as all delegations for their constructive engagement throughout the negotiations and their willingness to work towards a common outcome. More than two decades after the entry into force, the Palermo Convention remains a cornerstone of international cooperation against transnational organized crime. As criminal threats continue to evolve, our collective efforts must increasingly focus on effective implementation, tangible results and the efficient use of available resources. Against this background, we must ensure that the Convention and its protocols are not only widely supported, but effectively implemented and capable of delivering concrete results. The European Union and its Member States attach particular importance to strengthening the effectiveness of the Conference and its subsidiary bodies. More focused and inclusive discussions, streamlined working methods, better coordination and meaningful follow-up to agreed commitments can contribute to making our collective efforts more effective while ensuring the inclusive and intergovernmental character of our work. We also reiterate our strong support for the review mechanism as an essential instrument for assessing implementation, identifying challenges, sharing good practices and promoting international cooperation. Its slow progress and persistent funding difficulties remain a source of concern. Ensuring adequate, predictable and sustainable resources alongside greater efficiency in its functioning is essential if the mechanism is to fulfill its mandate and deliver meaningful results within a reasonable timeframe. Mr. President, we see today's resolution as an important contribution to our shared effort efforts to strengthen the implementation of the Palermo Convention and improve the effectiveness of the institutional framework supporting it. The adoption of this resolution is not an end in itself. Its success will ultimately depend on our collective ability to translate its provisions into practical improvements and tangible results. The European Union and its Member States remain fully committed to working constructively with all States Parties and UNODC to advance these objectives and ensure that the Palermo continues to provide an effective framework for our common response to transnational organized crime. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you for your statement. Now I give the floor to the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. As you should expect, we will have an explanation of vote and we disassociate. My delegation wishes to explain its position on the resolution just adopted. Throughout the negotiations, the Islamic Republic of Iran engaged constructively and raised substantive questions concerning the scope of the proposed reforms and their implications for States Parties, the Secretariat, and the work of the Conference. The draft addressed several distinct issues on which delegations expressed differing views. In our assessment, the final text does not adequately reflect those views, and important questions remain unresolved. My delegation therefore disassociates itself from the draft in its entirety. Such efforts should be guided by clearly defined mandates, transparent consideration of resource implications, and the full participation of the states parties. We request that our position be duly reflected in the report of the conference. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank you for your statement. And now I give the floor to the United States of America. You have the floor. Sorry, I have a point of order by the Islamic Republic of Iran. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. In accordance with Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure, the sponsors of the resolutions may not speak after the adoption of the resolution, and we seek you to enforce the rules. Thank you.

May I ask if the United States is calling for an explanation of vote or a general statement? Iran, again, a point of order, I understand.

Yes.

Iran, you have the floor.

The rules of procedure does not allow general statements after the adoption of the vote. It's only explanation of the vote that is allowed, and the chair should enforce the rules. Thank you.

I understand that it is the common practice of the conference to let the.

Sponsors of resolutions make general statements, just as Brazil did in the previous adopted resolution.

However, I do see the request by Iran to take the floor.

Mr. President, when there is no differences and people can concur, we all can do whatever the conference wishes. But when there is differences of the views, the rules of procedure shall prevail. And in this instance, the rules are clear. after the adoption of the resolutions, nothing except explanation of the vote can be done. And the sponsors of the resolutions cannot make that. Thank you.

I give the floor to Belgium.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to, just reading Rule 66, Paragraph 1 refers to decisions taken with a vote, and indeed there it has been specified that a representative of a State party sponsoring a proposal or motion shall not speak in explanation of vote. But paragraph 2 refers to explanatory statements of position, may be made in connection with a decision taken without a vote, which is the case now, and there's no specific restriction of that kind in paragraph 2.

Thank you.

Thank you, Belgium. May I ask the Conference if they wish to proceed according to Rule 66, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure? I see no objection. It's decided. Oh, Iran, you have the floor.

So, I just wanted to seek clarification, Ambassador. What are we deciding right now?

