CND Chair Ambassador Bente Angell-Hansen. I welcome participants to the CND intersessional. She reconfirmed that the extended bureau have confirmed the dates for the reconvened session of the 61st Session of the CND as the 6th – 7th December.

Ahead of the reconvened there will be a report from UNODC Executive Director on gender balance & geographical representation within UNODC. The UNODC strategic framework for will be reviewed during FINGOV that takes place before the reconvened.

The extended bureau has also confirmed that there will be no special UNGASS segment ahead of the CND Reconvened and the CND will limit its work to the operational items in December. At the reconvened, the 61st Session of CND will be opened to elect the new officers. Regional groups will hold the following seats:

• Chair – GRULAC
• 1st Vice Chair – Africa
• 2nd Vice Chair – Asia Pacific
• 3rd Vice Chair – EECA
• Rapporteur – WEOG

The Chair calls for nominations from the regional groups. Chair updated those present of the contribution to the ECOSOC during the summer. The Council welcomed the updates from the CND and CCPCJ.

In addition, during the summer there was a roundtable on the gender implications of the SDGs at the HLPF. The Chair thanked the secretariats of UNODC and UNWOMEN for organising the roundtable which focused on the contribution of the functional commissions to Agenda 2030 on gender. It was an important opportunity to highlight the concrete work that the CND is doing towards this end.

In opening the thematic discussion on implementation of the UNGASS outcome document, the Chair welcomed the Portuguese Ambassador who is the UNGASS facilitator. Important work has also been taking place on the way forward and preparations for the 62nd Session of the CND. Chair notes she has been working with the regional groups on this and she is in a ‘listening’ mood.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. Looking forward to this discussion which will be fruitful and successful. This 3rd round of these thematic discussions. 1st round in Oct 2016, focused on lessons learned and concrete activities. The 2nd round focused on forward looking approaches and this 3rd round focuses on international cooperation and technical assistance needs in implementation. Each day will be devoted to one chapter on of the UNGAS OD. There will be panel discussions followed by an interactive debate. Today we focus on chapter 1. All panellists to limit interventions to 5-7 mins and focus on implementation of the outcome document. Longer contributions can be shared on the UNGASS website.

UN entities and specialised agencies, international and regional orgs have been invited. He extends a warm welcome to those joining us today and to the panellists.He introduces the representatives from each of the regional groups and the other panellists:

1. UNODC: Gilberto GERRA, Drug Prevention & Health Branch, UNODC

2. AFRICAN GROUP: Roli BODE-GEORGE (Nigeria), Director General of the Nigerian Law and Enforcement Agency (NDLEA)

3. ASIA PACIFIC: Timothy LEO (Singapore), Chief Psychologist, Singapore Prison Services

4. GRULAC

5. EEG: Aljona KURBATOVA (Estonia), Head of Infectious Diseases and Drug Abuse Prevention Department, National Institute for Health Development

6. WEOG: João GOULÃO (Portugal), President of SICAD – General Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies, Ministry of Health Portugal

7. UN/IOG/IO,etc: Dr. Mariangela SIMAO, Director, Community Support Department UNAIDS

8. CIVIL SOCIETY: Kristof BRYSSINCK, Free Clinic Belgium

Gilberto Gerra, UNODC. The rate of dependent use has increased since 2009-10. In Australia (where the data is good), there is worrying increased use of methamphetamine in general, as well as among drivers. This is an emergency. Mentions problems of injecting drug use and the link to the spread of HIV and HCV. Highlights the overdose crisis in the USA. Poly drug use in USA – says that those using heroin, prescription drugs and methamphetamine use (apparently because of globalisation as this is the drug of choice in Asia Pacific) are at three times greater risk of overdose.

Child drug use globally is increasing and problematic. Children as young as 12 are using drugs such as marijuana and crack cocaine.

How do we solve this in the context of the UNGASS outcome? We also need to ensure the availability of substances for medical and scientific use.

One third of countries have the Ministry of Interior taking care of drug use issues which is not in line with the call in the UNGASS outcome document to ensure this is considered as a health issue.

Academics need to look more closely at ‘individual vulnerability underlying drug initiation and alcohol use’. We need to work on causes of vulnerability rather than dealing with the consequences. In terms of the link to the SDGs, poverty and stress during childhood reduce the ability of the frontal cortex, which makes one more vulnerable to drugs and other risky situations. Childhood stress will undermine executive function of self-regulation. Social deprivation shows a higher prevalence of genes that contribute to addictive behaviours – people are passing these onto their children. The absurd connection needs to end in terms of prevention messaging – such as ‘love yourself, be drug-free’ – when these people have never known love. We need to use science based methodologies for drug prevention. Inequality is clearly an important factor. There is strong link between parents having a low education and adolescent depression. Love is crucial and we cannot give this love in prison, if people are chained to the floor or locked in containers. Psychosocial support and pharmacological treatment in China has been shown to work well. In one project, nurses in China were trained to do cognitive behaviour therapy which helped to reduce drug use among patients.

Here is a Naltraxone study from Russia – Vivitrol – which demonstrates reduced use of heroin  as well. There are enormous range of tools for reducing addiction which we need to make use of.

Medication such as dexamphetamine can reduce methamphetamine dependence. We need to start considering such approaches even though member states are resistant to substitution treatment.

Clean needles have been found to effective in reducing HIV but there less evidence for HCV. Clean needles need to be part of a comprehensive approach and not implemented in isolation. PREP is also effective but is currently expensive. HIV treatment is effective. HCV treatment is currently very expensive for low income countries. Naloxone saves lives as well and should be considered.

The recovery process – patients who have recovered still need support. The UNGASS outcome document notes that drug addiction is a chronic health disorder  and as such those in recovery need lifetime attention. “Broken glasses should not be put in the garbage… from broken glasses something extraordinary can come out.” Broken lives can produce something extraordinary too.

Roli Bode-George, Nigerian Law and Enforcement Agency, representing the African Group. I realise that our strategy has not worked. We don’t have the resources in Nigeria to reach out to people who need our support. We have introduced a programme through social media. People continue to be stigmatised, people don’t know what addiction is. We need to ensure that people can get help without being stigmatised. We started to use instagram to show pictures of the harms. Each time, people who come to rehab come back later on. We looked at the root causes of the problem. Almost 90% came from a dysfunctional family, housing problems. You don’t have to be made to go to rehab. We realised we needed a platform to deal with the issues. We also realised that people used drugs to deal with stress and other problems. We put together programmes for people to play sports, football. We also organised telephone counselling to avoid people being confronted to stigma – on the phone you can remain anonymous. If a person has a craving and wants to talk to somebody, they can do so too via this phone line. We also have a school-based programme for children: if we sensitise the children when they are young, it will be best. It was based on a European study. We looked at interventions that were close to the reality of children in Nigeria. There was a 30% reduction in smoking daily among children. We used evidence-based interventions. We did the first phase and the second phase and did a pilot study. This is cheap and can be replicated easily for teachers to get the results we are looking for. In addition, we speak to school committees and technical working groups to introduce drug education into the school curriculum. We did a national curriculum programme in secondary levels, as well as early interventions.

One of the things we dealt with was AIDS education. AIDS committees couldn’t reach out to populations like sex workers. So we encouraged treatment. We developed a master plan in the area of health, we ran a pilot study on capacity building for law enforcement officers. It takes a lot of time, people should be patient and ensure that those who need it can get help. We also worked with judges as a lot of young people get into trouble because of drugs. We are working on a law with public hearings. In the meantime, we are trying not to criminalise people who use drugs. So far we have trained 168 law enforcement officers.

NACA is the agency dealing with AIDS. The issue here is that of sustainability. But so far, we deal with people with HIV and vulnerable groups.  All those dealing with demand reduction have to be sensitised. It’s very new for people to understand drug addiction as a health issue. We are also upgrading the facilities, and doing capacity building. This is for all people to be exposed to the same knowledge.

I also wanted to discuss our challenges. In the last session, we discussed ‘Listen First’. But people that are dependent are always in denial, especially with high poverty levels, with few jobs and in a developing economy. We don’t have a buffer. People going to treatment often have to go back to rehab centres. We need vocational space. It’s easier if you are upper class, but most people don’t even know what a vocational centre is. Another issue is political will. A country can focus on violence, terrorism, and it’s easy to ignore drug addiction as a side issue. Countries struggle with political will so it is important we are meeting here at the UN to sensitise governments on these issues. We also need to focus on relapse, it’s part of the journey for people dependent on drugs. This is a message we need to tell family members.

I want to leave you with one final thought: we always talk about ‘Listen First’. But we need to look into people with drug dependence and their pain. While we listen, we need to take their hands and help them make it, the journey is not that long. When we send our message out, we really need to listen, and we need to care. Thank you.

Mexico. We congratulate you for your work and your presentation. One quick question: you have mentioned coordination mechanisms between different authorities focusing on health and criminal justice. But what caught my attention was the housing services – is there a mechanism for housing? In Mexico, there is a group in the Ministry of Interior to implement the UNGASS outcome document, focusing on development. So I’d be interested in getting more information on this.

Roli Bode-George. We have now plans, blueprints, for the setting up of educational centres. The question is that we don’t have the commercial and economic capital we need to provide housing and respond to urban migration. What we’re trying to do is find vocational activities to ensure youth can participate. We need to be honest, pragmatic and practical. In new cities, this is possible, but in old cities, the balance is not yet there.

Timothy Leo, Singapore Prison Services, representing the Asia Pacific. I am a psychologist, I provide assessment and interventions for drug treatment and education and develop our own evidence-based programmes. Thanks to UNODC for this session on UNGASS implementation and for the opportunity to share Singapore’s experience. The UNGASS document calls for an integrated harm prevention strategy: public education, tough law enforcement and structured and evidence-based rehabilitation so that people lead drug-free lives. Overcoming addiction requires commitment to a life without drugs, but also support to support the journey towards being free from drugs. Rehab is carried out in the community and in residential centres.

We believe that evidence-based research is necessary. We study how people get engaged in drugs, we try to understand the profiles of users and motives of drug use. For assessment instruments, we use those tools developed oversees and adapt them to our local context. For prevention we use social learning, relapse prevention models, etc. We help abusers to examine their lives and goals and learn new skills to abstain from drugs. We support growing knowledge, especially in the area of neuro-plasticity. We focus on emotionally supportive environments, allowing former drug users to function without drugs. We provide rehab services. We assess the level of dependence and severity, we match interventions to the level of severity with most dependent users receiving most support. This is vital to ensure that interventions are given to the right people. We also differentiate by age and gender. We also focus on ensuring people can continue education, work and lives/activities. People are supervised regularly and receive council. Parents can then continue to be part of their children’s lives and part of their journey.

We have also focused on women drug abusers. Women drug offenders are involved in use to enhance their relationships, others to overcome past traumatic experiences. We have experts from the field to develop gender sensitive rehab programmes.

Good rehab can only be achieved through a supportive system based on evidence. We use the practices and recommendations from science, translating research findings and evidence based recommendations into policy and programmes. Without effective implementation of evidence we won’t achieve what we wish. Process evaluation ensures fidelity in implementation and ensures practices can be refined. Rehab has lowered relapse rates. This is a strong signal that our programmes are going the right way, but we are still improving our programmes.

Successful reintegration to achieving a drug free society includes employment, housing and strengthening family relations. We need to address stigma and social barriers for people returning to society. Beyond skills acquisition we work with companies to find work placements. Evidence shows that being employed is a protective factor for preventing relapse. We partner with community groups, religious groups and NGOs to help people go back to a job and their lives.

Drug abuse is not only affecting individuals using drugs but their families as well. People undergoing residential rehab will have a better chance if they are out of their family environment. Affected facilities are visited by local people, allowing them to have some of their basic needs met: housing, employment, education. We had a middle aged woman whose brother was undergoing rehab. She had 7 children. Her husband was trying to support all of them. The community volunteered to support them, a family which had been living in 12 years of darkness. We saw many chronic drug affected families to live a fruitful drug-free life. We are encouraged by these success stories.

The UNGASS outcome document focuses on cooperation. ASEAN tells countries to commit to prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Recently, as an example of our shared cooperation, we have developed a shared training and counselling programme, with joint meetings.

Rehab should go alongside prevention and education. Every drug abuser should be provided with support. We develop a comprehensive rehab system. This has worked for us. We believe in continuous shared practice and experiences to control the scourge of drugs.

Philippines. One of the problems in the fight against drug abuse is a gender programme. We would like to learn more about the Singapore experience here to use this best practice in the future.

Timothy Leo. This has been a journey for us. When we tried to translate our best practices for women, a lot of issues came up: stress, aftercare services, etc. When we ask women to come in aftercare services, they cannot because they are looking after their kids. In Nevada, there is a women’s needs assessment programme we have used. We use the concept of responsibility, repackaging our programmes to address the specific needs of women.

Aljona Kurbatova, National Institute for Health Development in Estonia, Eastern European Group. We have been affected by NPS in Estonia for the past 10-15 years. When we are talking about implementation of different demand reduction measures, we must admit when we start drug policies: we have to step aside from traditional prevention. We have governmental prevention committees coordinating policies in various bodies with police, the health system, the Ministry of Interior. We are right now building our work on evidence-based approaches described in the UNGASS outcome document. Two main areas of work for us are: life-skills, social skills to young people so that they’re strong enough and are able to work with different life situations, not only drugs, but being also able to evaluate their own behaviour and not yielding to peer pressure. Another approach in prevention is teaching parents.

Coming back to the issue of synthetic opioids, I want to go to more detail here. When Estonia was hit by NPS, we didn’t have demand reduction measures we have now. We had to learn that fentanyl addiction is even more complicated than heroin addiction. There is higher injecting frequency. We need to adapt evidence based experiences and situations. We developed new treatment programmes, and diversified. We have programmes for women: women do have specific needs, for example if there is sexual abuse. What is important is that treatment programmes are structured to ensure support for people who need it. We teach people to understand their risky behaviour, what is addiction, how it influences it and how they can deal with it. We ideally want people to be drug free but it may not be true for everybody – so we teach skills to deal with drug use. We also support harm reduction: substitution, NSPs, and all sorts of new approaches such as naloxone programmes. This has enabled us to have the number of overdose related deaths reduced. We now see a certain increase in deaths, so we should be vigilant when we’re starting to feel comfortable about the services already in place.

Cooperation is important between health and police services. For young people who use drugs, we don’t want to punish them but provide education and support for their needs. This is not easy as drug use is still prohibited. We need to provide treatment, but also harm reduction for people who need it. If a person is prosecuted for drug use for 99 times, then this is not effective. So we are focusing on cooperation between health and judicial system to find solutions on a health-centred approach.

To summarise, we sometimes ask that when we are not showing the results we should, should we not be trying to do something else? We need to be radical: we should fully implement what we have committed to. In the outcome document, we have a lot of things here to take into account the needs of specific groups. So long as we do it in a way that is not efficient, or not in the right manner, we will always be struggling with inefficiency. What we have learned is that we can implement interventions that are evidence based. We need supportive environments at society level. We must talk about ethical principles. The social cost of the problem is huge. By supporting the person, we are also making society better. A good colleague has said: the only person that cannot be helped is a dead person, until he is, we can support them to be a member of society again. We now welcome a formal organisation of drug users who are no longer afraid to speak out, showing us what is the need out there, and what should be the link between drug users and the authorities. We can involve drug users communities. We can never underestimate the role of people who use drugs.

Joao Goulao, General Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies, Ministry of Health of Portugal, WEOG. I am a family doctor acting as the head of the drugs agency in the Ministry of Health. My role is to ensure the participation of all government ministries in drugs issues. One of the key achievements of UNGASS was the recognition to rebalance drug policies towards health and human rights. Portuguese policy is based on the assumption that drug use is a health issue and dependence is a multifactorial health disorder which should not be punished. We focus on deterring drug use with health and social approaches. In Portugal, evidence-based knowledge acquired over the past decade has focused on prevention, treatment, risk and harm reduction and decriminalisation of drug use. The idea is to reinforce resources in the context of demand reduction to refer addicts to treatment, and refer those who are not addicted towards social and health interventions.

We focused on risk and harm reduction, focusing on reducing the consequences linked to addiction. leaving behind people is not an option. Reducing drug use and its consequences is a pragmatic element of Portuguese drug policies, with particular attention to vulnerable people: youth, poly-drug use. The availability of diverse forms of treatment and harm reduction and social reintegration are key measures in our policies to protect DUs and society as a whole. Harm reduction measures should help prevent diseases, but also delinquency and social stigma.

A network of harm reduction programmes and structures including NSPs, OST, testing blood borne diseases, peer support, etc. has been consolidated. We welcome the reference made to these crucial measures in the UNGASS outcome document, and ask member states to consider these recommendations as priority.

Scientific evidence shows the remarkable benefits to be gained to overcome harms and social reintegration. Drug use levels in Portugal are still below European average, with a slight increase in adolescents. In the past decade, this has reduced the number of problematic users, decline in HIV among injecting drug users, a huge reduction in overdose deaths, and an increase in cannabis users in treatment.

We consider the UNGASS outcome document as a pivotal reference document for discussions on international drug policies. We reiterate our commitment to implementing the UNGASS outcome document and promote the public health dimension of the world drug problem.

Mariangela Simao, UNAIDS. I am happy to speak at this panel, which has a gender balance too! I will divide my intervention in two parts: one for UNAIDS, and one for the Strategic Advisory Group on HIV and drug use (SAG).

1.6m of the 12m people who inject drugs live with HIV, and 81% live with hepatitis C. The data tells us that PWUD are 24 times more likely to live with HIV than the general population. In prison its 50 times higher. New HIV infections are coming down in the world, but they are increasing in some groups – that’s the case for PWUD, increase by 33% between 2011 and 2015. Hepatitis C infections have passed HIV in terms of death among PWUD. Today, it is preventable and curable. Epidemiologists tell us we are not doing good with our policies.

Why is this happening? it’s not because of lack of evidence. Coverage of harm reduction is not sufficient, and policies that criminalise drug users makes it worse. Only 3% of HIV prevention funds were used for PWUD. This is disturbing because we’ve shown that harm reduction works and is cost-effective. Not all is bad news – I was preceded by Portugal showing that countries who do not criminalise PWUD and provide harm reduction have had positive results. Wider social benefits are also yielding good results.

What can be done? We need to refocus investment. If we increased funding towards AIDS by 2020, we would achieve our commitment to reduce AIDS by 2030. This is a tiny fraction of the 100 billion used for drug control. And it is a no brainer. We need to move from discourse to action. We need a concrete, actionable framework for HIV. I was interested in Dr. Gerra’s data this morning – we need Ministers of Health to take more action in using the agenda forward. And we must put in place accountability mechanisms for the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document. We must improve transparency. When it’s all said and done, let it be more done than said.

Now I will read a statement on behalf of the SAG: The SAG was established in 2014, and is comprised of representatives from UN agencies, donor governments, networks of people who use drugs, and civil society networks from around the world, all with a specific interest and focus on ensuring a scaled up and sustainable harm reduction response that is effective in preventing HIV transmission among people who inject drugs, implemented within a supportive and enabling legal and policy environment, and firmly rooted in human rights principles.

The SAG would like to take this opportunity to welcome the UNGASS Outcome Document as a forward-looking and progressive “blueprint for action”, that reiterates the commitment to end, “by 2030, the epidemics of AIDS and tuberculosis, as well as to combating viral hepatitis and other communicable diseases…among people who use drugs, including people who inject drugs” (Pp 24). This commitment is reinforced by the call on member states to introduce measures towards “minimising the adverse health and social consequences of drug use” including critical harm reduction interventions (Op 1(o)) and overdose prevention in the form of naloxone (Op 1(m)).  Member states are further encouraged to make these interventions available in prisons and other custodial settings.

The SAG notes with grave concern that HIV transmission amongst people who inject drugs has continued to increase. The 2011 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS committed to reducing transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs by 50 percent by 2015. Yet, UNAIDS estimates that the number of new cases among this population has risen by 33% during a period when governments committed to cut transmission in half. The commitment to end AIDS by 2030 and to reduce the number of new infections among PWUD by 90% will only be achieved through a fully funded, scaled up and sustainable global harm reduction response that ensures universal access to the critical interventions set out in the UNGASS Outcome Document.

However, the coverage of proven harm reduction services remains woefully low. Harm Reduction International’s 2016 report on Global State of Harm Reduction shows that among countries reporting injecting drug use only 56% (90 out of 158) have NSP and 51% OST (80 out of 158) with almost no progress since 2014.

Secondly, funding for harm reduction continues to be severely limited. In March, at the 60th Session, the CND adopted Resolution 60/8 that urges member states and other donors to continue to provide funding for the “global HIV/AIDS response, including to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and to strive to ensure that such funding contributes to addressing the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic among people who inject drugs, and HIV/AIDS in prison settings”. The SAG welcomes this resolution and the political will to ensure adequate funding for the AIDS response for people who inject drugs. As UNAIDS stated in 2015, “public health programmes can be fully funded for a fraction of the current investments in the criminal justice system related to drug offenses and they will produce significantly higher health and social benefits”.

Finally, the evidence that new HIV infections fall dramatically when people who inject drugs have unhampered access to harm reduction services is now indisputable. Ensuring alternatives to criminalisation and incarceration facilitates access to such services, resulting in improved health outcomes for people who use drugs). The UNGASS Outcome Document, as well as the UN drug control conventions, encourage member states to adopt alternatives to conviction and punishment in cases of an appropriate nature (Pp 4 (j)).

The current period of UNGASS follow-up, alongside the preparations of the 2019 high-level meeting, provide the global community with an opportunity to act on the important commitments made at the UN General Assembly, as well as here at the CND. In tandem, the Sustainable Development Goals encourage a people-centred approach that reinforces the need ensure that the health and social needs of people who use drugs are met. Target 3.3 pledges to end AIDS and combat hepatitis, but we will only achieve this – as well as Target 3.5 to strengthen drug treatment – if we treat drug use as a health issue that prioritises human rights and dignity.”

The SAG remains committed to bringing attention to these concerning issues and will continue to provide strategic advice and guidance to the UN to ensure that people who use drugs are not left behind.

Canada. Could you tell us more about the needs of special populations, especially those in prison?

UNAIDS. There are two entry points: addressing sexuality and the need for harm reduction programmes in settings with high rates of HIV among PWUD. This requires a strong collaboration between the Ministry of Health and the prison authorities. There are several examples: Moldova and others have developed this relationship within the government to overcome the barriers of treating sexuality among PWUD which have yielded good results.

EMCDDA. The EU drug strategy is based on an evidence based and balanced approach towards drugs. The approach is at the origin of the EMCDDA which I represent here. In its new strategy, the EMCDDA reinforced its commitment to contribute to a healthier EU, and we encourage EU states to share good practices and provide better responses to drug problems. I will name a few examples of progress on demand reduction.

First, prevention. Based on research, EU member states are moving from less effective interventions (standalone campaigns) towards community-based programmes and skills building, supporting youth to improve thinking and reduce risky behaviours.

Second, treatment. Evidence has successfully contributed to improvement. Rejecting ideological approaches which have proved to be harmful is crucial.

Third, harm reduction, including safe injection facilities.

The EMCDDA wishes to support the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document through our best practice portal to facilitate access to evidence. Second, the European Responses Guide to facilitate exchange of knowledge across EU member states, with information on target groups, settings and implementation issues. The Guide will be launched in October at the 2nd Addictions Conference.

Drug related problems are multifaceted and require health, social responses, and requires cooperation between government, NGOs, professionals. Europe has made enormous advances in this framework. Drug related problems are dynamic, we must respond quickly and effectively. together we will dismiss ideological positions and focus on the required measures for the safety of our citizens.

Kristof Bryssink, Free-clinic, Belgium. I was reading the UNGASS Outcome Document before coming here. We all, as mankind, are part of the problem, so we all must be part of the solution. I want to emphasise prevention and treatment – they need each other. They can treat and cure, and prevent worse, especially with harm reduction. All this needs our best efforts. We cannot take one strategy and ignore the other. To improve effectiveness, we should widen the scope to facilitate treatment, health, law enforcement and policy making. Most important considerations should be the timeframe of the interventions.

Delay of age of onset is important as it is a predictor. The biggest mistake is to treat youth as adults. We should treat them as cocreators of their own responses and involve them in design and implementation. And yes, we need evidence based actions, but it is not enough. We should promote new initiatives, and they will require trial and error. We need to provide good practices with different approaches and angles. We need to know what is not working. Harm reduction and treatment should be freely available for all groups, and also for minors. We cannot leave anyone behind, and avoid ideology. We should always go from Do No Harm. Since OST is more widely accepted, we must involve heroin assisted therapy. It will be the best solution to connect society and keep them safe. We must be more pragmatic. This will contribute to preventing infections and the adverse effects of drug use.

NSPs are the cornerstone of drug policy. We need to offer paraphernalia for all drug use to avoid harms. We must also ensure access to naloxone. From an economic perspective, this strategy is much cheaper. NSPs are also important as early intervention: the first 3 months of IV use are predictive. At the end, the question is where to use drugs: drug consumption rooms sort a lot of problems. These require political courage, be pragmatic and solution oriented.

But the issues are much wider: healthcare, law enforcement. Policy making is an essential area. I invite good practice for comprehensive treatment for hepatitis C. Partners are NSP programmes, clinics and pathologists. They support PWUD from the first screening to the treatment to post-treatment care, ensuring successful completion of treatment. Not treating PWUD is not an option. It is critical to decriminalise people who use drugs to do so.

With decriminalisation, you bring drug problem solutions away from prison and back into the community. There will be direct benefits for people who use drugs, will also be less costly. Ex users will then stand a chance for normal life. Prevention based on scare tactics is not effective. We need solutions.

Regarding international cooperation, all information is often lost in an overdose of information. The best dissemination of good practice is from person to person, in real life. In our daily practice, we have tools through a coordination network. These networks are often surviving on temporary funds. We are currently applying for EU funding, which is time consuming – and this is paid by our clients who cannot benefit from our time while we are going through these lengthy processes. We need more sustainable funding in a time of austerity. The EU and UN are indispensable for these matters. Remember one thing: Support. Don’t Punish. Click here to read the full statement.

Canada. I want to acknowledge the fact that Canada is undergoing a public health crisis with overdoses and numbers expected to increase. This unfolding tragedy makes our experience all the more important to share. Effective interventions require evidence. In December 2016 we announced a new national drug strategy being transferred from the Dept of Justice to the Dept of Health, considering drug use as a health issue, compassion. We reintroduced harm reduction as a formal pillar of our approach. Our government works closely together with the provinces and territories. We are making some progress which I would like to share today. Nationally, we are increasing evidence based treatment, allowing doctors to prescribe heroin for treatment, and made naloxone available on a non-prescription status to make it more available to health personnel. We are also reviewing methadone prescribing.

A secondary focus has been a legislative change: passed legislation of Good Samaritan Act, to streamline application process for establishing safe injection rooms. On demand reduction, we go beyond opioids, going to legalise cannabis markets with strict regulations. Canadians use cannabis at a very high rate and we are trying to reduce demand and risks for this substance and reduce revenues for organised crime.

We are supporting data and surveillance, funding for research and public education. We have also launched a cannabis survey for baseline data to measure future public health interventions. A key piece of knowledge includes national guidelines and national treatment guidelines based on the work already done in British Colombia. We are doing public awareness campaigns on cannabis and other drugs, including on drug-impaired driving. Finally, we focus on reducing stigma for people who use drugs, and reducing marginalisation. These are some examples we’d like to have recognised here.

On prevention, we focus on skills based services at school. On treatment we focus on removing barriers to access and on allocating more resources. We also address challenges of social exclusion and marginalisation among PWUD. I reiterate that the future Canadian health policy is grounded in health, compassion, respect and dignity of PWUD. PWUD deserve our compassion and access to appropriate medical care and support. We have embarked on this path now. Ongoing international cooperation and technical assistance is essential to move towards more effective and humane drug policy.

Venezuela. UNGASS operational recommendations are part of our national strategy. Organised criminal groups use our territory for the drug trade. The anti-drugs office in Venezuela has demand reduction as a main pillar directed at children and young people, promoting healthy lifestyles through sport and community activities. Venezuela is proud tohave a system of youth and children’s orchestra which according to research by the intra-American development bank, that participation in orchestras reduces incidence of drug problems in young males. We grant economic resources to communities to build sports and community centres as part of a comprehensive prevention approach, with support from UNODC. This entails social learning in all facets. We continue to have a national addiction treatment system as well as strategies for rehabilitation and recovery. Care, recovery and treatment are part of a standardised and free system.

Russia. We recently demonstrated that absinence helps to overcome the negative consequences of drug abuse. Prevention, treatment and rehab is under the supervision of the Ministry of Health. We have in-patient departments located in the districts of each administrative constituency of Russia. We have care patient services, hospitals also have rehab centres providing in- and out-patient care. 160,000 people were receiving free addiction care in 2016. More than 3000 beds provided free rehab care in in-patient centres. 62.5% of those completed treatment and care. We provide free care for people with substance use disorders, right away without being on the waiting list. This helps reduce prevalence of drug use in Russia with positive effects on demand reduction.

Malaysia. We all wish to achieve a vision of a drug-free Asia, counter the world drug problem through a balanced and comprehensive approach. We have striven in Malaysia to address both demand and supply. We focus on demand reduction through 3 categories: prevention at school, community based programmes, treatment programmes. We promote prevention skills via education, in collaboration with the drug agency to develop this in the school curriculum, including in higher level education. In 2016, the Deputy Prime Minister launched a campaign against drugs, involving communities in the combat against drugs, with integrated law enforcement authorities, entry in treatment and mass media campaigns. In January 2017, activities were implemented for more than 36,000 students and youth. We have undertaken comprehensive social media campaigns on the risks of drug abuse, including ATS.

We have continuously stepped up our efforts for treatment to make addicts free from drugs and integrate them into society as productive, drug-free individuals. We have a comprehensive treatment programmes in line with cultural and social norms. We have implemented harm reduction programmes with OST and NSPs. In line with national drug strategy, this programme has contributed to the reduction of HIV infection rates. However, the objective is to minimise the adverse health and social consequences of drug abuse, including HIV and other blood borne diseases.

We are committed to participate in initiatives to address drug issues, with professionalism. We have introduced a post-graduate diploma on drug abuse in Malaysia. We offer a series of trainings to educate professionals and we focus on scientific practice on drug prevention and tons. But the emergence of new drugs, new consumption patterns and new user groups make it difficult to establish evidence on time. To address these challenges is important. We have to increase cooperation and make good use of evidence at national level. Cooperation with WHO and UNODC and international standards play an important role. We should make good use of instruments on demand reduction, including harm reduction, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation should be adopted. In 2016, we adopted evidence-based treatment guidelines for amphetamines including substitution treatments and management of dependence, relapse prevention and co-morbid psychiatric disorders in post-acute settings. This is being translated and will be share with other member states soon.

Estonia, on behalf of the European Union. The EU concentrates and invests in different projects to improve knowledge of drug use. We brought together 200 scientists from 29 disciplines. The EMCDDA plays a crucial role in collating evidence and best practice to feed it in the decision making process. Its online best practice portal is an important database of knowledge. Addiction is complex and multifactorial characterised by its relapsing nature. The EU addresses it as a health priority with cost-effective interventions in line with UNODC standards. Using a balanced approach, the EU pays attention to a full range of measures: prevention, harm reduction, treatment, care, social reintegration and recovery, prevention and care of HIV and other infectious diseases. We take account of age, gender and other characteristics. We adhere to WHO recommendations on the comprehensive package of health services for PWID. Interventions are most effective if tailored to the needs of target groups and delivered by trained professionals. WHO agreed that health systems should be made more responsive to the needs of the target population.

Many member states in the EU have a good experience of risk and harm reduction measures: NSPs, OST, peer-based interventions, testing and counselling, overdose management. Six EU states provide highly targeted services for key affected populations: safe injection facilities and take home naloxone. Evidence shows that risk and harm reduction doesn’t only improve health outcomes, it also saves lives. Thanks to these measures, new infections among PWUD have declined: 41% between 2007 and 2015. We take this opportunity to stay alert to the emergence of new trends, especially in light of the epidemic of NSPs.

We support the CND to advocate for internationally recognised standards on prevention and treatment, but also on harm reduction. We request member states to implement the UNGASS outcome document recommendations on harm reduction and welcome good practices in this field, and are willing to share our experience in this area. We welcome the increased collaboration between UNODC and WHO. This cooperation contributes to the implementation of the UNGASS recommendations and we hope similar tools will be adopted for other UN agencies.

Germany. Effective scientific evidence based strategies should be at the basis of our interventions. But the emergence of new drugs, new consumption patterns and new user groups make it difficult to establish evidence on time. To address these challenges is important. We have to increase cooperation and make good use of evidence at national level. Cooperation with WHO and UNODC and international standards play an important role. We should make good use of instruments on demand reduction, including harm reduction, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation should be adopted. In 2016, we adopted evidence-based treatment guidelines for amphetamines including substitution treatments and management of dependence, relapse prevention and co-morbid psychiatric disorders in post-acute settings. This is being translated and will be share with other member states soon.

Peru. We have put in place a follow up procedure of the UNGASS outcome document. The 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents are mutually reinforcing. We have recently adopted a new drug strategy and have used international instruments as our basis. We have a coordination mechanism among different ministries, we address human rights, rule of law, etc. On Chapter 1, we have established programmes to prevent drug use, education system, strengthening protective measures among students. We work with families to strengthen children’s ability to stay away from drugs. The aim is to provide people with psychiatric and psychologic treatment.

UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)  welcomes today’s thematic discussion on Chapter 1 of the  UNGASS outcome document that deals with operational  recommendation on demand reduction and related measures, including prevention and treatment, as well as other health related issues.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights provides for the right to health of all individuals. Under articles 2 (2) and 3 of the Covenant, States are required to implement all economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to health,on a non-discriminatory basis. People who use drugs and people who are dependent on drugs have the same right to health as everyone else, and this right cannot be curtailed, even if the use of drugs constitutes a criminal offence. However, consideration should be given to removing all obstacles to the right to health, including by decriminalizing the personal use and possession of drugs.

Furthermore. while addressing the drug problem, States should protect the right to health  and public health programmes should be increased, and states should  ensure, that persons who use drugs have access to health-related information and treatment on a non-discriminatory basis. Outreach information and education programmes can minimize harm to individuals who use drugs and encourage drug dependent persons to seek treatment.

In its general comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that ensuring access to essential drugs, including opioids, is an essential element of the right to health and that States must comply with this obligation regardless of resource constraints. In accordance with general comment 14, harm reduction programmes, in particular opioid substitution therapy should be available and offered to persons who are drug dependent, especially those in prisons and other custodial settings.  The right to health requires better access to controlled essential medicines.

The rights of the child should be protected by focusing on prevention and communicating in a child-friendly and age-appropriate manner, including on the risks of transmitting HIV and other blood-borne viruses through injecting drug use. Children should not be subjected to criminal prosecution, but responses should focus on health education, treatment, including harm reduction programmes, and social re-integration.

Norway. It’s worth remembering that the protection of health is at the heart of drug control treaties. Norway is pleased to see that we are moving forward on Resolution 60/1 on data collection. We will contribute financially to cover the costs of the expert group next year. We should now focus on implementing the UNGASS recommendations and promote health and human rights. On HIV prevention and increasing financing of the global HIV response, a resolution was adopted at the 60th CND. With Sweden, we also presented a CCPCJ resolution on prevention of mother to child HIV infections in prison settings. We call on member states to ensure political commitment to countering HIV among PWUD in line with the SDGs. The resolution also calls on member states to make budgetary commitments to the HIV unit of UNODC. The CCPCJ resolution addresses the issue of gender inequality in accessing HIV prevention and treatment. We call for an increased cooperation among law enforcement and health services. Lastly, the resolution requests UNODC to develop a technical guidance document to prevent mother-to-child HIV infections. We call for more cooperation among member states and between UNODC/WHO/UNAIDS. We spend limited resources on interventions that have never proven to do so. UNODC standards are important in this regard. We should also look at other guidelines developed by other parts of the UN family on overdose prevention and treatment. Leaving no one behind is key, drug policy should aim to save lives. This should be at the centre of the drug policy debate. Civil society should also be at the centre of the debate and holds governments responsible for implementing evidence based and effective programmes.

Spain. I want to focus on recommendation 0, focusing on risk and harm reduction. In Spain, we focus on a public health approach. We have been at the forefront of implementing harm reduction programmes for PWUD. Strategies in place seek to address the needs of those who would normally not go to treatment centres. The goal is to address the adverse impacts of drug use on health. We have emergency centres to deal with marginalised individuals and provide for their basic needs: NSPs, prevent deaths, and the spread of HIV, hepatitis. In 2016, there were 61 emergency centres. Psychological, social support is provided. MMT is also offered. 22 ambulatory services are in place. Other centres provide for professional oversight and provide MMT. On education programmes, in 2015 there were 15 safe injection rooms. OST is provided as well as NSPs. In Pharmacies, syringes can also be exchanged. There are also support services for people living in the street, and in prison. We also provide prevention and treatment programmes. These are processes part of the national policy. They are outlined in our action plan extended on 2017. In the next few days, we will adopt the next action plan 2017-2024 which mentions harm reduction measures, early warnings for youth, recreational centres for marginalised communities. There are also programmes for drug addicts in prison. We seek to strengthen treatment through the focus on harm reduction. We intend to strengthen this approach and methodology to reach youth. We wish to take into account other addictions as well. I will provide more details at future meetings.

Algeria. We place much importance on demand reduction. Drug use is a threat to the physical and mental health of our communities. We have adopted measures to combat this scourge. We have undertaken action to prevent and treat addiction.

On prevention, we have awareness raising campaigns carried out by various ministries: interior, military, justice and health. Awareness raising campaigns target all the population thanks to the law enforcement agencies, as well as schools. We organise workshops and courses at school, activities in the community. We attach attention to the flourishing Algerian youth and give them ways to fulfil themselves.

Care of drug users is also a major area of our national drug policy. Our 2014 law on prevention and support provides for treatment, with addictology treatment centres, and detox centres. These establishments provided 41,500 consultations in 2016. We provide doctors with the necessary tools to care for drug addicts, so we have a new branch focusing on addictology. We focus on reducing demand, especially for cannabis, opioids and coca. Other countries should also focus on reducing demand.

Netherlands. We do not focus on individual aspects of drug use but aim to recognise the public health aspects of drug policy, as articulated in the UNGASS outcome document, including treatment, care, recovery, reintegration, harm reduction and prevention. This should be based on evidence and best practice. The use of GHB in the Netherlands has proven to be highly addicted, similar to heroin but much cheaper. It’s mostly in rural areas and isolated communities, having an important impact. Addressing this issue is difficult and we are not there yet. Together with local governments, universities, addiction specialists, we are developing a new piece of research to understand the root causes of GHB use and preventive programmes, as well as social reintegration of former addicts. I want to conclude on our goal here – despite the UNGASS and the high level meeting of HIV, there is a decline in HIV funding. We need to commit to leaving nobody behind. In 2018, we will host the International HIV/AIDS Conference.

UK. Thanks to all the speakers until now for sharing their experiences. We align ourselves with the Estonian statement. We remain committed to demand reduction, which is at the core of our drug policy. Our recent drug strategy has a balanced approach which includes law enforcement, NGOs, international partners. Treatment should be based on the best evidence, with support for recovery, e.g. access to employment, housing and health services. We develop our treatment to respond to emerging trends, especially NSPs. The continued emergence of NPS, especially synthetic opioids, has created dangers to vulnerable groups like youth, prisoners, homeless people. We remain committed to the implementation of our NPS Act from 2016. We have developed an NPS system for effective treatment responses. There are 2 key components: collect information on harms caused bah NPS use, NPS clinical network and other drug intelligence responses for appropriate clinical responses. We reaffirm our continued support to the recommendations of the UNGASS and will continue to share best practice.

Turkey. Under our strategy, a High Ministerial Council: ministries justice, family, social justice, ministry of health, etc. A national action plan was adopted. Our main prevention activity is focused on raising awareness, involving NGOs like the Turkish Green Crescent Society. I underscore our support for these intercessional meetings.

Dazogbo Agossou Ulrich, Perle Sociale, Benin. On today’s topic, I want to discuss practical arrangements and what can be done in practice. What I care about most is figuring out what can be done to ensure that our commitments bear fruit. On demand reduction and related measures, we focus on prevention and treatment, as well as health – all fields where we have to take action. I want to urge everyone to focus this discussion on demand reduction and related measures. The context we should be thinking about is local, national and international. Our strategy should be based on international cooperation. We must pull our efforts, resources, scientific progress, advocacy, policies, reforms, all of these should come together under a global approach, taking into account needs, problems, and the serious situation that drug users live in, both in poor and developed countries. We must take into account youth. Benin’s actions should be promoted. It would help our government understand that human rights are universal. It’s important that whatever the US, Spain, Indonesia, Cuba does in dealing with drug use, reintegration, rehab, dealing with HIV and hepatitis, should be supported by Benin. I wish to conclude with a few ways of taking action: reflect on how to establish international cooperation with children and youth. We are the present for our societies, we are committed to improving standards of living in the short and medium term. Children need to understand we are all a part of this. I call upon you to create children’s global networks against drug abuse. I remain committed to sharing my experience with you. Thank you.

El Salvador. On demand reduction and related measures, we are implementing the UNGASS recommendations. In implementing our national drug strategy adopted by our drug commission, following intense consultations with 15 national experts and bodies. The impact of this matter on health is obvious. Our goal is to improve the health of populations through measures to reduce consumption and abuse, as well as reduce crime. We are drawing up measures for prevention and treatment, with trainings. I want to share certain practices used by my country. We are setting up programmes based on data and facts from recognised organisations and studies on demand and drug use trends in populations, aggregated by gender, with a cross-cutting approach. We are participating in the ad hoc group of experts on demand reduction and public health in the South American Centre. We cooperate with CICAD, PAHO, UNODC and COPOLAD.

56% of the population in El Salvador is below 30 years old. Many are without a job. We are currently undertaking prevention measures, especially the Ministry of Health and Education. I will give you some examples: series of documents for heads of families, studies on health and the environment, information on the risks of drugs. We have set up 6 prevention programmes in private and public education. We have established 10 programmes for primary prevention. The national anti-drug commission is offering a university diploma for addiction prevention, with the Evangelical University of El Salvador and funding from the OAS. There is a group of professionals undertaking the course online thanks to COPOLAD and UNODC. We are also in consultation with other bodies. We talk about challenges, share these problems as they are not unique to El Salvador and could help other countries. We raise awareness through public officials on the benefits of prevention.

We focus on treatment, looking at drug addiction as a disease. In treatment and rehab, we continue the work of agencies that have experiences in drug use, for example the National Psychiatric Hospital which provides treatment services, NSPs, ambulatory hospital services. We take into account the issue of drug addiction, there is training for staff on early warning and psychological support, taking into account all cases. On good practice, there are centres for prevention and addiction treatment, dealing with people with drug and alcohol issues.

Pakistan. This meeting provides a fresh opportunity to learn from each others’ experiences and good practices. We pay particular attention to international cooperation. UNGASS has boosted and reinforced the well established approach to demand and supply based on the principle of shared responsibility, with the 3 conventions at the centre of the global drug control. We also reinforced the targets set out in 2009. It underscored the importance of placing people and families at the centre. We are committed to working closely with member states on UNGASS implementation, as well as the 2009 political declaration and 2014 Joint ministerial statement. We are committed to our obligations. We ensure collaboration with all sectors including health and law enforcement sectors. We adopted a comprehensive approach: prevention, treatment, reintegration, recovery and social reintegration. Efforts are intensified on drug control. This includes seminars, workshops, sports events, awareness efforts with electronic media, alongside civil society and sports associations. We strive to ensure people say no to drugs. We focus on youth, with the National Youth Ambassador Programme to raise awareness of drug abuse harms in schools. This is to encourage youth to lead a life through talent. We expand the network of treatment facilities, including counselling, technical education to help addicts reintegrate. We set up dedicated treatment facilities in hospitals including for women, as a top priority. We seek close cooperation with all provincial authorities. Efforts are made for developing and implementing treatment services, we are preparing to launch a drug use survey in the country. We will continue our efforts on demand reduction, including with documentaries and videos. We will focus on capacity building with law enforcement and health departments, with model rehab centres. All this is on our agenda. We are one of the most effective transit states because of our geographical locations. The UNGASS outcome document recognises this challenge. In our collective work, we must pay attention to the needs of transit states. In the lead up to 2019, we should enhance our efforts to eliminate illicit drugs, in collaboration with regional and international partners.

Philippines. Demand reduction is one of the key pillars of our strategy. Youth represents the majority of our population so the fight against drugs starts with raising awareness among youth. We have conducted various activities such as peer groups against drugs, a primary trigger for the one using drugs. The students undergo trainings on the ill effects of drugs and how to say no to drugs. Interventions start at the grassroots and community. We focus on participatory approaches. We design programmes focused on the needs of society. Tackling the drug matter requires the community, the power of collective actions, the surrender of drug users, and the power of drug abuse campaigns. We call on drug users to voluntarily submit to drug authorities. We are working towards providing community based treatment to tackle those who surrender. Advocacy and capacity building programmes are in place to provide the necessary interventions. Through the provision of livelihood opportunities and skills building, we afford drug users a chance to become members of society again. For health organisations, there is a manual on healthcare for people affected by drug use, developed by the Ministry of Health and the drug agency in collaboration with UNODC. On NPS, we authorised the dangerous drugs board to include two new NPS based on emerging trends in drug use and trafficking. To sustain our efforts, we look forward to exploring avenues for cooperation with UNODC and member states in sharing best practices, taking into account national specificities and innovation. We have identified the continued training and capacity building of our professionals as a key aspect of our ongoing work.

Mexico. Mexico is of the view that we should have a broad approach to reducing demand. We have 5 key elements: prevention, treatment and care, harm reduction, access to controlled drugs and drug control policies. Drug policies cannot be addressed in isolation. We need a multidimensional approach. This is a good opportunity for us to put together a programme all the way to 2030, not just on drug treatment but also for Target 3.2 on HIV and hep C and other infectious diseases. All the objectives must be addressed comprehensively. Our survey on alcohol/drugs in 2016-17 revealed the need to step up our efforts to combat drug abuse, bringing in the needs of the populations, and adopting a gender approach. We focus on sports and culture to prevent drug abuse. We look at alternatives to prison and treatment for drug users and offenders of minor crimes. We focus on social reintegration as a social approach to prevention. We reiterate our commitment in the outcome document on exchange of information. We welcome the UNGASS model of viewing drug abuse as a medical but also a social issue.

Guatemala. We are in touch with stakeholders on drug policies to implement the UNGASS outcome document. We have a broader approach. The Secretariat is tasked with implementing national policy, as part of a national vision focused on addressing national drug problems. Relevant ministries are involved as well, to have prevention and repression carried out at the same time and to avoid stigmatisation. We also focus on international cooperation, with prevention campaigns targeting schools and adolescents. The idea is to have a multiplier effect by engaging families in the process. We are carrying out activities with a range of specific populations. NGOs are providing assistance on treatment and rehab. We make sure that there is a process in place for psychological support to ensure social reintegration, and access to the labour market. We set up a non-residential treatment centre for patients of all ages. There is a family unit in the centre to enable people to reinsert themselves psychologically but also in the labour market, with their family. We also work with the prosecutor’s office and with NGOs. There is also a crisis centre. We allocate significant resources to education, balancing resources between security and education.

Colombia. The UNGASS outcome document defines clearly that human rights are the definer of drug policies. In this framework, prevention strategies should be more than the goal. It should facilitate building the capacity of people. We need analysis of the interaction between drug users and psychoactive substances. This means a social model for public health. The UNGASS outcome document makes public policy a health approach based on people’s needs. The document broadens the three pillars of the 2009 document. Now we have seven pillars. This broadens the basis of analysis to be taken in public policy and on actions to be undertaken in various sectors. The outcome document incorporates demand reduction items having to do with health. Before it was only incorporated as an economic component of the problem. This should be the basis for all political statements to be made on drug use. We underscore progress made in drug policy. Drug dependency is recognised as undermining public health. This includes the need to continue to update the model list of essential medicines of WHO and the need to focus on harm reduction to prevent the transmission on HIV, hepatitis and other blood borne diseases. The outcome document includes the need to take into account overdose prevention and treatment. There is a role here given to WHO on drug use problems, and for UNODC and WHO to strengthen their cooperation on early intervention, treatment, rehabilitation, etc. through the adoption of a decision of WHO on health and drug use. On prevention, we must have programmes such as ‘Strong Families’ in Colombia. This programme was successful in 24 provinces. To date, certain NGOs have taken action in prevention. They work in cooperation with local authorities. On treatment, capacity building is carried out with experts in this area, and the use of tools and special measures. We have a community strategy based on the Eco 2 model. We listen to individuals and provide training to university students to prevent drug use risks. There are technical guidelines to combat drugs, providing government and NGOs the opportunity to provide a comprehensive solution to drug use based on prevention, bringing on board parents. This is to reduce drug use rates. The Colombian Drug Use Observatory drew some recommendations based on statistical data.

USA. We are in the midst of an unprecedented opioid epidemic. The misuse of opioids is a serious national crisis affecting health and welfare. Statistics are startling. We echo Canada and the Netherlands. Drug overdoses outnumbered all other categories of death. 78.5 billion dollars is the predicted cost to the crisis. We favour a comprehensive approach including prevention, treatment and recovery and encourages support. We remain committed to continue to expand efforts to prevent drug abuse and support recovery. We support research in demand reduction. Each dollar invested in prevention programmes can reduce costs related to substance abuse. We focus on prevention and sensitisation and are thinking of scheduling prescribed opioids in Schedule II. We are reinforcing online drug prescription monitoring. We are also raising awareness on overdose prevention with naloxone and follow up prevention and care. The work we support internationally reflects policy at home: prevention and treatment, professionalising the work force, consolidating networks for research, addressing populations with special needs (children, women, rural populations). International standards on demand reduction are examples of resources that can support this work. We commend these types of interventions and encourage continued cooperation. We look forward to finalising the international treatment standards in 2018 and to field test these standards. We encourage member states to support UNODC’s demand reduction activities as outlined in the UNGASS outcome document.

China. We thank the UNODC expert Mr. Gerra and experts such as Singapore and others today. We support countries promoting community based rehab to achieve a drug free society. We should stick to the objectives of the 2009 political declaration to address the world drug problem. We pursue the policy of prevention and education targeting high risk groups such as young people, using new platforms. We also promote community based treatment and rehab. We support international standards on prevention by UNODC and welcome the new version. We hope UNODC will support the efforts of countries in diversifying treatments on the basis of national realities and national law. On prevention, China seeks to address the root causes of drugs. We promote a healthy way of life and a sound environment in which children can grow up. We focus on youth and carry out various activities including video clips and photo contests, as well as the 2017 debate among college students. These activities involved around 100 million children in China. In addition, we used traditional media: radio, TV, newspapers, as well as new media: websites, we chats and mobile phones and TV shows. Newly reported drug users dropped by 40%. We stick to a human centred approach and a scientific approach on prevention, treatment, care, rehab and social reintegration so that we can carry out community rehab projects. Communities have become the dominant force to provide services to drug addicts. There are 32,000 treatment facilities where 52,000 social workers work. 400,000 drug users are receiving treatment.

The HIV/AIDS infection rate among drug users dropped from  7,5% to 3% in 2015. In February this year, China adopted the 13th new 5-year plan of action against AIDS, which proposed to limit new infection rates to under 0.3%. At the same time, there has been close cooperation among public security, justice and health authorities to offer standard treatment living with HIV in prison and reintegrate them in society.

Subhan Hanonanhan, Rumah Cemara, Indonesia. The implementation of the UNGASS outcome document includes addressing HIV. There has been strengthening in several sectors through the narcotics law, strengthening the national drugs programme, addiction curriculum, addiction council, and sustainable rehab goals to reduce narcotic use and improve quality of life. The government and NGOs should develop cooperation of international partners through strengthening the integration of harm reduction. The national narcotics agency and civil society have adopted an agreement of 1 year on treatment.

Poland. We support the statement made by Estonia. The effective implementation of the UNGASS outcome document is important for my country and is a priority for different institutions in Poland. I will briefly touch on two aspects. One is the quality of prevention and treatment programmes, with guidelines under the national health agency. In 2016, the national bureau developed standards for drug prevention programmes, and developed a new dedicated programme and a brochure on standards for drug prevention. The brochure was shared with all relevant agencies in Poland and education facilities. There is a consideration of increasing access to OST in Poland, in amending the law. This would allow methadone, but also buprenorphine and naloxone administration by psychiatrists, physicians, doctors. This would result in increased access to OST and stimulus to use other substances, in addition to methadone.

Singapore. We use drug prevention as a first line of defence in our prevention approach to target children and adolescents. A behavioural analysis found that youth education should be targeted to enhance effectiveness. We then contextualised the messaging of prevention strategies for primary and secondary students: harms of drugs and implications for their lives. Then it’s focused on analytical thoughts, allowing them to lead a life for themselves. Advocacy in community is key. It allows citizens to get greater ownership of drug issues. We launched United Against Drugs Coalition including government, non-government and private sector working on prevention. We use social media as an important platform for prevention: Facebook, Instagram, etc. to show the harms of drug abuse. It’s a self-discovery approach rather than a top down approach. We reiterate ASEAN’s approach to achieve a drug free Asia. The ASEAN drug education portal is a resource to share practices on drug prevention and education in the region. We emphasise prevention education as a key component. It takes many stakeholders to develop effective prevention programmes, sharing best practices will go a long way to support this effort.

Czech Republic. We support the idea of sharing best practice and strengthening cooperation between UNODC and all UN agencies, not just WHO – especially human rights, poverty, infectious diseases. CND should call on relevant UN agencies and their involvement should be encouraged in the drafting of future CND documents.

India. We are committed to addressing the world drug problem. Justice and empowerment is important for drug abuse prevention, dissemination of information and public awareness. We recognise drug abuse as a socio-medical problem, which can be addressed with the active involvement of NGOs and CBOs. We focus on rehab services, social justice and empowerment. We provide education, rehabilitation and social reintegration of drug addicts. We establish rehab treatment, with a variety of services. We provide education at all levels including at schools. We ensure accreditation of all facilities. On demand reduction, we have prevention programmes for alcohol and drug abuse, hospitals run by the state, 400 rehab centres spread all over the country. The government conducts a national survey on substance abuse. Training is an important component for service providers. This is done by the National Institute on Substance Abuse. Accreditation of de-addiction centres is done regularly, with monitoring of people undergoing treatment. At last, I reinforce our commitment to implementing the UNGASS outcome document.

Bulgaria. We support the statement made by Estonia. Our guiding document is Bulgaria’s drug policy and action plan, and the UNGASS outcome document which represents the most recent global drug control consensus. Our drug policy gives a detailed account of the situation and focuses on health and human rights. We focus on many target groups: young people and children with awareness raising campaigns, informing them of harms caused by drug abuse; training for teachers and help them manage drug occurrences. The plan also focuses on parents. There are special stipulations to address HIV and NGOs are involved in the project. 500.000 syringes are disseminated every year. We also have programmes in prison: prevention, rehab and recovery including group sessions. NGOs are engaged to identify priorities in demand reduction. We look forward to discussions in the next two days.

UN Women. Many demand reduction measures are still gender neutral or focused on men. This does not respond to the needs of women. It is most welcome that the UNGASS document provides recommendations to better respond to the needs of women drug users. This is a key opportunity for a gender-responsive strategy. Discrimination against women is a leading barrier to access to treatment. They face increased stigma and discrimination combined with other gender inequalities. They fear losing custody of their children. Women who use drugs have more limited access to harm reduction services and health care services including for sexual and reproductive care. In prison, they have little or no access to such services. The UNGASS outcome document calls for evidence base and data gathering, including on women. The link between drug use and violence requires more attention. Women who use drugs are more likely to experience violence by male partners and law enforcement. The INCB Annual Report highlights these issues this year as well. Sexual abuse can predict relapse among women as well. We want to help improve data on gender sensitive statistics to inform policy and advocacy. The 2030 agenda for development emphasises the mainstreaming of a gender perspective. This should be an integral part of the 2019 process.

Sweden. We align with the Estonian statement. The public health perspective includes prevention, early intervention, harm reduction, treatment and care and recovery, and these are reinforcing. We have increased mortality rates among PWUD, and it is worrisome. It may be the result of coding and reporting. But we want to share two examples of UNGASS implementation. We commissioned two national agencies to present an action plan to reduce deaths, which includes broad interventions focusing on demand and supply and harm reduction measures. We are currently assessing the proposals. We are also focusing on opioid overdoses and naloxone provision – we are investigating increased availability of naloxone to families and friends in addition to the health services. We welcome the opportunity to share experiences and collaborate with UNODC and the UN family.

Japan. I want to welcome these discussions. I want to thank UNODC and the panellists for their presentations. We have made efforts nationally, regionally and internationally in addressing drug related issues including on drug demand reduction for a balanced approach. I want to touch on some of our efforts focusing on international cooperation and technical assistance in demand reduction. We have studied and contributed to demand reduction projects led by UNODC. One is an evidence based demand reduction initiative in Afghanistan. It aims to facilitate and expand integrated treatment, including joint training for policy makers and public health officers, organising workshops for treatment coordination, developing treatment protocols for drug treatment centres, trainings of trainers on human rights based treatment services. We are also contributing to other projects in Afghanistan and Iran for vulnerable groups, such as women. This will increase access to treatment and rehab services tailored to the needs of women with drug use disorders. We value UNODC’s work in providing technical assistance and promoting international cooperation. We want to increase our cooperation with UNODC and member states based on common and shared responsibility.

Mauritania. We have ratified all international and regional agreements on drugs. Because of the size of our country and our coast/geographical location, we have suffered from being a transit point. We kept track of the methods traffickers used, and focused on reducing demand to educate youth on how to escape addiction. We are no producers or manufacturers of drugs. But use of hashish is a primary problem, as is the use of stimulants and tranquillisers. Our strategy focuses on adequate legislation and providing prevention methods, and a national work plan. According to this plan, we adopted a legislation – law 1993 037 to punish producers, traffickers and users, based on international instruments. We have law 2008 012 to implement the international convention on drugs on money laundering and the financing of terrorism. We have issued other laws on national, regional and international developments. We have another law focusing on drug trafficking and establishes measures to tackle seized assets and funds. We have established a commission to punish traffickers and smugglers operating in our country to reduce demand and supply. On prevention measures and deterrence, we have provided the necessary means and resources, with an increased number of personnel, technical equipment, and opened three branches for our office and will open further branches according to specific programmes. We have carried out courses for the police. We have connected national borders with security and police forces who are highly trained in combatting drug smuggling. We have areas and activities to keep up with combatting the spread of drugs. We have contacts with regional and international partners working in this field. We have facilitated access to the media. We have 45 crossing points with necessary technical equipment to record those who enter and exit, we have a special unit in the national security forces focusing on drugs, we have an aircraft providing round-the-clock monitoring. We have special equipment and boats to prevent smuggling. We have a special office and judges dealing with drug cases and with juveniles who abuse drugs – we have a special law for them, based on international agreements. We have a centre for rehabilitation and another for combatting organised crime and money laundering. We have a supreme council for the youth to deal with threats and dangers for the youth sector. On prevention of drugs, we have asked various ministries to carry out outreach and activities in cities targeting vulnerable groups with the support of religious leaders to address the prohibition of drugs and spread Islamic values. We have used the scientific evidence and skills and experiences to protect the families and youth from this problem. We have a sports ministry to protect youth from idleness. We have support from civil society. We have caught a number of smugglers: we caught a senegalese boat carrying a number of smugglers and tons of cannabis resign. We also caught a number of individuals smuggling 1.5 tons of cannabis. This is a result protecting us from the dangers of drugs. We continue to protect our country and improve our policy. We are keen to exchange our experience and benefit from the experience of others.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. We will hear about further NGOs and UN entities’ statements tomorrow morning. But I will ask the panel to give a final word on the discussion from today.

EMCDDA. Thank you, it has been very interesting to participate in this panel. After many years of involvement, it was not so common to discuss evidence based policy, it is positive to hear this here. I also want to mention the European Summer School – we are now welcoming students from all over the world and it is becoming a platform for exchanging best practices.

Joao Goulao. An increasing number of delegations consider drug use as a health and social problem, this is important. We also discuss social exclusion here. I also noticed the big number of delegates saying that even though some people are not able to stop using, they still deserve to be supported, this is in the spirit of harm reduction. Several delegates referred to decriminalisation of drug use. Drug use was decriminalised 16 years ago, but it is still prohibited. Sometimes there are misunderstandings about this and it’s important to say. At the margins of UNGASS, our model was considered by the INCB as a model of best practice during a side event. I want to wish you the best for the rest of the sessions.

Aljona Kurbatova. I thank all member states for your interventions today. We will continue our efforts on social and health approaches.

Timothy Lee. I want to thank the CND for this platform to share best practices. We’ve heard about various practices today on gender, community based programmes, preventive education. It is clear that demand reduction is a key component and we have a lot to do still.

Roli Bode-George. Thank you all for a wonderful job. Having been here for a long time, member states have come a long way. One of the things I want to add is the fact that when we do interventions the key element is to restore the dignity of the beneficiaries. And I want to finish focusing on gender and the need to focus on it more.

Gilberto Gerra, UNODC. I will only say two words. I welcome the incredible richness of the discussion today. It’s created a sort of agreement on continuum of care, and moving away from ideology. We could try to create groups of member states in the lead up to 2019 on ‘unresolved issues’ here. For example, why HIV is decreasing but not hepatitis C, or issues where there is no agreement. This could be a good possibility to prepare for 2019. The last thing is that we could work much more on science around substance use disorders and no longer on ideology or punishment. I would like to ask you to translate in concrete actions what we are doing. UNODC is constantly asked to do trainings on prevention, treatment, etc. and we don’t have the resources to do so. A possibility would be for member states to devote some national budget to make this possible.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. I stress the gender balance here – that how it should always be done. I thank all the delegations. We managed to get through most of the statements, a few last ones will be made tomorrow. Thank you all for sticking to the time limit and addressing the issue of demand reduction. I hope the same thing will happen in the next few days.

[Wednesday 27 September]

Monica Beg, UNODC HIV Section. In the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, member states reiterated their committed to end by 2030 the epidemics of AIDS and viral hepatitis in line with the SDG agenda. As part of this, UNODC supports member states to facilitate HIV-related harm reduction services, ensuring access to services for women and people in prisons, and the meaningful engagement of communities of people who use drugs. We have briefed member states on this work before, on the evidence of treatment effectiveness for people who use drugs, etc.

Today, I want to emphasise a new area – HIV-related harm reduction for stimulant drugs. There are different groups of stimulant drugs, and these can be smoked, inhaled, ingested or injected, and HIV can be transmitted by unsafe injection or risky sexual practices among key groups such as MSM and sex workers. Stimulant drug use have been associated with HIV outbreaks in several countries. To address this critical gap, UNODC undertook an evidence review in 2015, and in a scientific consultation in 2016, experts provided an in-depth analysis of the findings. People who inject stimulants engage in more sexual risk behaviour and higher HIV prevalence than those injecting opiates, and a higher frequency of injecting. There is also evidence of increased HIV prevalence among MSM and sex workers who also use stimulants. In USA and Latin America examples, HIV prevalence among people who use stimulants (non-injecting) was higher than in the general population.

Key challenges: no scalable drug dependence treatment yet for stimulant use, nor any strong evidence of effectiveness of stimulant replacement therapies on HIV transmission. The overlap between key populations is a challenge in terms of access to services, as they face additional stigma. Reaching out to stimulant users, particularly young people and women, is also a major challenge, as services are rarely tailored for these groups. We also need more disaggregated data to better understand the problem. UNODC is working on a new implementation guide on stimulant use and harm reduction, which will build on the existing package. Thank you.

UNODC Prevention Department. If we do treatment and prevention well, we can achieve many of the SDGs. There are a few key building blocks: evidence-based strategies, quality standards, human resources, financial resources, and coordination mechanisms. We know what needs to be done, so we just need to do it. We are currently updating our drug prevention standards – which outline the approaches that have been shown to be effective over time and among different target groups. These include interventions during childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Member states can be overwhelmed by this, though, as there is so much to do. So let us focus on “middle childhood” and early adolescence, and in particular on work with the family unit. If member states need help, we can help. We have a lot of experience in connecting programme managers with researchers and experts, and with other programme managers from other countries. A few of the family and school programmes that show success, and we are currently developing a “Strong Families Program” to build on these – including special attention to misplaced populations and trauma. For treatment, there is a pyramid of needs – with most people able to self-care to an extent, and then at the top, a much smaller number needing more intensive help. Again, we have ample experience of working on overdose prevention, on alternatives to incarceration, and have developed a step-by-step methadone programme protocol for member states to use – working with WHO.

Quality standards for prevention now exist, as well as guides on how to evaluate prevention programmes, and quality standards are now available for treatment too. We work with our partners to support practitioners – there are ample resources out there for member states to use. Coordination mechanisms exist to engage all sectors together on prevention of drug use, and some good models exist for inter-sectoral cooperation at the national level. For treatment, we have to build a connection with people who drug-related disorders too. Financial resources: UNODC needs resources to do this work, and there is never enough money for good prevention programmes. If you take all of the resources that are spent on non-evidence based practice, and move them into evidence-based practice, then this would have an impact. There is a lot that we can do together on this. We all want to do this well, and to promote and support health and well-being for all – particularly children and the most vulnerable.

Bethany Medley Harm Reduction Coalition, USA

Matej Kosir, Institute for Research and Development, UTRIP (Slovenia). In the UNGASS 2016 outcome document, UN Member States committed to “increase the availability, coverage and quality of scientific evidence-based prevention measures and tools”. This can only be done if they align their prevention strategies with available minimum quality standards and allocate adequate resources to prevention measures.

Alarmingly, 97% of health spending across Europe goes on healthcare and treatment as compared to only 3% on prevention. That’s according to the data provided by OECD and the European Commission about 10 years ago. It is probably not much different in other parts of the world.

Different international institutions such as UNODC, EMCDDA, UNESCO and WHO have been putting many efforts in the last decade to develop quality standards in prevention and also in other areas of drug demand reduction – all in purpose to improve the quality of interventions in daily practice. Furthermore, the Council of European Union adopted a political document in September 2015, which politically (but not legally) obliges EU Member States to invest more in implementation of minimum quality standards in drug demand reduction.

However, most of prevention work nowadays in many UN Member States still does not comply with standards and scientific evidence, and many of them still do not link co-funding of prevention with those standards. At the same time, it means many prevention practitioners are not very motivated to change their way of work due to obvious political and professional indifference to change situation in practice significantly.

Our future joint efforts at international level should be focused firstly on disinvestment from ineffective or harmful practices which are still very popular and still often funded by authorities (such as one-off lectures and workshops, scare tactics or fear appeal, ex-addicts testimonials, information-only interventions, say no campaigns etc.). Secondly, we all have to invest more in implementation of minimum quality standards and evidence-based practices. Not just having them on paper (e.g. in the strategies or legislation), but enforcing and financing them in real life.

Some research showed that more than 80% of prevention professionals think that basic knowledge and skills (such as theories and models, needs assessment, logic models, implementation quality, evaluation and ethics in prevention) are important for the prevention workforce, but also report that there is a significant gap in knowledge and skills. The research also showed a strong need to invest in prevention education and training regarding advocacy for quality prevention, funding, management skills and soft skills such as communication, teamwork, collaboration and networking.

Professional development of prevention workforce should be promoted across the world, in multiple sectors, to bridge the significant gap between available and required knowledge and skills. Institutions and organisations (including many civil society organisation) that employ the prevention workforce and give a high value to advanced prevention-related knowledge and skills should be recognised nationally and internationally for their contribution. Amongst the prevention workforce, in multiple sectors, there is a strong need to invest in comprehensive and recognised professional development programmes, such as formal and informal education and training. To reach our goals regarding quality prevention, we have to incorporate minimum quality standards in our daily work, and invest more in knowledge and skills of prevention workforce. Thank you very much for all your efforts towards better and quality prevention! I wish you a successful work at this and other sessions as well.

Gilberto Gerra, UNODC. Only a few words from me to introduce my colleague. The rooms in the UN can be impermeable to sound, including the screaming of millions of people in unnecessary pain – people undergoing surgery, people suffering from pain. Thanks to cooperation with Belgium and others, we are working to overcome this – this operation is larger than just providing more medicines, it is about opening our eyes to the control system and what it is intended to achieve. The controlled drugs ate highly effective in managing moderate to severe pain, and the regulatory system needs to be discussed. When member states are providing their controlled medicine needs to INCB, I have some doubts about the sources and data they use. We do need to be careful, as we do not want a bank of medicines and pills, and to avoid abuse and diversion. The most important part is the individual relationship between the patient and doctor. We are working in pilot countries, but cannot scale-up due to resources. We are also working to overcome the barriers and ignorance of the problem, particularly among professionals.

Elizabeth Mattfeld, UNODC Drug Prevention and Health Branch. We urge you to start consulting some of the foundational documents on this topic – the 2010 INCB report, the 2010 WHO “Ensuring Balance” report, and the 2011 UNODC reports. Both the 2009 and 2016 UN documents speak specifically about the use of controlled drugs for medicinal purposes and provide actions for this. We can provide technical support to member states on the various recommendations of the UNGASS outcome document – and also in line with the SDGs. People suffering from pain cannot contribute to the SDGs unless we address that pain. It is important to first diagnose the problem – we need to increase access, availability and affordability. The question is how? The UNODC-WHO-IUCC joint programme has been in existence since 2013, and includes global advocacy and partnerships – including with civil society, national strategic planning in pilot countries (Ghana, Timor Leste, DR Congo), support for the development of national policy and guidelines (with EU funding in Nigeria, for example), and building data and research capacity in countries. We came up three of the most urgent areas: systems integration, education and awareness, and supply chain management – in line with the priorities identified in the previous documents and projects as well. We will do our best to identify foundational actions (such as basic instructions for health care workers), and then enhancing actions (such as full units on pain management integrated into curricula for health care workers) – as every member state is in a different stage in this area. The timeline is to have a draft document in the coming months, with a final document ready for CND in March 2018. I want to end with a quote from Hippocrates: “Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always”.

H.E. Michael Adipo Okoth Oyugu, Kenyan Ambassador to Austria. This topic is of great importance for my country, for Africa, and for the international community at large. My remarks this morning are a broad review of the terrain. The availability of controlled drugs for medical and scientific purposes remains quite low, and non-existent in many countries around the world – as highlighted in the UNGASS outcome document which dedicated a stand-alone chapter to this issue for the first time ever. Removing unduly restrictive regulation, providing adequate capacity building and training, raising awareness, ensuring well-informed and coordinated scheduling decisions – these are all contained in the UNGASS outcome document. We must also ensure the availability and affordability of these substances – while also preventing their abuse, diversion and trafficking. The 1961 and 1971 Conventions underline the commitment to protecting the health and welfare of mankind. Yes this essential element of the Conventions is far from being universally achieved, leading to our commitment to enhance national and international cooperation on this issue. Striking the right balance to achieve the optimal outcome is therefore key. The 2017 World Drug Report focuses on the availability of pain medication, to improve the quality of life of people suffering from various ailments. Challenges include the lack of training and awareness, lack of resources, fear of diversion and an increasing concern of the misuse of opiates. Making prescription opiates available does not cause their misuse and addiction, and is an obligation established by the international drug control conventions. All member states need to scale-up our efforts to ensure that we make controlled medicines accessible, affordable and available. In implementing the recommendations of Chapter 2 of the UNGASS outcome document, we will also be contributing to the SDG agenda and especially Goal 3 to ensure healthy lives and wellbeing for all. Target 3.8b focuses on the provision of access to affordable medicines and vaccines. Target 3.8c aims for an increase in health financing and workforce. Our efforts at the national level cannot be fully productive without cooperation at the regional and international levels. We look forward to hearing good national practices and policies from member states today.

World Health Organisation (by video from Geneva). The international drug conventions realise the importance of health and wellbeing, and recognise the medical use for the relief of pain and suffering (1961) and the medical and scientific purposes of these drugs (1971). Our work on this is also guided by resolutions from the World Health Assembly. 70 percent of the world population – most often in low income settings – have no access to these medicines, which from an ethical perspective is unacceptable. Over ten years (2001-2003 to 2011-2013), the situation has improved in terms of access to opioids for pain relief – albeit with serious challenges remaining in Africa and other regions. There is still a huge disparity between regions, with Africa and South-East Asia the lowest. The trends in consumption are improving overall, but seems to be falling in Africa which is a major concern.

There are many barriers: insufficient knowledge and training among medical staff; behaviours linked to fear of diversion, abuse and sanctions; inaccurate quantification of needs by national bodies and weak supply chain systems; and regulatory practices that are too strong – resulting in too few prescriptions. Monitoring the trends of these problems since 1995, lots of improvements have been noted – but problems of sourcing, training and resources remain precarious. INCB’s 2015 report also outlined the prevalence of different barriers, and member states can contact me for more information on this. Other barriers include: ineffective implementation of national policies; lack of domestic resources; insufficient leadership and coordination; insufficient capacity and national regulatory authorities; and non-evidence based guidelines. The process for procuring and importing these medicines is a complex one and takes a lot of time.

The WHO Essential Medicines List is revised every two years, and already includes a large number of controlled medicines – including methadone. The first List was developed 40 years ago, and already included several controlled medicines – yet few steps have been achieved to make these available. The 20th List was adopted in 2017, and we have also revised the technical guidelines for managing pain in children, the pharmacological treatment of opiate dependence, for cancer in adults, etc. Our collaborative projects in this area include the Access to Opiate Medication in Europe (ATOME), the UNODC-WHO-IUCC Joint Program, the WHO-INCB Guide on estimating requirements, work to develop the access to medicines components of the UNODC Model Drug Law (still pending), and collaboration with the Africa Union (for access to morphine and ketamine, for example, this is the priority region for our actions). Ketamine is an important analgesic, and the ECDD has recommended again that it should not be internationally controlled as it is effective. Our ongoing work with international partners is well aligned with the UNGASS recommendations. Based on the existing political commitments and the fact that access to medicines is high on the international agenda, we really now need to transcribe the political commitments endorsed by member states into real concrete actions – which starts with the mobilisation of resources, including domestic resources.

Stefano Berterame, Chief of the Narcotics Control and Estimates Section, INCB. I want to focus mainly on three things – two related to the UNGASS outcome document (supporting national estimates, and building capacity), and a third related to preventing diversion as there has been over-consumption in some countries which has led to an increase in death rates. INCB has developed the I2ES platform with member states to help support national estimates and requests – to help overcome a number of challenges identified in this process. The platform is free to use, user-friendly, and compliant with the Convention requirements. It helps moves the process from a paper one to an electronic one, and some countries have enabled automatic uploads from their national systems (such as Switzerland). There is a meeting next week to discuss and improve the platform. 40 countries have registered into I2ES, and 26 have active accounts. We urge countries to engage and use the platform – to ensure a faster process. Regarding capacity and building, INCB has developed several training and learning tools and projects, including e-learning materials, regional trainings and other resources on the INCB website.

We have found an improvement in reporting capacities, greater commitments to improve availability. Additional trainings are now scheduled, with contributions from USA, France, Australia and Belgium. Finally, the third aspect is preventing diversion. The global consumption of fentanyl, for example, has grown continuously from 1995 to 2015 – yet this does not seem to reflect a rational increase in need for the medicine, but more a reflection of aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies, and use of limited evidence that showed lower risks of dependence. The number of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl and heroin have increased sharply – more so than other opioids. The increased risks of abuse and death has been limited to a few countries – but all governments should be aware of these risks. We also need to address the availability of less dangerous opioids in Africa, for example. Prescribing must follow a rational approach based on the evidence and guidelines, and must also consider alternatives to opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain.

Actions taken by countries include: take-back prescription initiatives; independent and unbiased training of staff of the risks; awareness raising campaigns for the public; the availability of methadone and buprenorphine for people who use drugs; and access to overdose reversing medicines such as naloxone – and availability to first responders.

Mexico. I want to highlight the importance of information and awareness – INCB recently published a notice for countries in emergency situations, such as Mexico, to remind them that there are emergency steps available to simplify and speed up the import process in such situations. The forthcoming Latin America workshop will focus on this.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. I want to take this opportunity to extend to Mexico and other countries in the Caribbean our solidarity.

Kurt Doms, Coordinator Drug Unit, Belgian Federal Service of Public Health. Belgium is pleased that the UNGASS outcome document brought us a legacy of joint commitments and recommendations for this issue. The under-treatment of pain has been reported in more than 150 countries, leading to the unnecessary suffering of men, women and children. The outcome document sets the framework for work in this area in the coming years and over the coming decade. The implementation of these recommendations is key. The UNGASS document refers to reviewing national policies and guidelines and the WHO guidelines is a useful tool in this respect.

The Access to Opiate Medication in Europe (ATOME) project delivered this review in 12 countries, using a quick scan tool which can be simply used to identify hurdles, locate unbalanced legislation, and identify quick wins for progress to be made. Secondly, for many years, Belgium has also provided capacity building and e-learning tools for healthcare professionals. Patients also have their roles and responsibilities – so awareness raising for them is also important. In Belgium we have invested in campaigns to improve knowledge and change behaviours. Thirdly, the INCB and WHO have provided all technical guide needed for countries to improve their estimates. The technical expertise and guidance is available. This will gain greater impact when INCB, UNODC and WHO work together more closely, and we welcome their work in this area and the recent Memorandum of Understanding between UNODC and WHO.

Belgium, through the Ministry of Health, started to fund this programme in 2015 – with a focus on DR Congo, a long-term development partner of our government. This work uses existing structures and a top-down and bottom-up approach – with multilateral commitments matched by bilateral ones, including through NGOs in the sector. We cannot ignore the rise in abuse of certain controlled substances in some parts of the world, and efforts to tackle this deserve our support. However, we hope that this does not dissuade other countries to take the necessary steps to address access to medicines. All stakeholders need to be engaged – including patients and their families, who can help to identify barriers and stigma from a community perspective to raise awareness amongst health care professionals. We hope that this will help to fulfil the goals that we have all agreed to.

Video Message from Alberto Miguel Guzman, COFEPRIS (Mexico). A year since the UNGASS, it is possible to observe important progress that has been made by member states. I want to explain how Mexico ensures access for medical and scientific uses, and our national law lists which substances are considered as narcotics. The supply etc of these substances must have the approval of the Ministry of Health, to avoid their improper use. We have adopted various laws and guidelines for this purpose, including guidance for the electronic platform for prescription of the aforementioned medicines. This innovation provides doctors with secure access, and stores data using information technologies to improve the situation by reducing the time required to just a few days. Prescriptions can also be issued 365 days a year, 24 hours a day – with barcodes on the prescriptions that contain details of the doctor for traceability purposes. Prescriptions can be repeated three times before requiring further approval. In this way, the Government of Mexico is making important measures to ensure that these medicines are only available for medical and scientific purposes.

Professor David Oliver, European Association for Palliative Care. I speak as a retired palliative medicine physician. I have worked in a hospice in the UK providing palliative care and pain relief to over 20,000 people. My role has been in the care of people who require palliative care, often facing pain and distress at the end of their lives, working as part of a wider multidisciplinary team caring for people with advancing illness and their families.

Perhaps to start with the story of Mrs B who was admitted to the hospice where I worked with severe pain in her back, from breast cancer which had spread to her bones. She was unable to cope with her everyday activities due to the pain, and her children and husband were distressed. Regular morphine was able to control her pain so that she was able to get out of bed, care for herself and be interested and talk with her husband and children for the remaining weeks before she died, without pain.

I am a Board Member of the European Association of Palliative Care, which is taking an active role to help our membership in improving access to controlled medicines as per the recommendations of Chapter Two of the Outcome Document. The EAPC was closely involved in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project, looking at the issues of accessibility to opioid medication. For example, in Turkey, up until 2014 there was limited access to opioid medication. In 2014 the ATOME project sought to overcome the barriers to opioid use. In 2010 the adequacy of opioid use was assessed at 7% and there were administrative requirements in the prescription, dispensing, distribution of morphine and there was a lack of clarity in the language used about “Toxic substances” causing “intoxication”. The ATOME Project made many recommendations and oral morphine was produced and palliative care was partially reimbursed in state hospitals. Opioids are now more widely available and palliative care is expanding.

Evidence for the use and efficacy of strong opioids, such as morphine for the management of moderate to severe pain is well-documented and evaluated. Many people develop pain, particularly towards the end of life. Over 70% of patients with advanced cancer will experience severe pain at some time in the progression of the disease, but pain is also very common in other diseases, such as heart disease, respiratory disease and neurological disease.

The need for palliative care and pain management is increasing globally, as more people are living longer, and are diagnosed with non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes among others. The need for pain management will increase as at present there are 14.1 million new cases of cancer worldwide annually in 2012, with 8.2 million deaths, and this is expected to increase to 20 million new cancer cases by 2015. Other people who require access to adequate pain management include older persons, children, those suffering from traumatic injuries and violence, post-surgical pain, and obstetrical complications.

There is unequivocal evidence to support the use of opioids for the management of chronic pain and this includes not only cancer, but chronic pain syndromes. In these situations, opioids are often used in conjunction with other non-pharmacological management techniques.

In clinical practice, the efficacy of opioid medication for the management of pain can be seen daily as patients with moderate to severe pain receive the relief they need and are able to live their lives again, thus dramatically improving their quality of life. For instance, a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as motor neuron disease) was in continuous discomfort, although he would not admit that he had actual pain. Within 24 hours of starting morphine he was more comfortable, needed less adjustment of his position and stated “the pain that I did not have, has gone away”. He was able to talk more easily with his family who were able to visit and enjoy their time together, without the need for continual adjustment of position and his evident discomfort.

A doctor who had becoming paralysed from the waist down from the collapse of his vertebrae due to prostate cancer. He was in continuous pain and talked of wanting “to end it all”. Within two days on regular morphine he was more active in his wheelchair and looking forward to going out and seeing his family, and no longer talked of hastening his death.

Access to opioids for the management of pain can make a real difference to patients, particularly at the end of life. How people die lives in the memory of their loved ones forever, often affecting their own view and perception of death and dying. It is important to ensure that people at end of life die in comfort and with dignity. The use of strong opioids enables this to be a reality.

The availability of opioid medication varies greatly across the World. 90.5% of the morphine consumption in 2013 was from Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, although these countries account for only 18.9% of the population. WHO estimate that 5 billion people live in countries with low or no access to controlled medication and there is insufficient access to treatment for severe or moderate pain in over 150 countries. Even in Europe the ATOME study, in which the EAPC were involved, found that opioid consumption is low or very low in 12 countries with many restricting the use by legislation.

A major barrier to availability is fear of addiction or overdose stopping patients taking medication that could help them and this is often related to restrictive policies for their prescription. Patients and families, healthcare professionals and government and public bodies fear that greater availability may lead to increased misuse and diversion. At the same time in certain countries, in particular the USA, there has been a large increase in opioid use together with an increased fear of misuse, leading to restrictive policies. These fears may have been overestimated and it has been argued that there is confusion about the misuse of “prescribed opioids” and “prescription opioids” – the former being the correctly prescribed medication whereas the latter is the use of opioids which are available on prescription but that may have been stolen or illicitly trafficked or manufactured.

It is important to differentiate those people who: received medication for a legitimate medical purpose and use it as intended; received medication for a legitimate medical purpose and used it in a different way, such as not complying with instructions (there are papers suggesting that up to 21-29% of patients receiving opioids misuse them, but this also includes non-compliance, such as not taking medication regularly as instructed. In the general population, non-compliance with other medication is found in 25% and it is likely that this is also the case with prescribed opioids); and used medication for non-medical use.

Many people with substance use disorder start on prescription opioids and may then take heroin. However, importantly, although 60-100% of people with substance abuse disorder have taken prescription opioids, only a very small number (0.01% to 4%) of people treated with opioids for pain go on to develop dependency. There have been many alarming stories of the use of opioids in the USA, where there is an increased number of overdose deaths and claims that “enough prescriptions were written to give every American a bottle of pills” (when the reality is the bottle would contain only 7-10 pills). There has been the misapprehension of the causation of the problems – the drugs are considered to be the cause of the abuse problem, whereas the problem may be in the better use and prescription of medication for those who are in need of pain relief. As a result of these fears, restrictive drug policies may lead to patients with pain not receiving the medication they require and becoming distressed, and leading to distress of their families and carers.

The use of opioid medication for medical use is complex, as part of the wider assessment and management of pain and other symptoms. In many countries there is little education of health care professionals in the assessment and management of pain, and other symptoms. In 2014 a survey by the International Narcotics Control Board found that only 70 countries reported an educational curriculum for medical practitioners which included the prescription and use of opioids. Of these countries, 51 (73%) showed an increase in the per capita consumption of opioids over a 4 year period to 2013. Good education and training of healthcare professionals will ensure the safe and timely administration of opioid medication. The fears and myths surrounding the use of opioids may result in practitioners underestimating patients’ pain and subsequently result in the underuse of pain medication. This may be from the fear of misuse, the concerns of side-effects of opioids or legal investigation. Legislation that restricts the use of opioids may further discourage their use in pain control.

The development of palliative care was been endorsed by the World Health Assembly Resolution on Palliative Care in 2014 which urged the global development of an integrated approach to palliative care. The resolution encourages palliative care education and training to include basic, intermediate and advanced training. Importantly the resolution also suggests that in order to improve access to controlled drugs, such as opioids, and other medication that they should be included on the WHO Model list of Essential Medicines.

In summary, there is strong evidence to support the efficacy and use of strong opioids in the management of pain. Globally, there are many countries where opioids are not available. This is due to a number of reasons including a lack of training and support in the use of opioids and fear and/or legislation. There is the need for opioids to be accessible and available for the millions of people who have unnecessary pain or other symptoms where access to opioids could make a real difference. There is the need for education of all healthcare professionals in the correct and responsible use of opioids, including the minimization of misuse. Access to opioids is essential for medical and scientific use; for the relief of pain and distress for millions of patients and their families. Legislation should not interfere with the use of opioids in these circumstances. Click here to read the full statement.

Canada (response to Professor David Oliver). My country is one facing these issues at the moment. One of the things I see is the fear that patients have of being cut-off from their medicines as a result, so how would you recommend we protect those who really need this medicine and what messages can we provide to doctors to ensure that people who need these medications can continue to get them.

Professor David Oliver. The biggest issue is the training of doctors and other healthcare professionals in the management of pain – it is often not taught in medical school or in further education. So long-standing doctors may have got into habits and behaviours that are not evidence-based or based on the knowledge 20 or 30 years ago. A team should assess each person individually and their specific issues – which may need medication and other tools to manage their pain. It is a challenge for us all to do that.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. I now open the floor for interventions relating to Chapter 2.

Belgium. The need for technical assistance is clear. The Belgian Federal Agency on Medicines is about to make a voluntary contribution to INCB for this purpose, which should enable for a regional training in French-speaking countries in West and Central Africa. This will help ensure better recording of timely estimates for national need, to strengthen capacity to avoid diversion, and to improve access to statistics and data. We thank INCB and UNODC staff for their continued engagement in this area.

Australia. We are committed to promoting the adequate availability of pain medicines, and believe that the drug conventions were not designed to limit this availability for medical uses. Opiate analgesics provide cost-effective relief from pain for many conditions. Australia has taken an active role in addressing the underlying factors contributing to this disparity, and is pleased to support countries to get the basic frameworks right. It is possible to make positive steps to address complex barriers, as seen through the UNODC-WHO-IUCC Joint Program, and we have pledged further contributions to continue this work. We also thank INCB for their work in this regard, and we are encouraged by the partnership emerging within the multilateral community in Vienna, Geneva and beyond. We must continue working together to address the global disparity of access to controlled medicines for pain relief, and in the implementation of the UNGASS recommendations in this regard.

Estonia, on behalf of the European Union. The EU thanks you for organising this thematic discussion. The EU appreciates the importance of access to and availability of controlled substances such as opioids for pain alleviation and treatment for drug dependence. The lack of access to substances for pain treatment and mental health treatment is a concern and leads to unacceptable suffering. At the same time, misuse of these substances is highly problematic. We welcome the work of member states on these matters. However, the opioid epidemic in certain parts of the world should not lead to lack of access to medicines as affirmed in the UNGASS outcome Document. We note that the inadequate interpretation of the UN drug control conventions may limit availability of access to medicines. The EU advocates the need to remedy this situation as outlined in our new action plan 2017-2020 which tackles both aspects of access and avoiding diversion. This requires special training on use, and professional development. The EU project on this issue will increase understanding of customer sales, patters of use, misuse and dependence, with tracking systems. This may provide an example of best practice on how to improve availability and accessibility without aiding their diversion. The EU supports the efforts of WHO, UNODC and INCB in providing technical guidance in this regard. We also underline the importance of working with civil society and the scientific community.

Nigeria. We note that a lot of data was presented today, and Nigeria does not have a lot of data. We recently conducted a survey using consumption based data of narcotic medicines. We had two reviews done for the quantification of opioid medicines. This gives us a new baseline for reporting to the INCB. The MoH has upgraded two pharmaceutical facilities for the production of narcotic medicines. We will carry out inspections and monitoring of facilities.

Pakistan. The importance of ensuring access while avoiding diversion is a key aspect of the conventions, reiterated by the 2009 Political Declaration and the 2016 UNGASS outcome document. We attach great importance to access for medical purposes and we are taking appropriate measures. We appreciate the work of UNODC as well as INCB and WHO in providing technical guidance. We welcome the UNODC initiative of convening an informal meeting on the topic. Technical guidance should be adopted in close partnership with member states. We should continue to be guided by the UN drug conventions and other key documents. We should raise awareness and share good practices. Affordability should also be addressed, this was emphasized during UNGASS. We should ensure measures to counter diversion and misuse. Several recommendations in the UNGASS outcome document will guide us in this area.

Russia. Over the past 3 years, there has been a 50% increase in the number of pharmacies to issue prescription opioids. We are working with rural areas to prescribe and dispense opioids to citizens in need. The trend in opioid analgesics dispensing has been upward in 2016. Prescription of oral opioid analgesics has doubled as well. As recommended in the outcome document to improve doctors’ skills in handling opioids, Russia organised seminars and conferences for doctors, neurologists, oncologists on analgesic care and palliative care. We organised 617 courses in 55 regions for families on pain relief. We also have helplines and call centres to provide care for patients. We managed to increase effective pain relief by 15% in the first half of 2016 compared to the previous year. We are moving towards electronic prescription for opioid analgesics.

Dr. Sunita Panta, Nepal Military Hospital, Nepal. I have been working in a hospital for the past 15 years. Palliative care is very new. Before we had many patients who were suffering from acute and chronic pain. We had a clinic built to deal with these patients. We follow the WHO pain medication model to manage pain with opioids. For opioids the regulation was tight so there was limited access. We used codeine and tramadol but the results were not very good. There were advocacy groups in our hospital which dealt with the authorities. The government then made opioids more accessible. We now have opioids in the form of tablets and liquid form. But we still have very little supply of fentanyl. Patients can now stand, walk, do light exercises. They come to the clinics regularly. If they are not able to come regularly we can supply them with what they need. People can now lead a normal life. Opioids have managed to improve pain management in our country. Morphine is now also available in big hospitals and is particularly useful, so we hope it will be more available later on.

Colombia. Colombia has a specialised agency for issuing licences and implementing control measures from the 1961 and 1971 treaties. We have strategies to improve its work, working with the national association for hospice and palliative care. The centralised procurement will be an alternative for access, and continuous coordination and communication. The INCB special report of 2016 on access to substances remarks that the Colombian access is above what is recommended. Over the last year, we’ve worked to identify internal barriers to access to medicines through the MoH. We have issued guidelines for the supply of these substances in regions where there are deficiencies. We have made progress in production and distribution. We have done something similar with scientific research. There is a constant need for trainings for doctors and law enforcement. We also need to ensure that access is not a national average but make sure we work with provinces and localities to ensure availability through rationalised access.

Our congress approved law 1787 in 2016 to ensure safe access to cannabis and its derivatives for medical and scientific purposes in our territory, in line with the 1961 Convention. This promotes separation of markets vis a vis the non-medical use of cannabis. We developed training for small and medium size growers and a series of rules of a technical nature for the obtention of cannabis resin abstracts and processing for prescription medicines. We presented this t the INCB and gain the approval for the necessary amounts so that we can process this. We have received 20 requests from national and foreign companies and we hope to implement this very soon. The main challenges are: strengthen the system to issue licences so that people have safe access to cannabis without diversion, train and raise awareness, maintain constant monitoring for control and oversight.

Turkey. In line with the UNGASS outcome document and conventions, we are committed to improving access while avoiding diversion. In March, the MoH put together a new prescription service (electronic and paper), while providing strong controls against diversion. All pharmacies now use this system. This ensure effective demand and supply as well as data collection.

Philippines. We recognise the importance of the issue and have formulated policies and recommendations to avoid diversion and misuse. Policies and regulations included in the 3 UN drug conventions and those locally controlled depend on the Dangerous Drug Board. Various approaches have been taken, policies on regulatory control are continuously reviewed to ensure access to substances for legitimate purposes, with information systems to streamline information to producers, sellers, for export permits, etc. There is continuous dialogue with affected sectors to remove obstacles that impede access. Information is regularly submitted to UNODC. We collaborate with a variety of government departments, the industry involved in the effort. The MoH provides free morphine all over the country. Regular training and seminars are conducted for healthcare professionals for access to controlled medicines including for pain relief and on the rational use of controlled medicines. The MoH and National Centre for Access have worked to improve access to controlled medicines, and this is constantly updated. We are open to other worthwhile measures that could strengthen our commitments.

Samy Alsirafy, Cairo University Medicine Unit, Egypt. More than 2 years ago, one of our patients with terminal cancer was suffering from pain, and he looked in agony. When he approached me, he pushed himself to the ground, begging me to relieve morphine. He was not an addict. But oral morphine had become unavailable in Egypt. This is heart breaking. Morphine is only available in one form, one concentration in Egypt, provided by one company. Now it’s not available at all. We tried our best to provide oral morphine available, we asked the pharmaceutical company why that was. We tried to import tablets from a cheaper source, but we failed. We asked why morphine was available. We asked the CND, the INCB to find out who is benefiting from making morphine unavailable, while alternatives are unaffordable. We need an answer, we need immediate action, otherwise cancer patients will die from their suffering. Thank you.

El Salvador. We have invested in training processes to improve access for licit purposes. We carry out annual estimates of the amount of narcotic substances for medical purposes, using data and statistics from public and private health clinics. We have reduced response times for requests to import and commercialise substances as this was one of the impediments. We monitor imports and exports online. We have the international support from the UN on the prevention of diversion of precursors in Latin America and the Caribbean. This enables us to better control imports, exports, sales and use of precursors. With the support of the national council for the control of narcotics in Ecuador, we are implementing the system of control and business balances. We have used an online prescription download system in pharmacies, enabling us to guarantee availability so that our population has access to controlled substances for health problems. This helps us carry out effective controls. We have managed to improve controls on imports, exports, trade of precursors and have good trainings, but we need to improve our law on precursors. We need to also implement an IT system for the import, export, training and use of controlled substances and precursors. We need to strengthen the capacity of law enforcement officials.

Spain. We support the aim of UNGASS of guaranteeing access while avoiding diversion for illicit purposes. In Spain, substances can only be accessed in pharmacies with a prescription by a doctor. The doctor had to issue a 2nd prescription for narcotics or psychotropics. However, to facilitate the distribution of these medicines, a royal decree was issued to regulate official prescriptions for human and veterinary access. We use new technologies to avoid diversion. Five years since this new policy was introduced, we see an improvement for those in need. Prescriptions now last 3 months, compared to 1 month before. It’s also easier to write prescriptions now that we don’t need the 2nd prescription. The administrative process is easier, and in the national health system we use electronic prescriptions and you have e-prescriptions for narcotics and psychotropics thanks to the royal decree. This enables us to control the movement of the medicines. And finally, for the health administration, this means more efficient control since everything is computerised and registered. We think that Spain is complying with the dual aim of the UNGASS.

Malaysia. The drug situation remains alarming with increasing supply of drugs. We consider drug problems as an immediate threat to security. According to the 3 conventions, Malaysia respects its international obligations within its borders and at regional and international level. We continue to enforce stringent drug laws, and monitor all import and exports. We have a series of drug legislations on drugs. Our import and export of precursors are controlled, as well as pharmaceutical preparations. We have also issued the requirement of importing certain substances since 2011. We use the INCB online systems for import/export precursors. We appreciate the online tools that enhance intelligence sharing. Taking into account the national capacities of each country, we look forward to further efforts, information sharing, training and other effective activities.

USA. The issue of access to controlled substances for medical purposes is another example of how the UN is working comprehensively on global issues. We recognise UNODC, WHO and the Union for International Cancer Control and their work to ensure access while avoiding diversion. We work towards improving the wellbeing of citizens globally. In the USA, we have undertaken efforts to avoid diversion and misuse through doctors’ education, and best practices on prescribing opiates. We also continue to evaluate current databases on use, misuse and toxicity, access to pain management services, identifying new sources of data. The USA supports efforts, including through the joint global programme to improve access to evidence based pain killers.

Busi Nkosi, International Childrens’ Palliative Care Network. The availability of opioids is a challenge for children in Sub-Saharan Africa. Both children and adults die because of diseases that could be cured in many high-income countries because opioids are not available. This is because of lack of availability, training and awareness. Legislation creates barriers to accessibility. Out of 50 countries, only 4 allow prescriptions from others than doctors (e.g. nurses), this prevents prescription of opioids. Concerns on diversion create a barrier to access. Sometimes, special authorisations and signatures also are a barrier. There is also negligence. Morphine is often not available because pharmacies don’t keep it in stock. Often, morphine is not available in small dosages for children. There are also myths, for example in Sudan on the use of morphine in children. There needs to be efforts made to improve access to children: review laws, easy prescribing, develop and improve supplies to properly estimate needs for controlled opioids and ensuring balance at national level, increase the number of prescribers through training of nurses, financial assistance including private sector investments for countries with little financial capabilities, update lists of essential medicines regularly.

Slovenia. We strongly support the Estonian statement. I want to add a few words here. Outside of this room, there are many people suffering from pain all over the world. I am a medical doctor and my job is the treatment of pain. A lot of these people would pass away in a few days because of pain. Pain is one of the worst feelings in our lives. People in some countries can get treatment with opioids, while others cannot. Drugs can still be used for medical purposes. This is also highlighted in the report of the INCB. Do not be afraid to prescribe opioids, this is being done in many countries around the world.

We support the Estonian statement. The UN drug conventions commit us all to ensuring access to controlled substances for medical purposes while preventing diversion. This is repeated in the UNGASS outcome document and the SDGs. Up to 5.5 billion people live in countries with little or no access to pain medication. The presentations today have shown us how stark the situation is, and it is unacceptable. Supporting countries to improve their health systems is one of the UK’s top priorities. We have heard from the panel what UNODC, INCB and WHO are doing to lead this work. The UK works to improve access to medicines in the developing world through other initiatives working with the World Bank, WHO, the New Partnership for Development. We promote stronger approaches for dispensing and prescribing medicines, providing transparency and stronger systems. We will continue to work with international organisations and civil society.

Kenya. Since 2009, we have had the Kenyan hospice and palliative care association which supports all aspects of palliative care. This has led to some success in 2011, when two companies were allowed to import but the quantities were too limited. Three years later, the MoH was able to import more morphine (47kg at the time) to ensure better distribution of medication to those who needed it. The Kenya Association, in collaboration with the hospitals and authorities have worked on the reconstitution of morphine, and produced a medicine which passed the safety procedures. We now have liquid morphine in hospitals (government and missionary), this is the first time it is happening. We have also increased efforts to implement palliative care education and training. In collaboration with Oxford in the UK, we have developed a course in palliative care provision. Since 2009, the end of life national education programme has provided training to health educators who return to their own institutions to train nurses in palliative care. There is also an 18 month higher education distance course on palliative care. There are advances in pain relief medications too. The government has accepted the single convention and the WHO list of essential medicines which includes morphine and codeine. We also now have national palliative care guidelines created by the MoH and hospice and palliative care association. The Kenyan Medical Supplies Authorities has removed its tax on morphine. Morphine consumption has increased more than 3 fold in Kenya between 2010 and 2014. But it remains largely unavailable and unaffordable because of restricted regulations. But the situation has improved and it is our hope it will continue to improve.

Katherine Pettus, International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care. I recently returned from Uganda where I spoke at the 50th anniversary of the Uganda Cancer Institute and conference on palliative care. This was organised because of a 2015 law, passed pre-UNGASS. There is now a barrier to nurses prescribing morphine. In Sub-Saharan Africa morphine and palliative care medicines are nurse driven as there are so few doctors and physicians. So care in patients is down to nurses. Uganda has pioneered nurse prescribing in morphine and there are courses offered now on palliative care. The problem is that the new narcotics control law says that prescribing and dispensing can only be done by a registered medical practitioner. And this is not the case for nurses in Uganda. So it criminalises all nurse prescribers of morphine as traffickers. The good part of the story is that the narcotics commissioner is a convert to palliative care and when one of his officers arrested a nurse who was carrying morphine, he was contacted by the national palliative care association which said that the nurse was allowed to prescribe in a 2004 law. The association, practitioners, civil society, etc. were at the conference, but also people from the MoH and narcotics commissioners. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that the narcotics board would review the 2015 law. I highlighted the fact that this approach was in line with the UNGASS outcome document. This is a backstory of the video that is now going to be showed.

[VIDEO]

Ecuador. The government is currently developing a comprehensive plan on drug abuse. Illicit activities on trafficking of narcotics and precursors are dynamic. We need an international system to combat transnational organised crime. This must be tackled by international cooperation. We have developed control mechanisms following the guidelines of the INCB and other bodies. We are constantly in line with these guidelines for controlled substances and we always take into account regional security and national interests. Our technical committee for drug prevention is responsible for import, export, storage, distribution, it provides industrial services.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. Several panellists left the room, but I will ask others to address the meeting at the end of the session.

Professor David Oliver. It is critical that all we have heard today is about accessibility. It’s closely linked to the development of palliative care, not for cancer patients only but for all those with life threatening illness, in particular for the end of life. The memory of those who have died remain in the memory of those who live on. So those who die in pain remain in our memories.

Elizabeth Mattfeld. The discussions today make it clear that the issue is complex. UNODC look forward to working with you, especially on the guidelines we are preparing to reflect strategies on the ground. I want to reflect on the healthcare system. In many places where we go, improving access and availability is an issue of the way the healthcare system works. This is an opportunity to build or enhance the healthcare system in a way that addresses the issues of access through the existing system. UNODC stands ready to provide technical support and facilitation to member states.

Kurt Doms. I will be very short. It’s a good sign that so many countries are working on a balanced approach. I want to highlight the issue of capacity building. It is a key element and a continuous challenge on prescription, use, patients, their families, training for authorities, etc. A lot of good practices exist at UN level, but also at national level and at the level of civil society.

H.E. Michael Adipo Okoth Oyugu. I am speaking here having joined the discussions as a diplomat. We have seen rich participation by experts, hands-on people who are medical professionals, civil society, advocacy groups and so on. I have been on a learning trip as an ambassador. I don’t usually get the opportunity to get this information, so I want to express my appreciation and engage advocacy groups not to relent. Advocacy by civil society has achieved a lot. I welcome the opportunity to continue to learn from you all.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. We are now at the end of this session, we will continue the discussions tomorrow and focus on chapter 4 on human rights.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. We will focus today on human rights, youth, children, women and communities.

Valerie Lebaux, Chief, Justice Section, UNODC. Given the focus of this third round of intersessional discussions, technical assistance and international cooperation needs, I want to provide updates on UNODC’s technical assistance in supporting member states to implement chapter 4 of the UNGASS outcome document. I will give a preview of what several of my colleagues will present later on today.

Chapter 4 of the UNGASS outcome document starts with a commitment to respect, protect all human rights and the rule of law when developing and implementing drug policies. In the course of the chapter, there are many references to the UN standards and norms in criminal justice, with references of the Nelson Mandela Rules, the Tokyo Rules and the Bangkok Rules, the Ryad Guidelines, and the UN Principles and Guidelines on access to legal aid. These have been developed by the Crime Commission and provide practical guidance to policy makers and criminal justice practitioners for fair and humane criminal justice systems and how human rights can be respected and promoted in the administration of justice.

UNODC is committed to promoted these standards and norms. We are equipped with drug related mandates and with the mandate on crime prevention and criminal justice. Therefore we can say that the office is engaged to support member states in the implementation of Chapter 4 of the UNGASS outcome document.

Chapter 4 contains 2 sets of operational recommendations: firstly, drugs and human rights as they relate to youth, children, vulnerable people and communities. A recommendation focuses on the need of children and specificities to be considered in criminal justice systems. UNODC has developed a global programme on children in the criminal justice system which is wider than just drugs. It involves interventions to support governments in the treatment of children with substance abuse problems when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. This is critical to promoting reintegration and reducing recidivism.

Another recommendation relates to mainstreaming a gender perspective in drug policies and programmes with addressing protective and risk factors that make women vulnerable to trafficking. UNODC has conducted activities bringing together experts to exchange practices and expertise on gender sensitive criminal justice practices. This is in line with the Bangkok Rules. We have done a criminal justice assessment in Panama to generate knowledge on men and women deprived of liberty for drug offences. We will have the benefit of a specific presentation by UN Women and the key findings of this assessment will be presented as well.

A final recommendation is around drug abuse by youth, children and vulnerable members of society. There, I want to present some more detailed information about one programme UNODC is conducting. The programme is under the Doha Declaration implementation, focusing on prevention, youth and sports. The benefits of sports are well known for health. They provide a sense of belonging and loyalty. They have been seen to foster positive changes in gender relations by encouraging collaboration and understanding between male and female participants. They are a means to reach out to socially excluded groups and can promote respect and tolerance at all levels. The programme uses sports as a vehicle to train life and social skills for adolescents and maximise protective factors against risky behaviours (crime, violence, drug use) and minimise risk factors. Specific interventions have been developed, a training curriculum was developed for coaches and trainers for youth at risk. There is a trainer manual and various media developed for youth in different languages and for different contexts. This has been piloted in Brazil, South Africa and Kyrgyzstan. There will be others in the Caribbean, Central Asia and the Middle East.

I want to highlight the recommendation on prison overcrowding and violence. There were extensive discussions at UNGASS establishing that drug offenders in many countries make up a disproportionately large segment of the prison population, leading to violence and violations of prisoners’ rights. The outcome document encourages the use of alternatives to incarceration and proportionate sentencing policies. We will present our global programme on prison challenges and activities to develop guidelines on the use of alternatives to imprisonment for drug offenders.

One last recommendation relates to legal guarantees and due process as well as access to legal aid. There are references to UN principles and guidelines in access to legal aid. UNODC has been promoting access to legal aid, especially for vulnerable groups and those having substance abuse problems. We have developed a Model Law on access to legal aid in criminal justice systems. Currently, UNODC is organising activities for the promotion of access to legal aid in specific regions.

Anna Grassa, National Institute of the Fight Against Drugs, Angola, Representative of the African Group. I am grateful to be part of this discussion on women and drug trafficking. One of the reasons why women involve themselves in drugs is because of financial dependency. They use drug money to sustain their children and family. African women are historically known for lack of education opportunities. To fill this education gap, they seek ways to find money. Women are victims of different discriminations and abuses, sexual harassment and domestic violence. I want to share that African leaders have not taken into consideration the skills of women. Women throughout time have realised that freedom and education are answers to change, giving them strength for social inclusion. It is possible to ensure gender equality. After the war, women should now be given education opportunity and more freedom. They now overcome obstacles in their way and are in a position nationally and internationally to make a difference in society. This contributes to national solidarity: our educated can help those who are less fortunate. This way, we can help our communities and families. The main problem is to save the community by providing them with good examples to follow, bestow health, honesty, growth in life. With both human rights and higher living standards, we are in the path towards greater society.

We provide electricity, right to water, food, health and schools. Nonetheless, the drug agency is now focusing on the fight against drugs which destroy society: creating political strategies based on economic evidence with programmes focusing on demand and supply reduction. We provide alternatives for women in prison. We also tackle drugs and HIV/AIDS to improve the lives of women and the communities.

Victor Sannes, National Drug Coordinator, Netherlands. I want to focus on examples of best practices in the Netherlands. We value evidence-based policies highly. Looking at research, one can conclude the long-running prevention programmes which are promising, focusing on school, home, leisure time, providing non-judgemental information, influencing attitudes and social norms, improving skills and involving communities (drug services, schools, club owners, etc.).

A recent study showed a recent trend that the off-set of alcohol, tobacco and drug use was later in years. This is important because later onset will lead to less problems. How did we make this happen? One example is the national school and drug project, a package addressing pupils, parental involvement, early detection and guidance for drug abuse, and the development of school drug policy. There are special parental meetings at school, to discuss the effects of drug abuse, people are encouraged to talk to their children about this. Research shows that sometimes they should not condemn their use but keep the contact and conversation open, with frank discussions with their children and other parents.

Another example is a Facebook campaign on education and nightlife so that parents are given the tools to discuss the issue with their children. Health, school and drugs programmes are looking at different levels of education. Although prevention messages for tobacco and alcohol were effective, it was not for drugs which led to more curiosity. So we introduced information about drugs at a later stage. Lessons also focus on resetting the social norm on the use of drugs and self-control against peer pressure. It’s important to be aware of the effects of our policies and that different age groups require different interventions. We are proud that our policies show positive results, but we continue to try and improve our programmes.

Zaved Mahmood, Rule of Law and Democracy Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) welcomes today’s thematic discussion on Chapter 4 of the  UNGASS Outcome document regarding operational recommendations on cross-cutting issues, in particular drugs and human rights, youth, children, women and communities. The world drug problem is complex and has wide-ranging adverse impact. In his message on the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, the Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated: “it is vital that we examine the effectiveness of the War on Drugs approach, and its consequences for human rights.”  The Outcome Document of UNGASS provides blueprint for action that is rich and forward-looking. This document should be implemented in full compliance with all relevant international human rights norms and standards to avoid any adverse consequences on the enjoyment of human rights.

In the Preamble of the Outcome Document, all Members States of the United Nations reaffirmed their  “unwavering commitment to ensuring that all aspects of demand reduction, supply reduction and related measures, and international cooperation are addressed in full conformity with the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,  all human rights, fundamental freedoms, the inherent dignity of all individuals and the principles of equal rights”.

The human rights approach in addressing the world drug problem is further elaborated in Chapter 4 of the Outcome Document, which is the key topic of today’s discussion. Previous speakers discussed various elements of Chapter 4, which I shall not repeat. Allow me to simply focus on two issues  that are critical in the implementation of Chapter 4 from a human rights perspective.

• Technical cooperation, prospects and challenges in implementation of recommendations of Chapter IV;
• Human rights based data and information collection in the implementation of UNGASS

Technical cooperation in the implementation of chapter 4 recommendations: The Outcome Document recommends that efforts be made to enhance the knowledge of policymakers and the capacity of relevant national authorities in order to ensure that national drug policies fully respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms and protect the health, safety and well-being of individuals, families, vulnerable members of society, communities and society as a whole.  In this respect, the document encourages cooperation with and among the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Narcotics Control Board, the World Health Organization and other relevant United Nations entities.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights stands ready to provide full support to States and other stakeholders, including civil society organisations, for the promotion and protection of human rights in addressing drug problems. Such support could be provided in different ways. For instance, in the implementation of the Outcome Document, several States have taken reform initiatives, or are planning to do so.  To make sure that the new or reformed programmes, policies ad laws are fully in compliance with all human rights and fundamental freedoms, OHCHR extends its support, commits to provide technical expertise and to share relevant good practices with all stakeholders involved in reform processes.

The United Nations human rights mechanisms such as special procedure mandate holders of the Human Rights Council, are also well placed to support States in this endeavour. Several special procedure mandate holders have addressed human rights concerns related to drug control efforts for many years. We encourage States to fully cooperate with special procedure mandate holders, provide them full access as requested and implement their recommendations. At the national level, national human rights institutions can play a critical role to provide guidance to relevant national authorities involved in drug control efforts.  The knowledge, experience and expertise of such institutions should be used to the full extent.

The UNGASS Outcome Document has identified a number of critical human rights issues. It encourages the development, adoption and implementation of alternative or additional measures with regard to conviction or punishment in cases of an appropriate nature. In the implementation of this recommendation, two issues should be taken into account from a human rights perspective. First, the right to life of persons convicted of drug-related offences should be protected and, in accordance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, such persons should not be subject to the death penalty. I also refer to the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB)’s position on this issue. In its 2016 annual report, the INCB has “continued to encourage States, that retain capital punishment for drug  offences, to commute death sentences that have already been handed down and to consider the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences”. Second, taking into account the severe impact that a conviction for a drug-related offence can have on a person’s life, consideration should be given to alternatives to the prosecution and imprisonment of persons, in particular for minor and individuals accused of non-violent drug-related offences. Reforms aimed at reducing over incarceration, and decriminalization of certain acts should also take into account such alternatives. Furthermore, the Outcome Document also recommends taking practical measures to uphold the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention and of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. States are urged to eliminate impunity, ensure timely access to legal aid, the right to a fair trial, and to ensure proportional sentencing for drug-related convictions.

In his 2015 report on “the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights” to the human rights Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights discussed various forms of human rights violations related to arbitrary arrest and detention. For example, persons who use drugs or who are suspected of using drugs may be confined in compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres without trial or any evaluation of their drug dependency, often for months or years, and frequently outside the supervision of the criminal justice. Non-consensual experimental treatment, torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence have also been reported in compulsory detention centres. Pursuant to human rights commitments of UNGASS, compulsory detention centres should be closed.

In terms of practical measures for the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to eliminate impunity, States should implement their obligations under the Convention against Torture. As of today, 162 countries had ratified the Convention. OHCHR urges all remaining States to move to ratification, and for States that have not already done so, torture should be made a crime in domestic legislation.   National mechanisms for the prevention of torture as well as national human rights institutions should be established (where they don’t exist), empowered and supported to investigate all allegation of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and human rights violations.

Since UNGASS, the right to life has continued to be challenged in some States. In one State, in particular, there has been a notable and dramatic upsurge in extra-judicial executions of suspected drug traffickers and drug users. Extra-judicial executions are among the most serious human rights violations, and they must be subject to a prompt and effective investigation by an independent and impartial body with a view to bringing perpetrators to justice. Otherwise impunity will prevail. The right to life should be protected by law enforcement agencies in their efforts to address drug-related crime, and only proportional force should be used, when necessary.

Human rights defenders, including members of the legal profession, health workers, journalists and other stakeholders, who are involved in the promotion and the protection of human rights in drug control efforts, should be provided with full protection from any threat, harassment or reprisals.

Human rights approach to data and information collection: One key issue of the implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document is how drug policies are measured, including their impact on human rights.  The Outcome Document recommends to consider  – when furnishing information to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, pursuant to the three international drug control conventions and relevant Commission resolutions – the inclusion of information concerning, inter alia, the promotion of human rights and the health, safety and welfare of all individuals, communities and society in the context of their domestic implementation of these conventions, including recent developments, best practices and challenges.

In its resolution 60/1, this Commission requested UNODC, in close cooperation with pertinent United Nations entities and other stakeholders to continue to support States in strengthening their capacity to develop their reporting mechanisms, including by identifying gaps in the current drug statistics and by exploring possibilities to strengthen existing data-collection and analysis tools at the national level.

There is a growing realization that traditional indicators regarding arrests and seizures are inadequate to show the real impacts of drug policies in  communities. The success of drug control strategies should increasingly be measured according to the impact of drug control efforts in the enjoyment of human rights and other critical aspects such as security, health and social/economic development. In this context, intersections between the SDGs indicators and the measurement of drug policy implementation should be considered; and should also be strengthened by adding a human rights approach in data collection. OHCHR has developed  a set of human rights indicators for realization of human rights and  guidance on human rights based approach to data collection in the implementation of SDG. Both could be useful in strengthening and streamlining existing data-collection and analysis tools in drug control efforts.

In conclusion, I would emphasize that a human rights approach should be considered in the implementation of all nine chapters of the outcome document, as appropriate. Without such approach, the aim of the UNGASS – to protect the health and welfare of humankind- will remain unfulfilled. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is committed to continue supporting works of this Commission, UNODC, Members States and civil society organisation in the effective implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document.

Christine Brautigam, Director, Intergovernmental Division, UN Women. I want to extend a warm thank you for the opportunity to contribute in this discussion. As the UNGASS outcome document states, efforts to achieve the SDGs are mutually reinforcing. We reaffirm gender equality and the crucial role of gender mainstreaming. The interlinkage represents an opportunity for governments to commit to tackling the drug problem with a gender perspective, with women considered as actors of change. There are critical gender differences in women’s involvement in drugs. They face stronger stigma related to drug use, reinforced with gender inequalities and stereotypes. Women who use drugs face violence and criminalisation when they are pregnant. Women who inject drugs are at higher risk of contracting HIV. They have reduced access to harm reduction and health services (including sexual and reproductive health). Lack of gender-sensitive services reduces women’s right to health.

Women may enter the drug trade for various reasons: lack of economic prospects, poverty. Women are imprisoned for drug offences than for any other crimes. It constitutes the fastest part of the prison population with disproportionate penalties. Women in prison can experience sexual violence by prison personnel.

The Outcome document provides recommendations to address these challenges. First, discrimination against women and drugs must be eliminated as included in the outcome document and SDGs. Structural barriers in access to treatment should be removed to leave no one behind. A human rights-based approach in the administration of justice is critical to remove criminalisation. Criminal courts and sentencing should address these barriers. Women’s participation in decision making, monitoring and evaluation should be conducted. The role of feminist organisations in advancing human rights and gender equality is well recognised. Third, mainstreaming a gender perspective is crucial for drug policy coherence in health, law enforcement, etc. This was reconfirmed at the High Level Political Forum to promote greater coherence. This will require targeted action and mainstreaming gender in all efforts. The empowerment of women and girls will have a catalytic role at national level to shape policies that contribute to gender equality. Lastly, gaps in gender statistics in the drug problem should be addressed. Quality, accessible disaggregated data are needed to ensure progress so that no one is left behind. More data will improve knowledge of the impact of drug policies on criminal law and women. This will ensure more targeted responses and that women are not particularly adversely affected.

We provide support to governments, lead to ensure the UN accountability in ensuring gender mainstreaming. We work with civil society as well. UN Women country offices bring together all stakeholders to share lessons and elaborate steps towards gender equality on HIV. Country and regional offices support greater coordination and strategic planning for greater impact in the context of women’s networks working on HIV/AIDS, including women who use drugs. We assist countries in improving financial resources in the implementation of the SDGs. This strengthens the use of gender disaggregated statistics. We collaborate with UNODC to facilitate cooperation with the Commission on the Status of Women. We look forward to the continuation of this beneficial sharing of knowledge in the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document.

Canada. Could you tell us more about your work at country level, especially in the context of the criminal justice system?

UN Women. We make efforts at country level to ensure that criminal justice systems take into consideration gender-specific obstacles are eliminated. For us, it’s a critical effort to ensure that stigma, gender discrimination and stereotypes and harmful practices are addressed so that women have the opportunity to seek treatment and that services are in place to cater to their needs. We work with various parts of the UN system to address HIV among women, also in the context of drug-related activities.

Rashmila Shakya, Nepal Concerned Center (CWIN Nepal). I want to talk about a 14 year old child in Nepal. He decided to go to a neighbouring country to find work with other youth. He agreed to carry a bag to return to Nepal and was caught with drugs. He sat in many counselling sessions for 3 months before he was reintegrated to his family. He is now finishing his education in the same school he was before. We learned a lot from this – drug problems are preventable. With time and right interventions, children can be held out of the drug problem. Empowering children is effective. Services are multifaceted to address drug issues. In relation to this, we want to remind all governments about the provisions of the UN convention on the right of the child, with measures to protect children from the use of narcotic drugs. This should be given prominence in our drug policies. There are examples that can contribute to achieving the UNGASS outcome document. Integrated life-skills and interventions are effective to empower children against drugs. This has to be tailored and interesting for children. A rights-based approach with children and for children is important to empower them. Life-skills models are important for children and youth who are our of school or vulnerable in Nepal.

Another way of empowering children against drugs is creating activities and comics with their own stories. At the end of three days’ workshops, they come up with beautiful stories discussing drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other problems. Some will come up with stories of how families have coped with these problems. These stories work as a tool to raise awareness among the general public. They discuss with people in the communities and their parents. They create comics on other issues than substance use. Children create stories on the effect of alcohol use. Children can become role models.

We use dance therapy, vocational training, support to start small businesses. Another important component is a helpline to provide rescue, psychosocial counselling, family reintegration support. We help connect people to rehab centres.

I want to finish by providing recommendations: take measures to ensure children’s rights to achieve a drug-free environment, the best interest of the child should be ensured primarily through protection measures, in countries like Nepal drug problems are connected to other social issues so this should be taken into account to ensure basic human rights. Click here to read the full statement.

India. India is committed to the prevention of drugs. We have affirmative discrimination for women. We enable education for women. Our development agenda is enshrined in the SDGs. We focus on the use of drugs for medicinal and scientific purposes and prohibit other uses. Our 1985 drugs law prohibits misuse and illicit trafficking. Illicit drug trafficking promotes also human trafficking and sexual trafficking. Apart from criminalising trafficking offences, we also aim at ending human trafficking. We provide rehab and protection of the victims. We have 162 rehabilitation homes all over the country.

Women experience more issues with misuse of drugs than men. This aspect needs to be addressed. It puts women in disadvantaged positions regarding HIV, financial burden, vulnerability, violence. To prevent violence against women, centres and helplines have been established. To deal with drug prevention we have a multisectoral approach. There are rehab centres all over the country with the help of NGOs assisting the government. We have awareness and sensitisation programmes in schools and colleges, we involve the communities too. We consider drug trafficking as organised crime. India is a transhipment towards other countries too. Human and drug trafficking require a multidimensional approach. International cooperation, sharing of experiences and trafficking are key challenges today.

Malaysia. We ensure that treatment is provided by those affected by drug addiction. We have a psychosocial model, including religious support, vocational training, fitness to be included in treatment facilities. We focus on protecting individual rights and the rule of law in promoting drug policies. To improve our treatment programme, for the last few years we have developed better treatment. We have introduced voluntary comprehensive treatment systems and clinics. This is meant to provide alternatives to existing treatment facilities. However, we still need mandatory treatment for users whose abilities have been impacted by drug abuse. Treatment is also provided to people in prison and pre-trial detention. We also provide treatment for youth and vulnerable members of society. On women, we have a dedicated treatment centre for women, ensuring they have access to counselling, including during pregnancy. Likewise, children are vulnerable and Malaysia has established a treatment programme for them, including opportunities for schooling. To ensure quality of treatment and human rights, visits and supervision by human rights bodies are welcome. To ensure comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach towards drugs, we have coordination between criminal justice, law enforcement and health sectors we have a task force on drugs. We will continue cooperation with UNODC, INCB, WHO and other UN entities within their respective mandates, as well as regional organisations, civil society and the private sector.

Estonia, on behalf of the European Union. At the onset, let’s remember that the UN Secretary General shared his experience on how a human rights based approach can yield progress, and that we should work together to reduce drug abuse, illicit trafficking and the harms of drugs, ensuring security, human rights and development. We reiterate our commitment to human rights, freedoms and dignity, and the principles of the rule of law in drug policies. We strongly support the work of UNODC and other UN entities. We regret that the UNGASS outcome document lacks mention of the abolition of the death penalty and we condemn the use of capital punishment. We also reject any use of extrajudicial killings. These constitute violations of human rights and the UN conventions. Conducting an investigation of human rights violations is in accordance with human rights law and the rule of law. We find the collation of information about the death penalty and other violations of the rule of law by the CND as crucial.

We promote proportionality of sentencing including the upholding of human dignity and human rights. The world drug problem cannot be resolved by prosecuting people who need support for drug dependence. This is in line with the UN drug conventions which state that people can have, as an alternative to conviction and punishment, access to treatment, care. All EU member states are implementing at least one alternative to coercive sanctions. 17 member states have alternatives available to promote treatment. 15 apply suspension of sentence linked to treatment. 8 states report availability of alternatives with no drug treatment but involve diversion away from criminal justice systems and sentencing. The recently adopted EU action plan on drugs calls on member states alternatives to coercive sanctions. It also calls for evaluation of these measures, acknowledging that these are effective tools. We also call for more information on gender, age, and other factors in the implementation of this policy.

The gender perspective should be incorporated in all aspects of drug policy, not as a separate track. To conclude, national drug policies should fully respect human rights and freedoms, and the well-being of individuals, families, communities and societies. Alternative measures and proportionate sentencing should be expanded. Suspension of sentences, risk and harm reduction measures, treatment, social reintegration should be implemented.

Australia. Our approach to drug policies emphasizes health and human rights, as well as the criminal justice system in the framework of proportionality of sentencing and due process. We have prevention and treatment as alternatives to incarceration. Minor and non-violent offenders receive alternatives and suspended sentences. The death penalty is inhumane. The international community should implement drug policies in full respect of human rights. We were pleased to support a resolution of gender mainstreaming at the 59th session of the CND. It articulated how women face structural barriers to accessing services and are vulnerable to violence. Going forward, we want to draw attention to the needs of other vulnerable groups: indigenous people and other marginalised groups. We ensure respect for human rights in drug policies at the UN, with support from Vienna based UN agencies, but also others such as OHCHR, UN women and civil society.

Randy Thompson, Help. Not Handcuffs, USA. Our organisation aims to reform drug laws through recovery. We place the importance on the person’s health. If you impose coercive policies, it could destroy their opportunities for recovery. I want to explain some of the key obstacles in my country. I experienced problematic drug use. But most harms came from the effects of drug prohibition. This started when I entered treatment through the hands of drug law enforcement. I experienced violence because I was not seen as a human being. Prohibition and drug-free ideals are seen as key in drug policies. This led to institutional betrayal for people suffering from violence because of those ideals, and removed the trust they had with their community. My organisation seeks to address these institutional betrayals. It is well documented that intensive drug law enforcement is related to police violence and police sexual assault. In the USA, the data we received was that overdoses were the 3rd leading cause of death in treatment programmes. I saw many participants die as part of the drug courts scheme too. Drug court programmes have grossly inflated their success rates. Despite this information being known that there are many human rights violations related to drug court systems, nothing has been done. This requires political will. These points are important because we are quick to assume that people who use drugs all need treatment and that this should be done via criminal justice and drug courts. These notions are wrong. The majority of drug users do not need treatment. Many of those who use problematically can overcome their use on their own. Prohibition means arresting somebody with a clinically recognised health issue. I want to highlight the increase in fentanyl deaths. Prohibition policies have removed all legal institutions that could address the issue – harm reduction, drug consumption rooms, heroin assisted programmes. Legalisation instead of prohibition would ensure that fentanyl is no longer resulting in such harms. There is an opportunity to ensure the human rights of people as protected in the UNGASS outcome document.

Mr. Sven Pfiffer, Justice Section, UNODC. I will use my time to present one specific UNODC activity to support member states to implement UNGASS recommendations. This is a study implemented in Panama on a criminal justice assessment of people deprived of liberty for drug offences. This is around prison reform and the implementation of the Bangkok Rules. The objective was about generated knowledge on people in prison, prison management, etc. The key findings of the study were that 85% of drug offences were committed by men, but twice as many women as men were in prison for drug offences: 55% of women were there for drug offences as compared to 33%. This is similar to other countries in the region. Mostly this is for drug possession, followed by sale of drugs, followed by drug trafficking. We also looked at risk factors, highlighting that offenders were young (below 35), had 4 or more children, the education level is very low, working conditions were precarious (informal sectors, housewives, working in construction). The study looked at health, with drug use disorders being a major factor of vulnerability, with lack of access to health programmes. This was also linked to recidivism. The study focused on the social context: most offences were conducted in areas where drug trafficking and use were normalised.

The study had a gender sensitive approach and found that organised criminal groups benefit from exploiting both women and men, living in poverty and suffering from drug dependence. But women faced more vulnerabilities: unequal power relations men/women, women involved in activities developed by their husbands, ignorance of what the husband was doing. Many mothers are involved in activities committed by their sons (involved to help, or just offence committed in their house). Women were involved in trafficking, but coerced, used as ‘mulas’. When we look at the role women plan, mules are 35%, they are the biggest group and they are vulnerable to organised crime and coercion. Others are involved in low-scale activities. Others are girlfriends of the drug kingpins who are predominantly male. Others are caretakers, custodians playing traditional gendered roles and don’t even know about drug activities. Only 5% were in leadership roles.

The study provides recommendations: there should be a focus on dismantling higher level traffickers, rather than focus on the low-level poor and vulnerable, not only for human rights but also for efficiency. Another recommendation was to focus on the marginalisation and social context, as well as the gender dimension, including the trafficking/exploitation factors. There should be proportionality of sanctions, gender-sensitive non-custodial alternatives, legal aid, social reintegration. This is a short overview. The study is not yet published but there is a video summarising the facts I have mentioned here. It is published by the prison authorities and I will show it here. To access the slides of this presentation, please click here.

Czech Republic. Human rights protection is a priority for the country. We put human rights at the top of the drug policy agenda. We must focus on the human rights of drug users. We are afraid of worsening security situations that destabilise the region. We should consult entities related to human rights, such as OHCHR, at the CND meeting in 2018. We will use our experience of public health and scientific evidence. We believe that drug policies should care for all in the context of human rights.

China. We respect the various basic rights of drug offenders as citizens and ensure they are not discriminated in school and employment. We support protection of human rights and the safety of whole society. It is necessary to promote cooperation and respect the differences of states and sovereignty. We maintain that a balance should be struck on protection of human rights and the safety and social problems caused by drug abuse. We oppose turning a blind eye to drug abuse and harm reduction measures. For the protection of human rights of drug offenders, but these should not be stressed overly. It should be balanced to minimise drug demand and abuse and minimise the harms caused by drug use and trafficking to society. We protect the majority to enjoy the right to be free from drugs. For the protection of the rights of women and children, we adopt alternatives measures to women who are pregnant until they have given birth, then they return to prison (after 6 months). We are opposed to the legalisation of drugs in any forms. In the area of criminal justice, member states propose alternatives for minor drug offences based on their own judicial systems and cultural contexts. States should be given full respect for their sovereignty based on their national context. As for capital punishment for drug offences, China believes that member states have the right, under the UN conventions, to determine the punishment for drug offences in accordance with domestic laws. Many countries retain the death penalty. This is a choice made under the human rights conventions and their national context. Based on China legal practice, using the death penalty as the maximum punishment for severe drug offences has played a positive role in countering and deterring drug offences. But we are prudent in using the death penalty and we limit its use on the basis of the principle of proportionality.

Ecuador. Our public policies are oriented towards dealing with the socio-economic factors of involvement in drugs, focusing on health, education, social inclusion, culture, recreational activities, etc. Public policy includes drug programmes and projects with a gender focus and the implementation of drug policies which guarantee equality between men and women in the distribution of resources and access to economic opportunities away from the use of drugs. We never discriminate for sexual beneficiaries, we grant priority to access to health services in general to reduce demand for drugs, adopting strategies that will enable us to provide training for the health of individual groups.

Venezuela. We have listened closely to the initiatives presented in the last few days in combatting the scourge of drugs in our countries. We want to discuss our own experience. We conducted a study which was published in a journal in 2016: effect of musical training on children’s development in Venezuela. This is a social and cultural initiative focused on participation, prevention, training and rescuing of children and youth. It focuses on the development of youth using music as a tool for social development. It also provides family and community developments which foster solidarity and moving beyond the cycle of poverty. These children learn music and gain social mobility through an instrument considered exclusive to the elite. We are in pursuit of measures that can improve the situation. 20 years ago, Funda Musical worked with the Development Bank. This contributed to the funding of El Sistema 2011-2017. We compared a group of children admitted to our programme and another group of similar people outside of the programme. One year later, we compared 26 variables including behaviour, cognitive skills, etc. We are proud to present the first results of the study. The group admitted in the programme had fewer behavioural problems. The effect was better for children with mothers with low education levels. The programme also helped reduce violent behaviour. El Sistema can play an important prevention strategy. The Venezuelan experience has proven scientifically that music can help young people, making them stronger and more resistant to the dangers of drugs. We have trained more than 800,000 children through El Sistema. This means that these children are involved in the programme and training strategies. I want to highlight some of the programmes for children and youth with disabilities: hospital programme, Simon Bolivar Programme (choirs in schools), orchestra programmes, etc. Our research is available on springerlink.com. This is people-focused with respect for human rights, multidisciplinary in nature.

USA. The UNGASS outcome document highlights the need for drug policies involving all relevant stakeholders. The USA believes that promoting collaboration is essential to facilitating alternatives to incarceration. Finding ways to involve drug addicts in treatment is key. We welcome the expert working group on alternatives to incarceration and to the report. The USA supports international assistance programmes and expanding availability of treatment and prevention and ensuring that WHO and UNODC have access to information on these programmes. We collaborate with UNODC, WHO and academia to develop protocols on treatment for children, youth and pregnant women and will share our experience. Domestically, we promote health and justice system collaboration. Drug-free communities are a key example of integrated prevention and treatment work. It has 2 goals: establish connections among communities and prevent drug abuse by identifying local solutions to local problems. Grants are provided by the Drug Free Community Support Programme. They bring together health, law enforcement, youth, families, religious organisations, tribal governments and other organisations to achieve long term success. This is a fundamental goal of our drug control policy.

UK. We have a long experience in providing prevention, treatment and alternatives to incarceration. We reiterate our call to abolish the death penalty in all circumstances and despite national contexts. We also condemn the use of extrajudicial killings, they are a violation of human rights and the UN drug control conventions we have signed on to. I also want to focus on youth. As part of our conversation on drug policy and human rights, we must pay attention to the needs of youth. They require a different response focused on preventing more problematic use. This starts with universal action to promote health and confidence. In partnership with civil society, we have developed the Alcohol and Drug Education and Information Services for schools and other settings to reach out to young people, including a repository of actions and interventions. Youth drug use overlaps often with other vulnerabilities which exacerbates risks of abuses. We promote a wide range of responses that are instrumental to recovery. Supporting vulnerable families affected by dependence is part of our strategy to reduce use and promote recovery. We will continue to promote drug policies with human rights at their core, ensuring that national drug policies around the world are in agreement with human rights, gender equality and proportionate responses.

Turkey. Our national drug strategy focuses on an integrated and balanced approach. We show zero tolerance to inhumane treatment. One of the main pillars of our drug policy is to address the needs of youth, children and women. Prevention starts in the family. Punishment cannot solve this. Our Ministries of Family, Education, Youth and Sport carry out joint actions. We have addiction treatment and prevention programmes for youth and families. The Turkish Green Crescent Society is supporting us in this regard.