I decided that Rule 66.2 should apply, which is stating that explanatory statements of position may be made in connection with a decision taken without a vote. So, yes.

Thank you, Ambassador. The caveat of similarly is there. The caveat of the similarly is there at the beginning of that 66.2, which means the sponsors cannot make explanation of the vote. by consensus or with a vote?

So it is what? According to rule 44 of the rules of procedure, during the discussion of any matter.

A representative of a state party may raise to a point of order and the point of order shall be immediately decided by the president in accordance with the rules of procedure. A representative of the state party may appeal against the ruling of the president. The appeal shall be immediately put to a vote and the president's ruling shall stand unless overruled by the majority of the state parties present and voting. Are we asking for a vote on the decision taken by the president?

Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, we don't challenge the president. We want to work with each other for so long. We want to have it in a constructive manner. Just want to make a-- so I want to seek clarification. This would be an explanation of vote and position, or it would be a general statement? If that's a general statement, it has no bearing at all, because when the resolutions are adopted, we have no general statement afterwards. What can be done is explanation of vote or position. You just ruled on 66.2, which is within the explanation of vote or positions clause. And you just clarified that what the United States is going to make is a general statement would be. So we're in your full hands. Whatever you decide, we will follow. Thank you.

OK, so as I stated before, We should give the floor to the United States of America on this point as a general statement.

Thank you, Mr. President. The United States thanks delegations. More than two decades after this Convention entered into force, transnational organized crime is more widespread than ever. Cartels, traffickers and smugglers adapt constantly. Today, we adapted too. This resolution is about one thing: results. First, it brings the right people into the room: police officers, prosecutors, judges, and central authorities who fight organized crime every day. They know what works. This resolution encourages them to join us here, work through real cases together, and build partnerships that put criminals behind bars. Second, it means fewer meetings and better ones. Working groups will meet every two years, and related meetings will run back-to-back. That cuts travel and costs, especially for smaller delegations. Fewer meetings means more participation, and that means more cooperation. Third and most important, it puts implementation review at the center. A new working group now holds the most important mandate before us. reviewing how states actually implement this convention. Next year, we will fix the review mechanism so we no longer wait generations for answers. Fourth, it holds us accountable. Too often, our resolutions stay words on paper. Not anymore. At every session, we will ask a simple question: Did our resolution translate into action? Thanks to this resolution, This body is finally doing what it should have been doing since the beginning, sharing how it has turned its commitments into actions that protect our citizens. So let's get to work doing things smarter and better. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. I now move to the consideration of draft resolution entitled.

Strengthening international law enforcement action and cooperation against the facilitators of organized criminal groups engaged in transnational drug trafficking. CTOC/COP/2026/L.9/Rev.2. I now give the floor to the Secretary to inform the Conference of the documents before it.

Sorry, I did not see the floor. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you, President. We wished to make a general statement on the resolution that was just adopted. The Russian Federation would like to explain our position. Our country agrees that the implementation of the Convention and of its protocols needs to be effective and productive. And to a certain extent, the adopted resolutions lays the groundwork for that. However, we are not entirely clear on how reduction in the number of meetings of the conferences working groups will lead to greater effectiveness. We agree with the importance of the proper functioning of the review mechanism. In accordance with the resolution, it's to be reviewed. We uphold the main characteristics of the mechanism. It needs to be transparent, effective, free of interference. It needs to be open for broad-based participation and impartial. It needs to avoid ranking. It needs to help States parties implement the Convention effectively. It needs to take on board a geographically balanced approach. It needs to be non-punitive, non-adversarial, and it must support universal adhesion to the Convention. It must be technical. And it must, very importantly, be intergovernmental. It should not be used as an instrument for interference in the internal affairs of states. It's to be based on equality and sovereignty, and it must not be political or selective in nature. Our position is that implementation of the resolution will not impinge upon these basic principles. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement and sorry for the confusion with the floor.

So now I give the floor to the secretariat to inform the conference of the documents before it.

Thank you, Mr. President. The conference has before it documents CT

Thank you.