Koka Labartkava, GENPUD, Georgia. My childhood friend died of drug overdose. He was a promising person but he was detained because of drug use, was a victim of violence and abuse. He was arrested many times and almost half his life was in prison and he was finally killed. Unfortunately, my country said that we had a choice and were aggressive and deprived because of drug use. The zero tolerance policy which was declared in 2007 has given tens of thousands of people a criminal record. Georgia remains a country in which people are cruelly prosecuted for drug use activities. They are ‘criminals’ and not treated as having a health problem. By the initiative of the Georgian Network of People Who Use Drugs, we were able to establish a national drug policy platform with actors working in the field of drug policy, with the active participation of drug users networks. In 2014, with the initiative of GenPUD, the law was changed, so that medical service providers don’t have to report overdoses to the police. That way we saved many lives. Michel Kazatchkine helped us with this. With the help of GenPUD, assistance of doctors and Society Georgia Foundation, we now have universal hepatitis C treatment. We conducted a litigation to abolish criminal responsibility for drug use. The courts have made many judgements stating that the criminalisation of drug use was ill-treatment, but this was only related to cannabis. Please tell our government in Georgia and the region to change the punishment, to implement harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation programmes, putting forward dignity, health and human rights. This is not only about drug policy but about all public aspects.

Anna Judiche, Justice Section, UNODC. Children who use drugs should not be prosecuted in the criminal justice system but should receive adequate treatment and child assistance. UNODC works with countries around the world and have identified a number of challenges: research shows that children with substance abuse problems are vulnerable to recruitment by criminal groups. There are criminal justice systems that are not in line with standards, and it is not enforced properly for children. The first point of contact of children is often the police who are not specifically trained to deal with children. There is still an overreliance on punitive approaches, especially for children. This has an impact on the number of children in prison for minor offences, especially drugs. Prison should only be used as a last resort and for the smallest amount of time. We see a lack of institutional collaboration and coordination between the health, social, juvenile justice system. We have evidence of high levels of violence against children that remain unpunished. Little accountability exists on how they are treated. Another aspect we have noted is that there is a lack of engagement by media, civil society. When children are in the criminal justice system, they are no longer considered in the community. Families and communities should be involved in juvenile justice to support reintegration. The same applies for engagement of the media and civil society to promote positive change. Finally, there is a lack of data and statistics, for example on children who abuse drugs in the criminal justice system. UNODC recommends a systematic approach.

We need a paradigm shift towards a more systemic approach to protecting the rights of children with substance abuse problems, taking into account the following recommendations: integrate children’s issues, treatment for children and juvenile justice reform should be child-based, recognise inter-connectivity of rights, emphasize prevention of children involved in drugs and crime with coordination between different government institutions. It is necessary to collect data and information on young people, and on gender. We need to establish a clear mechanism on health providers and receivers. We need to take communication with the media and civil society to change the approach towards youth. We must promote children’s participation in the development and implementation of policies and programmes. We must include treatment in juvenile justice programmes (access to community-based treatment programmes, access to treatment in detention). We must offer specialised training courses for children who have committed drug offences. The substance abuse treatment programmes should contain individual screening and assessment and provide the child the opportunity to be accountable. It should include vocational services for the child. There is a need for legal reform and adoption of secondary legislation to provide treatment and support services in children facilities, with staffing and training. We are working on this issue with the programme on violence against women which supports SDGs 3, 5, 16. We focus on substance abuse for children in contact with the criminal justice system, but we hope this will have an impact to ensure that children are less criminalised. We developed an action plan for providing drug prevention for children in detention. Within the programme, we are at the disposal of member states on this subject area. We have countries that do require assistance but we have limited resources.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator. We will now break for lunch and reconvene after to listen to around 15 interventions from member states, NGOs and UN agencies.

[AFTERNOON SESSION]

El Salvador. Our new drug strategy is based on human rights, inter-sectorality and access to health. We opened first centre for youth at risk of drug abuse in San Salvador in 2014. For 2017, we will undertake actions for implementation of the UNGASS operational recommendations taking into account intersectoral issues, human rights and the needs of women, children and young people.

Russia. The Russian delegation attaches great importance to today’s discussion. This discussion should develop upon provisions in the UNGASS Outcome Document, on human rights, young people, women and children and vulnerable people in society. In New York in 2016, we confirmed that the conventions are the cornerstone of international drug control. We believe that a world free of drugs must be seen as fundamental human freedom, and must be ideological foundation for the global community to overcome the drugs challenge. In the Russian Federation, we use the guidance from WHO’s definition – drug addiction is a psychiatric illness – so those who take drugs without a prescription are addicts with an illness. This issue needs early identification and treatment, increased accessibility and quality of care. We seek to provide flexible sentencing for the illegal trafficking and use of drugs with harsher sentences for trafficking and sale, and lower sentences for those offences that do not involve sale and trafficking. There are provisions for treatment and rehabilitation. We value civil society and this year 16 NGOs won the first presidential grant competition to step up their activities which are high demand. The drugs strategy which goes up to 2020 notes that solutions by government bodies must be based on due process, equality of all before the law. UDHR every individual has the right to life. It is concerning that in the latest World Drug Report for 2017, we read that 190,000 people die annually from drug overdoses – we need to protect the right to life from the attack from drugs. We must note that the UN has noted that terrorism in all forms is intended to extinguish human rights. The role of upholding human rights is played by legislators that creates a sound buffer to the global drugs threat. In December, we will host ‘parliamentarians against drugs’ meeting in Moscow with participation from UNODC, WHO and other UN specialised agencies as well as leading NGOs to discuss how to tackle drugs and drug addiction. This event will help create the anti-drugs capacity of the international community and operationalise the UNGASS outcome document.

Colombia. We have incorporated the human rights approach into our drugs strategy. We reiterate our commitment to solve the drug problems. Supply has decreased but consumption has increased. We are taking these actions:

• We want to deal with drugs as a human rights and public issue and protect people from drugs.
• We want to address socio-economic weaknesses that lead to involvmenet in the drug trade. We will do this through focused, comprehensive and coordinated activities.
• We aim to reduce crimes linked to drug trafficking by breaking up criminal groups by trying to catch the upper echelons of these groups. The guerrillas/FARC are also a factor here and we need a sustainable response to the drugs problem in our country.
• We included drug aspects in the peace agreement with the FARC. We are also worked on the preparation on UNGASS, we made our stance clear. Article 4 of the peace agreement refer to the commitments made by Colombia at the UNGASS.
• With respect to social rights of groups involved in illicit cultivation we are promoting voluntary substitution of these crops to help people overcome poverty . 18,000 families will benefit. We are trying to get them involved in productive activities via regional development programmes and regional training programmes. This is being done at national, regional and local levels as well as with different ethnic groups.
• We have granted priority to involvement of communities with young people and women. We have included a gender perspective in our national programme for crop substitution. We have a technical bureau with UN, NGOs as well as the FARC in a multi-sectoral approach.
• We provide alternatives to prison for small scale growers and we aim to build a lasting peace. We refer to the weak and strong links with the illicit drug market.
• Selling drugs has had a big impact on our population. We aim to treat the weakest links with leniency but we have a special policy for other links. We want the punishment to fit the crime and ensure alternatives to prison for farmers involved in illicit cultivation of drug crops.
• We have a transitional justice plan which includes small scale growers who will not go to prison but will get alternatives. There is a bill in parliament on this – which we hope will benefit 8000 families so they can benefit from the crop substitution programme.
• We hope to reduce the number of people in prison for minor offences. If they do go to prison, we hope they will go to prison for less time. We want to develop economic alternatives for these communities.
• We want different treatment for women who are involved in the drug trade and that the socio-economic vulnerability is addressed.
• We want a multi-sectoral approach to deal with this problem from all sides. We want alternative crops to drug crops.
• We need to take into account the specific needs of women and girls in relation to the world drug problem.
• We have a special court and alternatives to prison for non-violent adolescents. We also take their own drug use into account and we would prefer to integrate them into society rather than put them into prison.
• We have a special guidebook for the human rights provisions and a work plan for a mechanism for the human rights approach. Throughout 2017 we are reviewing documents on the subject and will complete a consultation with Colombian citizens to safeguard human rights.

Jan Stola, Youth Organisations for Drug Action (YODA). 

Phillip Meissner and Jamie Lee, Justice Section, UNODC Division for Operations. I refer to paragraph 4(m) of the outcome document on reducing prison overcrowding and violence. 115 jurisdictions worldwide go beyond the acceptable level of prison populations and many are 150% overcapacity. Drug related offenders are often the majority and include not only high profile traffickers but also consumers, street level dealers and drug couriers. UNODC Justice Section has a new global programme on addressing prison challenges to assist governments in crime prevention, legal aid programmes and alternatives to incarceration. I highlight three publications – UNODC’s handbook on Strategies to Reduce Prison Overcrowding in Prisons, Checklist to Assess Compliance with the Nelson Mandela Rules and Roadmap towards the Development of Prison-based Rehabilitation Programmes. These publications take into account the needs of drug dependent prisoners.

Portugal. I would like to thank the different speakers that shared their countries’ and organizations’ experiences on this issue. These are important contributions to our shared purpose of tackling drug related problems. We consider the inclusion of a chapter on human rights in the outcome document of UNGASS as a crucial milestone in the drug control issues. Alternative sanctions to punishment and proportionality of sentencing are direct reflections of a human rights perspective on this theme.

Proportionality of sentencing means ab initio the non-imposition of the death penalty as we see it as a violation of the basic human right to life, but it also avoids grossly disproportional sentencing of individuals for drug use or possession for personal use, particularly when more efficient and human alternatives to conviction or punishment are available within the framework defined by the three international drug control conventions.

The Portuguese approach to drugs policy is rooted in the principle of alternatives to imprisonment for drug use and possession for personal use. As you know in Portugal drug use and possession for use remain illegal, but they are not considered criminal offences, well within the spirit and letter of the Conventions. That is also to say that Portuguese drug policy is based on the respect for human rights, through an integrated, multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach, assuring that each component of the model reinforces the other. But it is not only principles. It is also effectiveness!

In Portugal, levels of drugs use were consistently reduced and stabilized in recent years, blood borne diseases infections were also reduced, and we testified a decrease in the incarcerated population for drug related offences (44% of those incarcerated before the reform of 2000, against less than 20% today). In fact, for an addict who is caught in possession of drugs, prison is most of the times counterproductive, bearing a negative impact on health and possible new barriers for rehabilitation and reintegration in society, with the risk of creating a vicious cycle of stigmatization.

In Portugal someone caught by law enforcement agents in possession of a small quantity of any drug, which does not exceed the amount defined by law for a period of ten days use, is referred to a multidisciplinary Drug Addiction Dissuasion Commission (which is managed by the Ministry of Health). These Commissions try to establish if the offender is addicted or an occasional consumer, and have the power to impose decisions and administrative sanctions, such as community service, interdiction to travel abroad, prohibition to attend certain places, and other similar measures. More importantly, the Commissions are oriented by health and social goals, and their paramount objective is the well-being of the individual and his or her integration in society. That means that they also advise and guide the offenders, by referring drug addicts to treatment and pointing out those that are not addicted but need a specialized intervention. They also try to help them to understand the avenues they can explore at professional and personal level.

This careful balance between decriminalizing drug use and possession for personal use without legalizing it, allowed for very good results, even on cannabis users, as these offenders are influenced and guided by the Drug Addiction Dissuasion Commissions to halt their consumption. In 2016, 85% of the offenders were cannabis users and the Commissions referred them to counseling, treatment structures or other responses within the community. We believe the promotion of alternatives to conviction and punishment is not only the most principled approach from a human rights perspective, but, I repeat, the most effective way to achieve our goals. But decriminalization and alternative sanctions to punishment are only a part of the humanist based Portuguese comprehensive approach in tandem with prevention, treatment, harm reduction and reintegration, and so en passant, I must underline that:

• Universal drug prevention is part of school curricula in a cross cutting way, in sciences, biology and civic studies.
• On the law enforcement side, we have in place, since 1992, the “Safe School Program” through which the metropolitan police patrols the areas surrounding schools to raise awareness and protect the students from criminal activities, such as drug trafficking. These agents participate in awareness and in other activities in schools, involving all stakeholders: students, parents and staff. This program today covers around 3000 schools and more than one million students. Indeed, law enforcement officers support and recognize the Portuguese drugs model as the most efficient approach, as it allowed for a decreasing of criminal activity in the short and long term, and allowed them to focus on the combat on more serious criminality such as drug trafficking.
• Our public health approach is also sustained through the Referral Network for Addictive Behaviors and Dependencies. This Network brings together public health services, NGOs and other public and private treatment services providing care for drug users. The public services are free, as they are voluntary in terms of use and universally accessible to all that seek treatment. Just for the record, In 2016, 16 368 drug consumers were registered in opioid substitution programs.

• Harm reduction programs, in particular regarding syringe exchange, and structures, are widely available throughout the country, with the stated goal of preventing drug- related risks such as infectious diseases, social exclusion and delinquency.
• By the way, treatments for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis are included in the range of the universal National Health Service of Portugal (and it is free). The decrease in number of HIV/AIDS cases associated with drug use reflects the results of our policies: between 1995 and 1999 around half of HIV diagnoses were related to injecting drug users. In 2016 this represented only 3% of the total number of diagnoses.
• We achieved a 40% decline in the number of injecting drug users since the beginning of the century. Considering the new patients in the treatment system in 2015, only 3% were injecting drug users.
• In line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the Portuguese Constitution the dignity of human beings is paramount in our model. And a figure that we believe is demonstrative of the results achieved is the sharp drop in overdoses (318 in 2000, to 27 in 2016).

In fact, the drug-induced mortality rate among adults was 5.8% deaths per million in 2016, one of the lowest in Europe and in the World. There is no silver bullet in the combat against the drug addiction problem. However, we believe the reforms we enacted in the year 2000, allowed us to create a model anchored in the human rights of each individual, and that through a health-based multidisciplinary approach we could achieve excellent results in prevention, treatment, harm reduction and reintegration areas, thus contributing to a healthier society in general.

In line with the UNGASS outcome document we believe the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the canvas for the implementation of the outcome document. And in that respect we believe that a holistic model such as the Portuguese – which has yielded progress in the fight against poverty, promotion of health, education and cohesion of our communities –, might be a positive contribution to that end. We stand ready to learn from others’ experiences and approaches, and to share ours in a spirit of close cooperation that ultimately will help us all to achieve more sustainable development rooted in the respect of human rights.

Philippines. Policies and programme of Philippines on drugs are anchored on our duty to promote fundamental rights and freedoms. Our country has a very young population, who are the most vulnerable to the temptations and evils of drugs. We have adopted the international standards of drug use prevention, investing in programmes for the youth. This assures our aspiration to become a drug free society will be realised. With the needs of women in mind, the government and civil society launched CBT for women – which seeks to aid female drug dependence. Last year, our third exclusive women treatment facility was opened and we hope to open more soon. Rights must be protected in the fight against drugs. The Dangerous Drugs Board regularly convenes judges and law enforcement officers to regulate and coordinate efforts. This reflects our vowed duty to ensure that legal protections are in place to protect those who are accused. We shall spare no effort in addressing the drugs menace, while protecting the most vulnerable. We look forward to avenues for support and technical cooperation with UNODC and member states.

Mexico. Mexico welcomes that the UNGASS outcome document includes this section on cross-cutting issues. It seems obvious that we must take into account the needs of different populations. The UNGASS document reiterates the need to respect all human rights and the dignity of all people in implementing drug policies. We have to develop fairer policies that are coherent with the three UN pillars. Dealing with the world drug problem with a gender perspective is essential. My country acknowledges the usefulness of alternatives to imprisonment for minor offences along the whole chain of the market. However, evidence of the constant growth of the prison population allows us to see that prison has been the most frequent response in our region. But we believe that we should explore alternatives to imprisonment and other measures that do not deprive people of freedom, but provide opportunities for social reintegration. Although we know that recent debates on this topic have been positive, but sometimes the alternatives do not deal with the causes and are not aligned with decriminalising minor charges. The implementation, evaluation of these policies must be focused on. We see that women are affected by this, especially for minor crimes and we acknowledge the contribution of UNGASS to tackle this problem. In Mexico, we have organised several multi-sectoral panels to address these concerns, with federal government, civil society, academia and international organisations. We have presented a draft reform to the Mexican congress in favour of women convicted of drug-related crimes – which includes practical criteria for non-discrimination and include the gender perspective in justice penalties and acknowledge that there is inequality between men and women. My government will pay a lot of attention to this process, and will inform CND of the results of our deliberations. I also want to refer to the need to improve the way which we compile and generate quantitative data, which should be disaggregated so that we can launch initiatives to marginalised groups. Mexico, in 20917, joined the Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe, and we will be including the gender perspective in this Group’s discussions. In February 2018, we will convene an international conference on drugs, violence and women.

Canada. Support today’s chapter and the exchange of ideas between member states. Canada has a mandatory assessment process for any proposal going to our Government for decision. This tool factors in sex, gender, race, ethnicity, age, mental and physical ability and sexual orientation among others. This is to ensure effective public policies are made, and the tools are available online if any member states are interested and I would be happy to discuss it further. Canada stands alongside many of the comments made today, including on the need for human rights based drug policies, and our steadfast opposition to the death penalty for drug offences. I have learned a lot and will take these back with me as Canada seeks to implement its new approach to drug policy.

Slovenia. Addiction is a serious and sometimes chronic disease, so people need treatment and not prisons. Punishment is not a good option for drug users to solve their problems. Prisons are not a good environment for people to change their behaviour. Drug users need treatment and rehabilitation, so we fully support alternatives to punishment that allow for rehabilitation. Of course, we are also against the death penalty, as sanctions should be proportional with full respect of human rights.

Belgium. We align with the Estonian statement on behalf of EU, including on the unacceptability of extrajudicial killings and the death penalty in all circumstances. This is a long-standing priority for Belgium, and we will be hosting the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in 2019. In Belgium, gender mainstreaming is mandated by law. But in drug policy we found out that various blind spots exist in terms of responses for alcohol and drug users. In order to be evidence-based, a large scale study has been launched assessing the availability of, and need for, gender-sensitive services and people’s experiences of using them. This is applied along the continuum of care – including harm reduction and aftercare. Results will be available at the end of this year, and we will share with the CND at an appropriate time.

Amaya Ordorika Imaz, Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights. 

Lisa Sanchez, on Behalf of Luciana Pol – CELS. NGOs working in Latin America know that the inclusion of human rights concepts and principles in the implementation of drug policies is a key necessity. As such, we value the elements in the UNGASS outcome document which have sought to do so. We welcome also the participation of OHCHR and UN Women and their willingness to bring their technical knowledge to this Commission with the view of improving the design and implementation of our policies.

I will refer to one of the human rights problems in the region which represent an increasing trend in the rest of the world. Women in the Americas are being incarcerated for low-level drug offences at an alarming rate. Various countries in the region have more than 60% of women incarcerated for such offences.

The incarceration of mothers and caretakers in particular can have devastating consequences for women but also their children and communities. These women are rarely a threat to society, the majority are detained for low-level, high-risk activities.

Point 4.d of the UNGASS outcome document requests improving the study of the conditions that make women vulnerable to exploitation and engagement in illicit drug trafficking. In Latin America, we have brought together our forces to collaborate on this task: women organisations and human rights organisations have joined forces to create a working group along with government officials, advocates and researchers to promote alternative policies to incarceration to protect the rights of this vulnerable group.

The Guide on Alternatives to Incarceration which we produced has been presented and discussed with governments and justice practitioners in Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia and Mexico, among others. We have also compiled good practice in a series of briefings called ‘Innovative Approaches’ which we can put at your disposal.

But the difficulties that we encounter to study this population and understand the phenomenon is the lack of reliable statistics with a gender perspective which take this group into account. We don’t know either how to mitigate the impacts on their families and kids. The indicators which measure the results of drug policies should be broadened to introduce the dimensions of human rights with a gender perspective. We welcome the work of the Commission in this regard and believe that the technical collaboration of OHCHR and UN Women will be invaluable. Thank you (Read the original statement in Spanish).

Zaved Mahmood, OHCHR (Closing Remarks). Thanks to all delegates who have participated. Myself, I have learned a lot about the measures being taken by member states with regards to human rights, and we have also heard about the challenges. We are ready to cooperate with member states and other organisations to overcome these challenges. I want to also mention indigenous peoples right. In the UNGASS outcome document, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People is mentioned, which includes their rights to use certain substances. This has to be taken into account when rethinking or reforming policies. Many delegates also spoke of the use of the death penalty. Those countries who are not using death penalty for drug offences, please share your experiences to try and move other countries away from this penalty. The OHCHR position is here to support member states and others in this endeavour.

Christine Brautigam, UN Women (Closing Remarks). I want to mention the importance of policy coherence, so when applying the UNGASS outcome document other policies such as gender quality etc do need to align. In the context of such a coherent approach, there is a need for targeted attention to gender mainstreaming in line with SDG 5. It is important to have a comprehensive approach that does not just deal with the symptoms, but also the causes of gender inequality including gender stereotypes, discriminatory social norms and unequal gender power relations. Fourthly, the importance of institutional cooperation across governments, between ministries and government agencies leading on drug policy and those leading on gender, health, etc – as well as with civil society and other governments. The last point did not come up enough – the question of resources, and how these need to be allocated and most effectively targeted. From a gender perspective, we have been concerned for many years in the under-investment in this area, so as member states continue to look at this in the context of the 2030 agenda, ensure that resources are allocated to this issue.

UNODC Closing Remarks. We can do much more, and are happy to have cooperation within UNODC and with the other UN agencies. I started at UNDCP many years ago, when there was no discussion of gender or human rights. When we go to countries, we see a large proportion of children in detention are there because of minor drug offences. There is a lack of knowledge among criminal justice personnel about drug use, addiction – and there is a heavily punitive approach and people are often asking for help and explanations on how to better deal with these children.

Organised by Mexico, the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Global Drug Policy Observatory (GDPO)

Ambassador Alicia Buenrostro Massieu (Mexico). It is my pleasure to welcome you all today to this event on the margins of the thematic discussions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, dedicated to the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document. While I am aware that it is not common for side events to be held during intersessional meetings, the Government of Mexico is pleased to sponsor this activity, which reflects the growing interest and commitment of non-governmental organizations and academia in responding to the call made in the UNGASS outcome for them to contribute to the implementation of the operational recommendations, in close partnership with Member States, the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations.

I don’t wish to take much of your time, since I believe we are all looking forward to hearing the presentations by our panelists from the International Drug Policy Consortium, the Center for Legal and Social Studies, and the Transnational Institute, on the evolution of the language the international community has agreed on in a number of documents addressing the world drug problem since 1990.

Despite the fact that the reality of the world drug problem is much more complex, those of us in the multilateral setting know how important language can be. UNGASS 2016 represented a paradigm shift in the international debate on drugs. Progress on how we refer to issues such as harm reduction, human rights, development or proportionality has come a long way, and reviewing this evolution can also shed some light on the way forward.

I would therefore like to conclude by recalling another example of how much language has progressed in the lead up to the UNGASS document, by recognizing “that civil society, as well as the scientific community and academia, plays an important role in addressing and countering the world drug problem, in the formulation, implementation (…)”, and, as we can attest to here today, “providing relevant scientific evidence in support of the evaluation of drug control policies and programmes”.

Jamie Bridge (IDPC). IDPC is a global network of more than 170 NGOs who come together to advocate for more human drug policies. IDPC has been heavily engaged in the UNGASS process to support civil society to play a strong role – which it did. We have produced a series of reports to document, digest and analyse the UNGASS outcomes. These include our Proceedings Report from the UNGASS itself, as well as our regular Proceedings Report from each CND, a guide on how the outcome document can promote criminal justice reform, a guide for NGOs on how to capitalise on the UNGASS outcomes, a report on lessons learned from NGO participation in government delegations, our position paper on what comes next in 2019, and finally this report: Edging Forward – How the UN’s language on drugs has advanced since 1990. In this report, we worked with TNI and GDPO to look at the agreed language at the UN since 1990 – in order to look at the history and how the language has developed over time. We considered:

• The 1990 Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action
• The 1993 General Assembly Resolution
• The 1998 Political Declaration and Guiding Principles
• The 2003 Joint Ministerial Statement
• The current Political Declaration and Plan of Action, agreed in 2009
• The 2014 Joint Ministerial Statement
• The 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document

We looked at all of these high-level UN declarations to try to assess trends in the language. We have a saying in the UK: “You can’t see the forest, for the trees”, which means that someone is too focused on the small details in front of them and does not see the bigger picture. After UNGASS, there was a general sense of disappointment about what we didn’t get in the document (such as references to harm reduction and the death penalty, for example). The advances and progress that was achieved did not sink in until a bit later. So we produced this report to look beyond the UNGASS and assess the direction of travel over nearly three decades. We looked at eight key areas: the success or failure of current approaches; harm reduction; human rights; development; civil society engagement; flexibility in the drug conventions; access to medicines; and UN system-wide coherence. These eight topics were most relevant to our membership and the most interesting to analyse.

I will talk to the harm reduction aspects now, as I started my own drug policy career working in a needle and syringe programme in the UK. The term ‘harm reduction’ has never been agreed by member states in here in Vienna, which has been an overriding disappointment for many. Yet from the UNGASS, we do now have specific mention of key harm reduction interventions such as “injecting equipment programmes” (or needle and syringe programmes as they are known everywhere else) and medication-assisted therapy. At the Special Session itself, 46 member states spoke in favour of the harm reduction approach, and just two countries explicitly spoke out against harm reduction. This is progress. We may not have got the exact language, but it was an improvement on 2009 where “related support services” was the closest consensus that could be reached. The German delegation released a statement at the adoption of the 2009 Political Declaration, on behalf of 25 other countries, to say that they would interpret “related support services” to mean harm reduction. “Programmes to reduce the adverse consequences on drug abuse” was the language in 1998. But going back to 1990, the Political Declaration requested WHO to continue supporting “programmes to reduce risk and harm”.

So the 2016 UNGASS is the most explicitly supportive language we have, but looking ahead harm reduction will remain contentious in Vienna. This is disappointing because it is an anomaly within the UN: harm reduction has been agreed language for decades at the General Assembly in the context of HIV, and is routinely used by all other relevant UN agencies and bodies. For 2019, we hope that the gains in the UNGASS can be consolidated – including the seven-theme structure and explicit support for harm reduction interventions. It is really important that supportive member states continue to talk about “harm reduction” in their statements at the CND. We have noticed that a few of the supportive countries have stopped doing so, but we urge them not to keep this approach firmly on the agenda in Vienna. We also would like the relevant UN agencies to produce normative guidance to help member states define and implement the “medication-assisted therapy” that is referenced in the UNGASS document. I hope that the ideological impasse over harn reduction can eventually be overcome based on the concept of UN system-wide coherence. Thank you for coming to this event, and I hope that you find time to read the report and that it is useful for you.

Luciana Pol (CELS). I welcome this document and congratulate the authors. It allows us to see the trajectory and it is very helpful. It walks us through all the declarations and highlights the human rights trends. Early engagement here in CND was surprising regarding the lack of attention to human rights, but the same is true of the human rights bodies which also failed for a long time to address the drugs issues and the impact on human rights. From 2014, we started to see progressive engagement from the human rights mechanisms on the drugs issue also in Vienna which has been positive. The report is valuable in telling us the story behind the processes – such as some things that didn’t make it into the final documents, but are good to know about. For example, the story of Uruguay’s resolution in 2008 on human rights and the challenge at the time for the CND to accept human rights concepts.

The UNGASS outcome document contains many progressive mentions of human rights, such as references to proportionality and torture. Also the recognition of the socio-economic dimensions of involvement in the drug trade beyond cultivation. This gives us a fuller understanding of the social dimension of the problem and the link to social and economic rights. It also includes the link to drug-related crime and violence – which represents an openness to the human rights dimension of the problem. In addition, the data gathering aspects in tracking information relating to the promotion of human rights is also important.

One key impact of the UNGASS was in integrating and engaging other UN agencies. The UNGASS preparation process ended in the first ever resolution at the Human Rights Council on drugs and human rights – directly related to the invitation to other UN bodies to engage in the UNGASS preparations. This resolution promoted the first ever report from OHCHR analysing the relationship and links between drugs and human rights. The UNDP report was also important in this regard. There was also engagement from the Special Procedures with their rich expertise in this area: there are 65 Special Procedures, and 35 of them have made reference to drug issues in their reports. But only two have dedicated whole reports to this topic, so more can be done.

Looking forward, we must keep involving UN human rights agencies in these debates. Their expertise makes a difference, and they are analysing things from a different point of view. Bring the drug-related issues to the agenda of the human rights agencies as well. The human rights dimension is so much more complex than just drug use which we heard today. Further involvement of the human rights system is crucial. For example, in the topic of metrics to look at the impact on development.

There is also the Universal Periodic Reporting (UPR) process which every member state has to go through every four years. There is also the promotion of indigenous rights, the militarisation of security, and its impact on drug policies and human rights – the use of armed forces has a huge impact on the enjoyment of human rights.

If we use a historical view, we will find progress and have a stronger base from which to advance. Thanks to the organisers of the CND intersessionals for including civil society perspectives, and I invite delegations to promote their own inclusion of civil society, which especially enriches the debate in terms of human rights understanding.

Martin Jelsma (TNI). TNI has long been working on the link between drug policy and development. The assassination of Galan in Colombia in 1989 really triggered the start of this debate for countries where cultivation was an issue. It created a constitutional crisis in Colombia, alongside the breakdown of the international coffee agreement, meaning that Colombia lost $400m from coffee exports that year. One of the key topics at this time was the call for alternative development. This has been an appeal from the Latin Americans from the start of the UNGASS process. From the 1998 UNGASS onwards, there was formal recognition of the alternative development concept. There was a special Action Plan on international cooperation on alternative development agreed.

Successful alternative development requires “proper sequencing”, and this became a huge debate in the lead up to the 2009 Political Declaration. The issue of development aid was also discussed at length. The 2009 document included a quote on this, and since then not much progress has been made.

But in the UNGASS outcome document, there are four key areas of progress. Firstly, the drugs and development connection is treated in a separate section from eradication and law enforcement. They are treated in separate chapters which is an important step forward. Secondly, strong language about the involvement of communities was included, and it was the first time that farmers are mentioned in terms of their involvement. Thirdly, the document extends the scope of alternative development to the urban level. There is recognition that it is not only in rural settings but also in marginalised urban settings that the illicit market provides a safety net. Fourthly, the document underscores the importance of involving other agencies such as UNDP, ILO, FAO and other entities. The connection with the SDGs is also very relevant for continuing these debates at the international level.

However, not much progress has been made on indigenous rights. The High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed strong disappointment on this at the UNGASS itself. The reason why this has been such a delicate issue is that there is a clear conflict between the 1961 Convention and international human rights obligations. Speaking of such flaws in the treaties is like swearing in a church – so we rarely address faults in the treaties here in Vienna.

Over the three decades, there is also a disconnect with reality on the ground. The improved language with respect to the SDGs and alternative development creates a ‘virtual reality’ – it is still difficult to find genuine, successful alternative development projects. But the positive language keeps pushing the debate forward and also guides better implementation at the national level. The greatest progress at the UNGASS is in the emphasis on the SDGs and the calls to involve other parts of the UN.

Ian Hodges (Canada) – intervention from the floor. We are undertaking a similar exercise in Canada and updating our national drugs strategy and reviewing our past approaches. This report will be very informative. We will be looking for greater coherence and alignment with international documents such as the UNGASS outcome document. We will be reviewing the way we talk about drug use, abuse, misuse and addiction to be more person centred – we will also be using the term ‘people who use drugs’ instead of drug users, and will have harm reduction as core to our strategy.

Ian Tennant (UK) – intervention from the floor. This is a general question to the panel. You’ve given us a lot of detail and a strong case for the progress made in these areas. But what are your thoughts on bridging the gap between the work on the ground and the UN language. From the civil society perspective, what is the issue. Is it frustration that you aren’t being heard? Or that what is being agreed here doesn’t have an impact on the ground?

Responses:

Jamie Bridge. It is a bit of both. We have frustration that domestic harm reduction approaches aren’t highlighted. That is disappointing. But the language agreed at the UN can have an important impact at the national level. For example, we work with colleagues on the ground in some African countries where harm reduction is just beginning, and the language that is agreed here really does have an impact on the ground.

Luciana Pol. From the Latin American side, with many of the terrible problems that we were seeing on the ground, it was frustrating to see that many of those topics were not being discussed at the UN level. Parts of the issue were heavily discussed here: the death penalty, the rights of drug users etc. But over-incarceration was not addressed. However, the Latin American delegations have worked tirelessly to bring attention to these issues over recent years – such as the issues of gender and women in prison.

Martin Jelsma. UN negotiations always lag behind progress on the ground. But you also see that countries that are struggling at the national level, and want to make changes usually start making appeals at the international level – trying to get consensus and address legal tensions. How much can we advance further on consensus negotiations between now and 2019? It will be hard to advance given that the consensus is broken on a number of issues. This may mean that smaller groups of countries will try to move forward despite the deadlock at the international level.

Lisa Sanchez (MUCD) – intervention from the floor. I want to raise two points that are important from the Latin American perspective: really defining the public health approach and the definitions between drug use and drug abuse. I also participated on the official delegation of my country throughout the entire process. In Mexico we held a series of post-UNGASS dialogues to engage other parts of the government on the drug control implementation – not only law enforcement agencies. The UNGASS outcome document is also progressive in mentioning other legal instruments and agreements (such as CEDAW and the Tokyo Rules), and the need for due process and to address over-incarceration.

Amb. Bente Angell-Hansen, CND Chair: I welcome all attending for joining us in this important work, as well as the panellists on this session. I invite the meeting to adopt the provisional agenda. It is adopted. In order to use our time effectively, I’d like to start this meeting with Agenda Item 2 on the arrangements for the Reconvened and preparation for the 61st session of the Commission.

Agenda Item 2. Arrangements for the reconvened 60th session of the CND and for the 61th session of the CND.

Amb. Bente Angell-Hansen, CND Chair: As you know, the Reconvened will be taking place on the 6, 7 December; and there will not be an UNGASS Segment. The invitations and annotated provisional agenda, including the organisation of work, have been sent/made available on the website. On Policy Directives for the Drug Office and Strengthening the Role of the Directive and the Commission, I would also like to recall the Commission will have before it the report of the Executive Director, which will be discussed at FINGOV. Similar, reports on gender balance and geographical distribution. Contrary to the information I provided in the previous meeting, and due to ongoing discussions in New York, the Secretariat would not be in a position to submit a draft strategic framework for UNODC for the period 2021-2021 for consideration of the Commission in December. The Secretariat will be kept updated. Turning to the composition of the bureau of the 61st session. The officers to be elected go as follow: Chair, from GRULAC; 1st Vice Chair, from African Group; 2nd Vice Chair, from Asia Pacific Group. We have a nomination, the first one, to the Asia Pacific Group, our Excellent colleague, Ambassador from Pakistan. The 3rd Vice Chair, from Eastern European Group. The Rapporteur from WEOG. Meeting of the Expert Group Meeting on Dependence on 6-7 November. The WHO will brief the Commission at the Reconvened if any substances are recommended for scheduling. I have had a set of first brainstorming meetings with all groups from 25 to 29 September on preparations for the 62 Session of the Commission. I thank all those who were there. Another set of brainstorming meetings (13-15 November) to take place; a briefing document will be shared prior to this.

Agenda Item 3. Other Business

None.

Agenda Item 1. Thematic discussion on the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document (Chapters III)

Amb. Pedro Luis Baptista Moitinho de Almeida, Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Welcomes participants and thanks for involvement and commitment to the implementation of the Outcome Document. We will start with a panel and then open discussions will follow. All panellists are encouraged to limit their presentation to 5-7 minutes, focusing on actions that could be taken by the Commission on the implementation of the UNGASS recommendations. If delegations wish to deliver a video message, they can get in touch with the Secretariat. Delegations are encouraged to limit their presentations to 3-5 minutes. I will use my discretion to ensure the flow of discussions. An UNGASS implementation matrix has been shared to all delegations. I encourage delegations to provide information on this matter. A “Good Practice” portal in English is to be produced.

Tofik Murshudlu, UNODC Chief of the Organised Crime and Illicit Trafficking Section: We wat to focus on regional, interregional and international cooperation. We are very often over focused on seizures. More focus should be paid on illicit financial flows and profit made by illegal organisations. Also linkages between different forms of organised crime. We are working with different regions to promote regional cooperation, including the establishment of the South East Asian Intelligence Regional Coordination Centre, promoting exchange of criminal intelligence and multilateral cooperation. Network initiatives, bringing together all law enforcement cooperation structures to make sure there are strong links between them. We are also working on strengthening the ties between Latin American and West African structures on this topic. We are making closer cooperation between country, regional and global programmes. Working closely with the Paris Pact initiative: cross border cooperation, money laundering and precursors. We have a number of law enforcement experts in UNODC that now make up an advising/cooperation Council. We work with external partners (EUROPOL, CEPOL, Frontex, etc.). Unfortunately, until now, we have no funding apart from Turkey’s 56,000. Still, we managed to promote this initiative of networks within networks. We are dealing with a global phenomenon. Using existing capacities is absolutely important. Building networks between law enforcement training institutions to exchange curricula, training methodologies and materials, etc; to avoid duplication. We are focusing on results: thousands of tons of illicit substances seized, millions seized during investigation on illicit financial flows, building links in multilateral operations of seizures, strengthening investigative linkages between firearms and drugs trade, etc.

Muhammad Mustapha Abdallah, NDLEA (Nigeria), African Group: Nigeria has continued to improve its control efforts. The Nigerian government has stepped up efforts increasing access to controlled medicines and palliative care. Cannabis is the most used drug in Nigeria. 60% of Nigeria’s population is youth. The illicit diversion of ephedrine and methamphetamine continues to be of great concern. The use of khat is becoming more widespread and worrisome. Also new methamphetamine laboratories in the country. The government has put in place a drug control policy: National Drug Control Masterplan. Far-reaching plan comprising all relevant ministries, departments and agencies. Three strategic pillars: law enforcement, drug demand reduction, access and control of narcotic drugs for medical and scientific purposes. We have enacted a comprehensive anti-drug legislation that is effective and fosters cooperation. Drug control is crucial to crime reduction. The priority of Nigeria is to move from reactive to intelligence led operations. Precursors tend to come from India, Switzerland, UAE, Thailand, others. The seizure of precursors points to the existence of illicit laboratories. 3 used ephedrine as a raw material of precursor. Given stronger controls on precursors, the 4th laboratories used precursors to the precursors for meth manufacturing. Although there are improved efforts destroying cannabis farms, government operations are hazardous and cumbersome. 3 days ago, we raided a farm that covered 900ha. In a previous similar operation, 3 operatives were gunned won. The use of postal services is also worrisome. Law enforcement now working with courier services but difficult because legislative obstacles to intervene packages. Drug related seizures and arrests are increasing. Worries about datura plants, abused as a narcotic; contains scopolamine. Used by criminals for subduing victims. Further research needs to be conducted to isolate the components of the plant and scheduling the plan. Drugs under national control include tramadol, codeine. The drug control masterplan adequately provides for cooperation between law enforcement and drug control structures to facilitate assets tracing, seizures, etc. But also cooperation with regional and international bodies. Importance of terrorism-drugs link in Nigeria; drug paraphernalia always found in camps by Boko Haram. Countries should not be allowed to re-export precursors to other countries. There is a lot of diversion of chemicals, including by companies granted permits to import more than the required. Nigerian meth producers import chemicals from other West African countries; countries that have imported in excess of their limits. CND should look at that. Nigeria committed to combatting the drug menace, cooperation is fundamental.

Q: The Netherlands: You said there were abuses to the postal services for drug trafficking. The Netherlands is developing a new device that can detect drugs in all the postal parcels. This could be a good instrument to fight the abuse of postal services. My question is: Can you explain what are the countries that the drugs from Nigeria are sent to? Or is it just internal?

R: Muhammad Mustapha Abdallah, African Group: The biggest problem are shipments sent from outside, mostly meth.

Ali Zulfikli, Narcotic Crime Investigation Malaysia, Asia-Pacific Group: We are facing problems with methamphetamine (we do not produce, but receive and are a transit country), heroin (not a producing country), cannabis, ketamine, a benzodiazepine. These five are major, then there are also other minor ones. In recent years, we have done a lot to contain this problem through arrests and seizures. In terms of current trends, I’ll discuss a bit of history: before 1995, the drug problem was with mostly traditional drugs (cannabis and heroin); then synthetic drugs started coming in (mainly meth). Initially, the problem was containable, but the 1995 new menace caught us off guard; it took us years to manage to contain the problem to a smaller scale. However, the foreign traffickers took advantage of this vacuum. Iranian nationals brought a lot of methamphetamines to Malaysia (2005-2013), then we contained this problem; and then groups from West Africa took over; then Indian and Taiwanese. Most of these are not strongly organised groups but rather loose networks. We are conducting a relentless operation against the illicit drug syndicates. Our Prime Minister formed a unit called STING (Special Tactical Intelligence Narcotic Group). These special forces tasked to tackle the problem of narcotics and syndicates, apart from the NCDI. We conducted a lot of operations and formed a nucleus unit in our border, mainly the border between Malaysia and Thailand, where the drug flow is substantial. We tightened our entry points through the cooperation of AITF and SITF (airports and seaports task-forces). We are doing profiling on the syndicates, on individual couriers. We study their modus operandi. We then also do profiling on parcel services. Close cooperation with local enforcement agencies, regional enforcement agencies, and international. We share intelligence, conduct joint investigations, facilitate trans-national investigations. We have cooperation with ASEAN members. And good cooperation with other foreign law enforcement (DEA, AFP, MCC, from Taiwan, just to name a few). We also conduct extensive training. We enacted a law to detain drug kingpins that do not touch the drugs (previously, the law didn’t allow to judge people for possession or trafficking if they hadn’t touched the drugs). Some may say we misuse our powers, but these laws allow for the Police to collect intelligence, which is then sent to a legal expert of the Ministry, which will then order an order of detention not exceeding two years. Within three months, traffickers can defend themselves to one of the advisory boards. They can appeal their detention, and the advisory board decides. Normally, in Malaysia, the drug problem, by the local syndicates, is by the gangster groups. They control the area, the market. There may be some loose groups, but most traffickers are from organised groups. We work closely with other law enforcement agencies. We also have the forfeiture of property law. Specific to tackle the drug money from the syndicates. The burden of proof is on the accused. It is the beauty of this law. We also investigate suspect money transactions. We have mutual legal assistance treaties between countries. In terms of the challenges, different legal provisions and requirements (between countries). Ex. Capital punishment is not accepted by other countries. We wanted to control deliveries of drugs when sent by parcels. We would like to identify the syndicates involved. To do so, we need to do this controlled delivery. It is not point that we seize a parcel. We can’t detect the originator and the receiver. We must know who they are, nip it from the bud. We need cooperation from all countries. If there are parcels from Malaysia sent to other countries, it is important that law enforcement officers in that particular area do the controlled delivery to know who are the received and give us the information to know what syndicates are involved. In some countries, this is not acceptable; and they don’t work with us because of capital punishment. Also, corruption, as secrecy is important but money can buy information. And technology, as syndicates are always one step ahead. Did we win the war on these drugs? We haven’t. Did we lose? No. We continue to make significant arrests. A commitment by all is necessary to tackle this problem. Tackle it from the root cause. Drugs are number 1 enemy. Drugs destroy human beings.

Janek Pedask, Leading Criminal Officer, Estonia, WEOG: I will focus on our national developments. If you have things organised at home, you are a better partner internationally. Illicit drug markets are among the most profitable criminal activities. Most criminal groups are involved in drug trafficking. It’s one of the biggest challenges for law enforcement agencies because of it. We have had a unique problem in the country for a decade, reaching more deaths than anywhere else in the world. I’m talking about overdose deaths by fentanyl and analogs. Estonia is not the only country dealing with this issue. Since 2001. We do not have heroin in our streets, but fentanyl. The drug can be easily smuggled. People’s lives were at stake, we needed to come up with something different and effective, fast. We need to trust our partners to be successful. We developed a databased to be accessed by all law enforcement and judicial agencies. There are restrictions, but everybody has access to do their work in the best possible way. We also merged the police, border guard and migration structures; to facilitate the exchange of information. We established close cooperation with public health professionals and other partners, including the private sector. As far as there’s demand, there will be supply. We need to find ways to address the problem with stronger cooperation. Thanks to this, we have been able to identify laboratories and plantations. We encourage law enforcement officers to address this issue with an open mind. We also focus on tackling criminal assets and money laundering. The financial investigation unit is within the police. People are willing to spend more time in prison not to lose their money. Money hurts them the most. We should address this, not put people in prison from many many years. Despite our improvements, the problem is still there. We are doing our best.

Q: Austria: How do you ensure the information does not fall in the wrong hands?

R: Yes, of course; one reliable source would be the EUROPE liaison office. If you pass the information from these channels, the person receiving the information will give the information to a trusted stakeholder. It entails some risks, but we cannot stop acting because of that possibility. In general, it works well.

Q: Italy: Could you discuss the cooperation with the private sector?

R: Why should the public sector work with the police? It’s an issue of trust and reputation. For instance, we work closely with the chemical industry who work with legal precursors. They can tell if someone who hasn’t purchased precursors ever, suddenly buys a significant amount…and raise the alarm.

Q: The Netherlands: Regarding pragmatic prevention. Estonia has a problem with fentanyl overdose. Many countries face this growing serious issue. The Netherlands has no fentanyl problem. Not sure why. It might be because cannabis is produced on a large scale because it’s cheap and available. Sold not legally, but allowed. It might be the case that because cannabis is so available, it prevents people from taking harder stuff, including heroin or fentanyl. Would there be thinkable that there is a connection.

R: I have never seen a fentanyl user starting with fentanyl. They move on from cannabis. They seek higher doses and a higher rush. Why is fentanyl in Estonia? When the Soviet Union ended, there was a lot of unemployment and people started to get addicted to heroin. The supply was cut in 2001 and fentanyl came in. In 2004, reintroduction of heroin; but preference for fentanyl. But it’s very unstable in terms of dosage.

Q: Russian Federation: We live in an era when people’s private lives are becoming more “narrow”. Estonia has a strong information resource that can be accessed by a broad range of stakeholders. How do you deal with data protection obligations?

R: We have strong limitations. Only people with clearance can access the data. The last “abuse” of the database was identified 3 years ago, and it was an operative checking themselves in the database…which is forbidden.

Ahmet Yilmaz, Chief Superintendent of the Turkish Narcotics Department, WEOG: In November, 2014, we created two new councils for counter-drug efforts. Turkish policy of supply reduction has a similarity with UNGASS because our policy to fight drugs, NPS and narcoterrorism is effective and productive. We are directly affected by drugs, partially because of geopolitical locations. We are a transit country for drugs sent to Asian countries. Penal code increased sanctions for drug offences: more criminal sanctions on the sell of drugs near schools, hospitals and places of worship. Turkey attaches great importance to international cooperation, training programmes and sharing of information. On narco-terrorism, worth noting the profits associated to the drugs trade, taken advantage by the PKK, although it  is not the only one involved in trafficking. We work on a proactive approach fighting NPS, enacting generic legislation. 692 under legal control. We prohibit them before they are identified in the national territory.

Q: Egypt: Concerning drugs and NPS not under international control, but that are under national control. How do you deal with imports from other countries and smuggling of such substances?

R: In the local site on Turkey, we are always at the borders and try to monitor our borders and the system outside of the border. If we see a threat, we inform our health department, which is taken to the Ministry, and they discuss it and the substance will be taken onto the legal path towards control.

Q: European Union: Is the darknet an issue in your country?

R: We have a cybercrime unit department that works on it, following and monitoring as needed.

Q: Russian Federation: On the nature of the drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Does the heroin come into Turkey ready made or a form of heroin that needs further processing?

R: The heroin from Afghanistan is mostly coming in different chemical types to be distributed.

Céline Ruiz, European Union: Underscores the importance of the Outcome Document. Fighting organised crime is an important objective done by the EU on drug control. Multibillion-euro profits for criminal organisations, at the expense of the health and security of citizens, the rule of law, economic health of communities, etc. The online trade and the darknet is a new important challenge. Technical innovation and access to sophisticated equipment have allowed groups to maximise efficiency and profits. More than 75% of criminal groups trafficking more than one drug. Important proportion also involved in other criminal activities. In the EU, as per the European Drug Report released in June, use remains high and overdose deaths are increasing. The renewed EU Strategy and Action Plan complements and contributes to all Member States actions. There are no signs of reduction in supply of drugs, seizures are not increasing, drug-related offences are growing. The reviewed documents have three pillars: supply reduction, demand reduction and cross-cutting issues (coordination; international cooperation; and information, research, monitoring and evaluation). On the supply side, our action focuses on: collection of indicators (with qualitative and contextual information), a new legislation package on NPS (to move quicker to ban them), legislation on precursors, alternatives to coercive sanctions, more emphasis on information and communication technologies and their use in the drugs trade, increase confiscation of financial assets. We want to enhance civil society participation. NGOs are working on the ground. Support international cooperation programmes. Gathering evidence on the drugs trade and terrorism, and migrant smuggling, and trafficking of human beings. Monitoring cannabis legislation in the EU and other countries. Working hard on the implementation of the Action Plan until 2020. (…) Confiscation of criminal assets is an effective way to deter criminal groups as it removed the incentives. We propose a money laundering directive, negotiated between the Parliament and the Council of the EU (to enhance the powers of the EU financial unit, create centralised bank account registers in all member states and tackle the risk of virtual currency and anonymous credit cards). We support the network of member state asset recovery offices. Of course, reinforce international cooperation. I conclude reaffirming the UN Conventions on Transnational Organised Crime (Palermo Convention). We will support a review mechanism. And the UNCAG. We have all the tools to make a difference. Of course, this post-UNGASS work is absolutely key, as well as the SDGs processes; it’s about the eradication of poverty. UN processes need to be linked: health, governance, strong institutions, gender equality, urban areas, etc. All the 17 goals are important for this post-UNGASS work.

Q: Muhammad Mustapha Abdallah, African Group: What has the EU done on cryptocurrencies and its impact on money laundering?

R: The new directive on money laundering involves dispositions on cryptocurrencies and anonymous credit cards. We expect it to be voted by the end of the year to address this important challenge.

Q: India: Have you developed the technical expertise to track crypto-drug markets? Can this intelligence be shared?

R: We have experts in EUROPOL working on this issue. By the end of the year, we’ll produce a dedicated report on the matter. We have a new centre working on this issue too. The report will be public.

Comment: Amb. Pedro Luis Baptista Moitinho de Almeida, Post-UNGASS Facilitator: We also invite countries to share these reports on the portal of the UNODC for these discussions.

Q: Turkey: Apart from crypto-drug markets, other aspects of the internet and work with private industry?

R: We organised a recent event with major private players (Facebook, Microsoft, etc.). We have an online forum on matters related to the internet, so this can be debated there. We expect to see this cooperation with private players to evolve and see if there’s a need for a legislative change.

Comment: Estonia: It’s also important for countries to show initiative. In 2015, with the Pompidou Group, all drug units had a training on drug offences committed on the internet. We thank Austria, Netherlands, Belgium and Finland, who provided their best experts to provide this training. They’re more than happy to share their experiences.

Comment: UNODC: When I made my presentation, I mentioned that in Mexico we discussed investigation of darknet and cryptocurrencies. There are very few law enforcement agencies that have this in their curriculum. It is very important because these platforms are used progressively more. UNODC has also training modules on this topic.

R: I will just highlight we have all the tools at our disposal to make a better job. Exchange information, strong states with good administration, we are working on the SDGs; all this works in the same direction. It’s what citizens are expecting. We cannot continue like this.

[Interventions from the floor start]

Amb. Alicia Buenrostro, Mexico: in taking stock of the measures linked to supply reduction, we want to underscore the contribution of the UNGASS of 2016 to place people at the centre. Activities related to supply reduction are now framed in a comprehensive strategy focusing on prevention: violence, crime and social damage. In the framework of these thematic debates, we are pleased to hear from all stakeholders that efforts to combat crime are to a greater degree taking into account the im`pact of the international community on people and the human costs of the illicit economies. We must step up efforts so that efforts prevent negative impact on public health and environmental sustainability. One of the most important lessons from UNGASS 2016, has been a convergence in the many debates that led to the Outcome Document. However, we must still work to bridge the gap between sectors from the crime and justice systems and the health system. We supported Res. 60-6, on cooperation between sectors. That’s why at the national level, our government has integrated all authorities that can have an impact on drugs under a interdepartmental space. The General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic works with the department of the environment to ensure that the destruction of precursors do not damage the environment. The Federal Police is carrying out monitoring actions on the NPS market, in the internet and darknet. We launched the Sumate programme, in which the armed forces join preventative programmes; working closely with communities. Activities against drug trafficking whilst working on the structural causes for it. As a result of our efforts, we realise just focusing on punitive responses is not effective. We are convinced that the commitment to the UNGASS is the best way to ensure a comprehensive and balanced response to drugs.

[Interventions from the floor end]

European Union (Represented by Estonia): We would highlight the role of EUROPOL, which supports MS in combatting organised crime and terrorism. As well as EUROJUST, which fosters cooperation within the region. (…) We have tools for data collection, research, analysis and report on drug related matters. The EMCDDA produces multiple resources. A particular challenge concerns synthetic drugs, and ATS. An effective drug precursor control and monitoring system is a cornerstone of the EU drugs strategy. A catch-all provision and fast-track procedure has been worked on to streamline scheduling. The cooperation with industry is another pillar of drug precursor policy. Another aspect is the use of the internet and digital devices for the drugs trade. The EU takes action to address this threat. In April, conference of ministers on the matter. By the end of this year, a report will be published. The new Action Plan commits to identifying strategic responses to address the use of information technologies for the drugs trade. The EU commits to controlling financial flows. Important cooperation between Member States and the work of EUROPE. A recent complex joint investigation of a criminal group operating in different countries led to confiscation of assets worth 5million euros. We are convinced that united efforts can disrupt organised groups facilitating trafficking.

Organised Crime Branch, UNODC: We work on the frontline level and in partnership with the world customs organisation. In some countries, customs units and interagency units. Four pilot countries in 2004, and now 54 countries. Huge growth and interest, and results! We work on cargo. We need to help people on the ground. It’s one of the lessons learnt. We have regional coordinators on the ground working in the UNODC Field Office of the network. Without the local presence, we would not be able to implement. We depend on the field office network and staff there. Important to mention the World Customs Organisation. We have 4-5 trainers. 70million budget. Results: more than 200tons of cocaine, over 1,500tons of precursors (incl. for rocket propellents). When looking at the cocaine seizures, interesting to note that around 100tons had as destination the EU countries. 3 biggest ports in Europe (Valencia, Rotterdam, Antwerp) but also Panama, Ecuador and Brazil providing very good information for our work. All agencies do their data checks. Customs police and other agencies check their records and archives, and together make a decision about physical examination. Global training strategy with the World Customs Organisation (Basic training, advanced level training, etc.). We hook all units to an information-sharing system – ContainerCOM (100 countries); really good results. Last year, we trained 1,800 people through 143 training events in 46 countries.

[Lunch break]

El Salvador: One of our drug policy pillars is to reduce drug-related crime, and I want to share our experiences as a country of transit. Effective seizure is important to address this problem, as well as tackling circumstances that facilitate the trafficking of drugs. Criminals are transferring drugs and other goods to ships and, to a lesser extent, planes. This can also be seen in neighbouring countries along the transit routes. So this issue cannot be addressed in a unilateral way. The most used route of transit is by speedboats across the ocean, in quantities less than 1kg. Cocaine seizures showed the biggest increase in 2015, but cannabis seizures have decreased. Methamphetamine also seized. We are not a producing country: in 2015, police reports showed that 100% of the marijuana seized had come from other countries and was destined for North America. Since 2016, we have been part of the Airport Coordination Programme and other initiatives, and various projects have been undertaken such as trainings to ensure sustainable programmes based on international best practices. Cooperation has been seen in organisations working judicially and socially on these matters. Associated issues include money laundering, criminal gangs, and the availability of drugs for use by youth. We have held a comprehensive review of our policies. I want to share some of the main challenges. The youth are severely affected – police data tell us that most people involved with drugs are male and young. Our objective is to bolster control of drugs and combatting money laundering, as captured in our national police strategic plan. There are still limits on the analysis of some substances due to lack of facilities and staff to do this. We need to bolster these divisions of natural and synthetic drugs and precursors, to produce the necessary evidence for legal processes. We have a regulatory law on drugs, but this does not contain mechanisms for the destruction of seized drugs.

Italy:  Lots of progress made in 2016, when drug operations numbered 24,000 – 23% higher than 2015. Seizures of heroin, cocaine and cannabis were increased. Drug trafficking and dealing are the bread and butter of criminal organisations with international roots – this link is proven. We are committed to raise awareness of how these organisations work. Special investigations have been proven to be effective, such as monitoring of deliveries and undercover work. Italy continues to support African countries on these issues – emphasising how even buying a single dose of drugs is feeding criminal, mafia groups. In line with the operational recommendations on enhancing law enforcement capacity, we have long been committed to this – and have trained hundreds of foreign law enforcement officers from countries around the world, including on issues such as the use of the internet, dismantling clandestine laboratories and new psychoactive substances. Italy has signed an agreement with Colombia for joint investigation teams. Italy considers tackling drug supply to be an essential part of a comprehensive approach, and encourage the adoption of the 1988 Convention.

UNODC Representative – Organised Crime Branch: Introducing the Global Programme against Money Laundering – which focuses on all illicit funds (drugs, but also other sources of criminal income). The Programme has advisers located across the world – to support regional information exchange. It works with all participants in the money laundering cycle: banks, prosecutors, investigators, counter-terrorism units, cyber-crime agencies, etc. In the last year, the programme trained more than 5,000 officers – mainly taking people from foundation to advanced levels in order to be able to do detailed investigations. For example, we have a three-day training on bitcoin, and also do train the trainer events. The trainings cover every necessary step in effective investigations – including a focus on international, online payment systems. All trainings are tailored to the country in question. The impact of the programme has been demonstrated – on South Africa, USD 23 million in criminal proceeds was frozen after trainings, in Kazakhstan, USD 56 million was frozen. All for relatively small investments in the capacities of the anti-money laundering units. The training is delivered to a range of different departments and sectors – not just the financial crime units. Having everyone in one training event together, it improves the understanding of who can do what, and what each agency can contribute.

Q: Nigeria: Bitcoins is one of the many cryptocurrencies available, but does the training also explore others?

R: Bitcoin is traceable, but others are designed so that it cannot be traced. The crucial moment for governments to combat money laundering using cryptocurrencies is in the regulation of these currencies. We use the training to show that this problem is real and large, and to show that this is possible to counter and investigate. Then we make the case for greater regulations and supervision, and the block chain.

China: All member states should combat drug-related crimes and drug production, on the basis of equality and respect we should fully utilise existing international tools to expand coverage and improve effectiveness. China is constantly stepping up its drug law enforcement with innovative mechanisms and close cooperation to effectively tackle the domestic market. We are working with relevant countries on drug law enforcement and other projects. This has improved the cross-border capacity. Since January 2013, the Safe Waterway Operation has become a shining beacon of anti-drug cooperation in the region, and has effectively cracked down on drug crimes in the golden triangle region. This year, it has unravelled 12,000 drug crime cases and also uncovered drug manufacturing cases. From January to May this year, 36 clandestine laboratories were dismantled and 291 suspects were arrested. We are actively combating online drug trafficking, including with technical assistance programmes and greater inline monitoring and control and harmonised responses nationwide to free the cyberspace from drugs. For the control of new psychoactive substances, the threat is growing every day – making law enforcement responses imperative. This March and July, China added carfentanyl and other substances under control – bringing our total NPS under control to 138. China attached great importance to cooperation channels with the Philippines, USA and Russia. And we are achieving tangible results on heroin production.

Canada: Canada supports the UNGASS outcome document, and want to brief the Commission on the ongoing opiate crisis in Canada and the supply reduction measures we have taken. Around 8 people per day are dying in Canada from opiate use. Much of the risk stems from highly toxic, illicitly produced opioids. To address this, the Government passed a law to address critical gaps – for example, enabling customs to open up all packages regardless of weight if there is reasonable suspicion. We also passed new legislation on machines used for illicit drug production, such as pill presses. Every ‘encapsulator’ imported into Canada must now be registered. There are also new powers to the Ministry of Health to quickly schedule new substances, pending a fuller investigation when there is sufficient threat to health. We are committed to this as part of our effective and compassionate response. We are committed to address our opioid crisis with international partners, in line with the UNGASS outcome document.

Guatemala: We guarantee the security of our citizens, which includes combatting the supply and trafficking of drugs. It is difficult to explain why the costs in countries such as ours are greater than in consumer countries. It is important to invest by thinking of prevention – authorities are trying to weaken criminal groups, focused on the storage of crops and the trade in precursors. Bearing in mind the need to work in coherence, we are establishing an Inter-Ministerial Task Force that will prioritise border areas to dismantle and eradicate criminal activities. Nationally, we have a body that comprises different agencies to prevent maritime vessels being used in illicit activities. Sowing illicit crops takes place in some border areas, where we see the vulnerability of populations. The Government is working to promote licit alternatives – so the issue of security goes hand-in-hand with that of development. We are also working to reduce money laundering and the trafficking of firearms. Weapons fuel drug traffickers and violence. Finally, everything that has been approved in the UNGASS outcome document should be linked to health, and technical cooperation and assistance is essential. This is not a problem only for developing countries or developed countries – what we need is coordination on activities that are of benefit of all.

UNODC – Organised Crime Branch: I will overview CRIMJUST, one of our programmes [displayed short video explaining the programme]. We are working with two blocks of countries – one in Africa, and one in Latin America and the Caribbean. The project started around 15 months ago. We have implemented 44 capacity-building activities – mainly with prosecutors and law enforcement officers, and also with civil society organisations (led by Transparency International). With support from the member states, around 55 tonnes of drugs have been seized and 20 production laboratories have been dismantled. Comparing August 2016 with July 2017 – there have been 158% more cases utilising Interpol. We have around 40 ongoing criminal investigations ongoing. I want to acknowledge the support of the 13 member states who are working as part of this project, and for ensuring the national ownership of actions – and also I want to acknowledge the funding from the European Union. We will continue to connect people on key cases, to focus on investigations and prosecutions, and to build synergies with other projects and programmes. We are a demand-driven project, so it is also up to the member states to guide our actions and we tailor our responses accordingly.

Comment: Mexico: The most recent law enforcement workshop was held in Mexico City, and it is very possible that we will broaden the project in Mexico and across the region. We see a clear linkage between drug trafficking and many other forms of organised crime.

Comment: European Commission: The cocaine programme works across the cocaine route, and this is just one part of that. We have other new projects underway too.

Russia: One of the main drug threats facing Russia continues to be international drug trafficking routes, including those originating in Afghanistan. In the last year, we have seized heroin and poppy straw and we know that the routes remain largely unchanged. Most arrive via the ‘Northern Route’ and we are extremely concerned by the increased area of poppy cultivation as documented by UNODC, as well as increased crop yields. This has the potential to exacerbate the situation in Central Asia. We also notice increased activity along the Balkan Route, and our programmes include addressing the economic basis of criminal activity. Across the world, we confiscate just a small portion of the assets from the drug trade. In 2016, we registered 272 offences involving drug proceeds and money laundering in Russia, with a total value exceeding 1.7 billion Russian Rubles. Proceeds are being moved into third countries, known as financial centres, and then moved onto places of investment. It is important to mention one of the channels used for this process – including the creation of political instability in countries. We are primed to step-up our actions on this issue, and want to exchange views and practices on electronic payment systems and criminal uses of cryptocurrencies and dark net fora. We are particularly concerned with the emergence of NPS, and we expect an appearance of around 500 new substances on the market. Drug criminals are also using improved IT resources – super computers, closed communications systems, drones and submarines – and this is not an exhaustive list. This requires close consideration by this Commission and by UNODC.

United Kingdom: We support the Estonian statement on behalf of the EU. Drug trafficking poses a significant threat to security. The best way to tackle this threat is to disrupt the international trade and supply. The UK is committed to spending 1.9 million on cyber security and are creating a dedicated unit to tackle the use of the dark net. We lead on joint operations against cyber criminal operations. Last year, one of the most renowned online criminals was arrested in an international operation tackling venders on ‘Silk Road 2’, and investigations showed extensive online sales. We will continue our capacity building on border checks etc. We are committed to supply reduction as part of a balanced approach, while also driving the vulnerabilities which drive, enable and perpetuate organised crime.

Cyprus: We align with the Estonian statement on behalf of the EU. Our national drugs and alcohol strategy has a supply reduction pillar – focused on reducing criminal activities, the use of precursors and NPS, preventing the use of illicit proceeds, and enhanced international cooperation. We work with EUROPOL and INTERPOL. We have recorded increased seizures of cocaine, cannabis and NPS. We are concerned with the emergence of NPS and the use of the internet for drug supply. Cyprus participated for the first time in activities supporting the European Pact. The Cyprus Anti-Drugs Council is promoting cooperation between parties (police, customs, postal companies, etc), and also between public health and criminal justice agencies to promote the use of alternatives to incarceration for offences of an appropriate nature – particularly young people arrested for the first time. Young people are given the opportunity for brief interventions or treatment, depending on their needs. This is considered a major step forward.

Pakistan: We express our disappointment that UNODC have not shown care in the presentation of the container programme – regarding the debated status of certain states, based on previous international resolutions in this topic (lists them all). We expect that UNODC will use due care and not display incorrect maps of Pakistan.

Supply reduction is a vital pillar of the comprehensive approach in the UNGASS outcome document. We remain of the firm view that supply reduction efforts must continue to be towards the 2009 Political Declaration goals to eliminate or significantly reduce the trade of drugs. We have serious concerns over the recent trends reported by UNODC on the increased production and trafficking of drugs. It is most efficient to promote law enforcement close to the source. Pakistan is one of the most affected transit states. Our law enforcement efforts in this area continue to yield impressive results, working with other countries – including seizing 1867 kg of hashish, and 40 tonnes of illicit drugs in total across 155 successful operations in recent years. Pakistan has a dedicated narcotics control force with thousands of officers, and I am pleased to note their conviction rate of 88-96%. Pakistan introduced its first stand-alone money laundering law in 2007, followed by subsequent legal instruments in 2009 and 2010. For the purpose of promoting judicial cooperation, resolution 60/2 sheds light on the plight of transit states such as Pakistan. Efforts should be enhanced to tackle the challenges faced by such states – including in the area of mutual legal assistance, and on the prosecution of financial crimes. I want to emphasise the importance of regional and sub-regional cooperation.

Response from UNODC: I can reassure that I have taken note of the comments, and these will be brought to the attention of colleagues.

UNODC – Organised Crime Branch (Global Firearms Programme): Illicit drugs trafficking and illicit arms trafficking go hand-in-hand, but there are distinctions. Most illicit firearms are produced legally, and diverted into the criminal market – unlike drugs which most commonly come from an illegal production line. Regulations are the key for both: the two phenomena are not too far away. Both drugs and arms are often trafficked by the same criminal networks, using the same routes, and even the same cargos. Both can also be used as currency along the way. UNGASS included several key recommendations in this regard – on the use of multidisciplinary approaches, enhancing operational cooperation on criminal networks, and on coordinated border management strategies. Target 16.4 of the SDGs includes a specific goal to reduce illicit financial and arms flows and combat organised crime – an important acknowledgement on how organised crime affects development. Drugs may not be specifically mentioned here, but it is still relevant. UNODC’s Global Firearms Programme takes a broad approach – including activities focused on strengthening national legislation, providing technical support, building capacity, building a community of practitioners, and monitoring illicit arms flows. Exploring the linkages between drugs and arms trafficking, and improving the capacity of officers to tackle this, remains very important. We support international cooperation and the sharing of best practices – facilitating exchanges. In many cases, investigations are carried out for a crime in which arms are involved – but no further investigations them focus on the arms themselves, or where they came from. This allows arms trafficking to continue. We aim to create a change in paradigm where prosecutors explore the arms trafficking cases too as part of a wholistic approach. Our monitoring work includes the SDG target mentioned earlier, but also establishing the links between arms trafficking and other types of crime. We hope to roll this out as an annual exercise starting in 2018.

Colombia: To quote the Colombian President: The world has been at war against drugs for 40 years, and the results are unsatisfactory. The world must be in deep thought on how to tackle this task. The social dynamic of supply reduction. The UNGASS outcome document underscores the need to monitor trends and routes of drug trafficking. We want to see the combatting of international commerce in drug trafficking – such as precursor chemicals. The document also invites the international community to make headway in tacking money laundering, and the importance adopting measures to address the link between drugs and corruption. These matters must be part of national strategies. The Colombian President has also said that where demand exists, so will supply. It is utopian to suggest otherwise. The illicit cultivation of poppy, coca bush has continued to increase, and must be addressed in a balanced way. Supply reduction measures adopted must respect human rights and other international law. Colombia regrets the ongoing use of the death penalty. To improve activities against drug supply, the call for better indicators is still relevant on drug production, trafficking and money laundering flows. Another objective is to improve efficiency of law enforcement responses. An update of the UNODC assessment on money laundering would be relevant. This is not about total elimination at the cost of impoverishing communities, which remains an impossible goal. It is about establishing processes to overcome the vicious cycle of drugs and connect people to the licit economy. Our control strategy pertaining to crops, and forced eradication of these crops, our forced eradication strategy has four operational centres to help areas where around 91 percent of illicit crops in the country are grown. We are also seeking to enhance arrangements for substitutions, working with regional cooperation bodies. Our armed forces have identified and closed around 4,900 infrastructures used in drug production in 2016 – one of several significant results achieved to reduce the availability of cocaine. Studies have described new cocaine routes.

Portugal: Portugal’s current national plan on addictive behaviours, has a supply reduction dimension and objective to reduce the availability of drugs and NPS through prevention and dismantling of networks involved in drug supply, and border management. Portugal is not only a final destination for drugs, but also a transit country for the rest of Europe. Cocaine and cannabis have greater importance at the wholesale drug market level. In 2016, 219 cannabis plantations were detected and dismantled. Currently, there is no evidence that other illicit drugs are produced in our country. Our approach seems to be the most effective to tackle a problem that cannot be solved by any one country. We are a part to all relevant international conventions. At the national level, we have been decisively implementing actions against money laundering, including creating the necessary legal mechanisms. We work closely with INTERPOL and the World Customs Organisation to bar the entry of illicit drugs into the European Union. We also support a variety of international projects and programmes to fight organised crime. Cooperation and intelligence sharing are paramount. The Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre – Narcotics (MAOC-N) has been established in Lisbon, with support from the EU, to address trafficking over the Atlantic Ocean by air and sea. There have been 10 major cocaine seizures and 3 cannabis seizures. International cooperation is a cornerstone, and we actively support Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa. In a nutshell, international cooperation, information sharing and collaborations work and are part if the UNGASS outcome document recommendations.

USA: The UNGASS stresses the need to combat the illicit cultivation and trade of drugs. The USA believes we must remain as vigilant as ever to reduce supply – exchanging information and best practices and dismantle organised groups. This includes all of those at all stages of the drug trade – including those who traffic precursors and those who launder illicit funds. In terms of international cooperation, we commend the work of INCB as we accelerate the rate at which we add new NPS to the list of scheduled substances. As the next step in reducing the illicit supply of fentanyl, the USA has requested that carfentanyl be reviewed by the WHO ECCD, for a recommendation to the CND in March 2018. The USA is working with partners in the Western Hemisphere, cooperating with Honduras, El Salvador and Belize to support community engagement and law enforcement. We have a partnership with Mexico to disrupt criminal groups and to build strong and resilient communities. Our aim is to expand our border focus beyond contraband. We also collaborate with the Caribbean community. We are working with Afghanistan to build the capacity of counter-narcotics police, who have been successful in operations across the country. Court-ordered surveillance operations have increased the scope and size of drugs cases being brought forward. We know the importance of facilitating cooperation, and commend the regional and international organisations – UNODC included – in facilitating this.

Philippines: Pursuing a balanced and holistic approach, we place a great emphasis on supply reduction – one of the five pillars of our drug strategy (alongside prevention and development). We work on measures to take drugs away from the public. The Philippines has become a target market for drugs, through seaport, airports and mail services due to our porous border and expansive coastline. Authorities are exploring potential import points and to strengthen interdiction efforts, especially for amphetamine-type stimulants. This requires timely cooperation between agencies through task groups. Inter-agency interdiction units have also been established and will be operational soon. The need for international community is greater now than ever due to advances in technology. We welcome the opportunity of this CND meeting. The Philippines recent entry into the UNODC container control programme allows us opportunities to tackle this issue. The drug trade, while highly risky, is highly profitable too – and money laundering plays a crucial role as well. The current proposal in the Philippines will create strict controls on bank accounts linked to drug suppliers. From July 2016, more than 76,000 anti-drug operations conducted, resulting in thousands of arrests and large seizures. The Government understands the importance of raging this campaign against drugs in a way that does not undermine the campaign itself. Human rights enforcers ensure that actions are in line with agreed practices, consistent with the rule of law and the country’s existing obligations under human rights treaties.

UNODC – Chief, Drugs Research Section: Overview based on the latest data published in the World Drug Report. There have been a number of developments that have changed drug-related organised crime. These groups have branched out into other criminal areas – very few are specific to drugs alone, but also human trafficking, arms trafficking and counterfeit goods etc. Yet drugs remain a crucial and widespread area – between one fifth to one third of the total organised crime income comes from drugs. There have also been structural changes – towards looser, more horizontal groups rather than hierarchical ones. Technological changes have also had a role to play – mobile phones, the internet, encrypted networks, etc. Drug trafficking over the dark net remains very small, but has been growing fast (50% increase per year – despite disruptions). Ecstasy, cannabis and NPS are most common drugs online. 60-70% of drug proceeds may be laundered – and represent a major issue for some countries. We also looked at the drug problem and corruption – which are mutually reinforcing. Wealth and power of some drug trafficking organisations can exceed, by far, that of Governments – allowing them to buy protection and influence. There are opportunities for corruption at every stage of the drug market chain – from farmers to drug users. It is important to distinguish between the high-level (political) corruption and the lower-level corruption such as bribery – we know much more about the latter. On the links between drugs and terrorism: some cases are well documented (i.e. Taliban influence on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan; FARC in Colombia), with huge profits to be made from taxing production alone. But broader information is more scarce. Income from drugs is key for some groups, but represents just one of many income streams for these groups.

Algeria: The geographical situation in my country exposes us to drug trafficking, especially for cannabis resin. Our country is being swamped by this drug, especially young people – so we are investing significant resources against this scourge. The Government is raging an implacable fight against drug trafficking, and other related forms of crime – which are all exacerbating the security situation in the Sahel and beyond. Regional cooperation is therefore key, and Algeria is an initiator of AFRIPOL whose first General Assembly was held in 2017. Combating the drug problem requires training law enforcement officers and sharing intelligence and information. Exchange of information in real time. Intensified cooperation with Arab League and INTERPOL. We attach great importance to scientific investigation and forensic services.

Suriname: Suriname has committed in its multi-year development plan (2017-2021) to protect the security of individuals and societies and to cooperate with regional and international efforts to combat drug supply and violence. The Government recognised drug-related crimes and their linkages with other forms of organised crime, needs to be addressed. Suriname follows a multi-sectoral and inter-ministerial approach to these problems. The legislative framework has been modernised to comply with international commitments (such as on firearm offences and prosecutions of money laundering). The policy framework has also been modernised – building on collaborations between Government, private sector and academia. We supplied the boom boxes on party buses to also provide information. Our coastguard have tools to intercept drugs and other illegal goods on boats and fishing vessels, scanning containers and utilising body scans. We cooperate with countries of origin. The autonomy of judicial branches has been assured. This should result in more successful prosecutions. The public prosecutor’s office is also exploring a model to compensate informants in major drug trafficking cases. These actions have already led to several seizures of heroin, cocaine and tablets. A youth programme called ‘Carry You’ is being implemented providing tools to enable young people to remain in the labour market and resist the temptation to get involved with drugs.

Slovenia: We fully support the EU statement. Organised crime is deeply involved in drug production and smuggling, and make a lot of money. Only repressive activities are not enough. We support a multi-faceted approach based on specific data and best practice. We have to offer people treatment in prisons and out of prisons to give people the option of a life without crime and drugs. Online markets are a big challenge, especially for NPS. How to manage this problem is still not clear – we need more research and information. In some countries, you can smoke cannabis on the street, in others you can be imprisoned. This is not a time for a war against drugs, it is time for cooperation. Drug supply reduction is one part of the activities we need to be successful. Addiction is a serious, chronic disease and addicted people need more public health oriented approaches. Drug supply reduction approaches have an important role to play.

Netherlands: We are a production country of drugs, especially cannabis and synthetic drugs. Last year, we dismantled more than 5,000 cannabis plantations. There is a lot of money involved with this activity, and a lot of violence. We developed an integrated approach to tackle this – not just dismantling and prosecuting the perpetuators – but gathering as much information as we could about these individuals to grab the money from the criminals. We have roughly three methods to do that: financial investigations alongside the criminal investigations; the revenue service also looks into these individuals to explore their income and taxes – we call them ‘wind eaters’ if they are making a living seemingly from thin air; and a money laundering law that says that any wealth unaccounted for is deemed to come from crime. If you cannot explain where the money came from, it will be taken from you. This has been very helpful, especially in the south of the Netherlands where this model is used for drugs crime and other kinds of crime: we took 100 million Euros from criminals last year alone. We are not there yet – crime does still pay, but it does really hurt when you grab them in their wallet.

Tanzania: CND, INCB and UNODC have all helped us to shape how we do things back home. We are tackling the drug problem through three pillars – supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction. A few years back, it was hard for us to consider the approaches of harm reduction such as needle and syringe exchanges and sending people to rehabilitation instead of incarceration. The discussions in fora like this have helped us a lot. We are revising our drug policy now back home, and have increased the number of stakeholders who are taking part in this process. It used to be the law enforcement agency developing this policy alone, and it used to be war on drugs and nothing else. Now this has changed. We have submitted the national law for amendments to the ways in which we tackle the drug problem and how we tackle other organised crimes. We align with the statement from Nigeria, and are conducting our activities in the prescribed manner. We really appreciate the effort you are giving in advising our state. We cannot win this war alone, and we align ourselves with international and operational cooperation.

Morocco: We have adopted a multi-dimensional strategy targeting supply and demand of drugs, acknowledging the need for an international and multilateral approach. No country can address the world drug problem alone. Our ambitious policy includes actions at border posts, dismantling criminal groups, special investigative techniques, and controlled deliveries. We are confronted by the world drug problem on a constant basis. We want to draw attention to the worsening security situation in Africa, which calls for greater cooperation and support. These factors create a fertile ground for international crime and terrorism. Morocco are carrying our regular seizures of drugs from terrorist and smuggling groups. We are also swamped by psychotropic substances, regularly seized by police and border guards. This is a significant threat to our young people. We supervise our land, air and sea borders – we have put in place 11,000 specialist agents for this. The drugs problem is not confined to cultivation, but importation too. We seized 2.5 tonnes of raw cocaine last year, which led to the disbanding of a large criminal group. We believe that alternative development is crucial as part of a supply reduction approach. The actions implemented by UNODC in 2016 have allowed us to reduce the area under drug cultivation by 65%. We advocate for responsible, operational cooperation.

Venezuela: We fight against drugs and take measures to seize the capital, and the UNGASS outcome document is aligned with our national policy. We are dedicating significant resources to reduce crime and violence. It is therefore essential to have knowledge of the social and economic factors. We tackle the diversion of drugs and chemical precursors. We monitor national airspace, and are working on the development of a maritime project too. We seek to suppress trafficking by land and also to prevent the emergence of crop production under the so-called balloon effect. We adopted the standards of pertinent international instruments. We undertake a national risk assessment in this field in order to prioritise actions. Our comprehensive policy to protect the security of all citizens defines eight axes for implementation – one of which concerns drugs.

Iran: We have taken action to boost multilateral cooperation, including through the Paris Pact, and initiatives around the Caspian Sea, etc. But the need for even more international cooperation is felt more than ever. We see a potential rise in the production of opiates in the current year – which means we will face more cases of drug-related crimes and sustain even greater economic losses. The continued diversion of precursors and the changing of supply routes. The ways to tackle cartels and mafias in countries of destinations must also be taken into consideration in the fight against money laundering. At the domestic level, we have adopted a balanced strategy for ceaseless efforts – including blocking of borders, installing advanced surveillance equipment at crossing points, and monitoring and cutting off financial flows from criminal proceeds. 682 tonnes of drugs seized in 2016 – a nine percent increase from 2015. In 2017, law enforcement 1,328 operations and dismantled 1,316 drug trafficking networks. 114 drug manufacturing workshops were destroyed and arms seized. Unfortunately, several members of our law enforcement agency were martyred in these interventions.

Concluding Remarks from the Panel:

Nigeria: We should not be ashamed to say that this is a war. This gives it the seriousness that it deserves. Most nations are agreed that the way forward is put out by UNODC.

Malaysia: We can see from the interventions how hard we are fighting against the supply reduction. We need to continue to work closely to fight this together.

Estonia: Implementing tools such as capacity building were stressed throughout the day, which clearly shows we share the same understanding and are facing this challenge together. The UNGASS outcome document is our guideline, and we are supported by UNODC and CND. It is not possible to face this problem only from the supply reduction side, so we need cooperation with other sectors, health care, etc. We need to send out the message that crime does not pay. Today, we have reaffirmed our commitment to the UNGASS outcome document and its operational recommendations.

Turkey: We need stronger cooperation to tackle criminal groups, and reaffirm Turkey’s commitment to the UNGASS outcome document.

European Commission: We are all facing the same problems, and have identified an awful lot of problems that we face together. We have the document to work on now, through the UNGASS, and we also have tools we can use to do this.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: It is a shame that the NGO representative on the panel was not able to come here, and we only have the one video submitted. I ask civil society to be more committed to participation in these debates. In the last few sessions, we have had some really interesting interventions in previous sessions, and I know many of them are following this on the web-cast – so this is an appeal for increased participation.

Corina Giacomello – EQUIS Justicia para las Mujeres A.C., Mexico:

For more information on the thematic discussions, visit the UNODC website for the post-UNGASS follow-up process.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: I encourage the same level of active participation as we had yesterday, which was a good discussion. Please do ask questions of the panellists. On the panel today, we have the Colombian Ambassador, Angela Mae from UNODC, Gilles Fortes from WHO, Paul Griffiths from EMCDDA, and an NGO representative from the Golden Colombia Initiative.

Angela Mae, UNODC: Cross- cutting issues of data, analysis and information, and what we can do as CND to improve what we have today. We need quality data to monitor, including the 2009 targets to eliminate or reduce measurably five targets. Some things we can measure, but some we can’t. The SDGs have given us a solid indicator framework. You cannot improve what you cannot measure. Target 3.5 is the most relevant for us here, and these have already been approved by ECOSOC and so are a recognised international gold standard, and are a call for better information.

So what do we know? At the national level, some countries have better information than others to understand the threats and emerging threats. We know that we have healthy drug markets, which are increasing and producing unhealthy consequences. These markets are increasingly complex and are being changed by technology. Prevention and treatment practices can hardly keep up with these challenges. A decade ago, the profile of drug users was less varied. Drug markets are also becoming more linked with other threats and markets such as terrorism and organised crime. And we also know that corruption is a facilitator of drug markets. The World Drug Report finds an increase in cocaine production, and even more recent results from Colombia suggest this is an even greater expansion. For opioids too, we are in an expansion phase. The same for markets for synthetic drugs and NPS – based on data from seizures.

Knowledge gaps include knowing who is most at need for prevention and treatment programmes. The data we have are biased towards developed countries, as these countries have the capacity to produce data. We are missing data from large countries in Asia and Africa. Plus we do not know enough about specific population groups – youth, the elderly, women, migrants. We need to know more about where all of the opium from Afghanistan is going, as most of the opiates in North America are not from this market. The lack of information on drugs being used makes treatment ineffective – most services are geared up to tackle heroin use, but new approaches may be needed for other groups and drugs. We need to know what is being used, and where. Also, where does the drug money go? Not just the routes and geographical destinations, but who are the stakeholders  – banks, buildings, etc? What are the drivers of illicit cultivation? We need to move forward together, as drug traffickers do not wait until we get our data in place. The basic data needs must not be forgotten either – these must remain.

Concretely, what can we do? We can look at the international data collection exercises and make them better through consolidation and innovation – learning from the gaps that we have and ensuring that we keep up with modern drug markets, dynamics and impacts. We can launch a new capacity building programme for member states on data collection – again looking at consolidation and innovation. You do not need to re-invent history, we can promote more effective and more affordable options such as the waste-water analysis method. UNODC already announced a new initiative on data collection, but the response was timid. We can learn from this and better understand the needs and commitments of member states, and can aim to launch this to improve drug information systems.

CND Chair, Norway: This discussion is key to the follow-up from CND Resolution 60/1. There are two key areas on how we can get better data coverage, and the element of moving together is the key. We must grasp the totality of the documents we have in front of us. We are now ready to move with some expert consultations, which will take place from the 29th to 31st January next year. They will be inclusive, covering different regions (invitations will go to all countries), and will address the different segments of all of our documents. Something will be coming from the Secretariat shortly and, with the help of some donor countries, we also have some financing to support participation to ensure a good geographical balance.

 Comment from Pakistan: The importance of data collection and research cannot be over-emphasised. We need to invest more in research to assist us in tackling this complex challenge and improve our interventions. Whenever we get feedback from national authorities, there is an increasing desire at the national level to improve data collection – but there are also always capacity restraints. I would like to share my expectation for the UNODC capacity building programme, that attention is paid to most-affected transit states such as Pakistan. For the January meeting, we look forward to participate, but when we engage in a discussion on how to strengthen data collection we must not forget the need to also improve the response rate to the existing data collection tool (ARQs), which also needs to be kept in perspective.

 Question from Russia: Can you provide more information on what we know about the internal drivers of illicit cultivation?

 UNODC Response: The results of the survey we have done will be available in November. Internal drivers include insecurity, such as in Afghanistan, as well as drivers related to the rural nature of communities – the lack of infrastructure, market access, employment opportunities and other rural dynamics which depend on region by region. In the South of Afghanistan, with well irrigated land, the issue is more about insecurity. In the North, it is more about rural inequalities.

Colombia: Video from the Deputy Minister: Soon to be available on the CND website.

Julie Laroche, Associate Director of Drug Science and Surveillance, Health Canada: Canada’s challenges with regards to NPS include their rapid appearance and disappearance, and the absence of studies on longer-term harms and consequences, the use of the internet to promote supply, and the variations between what is advertised as the active ingredient and what is really in the product. Looking at police data from 2010 to 2016, you can see a lot of changes over time between different substances being seized. This includes the increasing number of fentanyl analogues appearing in analysis. The use of NPS, “legal highs” and research chemicals poses a major threat to health in Canada. So we initiated a pilot project taking a user-centred approach to generate information on the use of NPS in Canada, using a survey launched in October 2017. This will provide one more line of evidence. It also allows for the delivery of warnings about what kinds of substances people can expect to come across.

In terms of synthetic opioids in Canada, we have fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, with regional differences in their source (patch diversion versus illicit production). U-47700 is another opioid of interest, responsible for three non-fatal overdoses in 2016, and detected in at least 254 law enforcement exhibits. Canada has drugs legislation to protect public health and public safety, and this groups substances into one of eight schedules – the first four of which are controlled. The scheduling approach could be very narrowly tied to a specific substance, or very broadly covering an entire category of substances. In Canada, substances are listed by substance itself, by compounds or by chemical groups. We consider the chemical and pharmacological similarity to substances already scheduled. We also consider licit uses and value – commercial etc – as well as the risks to public health and safety. In its new approach, Canada has scheduled multiple NPS under our national law – several have been scheduled by compounds or classes of schedule. Last December, the Minister of Health announced a new drugs strategy, which restores harm reduction as a key pillar, and permitting a new temporary scheduling authority. This new authority enables us to temporarily schedule substances for one year, with possible extension for another year, if there is enough evidence of a threat to public health and safety, and if it is being imported or produced for no legitimate purpose.

In terms of the UNGASS outcome document Chapter 5, we are meeting many of the recommendations made. We schedule amphetamine-type stimulants as a chemical group under Schedule 1 (the strictest Schedule). We are using innovative online survey methods, and our new drug strategy reflects the innovation that is encouraged – taking a user approach to increase knowledge, developing a national early-warning system, and looking at class and analogue approaches to scheduling where possible.

Question from India: You mention that, under particular brand names, different chemical compositions may be found. Does this mean that fake products are being made?

Response from Canada: I meant that, on the illicit market, certain brands and product names are used – but the composition of these products will vary markedly.

Question from Russia: To what extent has the problem being faced in Canada been brought about by prescription practices for opioids? Also, we have seen that people who use synthetic drugs go on to use traditional drugs such as heroin – to what extent do you see this in Canada?

Response from Canada: On prescription drug abuse, yes this continues to be an issue and we are still trying to work out how to tackle this. In terms of the shift from synthetic drugs, this is a phenomenon we have heard of but we still have significant data gaps.

Question from Argentina: Regarding the temporary legislation, for how long can this be extended and what are the criteria to put a substance on this list? Can the scheduling of a substance be expedited?

Response from Canada: The initial period is one year, while a more thorough analysis is conducted. When adding to Schedule 5 – our temporary schedule – it is because we believe there is a risk to public health and safety, and being imported and distributed with no legitimate purpose.

Question from EU: Is the online survey targeted at professionals or users?

Response from Canada: The survey is targeted at users, using their own forums to get their experiences.

INCB Secretariat: Chapter 5 of the UNGASS outcome document includes many recommendations related to NPS, precursors and monitoring – relevant to the mandate and role of INCB. The current situation continues to change. Diversion is now most commonly from domestic distribution channels, the systems that monitor and prevent diversion at the international level seem to be working well and need to be continued. We have also seen the emergence of “designer” precursors that are made on demand, and have only a use in the manufacturing of NPS. We have also seen a big increase in the sophistication of this market – we are today talking about a technical know-how that was not there before. Before, we were talking about makeshift laboratories and garages – but now we are talking about manufacturing at the industrial level, both for NPS and precursors. This is why it is an evolving reality.

INCB supports governments in three made areas. We provide platforms at the intersection of licit and illicit transactions – such as the PEN online system, the PICS and IONICS. These are embedded in various projects and initiatives. It is important to share information, even about who approached an industry to try and procure these substances. We also provide a truly prevention tool and guidelines on cooperation with industry and domestic controls. There have been a series of meetings on industry cooperation, and plans to twin authorities together to strengthen systems. There is also an INCB learning project with trainings etc that include NPS and precursors, and also team up with UNODC on trainings and risk assessments. We also have a role in awareness raising and information sharing. In our reports, we continue to make recommendations and share the data that we have – including through a series of thematic chapters since 2011. Our role is not just monitoring illicit trade, but also in the overlap with licit trade.

Question from Germany: Our recent resolution on this issue also promoted the pre-export notifications system. Is this being used regularly by member states?

Response from INCB: It is a brief period since that resolution, but the PEN online system is used on a daily basis – but it is only for substances that are under international control. 24 substances (26 from tomorrow, as two more come under international control). But the seizure has already happened, and we need to learn from it to prevent something like it happening in the future. This is what we need to work on.

Question from the Netherlands: NPS by definition are not scheduled, and technically are legal, so how does this marry with the mandate of the INCB?

Response from INCB: There have been resolutions on this, and it is a small segment of the work we do – looking at the evidence for non-scheduled chemicals – and we needed a mechanism to address that element. But now we are talking about NPS too, this mechanism has proven to be effective, so it was extended under IONICS to look at NPS as well. This was done in response to certain resolutions. It is only the cooperation side of it, not the toxicology side which UNODC works on. There was already a global focal point network established, so it made sense to use this.

Comment from the EU: We are committed members of the INCB task force on NPS, and they should be commended for cooperating on this important work.

Dr Gilles Fortes, WHO (via video conference): One important area of our work is the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD), which meets annually to make recommendations to the CND on the scheduling of substances. We have worked to strengthen the work of this committee, based on the 1961 and 1971 Conventions and also strengthened by the UNGASS outcome document and several recent resolutions from CND. We look at the risks to health from a substance, the risk of abuse, but also the therapeutic use of substances. It is a question of balance. We have worked to strengthen the evidence base and information upon which the ECDD can operate and issue recommendations. We look at whether substances are convertible into substances that are already scheduled, whether they may cause abuse and dependence, and the scale of the harm they might be creating. Our recommendations are based on this. The next meeting takes place on the week of 6th November. In the last three years, around 30 NPS have been reviewed. In 2018, there will be two ECDD meetings – in May on the pre-review of cannabis, and in November for any other substances prioritised by the ECDD. We have to prioritise as there are a high number of NPS on the market – our role is not to review them all, but to do a rigorous prioritisation to ensure that the ones assessed by ECDD are the most prevalence and the most harmful. This prioritisation is done with member states, EMCDDA and UNODC and others. We also work closely with more countries to use unpublished country-level data which has not been published in scientific journals. All of this information is extremely valuable. Next month, we will evaluate 12 new substances and 4 others – including a number of fentanyl analogues and some new stimulants and cannabinoids.

We have also embarked on a surveillance system based on CND resolution 59/8, as a compliment to the work of the ECDD. This means that communications of harms and risks can be done more rapidly, in between ECDD meetings. This system does not require the same level of data that a full ECDD review requires, so that we can react quickly. It is similar to existing mechanisms that we have for pharmaceutical medicines and counterfeit medicines. The role of WHO will be to carry out an analysis of the data uploaded by member states. The ECDD will then decide if the substance should be placed on the surveillance list, and whether or not a public health alert needs to be issued. The benefits of this is having a more proactive system and a more rapid response, and to raise awareness of potential risks – particularly countries which are not equipped to detect NPS themselves. We do need additional resources to do this work, in particular to strengthen the capacity at national level to collect data on NPS, and to maintain the database and issue the alerts.

Paul Griffiths, EMCDDA (Representing the EU): Our current EU analysis shows increases in availability and potency of most drugs – we now see a more joined-up and technologically advanced drug market. This is a challenge to our current response models, and we need to keep pace with these challenges. If we look at current monitoring capacity and tools globally, they are often ill configured to do this. For stimulants, we see common elements – increased production and importation of cocaine, greater chemical sophistication in extraction for cocaine and MDMA, greater product diversification, increase use of postal services and the internet, larger production runs – and we have to conclude that our surveillance capacity is too slow, too narrow and not matched to the needs. We need to look more at online activities, toxicology and forensic data, production trends, etc.

Technology has changed all aspects of the modern world, so it is no surprise it has affected drug markets. EMCDDA’s newest analysis on crypto-markets will be available in November, looking at the use of cryptocurrencies and other issues in this highly dynamic area. In Europe, we have had an early warning system in place for several years. We have seen a drop in new detections in 2016 (66 new substances) compared to 2014 and 2015. This suggests that some of our interventions are beginning to ‘bite’ in this area and reducing the incentives. We have also got a bit better in detecting these sorts of things, but also a shift towards more use amongst high-risk groups: homeless, prisoners. 32 new uncontrolled opioids have been reported to the early warning system since 2009 – 60% of these in the last 18 months. We have also seen outbreaks of deaths linked to these drugs. Fentanyl analogues are a growing challenge, and are a major concern in North America and a growing concern in the EU. They include fake medicines, or appearing as cocaine and analgesic drugs. They are potent, which in illicit trade makes it harder to control doses when being mixed or cut, and an increased risk of accidental exposure, and can make it harder to detect if the doses are smaller (small volume packages, etc). The drug market is increasingly connected and sophisticated and we need to match this in our responses, with information that is fit-for-purpose. This needs data collection that is low-cost and matches the needs. High-potency opioids are a valuable commodity for organised criminal groups.

Question from Russia: If precursors for the manufacturing of fentanyl within the EU are coming from industrial sources – is this within the EU or outside of the EU.

Response from EMCDDA: Most are coming from suppliers not based in the EU, although we do see some secondary production within the EU as well so it is a complex situation.

Question from Turkey: For online sales, do you have any specific statistics on the balance between online and traditional sales.

Response from EMCDDA: We have worked with EUROPOL to look at this, but I am not at liberty to release these estimates now as they will be released in November. The share of the online market remains small, but is growing quickly and has potential to continue to grow and become harder to monitor in the future.

Question from the UK: On synthetic opioids, these are easy to conceal by their nature – does this mean we need to look as an international community on how we do surveillance of these?

Response from EMCDDA: This an important point to realise. At the moment, the seizures are low in total size, but can be very high in terms of the numbers of doses on the street. We need to report on these substance accurately and on potency so that we can track this better. There are many future challenges we will face in this area.

Question from Canada: Do you see potential for these high-potency, low-volume drugs to take the place of traditional markets – are cocaine and heroin on their way out?

Response from EMCDDA: No, we are seeing a buoyant cocaine market, for example. We do need to be conscious of the experiences of North America, where these substances account for the largest share of drug-related deaths. But they do present advantages to organised criminal groups in terms of the logistics of the market, so we may see them taking a more significant role in the future.

Question from Slovenia: The EU surveillance systems are high-quality, but do we need to upgrade them and in what directions should we do this?

Response from EMCDDA: We are lucky in the EU, but we are still challenged by the pace of change in this area. We have created a reporting system configured to the problems of the past, and we need to make sure we can configure it to the problems of the future. Methods such as waste water analysis have a role to play, as does forensic data – in addition to our traditional tools. This needs to be done regionally and internationally.

Comment from International Association of Addiction Medicines: I want to reflect on the pessimism on this topic, but to reflect on the concerns among patients and users themselves – they can help to share and gather information. These patients are going to have to be part of the solution to this.

Response from EMCDDA: We do need to innovate and use the modern tools and techniques, and speak to drug users, to find out how to respond. This is also important for harm reduction and treatment purposes.

Øystein Schjetne, Golden Colombia Foundation (Civil Society): First of all, thank you for this opportunity to share the reality, in which we work, of excluded populations along the drug trafficking routes in Latin America. My intervention will focus on item 10 of the fifth chapter of the UNGASS outcome document: “to better understand the extent of adverse impacts […] of drug trafficking in small quantities in order to develop […] effective responses to counter micro trafficking;”

Last week when I got the message that I had been selected for this intervention, I found myself in a little village of coffee growers up in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta on Colombia’s northern coast, the world’s highest coastal mountain. This is where the Colombian drug history started. In the 1960s this region lived the bonanza marimbera – the marijuana bonanza that deforested 12% of this marvellous national park. A couple of decades later, the coca bush came to replace the marijuana plants, accompanied by horrific violence. But today the region is free from illicit crops and armed groups, and filled with happy farmers providing fruits for the local markets and coffee for the world market. They wanted no more of the problems the drug industry brought them.

An old man in the village has told me a story from those first years of marijuana crops: At night a caravan of up to 1000 mules would descend from the highlands to one of the ports at the foot of the mountain. Heading the caravan was the farmers’ leader, carrying a shotgun, and two bags over his shoulders filled with pesos bills to make sure they reached their destination. This was the early version of “plomo o plata”: led or silver. Today, the drug traffickers apply the same principle to reach the shores and frontiers of Colombia safely with their merchandise. But with way more serious consequences, especially for the young.

Drug trafficking – both in production, transit and consumer countries – invariably results in the spill over-effect. Services are paid for in product, and the drugs end up in the local markets. Also, the drug traffickers sometimes deliberately assist in the conformation of groups of young boys, “gangs”, to distribute their drugs, the so called “micro trafficking”. The reason being, on one hand, to maximize their revenue through national markets, but also to establish a social control in societies of importance to them. It can be major cities that serve as strategic hubs, or small villages along the drug trafficking corridors. Often the demand in these countries is low and must be created or stimulated, such as giving away drugs for free in the beginning. The scene is then set for these drug-selling street-gangs to protect their territories with violence and maximize the profit from their territorial control by other crimes, such as extortion of the population and small businesses. This criminal control obviously obstructs the development these marginalized and impoverished societies need, and that is of course in the best interest of the drug traffickers – enabling them to invest in other businesses such as illegal mining and human trafficking.

This micro trafficking and gang problem constitutes one of the worst social problems on the Latin American continent today. Since 2012 the percentage of Brazilian adolescents living in the country’s major cities being murdered, has risen by more than 30%. The number of drug users has increased by almost 50% in Mexico since 2011. 43 of the world’s 50 most violent cities are in Latin America – all of them in cocaine trafficking countries. The counter measures for avoiding such a development are relatively well understood. Both the OAS report on the drug problem in the Americas and the Colombian peace accord with the FARC emphasize the importance of creating resilient communities. Through initiatives such as, to quote the Colombian peace accord, “psychosocial support, self-esteem, conflict resolution, management of free time, strengthening of the family unit, promoting a commitment to education, healthy lifestyles, development of cultural and sporting skills and recreational activities”.

However, the drug induced political corruption that is particularly prevalent along the drug trafficking routes often obstruct such public initiatives. Funds are being usurped by politicians and Functionaries, and anyhow it is not in the interest of the drug traffickers that the living conditions of the excluded population – their cannon fodder – improve. This leaves an important responsibility with the international development community to help to bring about these changes, a responsibility that in any case should be a shared one when it comes to the global drug problem. And this is the main message of our intervention: the requirements that the international donor organizations increasingly are asking in terms of specific and measurable outcomes and short-term results and sustainability, are impossible for these excluded and impoverished communities to fulfil. Their level of development is often in such a precarious state that the risks the donor organizations perceive, in relation to their own goals, are way too high. The result is that the excluded communities that are most in need of international support are not receiving it, and instead are falling prey to micro trafficking and gang violence.

We have worked in and studied communities that over many years desperately have solicited support for educational projects and social development, and not received it. The arguments for turning down the applications have typically been of a more formalistic character: such as “since there are no formal civil society organizations in the community, there is no civil society to support”. The true reason for the rejections, however, seems to be the impossibility to guarantee positive outcomes and impact from a specific intervention in communities that are so severely underdeveloped, where everything is lacking and that are under heavy pressure from drug traffickers. The world’s development policies must consider that these precarious communities being affected by drug trafficking have special needs. A broader, long term approach is needed to pull them out of the conditions that make them so attractive for criminal actors.

The little village I visited in the Sierra Nevada celebrated the Fiesta of the colonies when I was there last week. The village was founded by refugees from the Colombian civil war in the 1950s and hundreds of children and adolescents from the village and the surrounding farms filled the streets in a lively parade wearing the traditional costumes from the regions their great grandfathers had come from. The parents obviously had been busy for weeks preparing this event for their children. This social cohesion and civic life is a prerequisite for the successful alternative development this community has achieved. Let it be clear that a similar civic event is utterly – utterly – unimaginable in the impoverished rural and urban communities that are currently being taken over by gangs and micro trafficking. That is precisely why an alternative development for these young people is so hard to achieve and will take a dedicated effort. These communities need the world’s urgent attention and assistance.

The Netherlands: I want to present two practical measures we have adopted in the Netherlands, which may be of assistance. We try to pull different groups that fight drug crime – the police, prosecution, revenue services and the local communities – and we try and get all of the information we have to see how best to tackle the specific case. We call this the barrier model, making the whole line from cultivation to transportation to sale, to identify people involved – usually from the licit economy, such as real estate businesses, money lenders, notaries, administrative officers, delivery personnel, electricians, car rental firms, etc. Arresting these people and showing it in the media may discourage others from following a similar path. This is effective to do, although production remains as long as there is a demand. We are now trying to establish such a regional expertise centre in the European Union. There is a lot of information available, but if you do not pull them together you cannot make a good case to break up these groups.

I also want to speak about the dark net, which is a small but growing part of the international trade. The Netherlands is number 5 in the scale of trading on the internet, and in July 2017 the Dutch police hosted an online drug market called ‘Hansa’ – we took it over without the customers and producers knowing, and used this opportunity to monitor what was happening on there – who wanted the drugs, and who was supplying it. The original founders, in Germany, were arrested. Working with colleagues in USA, Germany, Lithuania and EUROPOL, they allowed drug sales to continue for a while and switched off the encryption. All names, transactions and passwords were monitored and noted – but the police themselves did not sell any drugs! Then they put a warning on the site and closed it down, and arrests were followed.

Video from GRULAC: Mexico – Soon to be available online

USA: NPS are a drug trafficker’s dream – they are easier to produce, to traffic and are rapidly proliferating. Yet we are scheduling them at a slow rate of 10 per year. We commend INCB and WHO for their efforts. Many NPS used in the USA are manufactured outside of the USA and can be ordered online and shipped by postal services – this makes it much harder to stop. The most common NPS are cannabinoids and synthetic opioids. These drugs are often packaged with bright colours and cartoon characters, and sometimes even supplied as lollies. We are seeing large numbers of deaths linked to this, and the data are likely underestimated as fentanyl analogues are hard to detect in post-mortem investigations. Carfentanil will be reviewed by the ECDD at their meeting in November. We hope that they will recommend in favour of greater control. It is critical that the international community shares information and cooperates to ensure better awareness of new substances, their use and trends. The USA supports global programmes as critical tools to address NPS – such as Global SMART and its early warning system – to build capacity. We must also share specific information on suspicious shipments so that they can be stopped. We support and encourage expanded use of the tools such as IONICS, and we encourage member states to support WHO’s efforts to increase the frequency of ECDD meetings to review new substances. This is one of the biggest challenges we face as the international community. None of us are invulnerable to this threat, and we can address them together with the tools provided by UNODC and INCB. It is a priority from the UNGASS outcome document, so we must continue to press forward on this enormous challenge.

Venezuela: We participate in the initiatives held by INCB and the annual reporting requirements, and work with the UNODC.

[Lunch Break]

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: We will start with interventions from UNODC and one NGO.

UNODC: When looking at the NPS situation, it is a game changer. What is different with NPS is the speed and diversity of the market and its emergence. But also, where they appear and disappear. UNGASS was very pragmatic in its five-pillar structure: early warning system (anticipate the threat and share information). You cannot intervene without detection and identification. This applies to law enforcement authorities and forensic laboratories. Research is also key. Finally, 760 substances, and counting. We are not in a position to deal with all of them at a go. On early warning systems, we received the mandate to create a global early warning system. We are 106 countries using this system, with over 1000 users. 14000 individual data points on 760 substances. This feeds into the work of the WHO-ECDD, the CND and a number of publications we produce for you. The system tells you about prevalence, persistence. But UNGASS underscored the importance of knowing which ones are actually worrisome. We are rolling out a ToxAlert system by the end of the year. It will allow CND to know which substances to worry about. Pick up issues like fentanyl. On Research, we’ve been fortunate to have a good relationship with the EMCDDA, who have been very active in providing information and sharing. We have also received a wealth of information from countries. Some of this data was presented in Chapter 4 of the World Drug Report. We also produce a Global SMART Update on fentanyl, to help you make informed decisions. Since UNGASS, we recognise that most countries are not in a position to identify NPS. With the ones we scheduled so far, very few countries can identify them. UNODC is delivering training in Latin America, Central Asia. We are doing more to get more countries involved in our capacity-building exercises: 235 laboratories from 74 countries to deal with NPS issue. Here, the problem becomes glaring. But many priority areas do not have laboratory and law enforcement support. When dealing with 750 substances, our law enforcement officers want something simple: newer technologies. UNODC is doing this actively, incl. infrared technologies. In terms of support to law enforcement: over 75 countries we’ve organised trainings at. We will continue with a lot of activities in Latin America and parts of Africa. There are outstanding issues. Early warning systems are needed to be better prepared. Identification and detection remain a big issue. Countries need capacity to identify and implement the Conventions. Also…research, research, research.

Question from European Union: On the UN interagency cooperation and coherence. The WHO just talked about a data surveillance tool and toxicology information collection, how are the projects by UNODC linked to this? Regarding statistics, we know several UN agencies collect data; how do you collaborate on this?

Response from UNODC: International cooperation and cost-effective measures are very important, and avoiding duplication. The UNODC early warning system appeared in 2013. We’ve worked with INCB, EMCDDA, etc. to get the data points we have. UNODC has a mandate to work on this. I do not have details on how WHO will go about this. In terms of moving forward and collaboration, next week we have the 4th UNODC-WHO expert consultation on NPS. It’s an opportunity to catch up on these issues and move forward.

Response from WHO: In terms of moving together. The UN Statistical Office has only provided support on standards, they do not do policy. In terms of the upcoming meeting mentioned by my colleague, it will have experts from regional organisations and national colleagues with expertise. Also with international organisations.

Chairperson of Karim Khan Afridi Foundation (Pakistan): I am a victim of drugs. I lost my only child in 2014 to the menace of drugs. To bring sense to my life, I decided to create this foundation to identify and manage emotions. KKWF is committed to breaking the taboo of serious drug problem in Pakistan and other places and initiate the dialogue. We are associated with counter-narcotics departments of Pakistan but work on our own on drug awareness. We implemented the EU Unplugged programme. We talk with parents about stress of academic performance pressure, apart from drugs. Medicines for attention are prescribed to young people starting a lifestyle of addiction. Many drugs in our society, destroying it. Prescription drugs are perceived to be less harmful and doctors overprescribe. This increases the dangers of drugs. Apps have been created to find the closest drug dealer. To aggravate this, club drugs formulas are available online. Our recommendations seek to control media and deglamourize drug use. They tell drugs are OK. We know the consequence of addiction for individuals, families and societies. All dark sides of society are influenced by drugs. Not enough efforts are about awareness and prevention. Most are about harm reduction, treatment, rehabilitation; after the harm is done. Grants for awareness programmes are basically non-existent, at least in Pakistan. Despite our best efforts, tackling this menace is increasingly difficult. Only one grant for prevention. We do not know who received it. Focusing on drug awareness we can reach the common goals of demand reduction programmes, which should cover all areas of prevention: prevent use and reducing negative health and societal consequences of drug abuse. Adolescents are a perfect target for drug dealers, which is why immediate action on prevention and awareness is important. Drug addiction is killing them morally, sociologically, psychologically and physically. Drugs are public enemy number 1. No mercy should be spared for people making money out of this tragedy.

European Union (represented by Estonia): Today we are more concerned with the emergence and spread of NPS than ever before. More than 600 substances monitored by the EU Early Warning System. Overall number of new detections was lower than previous years. Positive if sustained. Some European countries have introduced blanket bans, generic and analogs measures to counter this phenomenon. Control measures and law enforcement in China might have also contributed. Despite evidence of success, we are worried about new substances, mainly fentanyl derivatives. Overall, 25 new opioids have been detected in the European market. 9 reported for the first time in 2016. Including fentanyls. The market share of these substances is increasing. In 2016, the EMCDDA and EUROPOL launched special investigations on fentanyls. More than 50 deaths were reported, many attributed directly to these substances. The UN and Member States have adopted several new measures. Since 1997, detection, identification, develop evidence on risk and control. In the upcoming month, new legislation by the EU will cut by half the time needed to schedule a substance at the European level. From lessons in the past, we realise the successful management of NPS requires control and supply reduction, but also demand and harm reduction. The prevention of adverse harms and costs is important for the EU. We emphasise the need to increase research, health responses and related training. We welcome the adoption of Res 60/4, which requests UNODC and WHO and other relevant organisations incorporate data into the UNODC Early Warning Advisory Database. The EU and Member States acknowledge the importance to address the emerging challenges of the internet in drug related activities. The EU Drug Report identifies this issue as increasing. Finding ways to prevent and reduce drug use and offer counselling, treatment and risk and harm reduction in this setting seem a possible path to take. Internet based interventions have the potential to extend the reach and efficacy of these, especially for people who might not usually be in touch with services.

Russian Federation: We see an increase proliferation of contactless means to be involved in the drug market. Seriously compromises efforts to tackle these crimes. At the present time, the internet, particularly the darknet, is a key platform to marketing and selling drugs. Dealers are recruited, as well as users. Thematic forums offer information about where to buy drugs. Control of these is quite difficult. NPS are of particular relevance and we welcome the heightened importance given to it by the Outcome Document. NPS are a terrible threat to the global community. To confront this challenge, we need a new level of intergovernmental cooperation. The outline for this is in the Outcome Document. Time to flesh out these mechanisms to tackle this threat. We support this. Russia sees itself flooded with synthetic substances and narcotics. The most urgent challenge remains identifying new substances, getting information about them and getting a better handle of their proliferation. We have criminal prosecution for trading and dealing on derivatives and analogs of narcotics and psychotropics. We need urgent coordinate measures for NPS not to turn to the serial killer of our time.

Peru: We suggest that we start our sessions at the time signalled to make the most of the time we have. We thank the panellists this morning for the valuable information they provided. On Chapter 5, we are rolling out initial activities to implement and early warning system. Peru seeks to: identify new NPS, documenting the problem through interinstitutional reports; identifying new substances through seizures and forensic analysis; identifying manufacturing processes; understanding the chain of trafficking of NPS; responding to trafficking and crafting response on the basis of risk and consequences for the country while strengthening collaboration; measures to control; measures to prevent their abuse. We participate of the COPOLAD programme (EU-LAC) to promote key information exchange between countries of both regions, evaluate threats and exchange good practice and foster capacity building. We also participate of the SMART programme.

UNODC: At country level, we have two focuses: improve methodologies and provide guidelines and standards, evidence that is solid and agreed upon to understand how things evolve at various levels in time. If we try to identify key priorities: A) Drug demand: what is the use of illicit drugs and NPS at the country level. We try to consolidate methodologies on surveys and implement new methodologies (ex. wastewater models). B) Availability. C) Illicit financial flows. We still have gaps in reporting, which makes it difficult to understand what goes on at the global level. It is important to invest on improving methodology and data collection. (…) In terms of our global level activities, to improve data collection and processing, we have started to think how to improve our tools (create criteria and definitions, fill the gaps in data, etc.). We will have an expert consultation at the end of January, which will address this: how to support countries in producing data, and how to improve international system to collect and analyse this aspect. We will send a questionnaire to all member states to identify needs.

Question from Austria: You mention systems to estimate drug demand. Are you talking about demand in the market for illegal drugs or are there rules of thumb based on the demographics of a population to estimate the amount of drugs that could be used for medical purposes? Does this apply for precursors?

Response from UNODC: The phenomenon is always very complex. I think that there are some priorities and it’s important to know how many people and what people (age, sex, etc.) make use of certain drugs, illicit and those not yet under control. This is the basic information we need to monitor our efforts: less people using drugs. Some of the things you mention are relevant: how the market works, precursors, etc. Having a better understanding on the population in terms of what and how they are using would be good.

Response from INCB: I am not talking on the side of research, but the international precursor control is based on this, and there is information available for availability of precursor control, and our system is based on that. One country informs the importing country on expected shipment and the country can then check if the information matches what is expected. There are guidelines on the need for licit requirements. The research complements that side of activity. This is done country by country.

Pamela McColl, Real Women of Canada: I want to raise some concerns about what is happening in Canada and the fact that the pot industry has launched a new brand of cannabis products, which is very aggressive. They have export services for medical purposes outside of Canada. Given the level of abuse of cannabis, this should be of great concern to the states wishing to import cannabis. This should be looked at. The concern is that the arrival of big marijuana industry is that these companies are using internet for advertising and it’s hard to regulate. So for states that break the treaties to regulate marijuana will have a hard job regulating this. Uruguay is also importing into Canada so you see import/export of marijuana, leading to vulnerable countries in Africa and others unable to manage the import of marijuana. We’re not here to debate legalisation or prohibition, we have to control these drugs in civil societies. The drug conventions should be upheld. Canada taking legalisation in is of great concern, especially in the light of the right of the child. That’s what I wanted to say. The big concern is the pot industry. All these movements of pot come and go. But if you legitimise an industry like tobacco, it’s a lot harder to get it under control. This will dampen any efforts to public health to reduce use, they are a menace to health.

Pakistan: Chapter 5 of the UNGASS outcome document is important to address emerging challenges, including that of the opium market. All main drugs of abuse in Pakistan are opium and hashish. Law enforcement is aware of the threat of NPS too. There is a knowledge gap and capacity to respond. We need to exchange research and best practice, facilitate sharing of technology. UNODC should assist member states to develop appropriate tools to tackle NPS. There is now a curriculum on NPS in the law enforcement academy of Pakistan. The use of ATS is also on the rise among youth and in urban areas. We have seized amphetamines and methamphetamines. There are also labs for production of ATS and we have developed efforts to dismantle them. In terms of precursors and pre-precursors: we have developed a system on import/export. We are taking measures to avoid diversion. In 2016, 25 metric tons were seized. Measures to prevent diversion should be strengthened in places of production, and there should be more collaboration between importing and exporting countries. We should exchange good practices, research and capacity building. We believe that we don’t need policy paradigm shift. We need to continue implementing the international drug conventions, including recommendations to reinforce international cooperation based on the principle of shared responsibility.

Netherlands: I want to correct something the lady said on the Netherlands: the Netherlands does NOT export cannabis to other countries and have a very strictly controlled facility producing cannabis for medical reasons at the request of governments. I wanted to correct this, thank you.

Singapore: Thanks to the CND Chair, the Post-UNGASS Facilitator, the Secretariat and the panellists. The proliferation of NPS is a challenge affecting all of us. It is the source of concern for us. The large number of NPS entering the market due to the easiness to change their structure makes it hard to monitor them and fully comprehend abuse and repercussions. NPS are a danger to society as toxicity remains unknown. The EMCDDA has noted toxicity and abuse. But NPS are unknown. The strength of active chemicals is unevenly distributed, resulting in fatalities. Because of its evolving nature, it makes it difficult to control and prevent abuse. We should put in place effective legislations, build capacity to combat NPS and advance cooperation. Historically, we have carried out reviews of the substance before controlling it, but it takes time. NPS challenge this practice, with harms caused before the substances are brought under control, and other substances can come to the market to replace existing substances. We will prevent NPS from proliferating and put them under control while conducting scientific consultations. Once the consultations have been done, the substance will be brought under control. We have adopted a scientific approach based on structural similarities to ban similar substances. To date, we have listed 12 generic groups of NPS as class A drugs. One of the key challenges is how to identify and detect NPS. To be able to control NPS we must enhance our capabilities. The 2016 UNGASS outcome document calls for member states to share best practices and capacity building to counter NPS. Singapore and UNODC conducted a joint regional training programme in September 2017. It received participants from many nations to enhance knowledge of NPS, critical role of law enforcement authorities, share best practices in investigation by law enforcement, discuss national coordination, share best practices for effective coordination mechanisms. Experts in law enforcement from Singapore, USA, UNODC, Australia shared their experience with the participants. It also included visits to laboratories. NPS continue to pose a threat and the international community should come together to address this threat with support from UNODC.

Turkey: I underscore our full commitment to address challenges in the world drug problem. For 2016-2018, we focus strongly to this, through international cooperation. Our early warning system was established to identify new drugs. Generic classification was included in the law in 2015. As a result of 20 group meetings, 692 substances were included in our law. 276 of these substances were included via generic classification. We support activities conducted by INCB, UNODC and WHO on research and scheduling. But new rapid methods for scheduling should be developed to counter this fast-changing problem. The internet is also an issue. To put more effective policies in force, more technical cooperation and information sharing are needed. More research and analysis are also necessary to achieve tangible success.

UK: We support the intervention made by the representative of Estonia on behalf of the EU and would now like to make some comments in a national capacity with regards to new psychoactive substances. Significant progress has been made on tackling the emergence of new psychoactive substance in recent years, as demonstrated by the ambitious, concrete recommendations to address these substances agreed by Member States in the UNGASS Outcome Document. We would like to thank those Member States and international organisations who have helped drive forward action through the International Action Group on new psychoactive substances and we look forward to continuing to address the issues through this group.

At a national level, the UK has taken a number of steps to reduce the harms from NPS, which have created additional dangers to some of our most vulnerable groups including young people, the homeless and prisoners. The UK Psychoactive Active Substances Act 2016, has fundamentally changed the way we tackle the supply of psychoactive substances by placing generic controls on substances capable of producing a psychoactive effect.

The Act has been in force for over a year and the use of new psychoactive substances has fallen significantly. Hundreds of retailers have either closed down or are no longer selling psychoactive substances and the first offenders have been convicted.

The Act has lead to a concerted programme of action by law enforcement agencies:

• Border Force officers have been given powers to seize suspected psychoactive substances and disrupt their supply;
• Police have arrested suppliers;
• and action by the UK National Crime Agency has resulted in the removal of psychoactive substances being sold by UK based websites.

We have also developed a national Early Warning System which has facilitated the identification of NPS as part of normal police casework and ensures that domestic controls are placed on the most harmful substances.  We will continue to share information on new substances internationally, through the EMCDDA and the UNODC – and the presentations from this morning demonstrate the importance in collecting and sharing this information.

In order to reduce the demand of these harmful substances, particularly in our most vulnerable populations, we have developed resource packs on NPS for educators and are working with the homeless sector to address the misuse of NPS among the homeless population. In addition, following an extensive review, we are increasing NPS prevention and treatment provision in prisons, where we are seeing a particular issue with synthetic cannabinoids.

The UK is continuously developing its treatment responses to ensure that we have targeted responses to the emerging threats of new psychoactive substances.  In this respect, we have developed a new intelligence system to collect information about the harms caused by NPS and have established a clinical network to analyse the data coming from this to agree appropriate treatment responses.  This will be a critical tool in developing our ability to responding to emerging threats such as synthetic opioids, the dangers of which have been set out during this morning’s presentations from the EMCDDA and Canada.

We encourage Member States to continue to collect and share information and best practice on NPS, in order to enrich our understanding on the emergence, use and harms of these substances and to support forensic identification.  In this regard, we welcome the adoption of the CND resolution 60/4 on the health harms of NPS, which endorsed the ongoing work at the UNODC and the WHO to strengthen international data collection on the health harms of these substances. The ability to access health data from across the world will greatly enhance our joint response to these substances. The UK reaffirms its commitment to implement the operational recommendations in this chapter and will continue to lead work through the International Action Group on new psychoactive substances.

We would like to conclude by expressing our continued support for the UNODC Global SMART programme, the INCB and the World Health Organisation, all of which play a central role in the global response to NPS and their precursors, and ensuring international controls on the most harmful substances.

Belgium: I want to share with you recent practices in my country targeted at NPS. On NPS, on 6th September we adopted a royal decree with a new legislative framework to better address public health objectives to take on board our current health needs, including prescription of medicines. The customs police and justice system can take more effective action and will allow beginning prosecutions more effectively. A number of groups of NPS are covered by the law by their chemical structure, while others are named by name. This provides a broader legislative base to carry out seizures and prosecute offenders. We also want to highlight the importance of health. NPS poses a threat to the health of users and welcome the initiative of the UK. Our national public office for scientific planning launched a research project on ‘understanding NPS’. NPS use has increased recently. The scientific data we have on NPS, however, is limited. The scientific research just launched will address this to understand users, their needs, social and demographic profile. The project will make it possible for users to request a scientific analysis of the samples they use. We will also focus on prevention, treatment and harm reduction. An increasing number of health professionals will be involved as they are increasing coming into contact with users. This will show the kinds of approaches that are lacking and we will therefore produce recommendations.

Chloe Carpentier, UNODC: I want to address you today on research and capacity building. In recent decades the world has become more complex and interconnected, and the same has happened to the world drug problem. There is diversification in production methods, chemicals used, substances produced and sold in different markets, and diversification of drugs in more traditional areas. There is also diversification in modus operandi of traffickers, and the emergence of networks that are more resilient to law enforcement (dark net), and at the end of the market with the emergence of new markets along the trafficking route. We also see an expansion of new markets in emerging economies among middle classes. There is less relevance of national borders. We need to develop a holistic approach to understand the dynamics of the supply chain. At UNGASS, there has been mention of the need to invest in news research areas, including the SDGs, human rights, gender, but also organised crime, terrorism, illicit financial flows. The demand for research has also become more complex. There is a need to look at impacts in a more systematic way: health, governance, environment, etc.

For our drug research, we need to have an organisation under two main goals: 1- generate and disseminate information to improve data collection mechanisms, producing publications, thematic research projects, targeting specific audiences, producing actionable research in the form of professional briefs to support law enforcement and demand reduction professionals. 2- capacity building in the area of drug research: data collection, monitoring systems, strategic analysis at national and regional level (beyond data collection), and promoting exchange of knowledge. This should form the basis of a network of experts and analysts in member states to act as key experts for the production of global research.

What’s important is the links between the two goals in all their dimensions at national and international levels. We need a comprehensive global approach. But we also a mechanism to understand the complexities and new challenges to support evidence-based policies and strategies, while strengthening national capacity, to contribute to research and analysis needed at national, regional, and global level.

I want to mention the Afghan Opiate Trade Project, launched in 2008, which focused on understanding trafficking routes and patterns, as well as emerging trends. There are different reports on trafficking groups and others that are more technical. These have fed the policy debate with knowledge and analysis on trafficking routes in the region, but also in countries where trafficking has emerged as a threat. This project has conceptualised the concept of the southern routes. This project also includes capacity building, which has supported various countries in Central Asia and Afghanistan which produce their own analysis. This is an example of a programme that works.

We need to develop a similar programme on cocaine. There has been an increase in cocaine use and there are major impacts along the supply chain. There is a need to establish a monitoring of the cocaine market now, with sharing of data and knowledge that is global (not only centred in South countries), systemic (covering demand and supply dynamics) and collaborative (synergies with other programmes). We must make the most of existing structures (HONLEA) and work with other organisations like INTERPOL, EUROPOL, EMCDDA, OAS, African Union, etc. This programme will have a strong capacity building programme, supporting member states to take part in the mechanism, and is key to support drug policies in all their dimensions.

Brun Gonzalez, Colectivo Reverdecer Mexico (Civil Society): Ladies and gentlemen, my name in Brun Gonzalez, thank you for allowing us to raise the voice of people who use drugs. It is vital to expand and incorporate harm reduction strategies, concrete methodologies and develop interventions beyond HIV and the injection of opioids, that can be used to generate harm reduction. There are several substance analysis programs that provide help to prevent harm of new psychoactive substance and support evidence based decision making. Only with this type of programme we will help impede problematic situations in the global south and other nations.

Norway:  Thanks for all yesterday’s presentations in which most relevant issues where address. Nevertheless, we would like to add some points. NPS are shipped by ordinary mail, authorities need to check normal mail. In order to increase efforts, customs have established a centre for information and analysis. The centre will provide more and better results. We don’t have a shared data base as Estonia, but we could still proceed for a common goal.  Dark net is hard to investigate. We received information and intelligence from the US on a dark net server. This information led to a case, which led to the conviction of two persons on our first dark net trial.  The precedent will help with bitcoin and crypto currencies and how they should be taken in a trial. As a conclusion, prosecutors have a long way to understand the involving dark net. We also have a challenge with fentanyls. My government decided to put all fentanyls as a whole group to facilitate prosecution. A new trend in Norway is the introduction of friendly food with THC and MDMA, like caramels and jelly candies. This could reduce the age barrier for first time users.

Philippines: Addressing the drug problems is crucial for the Philippines. We have developed the anti-illegal drug strategy a multifaced drug alliance to prevent drugs. As a holistic strategy treating supply and demand reduction, firmly based on evidence but adjusted to Filipino values and social and economic context. The Dangerous Drug Act provides access to new drugs to be prosecuted. Our Law Enforcement created a special task force to ensure sea port interdiction of prosecutors. The Philippines’ drug enforcement agency regulates de acquisition of regulated drugs. One of the key challenges is the emergence of NPS affecting young through the internet and the crypto currencies. Our president emphasis the fight against drugs is an investment for the future Filipino. There is also a need to respond rapidly to new NPS; for which we ask for international collaboration.

Mexico: Mexico supports information sharing and coordination to help provide a better respond. We also support international cooperation for an example that with the Mexican Federal Police to step up with open sources and dark net. The collection and analysis of relevant data are fundamental for improving the strategy. My delegation supports the efforts of the commission to share better practices in the subject. At the same time, we most drive better cooperation with the commission of statistics for existing guidelines and develop new guidelines. We recognize the concerns regarding building national information capacities for statistics bodies.

Zara Snapp, ATS Colombia (Civil society): Colombia is at an historic moment due to the signing of the peace agreements. The Colombian government and NGOs have look for ways to implement the UNGASS document and the peace agreement. ATS is taking action on the section five of the UNGASS document, particularly on harm reduction with people who use drugs. We have implemented a survey to understand consumptions habits to include the learnings in risk prevention and harm reduction strategies. Identifying risk factors is a key part of this work. We develop policy scenarios for the incoming changing years including fair trade, public health and human rights. ATS currently runs needle exchange programme. We have identified the bazuko substance in our analysis and research as a cheap substitute for cocaine. We cannot allow recent events in Colombia, related to deaths due to forced crop substitution, to continue. This conflict does not respect fundamental rights. Without properly measures, probably regulation, this consequence cannot be avoided. Eradicate use of force and guns in this process. Until coca regulation exists, stability and peace won’t happen. Regulations is the way forward. We cannot ignore individual freedom and economic reality. Reduce the power of illegal market.

Suriname: Suriname is a young state with middle income. For decades the focus was on the countering of cocaine. Most of these efforts are concentrated in ports. The quantity of seizures have raised. NPS are a new emerging challenge. The shortage of know affects how we face the existing and new challenges. In a response to NPS, the government established a new department to focus on precursors. We also have a drug observatory and early alarm system. Over 2016 and 2017 dependence centres said coca and marijuana use increase. Ecstasy use increased just moderately. We have no evidence of NPS use. We continue to create and be one of the most safety societies in the Americas.

Slovenia: Support of the EU countries statement. NPS have surprised on the global and national level. NPS are creates in small quantities, are easy to transport and accessible to all social classes. NPS can be sold by internet and have them home delivered. NPS are growing rapidly and their effects are unknow. They are complicated to detected in blood and urine; therefore, therapy is only symptomatic. We have established an early warning system 2014. NPS are collected at dance event and analysed at the national forensic laboratory. The information and research on them and their effect are published on its website and pamphlets. Website is updated and provides information for safe consumption. We’ll soon have a new mobile laboratory to test substances on dance events. We are also preparing for an increase use of fentanyl. It seems that modern society has not find a successful approach on NPS. We need new and more successful approaches,

Uruguay: Thanks to all the panellist. Uruguay created the narcotic body to harmonize the law. We established an early warning system to detect new drugs and their chemical composition. The system allows us to analyse trends on use and trafficking. It also meets the information requirements for the international community. Uruguay believes on creating evidence based interventions that promote the responsible implementation of drug policies. Drug policies must be pinned on public health to ensure coexisting. Uruguay champions an approach based on human rights, people and community.

George Ochineg Odalo, Slum Child Foundation, Kenya (Civil Society): Our organization is targeting on the slums. In Africa obtaining health and employment is a challenge due poverty. We cannot be implement international positions while facing these gaps. In Kenya, this organization works to bring international drug policies to the grassroot level. We give the opportunity to understand the UNGASS documents and what the policy means for young people. We give and opportunity to understand in their own small language in school about drug and substance abuse and how international organization think of the grassroot.

Concluding remarks

UNODC: Thanks for the opportunity on data collection, technical assistance, and the pressing issue on the NPS. Next week we’ll meet with academic to organise a conference on NPS, the opioid crisis, synthetic cannabis, legislation and prevention treatments. Member states are welcome to attend.

VNGOC: Micro trafficking and gangs are now hitting Scandinavian countries like in Latin America. On the positive note we now have a common problem. Part of the solution will be traditional inclusion but might prove insufficient in the age of robotics. It is very likely that NGOs will have a crucial role to play.

The Netherlands: It has been a pleasure to be here. We can learn from coming here by discussing with each other our experiences. We should consider not to use the words ‘War on Drugs’ anymore. It implies using any type of arm against it. We need to remember they are still persons. Honesty, human rights and the rule of law should be our basis.

For more information on the thematic discussions, visit the UNODC website for the post-UNGASS follow-up process.

Amb. Pedro Moitinho, Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Welcomes panellists.

Jorge Ríos, Chief, Sustainable Livelihoods Unit, UNODC: I will discuss our efforts implementing the Action Plan and the UNGASS. When reading both, it is clear that MS drafted them both understanding the Conventions are their cornerstone. Recap of alternative development history. Originally seen by the international community as a net crop reduction/elimination strategy. Realisation that a sustainable reduction entailed development concerns. The period from the 1970s, where AD was first introduced (by King Bhumibol of Thailand), significant changes, evolution. Trial and error. Initially, massive eradication, with small but resilient development interventions going on in the field. In 2009, the international community turned the corner, learning from valuable investments but also cutbacks. Although eradication is still the ultimate objective, rural development is fundamental. Proper sequencing, long-term projects, environment protection, access to land, the promotion of South-South cooperation. Member States still needed more information to start drafting much more viable and sustainable development programmes. UNODC with Thailand embarked in a range of field consultations and visits. The Guidelines on AD were a step forward, developing areas previously not included or fleshed out: Strengthening justice and security, legal framework and anti-corruption, use of objective evaluations, evaluation and monitoring, encouragement of cross-border cooperation. The UNGASS continues to push the envelope. However, after we came back from New York, we embarked in an internal process on how to implement 2016. There are two elements in Section 2 (H & J) that required a new approach: urban settings (a novelty), which requires focusing on particular forms of infrastructure (basic social services); and drug-related violence. With the support of the German government, we embarked in a series of expert group meetings (in Thailand and in Berlin). We didn’t look at AD as we understood it but how it’s enshrined in the Outcome Document. Something has to be done to address the trafficking, violence and production in urban settings. But the jury is still out on how we translate what we’ve learned in rural contexts into urban settings. One way could be identifying elements that could be adjusted and then collect guidelines and provisions that we can present to member states. I hope next time we meet, we will be able to report more broadly on how to go about H & J.

Question from Pakistan: We believe that AD continues to be a very important aspect of our work addressing supply-side strategies. 1) One of the main challenges in my understanding in AD relates to funding gaps. This was highlighted in the WDR of 2014. What efforts has UNODC made in the past few years to mobilise more resources needed to close that gap? 2) The mechanism of expert group meetings. It is not very clear how the platform looks like?

Response: Clear funding unbalance against AD when it comes to official development assistance. AD works when it’s well funded. Areas where programmes are not well resourced or where there are no programmes at all become a hotbed for cultivation (balloon effect). In a majority of the countries, donors and international financial institutions are not investing in AD. This is the case for opium and poppy, but even worse for cannabis. We do what we can, stimulating major funders to mainstream AD. The truth is funding for AD continues to be piecemeal and not very significant in comparison to the overall assistance. This is an appeal to increase support in financial support and in kind. In terms of the expert group meetings, they are meant to convey new and innovative approaches on AD. We’ve made a strong effort to make them more inclusive. Initially with South East Asia and Andean countries. Progressively much more open. They involve people working in the subject. We have reached out to countries interested in applying AD on cannabis. These are not closed meetings, they are open to a large number of MS and we welcome interest. We will talk about the latest at the side event to take place today.