May I take it that consensus has been reached on this resolution and the Conference can adopt the resolution?

I hear no objection. It is so decided.

Are there any other delegations wishing to cosponsor the resolution who have not yet done so? If so, please press the request to speak button on your microphone unit. Please do not press the button on your console again unless you wish to withdraw your intention to co-sponsor the resolution. The Secretary will read out the names and include the information in the final report.

Thank you, Mr. President. Canada, Japan, Morocco, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Albania.

May I ask if there is any delegation that wish to make a general statement on the adoption of this resolution? I give the floor to the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of the United States, together with our co-sponsors, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Lebanon, Honduras, Poland, and others, I want to thank the conference for adopting by consensus our resolution focused on the facilitators of organized criminal groups engaged in transnational drug trafficking. We thank delegations for their commitment to this critical resolution. Our action at the COP will result in real-world action by practitioners that reduces the scourge of drug trafficking in our communities. From the start, our goal was simple: to make better use of the tools UNTOC already gives us to dismantle the criminal networks that let drug trafficking organizations operate. With this resolution, the Conference is committed to doing exactly that. Drug trafficking organizations don't work alone. Financiers, money launderers, corrupt officials, and others make their crimes possible. This resolution recognizes a basic fact. To dismantle these organizations, we have to go after the networks that sustain them, not just the traffickers. Criminal organizations keep adapting. They exploit borders, technology, financial systems, and gaps in international cooperation. We have a convention designed to help us confront these threats, and this resolution helps us use it fully. Adoption is not the finish line. The real measure of this resolution is what we do with it. We need stronger international cooperation to disrupt criminal networks, seize criminal proceeds, and bring facilitators to justice. The United States stands ready to work with all state parties to turn these commitments into results. Colleagues, I want to sincerely thank you, thank every delegation that took part in our negotiations. In the end, that is what this conference is for, bringing countries together, finding common ground, and turning our commitments into meaningful action. Today we did that. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. Now I give the floor to Argentina.

Thank you very much, President. Argentina welcomes the consensus adoption of this resolution on facilitators of organized criminal groups engaged in transnational drug trafficking, which is the first in the history of this conference specifically referring to this matter since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Drugs trafficking is a scourge that seriously affects our entire region. Its consequences undermine freedom, human dignity and the health of all of our citizens. Argentina sustains its staunch commitment to combating drugs trafficking and its growing and increasingly close link with networks of transnational organized crime. Accordingly, we understand that this resolution provides our States with a strong tool to tackle this phenomenon, addressing the complexity and the sophisticated nature of the actions undertaken by drug traffickers. That is why we have decided to co-sponsor this resolution from the outset. We would like to thank all delegations who have worked assiduously in order to attain this new milestone, and restate the readiness of the Argentine Republic to cooperate in combating transnational organized crime and its links to drug trafficking. Thank you very much, President.

Thank you very much for your statement.

I give the floor to Australia.

Thank you, President. With the President's indulgence, Australia would like to provide an explanation of vote or position on the prior resolutions as a whole. Australia would like to thank you, the Bureau and the Secretariat for your considerable efforts to guide this session towards consensus. While consensus was not achieved on all issues, We appreciate the inclusive and constructive manner in which discussions were conducted. Australia regrets that none of the resolutions adopted at this session reference gender. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by many forms of transnational organized crime, and effective responses should reflect these realities. We look forward to working with all Member States to ensure this dimension is better reflected in future resolutions. Australia took a principled position on amendments. Our preference is for substantive discussions to take place in the Committee of the Whole, which we consider is the most effective forum for building consensus. While some amendments had merit, we believe it would have been preferable to debate them in the Committee of the Whole and hear the full diversity of member states' perspectives before decisions were taken. Australia commends Brazil's efforts to strengthen the international response to environmental crime. While we remain cautious about the proliferation of new protocols, particularly given the United Nations' liquidity challenges and member states' commitments to pursue cost-effective approaches, We have listened carefully to the views of many states, as well as Indigenous peoples, who see value in a protocol to promote harmonisation of domestic laws and elevate environmental crime as a serious transnational threat. In that spirit, Australia voted in favour of establishing the committee. As this work progresses, however, we will continue to advocate for a fiscally responsible approach to both negotiations and implementation, ensuring that any new work does not place undue strain on the UN system. Finally, Australia is pleased to see the resolution on UNTAC reform adopted by consensus and commends the United States for encouraging discussion on practical ways to strengthen UNTOK and ensure it remains fit for purpose. We are happy to co-sponsor this resolution and stand ready to work with all Member States on reforms that improve effectiveness and efficiency. It's incumbent on all of us to find smart, cost-effective ways to combat transnational organized crime and to make the best use of the structures and resources already available. Thank you.