Question from Brazil: On the Expert Group Meeting, we expect them to be even more inclusive. We have been talking about AD in urban settings and we appreciate that these EGMs are touching on this issue. Where these EGMs exclusively dealing with urban AD? Any results to share?

Response: They were not only focused on urban settings. The idea of our German and Thai colleagues were about moving Chapter 7 forward. Given the new focus on urban settings in the UNGASS Outcome Document, this issue has been centred in the last meeting. The lunchtime side event will present the conclusions. The next one, in a year, will allow for a better understanding and we hope governments that are interested will participate. There will be a Conference Room paper presented at CND.

Question from Austria: I was intrigued by your remarks about moving AD into an urban setting. The trend to urbanisation is even more dynamic perhaps in the Global South. Are there other fields of development where we could take some clues? Or is the development work in an urban context has been underestimated so far in general?

Response: I agree on the urbanisation point. In Berlin, everyone recognised something had to be done with the issue of urban settings. Whether or not we can tae specific lessons from agrarian settings to the cities was the debate. There are many lessons from demand reduction. The target population will be to a great extent same. That UNOD sustainable livelihoods department, UNDP, civil society agencies may have… But the expert consultations help to move towards the production of guidelines.

Question from the Philippines: AD is an impactful modality in addressing drug crime. In urban settings, drug peddling and use is rife. Root cause of problem poverty and livelihood. Do you have specific models on AD launched in Asia? What about experiences and lessons?

Response: The model I presented comes from evidence from Asia, so it is very much available, but it needs adaptation to local contexts. There’s also the UN Guiding Principles, which has a number of elements that MS should entertain when addressing AD. With these and participation to EGMs, I’m sure we will move things forward in the Philippines.

Question from Iran: 1) Concerning the EGMs, you mentioned it’s open-ended. Could we have more information on the mechanisms to participate in the expert group. How is it open-ended? What is the mandate? 2) You mentioned there is a cooperation between UNDP and UNODC in Afghanistan. Is that the case for other areas/countries on AD?

Response: The UNDP/UNODC Partnership in Afghanistan is not a model that has been tried in other countries. Sister UN agencies or other development agencies have not engaged with development in very insecure areas. We work in crop areas where violence and variables are very different. It is our intention, and the Commission’s (look at 2016) that UN agencies should work with the private sector. You will hear more about this from our colleagues from UNDP. With regards to the mandate of the EGM, there’s no specific mandate; we have taken the initiative from the Outcome Document about stronger cooperation and moved forward. In terms of invitation, delegations that contacted us with interest were invited. Countries that sent specific requests or showed interest, quite organically were invited. We recently held a meeting on livelihoods in Tehran and we hope the outcomes can feed the expert consultations. We want countries to express interest in the consultations and welcome them approaching us on this, and involving them.

Comment from Colombia: We are pleased that countries like Pakistan and Austria show interest. It’s often unclear for some people, but here we have testimonies from officials and experts on the ground. It is clear that it is not a question of urban/rural areas in the context of illicit crops. There are non-rural areas affected by the production of illicit crops. Gangs take advantage to start young people in the route of consumption and trafficking, developing new chains of production and supply that end up in cities and affect the wellbeing of cities and families. Fostering micro-trafficking involving all members of the family. It’s also a matter of perception, we support the efforts undertaken by Germany, Thailand and the UNODC in facilitating these forums and spaces to speak about these issues away from a context of formality. This issue affects us all. This brings us all together in this meeting. It’s not a matter affecting specific countries. The tangential elements of this problem also affect all countries. We are all called to address the issue. We strongly appreciate the interest in this matter.

Bente Angell-Hansen, CND Chair: I think finance in here is very much at the core. It is about how we work together within UN system, but also IFIs were mentioned. Happy to have UNDP here with a substantive input. This is very much needed. We would like to see the slide on SDG 17 on partnerships. Who are the key partners? UNDP, FAO, UNDOC. It’s not only for UNODC to explore, but also to member states when they are at UNDP or FAO that we integrate AD to our policies. We need to work on a more cohesive way. Basically, this has been an excellent debate and we are moving in a much more holistic way and that is very important for the UN at large. 

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Completely agree.

Commentary from Guatemala: An important element when we talk about AD is synergy between institutions, as Mme. Chair said. We are interested in the work of the UN Food Organisation in this regard. We would appreciate their presence in the panel.

CND Secretariat: The organisations mentioned receive a standing invitation. It is not about formally inviting them here. We have encouraged them to come. It would also be up to Member States to stimulate this participation.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: I already see an improvement. UN Agencies are joining us in the podium. There is a long way to go but I prefer to see the cup half full. The cup is getting fuller.

Muhammad Mustapha Abdalla (Nigeria), Chairman/Chief Executive of the Nigerian Law and Enforcement Agency, NDLEA, Africa Group: First, I want to mention land legislation in Nigeria (free lease and freehold, most is leased by the State). Coupled with NDLEA legal powers of confiscation, you see their articulation. We underscore illegal logging and its impact on the environment, and use of cleared lands for cannabis cultivation. Nigeria’s AD programme is still at developmental stage. AD should seek counter cultivation of cannabis, grown everywhere in Nigeria. The most used drug in Nigeria. Half of the seizures. Hundreds of hectares destroyed. Nigeria is a world-leading producer of cannabis. Account for a majority of seizures in West Africa. Trafficking routes from West Africa, to SubSaharan countries to European countries. We have pledged to reduce this flow. Predominantly six states: Ogun, Ekiti, Osun, Oyo, Ondo, Edo. As part of our strategy to counter these activities, in partnership with UNODC, we have come up with two services. We have experience in crop substitution. I don’t think AD is a strange thing to ask. What we need to do is control it. We are discussing with a Foundation that there is a brand of cannabis where THC content is minimal. If farmed along with other plants, it has the capacity of neutralising other farms. If it proves successful we are planting this kind of cannabis where it grows illegally. ECOWAS acknowledges the magnitude of the drug problem in West Africa. We need funds and political will. AD in drug control is relatively new in Nigeria. We ask for support from international partners. Nigeria is faced with a dearth of data. Most results are either obsolete or limited. We need UNODC to continue to support research aimed at strengthening regional capacity to capture, analyse and monitor the baseline data. We have launched initiatives to eradicate poverty and to lead to sustainable economic development, including Young Entrepreneurship Support (YES), aimed at equipping young people with sills and knowledge to be self employed and manage businesses. And N power Programme, which provides skills and opportunities for inclusion and productivity, addressing unemployment and stimulating the economy. The challenge in Nigeria is that most of the lands are government lands that are hard to access. Another one, that most cannabis farms are leased by absentee barons. And raising the budget for AD. AD is a long term process that requires a longterm commitment. The investment required for road construction to overcome the inaccessibility of these areas is huge. We go slowly but steadily, learning from successes in other countries.

Question from India: Is there an alternative plan available in Nigeria for AD? I do understand the problems of Nigeria. When we talk about AD, two important things: alternative crops (equally remunerative), but also natural reserves where crop substitution doesn’t work. In those areas, it would be about alternative employment more than crops. Any plan?

Response from Abdallah Mustapha, Nigeria: As oil prices go down, we expect people to go back to traditional crops. But substitution crops works best with crops that are sustainable in the long term (cocoa, rubber, etc.).

Question from Mauritania: I want to add to what has been said by the representative of the African Group and what was said by the representative of India. Regarding cultivation in non-urban areas, such agriculture is a problem for all the countries. Although Mauritania is not an agricultural country, the drug problem still concerns us all. It is an environmental problem, it is global, the drug problem is also a global problem. Regarding cultivation of drugs in areas that are not urban, where there are nomads, we suffer from personal property and inherited property: these areas are inherited from other people and states have no control over the area. UNODC should take into account, when setting up the framework of problems, have its experts address this property problem. Although countries have no sovereignty over these lands, they should extend sovereignty there. There is no legal control over this land and cultivators hide behind that to continue illicit cultivation. This is the issue I have identified and this should be more studied. Regarding AD in urban areas and rural areas, it is different depending on the plan adopted, and those targeted by AD will also be different. Specific strategies should be set up by experts in those different areas. On this question, the employment of some minors (below the age of 13) for dealing drugs is used. We should also examine this issue. As for funding, mentioned by some, this is also a problem. It is significant and is related to the environment, which is a global problem. The drug problem also affects the mental health of human beings. The drug problem targets everyone: youth, as well as the whole of humanity’s destiny.

Response from Abdallah Mustapha, Nigeria: In Nigeria we have two types of land property: free lease and free hold. It is very like Mauritania, nobody owns land in Nigeria. So we need to find strategies to make sure that nothing is cultivated that will affect the whole country. I agree also that AD initiatives in the city should be different. When somebody uses the youth because he owns the land freely, the majority of the country suffers.

M.L. D. Diskul, Thailand, representing the Asia Pacific Group: I will take a bit of your time today because some issues were already covered. But I want to highlight how far we’ve come in AD in the past 10-12 years. It is difficult to move the issue of AD forward. There is now general recognition and acceptance of AD. There have been many documents, over the CND years, some important ones are the UN Guiding Principles on AD, the UNGASS outcome document. There are also a lot of issues we’re beginning to talk about. We heard a lot about links with the SDGs and how to measure the impact of AD in relation to the SDGs. I don’t think AD has gone without lessons learned or experiences gained. But the question for us is how to use and share these experiences and lessons learned with countries considering to implement AD or come up with drug policies to counter illicit crop cultivation. Along with GIZ and UNODC, Thailand launched the GPDPD programme, aiming to bring new countries and interested parties to learn about AD, and for us to learn about other experiences. Through ONCB, we work with the Myanmar government to implement AD, and we are expanding. We are going to launch a programme on the Thai side, in an area where there is a lot of methamphetamine production, near the border with Myanmar. Clearly this is not the usual AD side of policy there, but we see a lot of vulnerabilities: poverty, lack of food security, access to health, basic infrastructure.

The barrier separating urban and rural areas is getting closer and closer. If we believe that vulnerabilities in rural and urban areas are the same, approaches to address those should be the same, and that brings us to whether we can use what we’ve learned in the rural area and adapt it to the urban setting. This is our challenge in the years to come. How can we make development approaches to address these vulnerabilities, enhance the concept of AD and implement it in urban settings. We are living in a parallel universe, which is us here making policies, and the other which is the realities and conditions on the ground. I see the gaps are betting narrower and narrower. But the magnitude of the problem is getting more severe. Can we move away from the compartments we’ve put ourselves in for the past 10 years, and make sure that the next 10 years can really address the issue holistically and in an integrated manner. The world drug problem is not going to slow down for us to find a solution. We must lead ahead to move beyond country boundaries.

Alvaro Salcedo, Peru, representing GRULAC: We have always been one of the biggest promoters of AD around the world, and we were glad that the UNGASS outcome document included recommendations on AD. As UNGASS confirmed, AD is much more than a crop control strategy. It’s about security and development, impacting in a positive way on the lives of people living in rural areas. Peru is one of the most vulnerable countries for illicit crop cultivation, this is driven by poverty. We have developed a policy for comprehensive and sustainable AD to interrupt the illegal economy. DEVIDA is the national entity leading the efforts: supply reduction, demand reduction, AD, common and shared responsibility, international cooperation. We therefore conduct AD through support to families in affected areas.

AD in Peru focuses on socio-economic development for permanent change. We rely on access to roads, schools, primary healthcare, electricity and property ownership, to counteract drug production and cultivation. The AD approach in Peru attaches great importance to community involvement, whose actions are carried out through human development and generation of social capital, economic development, governance, sustainable use of natural resources. We see that 24 areas established AD programmes in Peru. The most emblematic case is the San Martin region: in 2011, thanks to the AD programmes following the eradication process, we saw a significant reduction in the numbers of hectares eradicated. But Peru has other examples as well.

I also want to share some recent results. We worked in over 50,000 ha of illicit crops. The property of farmers was formalised, social inclusion activities benefited more than 30,000 people. We established records of over 30,000 ha eradicated. For 2015: we eradicated more than 35,000 ha. These achievements are the result of the commitment and political will to address this problem, reflected in our national budget. Since 2012, our budget has increased by over 300%. But there is still progress to be made: greater access to credit, investment, productivity, and land property formalisation. We also need to continue facilitating access to markets.

We promote an AD model we offer to the entire international community. We focus on generating the necessary conditions to increase the opportunity for human development and security. Only this way can we stop the vicious circle of drugs.

Daniel Brombacher, representing the Western European and Others Group: I head the Global Partnership on Drug Policies and Development (DPDPD), it is led by GIZ under the patronage of the drug commissioner of the German government. What is unique with GIZ is that it is not implemented just by GIZ but also with other institutions: the Thai Mae Fa Long Foundation, the International Drug Policy Consortium and the Transnational Institute. We are tasked not only to prepare UNGASS but also to implement the UNGASS outcome document, which is quite a challenge. It is quite early, this process of implementation. It’s been 18 months since its adoption so we can’t report on every detail of implementation. I want to focus on 3 main elements in implementing the UNGASS outcome document.

First, the conceptual headache. The UNGASS chapter 7 is not only unique. It broadens the concept of development in the UN drug control system. We had to fight for development in the UN supply side of drug control. This is now a legitimate element, which is reflected in the title of chapter 7, talking about addressing socio-economic issues. This is a broad wording of what is now accepted. As we have heard before from Jorge, paras h and j focus on addressing urban drug markets and the issues related not only to crop cultivation and rural areas. This new language may have come as a surprise for many delegates but it has been recognised for many years. Development oriented approaches should play a role in UN drug control systems. Many countries have started recognising that law enforcement only was not enough. What we have experienced with other partners is that we are increasingly approached by other delegations to give technical advice on addressing the drug problem from a development perspective. This was quite new and was to be expected to be reflected in the UNGASS outcome document. The UN drug control system needed to respond to this and be reflected in the UN framework. But this only gives us legitimacy to approach the drug problem through the means of development. We now need to translate this, jointly with UNODC and Mae Fa Long Foundation, we have developed expert group meetings to share on the issue. At 2pm we have a side event on the 7th floor in room C2. We will also have food there provided by the Thai delegation.

We have a broad consensus now with UN member states on the fact that global drug policy should incorporate development. This was never a given here in international debates. The debates on development generally focused on South America and South Asia. We now see a diversification of the world drug problem, producing countries are now consumer countries. We have seen a spread of drug production in many countries, and a spread in the recognition of AD in drug strategies. We have heard from India a few minutes ago, for example. We have a growing alliance of countries, but this international backing is not accompanied by funding. This was mentioned before, funding is crucial and the growing support for development is accompanied by growing demand for technical assistance in this area. Germany and Thailand, as well as Colombia, are allocating more resources, but more needs to be allocated if we take the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document seriously.

Third, the unclear relationship with the SDGs and potentially conflicting objectives of the UN drug control system and the SDGs. I am representing a development agency here so the SDGs are a crucial normative framework at GIZ, and I have to justify the work I do regarding the SDG goals. If you have a close look at it, the preambular part includes references to the SDGs. But the SDGs should be an overarching framework, not operating in parallel with the UN drug control system. For chapter 7, the wording contained in the UNGASS outcome document raises certain questions: should the AD recommendations serve the UN drug control system or the SDGs? We need a rethink of how to report on drug control strategies based on the SDGs, and we will have some discussions on this later on. But this is a tricky issue on how to make our strategy more coherent.

Video message of Lauda Riao, United Nations Development Programme, country office of Afghanistan: I want to talk about alternative approaches to sustainable livelihoods. I want to discuss community approaches in cultivation areas in Afghanistan. The problem of drugs is extensive and complex. We operate in a country where more than 80% of the world’s opium is produced, making it difficult for us. We build on lessons from AD. What is new in the way we operate is that we look at the issue from an area-based approach, focusing on the area’s problems, threats, opportunities. For example, we look at solutions in areas where there is a flux of refugees. We work also with the communities and government structures to make it possible for our actions to be more sustainable. We look carefully at the places where we operate in terms of conflict and insecurity. We work in collaboration with UNODC, we have powerful allies to collect data and analyse it to ensure impact.

The project I want to introduce today is a specific project focusing on offering alternative livelihoods. This is the way forward to make it possible for areas of the country to have an alternative economy. This is in cooperation with the Ministry of Livestock and the Ministry of Anti-Narcotics. We do not believe in quick fixes, we believe in sustainable results. We intend to reach 500,000 farmers, working with 45,000 households to learn about the dangers of illicit crops and give them opportunities for alternative livelihoods. Finally, we have pulled a strong focus on community infrastructure. For UNDP, it’s important that this project contributes to the SDGs, and is integrated in the government projects and vision.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: We thank the UNDP for this presentation and hope they will be present in person in Vienna.

Jamie Bridge, International Drug Policy Consortium and representing the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs (VNGOC): I am not an opium farmer from Myanmar, but I am speaking today on behalf of Nang Khin Oo from the Myanmar Opium Farmers’ Forum, thank you for the opportunity. I also want to thank the Post-UNGASS Facilitator and CND Chair for their support to civil society. I apologise for the lack of speaker on Monday. I also want to reiterate that the statements from civil society do not necessarily represent the views of the VNGOC.

My name is Nang Khin Oo, a smallholder opium poppy farmer from Shan State of Myanmar. I am also member of “Myanmar Opium Farmers’ Forum”. My village is situated in a remote mountainous area, with poor road access and almost without any public services such as health, education, communication and development supports. In our village, we grow opium poppy for generations as a coping strategy to off-set food shortage problem and generate income to buy daily necessities, cover the costs of health care, social rituals and religious donations, and sending our children to school.

The elevation of our village is 1,700 meters with extreme weather almost no food crop can survive, and there is limited options to grow other cash crops due to poor infrastructures, access to credit, access to market and agriculture techniques. Moreover, we are in armed conflict zone. Fighting between Myanmar government troops and ethnic armed groups often broke out near our village, and we have to flee so often losing our properties, crops, and domestic and farm animals.

Under such misery context, opium poppy has many advantage as a cash crop for smallholder farmers in armed conflict zones. It’s a short-term crop, not depleting the soil of its nutrients as rapidly as rice, wheat or vegetables. Opium yields a higher income than other crops, it small payload is easily transportable over jungle trails, and is not subject to bruising or rotting. It grows well on the poor soil of high mountainous area, requiring only a modest level of technology, and the poppy itself contains alkaloids that are of medicinal value that indigenous people traditionally use to cure many illness and diseases.

However, our survival as a human being is at risk due to the repressive drug control policy of Myanmar government. Our opium poppy fields have been destroyed without any compensation. The forced eradication make our life from bad to worst. We lost our primary income source that consequence acute food shortage, school drop-out, reduce of traditional rituals and religious donation. Many families have to sold out their farming assets and send their children to Thailand to earn working as un-skilled wage labours. We also have to excessively extract non-timber forest products fetching for income to buy foods. Forced eradication violates our fundamental rights of indigenous people to livelihoods.

As conclusion, my recommendations on drug control policy are:

• No plant is drug, opium poppy farmers should not be criminalized;
• Eradication should come only after viable alternative livelihoods is in place;
• Eradication should not be the precondition of receiving development supports;
• Farmers should have meaningful participation in the whole process of project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluated the impact of the development projects;
• Legalize cultivation for pharmaceutical industry should not be excluded as an alternative option;
• Recreational, Cultural use and traditional medicine value of opium should be recognized;
• “Without us, nothing about us”, opium poppy farmers should have the rights to involve in the drug control policy reform process.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: The interventions from civil society and NGOs have been important for us to know what’s happening on the ground and how we can help them in their lives.

European Union: Just a comment: the EU offers a lot of support from AD projects in Latin America and Asia. In particular we focus on Bolivia, Peru. What was said by the colleague there is critical: having a dialogue with the producers, this is a very important point. We a lot of interesting projects involving producers so thank you for raising this issue.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: We have now finished with presentations from the panellists. I will now turn to you for interventions from the floor.

Mexico: Thank you very much. From my government, a priority is the necessity to align the objectives of global drug control with the SDGs. Mexico was one of the main champions of incorporation of socio economic issues in the UNGASS outcome document from the perspective of drug policies geared towards development and AD. My delegation wants to take this opportunity to raise awareness of several efforts undertaken. We have worked within CICAD and within COPOLAD, in which we’ve supported broadening the vision of AD towards sustainable development considerations. Drug policies should be considered as within the SDGs. AD should be considered as its most wide concept in rural and urban zones affected by the drug chain. We welcome the interventions of Germany and Thailand in broadening the concept of AD in both rural and urban spheres. The response must go beyond traditional definitions of AD, to ensure we focus on promoting development oriented drug policies as agreed at UNGASS. We also welcome the debate triggered by Germany and Norway with the support of civil society and academia. We reiterate our commitment to contributing to the conceptual headache mentioned by Germany. We must promote interventions focused on the people and preservation of human rights to mitigate impacts on society and help those most vulnerable to the drug trafficking chain. The objective is to ensure comprehensive socio and economic policies, focusing on indicators that are tailored to development.

Estonia, on behalf of the European Union. For the last decades, AD has brought new opportunities for livelihood. It is a necessary element of drug supply policies. Without the creation of alternative sources of income, supply reduction will fail. We reiterate the importance of AD as a measure within a comprehensive and balanced national and regional policy. AD has broadened in scope focusing on rural and urban markets within a development oriented approach. But this requires further research and debate. This call to incorporate AD into the broader agenda of governments focused on development is incorporated in the EU Action Plan for 2017-2020. It contributes to reducing poverty, insecurity and vulnerability to the illicit economy for people previously or currently involved in the supply chain. To achieve these objective, the EU has developed good partnerships on AD. This was confirmed during the EU-CELAC meeting in May 2017. We adopted the Buenos Aires Declaration and reaffirmed our commitment to reaffirm AD programmes, and address socio economic factors. We also support the continuation of our activities within the framework of COPOLAD. This EU finded programme focuses on sharing evidence of best practice as well as closer cooperation between EU and CELAC. We have continuously worked to organise workshops and peer to pear dialogues. We promote south-south partnerships as well in AD. At the same time, even if most EU projects on AD have been implemented across Latin America, we also focused on Afghanistan, Myanmar and Laos. We have funded and implemented bilateral projects focusing on illicit plant-based drugs, based on the principle of shared responsibility. Lastly, we need to focus on AD products to global markets. We have developed generalised schemes of preferences: preferential treatment for imports of products derived from AD projects. This can benefit affected communities immediately. We must contribute to comprehensive AD projects through research, technical expertise, livelihood opportunities. However, donors should take account of local and regional circumstances as well as universal standards of human rights and the rule of law to design and implement programmes for peaceful, just and inclusive drug policies. To conclude the ultimate objective of the EU is to implement the UNGASS outcome document and the UN Guiding Principles on Alternative Development. AD does not only contribute to the reduction of illicit crops, but also to meet the goals of the SDGs, especially food security, poverty reduction, environment protection.

Anya Korumlick, UNODC Research and Analysis Branch. I want to focus on technical issues here, focusing on research and impact assessment. The 2009 Action Plan and the UNGASS outcome document call for this. I want to brief you on how UNODC is working on improving the evidence base. I have structured this in 3 areas First, we continue to monitor illicit crop cultivation together with countries concerned. But in addition to reporting cultivation trends, we analyse the changes and conduct socio economic surveys to identify the drivers of illicit cultivation. We also look at price data to help us explain what drives illicit cultivation. The second element is using the data from the survey and other research done to develop an indicator framework. We are working on this now, it is challenging. It includes Human Development Indicators, and others in line with the SDGs, to not develop anything in isolation. It has to feed into the SDGs. Thirdly, we conduct impact assessments of AD projects. Member states have said we should improve this to have better information on what is working and not working. We work closely with colleagues in the field, for example UNDP in Afghanistan. It’s interesting to have a collaboration between UNODC and UNDP and we are learning a lot from each other.

The ultimate goal is to find out what is working and for whom it is working. Here you can see what the results are and where we’re reporting. We want to report on AD indicators around trends in AD, in addition to the data on cultivation and demand. We should have an item every year on AD.

On international cooperation, we work with governments to monitor illicit cultivation and AD, linking this to the SDGs to help them report on the SDGs. Some of the progress we’ve made in the last year has been reports focusing on AD and the SDGs and the implementation of the Guiding Principles. The reports used to be called ‘Opium survey reports’. People didn’t read these reports as they thought it was only on cultivation data so we’ve worked hard to ensure there is more partnerships in illicit cultivation and development areas, speak their language a bit more.

The next thing we’ve worked on was the indicators and the SDGs. It is useful to link AD to the SDGs as we can link to eradicating extreme poverty, link to development actors and expand our radius of implementation, we can compare and harmonise, and we can measure the development gap. We also think that when we have this development indicator we can better understand why cultivation continues.

When you look at development gaps, this slide shows how to use indicators linked to several SDGs and cultivation. There is a difference in key variables: environment, access to markets, etc. The main differences in variables are called the ‘development gap’. What the farmer from Myanmar said is reflected here. We did the same for Afghanistan. You see a clear difference from poppy and non-poppy villages. Poppy villages are worse in all areas, except for cash income. This confirms our surveys when we ask what people do with their income: they spend it on food, to pay debts, to pay education costs. So this is all used to cover basic needs, which cannot be covered by other crops.

I now want to give more details on how we’re working on AD impact assessments, especially in Afghanistan between UNODC and UNDP, using our comparative advantage to map cultivation and security, villages, etc. including needs assessments and baseline surveys. The plan at the end is to do an endline survey. We also look at the land covered to see if cultivation is growing (for opium but also other crops). This is a comprehensive approach. We’re looking at 4 million data points. This means that we have a lot of data, which we hope can be analysed at village level.

For the first time, as part of the household survey, we have interviewed women. They play an important role in getting income at the household. But it’s hard to know because we have not done that in the past, it requires extra efforts. So we hope we’ll have new findings here.

We try to work in all countries on technical assistance. In some cases, it’s just a matter of briefing, workshops, support in following good practice for baseline survey and monitoring. Finally, I still want to highlight that we measure the impact of AD projects. But we should not forget that AD is part of a balanced approach. We must keep in mind that we should focus on other approaches. We look at evidence and cost-effectiveness of AD: how effective are we, in which areas do we get the greater impact. Thank you very much.

Question from Brazil: Thank you for the presentation. The data and best information coming from science is the way we will get some answers. I want to know if there is a focus on prevention of communities to move away from illegal crop cultivation in the first place.

Response from UNODC: This is a difficult question because in the areas we go to, there are growers and non-growers of illicit crops. They have interventions that offer alternatives, whether it is an AD project or a project focusing on road construction and others. These have been tried in the past in Afghanistan. I can’t say whether this has been tried by the international community as a whole. Over the past 40 years, we learned we should have an area based approach: you need to not just work with those who grow the poppy otherwise others will start growing to get some assistance. So we have prevention programmes to work with all. Development assistance has been widely developed in Afghanistan.

Comment from Daniel Brombacher, Germany: I congratulate Anya and UNODC for their ground breaking work on impact assessment on AD. For a long time, we focused on trying to show feasibility and impact, but we each had assessment systems which were competing with one another. This impact assessment by UNODC is crucial to measure impact. You have our support for the future. This will have an impact also on funding as we will be better equipped to show progress and impact.

Mohammad Qader Mesbah, New Line Social Organisation, Afghanistan: Greetings to you, I wish you all success. I am addressing you from Afghanistan, a land using illicit crop cultivation. Afghanistan has 3 characteristics: continuation of terrorist wars and corruption, drug addiction is prevalent, and the illicit drug economy is prevalent. To find a solution to these three problems, I request you to bring pressure on Afghanistan and various member of the international community to act as follows. First, beyond fighting terrorist groups, I wish drugs could be also controlled as they are a reliable source of funding for terrorists. Second, support the Afghan government to reduce addiction. Third, promote agriculture based economy by promoting other seeds. We hope that with these three solutions you will be able to help Afghanistan.

[Lunch break]

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Before adjourning, I mentioned that the two delegations to speak would be China and the Russian Federation, but unfortunately China will not be able to participate this afternoon.

Russian Federation: As we all know, AD is one of the most crucial elements in order to resolve the global drugs problem. (…) I wish to recall that Russia continues to lend its support to the development of the [] Food Programme in Afghanistan, a key project supporting AD in the country. We hope the donor community will support it, strengthening the efficiency of these efforts, agreed upon by the international community.

Colombia: We appreciate how this chapter links AD with measures to control supply and aligns with the (…). A further significant milestone is that the UNGASS chapter on this pillar gives attention to the socioeconomic matters related to this. AD as part of the broader notion of development. AD must be designed taking into account that ensuring an effective response to drugs and development must be in line with the SDGs. Important to take into account Agenda 2030 for sustainable development. This calls for broadening the understanding of alternative development itself. The pillar should remain a separate component, as it is in the UNGASS Outcome Document. Global cultivation figures remain more or less the same in recent decades. This situation is usually referred to as the balloon effect. There haven’t been any significant reductions. Cannabis and coca cultivation are actually growing. Efforts must be redoubled in terms of sustainability of efforts, and financial and technical support, including from UN Agencies: FAO, UNDP. The FAO and the ILO can provide support for AD implementation to transform economic structure of countries affected by illicit crop cultivation. Supporting rural decentralisation, gender equality and overall financial development. In tandem with all relevant stakeholders, including Academia and civil society. When it comes to indicators, the design and evaluation of programmes needs better evaluation and measurements with proper indicators which go beyond reductionist measures, including environmental sustainability and human development. (…) The drugs trade in Colombia has been linked to the guerrilla forces. For that reason, the FARC guerrillas committed to abandoning the drugs trade. Colombia has thus now an integrated plan for substitution of crops, including socioeconomic support measures. We expect this plan to help improve wellbeing of people in areas affected by these activities, and help them leave these activities once and for all. The plan comprises: immediate support for food security among land workers and farmers, ensuring decent standard of living, socioeconomic infrastructure projects (school building improvements, community canteens), land recovery, mitigating environmental harm. Bringing together community assemblies to draw a diagnosis of what’s needed and develop a comprehensive crop substitution and municipality-led programme with the support of the community. We are launching the most ambitious plan bringing together families affected. In the long term, this will generate new economic activity, strengthen the roles of families and protect ecosystems. In terms of international cooperation, we organised international workshops with Thailand, with the anti-drugs commissioner of Colombia focusing on woodlands protection. The Peace Process designated UN and UNODC as an international partner in implementing point 4 (on alternative programmes). This is a priority for Colombia. We have a proved a multi-million-dollar project for UNODC to lend technical assistance to the Colombian government on implementing its illicit crop reduction policy, particularly in priority areas determined by the government. The project addresses the following: implementation of our strategy for territorial renewal, rural territorial development, strategy for strengthening rural economies, monitoring system by implementing rural development programmes with a territorial focus. Producer organisations in the priority area will be trained on productivity, impact on the local economy, family welfare and society wellbeing. Land property programme allows for an expedited land acquisition process. 7,000 land titles are expected to be handed.

Mr Bo Mathiasen, Regional Representative of UNODC in Colombia, UNODC: My presentation will focus on three items: Peace Process (with insurgent group FARC), AD in Colombia, articulation of AD in Colombia as part of SDG agenda. The Peace Process lasted about 4 years. The final agreement signed 24 November 2016. Immediately thereafter the implementation process begun. For UNODC the most important point has been point 4. To support the agreement, the Colombian government created a new institutional framework, UNODC has partners on: crop substitution, land titling, comprehensive rural development, consolidating productive processes. We work with the Ministry of Law, responsible for the drug policy in the country. The concept of AD in the country focuses on prevention and elimination of drug crops. We focus on the national economic context and the social and cultural characteristics of communities in the country. The AD cycle focuses on: strengthening the communities, help them create associations and strengthening the social fabric, with payments to support their departure from illicit crop, we support the formalisation of lands, the capitalisation of projects including machinery and tools, within a framework of monitoring and evaluation to ensure follow up and evaluation. Within the framework of the SDGs we focus on 2 and 10. Reducing poverty and reducing inequality. When we look at the poverty index, currently in Colombia it’s less than 210$/month, extreme poverty 60$/month. About 54% of the communities and families we work with are within what you would call poor families. A multidimensional poverty index is also looked at, which includes broader development and well-being conditions. More than 50% of the families we work with are in that poverty index. UNODC has supported the government to work with 180 families, 1000 organisations, targeting about 7930 (…).

Natasha Horsfield, Health Poverty Action: We would like to thank the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) for the opportunity to engage with you directly.  Health Poverty Action works in programmes across 15 countries to address the barriers that marginalized groups face in accessing health systems, using this knowledge to challenge the broad range of social and structural determinants of poverty and health, including working to identify and address the impacts of drug control policy on socio-economic development.

As is recognised in the UNGASS outcome document, the risk factors driving involvement in the drugs trade are socio-economic, influenced by poverty, social and cultural marginalisation, violence and exclusion, a lack of services and infrastructure needs. Health Poverty Action has recently conducted qualitative research amongst rural and urban communities engaged in the illicit drugs trade, the initial findings of which reinforce this understanding, and also highlight the role of punitive drug control strategies focused on criminalisation and crop eradication in reinforcing the existing vulnerabilities of these communities, and notably the role of such interventions in undermining affected communities’ trust in the state and other implementing or external agencies.

We welcome the important commitments by member states in Chapter 7 of the UNGASS Outcome Document to strengthen a development perspective to tackle these causes, including supporting initiatives that contribute to poverty eradication and the sustainability of social and economic development.

However, where they have failed to focus on addressing these social and economic causal factors, national drug control strategies have had harmful impacts on vulnerable individuals and communities and in some cases aggravated their vulnerabilities. In order to contribute to sustainable development in line with UNGASS Chapter 7, member states and relevant UN Agencies must recognise and address the role of drug control policies themselves in re-enforcing poverty and social exclusion. They must address this policy incoherence and bring drug control policies in line with their commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals.

Additionally, current drug control assessment mechanisms fail to measure the impacts of such policies and interventions on the welfare of vulnerable communities, obscuring the extent of these harmful side-effects. Member states and relevant UN agencies should work together to develop new indicators, employing the use of relevant human development indicators, and other measurements in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, to measure the outcomes and impacts of drug control policies and programmes for the security, development and welfare of poor and marginalized communities in particular.

The promotion of research by member states and relevant UN agencies, to better understand the factors contributing to illicit drug related activities in urban and rural areas, is vital to better addressing drug-related socioeconomic issues and the specific vulnerabilities and needs of different affected communities; as is ensuring the engagement, empowerment and ownership of affected local communities in the design and implementation of sustainable development focused interventions.

However, as Health Poverty Action has found in our own research, progress towards achieving these objectives is limited by law-enforcement and military driven drug control policy interventions. The threat of criminal sanctions, and the imposition of unsustainable alternative development interventions, foster fear and mistrust of official and external agencies. Member states and partner agencies should reform national policies and interventions to foster safe and sustainable environments for communities affected by illicit drug-related activities.  This will enable them to engage in participatory research, take ownership of sustainable rural and urban development initiatives, and improve policy coherence helping to achieve the sustainable development goals. Reforms should include ending conditional and forced crop eradication in all its forms and considering the decriminalisation of drugs for personal use and small scale non-violent drug dealing and trafficking.

In order to achieve comprehensive sustainable development strategies that enhance the welfare of affected and vulnerable populations, member states should actively engage with those government and UN agencies (particularly UNDP) and members of international and national civil society with experience and expertise in sustainable development initiatives, promoting cooperation and partnerships with these actors at international, regional and national levels.  

To incentivise the participation of these stakeholders, we urge member states, relevant international financial institutions and United Nations entities to create long term and flexible funding opportunities for development focused agencies and civil society organisations in line with their chapter 7 commitments. These opportunities should prioritise funding to stakeholders with expertise in sustainable development interventions as well as provide the flexibility to support integrating the specific needs of drug affected communities into existing sustainable development strategies and initiatives.

Additionally, these sustainable development initiatives should be prioritised over traditional alternative-development interventions where the reduction of illicit drug activity has been the primary objective.

Finally, we encourage member states to recognise the role which the illicit drugs trade plays in providing livelihoods and income for poor and marginalised communities and to explore the possibility of creating legally regulated markets for certain drugs in consultation and partnership with vulnerable communities already engaged in these particular illicit trades.

Venezuela: We want to share, as we have done before, that we do not suffer from a endemic problem nor a consumption or production issues. We have been declared a free of cultivation country. We have work to empower communities and create robust institutions. Venezuela’s objective is to remove communities from illicit activities under the guidance of national authorities in Andean regions. The Bolivarian government works to ensure positive conditions and promote licit cultivations.

Philippines: Thanks to the Secretariat on behalf of the Prime Minister. Solving the drug problem calls for holistic solution to reduce supply and demand. The Philippines goal is to address the vulnerabilities of the social sector and prevent this global menace. The only way to succeed in a drug free Philippines is if the fight is carried on several fronts. This has been a priority on our president’s agenda since before he took office. Alternative programs focus on cannabis cultivation substitution with various licit crops since 2008. Community based interventions have been expanded to include rehabilitation interventions. Alternative development most not only focus on cannabis crops substitution; we want to expand to urban settings as well. To assure success, we have begun to look at the established system to address its execution challenges. We acknowledge the need to share technology and best practices through the international community and regional integrations. We welcome international collaborations for alternative development. We look forward to work with international partners. We intended to develop a program with the shared success of international community.

USA: Thanks to all the previous expositions. Alternative development is one of the three fundamental pillars in solving the drug problem. It is necessary to focus on addressing the social economic roots of the problem and focus on sustainable development. We are committed to promote alternative development to decrease drugs by reducing its cultivation. Illicit crops cultivation is more lucrative and in many time is attractive particularly when life is threatened. We need to increase collaboration as international community. We need to share best practise and choose those to be implemented, particularly those that can be tailored to the needs of the communities. Alternative development most include communities and NGOs as stake holders. The US has collaborated with alternative development programs in Afghanistan. The US provided funding for a poppy cultivations substitution programme to diversify the livelihood for farmers. Also, the US collaborated on a community based development program to increase farmers household income by improving agricultural business strategies. The US believe that alternative development promotes peaceful societies.

UNODC in Laos: We work in support for the national social economic development plan. The goal is to push Laos out of the last place in terms of development in the region by reducing poverty, introducing sustainable income paths, countering environmental degradation and reducing illicit crops. Laos is part of the golden triage which produces and traffics the largest amount of opium in the world. UNODC have four years working with Laos in alternative development successfully in reducing poverty and crops substitution in a sustainable manner. Our programme focuses on a north-west province, the poorest in the country. The only legal crops initially were maize and rice with rotation, which is damaging to environment and not highly profitable. We needed to find crops with high income potential. We needed to establish knowledge and sustainable organizational structures. One key principle is to focus, this means we don’t want to spread out in several alternatives, better just one or two to ensure a more efficient use of resources. We found that a key crop is coffee, which is very suitable due to its high income. Also, Laos already has a coffee industry which it benefits its introduction to the market. Inclusiveness is always. We want to establish local culture. If we don’t share our vision with the farmers there’s no sustainability. We ask the farmers their points of view and then we included experts. We want to build a local culture. Coffee does not exist in the area therefore there’s not enough knowledge. Creating culture is key. Concentration is important. Furthermore, local presence is necessary. It is important to have training but is insufficient without follow ups. Lastly it is very important to work with local government counterparts to build capacities. Reforestation, single crops and focus on the long term are keys for this project.

Question from Canada: It was a very interesting video, but how do you address the potential of other farmers becoming aware they aren’t beneficiaries if you are focusing only in one area?

Answer from UNODC: That is a perpetual question. The identification is based on deep negotiation with the house government. This area has more poppy crops and its more remote. Also, the government suggested and they have a supportive governor. We need to use our resources on the best possible matter. We don’t have enough resources.

Peru: Thanks. A few weeks ago, in Germany I talk to the Laos government about the programs. An important problem is that a lot of programs are not effective and the farmers don’t believe in alternative development because they are disappointed.

UNODC: Losing the confidence of farmers is the worst menace. That’s the reason on a long term all-inclusive approach. There had been bad experiences that we are dealing with those.

Suriname: Suriname is in full support for alternative development. Suriname incorporated the commitment to address the drug problems related its social economical causes. Suriname calls the international community to implement all modalities as agreed in the pillar seven. Suriname suffers from drug traffic. The country is label as a narcotic country and it stablishes a stigma on the country, its nationals and its business. We have implemented preventive measures based on a multidimensional course we believe is more effective. Crime prevention is more successful with more and better statistics and research; ICT is integrated in the program. Also, laws have been adapted. We expect cooperation with the international community to increase. Suriname’s government has committed to improved crime prevention and coordination by creating capacities in statistics and modernising legislations.

Ecuador: Thank you for all the previous expositions. Developing countries can’t address the drug problem without taking in account poverty and marginalization. Ecuador because its geography is susceptible for traffic in various ways. This provides social and economic challenges. We engage in social intervention for those marginalized based on human right, respecting sociocultural diversity and assuring peaceful coexist. We seek to create spaces to develop people and communities. Alternative development is of great scope in the long term. Ecuador is working to reduce poverty and marginalization by putting people and community at the heart of the issue and respecting traditions and culture.

UNODC in Afghanistan: Alternative development is part from the 2016-2018 program design with the government to achieve the SDG. It will increase income and sustainability. We include as stakeholders’ ministers, international community, the UN, international NGOs, individual NGOs, and more. We collaborate with all the stakeholders to avoid replication in programs. We also contribute to the chapter seven. Some of the example of the work is the improvement on the value chain development on several products and new crops. Women reported income increases. The main objective is to build government capacity in alternative development. We organize a mission to India to exchange knowledge and link markets. Farmers have been link to markets in the UF, particularly with saffron. We have established a green house and innovative techniques. Farmers created a learning schools to exchange knowledge. A very important aspect is to build sustainability by including the community thoughts.

Question from Afghanistan: Thanks for the presentation. I have no questions, we just want to thank the UNODC and their office in Afghanistan for their work. We hope we can continue this excellent relationship. Hopefully the funding could increase. Thanks.

Moulay Ahmed Douraidi, Association de Lutte Contre le Sida (ALCS), Morocco:

Abdellatif Adebibe of the Moroccan Confederation of Associations for the Development of the Senhaja Rif Region, Morocco: The following statement by Abdellatif Adebibe of the Moroccan Confederation of Associations for the Development of the Senhaja Rif Region, was due to be screened as a civil society contribution to a discussion on alternative development and development-oriented drug policy at an intersessional meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna. Abdellatif represented cannabis farmers at UNGASS 2016, following the meeting of the Global Forum of Producers of Prohibited Plants in Heemskerk, the Netherlands, organised by TNI.

The video and statement were not screened, following an informal objection by a country delegation. The Transnational Institute and its partners are seeking clarification about the process leading to this decision. The importance of civil society voices in international spaces cannot be over stated. The decision to prevent this statement from being screened should not become a precedent.

Final remarks

UNODC: Thank the commission for the opportunity to convey our vision on alternative development. Thanks all my colleges on the field for expressing your stories. I want to highlight this is a long-term effort, keep that in mind. This is very challenging. In Laos we need to seek for long term crops focus in community and help with deforestation. In Colombia, alternative development is also part of the peace process. We need to focus on sustainability.

Nigeria: I have a short message to deliver. Nigeria is happy to hear and witness that we have a shared destiny. We are all in this together. Happy to learn that every mission is working and willing to learn and adjust strategies to reach the goal of UNGASS.

Thailand: I would like to thank everyone. We have made a lot of progress but the problem is always changing. We need to think out of box and find common ground for new ideas and positions.

Peru: I’ll be brief. Alternative Development works as a strategy that we have witness its success. There’s scepticism due to the balloon effect and the spreading of problems but the example of Peru is that you can reach legal crops. We need to implement more effectively,

Germany: Thank. I have seen many expositions and even some that we were not expecting. The core remains but the solution is dialogue and we should keep those spaces for dialogue.

Chair: Welcomes everyone to the intersessional on international cooperation – including those travelling from outside Vienna as well as civil society representatives. The agenda for today is adopted. We will start with agenda item 2: Arrangements for the reconvened 60th session of the CND and for the 61th session of the CND

The reconvened will take place on 7th and 8th December, without an additional UNGASS segment. The annotated provisional agenda now available on the website. Chairs of Regional Groups that wish to make statements to advise the Secretariat by 5th December at noon. On UNODC’s policy directives agenda item we will have the report of the Executive Director on the consolidated budget for 2018-19. Pursuant to resolution 59/1, we will also have the report of the Executive Director on gender balance and geographical representation within the UNODC.

There will not be strategic framework for UNODC for the period 2020-21 because of the UN SG’s reform initiative. Member states will be regularly be updated on this matter.

In terms of the 61st Session, the regular session will run from the 12th – 16th March, with pre-consultations taking place on the 9th March. Pursuant to resolution 55/1 – the deadline for draft resolutions is 4 weeks prior so it is 12th Feb 2018 at noon.

The composition of the Bureau for 61st Session is as follows:

• GRULAC – Chair (Mexico is confirmed)
• Africa group – 1st Vice Chair
• Asia Pacific group – 2nd Vice Chair (Pakistan is confirmed)
• EECA – 3rd Vice Chair
• WEOG – Rapporteur

Argentina: Yesterday president of GRULAC sent a note to the Secretariat to inform them regarding the next Chair of the CND. Pleased to inform that we confirmed that Mexico will chair the next session of the CND.

Chair: This is excellent news. Look forward to continuing close collaboration with her. The WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence took place last week from 6th to 10th November. The WHO will notify the CND in due time on recommendations of scheduling of substances for the 61st Session. WHO will be invited to brief the CND at the reconvened session on the outcomes of the ECDD.

Onto other issues, the Chair of the Statistical Commission has written to the CND Chair and wishes to enhanced joint work with the CND. The CND is looking forward to further strengthening the cooperation with the Statistical Commission. UNODC is currently conducting the planning for the expert meeting on data collection at the end of January.

There will also be a “drug statistics special session” that Chair is planning to hold at the reconvened. More details on this will follow.

The Chair has also been liaising with ECOSOC and working with other functional committees that are relevant is very much encouraged. To date this has been the Statistical Commission and the Commission on the Status of Women. There are complementarities that will benefit our work and we are encouraged to do so.

With respect to the ‘Way forward: preparations for the 62nd session of the CND in 2019’ discussion tomorrow, the paper containing the elements from first round of consultations will form the basis for tomorrow’s meeting. After tomorrow, the Chair will circulate a revised elements paper to pave the way for the forward discussions for the way to 2019.

International cooperation (Chapter 6):

UNGASS facilitator: The discussions today will focus on chapter 6 of the UNGASS outcome document. We will start with panel discussions followed by the interactive debate. The Secretariat is working on a good practice portal for the UNGASS website.

Panellists:

• Asia Pacific Group – Honourable Datuk Nur Jazlan bin Tan Sri Mohamed, Vice Minister for Home Affairs of Malaysia
• GRULAC – Jonattan Del Rosario, Vice Minister, Ministry of Public Security, Panama
• UNODC – Robert Arbitrio, Chief, Office of the Director-General/Executive Director and Strategy Advisor
• European Commission – Antonio Dal Borgo
• VNGOC – Martin Diaz, IEPES, El Salvador

Robert Arbitrio, UNODC: It is a pleasure to be here. Will give a review of UNODC work in this area. In terms of how we operationalise our work, we have three key frameworks that guide our work on international cooperation – the SDGs, the Doha Declaration and the UNGASS Outcome Document. This helps us to serve you as the member states. For this work, we received in the last year $290M of voluntary contributions – this will increase quite soon due to large contribution from Colombia of $360M. We are privileged to be considered as a partner to the peace process in Colombia.

We have spent around $220M. 26% on prevention, treatment and alternative development and 36% on law enforcement, the rest on further related work. Our network of regional offices and project offices around the work supports this work and the work of member states. We have a wide range of regional collaborative initiatives such as the ‘triangle initiative with Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan; the CARIC; in SE Asia we are actively engaging with ASEAN and the UNODC Indonesian office serves as a liaison with the secretariat; in South Asia, we are setting up the SARIC, a regional centre for regional information sharing on counter-narcotics.

On health, human rights and justice we also have a number of initiatives such as the Joint UNODC/WHO Programme on Drug Dependence Treatment and Care, which leads on ending stigma for people with drug use disorders. International standards for prevention have been developed via this initiative. In SE Asia, through the regional programme we support member states in border management initiatives. In Latin America, we have the REFCO initiative. We also work on good practices and lessons learned such as with a group of experts from the Gulf region on opioid addiction and HIV issues. We work with individual member states (examples such as Russia and Turkey). Finally, we plan to launch of the “judicial integrity network” by UNODC next year. This is just a snap shot of our work at the global level.

Honourable Datuk Nur Jazlan bin Tan Sri Mohamed, Vice Minister for Home Affairs of Malaysia: Sharing Malaysia’s Experiences. Thanks to the Secretariat for convening these intersessionals in an open and inclusive manner. Malaysia reinforces the balanced approach and committed to work with regional partners within the framework of the three international conventions to meet our obligations under the drug control treaties – taking into account unique circumstances of each country. Although Malaysia has adopted harm reduction since 2006, for us this is about reducing harm, and we stand firm against the legislation of drugs and committed to the goal of a drug-free ASEAN. We reaffirm the CND as the central policy making body and reaffirm the treaty mandated roles of the INCB and WHO.

Our key regional partners are Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia and we are involved in many regional initiatives such as the AAITF, ASEAN Narco, ASEAN drug monitoring network, ACCORD etc. We cooperate with foreign law enforcement agencies e.g. Interpol, DEA, Australia, New Zealand etc. We also set up the Asian Forensic Sciences Network which includes Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Republic of Korea. This initiative provides samples, drug analysis and cooperation with UNODC.

Malaysia is committed to ensuring availability of controlled medicines. We have done a great deal on capacity building, participating in trainings such as universal treatment and prevention curriculum. A total of 30 addiction professionals have been accredited, 20 officers from drug control agency are working to become national trainers. The drug control agency of Malaysia are in the midst of becoming second education provider. Malaysia is the current Chair of ASEAN working group on treatment and rehabilitation.

The 7the meeting of the ASEAN cities against drugs took place last year and we will work to build capacity on drug demand reduction. In addition Malaysia continues to provide timely information on this issue through the ARQ.

At the regional level, we committed to ensure our national policy aligns with ASEAN regional strategy – 2016-2020. Based on principle of shared and common responsibility, we promote sharing information on all aspects of drug policies. Our commitment to reaffirm the three political documents from 2009, 2014 and 2016 – these consensus documents are complimentary and mutually reinforcing. They reaffirm our shared responsibility. This is our position. We look forward to further collaboration towards taking the world drug problem.

Vice Minister, Jonattan Del Rosario, Ministry of Public Security, Panama: This is to ratify Panama’s commitment to tackling drugs and trafficking and organised crime. Will outline our work at the national level of the Ministry. Panama is a major transit hub for example 12 million passengers pass through Panama airport every year. We have a great responsibility to protect the world from transnational organised crime. Panama’s security strategy is based on upholding citizen security and safety.  The Ministry of Security has implemented reforms to tackle corruption, money laundering and associated activities. Focused on improving working conditions of staff and capacity building towards ensuring citizen security. Our administration works with regional partners and beyond. 33,000 travellers have been sent back in past 12 months who posed a security risk to Panama. We also arrested several high-profile criminals who were on the run.

In November, Panama joined the San Jose Treaty on drug trafficking to keep working to fight this scourge. It is a good model to follow. We improved security and defence equipment to fight drug trafficking and improve response times. The ethos of team work is also important, we set up joint task forces that takes an inter-agency approach.

You might ask “why is he talking about citizen safety and security?” We should not over compartmentalise this issue, we need a comprehensive approach to be effective. If we do not have competent state services, organised crime will step into these spaces. Crime and insecurity has to be addressed on all fronts. We have $90bn invested to guarantee access to basic services, as per SDGS to reduce poverty and marginalisation. Drug trafficking is like a cancer and will pervade all parts of society – we need to address the socio-economic dimensions. The war on drugs will not be won by air, land and sea, but by winning by the hearts and minds of our citizens.

We made a huge investment in infrastructure and focus on primary prevention for programmes for youth at risk. This a big part of government’s strategic plan to prevent and combat crime and has had significant impacts:

• Fall in homicide rate from 17 per 100000 to 9 per 100000
• Reduction in femicides
• 5000 firearms seized
• 175 tonnes of drugs seized
• 50 gangs dismantled
• thousands of young people returned to work

This is the Barrio Securas programme which has been very successful. The efforts by Panamanian state have been recognised by other countries and this gives an opportunity to engage in bilateral dialogue. We need to tackle the roots of the problems rather than just addressing law enforcement, the roots lie at the heart of our societies. We are increasing losing the human touch, especially within families, and then negative values will spread such as that propagated by TV and films that occasional drug use is glamourous and acceptable. We need strong families to instil culture of lawfulness. All crimes are based on negative values which lead to criminal penalties. We need to ask ourselves why these problems are not being resolved? We must redouble our efforts to instil culture of service and meritocracy. The most difficult task is not about operationalisation of UNGASS, we have to ensure our citizens understand that we must build societies that are violence free. This is the common responsibility – it is like football, either we all win or we all stand to lose. It is the responsibility of everyone – teachers, public servants, citizens, communicative media – informing and dis-informing. To close, we need to take global drugs problem we must combat crime across the board and we are achieving results. Work together to protect the safety and security of citizens.

Antonio Dal Borgo, European Union: The European Union and its Member States wish to thank you for organising this intersessional meeting which contributes to promoting a common understanding to ensure that drug strategies, policies and programmes advance a balanced, comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based approach on drugs. The three UN drug control conventions, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and recommendations of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, as the pivotal reference document, all provide an internationally agreed framework for developing and implementing this approach. Bearing this in mind, we are working on a basis of a full partnership between the EU and non-EU countries and international fora, which allows us exchange knowledge and experience on the health, socioeconomic, human rights, justice and law enforcement aspects of the world drug problem.

The EU has an excellent cooperation with the Community of Latin American and Carribean states. On the policy level, over the last 20 years we have been engaging with the CELAC countries through a specially created EU-CELAC Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs. The second phase of COPOLAD programme under this mechanism is implemented from 2016 to 2019 with allocated budget of EUR 10 million. COPOLAD II is working towards achieving the following goals: the reinforcement of National Observatories on drugs; the adoption of quality and evidence-based criteria, both in demand and supply reduction strategies, and the adoption of sustainable approaches to capacity-building and bi-regional exchange of good practices and lessons learned. One of the aims of COPOLAD II is also to strengthen this well established mechanism of cooperation, which is a key instrument for dialogue and progress on public drugs policies in both regions.

Recently, a new programme was launched under which the EU and its Member States cooperate with Latin America on the reinforcement of the rule of law and citizen security. The Programme for Assistance against Transnational Organised Crime – EL PAcCTO, aims to improve the judiciary, prosecutorial and security forces capacity to tackle different forms of transnational organised crime and co-operate in this regard and develop a more modern and efficient penitentiary system. This programme covers 18 Latin American countries and has a budget of EUR 20 million for the period 2017 to 2022. It is the first EU cooperation programme in Latin America that covers the whole penal chain: police, justice and the penitentiary system. Besides overall cooperation programmes, we wish to highlight our multi-year strategic approaches to tackle drug trafficking along cocaine and heroin routes. For that purpose, the Cocaine Route Programme was launched in 2009, and since then the EU has committed over EUR 50 million to more than 40 countries along the cocaine route from the countries in Latin America to Europe via Central America, the Caribbean and Africa. Among the components of the programme, partners have continued to contribute to the capacity building initiatives for international cooperation by law enforcement and judicial services. Both technical advice has been provided and training and mentoring sessions have been held, as well as inter-service task forces and joint operations have been established over the last years. It is worth to note the launch of the Accreditation and Training Project for the Caribbean region’s Financial Intelligence and Financial Investigations Units in January 2017 under this programme. This project is aimed at building capacity by standardized training and slowing the attrition rate of trained financial investigations professionals, and is globally the first project of this kind.

Similarly, the EU Action against Drugs and Organised Crime – EU-ACT Programme, launched in 2017 and replacing the former Heroin Route Programme, was created for the purpose to prevent the use of drugs and improve drug treatment and strengthen capacities to tackle drug trafficking and fight against international criminal networks along the heroin route from and to Afganistan, including countries in South and Central Asia, Eastern Europe and East Africa. EUR 12 million are allocated for this trans-regional project until 2020 and a number of different activities are foreseen. Such activities include national, regional and interregional training modules and mentoring cycles; inter-agency and trans-national table-top exercises and mock operations; facilitation of joint operations, investigations and control deliveries as well as incorporation of human rights safeguards, oversight and anti-corruption modules.

The EU is also active in cooperating with the Central Asian region in the framework of the current Action Plan on drugs between the European Union and Central Asia which is valid until 2020. One of the major programmes through which the goals of the action plan are implemented is the Central Asia Drug Action Programme – CADAP, the first phase of which was started already in 2001. This programme continues to support the drug demand aspect of a comprehensive and sustainable drug policy and enhance capacity of all the relevant actors while further advocating for institutionalised application of the EU best practices. The programme is composed of four components dedicated to drug policy development, monitoring and evaluation, prevention, risk and harm reduction and treatment. The EU encourages many activities such as study visits, internships or seminars.

These are only a few examples of the EU partnerships which promote developing and implementing of a balanced, comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based drug policy at the regional and international level.

Last but not least, the EU is also the major contributor to the UNODC budget – by providing funding for UNODC to further contribute to tackling the world drug problem. On this occasion, the EU and its Member States acknowledge the central role of the CND and UNODC in the international response and also welcome enhanced cooperation between Vienna institutions and other bodies within their respective mandates as agreed in the outcome document.

Question from Russia: I thank the panellist for the detailed information provided. We find the information very interesting in the area of combatting drugs, especially for the Colombia plan. We support those efforts and hope that Colombia will put an end to drug trafficking but will also achieve socio-economic development. But yesterday a review was conducted on drugs in Afghanistan and it is a shocking situation on the spread of drugs and drug production. What are the EU’s efforts in the area of combatting the spread of drugs in Afghanistan?

Question from Colombia: We would like to express special thanks to the EU speaker for mentioning the implementation of activities in Colombia and the region as a whole. These programmes contribute to the principle of common and shared responsibility in combatting the world drug problem. We can bring about recovering these territories through development. It has been of great importance for us and we thank the EU for support given in this partnership to implement the principle of common and shared responsibility.

Response from the EU: The project covers Afghanistan as well and all countries along the Heroin Route, such as countries in Eastern Europe and Eastern Africa. The programme components include: 1- national policy and operational responses, strengthen criminal justice; 2- technical assistance facility, supporting relevant authorities with good practices on demand and supply reduction; 3- cooperation initiatives to contribute to reinforce trust and transnational cooperation on drug related issues among beneficiary countries.

Martin Diaz, IEPES, El Salvador (NGO): Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the review of the impact of drug policies in Central America and the rest of the world. We must recognise the impact on human rights and violence, homicides and torture, due process, etc. In El Salvador there is a systematic violation of human rights from prohibitionist drug policies. It is time to be consistent to protect human rights. It’s time for the discourse to be aligned so that drug control protects the most vulnerable people and promotes development and security. International cooperation has a decisive role in this process. I want to refer to the UN Secretary General speech here around the UNGASS follow up process and the fact that this provides a framework to share best practices and focus on the consequences of human rights. I hope that we are on the right path and together we can implement a comprehensive and balanced approach. This will be the best way to implement the UNGASS recommendations and have an impact on the lives of all.

I call on the international community to address the violence and human rights violations in Central America. The situation is worsening with the involvement of the military which is acting with impunity in El Salvador. We are calling for an international commission on impunity to address these issues. We must also promote strengthening governmental institutions and reform the public security forces, judiciary and others given the ties with drugs, violence and security. We request countries cooperating on security measures to combat corruption and impunity in state structures. Research confirmed that there has been no detention of drug related crime among government officials. Either government officials are never involved, or the security officials have not done their job. I remind you also that prohibition based policies have made it possible to develop organised crime, corruption and terrorism. We need to reform drug control to focus on facts, science and reason, also focusing on the SDGs. Civil society remains open to build relations and cooperation with you in this regard. Read the full statement in Spanish.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: We will now take interventions from the floor.

Estonia, on behalf of the European Union: The EU and its member states thank you for organising this international meeting to ensure that drug policies are balanced, integrated and evidence based. The 3 UN conventions, the declaration of UNGASS provide an international framework for this approach. We are implementing partnerships with member states on health, human rights, justice and all other aspects of the world drug problem. We work with Latin America, thanks to the EU-CELAC collaboration. COPOLAD II is working towards reinforcing national observatories on drugs, the reduction of demand and supply and the adoption of approaches for capacity building and lessons learned. Another aim is to strengthen EU-CELAC cooperation. Recently, we launched a new programme to reinforce the rule of law and citizen security on organised crime: El Pacto. This programme covers 18 Latin American countries for 2017 to 2022. This is the first cooperation programme with Latin America which covers the whole penal chain.

We also want to highlight our work along cocaine and heroin routes. The cocaine route programme was launched in 2009. Participants have contributed to funding cooperation among law enforcement, training, inter-service task forces, financial intelligence units, etc. The project aims to provide training and capacity building on financial investigation. It is the first project of its kind.

The EU action against drugs and organised crime launched in 2017 was created to improve treatment and combat trafficking along the heroin route. 12 million euros are allocated to this programme until 2020. Activities include national, regional training modules and mentoring cycles, roundtables and cooperation, joint operations, human rights safeguards and anti-corruption activities.

One of the major programmes in Central Asia started in 2001. It supports demand aspects for a sustainable drug policy and advocating for EU best practices. It is composed of drugs, policy development, risk and harm reduction, treatment, study visits, internships and seminars.

These are only a few examples of EU partnerships on an integrated, balanced and comprehensive cooperation by the EU. The EU also acknowledges the central role of CND and UNODC and calls for stronger cooperation with other UN institutions as relevant and as agreed in the UNGASS outcome document.

India: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. We are a strong supporter of the work of the UN. We are a financial contributor to the UNODC, for general purposes and for projects undertaken in South Asia. India supports UNODC on projects around drug law enforcement capacity building. In 2014, 500,000 US dollars were contributed on projects relevant to the region, including NPS, regional cooperation against drugs, the use of pharmaceuticals containing psychotropic substances, law enforcement capabilities, etc. In 2011, we contributed USD 200,000 to counter drug trafficking for 24 months. We made a contribution of USD 200,000 to combat illicit trafficking in Afghanistan between 2014 and 2017. International cooperation is very important for India, as well as networking to connect regional and international law enforcement officers to disrupt drug trafficking, organised crime and illicit financial flows through intelligence sharing and joint cooperation. This is particularly relevant for India which is losing millions of rupees in money laundering and drug money. Training is an important component for capacity building. Last year, we conducted more than 300 programmes, with trainings of trainers. The aim is to educate trainers in the field of addiction treatment. We also conducted a one week training programme in Bhutan on demand reduction. This is part of our action plan and MoU between the republic of India and Bhutan. We have many MoUs with countries in the region. We reaffirm our calls as adopted in the UNGASS outcome document.

Portugal: I commend the intervention of Estonia on behalf of the EU. International cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels is one of the essential aspects of Portuguese drug policy. This week we are hosting a conference of national drug observatories within the COPOLAD project. As you may know, COPOLAD encourages the exchange of best practices between experts with the community of Caribbean, Latin American and EU states. We hosted the 2nd Conference on Addictive Behaviours, to showcase the latest knowledge and science on drug dependencies. It gathered more than 1,000 participants from 71 countries, this represents an important contribution to a scientific approach to drug dependence. Effective law enforcement and judicial cooperation: Portugal cooperates with African Portuguese-speaking countries. We concluded cooperation agreements on surveillance. Our commitment remains strong in the fight against drug trafficking. Results have been positive: in the last decades, 500 tons of heroin and cocaine and 12 billion euros have been diverted from criminal platforms. The role of HONLEA has also been important as a forum for cooperation among law enforcement agencies, which we should retain. This shows us that opening these subsidiaries to other areas of the UNGASS outcome document and including other practitioners is key to address the world drug problem in a more balanced way. NPS are also a new challenge, appearing each day on the drug market, impacting health and social and economic aspects. Coordinated efforts and a multidisciplinary approach work well. We cannot forget the importance of operational recommendations from UNGASS, which implementation should be our focus and priority.

Jo Dedeyne, Chief of the Secretariat to the Governing Bodies, UNODC: I will give you information about what the Secretariat of Governing Bodies has done to implement the UNGASS outcome document. Information I will provide today are complementary to other presentations from colleagues from various regions. I want to focus on the importance in the UNGASS outcome document of placing the debate in the Agenda for 2030. The CND had an agenda item on how to contribute to the thematic review of the SDGs. We tried to make sure that this information is easily accessible to you. We have created a special webpage where the contributions of the CND are posted, so that you can see what is being done. We work with the CCPCJ and other subsidiary bodies of ECOSOC (e.g. the Commission on the Status of Women and the Statistical Commission).

Coming now to the different pieces of the puzzle on CND implementation of UNGASS. One part is supporting you on thematic discussions, servicing of subsidiary bodies on what can be done at regional level. Here I will present two new initiatives on implementation of the mandate you have given us to support you in implementing the recommendations of the UNGASS. The Ambassador from Portugal mentioned HONLEAS. This year, each meeting that took place had a discussion on the implementation of 60/1 tabled by Mme Chair for consideration by the CND in March. The outcome of those recommendations is contained in the report by the subsidiary bodies for consideration by the CND next March. Most meetings have already taken place. At this moment, the Sub-Commission is in session. We will also have a HONLEA meeting in Asia in late November, early December. It’s also a pleasure to meet the HONLEA Europe meeting this year, welcome back. The subsidiary meetings have contributed to hold working groups looking at cross cutting aspects such as gender, special needs for children and young people. This has already been considered by participants.

One initiative is that we have started to organise awareness raising UNGASS implementation workshops for interested countries. The rationale is that some countries don’t always have the opportunity to follow processes in Vienna and want information on what’s happening in Vienna. We developed a 2-day workshop on what is an UNGASS and how the follow up process works. It is an opportunity to bring back home all the actors involved in UNGASS implementation. The feedback received by member states is that this is an important outcome. Another outcome is looking at challenges faced and progress made and include this in the matrix we’ve been distributing. This is to contribute to the work we’re already conducting. There is a dedicated side event today where we will be hearing from Bolivia, where we’re piloting the project. We will also hear from Trinidad and Tobago. I want to ask the facilitator to show the video from Trinidad and Tobago after my presentation.

We have been referring to the good practices portal, showing how important it is to have the information from you to populate the good practices portal and have this information shared to other member states. I want to give you a snapshot of what this is supposed to look like, to motivate you to send more information to us. Then we can send this website at the occasion of the next CND. We have an entry portal with the different UNGASS chapters, and then under each chapter you can go to the sub-chapters, and then you’d go directly to the contributions provided by member states, sorted by country and by operational recommendation. The information is posted as received, we only make sure it is easily accessible. If you click further, you will have information on how the initiative taken works, progress so far, and challenges faced. This is what we are working on right now. We would appreciate it if you could send us information in the matrix. 10 countries have already done so. Any suggestions are most welcome.

[VIDEO]

Nikita Lushnikov, National Anti-Drug Union, NAU, Russia (NGO): We are not-for-profit and work on a drug-free programme. We have seen clashes in our national practice on substitution therapy and rehabilitation. We have come out with distinctive projects which have not been seen before: a treatment camp with 1500 children being rehabilitated from drug addiction, in line with a drug-free focus. We have managed over the years to bring together representatives from 7 countries to these drug camps. We adopted relevant decisions given the progressive growth given by governments around the world. We need common criteria and standards from the UN on this. In our country, we have proposals to find common ground between the leading global programmes through which we can build cooperation globally. This initiative has been supported by our foreign ministry and our Foreign Minister who has helped us organise an international conference in one of our treatment camps, where we brought representatives form UNODC. We have received support from Fedotov from UNODC. In light of this cooperation, we have managed to grab the attention of the world community and highest leadership of our state and we are co-organisers of an international conference which will be held in December with Parliamentarians and experts from 40 states. The aim is to create a parliamentary dimension for international cooperation. We have substantial experience and feel we can be very proactive and practical, not just for our country but also for the UN in general. We work in the street and with the drug consumers. We know better than anyone what drug users need and what can help them. Of course, many of us have been drug consumers, so we know better than anyone how to build dialogue and constructive cooperation. It is a consequence that drug problems have grown in our country. We can make a practical contribution. We propose our assistance and knowledge in this programme. All of those who want to visit our treatment camps can come from 16-20 January 2018 in Moscow. We are happy to work with other organisations in the UN system. We have a side event at 2pm. Anyone wishing to receive more detailed information can do so. Read the full statement in Russian.

China: NPS challenges are growing. Last year, UNGASS considered international drug control efforts, by constantly reminding ourselves of the goals we’ve set. The evolution of the world situation means we should focus on the 3 UN drug conventions and the principle of common and shared responsibility to stop the spread of drugs and fulfil the health of mankind. We have undertaken work with UNODC and attach importance to the CND. In close contact with UNODC, we have focused on international cooperation and provided training for Asian countries and in the Greater Mekong. Since 2002, we have trained more than 1000 law enforcement officials in Pakistan and other states. We have strengthened intelligence with the USA and other countries guided by the principle of common and shared responsibility. We call on the international community to contribute to capacity building through financial assistance and technical knowhow to deal with the scourge of drugs. All countries should deal with the 3 UN drug conventions and the CND as the leading drug policy body. The 2009 and 2016 documents are complementary and mutually reinforcing. We should improve legislation in drugs efforts for a targeted approach in the face of new challenges. CND, UNODC and INCB should fulfil their mandates under the conventions. We should build a community of common future against drugs. We should maintain the inclusiveness of drug control policies. We should promote cooperation in mutual respect and benefit. No country is immune, all countries should step up in international cooperation to crack down on transnational organised crime. We should jointly contribute to the common cause of drug control. We should be more stringent on the scheduling of ketamine and other NPS. We should continue technical and financial assistance, covering the entire chain. China, within its capacity, continues capacity building for all countries.

Russia: We consider international cooperation as the quintessence of the fight against the global drug challenge. No state is able to tackle drugs alone. Drug flows circle around the entire globe. To combat this threat, there must be more interstate cooperation and solidarity. We took as our starting point, when developing Russia’s strategy on drugs, the 3 drug conventions whose integrity was reaffirmed at the 2016 UNGASS. At the same time, we should establish effective mechanisms to combat global drug expansion. It is these mechanisms that must be brought together in a single whole to fight drugs aggressions. Yesterday, UNODC’s work on Afghanistan was published and the results are stunning in terms of scale and volume of the drug tragedy. This requires a comprehensive strengthening of the Paris Pact to combat the opioid tsunami. This should be pulled with other relevant structures. The UN Security Council is regularly mentioning the Afghan drug industry. It is a precondition for defeating the terrorists who have taken root in this country. This requires the involvement of qualified law enforcement officials. Criminal activities are carried out in Afghanistan, South East Asia and all the way to South America. We should bolster drug cooperation. We need for law enforcement activities to be supplemented by rehabilitation of drug addicts. It is important to exchange accumulative experience and exchange of good practice. Only international cooperation can provide the key for these transnational problems including the spread of drugs in the darknet and NPS. We rely on civil society and activities, as well as the strategic goal of ridding the community of the drug evil. We will have a conference of parliamentarians against drugs in December on pressing drug control issues for the international community, in Moscow. We hope this will help us combat the global drug menace and implement the UNGASS outcomes.

Bulgaria: We align with the EU statement. Bulgaria emphasizes that the UNGASS outcome is a major step forward in our ability to address the world drug problem including demand, supply reduction and international cooperation. It is the main policy framework for beyond 2019 and seek further progress on identifying key areas for progress, including upholding human rights. Our experience has proved that. While addressing the new challenges of the day, like NPS and internet, we should keep our focus on more classic drug threats like trans-border trafficking of heroin, cocaine and precursors. The geographical situation of Bulgaria makes it an important factor for strong partnerships in countering drug trafficking. We are a regular partner in workshops on trafficking, with the participation of Romania and countries in the Middle East. A forum was held in Sofia in 2016, where it was agreed that drugs were a global problem which required an integrated approach and common efforts of partner agencies at European and international level. We look forward to participating in a future edition of this forum. We also have meetings of the joint committee on precursors with Iran. In 2003 we signed a MoU Bulgaria-Iran. We need integration of all efforts at national, regional and international level. These two examples are only showing our commitment to international cooperation for an evidenced, balanced and comprehensive approach to drugs. We look forward to the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document.

Regional Cooperation for Africa and the Middle East: UNODC programmes in Africa and the Middle East has various regional offices and country offices, as well as programme officers in the region. IN 2016, the programme reached close to 80 million dollars. And this is going up. We have many staff, made up of experts, financial and administrative staff. Our regional officers have committed to foster cooperation with regional states. We are also committed to the SDGs, especially 3, 5, 16 and 17 and the African Union strategy on drugs. I want to provide an overview of examples of programmes in the region.

Under the project on drugs and crime, activities include support to Cote d’Ivoire and Sierra Leone to draft new drug laws and policies, implementation of evidence based drug prevention activities in Mauritania and others. We support the East African Community on HIV prevention for key populations, especially PWUD. We are developing a compendium on health and drugs in Africa. We also implement the drug control masterplans, in Mauritania we promote a balanced approach and human rights protections for people who abuse drugs. In Dakar we support a drug treatment centre in Senegal. We also support the establishment of a network of drug dependence treatment centres in Africa. We support regional cooperation on criminal justice and countering organised crime, effective investigations, etc. In the Middle East, we have a close partnership with the DCC information centre to analyse criminal information.

The World Custom Organization, UNODC and Interpol continue their cooperation worldwide. In 2016, joint airport cooperation in Africa seized cocaine, heroin, cannabis, meth and counterfeit drugs. North-South and South-South cooperation are at the core of our activities, through global and regional programmes and regional networks. The WACAP initiative aims to establish a regional network of professionals against drug trafficking in West Africa. In May 2017, a regional cooperation was signed between 3 African countries (Chad, Niger and…) to strengthen border control. In Eastern Africa, UNODC is organising an inter-regional conference to share best practice between Asia, Africa and Latin America this month in Nairobi to address demand and supply in the three continents.

UNODC projects in Africa and the Middle East ensure exchange of lessons learned and best practice, with the participation of experts from member states and from civil society. UNODC, DPA, ECOWAS, Interpol and others work to stop drug trafficking with international cooperation and information sharing on lessons learned. Other examples include UNODC’s project on HIV/AIDS prevention in prison in Sub-Saharan Africa with a new toolkit and training manual in the region. UNODC collaborated with the Wellness and Recovery Centre in Dakar providing a forum for practitioners to exchange knowledge on opioid addiction. We also promote exchange of information on asset forfeiture and money laundering in the region. I hope I could provide some relevant examples of activities in the region with the support of our donors in the region.

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Side event on UNGASS implementation workshop will take place at 13 :15 in the C Building.

[LUNCH BREAK]

Post-UNGASS Facilitator: Welcome back. Good discussions this morning, and in the side event from UNODC Secretariat. I would like UNODC to also provide a workshop for delegates here about UNGASS implementation, as many of us were not here when the document was negotiated.

Suriname: Being a country that tirelessly tries to protect its people, and has development plans up until 2021. We contribute to sub-regional, regional and international efforts to counter drugs and crime and violence. We take responsibility for countering drug trafficking by investing significant amounts of domestic resources in cross-border partnerships which have, for the most part, yielded the expected results – although these results can sometimes be bittersweet. The evidence shows the ever-existing, huge demand for drugs around the world. It is this element which is beyond Suriname’s control, and makes cross-border cooperation essential. Suriname has the presidency of the EU and Latin America collaborative programmes. Suriname recently updated its anti-money laundering measures. With a focus on neighbouring countries and destination countries, we work at the bilateral level and regional initiatives – including efforts to reform drug legislation to allow the use of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes. This work was established by CARICOM in July 2017 to explore the barriers and determine if there should be a change in the current drug legislation. The reclassification of the drug would make it accessible for all types of use – including medical, religious and cultural purposes, as well as for scientific use in research on the value of components of cannabis.

Romania: Aligns with the EU intervention from this morning. On Chapter 6 of the UNGASS document, international cooperation is essential in the response to the world drug problem – based on an accurate assessment of the evidence of results. We emphasise the importance of capacity building in developing and transit countries. Technical assistance and financial support from the international community can help to improve data collection, trainings and improve experience of innovative methods. Strengthening the transfer of knowledge between practitioners within states and in partner countries that are faced with similar challenges. These activities, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, should be maintained so that they can be implemented simultaneously and in a mutually supportive manner. Countries that experience drug production and trafficking should continue to receive assistance to counter cultivation and trafficking. International cooperation should continue to support several programmes. The challenges of the drug phenomenon can only be tackled in collaboration, and there should be a continuous process of institutional collaboration as part of a systematic monitoring of reliable information. States should also be encouraged to create their own systems covering drug demand and drug supply reduction strategies. The establishment of independent bodies to collect and analyse information would constitute a step forward in many regions. States with experience in this regard may serve as providers of technical assistance, lessons learned and experiences for decision making. Groups such as the Pompidou Group can serve to assist with this. Governments should be encouraged to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and social integration – and efforts to promote healthy lifestyles and new opportunities in terms of education and good use of free time. Government institutions should increase their capacity to generate data and conduct studies on prevention programmes.

Turkey: We reiterate our commitment to promoting international cooperation, and to implementing comprehensive and balanced strategies. International cooperation should be tangible and results-oriented. Tailoring technical assistance to the needs of recipient countries will help achieve this. For more effective results, uncoordinated efforts should be reduced – but efforts to create greater collaboration should not result in new structures and systems. The unabated trend in cultivation in Afghanistan will bring about challenges for Afghanistan and neighbouring countries. Drug traffickers are in contact with other organised criminal and terrorist groups. Member states must support one another to counter this.

UNODC – Alexander Smith, Representative for Europe, West and Central Asia: Over the last 18 months, we completed a review of our programme portfolio in Europe, West and Central Asia, in line with the Paris Pact, and to reposition ourselves to provide technical assistance and innovative responses in a ‘one-UN’ approach. The four programme requires USD 310 million, and is inscribed in north-south and south-south collaborative efforts. The Central Asia Regional Information Centre (CARIC) has formed links with similar centres around the world. CARIC is an example of the good practices that UNODC supports and promotes. Under the law enforcement pillar of the UNGASS, UNODC works with a variety of partners to foster regional cooperation such as border and container control, intelligence, etc. We counted over 1,000 beneficiaries of technical assistance and training, including an increasing percentage of women. We connected West and Central Asia with other regions in terms of law enforcement efforts. Last February, we oversaw the signing an MOU on money laundering efforts in Afghanistan and China. In 2017, we implemented 20 training events, and we helped to connect different sectors and civil society. On sustainable development, we implemented a conference in Tehran, and we release research and reports on key issues. A new initiative was launched on assessing organised crime in the Balkans. In Kyrgyzstan, more than 200 female police officers received training on investigations. UNODC places importance on a balanced approach, and our biggest value is the trust we have with stakeholders.

Kazakhstan: We provide full support and voluntary contributions to the CARIC programme, and thank UNODC for their generous support for this centre. CARIC has proven itself as an effective mechanism. This year, it supported four initiatives across the region to combat transnational organised crime in line with the SDGs. The international community faces a challenge in reducing the number of drug addicts.

[Video from CARIC]

Ezekwesiri Eluchie, People Against Drug Dependence and Ignorance, PADDI (NGO from Nigeria): In my capacity as representative for Sub-Saharan Africa on the Civil Society Task Force towards UNGASS 2016, I and my colleagues undertook a series of consultations in eight African countries – meeting with NGOs, government agencies and intergovernmental agencies to gauge their responses towards addressing the substance abuse situation. After the release of the UNGASS Outcome Document, I have likewise continued to maintain consultations and communications with the various stakeholders in the countries earlier visited across Sub-Saharan Africa on best practices towards implementing and facilitating the document.

A critical and fundamental problem highlighted in all the countries evaluated – across East, West, South and Central Africa – was the dearth of data and statistics relating to the substance abuse, and a corresponding lack of human capacity to sustain requisite interventions in all facets of the substance abuse situation across Sub-Saharan Africa: ranging from prevention, treatment, care and rehabilitation, and interdiction and supply control. Though there was a palpable problem with regards to the substance abuse situation in all the countries evaluated, the dearth stated above made it near-impossible to understand, with any real exactitude, the scope and extent of such problems and which areas to best deploy the scare resources available to record a higher return on investments.

There is unanimity of purpose amongst the countries evaluated, that the foremost area requiring specialized, targeted, effective and sustainable technical assistance would be in building domestic human capacity in the areas of collating and maintaining reliable statistics and a database of information on the substance abuse situation. The unique role and outreach potentials of CSOs and community-based organizations as vehicles to penetrate hard-to-reach populations in Sub-Saharan Africa, places such organizations in a unique vantage position to best utilize such technical assistance.

The paucity of financial resources available in the region – and the fact that the region is generally weighed down by such basic health challenges as infectious diseases, high maternal mortality and childhood killer diseases, and immunization concerns making less funds available for addressing secondary and tertiary health care concerns – makes the prioritization of evidence based prevention strategies and practices inevitable. Financial assistance towards translating time-tested and experience-based substance abuse prevention strategies and practices in the region into scalable domestically-generated evidence-based practices was paramount to succeeding in addressing the substance abuse situation in the region.

The need for countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa, in view of the proximity in their situations, to increase collaboration and exchange ideas as to what works best within their respective countries was agreed as a panacea to the continued reliance on evidence-based prevention practices sourced from countries far removed from the situation of African countries (this is a call for south-south collaboration). The north-south collaborative initiatives should not be restricted only to interdiction and supply control approaches, but also cover prevention and demand reduction strategies and practices. We notice that there is a focus on interdiction and not on demand reduction.

On our part, People Against Drug Dependence and Ignorance (PADDI) has concentrated on building local, national, regional and Africa-wide network of CSOs and NGOs. When resources are pooled together, the scarcity of resources for which the African continent and its constituent countries are notorious for, can be converted into a pedestal for cooperation, shared responsibilities and mutual benefit towards addressing a common drug abuse problem.

El Salvador: Our strategy is based on the principles of human rights, intersectionality, evidence, etc. A country cannot address this problem in isolation. Therefore, El Salvador supported the inclusion of common and shared responsibility in the UNGASS Outcome Document. Both regional and international cooperation are important. For example, we have been working with counterparts in Honduras, Costa Rica and Peru, and contribute to programmes such as the EU-Latin America collaboration COPOLAD. We should work towards harmonisation of responses in order to achieve a comprehensive and balanced approach. We take note of what was said by the representative of civil society regarding impunity. While we respect the position of civil society, we wish to make some clarifications on this – as making generalisations without the full facts can be detrimental to our efforts. We agree that the dismantling of drug trafficking networks and strengthening institutions in this area is fundamental. This is a process which cannot transform reality overnight, but there are tangible steps being taken to end impunity. This includes the prosecution of public officials, including corrupt civil servants in the judiciary – with 14 people detained, and the operation is continuing with four arrest warrants still outstanding. Earlier this year, raids on properties included a former Mayor and an inspector of the national police. Some 5,938 kg of cocaine were seized, while marijuana seizures have dropped over the past year. With respect to the positive results of international cooperation in this field, regional programmes such as COPOLAD continue to be extended year-on-year. We remain committed to transparency on the use of funds, and anyone can check online what is being received through international cooperation and how it is being spent. This ensures that such funds cannot be embezzled. This is an important opportunity to address the in-going and new challenges facing our countries.

Colombia: International cooperation is a tool to reduce supply, money laundering among other issues. The focus on this in UNGASS 2016 allows for the building of better mechanisms and more effective responses to all aspects of the world drug problem. In this regard, Colombia has championed the importance of promoting international cooperation – appealing for a reorientation of efforts to reduce demand and supply. This must all be addressed in full compliance with international law and human rights, full respect for sovereignty of states and non-interference, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals. The implementation of mechanisms to make this a reality is strongly related with the 2016 UNGASS mandate given to CND and UNODC – to boost the creation and strengthening of cooperative ties with other UN agencies. The linkages made between our efforts and the Sustainable Development Goals – especially on health, equality and peace – is welcomed and should be followed-up in the thematic review of progress towards the SDGs.

We advocate continuing, in partnership with the subsidiary bodies of CND, to address this. This includes adequate training, resources and technical knowledge to those countries requesting such assistance – headed by UNODC as well as the World Health Organization and other relevant bodies. A step in the right direction from UNGASS 2016 is reflected in the adoption of Resolution 60/6 on UN collaborations – adopted in March 2017 by the CND. This invites UNODC to step up efforts to implement joint initiatives with other UN agencies and bodies. We welcome the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between UNODC and WHO, and the adoption of a decision of the World Health Assembly to request WHO to step-up efforts in this sector and to report back regularly on the public health dimensions of the world drug problem. Notwithstanding the progress made, there are still challenges of cooperation and collaboration with some UN agencies which remain important. In this regard, it would be desirable to establish mechanisms to facilitate this collaboration.

On 26th September, the OHCHR delegate pointed out their willingness to provide support to states and others to promote and protect human rights in efforts to address the drug problem. This is very timely, and we hope that UNODC might propose actions in this area. Coordination between agencies requires a deeper discussion to ensure UN system coherence and discuss what should be the mechanisms. Attention is drawn to the emphasis that UNGASS places on measures for triangulation and south-south cooperation. Part of this lies in the development of new indicators to demonstrate results, alongside the development of better coordination mechanisms. We would like to point out that Colombia, as a middle-income country, has a policy of international cooperation with prioritises south-south cooperation. The recent agreement with UNODC on alternative development is a cornerstone of the recent peace agreement in the country. Over the last four years, Colombia has donated more than $100 million from its national budget to UNODC. We emphasise the importance of the COPOLAD project, and work with regional groups on anti-drug intelligence, and on capacity building to promote harm reduction using the experience from Switzerland thanks to the input of an expert from that country. There has also been support from Germany, and a study visit on alternative development and reforestation in Thailand. We have also been developing horizontal cooperation and are looking at the programmes in Bolivia to see if they can be applied in this post-conflict stage.

Argentina: International cooperation is an essential and crucial element to achieve success. My country has developed three projects in the context of the FOAA (South-South Cooperation), with Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay. Argentina continues looking intensely on multilateral cooperation activities. In May, we held the Second Annual Conference of COPOLAD, which dealt with important challenges: internet, illegal drug markets and synthetic drugs. This conference was held in cooperation with the FIIAP and the Government of Spain. It was carried out with the support of the Foreign Ministry and we enjoyed the presence of Roberto Moro and Patricia Bullrich. The COPOLAD Conference afforded exchanges between the EU and the CELAC region. Likewise, we are involved in CRIMJUST, and participated of the launch in February. We took part in Operation lionfish and the training on cryptocurrencies. We are working on a meeting on this issue. The Drugs agency of the country took part of a training for law enforcers in Mexico City in September, addressing issues such as training police forces, protection of production, crypto-markets and terrorism. We aim to hold a regional course on currencies, aiming to provide skills to officials in criminal justice and oversight bodies regarding technical aspects of money transportation, as well as interdiction aspects. This meeting will take place in Buenos Aires in the 4-5 December this year.

Andrés Núñez (Regional Section for Latin American and the Caribbean), UNODC:  To support Member States to enhance international cooperation, UNODC counts on a network of field offices. Technical assistance is delivered through a host of projects at all levels. We have 780 colleagues in our field offices, 35% women. In terms of national projects, the biggest portfolio (40%) focuses directly on drug-related issues. This work is reinforced by regional and global projects, AIRCOP, CRIMJUST, global programmes dealing with drug demand reduction, HIV and money laundering, and the Containers project. In terms of financial resources, we would highlight that between 2015-16, we collected funds of around $105 million. These went to technical assistance on alternative development, monitoring of illicit crops, and others. It should be noted that over 85% of the collected resources were focused on alternative development and monitoring illicit crops. Most of these programmes were funded by the recipient countries. In addition, these national projects benefit from the support of the international community, mostly in security responses but also alternative development and demand reduction. In terms of concrete examples, exchanges of experiences at the local level among practitioners in terms of alternative development and illicit crop monitoring. We have regular mail exchanges between practitioners. In terms of technical teams, we have good exchanges, especially in South America, between these teams, and exchanges in terms of sharing experiences regarding the commercialisation of AD products. Other types of partnerships include those that link with already established networks. We provide support in terms of capacity building through the global and interregional projects mentioned. We support communities by working with the Police Community of the Americas (Ameripol); with whom we met in Mexico in September. This support focuses on the exchange of experiences between law enforcement training entities to ensure there is a common language between training entities. In terms of demand reduction, treatment and care, the partnership has been mainly supported by a sub-regional project focused on Andean countries, but also exchanging experiences on prevention, like the Strong Families programme with strong presence in Central America, but also South America. We supported the first regional meeting on NPS this year. In terms of main lessons learnt, we would like to highlight that most AD-related cooperation at the national level is funded by countries who are beneficiaries of these projects. This funding is complemented by the support of international community to these projects. We have an interesting experience of good practice exchange, with the commercialisation for AD products project. We have experiences shared with countries within the region, namely the AD logo in Colombia, which has linked AD products to fair trade and peace in the country. Further cooperation is needed on demand reduction and chemical precursors trade flow and control.

Farid Chehioueche, Foundation for Alternative Approaches to Addiction – Think & do tank (FAAAT): I am proud to share views with a refreshed commission bound by two new significant cornerstones, namely the UNGASS outcome document and the Agenda for Sustainable Development. These assess a framework where bettering the health, well-being and living conditions comes first. In line with this new policy landscape, ahead of the 2019 target date, our think-tank underlines the need for countries to implement policies that respect the international hierarchy of standards, the need for a UNODC re-focused on its primary functions, and for the Commission to continue efforts towards a comprehensive participation in its process, a renewed preparation frame, harmonized in time with the 2030 Agenda. I will introduce and develop recommendations on these three topics.

1. Member states implementation of the UNGASS recommendations​ ​in​ ​light​ of​ ​the 2019​ review of the international drug strategy: in anticipation of the upcoming diplomatic marathon, which might lead governments positions to digress from their citizens’ claims, we need to recall several key elements that would help Member States in building global drug strategies better articulated with the broad international law and rights. The​ ​hierarchy​ ​of​ ​norms​ ​unequivocally​ ​places​ ​human​ ​rights​ ​first:​ Under international law, states must give priority to their human rights obligations over and above any conflicting obligations under the drug control Conventions. Recently, several groundbreaking academic researchers have clarified this hierarchy of standards. They point that these overruling human rights, first and foremost, are positive obligations derived from the rights to health, life, physical and mental integrity, and privacy. Conformity with the fundamental rights standards starts with ending death penalty for drug-related offenses, and generally by making more proportional and less coercive the penal and administrative responses. Along with the need to respect privacy, these needed measures can only be achieved by ending the criminalization of those citizens who use drugs or engage in illicit drug-related activities to get by. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development reaffirms these principles and shows pathways to achieve good practices in line with international human rights instruments. We recommend to Member States:

• To take advantage of their territorial diversity, encouraging development and experimentation of alternative policies and practices at the local or regional level, in particular in the regions where problematic use is prominent, or in these areas where cultivation or use are bound to tradition. In a shorter term, to make these evolutions possible, we recommend:
• To strengthen and widen collaboration and partnership with civil society organizations, both nationally and within the international institutions. We suggest in particular to create platforms and networks, thus easing interaction and exchange of information, and including in their official delegation stakeholders from civil society organizations;
• To back and support — including material and financially — the NGOs transversal committees and networks of Vienna, New-York and Geneva, settled democratically as privileged ways for the involvement of NGOs in international drug-related fora.

2. Work of the UNODC: Sustainability merges sense, good faith, and rationality. Although it is evident that part of drug-related issues is also crime-related, most of the concept of “crime” falls out of the scope of any matter linked to drugs. From robbery, terrorism, human or organ trafficking, tax evasion, child pornography, to copyright violations, nothing rational or systematic links these crimes to drugs. The drugs & crime issue only arises as a nuclear topic when the system has failed to put “health and welfare” at its core. The primary work to be undertaken at international level regarding drugs must fundamentally articulate around health, care, and prevention. Reaffirming​ ​the​ ​drugs​ ​issue​ ​not​ ​only​ ​as​ ​an​ ​“illegal​ ​drugs”​ ​issue​ ​is​ ​key​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​new challenges​ ​or​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​availability​ ​of​ ​controlled​ ​medicines​ ​among​ ​the​ ​planet. In its Article 17, the Single Convention mandates a “special administration” to oversee international drug control. Although the tasks of this “special administration” were first carried out by a UN Secretary General’s Division on Narcotic Drugs, and then entrusted to the UNDCP, they eventually merged with Crime and Justice issues onto the UNODC twenty years ago. In consequence, we recommend:

• At first, to refocus the UNODC​ as a United​ ​Nations​ ​Office​ ​on​ ​Drugs​ ​and​ ​Controlled substances​, with exclusive responsibility for providing effective leadership for all the UN drug control activities, for ensuring coherence of actions as well as coordination, complementarity and non-duplication of activities across the United Nations system, and thoroughly implementing CND resolutions;
• Secondly, the creation of a UNOCP​ (United​ ​Nations​ ​Office​ ​on​ ​Crime​ ​Prevention​) that would implement CCPCJ resolutions, and efficiently focus on preventing delinquency and tackling, among others, those criminal organizations that smuggle with controlled drugs. In this renewed context, the reinforced and refocused UNODC could assume its legitimate role of mediator and transversal actor, in particular, creating or strengthening contacts and cooperation with: The High-level​ ​Political​ ​Forum​ ​on​ ​Sustainable​ ​Development,​ especially those focused on Goals 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17; the United Nations Development Program; the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; the International Regulatory Cooperation for Herbal Medicines; the United Nations Environment Program; and the United Nations University.

3. Work of the CND and role in the upcoming action plan: We welcome the work of the CND chair and the post-UNGASS facilitator and recall the need to continue efforts to allow for substantive involvement & contributions from all countries, and from the broad civil society stakeholders, including people who use or produce and affected populations.
In particular, we recommend:

• to plug the CND on UN webTV, a broadcasting system of the UN Department of Public Information which allows for quality multilingual video diffusion as well as archival;
• to give more importance to the CND template document, intended to collect implementation programs of the UNGASS operational recommendations;
• to increase the effort of presence and visualization on social media

Regarding​ ​the​ ​way​ ​forward​: The UNGASS preparations included a rich and diverse consultation & review process, to try to achieve a snapshot of the various realities of the world. It was used as the basis to draft the UNGASS outcome document, which finally embraced the broad drug phenomenon. A similar, if not more extended process, should be conducted to draft the next action plan. Enough time and comprehensive data are critical. Therefore, we urge the Commission to take two steps:

• Take the opportunity to harmonize​ ​the​ ​timeframe​ of the international action on drugs with the 2030 Agenda, by extending the consultation one year and adopting at its 63rd session a new action plan running from 2020 to 2030;
• Secondly, in the spirit of the CND Resolution 58/8 and the UNGASS board document titled “Thematic overview of contributions to the outcome document of UNGASS 2016”, compile​ ​all​ ​Member​ ​States’​ ​plans​ ​of​ ​action​ to tackle drug-related issues into a report of Member States’ national and local strategies, and dedicate intersessional CND meetings to the presentation, debate and discussion of these concrete plans.

One significant consideration for future UN strategies to overcome the stalemate (grounded on nonconsensual past consensus) would be to switch from a doctrinaire upstream approach to an amenable downstream action plan, which encourages and reinforces Member States in their action. The​ ​zero​ ​draft​ ​of​ ​the​ ​2020-2030​ ​UN​ ​action​ ​plan​ ​on​ ​drugs​ ​must​ ​directly​ ​be​ ​a​ ​synthesis​ ​of​ ​the diversity,​ ​thoroughness​ ​and​ ​value​ ​of​ ​Member​ ​States’​ ​local​ ​and​ ​national​ ​drug​ ​strategies. Thank you for your attention.

Mexico: We identified 10 priorities in our preparatory work towards the UNGASS. The first three relate to international cooperation. First, the problem of drugs demand the international community endorses the principle of common and shared responsibility, through more intense collaborative cooperation. Bolster a common front to address crime and related offences. We need to step up cooperation and joint action to dismantle criminal organisations. Third, need for greater cooperation and coordination between UN agencies to address all aspects of the world drug problem. Mexico believes in the benefits of cooperation. My country has benefited from bilateral, triangular and regional cooperation. My country highlights the need to strengthen the commitment of specialised bodies of the UN system: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNWOMEN, and others to identify and provide technical assistance in the many dimensions of the outcome document. We highlight the importance of synergies between bodies and schemes for international cooperation. We also value dialogue to identify good practices and meet the goals of the Outcome document: COPOLAD, UNDP, many others. We appreciate the great contribution of civil society, which is far greater than we had imagined. Those efforts should keep being integrated into these discussions.

United States: We highlight the importance for the international community to encourage the implementation of the Outcome Document. We welcome the collaboration of UN agencies in their respective mandates, whilst recognising UNODC’s key role and the CND as the central body in the drug policy architecture of the UN. The US is committed to intensified cooperation and collaboration to address and counter the world drug problem. The US appreciates data sharing efforts to accelerate the rate at which WHO ECDD reviews NPS for international control. We support UNODC programmes on information exchange, such as INCB’s project COHESION ad PRISM. We support existing efforts to advance law enforcement and intelligence authorities information sharing, such as INCB programme on precursors. (…) We urge members states to support the platform, providing data and voluntary contributions. We support efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organisations contributing to the opioid crisis. The US suffered 64 thousand overdose deaths in 2016. More than ever recorded in history in a single year. The epidemic is one of the biggest crises. None of us are immune to its wrath and we need to work together to fight this threat before it claims more lives. Only through collaboration we can advance to curb threats illicit drugs.

Canada: We are committed to the implementation of the Outcome Document. Cooperation is key to address world drug problem. The insecurity of trafficking and transnational criminal organisations threatens democracy, development and prosperity; hence our commitment to cooperate and forester conditions for growth, human rights and welfare. We organise an anti-crime capacity building programme to prevent and respond to threats posed by transitional crime, primarily in the Americas. With six thematic priorities including money laundering, security systems and crime prevention. Since 2009, we have implemented bilateral programmes for the value of 108 million dollars. These have served to assist member states to address development, human rights, justice and law enforcement. Promoting proportionality, including through treatment courts. There are four countries that have implemented adult drug treatment course. Another important aspect of the cooperation work, the container control programme, which has resulted in increased seizures of illicit substances and other illicit products. We also train against smuggling proceeds of crime. Canada will continue to partner with states to address the causes and consequences of the world drug problem. We also stress the importance of mainstreaming a gender perspective into all aspects of drug policy.

Venezuela: We stress that even before the Outcome Document, our country was a fervent champion of common and shared responsibility. On that basis, we’ve argued many of our positions on drug control and cooperation. We continue to participate and strengthening regional, interregional and international cooperation strategies, balanced alternative development of all peoples, respecting human rights, and relying on public health responses.

Regional Section, South Asia, South-East Asia and the Pacific (UNODC): UNODC’s presence in the region relies on a network of 2 regional, 3 national and 5 programme offices, with additional presence for projects. We actively pursue to deepen and broaden partnerships with Member States. The programmatic action of UNODC in the region is framed by three country programmes, two regional programmes, one coming to an end at the end of the year, but substituted by a successor. With regards to the key features, in the region we can refer to $60 million. 45% channelled from the drug fund. A similar percentage in 2017 delivery to date. Trend towards a steady increase in the body of the action on the ground.  With regards to the five main items developed by Chapter 6: On technical assistance, I can offer different and complementary examples. In Myanmar, the office is involved in partnership with the government in the development of new drug policy aligned with UNGASS recommendations, following intensive consultation process and due to be formally launched in December. On the other hand, capacity building, eLearning programme, with 16,000 offices in the region benefiting. On cooperation, Mekong MOU on drug control which captures overall drug policy strategy developed and embraced by 6 Mekong programmes to contain the threat of drugs. And MOU operationalised by sub regional action plans adopted every 3 years. Promoting intelligence and information sharing: coordination in Southeast Asia. (…) More operational translation of the notion of cooperation: border liaison office network. Over 85 coordinating offices for national law enforcement agencies, cross-border cooperation against transnational threats. National agencies cooperation between UNODC’s 2 regional offices. Knowledge enhancement, information exchange: important research studies by UNODC (Threat assessment in the Pacific, and research on trends and patterns of ATS and NPS in Southeast Asia. With regards to efforts to translate in operational strategic terms the SDGs agenda: action plan to operationalise the Mekong MOU. (…) South Asia: ongoing development of new regional programme in South Asia which reflects the Outcome Document and also SDGs. Few words on cooperation with other agencies. UNDOC in the region cooperates with UNDP, UNWOMEN, UNAIDS, WHO. Ongoing work in Myanmar for instance with UNAIDS and WHO, revising the narcotics drugs law, and infrastructure in the delivery of the comprehensive package in prisons. Opening of OST establishments in 5 countries. Drug HIV services to female drug users in Nepal.

Abdellatif Adebibe, Moroccan Confederation of Associations for the Development of the Senhaja Rif Region (NGO): For ages, cannabis was considered to be a legal economical product for national consumption coming from the Central High Rif, the historical producing region in the North of Morocco, until independence. The ancestral plant was traditionally used for recreational purposes, but also for industrial and medicinal ends, until Morocco signed the United Nations Single Convention in 1961.From that moment on the growers had no alternative than to sell their produce to national and international trafficking organisations. The change in legislation had adverse effects on development in the affected region and caused a situation of repression and prosecution by national authorities. Innocent members of the community were captured and punished. Due to progressive abandonment by the state, the region fell behind in its socio-economic development and infrastructure, compared to other regions in the country. Due to increased international demand for drugs, and a lack of efficient alternative development options provided by the state and international agencies, the cannabis growers are still suffering an unstable social situation where fear and uncertainty of the future prevail. The population of the historical cannabis growing region is not just affected by demographic and geographic factors, but growth is expanding to other areas with abundant land to meet this growing demand, which is met with new varieties of cannabis, imported from Europe. For this reason we struggle against the cultivation of imported varieties that have been designed to produce high yields of cannabis resin and are destined exclusively for drug trafficking, and causing environmental damage. Our proposal is to promote our national cultural patrimony, and our human resources in the natural environment of the historical growing region, including the legal exploitation of our ancestral and indigenous cannabis variety.

Roberto Arbitrio, UNODC Chief of the Office of the Director-General: The topic was very interesting and challenging to produce short presentations. Chapter 6 focuses on partnerships and shared responsibilities, but throughout the outcome document there are references to international cooperation. The document identifies international cooperation as effective strategy against world drug problem in its security and health impacts. We heard some speakers and members states referring to Opium Poppy report launched yesterday. During the launch, a number of elements were highlighted: potential for new markets, bigger consumption, new criminal actors that could benefit from the high value of such a production including terrorist organisations. International cooperation is critical and essential. In the wisdom of MS we are working to increase our commitments. Clear indications from your wisdom and experience collective: drug trafficking networks are complex entities, articulated. We are moving away from the SPECTRE-like image of organised crime. Transnational organisations need to be addressed by international global partnerships. Connecting different dimension into cooperation. Absolutely key to share best practices and lessons learnt based on evidence and science. The global pantheism is equality important on law enforcement. Clear on Outcome Document. Effective international cooperation demands national level that creates environment for national entities to interact, regional frameworks to ensure national entities collaborate, but also interregional frameworks together look at the complexity of connections of drug trafficking networks. Important to implement a symmetric strategy to counter transitional organised crime and drug trafficking networks. Criminal organisations from the most archaic and local, to the most sophisticated using cyberspace, money laundering. Law enforcement needs to cover all the spectrum. Not asymmetrical but symmetrical to counter all aspects. UNODC will always be a partner to work with you to strengthen these frameworks and we are using the outcome document as an operational reference for all activities.

Malaysia: All of us should not forget that in our deliberations today we should observe and follow the main objective of UNGASS: to uphold the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action, 2014 Joint Ministerial Statement, and UNGASS Outcome Document. We must conform to the three UN drug conventions, sufficiently flexible to implement drug control practices according to national needs and priorities. There will never be a one size fits all because of our different situations. But I’d like to stress that in Malaysia we treat drug control as a public security issue, as it affects young people who are the future of the development of the country. Drug abuse on young people will lead eventually to generational and negative issues that destroy families and communities. Young people will feel emboldened and brave to try anything. I was watching TV this morning on Sky News. There’s a new issue in the UK of the blue pill among young people. Sexual performance enhancing drug now used by young people for recreational purposes. All drugs affect people when used in a non-prescription way, and this cannot be easily tolerated in a general way. Can’t be a totally health approach, it has to be balanced. We can’t treat drug control and the abuse of victims as a health issue. Because drugs and crime. In Malaysia, we have 48% population of inmates in prison that are in there for petty drug use and small dealing. The link between drugs and crime is by these people involving themselves in crime to finance their activities. We also know of instances of people moving from softer drugs to harder drugs. And the new phenomenon of polydrug users. We have a balanced approach. The government has decided to streamline enforcement activities. Instead of having the police and antidrug agency do common enforcement, we have separated priorities to ensure police focuses on supply (tackling big drug trafficking networks and choking money supply). We hope we can reduce supply by doing so. Hopefully with assistance of UNODC, we will continue to reduce drug supply. When it comes to the national anti-drugs agency, it handles the issue of drug users and addicts. This action will decriminalise ultimately drug addicts and users so that they’re not prosecuted, so they stay out of the crime system, using harm reduction and rehab. We aim to reduce recidivism in a more holistic way. We have had some success in Malaysia with rehab programmes and invite member countries to come to Malaysia and share our experiences in drug rehab programmes. Finally, on the death penalty, we have not abolished, but removed the mandatory penalty. Judges are free to decide what type of punishment is given to drug offenders: able to decide whether drug offenders are given death penalty or long prison sentences. So less people will be charged or given sentences with a mandatory death penalty. We hope this will address human rights concerns when it comes to death penalty.

European Commission: The EU has been a forerunner in tackling the drugs issue, before the adoption of the UNGASS outcome document. We have a comprehensive and balanced approach since the 2000s. With flagship cooperation programmes, such as COPOLAD, whose first phase was launched in 2011 and whose success was so great and its results so positive that a 2nd phase was launched in 2016, including a component on chemical precursors. We now have a new policy comprehensive framework, with a new consensus for development, offering a stronger basis for effective contribution to the implementation of the Outcome Document (…).

Martin Diaz, IEPES: We restate our proposal to the Commission to align its purposes with the Sustainable Development Goals. Adopt a Plan of Action for 2020-2030 and provide time for consultations to compile country action plans. We recommend including CND in the regular broadcasting of UNTV, using the public information department of UN. Simultaneous broadcasting in multiple languages and archiving material and facilitating the avoiding multiplication of services.

Bente Angell-Hansen (Norway), CND Chair: This is the day I’ve been looking the most forward to. The question is how to we carry what we have done forward. It’s also a specially good day because the Mexican Ambassador is in the room. On behalf of all of us, we congratulate you on the nomination by GRULAC as the Chair of the 61st Session. Not yet formal, but it will be in December. As the present Chair, you can count on me. I also want to thank the regional groups for the second round of dialogue meetings. You got the Elements paper from me, about a week ago, and I was impressed by the very many and good, concrete, comments that I got on that paper. Because I know that meant that many of you were doing this in parallel with the UNCAC meeting. What I would like to say in broad terms is that I believe, listening to all regional groups, that the first draft of the Elements papers is more or less a middle ground. I am always trying to build on what can unite us. That doesn’t mean we must ignore the tricky issues that divide us, because that is what brings us to maturity and leads us to advance in the different parts of the follow up. But the discussions we had show this is the middle ground. I particularly value that many of the comments expanded in what was circulated in a very constructive way. It’s very helpful for me, including what I hear in this meeting, as I start working on a revised paper; that I expect will be useful for the next Bureau. I will briefly go through the comments as they were given to me by regional groups. I see that there’s still a very recognisable nuance in the membership when it comes to the emphasis of the different documents, from equal emphasis to having the UNGASS follow-up as the main platform. I believe we need to build on all the work that has been done by colleagues before us, but recognise that the UNGASS is the latest and recognise the more than 100 operative recommendations are there. We are progressing on the talks on the ARQs. On the statistics, I’m happy to let you know that the Secretariat will go through some of the preliminary findings that will be in the first of three reports on the biannual ARQ-based reporting. For some regions, particularly Africa, we still have a much too low response rate to have statistically significant data. So, to enhance the statistical competence of many countries, also in other regions, will be key; because we all want to work on a solid factual basis. If we have a one-track approach, we need to have a reporting system that includes UNGASS. It’s up to our Commission to formulate the questions relevant to our work. How we include the SDGs is also an element to discuss. I had a very good conference call with ECOSOC, on Wednesday afternoon this week, and i think it is to our advantage that we give visibility to our work in New York. We are part of the UN system. And we work within the three UN Drug conventions. On how we see the 62nd session, and the conduct of that Ministerial Segment, we also had a preliminary discussion. This part needs to become more concrete but by and large people were comfortable with this layout. An NGO Forum/segment prior to the Ministerial was something that would be studied further. In terms of the Outcome, I think most of the countries I listened to would favour a Chair’s summary in combination with a resolution that maps the way forward; an operational resolution that provides guidance, that allows for a review after 5 years and a revisit in 2019. No one advocated for a new political negotiation. The resolution would be short and focused on the future, and countries were open to this. This menu is very much relevant: Ministerial Statement, Chair summary, Resolution. The value of the CND is always that we are able to address new challenges. That we have a facts-based approach. That we are relevant because we can be there and interpret and convert the new challenges. In this basket, the darknet, the proliferation of NPS. For many of us, we were very concerned when we heard the statistics on the supply side coming from Afghanistan. I reiterate the words of Fedotov: this is not something that hits Afghanistan, it hits us all. We have a resolution on transit countries. This will have ripple effects all over and needs to be addressed in here. I remember the Paris Pact negotiations that we also held some time ago. We need to address the real issues.

CND Secretariat: As you know, the Secretariat is in the process of preparing the fourth biannual report on actions taken by member states to implement the Political Declaration and Plan of Action, for consideration by the 61st Session. We are in a process of preparing this report that many different parts of the UN got involved with. We will do all possible to finalise this report by the end of this week, to make an advance version available by Christmas. To explain a bit, this biannual report is a single report, in the sense that is based on responses of member states to parts 1 and 2 of the ARQs. Important to mention that this biannual report is to be read in conjunction with the 2 annual reports of the secretariat, as our Chair referred to already. (…) There’s another annual report on drug abuse, another one on drug trafficking. Just to make sure that there’s no expectation that the biannual report includes data on use and trafficking. When it comes to the biannual report, which focuses on the elements contained in the Plan of Action of 2009, I want to recall that we have reports prepared in 2012, ’14 and ’16. The methodology is the same to have continuity, consistency and comparability of data. Our colleagues who prepare it not only analyse the data for the last biennium but also progress, improvements, challenges since 2009. Brings me to the issue of coverage. In terms of the response rate, we are still at the same of the first three cycles, around 50% of members responded by the extended deadline. We see that across cycles, the Member States submitting are to a large extent the same. 90% have submitted their responses in at least 3 out of the 4 reporting cycles. Only 4% of Sub-Saharan countries are represented in this group. The representativeness of the conclusions is limited. Among the countries responding, a considerable number of questions are left partially or not responded. There are a number of areas where it is impossible to write representative conclusive. In terms of the contents: demand reduction, 90% of member states respond, and say that their strategy includes this pillar, covering prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, reintegration, prevent health and social consequences of rug use and monitoring and research, most entrust a central coordination body with the authority related to demand reduction (ministries of health, social affairs, education, law enforcement and justice). In the fourth cycle, we see a higher involvement of civil society. Around 1/3 of Member States say that their national demand reduction strategy remains underfunded. For Sub-Saharan Africa, that’s half of member states. Evidence based interventions for at risk groups are represented, but more than half concern limited evidence interventions (mass media and providing information). The availability of health services in prisons remains much lower than in community settings, particularly for pharmacological settings. Same applies for services on prevention, treatment and care of HIV and other infectious diseases. In the fourth reporting cycle, increase in the provision of ART and HIV testing and counselling, but also services for prevention, diagnosis, treatment of TB; also in prison settings. In terms of supply reduction. 80-85% have an approved written strategy. The monitoring og precursors remains at the core of these activities with almost all members states being engaged. It seems that in almost all member states, customs and national/federal police are in charge of supply reduction. Worth mentioning that on the basis of the reporting, the involvement of military has decreased in this cycle. We also see that the different types of anticorruption measures addressed to law enforcement seems to have become more common over time. Measures such as obligations to report suspected corruption, professional ethics training, external oversight, obligation to declare assets of staff. (…) Increased training on new challenges related to technology. In 2016, 53% of MS say the technical assistance received is sufficient. Still half of MS’ needs are not being met. For African countries 38%, Americas 1/3, Asia/Oceania 45%-60%. When it comes to alternative development, those reporting say they have a gender aspect. We see better reporting on environmental consequences and environmental sustainability. Regarding countering money laundering and promoting judicial cooperation, 95% responding MS report engaging activities to counter money laundering. Since 2009, many countries report that they have criminalised money laundering (a steady increase over the years). The umber of countries reporting that their legislation did not allow for asset sharing agreements seems to have decreased. The number of countries reporting on having measures in place to seize assets has increased. Regarding international cooperation on criminal matters, some progress with regards to bilateral, regional, international agreements on extradition and related. But uneven across regions. Mostly in Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. Most frequent reporting about multilateral arrangements at the regional and sub-regional levels. When it comes to practical difficulties such as slow formal procedures, lack of a common language, or inability to identify counterparts, we see a decrease in reporting on this practical difficulties section. In those areas, positive trends but still a lot of gaps.

Chair: This is preliminary data from all of us, but not all of us because unfortunately half of us haven’t reported. This is reporting that concerns documents before UNGASS. We might want to look into efforts of simplification because we want data on all countries. I open the floor to the discussion on how we move together, forward.

Estonia (on behalf of the European Union): The European Union and its Member States wish to thank you for organising this intersessional meeting in which we can share our views on preparations for the sixty-second session of the CND in 2019. The EU and its Member States acknowledge the steps made with the three UN documents adopted in the past decade: the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action, the 2014 Ministerial Statement and 2016 UNGASS outcome document. We wish to continue developing the drug policies and work towards and beyond 2019 in implementing UNGASS outcome document and its operational recommendations. We know that since 2009 policies, practice and knowledge have evolved. The EU and its Member States believe that, building on the Political Declaration and Plan of Action of 2009 and the Joint Ministerial Statement of 2014, the outcome document of the special session of the General Assembly of 2016 outlines the most recent situation and developments of the world drug problem and represents the latest new global consensus in drug policies. As enshrined in the EU Drugs Strategy, we recognise the need for a comprehensive, balanced and evidence-based approach to drug policy. Therefore we strongly support the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document and specific instruments for its implementation in order to strengthen public health and human rights dimension of the world drugs problem, which globally should receive at least the same attention and commitment than the remaining elements of the global drug policy, as for instance the law enforcement side. The previous intersessional meetings, focusing on the seven chapters of the UNGASS outcome document, allowed us to see the progress made under these topics. The best practices shared showed a wide variety of policy solutions to an equally varied array of problems and national/regional situations. The UNGASS outcome document structure gives us an opportunity to discuss all these complementary and mutually reinforcing dimensions. In that light, the priority for the EU and its Member States as regards the ministerial segment of the 2019 CND session is the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the UNGASS outcome document. When it comes to conducting a review of the progress made in addressing the world drug problem, we support an assessment which would be objective, scientific and evidence-based. The EU and its Member States find UNODC to be best placed to conduct such assessment, supported by other UN agencies and relevant regional and international organisations to make the best possible use of existing sources of information, like other review schemes, including regional mechanisms, and does not impose additional burden for Member States and their practitioners. The EU and its Member States welcome the work commenced to improve drug-related statistics.When collecting only relevant and reliable drug statistics we can be sure of providing the right response to the world drug phenomenon. Therefore, we need to ensure that future work towards and beyond 2019 will lay groundwork in identifying gaps in the current drug statistics and explore possibilities to strengthen existing data collection and analysis tools at the international and national level. All possibilities to strengthen and streamline existing data-collection and analysis tools, including improving the quality and effectiveness of the annual report questionnaire, should be analysed in this process. The EU and its Member States see two important directions in which this work should proceed: first, streamlining and simplifying the annual report questionnaire so as to increase the response rate, second, including new questions related to the lacking UNGASS indicators reflecting this renewed UN approach to the world drug problem, for example on new psychoactive substances or alternatives to coercive sanctions. Last but not least, the efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and to effectively address and counter the world drug problem are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Therefore the EU seeks to further strengthen the link between the UNGASS recommendations and drug-related Sustainable Development Goals. Madam Chair, Mr Facilitator, the EU and its Member States consider the UNGASS outcome document to be the pivotal document in the field of drugs representing the latest renewed consensus. Encompassing the relevant aspects of the previous agreements, the UNGASS outcome document shows the way forward to 2019 and beyond. Therefore, efforts in view of the ministerial segment of the 62nd session of the CND should be focused on implementing commitments made during the UNGASS in 2016. We should not negotiate a new political document. We also believe that any review to be conducted should be cost-effective and transparent. It must include all relevant UN agencies and involve civil society and scientific community.

United Kingdom: We thank the Chair for the first draft of her elements paper on the process for 2019. We align with the statement from the EU. The Ministerial Segment of the 62nd session of CND will be an important milestone to review progress and continue to build. We recognise the efforts taken by the global community to address the world drug problem in line with the 2009 Political Declaration. The UNGASS document builds upon this consensus and it is crucial, in the lead up to 2019 and beyond, that we continue to monitor progress against this UNGASS document and capture the balanced approaches taken by member states. In this spirit, the Commission’s work for 2019 should continue to be based on the UNGASS framework. We should avoid adding budgetary pressures to UNODC and should use existing reporting mechanisms. The agreement for 2019 should be forward looking and implement the UNGASS. We support efforts to improve the quality of the ARQs and are pleased to see that this will be discussed at the expert group meeting planned for January. We are keen that civil society and academia continue to be involved in the CND and the 2019 Ministerial Segment. The UNGASS document is pivotal, and we do not believe that a new document is needed. Efforts should be focused on implementing this document and aligning to the drug-related SDGs.

United States: We appreciate the productive discussions in the CND intersessional meetings so far. The US supports the call in Resolution 60/1 for a two-day Ministerial Segment in 2019. We encourage member states to remain steadfast in their commitments to the 2016 UNGASS document. We support a 2019 meeting focused on practical implementation of the 2016 recommendations, as these represent the most recent agreements made by the international community. We are prioritising the following areas: tackling the emergence of new psychoactive substances – including fentanyl and its analogues – by adding them to the international control regime; the use of PENS and other platforms to identify high-risk shipments, but these are only as good as the data inputted into them; raising awareness of the effectiveness of drug treatment and the international standards on treatment and prevention; stemming the flow of illicit crops – including coca and opium poppy – and disrupting the supply via the internet and mail. We believe the process should acknowledge the important work being done in Vienna and by other UN agencies in responding to the world drug report. It is important to emphasise CND’s leading role, and to highlight the role of civil society. We hope that the 2019 meeting will see broad participation, such participation will foster more in-depth discussion and will allow policies to be more easily translated at the national level. We urge broader participation of member states in the 2019 meeting and the UNODC workshops on practical implementation. Civil society have much to contribute, and offer a diverse perspective of efforts outside of the public sector – and we look forward to including them in the 2019 meeting in line with the ECOSOC rules. We look forward to solidifying these processes at the 61st session in 2018.

Israel: The UNGASS outcome document provides the international community with the tools to tackle the world drug problem, share best practices and opportunities. Looking forward, we want to share some of our efforts of implementation – which reflect our priorities and the future work that needs to be done. Israel is concerned with the impact of drugs in younger generations, and implement programmes that strive to keep the use safe. This starts as young as kindergarten with life skills programmes, and the integration of parents and significant adults. We provide vocational rehabilitation as a key part of the demand reduction strategies for youth. Youth do not tend to seek services, so we must reach them and provide safe alternatives. We are promoting legislation to include recovery services under national health insurance law. Support is given to patients receiving OST, such as allowing them to use vocational courses and find friendly employers. A new programme seeks to rehabilitate convicted offenders. Israel passed legislation to combat new psychoactive substances in 2013, and dozens of substances were placed under temporary control and then under permanent control. We have not seen many new substances entering the market, and prevalence of use remains low. We support efforts to streamline data collection through the ARQs, and welcome the expert group meeting in early 2018. International cooperation is essential, and is an opportunity to share our evidence-based practices and experiences.

Guatemala: Thank you for the transparency in the discussions on the elements paper, and we are positive about this initial exchange of opinions on what we want and expect for 2019. In the coming months, we need to make a decision at CND on the path to follow. It is clear that the debates before and after UNGASS reflect emerging challenges and progress. We agree with points 1 to 3 of the elements paper, but we need more clarity on what we mean by implementation – this is the problem when agreeing a document and then reviewing implementation ten years later. Regarding resolution 60/1, two points need to be reinforced: UN system-wide coherence, and the link with the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030. We need to strengthen data collection through the ARQs, and the expert meeting in January will deal with this. Paragraph 8 talks about a one-track reporting system, but we need to look at this in more depth and see what the changes are. We support the continued implementation of the seven UNGASS chapters, but we could find ways to speak on specific topics such as gender to make these meetings more practical. We need to examine the pros and cons of different formats, and the option of parallel and more interactive formats based on those used elsewhere in other areas and by civil society. Technical assistance needs to be included. Rather than formats, we need to decide whether it should be a declaration or a statement, and there are decisions that member states need to make. A Chair’s Summary is not enough of a mandate for this. It could be both. But we agree with most of the points agreed in this section, and thank the CND Chair for her efforts. We welcome the Ambassador of Mexico as the incoming Chair.

Singapore: Thank you Mme Chair for conducting consultations in a transparent manner. The process should reflect consultations. A short and clear format should be drafted to engage member states in a constructive manner. There is no need to negotiate a new political document in 2019. The focus should be on review and implementation of existing policy documents. My delegation wants to highlight our views on what could be strengthened in the current paper: we need to allocate space for the 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents. 2009 set out the review year of 2019. Second, in our effort to review the ARQs, data collection should remain precise and focused, and not place a new burden, especially for developing countries. There should be technical assistance on the new ARQ. The issue of the low response rate was highlighted by the CND Chair and the CND Secretariat. Third, the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document serves to implement OP36 of the 2009 Political Declaration. We should focus on needs and priorities of member states. This requires further discussion. We can benefit from discussion on provision of high quality data and the streamlining of the political declaration through the ARQ. Finally, the 3 conventions are a good basis for discussion. With regard to the civil society hearing a day before the segment, we also need to discuss this. My delegation thanks you in carrying out consultations and drafting this paper.

Chile: We commend the valuable work for conducting this session of the CND. Your performance has contributed to a friendly atmosphere which we hope will guide the forthcoming presidency by Mexico. We recognise the validity and relevance of the 2009, 2014 documents, while recognising the balanced approach of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document. So we cannot agree that the document emerging from UNGASS should afford a higher rank from 2009 and 2014. Such an interpretation enjoys no justification in the documentation negotiated and agreed during UNGASS. Different realities and proposals coexist. One cannot propose to be ignorant of these realities because they are different from their own. The challenges in tackling the world drug problem means we need to find an integrated approach to blend these different approaches. It is essential to improve the quality and quantity of the statistical information produced by UNODC so that we can adopt positions based on scientific evidence. The chair’s document should be brief, precise and focused on the 2030 agenda on the SDGs. We should use a multilateral framework under the principle of shared responsibility.

Czech Republic: We support the UNGASS outcome document and its focus on health and human rights. Given that the UNGASS outcome document represents an important progress, we do not believe we need a new political document, but we wish to focus on UNGASS implementation. We support the wider role and cooperation of UN agencies such as WHO and other agencies responsible for human rights, poverty, or infectious diseases. Civil society should also be able to participate. CND should support active participation and influence of relevant UN agencies, such as the OHCHR or WHO. On WHO’s role in drug policy, we support efforts for better collaboration with the MoU and enhanced coherence in delivering better together at national, regional and global levels. They both have mandates in drug use and dependence. They have complementary roles. CND remains the main policymaking body on drug matters, but close coordination with other UN agencies is critical. We need to cooperate with NGOs which has been among our priorities. We sponsored a resolution on civil society participation in 2011. We welcome their important role in addressing the world drug problem and know that these organisations should play a participatory role. They are in touch with drug users and have good practice. They should be involved during the whole negotiation. The participation of UN agencies and civil society in the process is a welcome development. Thank you.

Iran: I thank the CND secretariat. The 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents collectively and without competing and based on complementarity and reinforcement is conducive to make a comprehensive political framework to guide 2019. The targets of OP36 in the 2009 political declaration are still relevant. There is no need to negotiate a new political declaration. Procedurally the review should be member state driven. Along the same lines, CND intersessionals should focus on UNGASS implementation but also the 2009 Political Declaration. Concerning the ministerial meeting, the 2019 meeting should be conducted around the 2009 Political Declaration. The participation of civil society and the hearing is not appropriate. We look forward to a short document in the form of a CND resolution capturing: 1- the results of a comprehensive review of the implementation of the 2009 document; 2- a reaffirmation of commitments included in the 3 documents of 2009, 2014 and 2016; 3- follow up activities; 4- a 10-year timeline; 5- a reaffirmation of the role of CND; 6- means of implementation, technical assistance and financial resources. We reiterate our firm commitment in reaching a consensus based agreement on the way forward.

Colombia: We are facing the great responsibility, which implies for this Commission, to prepare the Ministerial Segment of 2019, which should take stock of current commitments to address drug-related problems and define the course of global policies as of that date. With the aim of contributing to a serious and frank debate I will state the position and proposals of Colombia. For the debate we have three documents. First, the Political Declaration of 2009 with its Action Plan, product of the evaluation that this Commission made of the commitments acquired ten years before, in the 1998 UNGASS. The 2009 Political Declaration reiterated the goals of 1998, which were not fulfilled.

Secondly, the 2014 Joint Ministerial Declaration that resulted from the High Level Review that this Commission made on the Political Declaration of 2009. In that Declaration, the States recognized that 15 years after the UNGASS 98, despite the efforts and some achievements, the drug problem continued to be – as it is today – a serious threat to the health, safety and well-being of all humanity; that undermines sustainable development, political stability and democratic institutions, including efforts to eradicate poverty. Likewise, the Ministerial Declaration expresses deep concern about the high price paid by society, recognizes that many of the problems persist and that new difficulties have arisen. It should be recalled that the review of the Ministerial Declaration enshrined the commitment of the States to strengthen their efforts and comply with the goals of the Political Declaration reiterating those of 1998.

Thirdly, we have the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document that differs from the previous two in several substantive aspects, including the structure that increases the pillars of drug policies from three to seven, which expands in an important way, the possibilities to take into account a reality that is very different and much more complex than that of 1998 and 2009.

Although the three documents are complementary and reinforce each other in relation to the fight against supply and illicit economies, they are not related to fundamental issues such as: broadening the public health approach; the incorporation of a specific chapter on respect for human rights; the recognition of new and changing challenges; flexible interpretation of the Drug Conventions and autonomy for national policies; the deepening of the concept of alternative development to frame it in sustainable development; and technical cooperation aimed at a comprehensive and balanced development in order to address the causes and consequences of illicit crops, production and trafficking, addressing the risk factors that affect individuals and communities, among others.

Given these deep differences between the three documents for Colombia, it is clear that the international community cannot go backwards, and it is not possible to merge the recent 2016 UNGASS Document with the 2009 Political Declaration or with the revision document issued in 2014. The 2016 UNGASS did not solve all of the predominating and serious problems that the repressive and undifferentiated approach have; for example, consumption was not decriminalized, which is essential for a people-centered approach. There was also no agreement on the elimination of the death penalty for non-violent crimes related to drugs, which is essential in terms of respect for human rights. However, we highly value the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document because it enshrines the most recent global consensus and advances in the direction of humanizing the approach to illicit drugs that is why it constitutes, without a doubt, the underlying basis for the formulation, monitoring and evaluation of policies as of 2019.

In light of this, the preparatory process for the Ministerial Segment of 2019 should be oriented, first, to evaluate the results of the Political Declaration and its Action Plan, with special emphasis on the targets set forth in Article 36. The balance should be transparent, honest, participatory and evidence-based in such a way that we can learn from both the achievements and the shortcomings that will work for a positive implementation of the 2016 UNGASS.

For an efficient preparation of the Ministerial Segment of 2019, we propose that in his fourth Report on the Political Declaration and its Plan of Action, the Executive Director of the UNODC should carry out a general and final balance of its implementation. The final report of the UNODC should be complemented with the respective balance reports of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the relevant UN Specialized Agencies, especially the World Health Organization (WHO), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UN-Women and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Similarly, we consider it important to count on contributions from Civil Society organizations, the Academy and regional intergovernmental organizations.

For the discussion of the Balance Documents of the Political Declaration and its Plan of Action, we propose that this Commission includes the topic in the Agenda of the 62nd Session, in March 2018. The final balance, with all the aforementioned inputs, should lead us to a serious and honest discussion based on the evidence, including the available figures showing the successes and also the failures in the formulation, implementation and follow-up of the Political Declaration and its Plan of Action. Once the final balance of the Political Declaration and its Plan of Action has been carried out in March, we consider that the preparatory process for the Ministerial segment should focus on agreeing on the development of a 2016 UNGASS Operational Plan that will transform the 103 operational recommendations in a document that can be subject of monitoring and evaluation of its seven thematic areas. Undoubtedly, in order to fulfil this purpose, it is pertinent and enriching for this Commission to ask the Secretary General of the Organization for his participation in order to promote greater coherence of the United Nations System in actions to address the world drug problem and for the definition of conducive mechanisms where the General Assembly stays abreast of the process for the final review of the Political Declaration and of the 2016 UNGASS implementation.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that the application of the UNGASS operational recommendations requires the identification of gaps in current statistics and the qualification of data collection and analysis processes. This task, which has already been undertaken by the UNODC, requires a continuous work plan, in partnership with the Statistical Commission, which we hope will be discussed at the meeting that fortunately has been convened for next January.

Malaysia: We join others in thanking you for the background paper as the basis for facilitating these discussions. We welcome your consultations in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. While we observe the positive language of the resolution on the 62nd resolution, these elements are part of pre-existing language. Cherry picking of language could lead to misunderstanding. We view that the background paper should take into account the views expressed by all member states. On para 1: we view that the language in OP1 in Resolution 60/1 should be fully expressed, on the complementary basis of the 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents. On para 2, we recognise the role of CND on drug related matters. In relation to other UN entities, we prefer that the preferred language of OP8 of resolution 60/1 and resolution 60/6 be used here to show support for UNODC and CND as the leading entities in addressing the world drug problem. On para 3, hearings and consultations should continue to be pursued in a balanced and transparent manner. The sharing of experiences should continue. On para 4, we agree that new policy documents are required, but we should focus on equal priority of the three key documents of 2009, 2014 and 2016 for a realistic outcome. On para 5, we look forward to receiving the annual report of the UNODC EC on the implementation of the 2009 political declaration. On para 6, we agree in identifying new changes, challenges and gaps based on available resources. We also take note of the term ‘pragmatic’, as there is no one size fits all approach. Pragmatic or fact-based approaches should be considered taking into account the interests of all member states. On para 7: the ARQ is an important tool for UNODC to consider the world drug problem. Improving quality and effectiveness of ARQ does not respond to the challenges of developing countries in providing data. We are not in favour of review, we are in favour of providing technical assistance and capacity building to countries on how to report on the current ARQ. We must have a single understanding on reporting to facilitate the CND work. On para 9: we recognise the target of OP36 of the 2009 Political Declaration. Para 10: we are not in favour of organising CND meetings on the 7 thematic chapters of UNGASS. On para 12: we note the contributions of civil society through sharing of experiences and best practices. In line with other practices at the UN, a standalone meeting with civil society is not necessary. On para 13: we support a joint ministerial statement or a CND resolution as long as it is a balanced text. On para 14: we should have a good representation of views of states in addressing gaps and new challenges. We should reaffirm our commitments with equal attention given to all three documents, highlighting progress. We should highlight the goal of a society free from drug abuse and improving the response rate of ARQs. We hope our views will be taken into account for the organisation of the 2019 event.

Norway: Thank you. I thank the UNODC for the informative presentation. The UNGASS outcome document, based on lessons learned from the 2009 and 2014 documents, points to actions to be taken. It covers all thematic aspects and represents the most recent global consensus. Furthermore, it welcomes the SDGs as complementary and mutually reinforcing. These processes go in parallel and are important in assessing the negative effects caused by drug policies. We also seek to understand how to improve our policies and have learned that a health approach does not result in increased use. Efforts are complementary to abstinence. Now focusing on the way forward: the aim is to advance the health and welfare of mankind, addressing social and health problems related to drugs. On how to reach these goals, the UNGASS outcome document is a turning point to tackling the world drug problem. It is now time for action, implementation and monitoring. We need new metrics and indicators to assess progress. It is timely to review the ARQ so that we can capture data relevant to the commitments agreed in NY and at the SDGs. We also should reflect on existing targets and lessons learned, and setting more realistic and achievable goals. We look forward to the expert consultation on statistics and the ARQ in January. The ARQ should reflect the UNGASS outcome document and increase the response rate. I also want to draw your attention to the background document and resolution 60/1. We need to ensure progress.

Peru: Thank you. My delegation wants to thank you and the facilitator and the secretariat for your tireless efforts throughout this year of work. We are especially grateful for this work on the future and way forward for the consultations you held with the regional groups. I want to say how relevant your presentation on the background document is. On this document, I want to refer to a few elements here. We would like to underscore the value of my delegation to the document, as well as the 2009 and 2014 document. We want to reaffirm the validity of these two documents as well. We appreciate that this was acknowledged in the background document and the complementary of the UNGASS outcome document. We also appreciate the reaffirmation of the principle role of the CND and agree that coordination with other UN bodies is important. We believe that there is no need to negotiate a new policy document and above all, we deem it important that in the run up to 2019 we should take into account the real efforts made since 2009 and how the political declaration has been implemented, especially in terms of where the gaps are and how we can improve on them. This is the only way we can define where and how we will progress. We attach importance to data collection to contribute to the evaluation. Peru is open to continue talking about improvements to the ARQ and the single reporting system. In terms of the intersessionals, we consider that we need to assess the regularity of the intersessionals so that states can have enough time to present specific actions which will be relevant for sharing and for us to consider comprehensive issues, not necessarily as part of UNGASS but also in the 2009 political declaration as well. On the ministerial roundtables, we should continue talking about these to define how they will take place based on the subjects we deem worthy of stressing. Now on a final CND document in 2019, we agree with the chair’s summary that it should be objective and balanced instead of a ministerial declaration. This should be accompanied with a CND resolution on procedures to follow in the future with a mid-term review. Thank you for your efforts and congratulations. We will continue to cooperate constructively on this subject.