Thank you. I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, President. Explanation of the vote. Cuba restates its commitment to combating drugs, in keeping with our zero-tolerance policy against this scourge. We equally restate our resolve to continue cooperating with all countries, without exception, in combating drugs trafficking. This resolve has been expressed in tangible actions, however. We must make clear that we oppose the politicization of this matter and the imposition of unilateral coercive measures that have an impact on cooperation and on technical assistance in this important area. Combating drugs must be based on prevention and not on confrontation, providing victim assistance, engaging in international cooperation, and complying with the three treaties without interfering in domestic affairs of states, without resorting to militarized responses, and without the manipulation of this matter for political purposes. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your statement. I see no further requests for the floor.

So I see the Russian Federation. You have the floor.

Thank you, President. The Russian delegation would like to note that we made a constructive contribution to agreeing this resolution, but unfortunately, we didn't see the principle of mutuality appearing there. This is a principle that is contained in the procedural code of the Russian Federation, our criminal procedural code, and it's implemented in practice with the competent authorities of foreign countries. During agreement of the draft resolution, many countries talked about the need for this mechanism, and we call on our partners to properly implement it in order to ensure that we have an effective response to transnational organized crime. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. So now, if I don't see any other requests for the floor, I would like now to invite the conference to move to the last part of agenda item 9, the adoption of the report.

Before I give the floor to the rapporteur to introduce the report, I would like to note the following. Delegations are requested to abstain from taking the floor if their comments on the draft report relate to editorial or translation matters and to instead provide those comments to the secretariat in writing to the general e-mail of the secretariat, untoc.cop@un.org. I now give the floor to Ms. Petra Hulova, rapporteur, to introduce the draft report.

Ms. Hulova, you have You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Dear Excellencies, representatives, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce the draft report of the Conference in my function as rapporteur of the 13th session. The report will contain information on organizational and procedural matters. The statements made at the general discussion, which have been submitted in writing to the Secretariat, will be made available online on the webpage of the Conference, unless instructed otherwise. The statements made under other agenda items will be made available online upon request. I would now like to introduce the draft report contained in the document CT

I thank the rapporteur for introducing the report.

We will now consider the first part of L1 and thereafter the addenda one by one. At the end, I will invite the conference to adopt the report as a whole. The first document is CT.OC/COP/2026/L.1. Are there any comments on this document?

Sorry, Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. We would like to request that the following sentence to be added to paragraph 19 of document L.1. A statement was made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the report of the Bureau on Credentials. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank you for your observations, which will be reflected in the report.

May I take it that the meeting wishes to adopt the part of the report as orally amended?

It is so decided.

The next document is CTOC/COP/2026/L.1/Add.1. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is CTOC/COP/2026/Add.2. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.3. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/ Addendum 4. Are there any comments on the document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.5. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.6.

Are there any comments on this document?

I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.6. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.7. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

The next document is COT/COP/2026/L.1/Add.8. Are there any comments on this document? I see none. In the absence of comments, I assume that you wish to adopt that part of the report.

It is so decided.

We have now finished reviewing the report as contained in document L.1 and its addenda.

I have a request for the floor by the Russian Federation. You have the floor.