Netherlands: Thank you for the open and transparent process and your background paper which provides a starting point for future discussions. We align with the EU statement. I highlight some key issues for the Netherlands on the post-UNGASS process, our work for 2019 and beyond. We highly value evidence based policy making. We need to know before we act. So we should have a good data collection tool, and capacity to respond to it on the current state of affair of the world drug problem. Resolution 60/1 is a good basis for this. We should adapt the ARQ to make it more relevant, simplify it to ensure better response rates. Only after a full assessment of the situation can we think of other plans to address the world drug problem. The 2019 event comes at a right time and this should be streamlined at the event. UNGASS is the leading document globally. All parts of the 2009 political that we consider as work in progress are reflected in the UNAGSS outcome document. So we should choose this document for progress. We should not focus on lengthy new negotiations.

Mexico: My country grants importance to these intersessionals to identify good practice and lessons learned on the instrumentation of the UNGASS outcome document. We thank the CND chair and Post-UNGASS Facilitator for organising these meetings. The debates should be a constant work of the CND. We reaffirm our commitment to this way of conducting these multilateral discussions. The pivotal role of CND has been given renewed impetus thanks to joint efforts from specialised UN agencies. We should give priority to coherence and cross-cutting elements, and CND should not remain in the outskirts of this. We reiterate the relevance of the omnibus resolution on drugs to keep paying attention to the work of CND at the UN General Assembly. Mexico is observing how to consolidate the 7 chapters of the UNGASS through the multiple efforts of national and regional instrumentation. Mexico believes we should extend our dialogue on experience and innovative methods for each country based on their realities. Progress made together in acknowledging the importance of aligning our work with the SDGs and a gender perspective in drug policies in pursuit of comprehensive prevention and comprehensive actions are key for Mexico. We support the document circulated by the chair after effective work, as this is a valuable contribution to feeding into the discussions on 2019.

Russia: I am grateful for your efforts for the 2019 session of the CND and ministerial segment. We align with resolution 60/1 which recognises that the 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents are complementary and mutually reinforcing. This should guide the work of the CND for 2019 and beyond. The UNGASS OD is the political arm of the 2009 Political Declaration, and does not replace or compete with it. We continue to promote a society free of drug abuse, reaffirmed at UNGASS. Some delegations think 2019 will review the UNGASS outcome document. This is not the case. The 2019 review is about the 2009 political declaration – we should not forget our target of 2019. We should have a broad range of tools. We should follow up implementation of all documents, not only the operational recommendations of the UNGASS. The targets ad goals of para 36 of the political declaration continue to be relevant. There is no need for a new political declaration. We have serious doubts about positive results on reaching consensus. The ministerial segment should focus on discussions among foreign ministers around international cooperation. We propose an option of a chair summary with a concise CND resolution incorporated in the summary. The resolution may contain one para only reaffirming the new target date for the implementation of the 2009 political declaration. In resolution 60/1, we reflected on possibilities of updating reporting mechanisms, but the results should be presented at the 62nd session of the CND for assessment. Efforts to achieve the SDGs and address the world drug problem are complementary but we believe it wouldn’t be correct to counter the world drug problem just from the perspective of the SDGs which don’t include anything on supply reduction. A comprehensive and balanced approach should remain.

Uruguay: Thank you for the background paper and all the work done in a transparent and professional way. On the elements document for the way forward, I want to make the following comment: UNGASS is not only the most recent international consensus. It is a milestone in the way the international community seeks to address the world drug problem. For 2019 we should seek active participation of other UN agencies and CSOs. The transparent, inclusive and comprehensive way CND is performing its work should be protected and maintained. We should assess and reflect on progress and shortcomings over the past 10 years. This was one of the elements we could not achieve at UNGASS. There should be an honest review process to make the way forward more realistic. We should improve data collection through the ARQ. We recall that we also wanted a short document at UNGASS. So it would be more appropriate to have a chair’s summary on deliberations with an operational document with a timeline for implementation.

Egypt: Thank you for all your efforts in preparing the last rounds of CND intersessionals, bearing in mind the importance of exploring possibilities for the way forward for 2019. We stress the leading role of the CND on UN matters. We also stress the following points: we believe that the 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents are complementary and mutually reinforcing, as agreed in resolution 60/1. It’s important we highlight the relevance of the political declaration on the continuing basis for the world drug problem. It does not only include our objectives, but also our political commitment to the whole process, which was derivative of the other two documents in this matter. So the 2009 political document remains a cornerstone. There is no contradiction in prioritisation. The UNGASS outcome document provides operational recommendations, while the 2009 document provides an umbrella for the implementation. We want to raise two political details. First, identify the gaps in achieving the targets of the 2009 political declaration beyond 2019. We call on the secretariat of what has been achieved and what still needs to be achieved. Focus should be given to increasing the response rate of the current ARQ. Secondly, we need to create a new roadmap beyond 2020 to keep the political commitments and focus on the world drug problem, keeping in mind the timeline we had established in 2009. Any further discussions should focus on complementarity of the three documents. We also don’t believe there is an urgent need to work on a new document for 2019 – as long as we keep harmony in the 3 documents we have. I hope we can find the way forward in this matter.

Argentina: Thank you for convening the meeting, it is a pleasure to see the Ambassador of Portugal here too. At this advanced staged of this morning’s debate, many things have been said and reveal a convergence on some of the central aspects of the task ahead of us on next year’s CND meeting and the 2019 evaluation. The orientation of the debates you have organised with the elements document is useful. I think that we are seeing an emergence of the idea that there is no huge appetite to reconstruct or deconstruct past consensus or ambitious programmatic document. We are seeing that there is a respect for the comprehensive programme framework which includes the UNGASS outcome document, focusing on results and achievements rather than working on a conceptual plan. This should be further consolidated during the next session. I am pleased to see the Mexican Ambassador taking the baton from you to guide us next year. In your elements document, there are important points which are in line with the practical vision Argentina wants. For example, improvements or refinements in the reporting system. This is an idea that could be pursued with perseverance to make some improvements. A single reporting system is a good idea but we would need more details on how this would be implemented. It is also important to have a high level ministerial segment without any laborious work on negotiations of a high level document, but we should have good representation from our countries to discuss the world drug problem. Thank you for your contribution, we will continue to work with you until the end of your term.

CND Chair: I want to give NGOs the opportunity to speak. We will see if we continue after lunch or not.

Canada: Thank you for your work as chair of the CND and leading the discussion on the UNGASS. We are committed to the implementation of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document and the 2014 JMS. We welcome the preparatory process for the ministerial segment in 2019. We want to see a review of progress made since the 2009 political declaration. We are not in favour of a new document, the UNAGSS is our consensus, it was a milestone and represents the most recent and comprehensive international consensus. It should focus solely on implementing the 7 thematic chapters. They are balanced and comprehensive, focusing on gender, human rights and health. We oppose the renewing of the 2009 targets. UNGASS is the overarching document leading on international efforts.

El Salvador: We thank you for your work in the consultations with regional groups and work undertaken in these intersessionals, which have enabled us to work on UNGASS and the 2009 and 2014 documents. We appreciate the efforts to cover the most important aspects in the background paper for preparations to the 2019 high level meeting. First, we have no objection to including a segment of the UNGASS recommendations in the post 2019 report system. We have already included this in the drug policy in our country, as reflected in our drug strategy. But this should be undertaken within existing resources and national capacity. Second, we have established the importance of civil society engagement in all fields. We agree with including a civil society segment prior to the 2019 meeting. We encourage this to be a forum for constructive proposals and the pursuit of synergies with the public sector. We consider that we do not need a new document. The challenge is to reconcile the implementation of existing documents and resources associated with that.

Australia: Thank you both and the CND secretariat for organising this intersessional meeting. We recognise the efforts of member states in pursuing the recommendations of the UNGASS alongside the 2009 political declaration. These documents are complementary although the UNGASS outcome document is a milestone and most recent consensus. We recognise the role of WHO, UNODC, INCB and others in implementing UNGASS. We remain supportive of resolution 60/1. We support the existing governance structures and will support CND for the 2019 review. It is an opportunity to also review human rights and development issues. We are aware of the efforts of member states in implementing the UNGASS outcome document and seek cooperation in pursuing our efforts. We continue cooperation in a balanced, humane and evidence-based way.

Ecuador: We thank you and the facilitator and the secretariat. We highlight the work you’ve performed with regional groups. The UNGASS is an important milestone. For our country, the outcome document should be the basis of the future. There is no need to negotiate a new document. We welcome the Mexican Ambassador as the future chair of CND.

China: We are of the view that the 2009 political declaration, 2014 JMS and 2016 UNGASS outcome document are mutually reinforcing and complementary, as reflected in resolution 60/1. We should pay equal attention to all documents, as opposed to outing anyone of them. We should not prioritise these documents according to their timeline. We support the CND’s leading role in implementing drug policies. We welcome other UN entities’ participation. But this should not weaken or dilute the role or responsibility of the CND. We support UNODC, INCB and other organisations, and their role in countering the world drug problem. We want to step up collaboration with these organisations. On the ARQ, we should increase the response rate, while not imposing additional burdens to developing countries. They should not be made more complicated. There is no need for a new political document in 2019. We should focus on existing documents and the implementation of the 3 drug control conventions.

Brazil: Thank you for all your efforts and the way you have contributed to these efforts which have led us to good results. We agree on the convergence which is now in the room. We have a sound basis, with resolution 60/1. We agree there is no point in revisiting this. We are satisfied that the commitments are complementary for the post 2019 efforts. This is why we feel there is no need for a new political document. On the basis of your work and the elements paper, a mixed option would be the best with a chair summary and a resolution focusing on procedure for follow up with a timeline, the question of the ARQ and the review process, and following up on implementation of all the commitments. Indicators are fundamental. Scientific evidence should be the basis of the discussions post-2019. A one approach to data collection seems like a good idea. We hope the meeting in January will be useful. Finally, aligning this follow up process with the follow up of the SDGs seems like a positive step. Thank you.

Algeria: Thank you for your concern to mark the process of preparing a document which reflects the positions of member states in an inclusive and transparent approach for 2019. We thank the secretariat for the details and information this morning. I restate our conviction regarding the complementarity of the 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents. Our country is committed to implementing all these documents. But the 2009 political declaration remains essential and topical. Para 36 prompts us to conduct an evaluation to lay out the path beyond 2019. This will provide information to understand the gaps. Negotiating a new political declaration is not necessary or advisable.

Costa Rica: Thank you for all your work and negotiating skills. We are grateful for your elements document which will be useful to guide the discussions. We understand you’re seeking to identify common ground. In this context, Costa Rica welcomes the most recent agreement reached at the UNGASS session. The guidelines allow us to demystify drug dependency and how to address the world drug problem. These small steps are vital for strategies that are consistent with international law and the 2030 agenda for development. We highlight prevention and treatment, as well as health related issues, human rights approaches, scientific evidence as a pillar which should be improved. We recognise the complementary nature of the 2009 and 2016 documents. We need to focus on implementation, not a new negotiation. We should focus on health, human rights and law enforcement. We should be guided in our work by the need to carry out periodic reviews. We think it’s important to negotiate knowledge and generate inputs from civil society which are essential. Finally, on the outcome of the session, we share the view that we should have an operational resolution with a chair’s summary.

Morocco:  The UNGASS outcome document is the latest existing consensus. There is no need to issue a new document.

South Africa: Thank you for your work and the regional consultations. I thank the secretariat for providing information on forthcoming events. We reiterate a few points we have said in the past: safeguard the 2009 political declaration and its objectives. We see that more needs to be done to clarify many questions from the elements paper. But we must understand how to move forward between now and March 2019 to get these clarifications. Could you please give us an indication of when you are going to close the elements paper? At CND 2018 or is there any other platform for member states to continue deliberations on these questions?

CND Chair: Let me respond to this. The elements paper is not a negotiated paper, it is how the chair sees a middle ground. It is my intention now to build on the excellent interventions I have heard today. I will now send this paper to all of you in a way that is helpful, including clarifying some of the questions and points which have been made here. Some points need to be clarified further in dialogue and consultations/negotiations between all of you. It is now my pleasure to give the floor to the VNGOC.

Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs: I would like to begin by thanking the Chair together with the Facilitator and the Secretariat for your eminent work to include civil society in the follow up on UNGASS and the implementation of the Outcome document. For many of our member organisations, especially from the global south, this has been an invaluable opportunity to share expertise and practices, both successful and unsuccessful, addressing existing and new challenges related to the prevention, treatment, harm reduction and recovery.

When we now are looking forward to the ‘Ministerial Segment’ meeting in 2019, and the review of progress made against the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action, we welcome the proposal from the Chair to incorporate a Civil Society Hearing. To make this event as constructive as possible, we would like to stress the importance of having civil society consultations and inputs during the whole preparation process, and not just on this one day. One possible way to achieve this is to arrange another consultation during September-October 2018 where shadow reports from civil society can be discussed.

To be prepared for this, the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs believes that promoting a culture of respectful and constructive engagement within the civil society community, as well as with other stakeholders. VNGOC can help identify what works and what can be improved in order to optimally respond to realities on the ground. We are also uniquely placed to identify the common ground that is held within a diverse civil society sector. It is our belief that such a culture of mutual respect constitutes the basis for sustainable responses to drug-related problems.

On the practical level, the VNGOC is already working alongside the New York NGO Committee to reorganise the Civil Society Task Force to mobilise voices from all over the globe for 2018 and 2019. The challenge here is funding, where the Member States must feel responsibility. Without special funding, the representation of civil society will be limited to a few representatives who can engage here in Vienna, mainly groups from the global north. This would be a missed opportunity for us all.

To conclude, the VNGOC remains committed to a respectful and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, from grassroots communities to UN Missions. It is our belief that such dialogue will go a long way to ensure effective implementation of international drug policy commitments, Agenda 2030 goals and targets, and, most importantly, achieving meaningful and lasting change in our communities.

International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC): Thank you for the opportunity to address the CND today as part of this discussion on ‘the way forward’. I am making this statement on behalf of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC). IDPC is a global network that promotes drug policies that are based on human rights, human security, social inclusion and public health. Firstly, we would like to join other civil society colleagues in thanking the CND Chair, the UNGASS facilitator and the CND Secretariat for supporting the prominent inclusion of civil society perspectives in the thematic intersessionals on UNGASS follow-up. Civil society representatives from all over the world have been able share perspectives and experiences with member states, and further enrich and contextualise these important discussions on implementing the UNGASS recommendations.

We would like to take this opportunity to give a few short reflections on the process for 2019 when member states will “take stock of the implementation of the commitments made to jointly address and counter the world drug problem, in particular in light of the 2019 target date”. The 2019 moment is an important opportunity to build on and consolidate the progress made in the UNGASS Outcome Document. It is also a critical moment to honestly assess the progress made since 2009, as well as acknowledge the failures of global drug control and its negative impacts upon health, human security, human rights and development. This honest evaluation did not take place in 2014 (the mid-term review) or at the UNGASS in 2016. A genuine, transparent, scientific and inclusive review process ahead of 2019 will allow member states to reflect on the ongoing validity, and utility, of targets focused on the elimination of the drug market and the establishment of a society free of drug abuse.

The UNGASS outcome document, representing the most recent global consensus on drugs, provides a strong framework based on its forward-looking 7-theme structure for elaborating much more meaningful and measurable targets on progress – such as towards achieving universal access to controlled medicines, reducing the prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis C infections among people who inject drugs, reducing poverty (as a socio-economic determinant of engagement in the illicit drug market) and reducing over-incarceration – to name a few. There is also much to be gained from reviewing data-collection efforts, current metrics and indicators, as well as the “quality and effectiveness” of the ARQ in light of the UNGASS recommendations, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals.

The process of review, and of reflection, ahead of agreeing an outcome for the ‘ministerial segment’, should be open and inclusive, involving all relevant UN entities, civil society, academia and affected populations. The strong engagement of other relevant UN agencies in the post-UNGASS intersessionals is very much welcomed – giving both a different perspective as well as offering their technical expertise on key issues relating to their mandates. The CND should continue to encourage and formalise their participation in the upcoming review process. The active participation of all Member States should also be strongly encouraged, in order to “foster an in-depth exchange of information and expertise on efforts, achievements, challenges and best practices” with respect to drug policy.

Finally, in terms of civil society participation, we welcome the suggestion for a civil society hearing ahead of the ministerial segment. We highlight that meaningful civil society participation will require opportunities to provide input to the review process as well towards the recommendations for beyond 2019 in addition to the proposed hearing. Civil society participation in the UNGASS process was very encouraging and now provides an important benchmark as we move forward. Thank you for your consideration, and your continued commitment to the meaningful participation of civil society.

CND Chair: I now revert back to the question from Iran on statistics. The report is coming out in a few weeks. There might be changes, this is a draft. But we are happy to share the headlines and I will work on that together with the CND Secretariat. I also want to take the closing of this round of intersessionals and post-UNGASS follow up to thank the Post-UNAGASS Facilitator. You have been a tremendous help for the chair and for so many days you have guided our work in an excellent manner. It has been a pleasure and hope to see you here very soon again. I thank all member states and civil society, as well as other organisations which have been here, in particular WHO which has been here regularly. We fully recognise Jo and the CND Secretariat for the webcast, the videos from the global south. We are able here to have a global outreach, always respecting the pivotal role of the CND itself. I will refine the elements paper. Thank you all and thanks particularly to the conference services and the interpreters. They are vital to our work and always show a lot of flexibility to facilitate our work. I wish you a happy and well-deserved weekend.

Georgy Mikhno (Acting Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN in Vienna): Welcome to the event organised by the Russian Anti-Narcotics Union. It is a good thing that the Vienna NGO Committee is starting to hear Russian voices of Russian NGOS. The event is a side event of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs that is developed to strengthen the global cooperation in the global fight against drugs. The constructive dialogue of the state and NGOs is essential in lowering the demand for drugs. It is the NGOs who work directly with drug addicts and are required to do daily everything to implement the political decisions agreed upon in New York and Vienna platforms. In April last year, the United Nations agreed upon operational recommendations to speed up the achievement of aims and goals on developing international cooperation to fight drugs from 2009. The main purpose of this declaration are health and freedom from drugs for the population. That is the key goal that the international community is trying to achieve through the national anti-narcotic programme of Russia. We hope the Russian experience will be useful and interesting to other states as well. I will turn over to the Anti-Drug Union speakers who will tell you about the actual programmes, ensuring that people are able to live in an atmosphere without drugs.

Nikita Lushnikov (President, National Anti-Drug Union): Today we will like to tell you about the activities of a Russian public organisation. For us it is a very happy occasion to see so many of you at this table. Because we are presenting an organisation which is dealing with a very current and important problem. A problem not only for the Russian Federation but for the global community. As a hope, yesterday in my presentation I have already said that as a public organisation and as a non-governmental organisation we are following not only what is happening in our country but in the international arenas. We can see that the last few years there is an active discussion, even disputes, about the efficiency of different international practices. But the people working on the streets of their own towns, of their own countries, we are only interested in a practical resolution of those discussions. Unfortunately, any final decisions that could form a basis for our activities are not achieved. We are unable to obtain such global recommendations so we are trying our own initiatives to create such events like this under the umbrella of the United Nations so that others can benefit from our experience. In 13 years we have collected NGOS from 7 countries and from our joint decisions we would like to influence the discussion and provide a positive solution concerning the global practices. In most of the countries of the world there are mostly substitutional therapy programmes. To finish the discussions and to complement for the subject, we would like to provide our support and do it on the basis of the platform. Because the last six years if I repeat myself we are working on a global basis. Currently our goal is to bring together the international organisations that are working on a drug free programme and only we ourselves can create creative and dynamic platforms for resocialisation and employment for people after the first subject. Subject number two is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation centres are numerous in all countries, and in some countries more productive and in some countries less productive. But if we look at the picture of rehabilitation in the world as a whole it is relatively efficient. But what to do with the graduates of these rehabilitation programmes? Specific decisions for hundreds of thousands of people have not been followed in any country so far. So, bringing together the representatives from international NGOs that working along the drug free lines, we can be an assistance to the UN work by providing them a dynamic resocialisation and employment programme. One of these projects is something like to present to you a bit later, but the most important thing I would like to mention that we are ready and see the substitution programmes working in conjunction with our programme. Let me phrase it differently. Only when we start cooperating will we be able to influence the situation. We would like to be the last and final element of the substitution programme. That final stage would probably be the most important because the main task of substitution therapy is to bring a person outside the addiction area and allow him freedom. And that can only be done when that particular person becomes part of a therapeutic community of a drug fee programme. Because once they left the programme and are of the drugs they need to be in a community where they share their ideology, their moral and spiritual values of sobriety in their lives. So I would like to hope and believe that this initiative of hundreds of NGOS come together to join forces and be supported by UN and in a short while we will be seeing results. In addition to what we said before we will show a short video clip on the subject, more proof of the efficiency and the effectiveness of the drug free community in the Russian Federation. In our platform we bring up to a few thousand youngsters who went through the programme and during the programmes of those camps we try to motivate them through health and other athletic means to help them go all the way away from the drugs and avoid the problems that force a person to reconsider the efforts gone to consider drugs.

[Video plays]

Thank you for your attention and I hope that from this clip you could see and understand that 95% of participants and our staff are people who encountered the same problem including me. The actors are all graduates of this rehab programme. We who managed to cure ourselves from this extremely deadly illness. And we are able to create such programmes. We have the same psychology and only we ourselves can create such platforms where each addict can feel comfortable to remove chemicals. We will be able to help more chemically addicted persons. I am grateful for you all and these are the people who have the experience and in conclusion I invite you all to the next camp. The open event takes place in January 2018 in Moscow, if you want to see it with your own eyes and see the programmes there. We would be happy to see you there. We can provide any assistance to help your visit. I now give the floor to my colleague. They will tell you about the “social lift”, and this is the most important project in rehabilitation. The easy part is to stop taking and drugs. The difficult task is helping people to not take drugs. We tried finding work, and many without any help from others. But the fact that we are graduates of that is a result we can show, and the fact the opium narcotics are being left in the past and now it is the chemical synthetics which are suitable for younger generations. Athletics are the best way to keep people away. We have attracted champions of the world. The three-time kick-boxing champion is here with us to help develop the spirit of victory with them. All the fighters in the ring and all were ex drug addicts

Alexander [Russian Kickboxer]: Thank you. I would like to tell you about the socialisation programme. The fact that the drugs are entering groups younger. We are based on abstinence of drugs and we offer a socialisation programme. Each goes through medical testing to determine reserves and capacities of each body, and allows us to see the strengths and weaknesses of each person and establish a training programme for each person. This results in good athletic results. Twenty-five years of research back this work. We do kick-boxing, cross fit and combat sport. We attract global champions from amateur and professional sports. Global champions provide a good atmosphere for people. Over 500 went through our socialisation programme and some are now participating in competitions. And they help others. We hold camps in Seattle, Germany and Israel where we had 3,000 participants use sports to combat drugs. Most have left drugs behind and we want more people to take part in the therapeutic camp.

Giovanna Campello (UNODC Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Section): To reduce the impact of substance misuse disorders on the individual and the community, they have concentrated on treatment and rehabilitation. This is within the guidelines to promote the health of the individuals. We think we should promote evidence based prevention too. No one will be surprised by me mentioning this. This should be evidenced based. Thanks for your video. Thanks for your invitation. I really like a good story, but the thing I like most of all is an evaluation report. It would be good to build on your experiences. We are disseminating the standards from the UNODC on treatment and prevention. In the standards, there are many strategies that are good at preventing and treating people and preventing violence. This is only one of the examples of the evidence based prevention that we promote. We have been working with WHO to provide and bring out some standards about what works. There are gaps, but we know a lot. We are, together with WHO, testing the standards. And once they are decided they will be circulated. We need to differentiate treatments for individuals. One of the great outcomes is that this is recognised at the global level. We are also working on other aspects, particularly to treatment as an alternative to criminal justice interventions. If you are interested, we are also hoping to talk with you about some treatment issues for comorbidities. Drug free approaches also need to talk about access to controlled medicines for those who need them – they are indispensable for human suffering. And we are working with UNODC, WHO and civil society to discuss the ways to overcome these barriers and start addressing this issue of drug control. In conclusion, there is a lot to do and we need to get together to promote strategies that respect human dignity and investment in children, youth and communities.

Esbjorn Hornberg (VNGOC): We have a broad spectrum of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery organisations in our membership. This event is a good opportunity to discuss with people from all areas about your experience, sharing experiences and trying to understand the opportunities. And we need to have more discussions and we need to question, not just listen. With support of the Russian Federation we link to each other to share what is working and our competencies. I was impressed when we had the invitation to go to Moscow. Five went and we had time to discuss after the presentations – how can you have more than 200 out of 500 people going into recovery? I believe this is a start. I look forward to the next conference on 4th December.

Mirella (UNODC Civil Society Team): I want to echo what the VNGOC Chair has said. It’s really good to see a Russian voice in the VNGOC because the Committee must reflect the whole world. Until now they could not bring their voice to the international level. I had my first meeting with Nikita and I was moved by his story. I appreciate how much he knows and can share with his experiences. And this can now help others to do the same and bring in more than seven countries into your organisations. We are happy to have you in the Committee and the NGO Marketplace, and the world has become small and we can see the experiences of other NGOS. Good to see that there are possibilities for the youth to have the possibility to go through this into society.

Nikita Lushnikov: We are happy to enter the VNGOC as soon as we get the appropriate status. Numerous stories and the results are what we want to see. We have been working for 13 years. I started rehab in 2004. And from that time I have learned that there is nothing better than to help others. 14,000 people went through our system. 5,000 have been in remission for a state of time. That is a result. I would like to show one more video. As soon as the number went beyond 1,000 then the state started to pay attention and that gave us the possibility, and from this professional level they looked at our work and we can participate boldly in all sorts of events. We are interested in co-organising a major government platform and probably the first high level meeting and anti-drug conference. Over 40 countries already agreed to participate. I fully agree that these results should speak louder than words. We should not wait for the state but should find our own work. You are the aggressive community. The normal people are not the same as the person recently cured. There might be a reason to go back to drugs. We need to provide a new employment centre where youth can find a job and maintain sobriety.

In preparing for the 61st session of the CND, the first intersessional meeting in 2018 was held on February 21st. The new Chair of CND, Alicia Buenrostro Massieu of Mexico, opened the meeting with a quick recap of the last meetings and confirmed the dates for CND (12-16 March), informal consultations (9 March), and for the reconvened 61st session (6-7 December). The Chair then reminded member states of the new rules regarding the list of speakers at this year’s conference, stressing two procedural points: the date for opening the applications for interventions and that the only distinction between speakers will be made based on their affiliations to respective cabinets. The Chair then confirmed that there are over 50 speakers subscribed at the moment, reminded member states of the first-come, first-serve policy and of the practical guidelines, including speaking time and manner, for interventions at CND. Upon request from a few member states, the Secretary then repeated and clarified these rules and procedures.

In preparation for the work of the Committee of the Whole (CoW) in March, the Chair informed the room that considerations of the submitted resolutions will start at 3pm on Monday 12th March, and a total of 11 resolutions are to be approved. The titles of these texts are posted publicly and will be available once translation has been completed into all six official languages of the United Nations.

Pakistan then took the floor to express their support for the informal consultations and their appreciation for how they experienced these processes to strengthen drug prevention education.

Spain questioned the necessity of an additional meeting preceding the CND, but the CND Secretariat explained the value of member states familiarising themselves with the material prior to the conference and emphasised the importance of giving the opportunity to sponsors to be involved early in the process and to work together with delegations.

Canada asked for an intermission to state their shared resolution with Uruguay on the removal of disadvantageous stigma of drugs and the delivery of proper health care and comprehensive social services to all people.

Iran then urged the translation of resolutions, and was reassured that although it is subject to consultations, the English version will be available in several languages soon.

The revision of the consolidated budget for 2018-19 was the next agenda point – following extensive discussions in December. The Chair confirmed that the revised budget had already been considered in January, and will be taken up in the plenary in a few weeks.

Regarding the changes in the scope of controlled substances, Gilles Fortes from the World Health Organisation (WHO) gave an overview presentation on international drug control treaties. He emphasised the WHO’s recommendations regarding the changes to the 1961 and 1971 conventions, the consideration of which will be on the agenda of the plenary on the morning of Wednesday 14th March. The WHO stressed its primary concern as the protection of health and well-being of mankind, and therefore, the importance of balancing the availability of scheduled substances for medical use while preventing abuse. This was emphasised as a very complex issue but one of utmost importance.

The next part of the presentation focused on the distinction between schedules and on what these different schedules mean to member states in terms of implementation. According to the 1961 Convention, substances are scheduled into four categories, based on the level of threat for abuse and dependence while considering possible medical therapeutic usefulness. Schedule 1 contains substances deemed to be highly addictive and a danger to health (abuse) and have little medicinal value. Schedule 2 contains substances that are less addictive and “less liable to abuse” but are still considered dangerous, such as codeine. Schedule 3 allows the use of the listed substances in preparations for medical purposes, such as codeine-containing cough syrups. Schedule 4 is the strictest category, comprising a sub-set of substances under Schedule 1 which are considered to be rarely or not at all useful for medical applications.

In March 2018, five fentanyl analogues will be considered to be added to Schedules 1 and/or 4.

The scheduling of substances in the 1971 Convention is similarly based on risk of abuse, threat to public health, and therapeutic usefulness.  The WHO has recommended five synthetic cannabinoids to be added to Schedule 2 of this Convention, alongside 4-FA (a derivative of amphetamine).

Gilles Forte (WHO) continued with elaborating on what that means for member states as there are a number of measures coming to play under both Conventions. States have to put in place various measures such as the prohibition of all use, possession, manufacture, supply, import, export and trade (except for medical and scientific purposes), while international trade provisions also have to be in place, and a monitoring mechanism is required to regularly record trends, seizures, trafficking, etc. All these decisions will come into force by April 18th 2018, and member states have 180 days to implement the new regulations.

The meeting continued with a presentation from the CND Secretariat, who also emphasised the complexity of the field and outlined what exactly is going to happen at the 61st CND in regards to reconsidered substances. The voting process that affects the substances scheduled under the 1961 Convention, will follow a simple majority vote (affirmative, negative or abstain) of the 53 CND members present. For the amendments to the 1971 Convention, two thirds of the 53 members will have to vote affirmative. During the process, each substance will be discussed separately with a short introduction by the WHO preceding the vote. There will be a possibility of member states to make a short statement, reasoning for their decision, but only after the competition of the vote.

Russia stated their support for the new Chair and questioned the relevance of abstaining in such votes.

Georgia asked about alternatives for fentanyl analogues in veterinary use, specifically for immobilising large animals, and was responded to by UNODC who stressed the substance’s high potency and the related dangers, then talked about the consultation process during the consideration of carfentanyl which was said to have identified less dangerous alternatives for veterinary medicine.

In preparation for the Ministerial Segment in March 2019, the Chair praised her predecessor, Ambassador Bente Angell-Hansen from Norway, for all her work and talked about the recent meetings with the regional groups, which she found very useful. The Chair also mentioned her recent briefings in New York, where she was able to converse with those that are not represented in Vienna and looks forward to further informal consultations.

In other news, the UN Secretary General decided to change the budget cycle from biannual to annual on a trial basis, and the UNODC will present a 2020 draft strategic framework for the consideration by the commission in 2019.

Regarding the implementation of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action of 2009, the Chair called the room’s attention to the importance of co-operation towards an integrated, balanced strategy to combat the “world drug problem”. She then reminded member states that a scientific forum and hearing will be held and will report back to the CND, most likely on March 14th.

Touching on the follow-up to UNGASS 2016, the Chair expressed her appreciation for the delegations, regional groups and all participants for successfully tabling the follow-up meetings in accordance to the outcome document.

Finally, talking about the contribution of CND to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the Chair has deemed the annual discussion earlier in February a successful session and announced the priorities for 2018 to be “From global to local: supporting sustainable and resilient societies in urban and rural communities”. The main factors in strengthening the ECOSOC system, and its coherence with subsidiary systems, are interconnectivity, communication and participation, learning from each other’s successes, and improving the impact of contribution. In this spirit, the ongoing collaboration between the CND and the Statistical Commission has been welcomed. The Chair also received a letter from the Vice President of ECOSOC, inviting a submission of a resolution to the 2018 integration segment for communities, leveraging technologies and innovation to build sustainable and resilient societies. In addition, the CND is also submitting a substantive report for the ECOSOC High-level Segment.

Lastly, the Chair reported that she successfully connected with the Secretariat of the Commission on the Status of Women, who will very likely join one of the CND sessions in March.

The 2nd Intersessional Meeting of the 61st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs took place in Vienna on the 25th of June 2018. The meeting started with Chair Alicia Buenrostro Massieu of Mexico presenting the agenda for adoption, then proceeded to the first agenda point: Follow-up to the regular 61st session of CND, resolution 60/1 and resolution 61/10.

Follow up to the regular 61st session of the CND

Angela Me welcomed the historical occasion of an all-female leadership at the meeting and presented the work of the Statistics and Survey section as a follow-up to the data collection aspects of the expert group consultations: She outlined the UNODC’s intentions regarding strengthened data collection and analysis tools, the progress of which is to be reported for the commission’s consideration during the 62nd session. So far, one expert group discussion has been conducted where capacity building and collaboration with partners sates, experts and civil society has been identified as essential in supporting member states with their reporting mechanisms.  Me underlined the relevance of fruitful discussions with experts appointed by member states in their decision to update the Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ). In order to move forward, her team has conducted discussions regarding their operational budget and are now in contact with the European Union, who committed to financially support the process. The UNODC have taken the recommendations of national experts seriously and is preparing a new draft that will be reviewed again at the second expert consultation. The projected timeline pinpoints the December reconvened session for the submission of the new ARQ draft as they need 6-8 months of preparation for the consultations upon receiving funding. The outcomes of the January consultations are available here.

Pakistan expressed their support for strengthening efforts to improve drug statistics to develop informed policies but questioned the mandate assigned by resolution 60/1 and asked whether an explicit mandate from the commission to update ARQ would be needed.

Angela Me explained that they acted on their interpretation of the resolution as an invitation to strengthen and streamline data collection, including the quality of the questionnaire. The work is all done as UNODC and then CND will be presented with it for approval. The work is along how data collection will be more efficient, but yes, the last word is with the CND.

Netherlands: Gathering data is key for efficiency and for having evidence that shows what works and what doesn’t – it should be a fundamental pillar for balanced drug policies. The Netherlands fully supports the expansion of the evidence base, so to construct a realistic picture of the world drug problem and thus enhance preparations for 2019 and beyond.

Egypt was surprised by the liberty the Secretariat took in deciding which path to take in pursuance of improved data collection. Their interpretation of the mandate doesn’t include choosing to develop a new ARQ, but the contrary. Possible options have been requested in approaching the improvement and member states should have time to reflect on the options at hand so Egypt requests having different possible paths to take.

Belgium underlined the importance of relevant reliable data as a foundation for understanding the world drug problem, highlighting the importance of joint commitments as the UNGASS outcome document brought critical ideas to light and new topics that can be implemented into our works and the global policy framework. Belgium had a few questions: Where does the UNODC stand on relying on data that is collected by other UN agencies? What is the timeline regarding the second expert meeting? Is it still feasible for this year? Would that be the final one or do we need a third one?

Angela Me responded that if this critical exercise is done in a smart way, we can mitigate the additional burdens of data collection while promoting system-wide coherence.

India: What is the status of the draft ARQ? Is the second expert group going to take place this year? Is it going to be finalized here on the basis of capitals feedback?

USA recognized the high priority of enhanced data collection and streamlining the ARQ in countering the world drug problem. The 2009 declaration did not include critical details and based on an evidence and science driven joint agreement, the ARQ needs to be updated.

Iran: A low response rate to the ARQ is a concern. Has this been addressed by the expert group?

Switzerland expressed support for improved data collection and scientific understanding of policy making. For an evidence based approach, it is important what questions are member states asked to see the facts – ie. independence of statistics and politics.

China supports streamlining data collection systems and calls for more possibilities of improving the quality and effect of that. China thinks the consultation process itself should involve member states to a larger extent and needs more transparency in order to not create extra burden with hollow and too general, not drug-related questions so to collect real evidence.

Singapore asked for the clarification for the mandate regarding expert meetings, working groups and consensus as they see a slight gap in the process. More guidance is needed on how the ARQ should be drafted. Is there a reversal of this process or an opportunity for the commission to revise the ARQ?

Brazil showed general support for evidence collection and member-support: an external review of research at the UNODC might be useful as the independence of statisticians in their work is crucial. Funding should not affect their impartiality as it is a very important exercise that serves as the base of scientific discussions. Funding member states’ work in providing the data could be of benefit.

Panama had issues with the ARQ and reiterated the importance of member states sending experts to improve the ARQ so that policies can be improved.

Malaysia:  A more comprehensive, more streamlined data collection is indeed of importance but the resolution also calls for the study on why member states are unable to respond to previous ARQs. What has been done to address this?

France supports the updated ARQ and thanks the work of Me’s team for improving the system.

Argentina has been actively engaged, is periodically reviewing the content of the ARQ, works on it internally as it is very important and is ready for further discussions.

EU: The expert committee was widely representative and has done great work. There are some commonalities in the discussion today and these need to be in focus going forward: we need more data in terms of geographic and thematic coverage, we need more user friendly interfaces, we need to improve the response rate. The expert consultations are dealing with these question but a wider contribution is encouraged as inclusiveness and consensus is the basis of this work. With resolutions 60/1, 53/15 there is a double mandate to periodically review the ARQs. The world drug problem is a multifaceted issue, we need comprehensive guidelines and continuous work on improving the data collection systems.

El Salvador supports the work and agrees with the need for a more comprehensive questionnaire and content review. All member states should share information that is channeled through the ARQ. The reason for the lack of response might be that some member states can’t comply in some requests.

Angela Me: The ARQ has to be a flexible national instrument that enables response and data collection – qualitative and quantitative. The UNODC has the mandate to carry out reviews and the resolutions authorize the UNODC to make sure a relevant, good instrument is maintained so with the help of national experts, we don’t have to do it alone.
Many of you mentioned the need transparent, evidence based, comprehensive processes and this is what we had as an objective. So, before calling for the expert consultation, we thoroughly analyzed the previous responses to and saw issues with different questions and found indicators that are not uniform or answerable for everyone. We wanted to understand the issues, so we opened a very open feedback questionnaire – to member states, civil society and academics – then we prepared documentation for expert consultation.
In regards to the response rate, we considered that it’s not an issue for everyone and so the expert recommendation was to streamline the ARQ, because it is also an issue that it is too big. So we worked on allowing more member states to report even on the small amount of information they have. The interagency issue was also mentioned here, we want to make sure no double reporting is done. You can see in the World Drug Report, some joint estimates are made, we rely on WHO data and do as much as we can to streamline interagency data. A lot of attention also was paid to capacity building and not only the design of the questionnaire. So, on a parallel track, discussions with the EU were conducted to see how we can support countries. To fulfil our roles in light of the 2 resolutions, our commitment is to maintain the process and have better data. We understand you may have the different views on policy in the commission but it’s not a policy discussion, it is a plan of action to be better informed. The UNODC is committed to handle this as a technical issue and we are open for suggestions. We don’t have a draft questionnaire yet but we have input from national experts how to improve current instruments so now we are working on translating it into concrete steps and will present the options to the CND. The experts in the consultation had great geographical diversity and capacities to maintain the commitment to keep the discussion technical and we continue to aim for that.

Pakistan wishes the UNODC remains consistent with their mandates and relevant resolutions. We would like the timeline to be flexible and along that, the commission should be constantly informed. This will enable fresh guidance to feed to the work. During the revision of ARQ, keep in mind that next year is extremely important because of the ministerial meeting. A conclusive discussion can’t take place until we see how the commission guides post 2019 and how the international community organize its work after 2019. So, it there is an extreme importance of keeping this in mind and not conclude a substantial discussion unlit we see what happens in March.

Russia: support for Pakistan’s statement.

Angela Me: There will be no other expert meetings before 2019, so there is room to take all of what has been said into consideration.

India: What exact mechanism is available for member states to provide further feedback? Has data and opinion been collected and processed – if so, what is the outcome?

Angela Me: An other expert consultation will take place with experts that are selected by capitals. We will continue to keep CND updated – in reflection to Russia and Pakistan. More informal briefings are in the pipeline, but we hear your concern and can think of a broader consultation before the next consultation.

Egypt: Need to provide different scenarios to strengthening data collection and not just take one option, but present member states with several options to choose from.

Chair: Thank you Angela. Moving on to 61/10 that was adapted last March. We have collectively working on the plans for the intersessional period. There will be informal consultations during June (7,8,19,24,27). There are still some outstanding and we will resume our informals later today to address these and resume intersessional meeting to adapt the workplan. Moving on to the second agenda point: preparations for the reconvened 61st session of CND.

Preparations for the Reconvened 61st Session of CND

Last December, the CND agreed that the reconvened 61st session will take place 6-7 December 2018. On the 6th there will be  joint meetings with the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, during which the agenda item Policy directives to the drug programme of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and strengthening the drug programme and the role of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs as its  governing body, including administrative, budgetary and strategic management questions will be considered. In additional, we will also deal with the preparations for the reconvened 61st session. We have also been discussing an additional date to the reconvened 61st session, devoted to preparations for the HLMS. If the commission wishes to pursue this on the 5th of December, we need to decide on this before September to give enough time for the Secretariat to prepare for the Commission.

Preparations for the 2019 Ministerial Segment

Chair: Moving on to the third agenda point, preparations for the Ministerial Segment, held during the next session of CND in 2019. In resolution 60/1, we agreed that the segment is open to all state members of the UN and interested stake holders and that it would be held in 2 days in addition to the 62nd session. Dates: 14-15 March HLMS, 18-22 March CND. In the resolution, the Commission agreed to hold a general debate similar to 2009 and 2014. It was also decided that the segment shall include two interactive multi-stakeholder roundtables to be conducted parallel to the general debate. It was also decided that an outline for the way beyond 2019 will be presented at the reconvened 61st session, prior to the 62nd session. The draft work plan for ATOM aims to give ample time for preparations.

Bugaria on behalf of the EU + Norway, former states of Yugosavia: The EU and its Member States would like to highlight the successful outcome of the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on the World Drug Problem held in 2016 and to stress the important progress that has been achieved in the field of drugs. By calling for a more integrated, evidence-based and balanced drug policy, UNGASS reshaped and broadened global drug policy, through putting an adequate focus on the health side of the drugs problem, including prevention, treatment, and risk and harm reduction, on vulnerable members of society, and also on the link to Human Rights and the relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), whilst also reaffirming the unwavering commitment to supply reduction and related measures. Therefore, we consider the UNGASS Outcome Document as a milestone and a progressive step forward in the discussions on international drug policy.

The 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action were adopted almost 10 years ago. While recognizing the value of knowing how much have been advanced in the 2009 objectives, we have to recognize also that practice (including best practices), knowledge and the threats of drugs have evolved since then. The UNGASS Outcome Document, adopted in 2016, represents the latest global consensus in drug policies and underscores the UN drug conventions as the corner stone of the international drug control system.

The EU and its Member States would also like to note that the UNGASS outcome document incorporates all major topics outlined in the 2009 Political Declaration (notably on supply reduction: with the mention of an effective law enforcement cooperation, the necessity to counter money laundering and promote judicial cooperation). It also recognizes that the drugs challenge has evolved over time and it complements the Political Declaration regarding new challenges such as new psychoactive substances and the use of the Internet in relation to drug-related activities. Also, the UNGASS outcome document builds on the Political Declaration regarding issues which have not been included before but have to be included in order to more appropriately reflect the complexity of current drugs challenges and the comprehensiveness of drug policy responses. Through implementing the UNGASS outcome document, we are effectively implementing the provisions set out in the Political Declaration, as well as addressing the general challenges and priorities for action identified in the Joint Ministerial Statement adopted at the high-level review in March 2014. As such, the EU and its Member States firmly believe that the 2019 ministerial segment of the 62nd CND should reaffirm the UNGASS recommendations highlighted in the Outcome Document. In our opinion, there is no need to negotiate another major new policy document.

The European Union and its Member States strongly supports the concrete implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document in order, not only to continue our efforts and international cooperation on drug supply reductions, but also to strengthen the public health and human rights dimension of the world drug problem. The seven thematic areas laid down in the UNGASS Outcome Document fully correspond to the need for an integrated, evidence-based, balanced and outreaching approach to drug policy. The efforts of the international community up to and beyond 2019 should be focused on their practical implementation through the broad number of operational recommendations contained therein. While recognizing the need for a comprehensive, balanced and outreaching approach to drug policy and our commitment to the 2009 Political Declaration and its Plan of Action, and striving to advance implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document, the EU and its Member States would like to emphasize five of the many factors that can ensure success for this endeavour.

First, the EU fully supports the principal role of the CND and UNODC as the policymaking body and leading entity for addressing and countering the world drug problem, however it is important for the Commission and UNODC to further engage with other relevant UN entities and, within their mandates, jointly develop activities and strategies promoting implementation, including in designing and implementing integrated, evidence-based and balanced national drug strategies, policies and cooperation programmes. In this regard we would like to underline the role of WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including public health aspects of drug policy, and we would also welcome further discussions on the issue of closer UNODC cooperation with other relevant UN entities such as UNDP, UNAIDS, OHCHR and with Interpol, including the question of proper means for an effective implementation. Second, it is important to bring the implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Recommendations in line with the relevant goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The efforts to achieve the relevant Sustainable Developments Goals and to effectively address the world drug problem complement and reinforce each other. Third, the 2019 global drug policy review should be cost-effective and transparent. It must include all relevant UN agencies under the auspices of UNODC and CND and involve civil society and the scientific community. Fourth, we should not forget the crucial role of civil society in the elaboration and implementation of drug policies at the local, national and international level. Without their insightful input, we would not have enough information on daily life with drug use. Civil society should be actively engaged in the process leading towards the 2019 ministerial segment of the 62nd through the Civil Society Taskforce, and should also be invited to meaningfully participate in the Ministerial Segment of the 62nd CND session, including in its preparation. Among other measures to actively engage civil society in this event, we support the Civil Society Taskforce intention to organise a civil society hearing in the margins of the 62nd CND session, which would report to the ministerial segment on the outcome of the Forum. Finally, collecting relevant and reliable data is instrumental to get a better overview of the drug situation worldwide, reflected in the World Drug Report, and to provide relevant and evidencebased response to the world drug phenomenon. We encourage [and support] all possibilities to strengthen and streamline existing data collection and analysis tools at the international, regional and national level mindful of the importance of good and effective inter-agency cooperation.

We welcome the ongoing work on the improvement of the quality and the effectiveness of the Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ). In order to ensure the success of this process, we propose that efforts focus in two main areas in particular:

• the ARQ should be updated to enable reporting on the new aspects of the drugs policy introduced by the UNGASS Outcome Document;
• the reporting rate to the questionnaire should be substantially enhanced by streamlining the questionnaire, where possible by resorting to already existing mechanisms, and by also investing in targeted capacity building to be able to increase compliance where limited capacity exist in order to get a better overview of the world drug problem.

Madam Chair, The EU and its Member States consider the UNGASS Outcome Document as the pivotal reference document in the field of drugs, representing the latest global consensus. It takes into account the broad developments and emerging threats since the adoption in 2009 of the Political Declaration and its Plan of Action. The UNGASS Outcome Document builds upon the commitments made 10 years ago, while retaining what has been achieved so far. Therefore, our collective efforts should be fully invested in the implementation of the UNGASS commitments. With regard to our ongoing preparations for the second semester of this 61st CND, we strongly support the proposed work plan to hold thematic intersessional meetings in Vienna to discuss the implementation of the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action and the operational recommendations of the UNGASS 2016 outcome document, based on the UNGASS chapters. We commend the Chair and her team for their relentless efforts in finding a comfort zone for all delegations to build our future work on, and we thank all for the constructive spirit that was experienced last week. We reiterate our support to the Chair and remain committed to concluding our discussions on the work plan successfully.

Norway’s position is fully in line with that of the EU. The latest World Drug Report presents a discouraging picture in terms of the lack of achievements in almost every aspect and Norway encourages for the commission to take the way forward seriously. We need a critical review of existing goals and approaches that are more likely to tackle the problem. The UNGASS outcome document was a good step in the direction. It implements the 2009 plan’s focuses and recognises the important manifold issues. Norwegian policies have been implemented accordingly. We are looking forward to achieve stronger language on severely critical issues for more efficient policy. This is not the time for looking back and repeating the same steps that haven’t proved to work. The future is ahead of us and not behind so that is where we should be focusing our attention in line with the 2030 SDGs.

Pakistan: The 60/1 resolution is a good guidance for work, a meaningful work plan, and aims to proceed in a manner that helps take stock of the targets of 2009 while learning from the experiences. We should not forget past commitments and should anchor future approaches in evidence, collective experiences and lessons learned.

Secretariat: Procedurally, 62nd session dates will be formally agreed upon during the reconvened session, we will make sure that we have the opportunity to make arrangements. We have a draft now to start preparations.

Switzerland, while not being a member of the EU, fully align themselves to their statements and echo it in its entirety. The UNGASS outcome document is a pivotal reference document and reflects recent global consensus that puts emphasis on health and human rights. In order to consolidate this, we need further efforts in line with the three pillars by the UN and SDGs. We have no need for new documents as we are still implementing the previous recommendations. CND and the Secretariat should play a leading role in the preparations for 2019 and progress in the light of the targets that were set out in 2009, but their mandate also includes the inclusion of the scientific community, other UN entities and CSOs. It should also secure equal rights to all member states and we urge organization-wide strategies. Switzerland hopes and helps the finalization of the workplan today.

Russia: With the EU statement, our colleagues attempt to diminish the importance of the 2009 document, we don’t favor selective approach to basic documents that guide our activities. We call for adequate attention to both 2009 and 2016 documents. That is the only way ahead!

Contribution to the work of ECOSOC

Chair: Next agenda point is, Contribution to the work of the ECOSOC.  The meeting of the high-level political forum on sustainable development in 2018 convened under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council will be held from Monday, 9 July, to Wednesday, 18 July 2018; including the three-day ministerial meeting of the forum from Monday, 16 July, to Wednesday, 18 July 2018. The theme will be “Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies”. The commission’s input has been submitted to the forum and chair will report on the 2nd July in New York. At the meeting,  the CND report of 61st will be considered and the provisional agenda for the 62nd session will be approved. There will be a panel discussion with other chairs of functional commission including CCPJ, Staustics, etc. and contribution to SDGs in cross-cutting issues will be addressed.

Other Business

Canada would like to express its sincere appreciation for your efforts to guide us towards consensus on a work plan for the Commission’s preparations for the Ministerial segment in 2019. However, I take the floor today to discuss a different issue. Last week (on June 21), Canada’s legislation to legalize, strictly regulate, and restrict access to cannabis received Royal Assent. While the Cannabis Act is now law, it will only take effect on October 17, 2018, in order to give the provinces and territories in Canada time to prepare. At that time, individuals in Canada who are 18 years of age or older will be legally able to purchase, possess and consume limited amounts of cannabis, and authorized entities will be able to cultivate, produce, distribute and sell cannabis legally, under license. We recognize that the topic of cannabis legalization is a policy issue that is of great interest to the Commission and of concern to some States Parties to the drug Conventions. We are also conscious that it is an issue of concern to the International Narcotics Control Board and to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, as indicated by statements released on June 21. As you know, Canada has briefed the CND and the International Narcotics Control Board on our cannabis policy on several occasions in recent years and, I welcome the opportunity to do so again today.

Canada’s new Cannabis Act will: o restrict youth access to cannabis to protect young people from promotion or enticements to use cannabis o deter criminal activity by imposing serious criminal penalties for those breaking the law, especially those who import or export cannabis, or provide cannabis to youth o protect public health through strict product safety and quality requirements o reduce the burden on the criminal justice system o provide for the legal production of cannabis to reduce illegal activities o allow adults to possess and access regulated, quality controlled legal cannabis; and o enhance public awareness of the health risks associated with cannabis Four additional points about the content of the Act: 1. The Cannabis Act, for the first time, makes it a specific criminal offence to sell cannabis to a minor and creates significant penalties for those who engage young Canadians in cannabisrelated offences. 2. The Act contains strict and specific restrictions on packaging and labeling including strict requirements that packaging be child resistant and tamper evident. 3. The illegal movement of cannabis and cannabis products across international borders will remain a serious criminal offence as it is today. 4. Driving while impaired by cannabis or any other drug is, and will remain, a serious criminal offence. Law enforcement officers across Canada are trained to detect drug-impaired drivers. Madame Chair, having briefly described our new law, let me review some of the reasons why Canada has taken this approach. First, I want to be clear that Canada is undertaking this policy change to better protect the health and safety of Canadians, especially Canadian youth. The reality is that, in Canada at least, our former approach simply did not work. Despite nearly a century of strict criminal prohibition of cannabis, supported by substantial law enforcement resources, cannabis use has become widespread across Canada today and the drug is easily available to Canadian youth and adults alike. In fact, despite prohibition and the threat of criminal sanctions, the rates of cannabis use among Canadian youth are among the highest in the world. One in five Canadian youth aged 15-19, and one in three young adults aged 20-24, report having used cannabis in the past year.

This is the public health and safety problem Canada currently confronts. We are well aware that the health risks associated with cannabis use are particularly acute in young users, and these high rates of use are therefore of concern from a public health perspective. By contrast, we have seen the percentage of youth who use tobacco, which has been available for legal purchase in Canada for decades, drop from 27% in 1985 to 10% in 2015, due to a successful combination of strict regulation and sustained public education about its risks. This is a public health success story, and we have applied these lessons to inform our approach to the legalization and strict regulation of cannabis. Public education and awareness are fundamental to achieving our public health and safety objectives. For this reason, the Government of Canada has made significant investments to ensure that Canadians have access to information to understand the health and safety risks of cannabis use. The total planned investment in cannabis public education, awareness and surveillance is more than $100 million. Since spring 2017, our health ministry has targeted an ongoing public education campaign at parents and youth, using advertising, social media, web content, and articles aimed at helping Canadians learn the facts about cannabis, and also supporting parents to talk with their teens about cannabis use and health effects. Additionally, an evidence-based, public health approach is being taken with respect to the requirements for packaging and labelling of cannabis products to minimize its appeal to children and youth; protect against accidental consumption; and provide consumers with information they need to make informed decisions before using cannabis, including the potential risks and harms of cannabis use. The Cannabis Act includes specific restrictions on packaging and labelling of cannabis products: The packaging and labelling must not appeal to youth. Plain packaging and labelling will be required for all cannabis products. Cannabis packaging must be child-resistant and tamper-evident. These measures will be complemented by the ongoing public education campaign I mentioned a moment ago to educate Canadians, particularly youth and young adults, about health and safety facts about cannabis.

Madame Chair, our Government recognizes that our new approach will result in Canada being in contravention of certain obligations related to cannabis under the UN drug conventions. I want to emphasize that Canada has not taken this decision lightly. We wish to avoid doing any harm to the Conventions, though we recognize the concerns of some delegations that we nevertheless risk doing so, despite our best intentions. Based on extensive public consultations and the available scientific evidence as well as the experiences of other States, we have concluded that legalization and strict regulation is the best framework for Canada to respond to our domestic public health and safety challenges associated with cannabis. I want to be clear that this is strictly a domestic policy decision, designed to respond to current challenges in Canada. We do not advocate cannabis legalization as a solution for others, and we do not intend to legalize any other scheduled drugs. We have been asked whether decriminalizing cannabis, which could have kept us within the bounds of the Conventions, might have been a good alternative to legalization. It is our view that Canada’s challenges could not be solved by decriminalization alone, since it would preserve the illicit market that currently sells cannabis, including to our youth, and provides organized criminal groups with proceeds estimated at about $7 billion a year. CND members will recognize that that level of criminal activity carries with it a host of other social risks. These risks are not acceptable to the Government of Canada. Our experience with medical cannabis, which has been available in Canada for over a decade, has demonstrated that a well-regulated, licensed Canadian industry can produce cannabis products under secure conditions that are of high quality and meet our Government’s rigorous safety standards. In short, we believe we have an opportunity to reduce the role played by the thriving illicit market, with all its associated risks to public health and safety, in favour of a strictly regulated one that, when enforced by appropriate penalties for violations, will enable us to better meet our challenges.

Madame Chair, we know that the success of this policy change will depend upon whether it meets the goals of better restricting youth access to cannabis and displacing organized crime. Our Government is committed to measuring the health and social impacts of our cannabis policies and Canada has, moreover, offered to share outcome data with other CND members.  I would like to reiterate an important point: Canada remains a strong supporter of the international drug control system, as established by the three Conventions. We are committed to finding solutions that promote the health and safety of Canadians, while maintaining the international drug control framework as the foundation for international collaboration on drug policy. We recognize that our treaty partners are pursuing different policy approaches to cannabis, and we do not intend for our system to negatively impact their efforts. Thus, I also want to emphasize that the illegal movement of cannabis and cannabis products across our borders will remain a serious criminal offence under Canadian law. Canadian law enforcement agencies will continue to work with their international partners to combat drug trafficking. In addition, the Government is establishing a Cannabis Tracking System with the purpose of tracking highlevel movements of cannabis throughout the supply chain to help prevent diversion of cannabis – that is, the movement of both legal cannabis to the illegal market and illegal cannabis to the legal market. Any person authorized to conduct activities with cannabis will be required to report into the Cannabis Tracking System. We will continue to work in the CND and with our international partners to advance the objectives of the international drug control framework, including through the exchange of information and intelligence on new and emerging drug threats, sharing expertise on approaches to mitigate the harms of problematic substance use, and supporting capacity-building to combat international drug trafficking.  While our domestic law on cannabis has changed, Canada’s commitment to international cooperation to counter and address the world drug problem has not changed in any way.  I hope that this short briefing on Canada’s new Cannabis Act has been of interest to the Commission, and we look forward to continuing the dialogue on this issue.

Russia: We would like to draw your attention to the dramatic developments in the international drug control policy related to the recent measures taken by the Canadian authorities. Last week the Parliament of Canada adopted by majority vote the legislation on marijuana legalisation. Upon completing final procedures this legal initiative is due to come into force quite soon. When implemented this undertaking will tangibly breach the UN drug control conventions, which as we all know limit the production and use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes. It is worth recalling that the UN Secretary General’s Commentary of 1973 highlighted this basic principle as one of the most important achievements of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.Today the “initiative” of the Canadian side brings this achievement under question. In this regard the International Narcotics Control Board, which is mandated to monitor the compliance of States with their legal drug control obligations, forwarded to the Canadian parliamentarians in April this year a written brief with its assessment of the developments. Then the Board underlined that the bill was incompatible with the treaty obligations which Canada is bound to. The INCB believes that the adoption of the legislation constitutes a fundamental breach of those international treaty provisions that are “absolute and unequivocal in nature”. In its latest statement on this subject dated the 21stJune the Board used even more precise and definitive language: legalization of cannabis constitutes a violation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and undermines the international legal drug control framework. It is worth mentioning in this context that the international community, including Canada, unanimously reaffirmed in the outcome document of the 2016 2 UN General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem that the UN conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 constitute “the cornerstone of the international drug control system”.

The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize so-called recreational cannabis threatens to shake this cornerstone. It is regrettable that the INCB warnings were totally ignored in Canada. The process of cannabis legalization in Canada is proceeding at full speed. What is more, Canadian authorities frankly acknowledge that the draft law contradicts the UN conventions, but consider it to be admissible. Advocates of the so-called recreational marijuana legalization try to validate their position by Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Single Convention of 1961 and argue that this measure will contribute to protecting the health and welfare of people. This argument is completely false and means a switch of the notions. It is for the sake of safeguarding the health and welfare of humankind that the conventional norms were adopted. As for the Canadian initiative, it would by the very meaning of the conventions be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the humanity. This was reconfirmed by the INCB once again in its statement of the 21st of June. Apparently, it is assumed in Ottawa that this serious violation of the drug control conventions will pass unnoticed by other States Parties to these international treaties. This assumption is absolutely wrong. We need to remind our Canadian counterparts that the above-mentioned conventions constitute the legacy of the entire international community. As the INCB rightly pointed out they are founded upon the principle of common and shared responsibility of their States Parties. Ottawa has no right to make unilateral decisions, which are meant to impact the integrity of the international drug control conventions, and promote a selective approach to their implementation, thus opening the Pandora’s box. If other countries choose to follow the path taken by Canada we will see the international legal drug control regime undergoing deep erosion and potentially being destroyed.

This is totally unacceptable. The intention of the Canadian authorities to legalize drugs is all the more defiant bearing in mind that this country is currently a member of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. A CND Member State, which by virtue of this status should safeguard the strict adherence to the conventions, is in fact destroying them from inside. We strongly believe that this development, if the new bill enters into force, must become a subject of a thorough scrutiny by our Commission, including during the forthcoming ministerial review of the global drug control situation in 2019. We would like to use this opportunity to express our full support to the strong stance of the INCB that is scrupulous in carrying out its mandate. We would like to underline the importance of responsible and comprehensive instead of selective implementation of the UN conventions by all their parties.

One last point. The Canadian authorities often advocate for a rules-based world order. Regrettably in the drug control matters they are in effect going in the opposite direction by undermining the basic rules, which are of a legally binding nature. We would like to recall once again that in accordance with Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a party to an international treaty must perform its obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). Moreover Article 27 of the same Vienna convention states that “a party cannot invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. We call upon our Canadian counterparts to return to the fold of the international law and bring their policy in line with the principles and goals that they declare. As we understand it, the new law is supposed to become operational on 17th October. That means that Canada still has sufficient period of time to reconsider its current policy and to refrain from a gross violation of international law, which may have very destructive implications. We hope that a responsible approach will finally prevail in Ottawa.

USA thanks Canada for the comprehsive explanation and encourages CND members to not single out member states and politicize treaty compliance – we consider it unproductive and distracting from serious serious challenges, such as improving approach to NPS that contribute to 1000s of deaths worldwide. It is up to state parties to interpret convetions and implement them in consultations with the INCB and its members. The USA suggests a brief on national developments during a standalone event outside of CND.

Japan’s perspective is that control conventions are the cornerstones of the international legal frame and in addressing the world drug problem. CND had been aiming at a united response so it is of cruicial importace that each state party implements the conventions in line with the work of INCB.

Kyrgyzstan: In accordance with the 3 conventions, it is our common obligation to limit activities related to drugs. Countries should assure that these activities are punished. We regret the decision of the Canadian government as it undermines the national legal framework of drug control. Despite the fact that Canada is a party to all 3 conventions, they initiated a process that is in breach of them. The free sale of marijuana will lead to drug dependence among young adults and INCB noted that legalization is in contrary to the conventions.

Singapore: INCB and UNODC both issued a statement on the 21st of June to express their concern over the decision of legalization of cannabis for non medical use. This contravenes with the conventions and undermines the legal framework and world order. The 3 conventions are cornerstones and full compliance has been reiterated during recent meetings, joint action plans, etc. All member states reaffirmed collective determination in 2016 and while countries have freedom to legislate in a way that best suit national environments, it has to be within the framework. Some texts are open to interpretation but legalization of recreational use is not one of those. This is a delibareate breach of the conventions and undermines the UN system. We urge member states to comply to our agreements and the international community to uphold the system.

New Zealand: Canada recognizes the availability of illicit cannabis and aimed to distrupt the black market. Their decision has not been taken lightly and they have been consulting for several decades. Our perspective is that Canada is a responsible contributor to the drug control framework and we support a health focus to drugs and are interested to hear about alternative approaches.

Tajikistan: There are serious risks with the non medical use: serious threat to our societies, expecially regarding smuggling of drugs originated from Tajikistan. We are deeply concerned by the circulation of illegal substances and we ratified the conventions with transnational crimes taken into account. We adopted a national strategy 2013-2020 and it is regretfull that some member states adapt laws that deliberately contradict these efforts. Canada’s decision to legalize cannabis is highly alarming, may impair the international work and carry serious national consequences. We remain, more than ever, committed to the conventions and call on the CND to consider this issue seriously.

Netherlands thanks the through brief of Canada. Providing context is essential to fulfil our mandate. We are confident that Canace will continue to monitor the effectiveness of new policies and report on it. With ongoing developments, member states may feel the need to discuss new realities and we stand ready for an open debate. It is a sensitive matter and such debates have key elements: in the Vienna spirit, we don’t support member states being singled out, it is not constructive and it is not useful to focus on treaty compliance. We attach importance to evidence based and well prepares discussions that do not happen in the expense of other important elemtns including human rights issues, access to medicine, law enforcement, etc.

Pakistan: This is a standing item, nothing unusual to discuss this. The conventions are the cornerstones of our work and essential to counter the world drug problem. There were several resolutions where we reiterated the central role of conventions. We have serious concerns in some regions regarding legalization of non medical use. It might impede the effects of our efforts to counter the world drug problem. We urge the commission and INCB to play an active role within their respective mandates to address this.

Syrian Arab Republic shares the concern regarding the violation of the treaties and the collective efforts of 2009. The UNODC and ICNB stated how Canada’s decision is contravening and undermines the status quo. National action should be taken in line with the 3 treaties and member states should be comprehensively abiding to the treaties, no exceptions. We call on Canada to consider the reprecussions of their noncompliance.

Kazakhstan is deeply concerned about cannabis for recreational use. All member states should actively support the implementation of the 3 conventions and only allow scientific and medical use. We also highly support the INCB.

China shares concerns, fully supports UNODC, INCB and their June 21st statement made it clear that this decision is in breach of the conventions that are the cornerstones of the international drug policy framework. According to the latest data, with the decrease in problematic drug is in China, drug control measures are effective and China fears the negative rippel effects of Canada’s decision across the World. China urges all member states to act responsibly, in coherence with international agreements and deeply regrets this decision.

Iran regrets Canada’s decision and warns that domestic legislation should be in line with all the treaties. Any legislative measure allowing the non medical or scientific use of cannabus is incompetible with the treaties and pose serious threat to the international. This decison is against recent consensus in 2016 where the commission unanimously underscored the importance of the treaties. It might carry sersious reprecussions on other states and so this debate is important and should not be labelled as politically motivated.

Belarus: Nonmedical nonscientific use is incompatible with the conventions on which the international community relies on.

Algeria is concerned with the trend of recreational use. Canada’s decision is not consistent with the spirits of the internationally agreed framework. The conventions are the cornerstones of the international drug control system.

Malaysia agrees that the conventions are the cornerstones of the international drug control system and allowing other than medical and scientific use are clear violations. Malaysia calls all member states to adhere to the conventions.

Germany associates with the Dutch statement. Great interest in INCB and not against the debate on legalization of Cannabis but we don not consider this spontaneous peer, review finger-pointing to member states, in line with the Vienna spirit that is focused on cooperation.

France understands the differences in domestic dialogues and is against nonmedical use. Nevertheless, this forum should not serve to single out member states – it is not in line with the Vienna spirit.