President, at this final stage of our conference, I would like to draw all colleagues' attention to an extremely worrying trend in the Vienna international arena. As you are all aware, the effectiveness of multilateral bodies depends on an entire range of factors. And among these, there is an important role played by ensuring favorable conditions for the work of diplomats. And a major role here is played by the host nation. Until recent times, Austria discharged its host country obligations impeccably. However, in the past few years, the situation has changed radically. The Austrian authorities are systematically and gravely violating their obligations before the international community. We recall that in November 1995, the Republic of Austria and the United Nations entered into an agreement on the hosting of UN bodies here in Vienna. in Article 10 of that agreement, which is a legally binding document, the Austrian authorities agreed to issue entry visas to diplomatic and administrative and technical staff of foreign diplomatic missions as swiftly as possible, as promptly as possible. That is a direct quote from the host country agreement. The same obligations are contained in the agreement between Austria and UNIDO and between Austria and IAEA as promptly as possible. That obligation is now chronically violated at the present time. 29, that is 29 Russian staff are awaiting visas. And the wait time is up to two years. And sometimes in that two-year period, the Austrian authorities issue a decision to decline issuance of the visa. So they wait up to a year and a half or two years, and then the visa is denied. The situation creates utterly abnormal working conditions for our diplomatic mission. Rotations cannot be carried out, staff are often not replaced upon their return to Moscow. We have the clear impression that the Austrian government's aim is to create as difficult conditions as possible for the work of Russia at international organizations. This is categorically unacceptable. To justify their actions, the Austrian authorities often refer to some kind of national security concerns. This argument does not withstand scrutiny. What threat to Austrian national security could be posed by, for example, a plumber or an electrician who have been waiting for Austrian visas for a long time? Similarly, what threat could be posed by a senior accountant of the permanent mission who has been waiting for a visa since July 2025? As a result of the Austrian authorities' policy, we have had a major reduction in the number of security officers who monitor the video cameras and thereby monitor our residential complex and its security, and this is in violation of the labor legislation, these officers have to work almost twice as long as their official working hours. So of course, this does not lead to an increase in the level of protection of our diplomatic mission, and responsibility for that rests with the host country. We would add that the Austrian authorities regularly delay with the issuance of short-term visas to participate in international events taking place in Vienna. As far as we are aware, several other countries are experiencing the same issues. Therefore, the Austrian authorities are deliberately abusing their status, and instead of creating favorable conditions for the work of foreign diplomats here, they are doing everything in their power to prevent them from discharging their duties. As a result, we were obliged to object to the hosting in Vienna of the major space forum, Unispace 4. It is obvious that Austria is not ready to host such prestigious international events in good faith. They will have to be held elsewhere. Before I make a conclusion, I'll say that for a number of years, for the past years, we refrained from airing these issues in public in the hope of regulating, settling them bilaterally. Our hopes have been disappointed. And in that connection, we've come to the conclusion that the Russian Federation should not be displaying more concern for the reputation of Austria than Austria does itself. Our position is that the international community has the right to know the reality as regards Austria's discharging of its obligations that it signed up to. I'd add that the leadership of UNITA, the UN, and the IAEA fully share our concerns. They recognize the correctness of our views, and they are calling upon Austria to change their visa policy. However, their entreaties have been ignored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Austria. For that reason, we will continue to speak to this issue at the international bodies here in Vienna until such time as the Austrian government aligns its visa policy with the established procedure and their own international obligations. Thank you.

Hi. I understand that there is a request to exercise the right of reply from Austria. I will give the opportunity to the delegation to exercise this right. Austria, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as a representative of the host country, I need to exercise my right of reply to the statement just made by the Russian delegation. Austria is fully committed to the cooperation with the United Nations in Vienna, bound by the host country agreement as the host state, and fully complies with her obligations therein. The obligations established by the host country agreement, however, must not be deliberately misinterpreted. The commitment made by the Republic of Austria and the host country agreement to facilitate entry into and to assure an inter-territory of Austria does not exempt from the visa requirement where such a requirement with a specific country exists. Consequently, every single visa