Namibia is concerned with the decision of Canada and calls on member states to respect the rules set out by the conventions that are the cornerstones of the international drug control system.

Armenia fully shares Russia’s position.

Canada thanks the comments and is conscious of the strong positions and diverse national circumstances on policies. Canada will report home and is eager to engage more as they always respected the views of colleagues and continoue to do so. Such discussion needs to be carefully prepared for and needs active participation on topics that go beyond the subject explored today.

Russia welcomes the intention of reporting accurately on this discussion, but thinks Canada does not necessarily have a comprehensive understating of the international situation. A number of Canadian senators were concerned with the prospective international response to which the minister’s response was “don’t worry, they will digest everything”. Today’s discussion shwos this might not be entirely correct, which Russia finds very good. Russa can’t believe New Zealand supports the violation of international rules. Russia doesn’t think what is happening is fingerpointing as Canada is singling itself out by refusing to comply. The drug control regime will go into erosion if delegations accept excuses for not complying.

Chair: The work plan was accepted on the 26th of June.

CHAIR: Good morning to all of you. Welcome back to our third day thematic segment. Today cross cutting issues human rights, youth, children and communities. We will continue with the considerations from yesterday along with a number of statements and presentations.

UNODC Justice Section Chief, Valerie Lebaux: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss chapter 4 of the outcome document. The work of the justice section has its normative foundation in the UN standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice which are developed under the auspices of the other commissions. Both include the Tokyo Rules, the Bangkok Rules and the Nelson Mandela (NM) Rules as well as the UN principles and guidelines on access to legal aid in criminal justice systems. Interestingly those standards and norms have been referred to and are included in the text of recommendations of the UNGASS final outcome document. This is in fact only natural because of the high proportion among the people in contact with the criminal justice system, of people with drug use disorders and of people convicted in prisons for drug related offences. Therefore what can UNODC specifically do under the thematic programme in which the justice section is in charge – what we do to implement the standards and norms to deal with prisoners, with alternative to imprisonment, with access to legal aid – all of this has inevitably an impact of how people with drug use disorders, people in prison are treated for drug related offences by the criminal justice system. It also has an impact on how human rights are protected and promoted and this is why this presentation of our work is highly relevant.

So, allow me, Mme Chair to begin with recalling the recommendation included at the beginning of chapter 4. So, this is the commitment of MS during the UNGASS, reiterating their commitment to protect, respect and promote all human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals and the rule of law in the development and implementation of drug policies. Our presentation will focus on 5 areas; 1) on the treatment of women by addressing risk factors that make women and girls vulnerable to exploitation and participation to drug trafficking. On 2) youth by promoting the skills and opportunities of youth at risk but also in terms of primary prevention measures that youth should be protected from drug use, its recommended access for youth to regular sports to promote healthy life and lifestyles and also providing youth with opportunities of having healthy and self-sustained lives. On 3) alternatives to imprisonment and the recommendations of the document relating to proportionate sentencing policies for drug offenders. There was a specific encouragement to establish alternatives or additional measures to conviction or punishment and promote proportionate national sentencing policies and we will address also the work of UNODC related to those recommendations. There are also references to the NM Rules, and 4) prison reform with an encouragement for self-assessment of confinement facilities, taking into account the NM Rules; an encouragement or recommendation to implement measures to address prison overcrowding and violence in prisons, and to provide capacity building to relevant national authorities. Last area is 5) access to legal aid. In order to ensure legal guarantees in due processing penal proceedings, including timely access to legal aid.

Access to legal aid is a major guarantee of human rights and in particular the right to fair trial for suspects/accused persons and later on prisoners. It is also a way within the criminal justice system particularly to protect vulnerable groups, the poor, the marginalised, or other groups at the disadvantage – when they are young – when they are in contact with the criminal justice system, facing difficulties in navigating the system. Since 2012 UNODC has been devoting efforts to strengthen access to legal aid through technical assistance. We have developed a number of technical assistance tools. The first tool that we developed relates to early access to legal aid. Why is that important? It is because in the first stages of contact with the criminal justice systems, like in police detention, in police custody people are at most at risk of experiencing human rights violations. Also it is the point at which decisions that will impact the outcome of the criminal justice process are being taken. As in – how will prosecutions being tackled, whether diversion from the criminal justice system will be considered, protection against torture, various forms of ill treatment. All these happens through access to legal aid. This is why the UNODC devoted its first technical assistance tool to this one aspect. After that, we have been developing another important tool, which is the model legislation and the accompanying commentaries on the model rule, on access to legal aid, which intends to guide MS who want to adopt or update legislation on legal aid to do so. MS can take advantage of experiences from other countries or regions. We have also, in 2016, conducted a study together with UNDP and finally we are now, this week, having an expert group meeting and reviewing a handbook on quality of legal services, including criminal justice processes. In fact, this was one of the outcomes of the global study. We asked national authorities as well as legal aid practitioners – what was then the most pressing issue on which they thought support and technical assistance was most needed. This was the quality of legal aid services. How to ensure, how to monitor, how to evaluate the quality of legal aid services provided. Often the service provided to the poor is also of a poor quality. Now we are working on this handbook which will provide guidance. We are not establishing standards of any sort of normative value, but we are gathering advice and guidance for MS who want to improve/strengthen the quality of their legal aid services.

UNODC Justice Section, Sven Pfeifer: 1. On women, let me highlight the most recent trends. Firstly the 2018 WDR has some interesting findings with a specific focus on women, not only for women with drug use but also for women in supply, concerning women in conflict with law. Worldwide the proportion of women that are convicted of drug offences is higher than their male counterparts. For women its 35% and for men is 19%. This indicates that drug laws, policies and measures affect women disproportionately. The report also confirmed what we already knew based on other studies, that women who are incarcerated for drug related offences face worse consequences than men. They also have less access to health care services, not only of their drug related issues but also other gender-specific health issues, as well as upon release the face the double stigma that is related to gender but also of being ex-offenders. The usually are facing discrimination in accessing health care, social services. Women face social isolation. I would also like to touch upon some technical assistance. Our office has been providing tools to support the implementation of the Bangkok Rules for those women who are in prison and the ones who used to be in prison.

First of all, in 2017 we organised a sub-regional workshop in Panama, hosting prison officials from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama as well as Guatemala where we looked into different aspects and issues of drug offences that women unfortunately are affected by drug control. In March 2018 UNODC launched an important technical toolkit on women’s access to justice, specifically for women incarcerated. This was launched at the Commission on the status of agreement between the CND and the CCPCJ and also includes a focus on drug related aspects. Finally, in September 2018 UNODC participated in an international conference for women in prison which brought together over 40 researchers and experts from different parts of the world to discuss strategies and good practices in order to implement the Bangkok Rules and also considering amongst friends confirming that at some regions the situation of higher rate of women being in prison for drug offences is still worrying. Also, I would like to mention that there are global prison challenges. We are trying to focus on gender even more with the launch of fundraising efforts with the focus not only on prison but also on non-custodial measures which is the part of the Bangkok Rules that is sometimes less prominent therefore neglected – an important concern. I am happy to inform you that Thailand has already provided generous funding. From this and of course the additional support of other countries would enable progress in regions that require assistance on that aspect.

UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Johannes de Haan: 2. I would like to say a few words about what new initiatives were adopted regarding youth, crime prevention and the drug use prevention in line with the recommendations of the UNGASS outcome document. As you know, for early prevention the development of personal and social skills is important, as illustrated by the WDR which lists this amongst protective and risk factors. This programme that we have started to implement in 2016 in close cooperation with prevention, treatment and rehabilitation centres is called ‘prevention through sports’. Through that programme we look specifically at effective and local-based youth-crime and drug use prevention building, through the power of sports, enabling sustainable development and as a tool to strengthen resilience of youth. It is based on the fact that life skills have a positive impact on antisocial behaviour and promote health. Besides the component which you maybe have heart about – a sports-based life skills training called ‘line-up/live-up’ – we also support policy development, programme development in countries that we operate, as well as raising awareness on the use of sports for crime and drug use prevention. There, we work closely with partners from civil society to keep young people away from crime and drug use.

In line with the evidence we have on our life skills and training and works in respect to early prevention as well as the UNGASS outcome document, ‘line-up/live-up’ addresses [not only] stream mediating factors, life skills training but also norms on drugs, crime and the risks involved as well as attitudes of youth and how they are affected by normative beliefs. ‘Line-up/live-up’ combines all of these in a 10-session intervention from 13 until 18 year-old youth with mixed levels of risk-related behaviour. The initiative responses to a need for support people with substance use disorders as identified in the international standards on drug use prevention and in this respect the programme also includes a research component of impact assessment. What we have done so far is develop the training curriculum and related tools, we started to roll out first by testing our material in a couple of communities in Brazil – Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro – and based on the input we received there – both from sport coaches, school teachers as well as from youth we finalised the material and we started piloting the programme in Brazil and now also in 8 other countries around the globe. So far we have targeted more than 2000 at-risk youth that have gone through the 10 sessions and we have also certified around 270 coaches that are now able not only to run this programme but also coaches are trained to deliver interactive ways of teaching and engaging youth. The programme is built up in such a way that there is a component of sports, training and physical activity gains but also including debriefing sessions at the end which the physical activity gains are translated into learnings for everyday life scenarios ready to be implemented. What we will do next is an impact assessment where we will look at how the programme had an impact in terms of social activities, substance use, risks etc. We hope that by the end of the programme – in 2019 – we have data to present. In addition, we are working with NGOs that are reaching at-risk youth with vocational trainings and capability skills, the girl empowerment initiatives, youth ambassadors and community mobilisation more broadly, with an aim to target as many as possible risk factors that vary at the communities we pilot. This initiative forms part of our wider initiative as Justice Section on youth crime and prevention.

UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Gia Illy: 3. It is my pleasure to share some information with you on UNODC support plan on alternatives to imprisonment. As you know in the recent decade the global prison population has been increasing in an alarmingly way. It is very well documented that in most regions of the world people detained or convinced of drug related offences represent disproportionately high percentage of the global prison population and in the case of people with drug use disorders and in contact with the criminal justice system – what is needed are effective and evidence-based treatment and care interventions rather than imprisonment. As stated in chapter 4 of the UNGASS outcome document, using alternative measures to conviction or punishment in cases of an appropriate nature in accordance with the three international drug control treaties as well as international standards and norms of crime prevention and criminal justice, such as the Tokyo Rules. The treatment and care for people with drug use disorders who are in contact with criminal justice system as an alternative to conviction or punishment is a joint initiative between UNODC and WHO in order to provide support to MS in their efforts to implement treatment and care for this population. This initiative explores strategies and options to direct people with drug use disorders – in appropriate cases – to the healthcare system, including practical measures that can be implemented by national governments.

At this year CND and CCPCJ, UNODC together WHO launched a publication on this topic which had been prepared based on 50 MS’ replies as well as it was put together by 2 expert consultation groups with professionals from both health and justice sectors. The publication outlines the available options to use for the treatment of people with drug use disorders as an alternative to different stages of the criminal justice process and focuses on how to achieve those solutions. This publication which has been prepared based on a collaboration between justice and health practitioners is providing practical information for policymakers as well as health and justice practitioners to identify the scope of the problem in their community, resources that can be used to address them, gaps that need to be filled and practical approaches for addressing them and moving forward. Based on this publication and other activities in UNODC work to promoting the use of alternatives and supporting drug dependence treatment, UNODC Justice Section and the Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Section of the Drug Prevention branch has been providing targeted technical assistance to requesting countries on this topic. In November 2017, UNODC help a national workshop in Cote d’Ivoire on this topic where good practices on treatment as an alternative to various stages of the criminal justice process will shared and in December 2018 we will holding a workshop in Mombasa, Kenya with the objective of enhancing the knowledge and understanding among relevant health and justice professionals. In addition to these activities, UNODC also plans on giving technical assistance in this area, including regional workshops on the use of alternatives for serious offences in Jakarta, Indonesia and Cairo in the upcoming months with the objective of identifying priorities in their national and regional contacts and ways to overcome those challenges.

UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Philipp Meissner: 4. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide with some updates on the thematic area of prison reform. The UNGASS outcome document highlights the relevance of the value of the required standard minimum Rules of treatment of prisoners – the Nelson Mandela Rules – in the form of capacity building and an absolute point of promoting self-assessments in prisons to measure compliance to the Rules. The background of this recommendation is obvious on the higher prevalence of drug use and drug dependence amongst prisoners. The Rules explicitly refer to prisoners with drug use disorders giving the context of screenings upon mission or reiterating the need for close relation between prison-based healthcare services and the public health administrations. I also want to stress that this recommendation is also due to the very close linkage between overall prison conditions on one hand and opportunities for treatment and rehabilitation on the other.

I wish to focus in my presentation on 3 very concrete initiatives that the Justice Section has been pursuing with specific moves to the development of visibility and checking compliance on the NM Rules. The first is to focus on getting the message of the NM Rules out – if I may say so – and more specifically to let this message enter the prison walls for the benefit of the prisoners and the prison staff. The question on what they should know on the Rules and routines led us to the development of a series of instructiona and core provisions on the thematic areas in the NM Rules which are designed to be posted in relevant parts of prison facilities. The thematic areas can cover range from basic principles of healthcare, legal aid but also not very prominent security related issues such as restrictions and sanctions as well as searches. The prisoners are entitled to receive necessary healthcare services free of charge, all consultations should be confidential, the healthcare records of prisoners should be accessible only to healthcare services and their patients, and finally arrangements should be in place to range for a continuity of care both in prison and upon release.

Another initiative – a more extensive one – related on to our recent publication of a comprehensive checklist to assess compliance to the NM Rules. This is a direct response to the UNGASS outcome document reference to supporting self-assessment of confinement facilities but it also relates to the NM Rules themselves – in particular rule 83 – which now not only calls for external inspections but also asks central prison administrations to calls upon internal administrative inspection. So in the first step we really went towards consolidating the 122 Rules in the NM Rules into the 7 thematic areas that ranging from safe cards, to safety, to the prison regime but obviously also including health care, including the role of core position of health professionals working in prisons. In the second step we broke these 7 thematic areas down to so called expected outcomes, to insure compliance with the NM Rules – as well as corresponding indicators which would large process the extent to which the outcome is actually achieved. Overall this checklist comprises a total of 36 outcomes and 248 indicators which gives us an idea of the complexity of the issues that need to be looked at. In prisons, the checklist has been met with great interest amongst MS. It has been used for the requirement of internal inspection mechanisms in many – we have widely disseminated.

Last but not least, I would like to draw your attention into capacity building – again something that has been mentioned in the UNGASS outcome document. Most specifically our ongoing work on developing an e-learning training course on the NM Rules. We decided to compliment this with a set of 35 practical scenarios in the form of short videos which have been filmed or are about to be filmed in prisons in Algeria, Argentina and Switzerland so the prison staff using the tool is practically exposed to situations that are likely to arise in prison given the context of the admission of prisoners, given the context of prison conditions, healthcare services, sanctions, etc. The user will be asked to make a choice on how to respond in certain situations and after it will continue to show them the consequences of their decision and whether or not this was in compliance with the NM Rules. This exercise also gave us a much more concrete and practical idea of the complex decisions prison staff need to take on a daily basis and very often in a short amount of time. We very much hope that with training course, with these scenarios we provide practitioners with a meaningful tool that they can identify which, a tool that can be disseminated in e-learning courses and can be easily built into national training curricula for prison staff. For your information we intend to have this course ready on time of the next CND.

USA: With respect to the prevention programmes among the youth, we are interested to hear if you have been able to gather evidence from longitudinal or follow-up assessments to determine any lasting impacts of these programmes on outcomes related to drug use.

Chair: Regarding the initiative ‘line-up/live-up’, I would like to know whether the UNODC is partnering with the UN office for sports, development and peace – for example – and if there are any special advisor of the UN secretary general under the national focus points at the SDG segments.

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: With regards to fair trial, from our research we found that pretrial detention is a factor leading to overcrowding in the prison. What are UNODC’s views on that?

Slovenia: Can you explain how it is going on with the implementation of harm reduction in prisons?

UNODC Justice Section Chief, Valerie Lebaux: To our colleague from OHCHR, I can only confirm that in many countries those in pre-trial detention represent up to 70% of people in prison. So, alternatives to imprisonment, diversion from the criminal justice system, access to legal aid – all of those measures are likely to have an impact in reducing the pre-trial detention population and this is indeed the focus of our activities.

UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Johannes de Haan: Regarding the impact assessment, we are at the moment – we are just starting with the impact assessment targeting around 1,000 youths in Brazil, but we are conducting in October a baseline study with short-time data collection – 3 months after the programme has ended – and then we will collect data a year later, so by 2020 we will have the data analysed. Needless to say, it will be a collection of qualitative and quantitative data collection with a focus on discussions with teachers and youth.

About the question posed by Mme Chair, inter-agency cooperation is key for us and this initiative. Within the UN-family sort to speak we have very recently the UNDESA, taking up the role of focal point and connecting various human entities around sports. We also work closely with – actually this week we have a training in Uganda – but we also collaborating with UNESCO and WHO in designing this programme. When possible, we make connections.

UNODC Drug Prevention and Health Branch Chief, Gilberto Gerra: We have contributed to promote harm reduction measures, we have contributed in 52 countries for the opportunity to promote methadone in prisons and needle exchange programmes only – unfortunately – in 11 countries. We face many times a sort of denial. We know that prisons are permeable to drugs and also to injectable drugs. In the future, the visits that we do with WHO systematically and in the countries we operate for both treatment and harm reduction we have the opportunity to meet together with the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. There is a need in exchanging perspectives.

Qatar: The state of Qatar has been funding UNODC programme. I wish to thank the UNODC that is helping the youth. What we note is that you haven’t referred to the contributions of the state of Qatar.

Chair: Regarding the NM Rules and in relation to technology. Have you incorporated new technologies like virtual reality in your training courses for example. Or if you have identified new technological tools or partners. If there are also any of the delegations that have and want to share information of best practices.

Morocco: In regard to alternatives to imprisonment. Among the measurements adopted by MS the electronic bracelet has been proven problematic, especially in rural areas.

Tanzania: As I could see many drug users are poly-substance users. They tend to use many/other types of drugs like cocaine, amphetamines, etc. Now one of the challenges I see ahead of us is our failure to our proper technical guidance/ materials in case of treating individuals who use stimulants. I would like to know the status of the UN-family on the matter.

UNODC Drug Prevention and Health Branch Chief, Gilberto Gerra: We are in preparation of 2 tools that would be ready before the end of the year; one about treatment for stimulants and one about the risk of HIV associated with the use of stimulants. We are really concerned that stimulant use is not receiving enough attention. Many of the users and not contacting the services because there isn’t something appealing for them to reach out to a service. We will provide these tools by Christmas and for sure by the next CND we will have the publication on this.

UNODC Justice Section Chief, Valerie Lebaux: One point of clarification concerning the Doha declaration and implementation programme we have mentioned the activities that we are conducting in the area of youth crime prevention. This Doha implementation programme has also a set of activities for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of prisoners but also conducting by the Justice Section. All those are generously funded by the government of Qatar.

Referring to social reintegration/rehabilitation of prisoners and the risk of electronic bracelets, I would like to promote alternatives to imprisonment but our programme – in line with the Tokyo Rules – also puts an emphasis on nations that have the potential to rehabilitate and socially reintegrate offenders and prisoners. In that respect the electronic bracelet has potential but also, as it has been mentioned, raises challenges; one is technical, having to rely on technology, and the second one is financial. Often the private sector is promoting the use and the sale of those bracelets which represent a high cost to prison administrations. It has also been challenged from the human rights perspective because its use may seem to be “soft” but at the same time this is a significant limitation of the freedom of movement. So, there are a number of challenges and therefore our office does not include that option in its suggestions to in particular to developing countries among the first line of alternatives to imprisonment.

UNODC Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, Philipp Meissner: Regarding the innovative training modalities for prison staff and if you allow me Mme Chair I would like to first do a quick reality check – referencing facts – a lot of countries unfortunately do not yet have dedicated prison staff training academies, in some countries is still incubated into a type of police-training maybe with some add-on to the specificities of prison staff, so there is still of overall work that needs to be done to provide training to prison staff and I believe some research ahead of our decision to this e-learning course on the NM Rules we discovered that in many countries it is not yet as innovative as it could probably be. When it comes to virtual reality however I would like to refer to the fact that one of the organisations that we have partnered with – the international committee of the Red Cross – is working on such a tool that is displaying prison environments within different aspects.

Chair: If there are no further questions I would like to go further with our expert panellists and I have the pleasure to invite Mr. Mahmood of the OHCHR.

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: In my presentation, I will reflect on three key areas. Why are human rights relevant in the discussion of drug policy? What is the role of UN human rights mechanisms in the drug policy debate?  What are findings and recommendations of the recent report of the High Commissioner on joint commitments and human rights?  Despite some shortcomings, human rights are at the core of the outcome document of UNGASS 2016. If we read it very carefully, we would find that throughout the text of the document, human rights and related principles are included righteously.

In the introductory paragraph of Chapter 4 of the Outcome Document, all Member States of the United Nations reiterated their commitments “to respecting, protecting and promoting all human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals and the rule of law in the development and implementation of drug policies”. This is not the first time that human rights are mentioned in the context of the drug policy debates at the United Nations. (Human rights never been an issue of ‘far distance’ in the debate on the drug policy.)

In the 2009 Political Declaration, all members States reaffirmed their unwavering commitment to ensure that all aspects of drug control efforts (demand reduction, supply reduction and international cooperation) are addressed in full conformity with the purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And indeed, human rights are one of key principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations, its agencies and Member States are bound by overarching obligations under articles 1, 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms.” We welcome the fact that these human rights commitments further reflected in various resolutions adopted by this Commission in recent years. For example, the Commission’s resolution 61/7 on addressing the specific needs of vulnerable members of society, or resolution 61/11 on promoting non-stigmatizing attitudes, or resolution 61/9 on Protecting children from the illicit drug challenge- all these and many other resolutions of the Commissions are not only based in the drug convention, but also, to some extents, founded on the relevant human rights treaties, principles and norms. Our Office welcomes this human right based approach, and urge the Commission to continue further rigorously pursue the promotion and protection of human rights in addressing and countering the world drug problem.

Mme Chair, this take me to the next part of my present. How are UN human rights mechanisms contributing the implementation of joint commitment of States? In March 2015, Human rights Council adopted resolution 28/28 entitled “Contribution of the Human Rights Council to the special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem of 2016″.  Pursuant to this resolution of the Council, our office prepared and published first-ever comprehensive report on the human rights impact of the world drug problem; Our 2015 report addressed the impact of the world drug problem in five main human rights areas: the right to health, rights relating to criminal justice, the prohibition of discrimination including, in particular against ethnic minorities and women, the rights of the child and the rights of indigenous peoples. The OHCHR also organised a panel discussion for the Human rights Council on this in topic at the Council in 2015.The summary of the panel and our office’s 2015 report shared with this Commission as a contribution for the preparation of UNGASS 2016. In March this year, the Human Rights Council adopted second resolution on issues related to drug policy and human rights. In its recent resolution 37/42, the Human rights Council requested our office to prepare and submit a report on the implementation of the joint commitment of States to effectively address and counter the world drug problem with regard to human rights. The Council also requested our Office to share the report with this Commission as a contribution to your work in this field and in preparation for the sixty-second session of the Commission. On 14 September, the report was presented to the Council; and we’ve also shared the report with the Secretariat of the Commission; and it is now available at the Commission’s website on “preparations for the 2019 ministerial segment”. The report discusses human rights aspects of joint commitments of States on a wide range of areas. These include prevention and treatment of drug abuse, law enforcement and criminal justice system, international cooperation, alternative development, measuring drug policy from human rights perspective- as well as joint commitments on women, youth, children, vulnerable members of society and communities- as agreed in the outcome document of UNGASS. Throughout the text, the report shows that how various UN human rights mechanisms, treaty bodies and special rapporteur, have addressed human rights issues in the context of drug policy in the last few decades; and provided recommendation to State in the development and implementation of national drug policies, laws and programmes in line with their human rights obligations under international law.

In recommendation 4(a) of the Outcome Document of UNGASS, States committed to enhance the knowledge of policymakers and the capacity of relevant national authorities on various aspects of the world drug problem in order to ensure that national drug policies fully respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, among other issues. In this regard, States further encourage cooperation with and among relevant United Nations entities, within their respective mandates. We hope that the recent report of the High Commissioner will contribute to enhance knowledge and capacity of national authorities and other stakeholders to advance human rights in the formulation and implementation of drug policies.

In the following, let me provide few examples of findings and recommendations of the report A/HRC/39/39. In regard to access to treatment in prisons and other custodial settings, the UNGASS outcome document calls for the implementation of treatment-related initiatives in prisons and other custodial settings, and also for access to health care, social services and treatment for those in prison or pretrial detention. On several occasions, while examining State parties’ report, the Committee against Torture has recommended that the provision of medical services to prisoners, particularly those who are addicted to drugs, should be ensured, and that all measures necessary to implement the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners should be taken. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended “gender-sensitive and evidence-based drug treatment services to reduce harmful effects for women who use drugs, including harm reduction programmes for women in detention”. The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment recommended the introduction of effective drug-replacement therapy in detention centres. Furthermore, noting that detention settings are high-risk environments for HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis transmission, various human rights treaty bodies have recommended that States ensure access to harm reduction services in prison. It’s also reported that in many countries, disproportionate numbers of racial, ethnic or minorities are detained or imprisoned for drug related offences. OHCHR and UNDP in Cambodia are jointly implementing Access to Justice without Barriers for Persons with Disabilities – a project aimed at enhancing the capacity of duty bearers to better understand the obstacles of persons with disabilities, including those who use drugs, in accessing justice.

In regard to eliminating prison overcrowding and violence, in the outcome document, all States committed to addressing and eliminating prison overcrowding and violence. UN human rights mechanisms have expressed concern about the unnecessary and disproportionate use of the criminal justice system for drug-related offences. The report found that some legal policies and practices lead to overcrowding of prisons and other places of deprivation of liberty: These includes: tougher law and order approaches mandatory use of pretrial detention, disproportionate lengths of sentence, frequent delays in the judicial system, poor monitoring of inmate status and release entitlement, and the failure to grant parole. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has recommended several measures for addressing over incarceration and overcrowding. These include; adopting a proactive and holistic approach; ensuring respect for detainees’ right to challenge detention,-ensuring provision of assistance by legal counsel and access to legal aid; using places of detention only for the purpose for which they are fit; using pretrial detention only as a last resort; developing and implementing alternatives to custodial measures during pretrial and post-conviction; reviewing penal policies and legislation to ensure proportionate sentencing; -providing effective rehabilitation services to contribute to reducing reoffending rates; and ensuring the existence and proper functioning of independent oversight and complaints mechanisms.

With regard to women, the report found that in many countries, there has been a disproportionate increase in the rates of imprisonment of women, including for low-level drug-dealing offences. For example, in several Latin American countries, women convicted of drug-related offences make up more than half of the female prison population. Very high levels of incarceration of women can also be found in East and South-East Asia. In its 2014 report on prison conditions in Tunisia, the Office recommended, inter alia, that Tunisia reform its drug policy to adopt the principle of progressive sanctions for crimes of drug consumption, particularly for first time offenders. In April 2017, the Tunisian parliament adopted an amended version of its national drug law; which now allows judicial discretion in sentencing for drug consumption, including the possibility of imposing alternative measures, such as suspended sentence or a fine. This constitutes a welcome development and is expected to have a significant impact on reducing prison a overcrowding in the country. OHCHR will continue to advocate for wider review of Tunisian drug law and policy; and provide technical support to Tunisian authorities for the further inclusion of human rights-based approach to the national drug law and policy.

The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recommended: (a) alternative and additional measures; and (b) proportionate sentencing.  Both issues are relevant in addressing prison overcrowding. In regard to alternative measures, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures -the Tokyo Rules- provide a set of basic principles to promote the use of non-custodial measures, as well as minimum safeguards for persons subject to alternatives to imprisonment.  The Tokyo Rules are intended to promote greater community involvement in the management of criminal justice, specifically in the treatment of offenders, and to promote among offenders a sense of responsibility towards society. The Tokyo Rules provide that the dignity of the offender subject to non-custodial measures shall be protected at all times.

The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have called on States to develop gender-sensitive alternatives to incarceration, and to promote community-based sentencing for female offenders. In their submissions, stakeholders referred to several alternative and additional measures to incarceration.

• A person who voluntarily applies for treatment in connection with the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances is exempted from “administrative responsibility” for this offence (Russian Federation).
• In some States, sanction for personal use of drugs is a fine, not imprisonment.
• In some countries in West Africa, there is a choice between imprisonment and a fine, for low-level offences.
• In other States, people who use drugs and drug traffickers have been sentenced to community service, given the serious overcrowding in prisons.
• Public Defender’s Office has sought to divert women who use drugs away from the criminal justice system and to offer them services such as counselling, drug treatment and job training.
• Probation has also been used in some countries.

In some States, “drug courts” offer people accused of drug use a choice between imprisonment and treatment. Drug courts are claimed to reduce incarceration rates and to represent a more humane approach than in the criminal justice process. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and other stakeholders, noted in their submissions that there was no credible evidence to support such claims. Furthermore, they stated that the drug court system caused considerable harm to participants and frequently resulted in serious human rights violations. Such violations were exacerbated by racial and gender biases.  Given that the decision to undertake treatment is made under the threat of imprisonment, coercion may influence such a decision. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights considered that drug courts which offer treatment as an alternative to imprisonment fail to conform to a public health approach and do not tackle mistreatment and human rights violations that occur in treatment centres, which are rarely investigated.  The propensity for human rights violations in the context of drug courts is such that the report cautioned against the continued roll-out of drug courts in countries where oversight and monitoring mechanisms are absent.

In regard to proportionate sentencing and decriminalisation of certain crimes, proportionate sentencing is an essential requirement of an effective and fair criminal justice system. It requires that custodial sentences be imposed as a measure of last resort and applied proportionately to meet a pressing societal need. The report found that in many States, low-level offences such as small-scale drug dealing or trafficking are punished with harsher penalties than other serious crimes, raising questions about proportionate sentencing.  Furthermore, simple possession of drugs for personal use can result in significant terms of mandatory imprisonment. The principle of proportionality is also relevant to pretrial detention, which is mandatory in several States for drug offences.  The Human Rights treaty bodies stated that “long periods of pretrial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons” and that “from the standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already showing signs of stress”.

In regard to death penalty, a wide range of drug-related offences are punishable by death, in over 30 States. Amnesty International reported that drug-related executions accounted for approximately 30% of all executions recorded in 2017.  In accordance with article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States that have not abolished the death penalty may only impose it for the “most serious crimes”, which has been consistently interpreted as meaning intentional killing. The Human Rights Committee has consistently stated that drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”. The International Narcotics Control Board has encouraged all States that retain the death penalty for drug-related offences to commute death sentences that have already been handed down and to consider the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences. We welcome the recent legal amendments with regard to the use of the mandatory death penalty in Iran and Malaysia, and the new drug policy strategy of Myanmar that has announced the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences, but more is needed to fully abolished the death penalty in these countries. In order to meet the requirement of proportionate sentencing, States should revise their penal policies and legislation with the aim of reducing minimum and maximum penalties and decriminalizing the personal use of drugs and minor drug offences, which would also contribute to reducing the total prison population.

In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed to “promote and implement effective criminal justice responses to drug-related crimes to bring perpetrators to justice that ensure legal guarantees and due process safeguards pertaining to criminal justice proceedings, including practical measures to uphold the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention and of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to eliminate impunity … and ensure timely access to legal aid and the right to a fair trial”.

There are several findings and recommendation with regard to other issues, such law enforcement, alternative development and measuring the data from human rights perspective.  I will reflect on these issues and in coming intersessional meetings.

However, let me make three general points regarding role of different stakeholders. (1) International and regional human rights mechanisms, including human rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the Human Rights Council, consistently address human rights issues related to drug control efforts. States and other actors involved in addressing the world drug problem, such as the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the International Narcotics Control Board, should consider the findings, views and recommendations of these human rights mechanisms, and should encourage and assist States in the implementation of the recommendations. (2) At the national level, national human rights institutions and other independent State bodies, such as ombudspersons for children, also play important roles in monitoring the human rights aspects of drug control efforts. They can provide human rights guidance to national authorities for the development and the implementation of national drug policies and laws. The participation and capacity of national human rights institutions should be encouraged and strengthened in order to implement the joint commitments made in the outcome document of the thirtieth special session. (3) The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recognises the importance of including civil society and affected communities in the design, implementation and/or evaluation of drug policies and programmes. Civil society organisations and representatives of affected groups play a significant role in analysing drugs issues, in delivering services and in evaluating the human rights impact of drug policies. Civil society organisations should be protected from any intimidation, threat, harassment or reprisal.

Switzerland: We welcomed the recent report on implementation of joint commitment. Taking the recommendations of the UNGASS outcome document seriously means trying for a modern, holistic and evidence-based approach to drugs that is confined within the international applications. In particular we would like to hold to two points from your report. First, Switzerland fully supports of people who use drugs to be treated with dignity and humanity. Second, Switzerland would like to reiterate the protection of human rights and the right of law in all actions by law enforcement agencies to address drug related challenges. Also, what would be the next steps after this report?

Norway: Let me start by saying that we very much appreciate the cooperation between UNODC and the OHCHR and we are studying this report with great interest. You said that human rights are at the core of UNGASS document and the focus of MS should be on the implementation of these obligations. Which human rights obligations are not covered or not sufficiently covered by UNGASS and should be included in the future created documents of this Commission.

Austria: We also welcome the report of the OHCHR and the ongoing cooperation between OHCHR and UNODC and also AT deems the contributions of the OHCHR to our discussions at the CND is very important. We were also studying the report with a lot of attention. The recognition that the OHCHR has developed a set of indicators of the realisation of human rights and we would be interested in how the OHCHR could contribute to discussions here in Vienna on the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document in terms of development of those indicators for the chapter of the UNGASS outcome document.

USA: With regards to drug courts we would note that drug courts should not be considered as a treatment intervention on their own on in isolation but rather as one part of a comprehensive national treatment system which can promote evidence-based treatment, by encouraging people to enter treatment. In fact, this intervention falls under effective and evidence-based treatment services to which people can be referred which implement best practices. When these services are not at place, drug courts can be rendered ineffective. We would also note that offering treatment as an alternative to incarceration is not an example of compulsory treatment and should not be considered as such, as the active decision to remain on treatment with respect to whatever is offered is a critical component of the recovery process. Drug courts are one part of treatment maintenance and therefore should be considered an important part of a national strategy.

Russia: I listened with interest this detailed report. He touched on an issue on how mechanisms can assist on the implementation. How can the mechanism to controlled drugs based on the 3 conventions can assist the interactive mechanism of OHCHR?

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: First I would like to respond on to what will be the next step after this report. This report has been produced by the Office and has been submitted to the Human Rights Commission and also after the request of the Human Rights Council and will be shared for the intersessional meeting focusing on preparations for the 2019 Ministerial Segment. In this course we are planning to organise expert workshop on the findings and recommendation of the report here in December in cooperation with UNODC, only on the implementation of the recommendations.

With regards to Norway’s question, there are some shortcomings on the outcome document. One of the key shortcomings of the document was that there was not mention of the prohibition of the death penalty under the international human rights law. Death penalty for drug related offences in not permitted but that has not been appropriately emphasised. Also, the issue with the rights of indigenous people to use substances for their traditional and religious practices. There are a few other issues that are not adequately mentioned with regards to torture, mandatory sentencing policies in drug laws. We have noted that in many countries mandatory sentencing policies contribute to not only overcrowded facilities but also sometimes to violence, and violations of the fundamental right to fair trial and other principles as well.

Regarding Austria’s question I will refer to it on my intervention tomorrow.

With regards to US intervention on drug courts, we have noticed that in many other countries  there is an over-monitoring mechanism, that created serious human rights violations. Even treatment centre that is established by the drug court and referred by the court there are not fully compliant with human rights. For that reason, in the report we caution the role of drug courts where there is no proper monitoring mechanism. I agree with your views on drug courts to some extent.

In regard to Russia’s question, I will refer to our collaboration with the INCB. They are looking at the human rights aspect as well as in the process, so we would like to continue that collaboration. I think that the drug conventions and human rights conventions work together – we now need to figure out how they can be implemented together in line with the UNGASS outcome document.

European Union: First of all, the EU promotes human rights in drug policy – that is why we have all those forums and such cooperation. On policy level, how can we further promote of human rights in the work of the Commission and also further progress from the work that you are doing? Where are we aiming and what is happening on the ground? What is the impact of your work on the ground?

Slovenia: We fully support the implementation of human rights in prisons and we also support your work. We are looking at today’s prison is not very hospitable for treatment of drug users. In the morning you have the nurses delivering the substitution substance for many prisoners. It is necessary to change this situation and to go to the way where we have the implementation of some alternative sanction oriented to the treatment and social rehabilitation of drug users in the prisons. And we want, and we wish and maybe we dream about a progress in this regard and we think is time to change the common situation in prisons today.

Netherlands: These presentations shows very clearly the collaboration between the human rights and the public health the outcomes, also the collaboration with civil society including people who use drugs. This is also what we try to implement in our development cooperation relating to HIV and drugs. At the AIDS conference in Amsterdam last July there were several reiterations that we will never reach the sustainable development goals without ending AIDS if we don’t address the enabling environment. There have been several presentations on Tuesday about prevention and about harm reduction – which is very important – and UNAIDS has stressed several times that this enabling environment is important, and we need to address stigma and discrimination but also think about decriminalisation and further policies. What is the UN collectively intending to do in the CND in 2019 to like-meet the UNGASS to promote this health and rights agenda and also perhaps give more insights of what would be the cost-effectiveness of changing policies more towards health and have also a better impact on health outcomes of people?

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: In regard to how the Commission can advance the human rights and in particular the UNGASS commitments on human rights. The Commission adopted the resolution not only based on the drug conventions but also on human rights principles. We encourage the Commission to look at this issue, whenever any resolution is submitted. To look at the human rights perspective and therefore in compliance with UNGASS outcome document and the 2009 Political Declaration. With regards to our work at the field, OHCHR in partnership with UNODC, WHO and other international authorities are finally working with Colombian drug law authorities for the inclusion of human rights and into evolving the participation of civil society, communities and others. Participation is key. How to ensure that? We are working with UNODC colleagues on that particular issue. Also, we are working with colleagues for the abolition of the death penalty in southeast Asia. The death penalty in not a proportionate sentence and it doesn’t help to tackle the issues.

I fully agree with Slovenia.

With regards to decriminalisation we raised this issue today and other get that access to treatment as we have seen that in many countries. Some report of a global foundation on drug policy [also] highlights this issue to provide some evidence.

Egypt: I wish to take a look on the matter from a different perspective. Given that fact that we all agree on the right of every human to receive medication when needed, I would like to know what is the OHCHR is doing when it comes affordability of medicines and are there any discussions on that matter?

China: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to listen to all of the presentations. I would like to share a true story. I was privileged to work in African countries. I learned there. Some criminals requested an appealed since they were infected with HIV from women they raped to get infected. The international community showed attention. At last the criminals were convicted. They were put in prison with good conditions. But the victims of the massacre many of women carrying the HIV die at very young age. When I read the report, I felt sorry for them. The reason that feels relevant is for the purpose of letting everyone know. We not talking only about the small minority of prisons. We are talking about the whole society. In this country the population hated the International Criminal Court. Because they don’t think justice was served. As a matter of fact, this organisation was unpopular and lost credibility. Each country should proceed with its own specificities. We should not judge or require other countries to provide the same conditions. This is a manifestation of social justice.

UK: The UK welcomes this collaboration between UNODC and OHCHR. The UK has a proud history of protecting the human rights including guaranteed access to treatment and harm reduction services. We will continue to advocate on drug policies across the world to place human rights at the core. The UK condemns the use of death penalty at all circumstances and in that regard, we are interested in the wide work on the ground of the OHCHR with regards to this issue.

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: In regards to the affordability of medicines and healthcare, and what OHCHR is doing. We are not a key health related organisation within the UN system which is WHO, but I would like to mention that we are interested in different perspectives; to look at health-laws and policies and how could they fit best under the human right perspectives: non-discriminatory access to medicines and non-discriminatory treatment; and how we can include these in health legislations and practices. We are in collaboration with our colleagues from WHO and also with civil society organisations that work on the issue. We also travel to countries with our special rapporteur providing with guidance on drug policies and human rights. We hope at some point the Commission will take a better look at this issue in the future.

In regard to the death penalty, just this year we addressed this issue with the strong recommendations of abolishing the death penalty on drug related offences as well as all offences. This year also we submitted one report on death penalty that shows that progress has been made since last year that indicated that more and more countries are moving away from the death penalty, including the abolition for drug related offences; Iran, Malaysia. We hope this issue is examined in next CND and we hope more countries will join our aforementioned efforts.

National Institute Fight Against Drugs Angola Director General, Ana Graça: When we speak about drugs from the human rights perspective we usually speak about harm reduction. The reason for this methodology arises from the health sector to being in this conversation as expands from the right to health to the right of citizenship. Harm reduction seeks to achieve political socialisation. This means the promotion of health gains with the help of the constituencies. As mentioned previously, harm reduction action today has a global perspective. Promoting the individual to social arise from the drug users. It is a community action that exist for years with positive results. This practice first of all consist of listening to the consumer -for example street children, young people or even women in drug use. On social measures, one can try to deal with this behaviour and to mitigate the damage that has arrived from the misuse of drugs and as a result drive the individual towards options. According to action it becomes clear that human rights perspective of drug use recognise the consumer as citizen with the right to life and health. Citizens suffering from these conditions have the right to seek treatment programmes that promote health. It is also important to highlight the principles of integrity that guarantee health promotion. It is imperative that we consider all citizens in their singularity expecting the inclination of difference between each one. Harm reduction stimulates the consumers to take care of themselves so that they can effectively take place in the society regardless of them achieving abstinence. It is intended that public social services are trained to assess the social damage caused by drug misuse. Harm reduction should focus on establishing controls of the use of drugs as well as assist in the formulation of interventions to reduce damage. Without impeding the role of free trial, health should be promoted with respecting the freedom, integrity, dignity of human being, thereby helping to eliminate neglect, cruelty and oppression. Reading through this perspective, drug addiction is considered a transitional pathology. We believe that the harm reduction model was born from the need to formulate a response to a growing problem in the public health worldwide by the dilemmas arising from the use of drugs and the contraction of HIV. Moreover, a new problem that has arrived due to the naive nature of some drug addicts is HIV.

UNODC Drug Prevention and Health Branch Chief, Gilberto Gerra: I would to have some clarification on the definition of transitional pathology.

National Institute Fight Against Drugs Angola Director General, Ana Graça: Transitional pathology refers to the measures we are taking to modify the whole picture.

Austria: How was the policy evolved over the last 2 decades in Angola? Which were the initial steps, which were the lessons to be learned and why are you now where you are?

National Institute Fight Against Drugs Angola Director General, Ana Graça: The measures we are taking is because we realised that the social measures would be the best ones. You start by tackling poverty, which -we believe- is the main reason for people to use drugs. We are building more schools, training more teachers, creating more police setting, making sure the health service is able to tackle all these issues. Most times they are offenders because they use drugs. By tackling all these previous issues the problem is getting smaller.

National Dangerous Control Board Sri Lanka Assistant Director, Pabasara Weerasinghe: The objective of my presentation is to make clear understanding of the system regarding community building. The drug problem also affects the social economic development of the counties, and the security and stability of the countries. Diversion of pharmaceutical drugs through mail is also an emerging critical issue. Mme Chair, we would like to emphasize that in order to address the emerging issues effectively and to protect the human rights there is a need to revisit the current policy framework and identify critical divisions. For that we propose we focus on various areas that need to be explored; 1) the need to assess current policies, 2) the need to examine the evidence – the root cause of the problem, 3) the need to develop measurable indicators to access the problem.

We are in the process of exploring how mindfulness practice would help address the root cause of this problem. First up on an individual level. With the support of “Mindful School” – a non-profit organisation of Sri Lanka in the inception of mindfulness for students- we teach at schools, universities and in the communities. Mindfulness is defined as a round of thoughts and sensations with acceptance and for non-judgmental purposes. There is enough evidence to suggest that the practice of mindfulness is addressing the root causes of the drug problem. Therefore, we believe the introduction of mindfulness to address not only drug related issues but also other important issues in the society. Before we continue let me show you a video on mindfulness: https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND/2019/Contributions/Panellists/27_Sept/4.ASIA_PACIFIC_-_SRI_LANKA.mp4

USA: I wanted to point out that there is a lot of evidence about mindfulness and its effectiveness in treating substance use disorders but also other mental disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Our own research agencies are doing a lot of research on this area with promising results. This is an attempt at using science to generate new evidence-based treatment methods.

Chair: I also wanted to thank you for presenting such an innovative method. I think it is a very practical one, a useful one. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Health Canada, Carol Anne Chenard: I have the honour to be here to have another opportunity to discuss Canada’s health approach to gender and substance use issues. The Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy is a health focused approach to substance use issues in Canada. It is a comprehensive, collaborative and compassionate approach that is grounded in evidence. It includes harm reduction as a key pillar, alongside prevention, treatment, and enforcement. The federal strategy it was first announced in December 2016 and guides Canada’s policy approach to addressing issues that can rise with the use of a broad range of psychoactive substances, including alcohol, cannabis and opioids. Guided by the Canadian strategy, Canada has made progress on key files – particularly on actions to address the ongoing crisis over opioid related overdoses and deaths. The focus under the Canadian drugs and substances strategy on public health and on innovation has provided a strategic framework for the federal government to take important steps, including making naloxone available without a prescription, allowing medical care providers to bringing treatment options on an urgent basis that have not yet being proved in Canada and extending capacity across the substance use treatment system. The Canadian framework also provides the national structure for proving overdose prevention sites, -this is a minimal supervised consumption moral where sites can be temporarily approved in areas of high need to provide search capacity in the context of an urgent need for care for people who use drugs. Finally, our strategy and response has been guided by a strong focus to reduce stigma associated with substance use, which we know can impede the access to important services.

In Canada we are seeing that people who use drugs can experience stigma and discriminatory treatment when they are seeking or accessing healthcare or other social services, and this can lead to violations of their dignity and human rights. Reducing stigma is therefore key to effectively addressing problematic substance use. In March 2018 Canada led the adoption of a resolution on stigma at the CND and we will continue to prioritise addressing both stigma domestically and internationally.

One of the key factors that contribute to the maintenance of the spread of stigmatising attitudes and actions is the language we choose to use when we are speaking about substance use and about people who use drugs. Canada has developed a communications tool to help people choose the language they use. This tool recommends that medically accurate and objective terms should be used when speaking about substance use. In many other areas we have seen a successful transition from negative stigmatizing language to people’s first terminology.

Health Canada sex and gender plan aims to systematically integrates sex and gender considerations all in Health Canada research, publications, policies, programmes and services. Sex and gender are relevant factors in understanding problematic substance use. The available data suggests that all facets of problematic drug use are affected by sex and gender. This includes: the prevalence and patterns of substance use, types of substances used, physical impact of particular substances used, sub-populations affected, access to all substance use prevention and treatment programmes and social context abuse. As a first step, Canada has conducted an assessment of a key gender gap in accessing harm reduction services -the reliance of some marginalised women on peer-assisted injections. Canada has authorised a temporary 6-month pilot in six supervised consumption sites, to assess whether peer assistance will allow women and vulnerable populations to more readily access the wraparound services provided by supervised consumption sites. Canada opened a national public conversation on the next steps to the federal drug strategy on September, 5th 2018. One are where we hope to receive meaningful feedback is how we can develop new approaches for voluntary investments in substance use policy that would balance health and safety concerns for all Canadians.

There are 9 themes for the correct consultation on Canada’s strategic approach to substance use issues. These are the carefully selected areas where we have heard that modernised and innovative approach may be required: addressing root causes of problematic substance use, better addressing the needs of Canadians living with pain, reducing stigma around substance use, improving access to comprehensive, evidence-based treatment services Innovative approaches to harm reduction, applying a health lens to regulation and enforcement activities, supporting Indigenous peoples, addressing the needs of at-risk populations and grounding substance use policy in evidence.

OHCHR, Mahmood Zaved: A few years back a report has found that indigenous people and African Canadian people are disproportionately affected by Canadian drug policies. If you could reflect on that.

USA: A comprehensive approach has a significant effect not only on health but on social and economic factors and it is important to be considering measures to mitigate these effects. As we know worldwide a minority of people who compete that diagnostic criteria for substance use disorder ever remain distant to treatment service and we believe stigma is a big part of why they do that so what is a concrete/specific place where we can destigmatise the seeking out for treatment for substance use disorders?

Mexico: On a recent visit to Vancouver I got the impression of “tolerance” since there was drug use in the middle of the street, at the site of every person. I am wondering on the effectiveness of the communication – how you have communicated the existence of supervised injection sites.

Russia: A question to do with science. The “Amina” US clinic at the University of California has published a report suggesting that the consumption of cannabis leads to ageing of brain. Do you take this into account on your national deliberations on cannabis? This is also human rights matter.

Belgium: Regarding the supervised injection sites, can you elaborate more on the specific criteria to use those sites and do you have already evidence on the effectiveness of those sites? Regarding the stigmatising attitudes as an important barrier to seeking treatment/care what concrete actions have you taken to change this stigmatising language among service providers and the public, and did you have some evidence that shows this change?

Iran: Regarding prevention -the most important part of the strategy against the world drug problem-, I would like to know how Canada is working on prevention and how treatment and prevention can complete each other.

Health Canada, Carol Anne Chenard: Regarding the indigenous people -for sure is something that Canada is very invested in. On the opioid crisis we find that indigenous people in their communities are 3-5 times more likely to overdose, so Canada has invested a significant amount of money to trying to get culturally-sensitive treatment prevention services into those communities.

With regards to changing stigmatising attitudes, -some concrete ways- not only the language tools for Canadians but also raising awareness is a great key piece. Canadians are more and more aware of the opioid crisis and its impact. Training law enforcement and health practitioners and first responders.

On overdose prevention sites and on the criteria that are required. So Canada is split into several provinces, so in order to be eligible for the services, the ministry of each province has to declare a public health emergency with regards to overdoses and then Canada can issue through its regulations an exemption that allows the province to determine where and how many of these sites. Typically we see two types: to address an urgent need at an area where a full-time site may not be required in the long term or as a short-term solution until a permanent site is built. There is some important requirements regarding some basic information -filling up the evidence gap by gathering information on the opioid crisis or we reach out to those people. We started receiving some of these reports in and we hope to have a complimented picture relevantly soon.

With regards to communicating with people who use drugs -reaching out to the community- reading messages about prevention and treatment across. Mexico most definitely have visited East Hastings/Vancouver which is considered to be the epicentre of our opioid crisis. The approach we are taking is not just about on harm reduction; is about putting a house-focus on our activity, -so recognising that this is a health issue we have also taken control to prevent from substances to be illegally smuggled into Canada. In May 2017 we made some changes to our legislation, so our customs agents are able to open personal international shipping of less than 30g. We think that a large majority of fentanyl or their analogs are coming into the country -it’s no longer bulk shipments. We are also looking at ways to balance drug trafficking in way that balanced is looking and health and safety concerns. We are focusing on organised crime, on civil assets as a result of illegal drug trade. But the communication to the people that we need to get to is one of the most difficult things. We tried some innovative approaches happening in our province: establishing an emergency centre that crowds overdose data and disseminates them in a text message format to people who use drugs. Is about getting the information out anonymously and to people who need it immediately. We are still trying to find other innovative ideas.

On prevention, prevention is still a key pillar as well. We are investing significant quantities of money to our prevention programmes, into our treatment programmes, recognising that with harm reduction wrapped around services people need to be able to access the services that they need when they need it. Harm reduction by itself cannot curve the opioid crisis. We recognise the need for a comprehensive approach to this.

Morocco: On the availability of naloxone, this might be a good thing, but we believe that this can lead to a problem of abuse.

End of morning session

* * *

Afternoon session

Fourth Wave Foundation India, Dayana Vincent: I would like to thank the VNGOC and everybody who brought our case into such a high level discussions on policies. I wish to bring to the table a practical case, a very insignificant case to the matter of the world.

From a struggling place of the world that has sort of managed to engage communities to take ownership on this issue. What we are discussing here at an international level is rather abstract in a small little down south India. What I am presenting here is a classical case of drugs being pushed for many reasons, drugs trying to be legalised for many reasons, drugs and narcotics and opioids being the future revenue for governments. The reality on the ground shows that we are not ready for a crisis like this. We, as an NGO, work with children between the ages of 12 and 22. It is alarming that we are having -in epidemic numbers- evidence coming out of age-groups of 10 and 12 year-olds using narcotics. What we have done is to try to get the communities take ownership of the problem. As much as we are having discussions on drug policy at a country level -we work on the legalisation and on measures on rehab and care and for women, we care when it comes to enforcing the law in our communities. On to a typical batch of 100 kids that we train we get 8 or 10 coming back home or to our desks asking for help. 8 to 10% is high and the forecast of the next 5 years to come is bad. What we have done -at a cost of sounding controversial- is to build a fence. We teach them to take ownership of the problem by standing up on the issue. Although we talk with all stakeholders and the community, we focus on young adults and children. We are talking about children being exposed to risk, about drugs being delivered by gangs to your door. We are talking about an economy that is actually booming because of the startups. Kids from the age of 10 to 12 are mulling drugs to people with a high demand on this, -or it is part of their culture. If you go around and ask in the community you will find that everyone either knows a family member or a relative or a close friend who either suffers or has succumbed to the problem of drug use. This is not just the red flag areas we are talking about. This is becoming a state problem and the state is failing to address it because we don’t have the revenue of tourism.

Our community-analogy of putting up fences is very simple. First thing is to measure your problem -to know what you are putting up fences with. So we deal with denial. Everybody is in denial. Starting from the government, families of the victims or the people who take drugs. So we teach them to handle that reality. Second, we provide them with the tools to put up these fences. We teach them about the policies we are discussing in these rooms; about the right to treatment, the right to fair trial, the right to access to safe schools all in a language that they understand and can use. The challenge is that there was no already-made models for us to work with. We really didn’t have any reference from across the globe to take home as best practice cases, -to be contextually appropriately for us. We took a look at UNODC work and we are happy with all these high level discussions here but there is a lack of contextualisation. Third, we mobilize all stakeholders and we teach them to broach the problem and discuss this. We empower them to go out and take their stuff at their own levels. Fourth is to actually put up the fence. As much as we empower these communities to do it, it only fails in the face of the mafia. How we solve this? We have 5 departments in the state that they actually have the mandate to deal with this: the department of education, the department of women and children, of social justice, of narcotics etc. However, they don’t come together to discuss this problem. There is no convergence. So, we have been successful in bringing these together. We have hopes on a national-level cooperation. Last, when the community is taking ownership it is something visible. The numbers are coming down, but it’s too early to claim a success. The problem is on to how to take this into a future step? We are all doing our bits to enforce/ to ensure a safe future but I think we fair regularly in terms of translating these efforts for the future generations. Kids should know why we are putting up these fences. They should know that when they remove those fences -there is a reason why we putting up these fences. Somehow crack the problem of messaging. It is a long story of how we are implementing those steps but hopefully in a few years we will have a case for you to present our findings.

China: I fully share the views of the panelist on this presentation. We have to think about incentives – of the various social viewpoints. We should not restrict them to certain viewpoints.

Peru: We have police departments, which the state is giving large budgets, about 3 million dollars. This large division in civil security programmes working to raise awareness, -reaching out to abandoned children we meet by police-places and/or in homes of agreement. We focus in basic primary up to secondary education. These activities are focusing on citizens in involving all communities on a national level. We have sport programmes against juvenile violence and antisocial behaviour. Highly trained staff working on social inclusion. We also running programmes where people can meet the police and talk about illicit activities directly. This is the only government institution. We have the best knowledge of our country. We are trying to reach out to our communities. We try to turn children to safety. The issue of which drug consumption in not so serious offence in Peru. It is a social problem. The police is committed in collaborating with NGOs. We are working on a day to day basis trying to solve the issue.

Russia: We would like to thank the panelist for the very interesting presentations. We believe that protecting the children is a priority the main part of the work should be carried out by civil society. Taking into account that the panelist we initiative to involve young people. Russia supports this projects and we would be pleased to see youth and welcome them to the forum. What changes could be made of the state for assist the civil society? What can we change for the better?

Fourth Wave Foundation India, Dayana Vincent: Regarding our expectations from the state, it is a difficult task for us back home. One of the examples is to assure that there is a basic tobacco law, I don’t know if you have it elsewhere, the hundred meters vicinity of the school, no shop no places are supposed to sell tobacco. This is a basic load that needs to be enforced. these are the Gateway substances that lead these kids or youngsters to addictions. for such a simple law to be enforced we had to have community to stand up. it was not the police that the teachers who did. This is the tool I am talking about. So we involve all stakeholders, the whole community, and we sit them all down the table and tell them that there is a policy in place and how we enforce it. It is not the police but the community. It is sort of a treasure, the community treasure is immense. The kind of pressure they can actually put to enforce the law -because the problem is larger than we imagine.

Ministry of Health Brazil, Adele Benzaken: I am the National Director of HIV/AIDS. I want to discuss the role of women in the production, sale  and use of drugs, as well as the impacts of drug use and drug policies in their lives. This is included in the UNODC World Drug Report for 2018. Women are more vulnerable to HIV than men who use drugs. On drug use, a study on smockable cocaine showed that women who use this substance in Brazil are in a greater situation of vulnerability than men. On HIV, prevalence among women is at 8.17% compared to 4.01% among men, and 0.6% among the general population. Its also important to show that this Brazilian experience is not unique, there are similar cases throughout Latin America. There should be a focus, within the health approach, on social determinants. For an effective response to HIV, we need complex, coordinated and intersectoral approaches with good coordination between researchers and civil society. Aunque antiretroviral treatment and NSPs are fundamental, they are not enough. We need sustainable economic and social development. The national and global response should be based in the principle of combined prevention with an articulation of bio-medical, behavioural and structural approaches. There is now sufficient evidence which shows that stigma, discrimination and criminalisation, racism and social inequality are as important as the lack of medication and prevention tools. The same can be said of gender inequalities. We need measures capable of breaking inequalities while treating and preventing HIV. Brazil is implementing a strategic network to increase access to comprehensive treatment for HIV, hepatitis and other diseases. This agenda was built with civil society, international organisations and different government agencies, which are fundamental to build the defense of key rights. Video of the whole speech available here.

Russia: We suggest that progress towards a world free of drugs abuse is a necessity. We are certain that freedom from drugs should be a basic human right. Protecting the children is a primary task of international community.

European Union: Let me deliver this statement with a special focus on the promotion of human rights faced on disproportionate drug policy approaches and we share our best practices in this regard. May we take this opportunity to remind us all that in June 2017 the UN Secretary General shared -knowing from personal experience- how an approach based on prevention and treatment can bring positive results and further underlined that the flexibility upholded by the 3 drug control Conventions –Together, we must honour the unanimous commitments made to reduce drug abuse, illicit trafficking and the harm that drugs cause, and to ensure that our approach promotes equality, human rights, sustainable development, and greater peace and security.

May we also remind us all that this year we celebrate 70 years from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which remains the universal standards for the promotions of human rights and the adoption of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms which calls for the commitment to respect, protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals. It is against this background that the EU and its MS strongly reiterate our commitment to respecting, protecting and promoting human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals, and the principles in the development and the implementation of drug policies. We strongly support increased collaboration and cooperation and information sharing between the UNODC, the CND and other relevant UN bodies on drugs, health, human rights, women, youth, children, vulnerable members of the society and the communities, as well as to the implementation of relevant UN Conventions in addressing this specific issues, -especially the implementation of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document.

In the context of international cooperation on drug policies, we should not forget the crucial role of civil society in the defence of human rights and the termination of the death penalty. Having in mind the 2016 UNGASS final document and the lack of any reference to the abolition of the death penalty we would like to underline once more that the death penalty should be abolished globally, and we condemn the capital punishment in all circumstances and in all cases. We would like also to firmly stress the complete unacceptability of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions under any circumstances. Extrajudicial executions constitute violations of human rights under the UN Conventions. Conduct of criminal investigations in judicial proceedings by the State – with full respect for the process – is a human right, pursuing to the provisions of the international law and in accordance with the principles of rule of law. In this respect the EU and its MS find the collection of information in relating to the use of death penalty for drug law and drug related offences of utmost importance, and considers that the collection by the CND and other relevant UN bodies should be perceived as a crucial ingredient in the managing of the discussion in this subview and the consequences of this violation of human rights.

The EU and its MS extensively proportionate national sentencing policies, practices and guidelines for drug law and drug related offences, whereby the severity of penalties is proportionate to the gravity of offences and in line with the State’s obligations to the international law, including assimilate to according human dignity and human rights. We strongly believe that the world drug problem cannot be solved by only prosecuting individuals who need assistance to their drug use and addiction. The principle of adequate, proportionate and effective response to drug related offences has been highlighted in all UN drug control conventions which stipulate that States may provide an alternative or in addition measures of treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation, recovery and social integration to drug users who have committed offences enumerated in these Conventions. A study conducted by the EU showed that all EU MS were implementing at least one alternative to coercive sanctions, with most having more than one respectively, relating to alternatives that involve only drug treatment mainly through drug treatment orders, the suspension of sentence with a treatment or rehabilitative requirement attached, suspension of investigation or prosecution with a treatment or rehabilitative element in place and/or alternatives with no drug treatment component which involved non action or diversion from the criminal justice system.

The EU action plan on drugs for 2017-2020 requested EU MS to provide and apply where appropriately and in accordance with the legal frameworks, alternatives to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders. The action plan also requests from all concerned parties to increase monitor implementation and evaluation of these measures. Acknowledging that is an effective tool, we are currently identifying what barriers still exist and we are discussing on how to scale up the applications of the alternative to coercive measures. In March 2018, the EU adopted council conclusion on alternative to coercive sanctions. The document stresses the need for alternative or additional measures to coercive sanctions for drug offenders in order to prevent crime, reduce recidivism and enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, while also looking at a possible reduction of health related harms and minimisation of social risks. The Council conclusions encourage the MS where appropriate and within their national legislation to provide and further promote the availability of active implementation monitoring the evaluation of measures, providing alternative or in addition to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders.

Beyond these Council conclusions, EU MS also engage themselves to promote the sharing of best practices in this view. Moreover, the Council conclusions also invite MS to raise awareness and to support cooperation and collaboration among national policymakers, law enforcement, criminal justice, public health, social and educational professionals and where appropriate businesses providing support to drug using offenders. Finally, the EU action plan on drugs of 2017-2020 incorporated population factors such as age, gender, education, cultural and social factors so that specific needs are taken into account when formulating drug policy throughout the EU. The EU and its MS would like to underline the gender perspective must be integrated into appropriate aspects of drug policy. It must not be treated as an isolated issue or separated track, so that women’s and men’s specific needs and conditions are met in all activities and actions where appropriate.

USA: Our international drug control policy commitments promote protection of and full respect for human rights and the dignity of individuals. As we discussed in topics related to the world drug problem we must continue considering the human element associated with drug control policies with the views to advancing policies which protect and promoting the health of the human kind. Specifically we must take into consideration ways to be more effective in our efforts by tailoring the implementation of international drug control policies with the special needs of certain populations. The 2016 UNGASS outcome document highlighted the need for comprehensive drug policies to involve all relevant stakeholders from law enforcement to medical professionals, civil society and researchers and call for special attention to populations which special and critical needs, especially women, children and other vulnerable members of society. Additionally, the 2016 UNGASS outcome document offers operational recommendations related to alternative to incarceration for those individuals with substance use disorders but also involved the criminal justice system. To target these particular cases we must foster effective collaboration between the justice system and health professionals to enhance access to treatment for these individuals struggling with substance use disorders and are involved in the criminal justice system for low level drug offences.

Evidence based drug treatment interventions are proven to reduce illicit drug use and improve other criminal justice and health outcomes. To implement these recommendations the US encourages collaboration between national justice and public health sectors, in that increasing opportunities for treatment interventions for substance using populations under the jurisdictions of the justice system. For training and technical assistance the US supports the development of treatment alternatives to incarceration at all points in the justice sectors: from pre-arrest and pretrial diversion, to drug courts, and to reentry after incarceration. These interventions effectively help people to recover from substance use disorder and reduce the rate of recidivism. The US is supporting the evidence-based international curriculum on best practices in treating the special critical needs of women with substance use disorders. This year the curriculum is being updated to ensure that it continues to be an effective tool to treating substance use disorders. The updated curriculum will provide with more information related to frequent impediments to many women’s recovery, such as is domestic violence, sexual abuse, trauma and pregnancy. Within the US, we are increasingly focus on providing evidence-based treatment for pregnant and parenting mothers and infants born with a drug dependance. Mothers with substance use disorders face double the challenge. Personal shame and the social stigma become impediment to accessing treatment and maintaining recovery. In order to help these women the US supports increasing access to specialised treatment and into seeking care. This includes private information to health providers on evidence based strategies for caring for these women and their children.

One of most troubling impacts of the opioid problem within the US has been the increase of infants born dependant on opioids and the number of children exposed to these dangerous substances. The national institute of health has funded a study to evaluate treatment options for newborns with opioid withdrawal syndrome to help us curve this concern. In the US we found that the results of exposure to the illicit drugs and the toxic adulterants can result in lifelong problems. Illicit drugs and adulterants can cause rare harm at low dosages on children’s brain than on adults’. Children’s metabolisms and early nervous systems mean their body is less to get rid of the contaminants and they are more sensitive to the effects of drugs. This troubling phenomena caused for the development and dissemination of innovative solutions, including drug treatment protocols to mitigate the risk of loss of life, of lasting physical, mental and emotional detriment due to the destructive effects of illicit drugs and adulterants at such a young age. Internationally UNODC demand reduction training and technical assistance activities disseminate evidence based information to prevent and reduce drug use and related harms. The goal of training and technical assistance activities is to create drug demand reduction workforce that is professionally trained and credential. UNODC has also designed to train specifically tailored to guide the professional workforce in reducing substance use among populations with special critical needs, including women, children and justice involved persons with substance use disorders. Many of these effective evidence based prevention and treatment interventions are catalogued in the international standards of drug use prevention and the international standards for treatment drug use disorders assembled by UNODC and WHO.

We welcome UNODC and WHO’s role in developing and promoting these standards and we encourage the widespread dissemination of these standards within our national frameworks to promote evidence based treatment that works. Likewise, we support the development of quality assurance mechanisms that can assess the state of treatment services or national treatment systems relative to the standards and which can contribute to a culture of continual assessment and improvement in the treatment of drug use disorders. We commend UNODC and WHO for the work that they have done at the forefront of the international efforts to reduce the global demand for illicit drugs, including their pioneering work in developing the world’s first treatment protocols tailored to the needs of children, including infants born dependent on opioids. As we examine our strengths and weaknesses in addressing the world drug problem and where we should focus beyond 2019, -we must recognise the positive accomplishments we have made in developing specifically tailored drug treatment protocols and programmes to effective treat special drug using populations. Going forward we encourage MS as well as UNODC and WHO to focus on treating the special need of children particularly infants boned dependent on opioids.

Communities represent another important field onto prevent drug misuse and illicit drug use across all stakeholders of society. For example drug free communities support the establishment of effective drug free community coalitions that assist civil society and grassroots organisations in addressing drug use. The US currently fund 731 domestic public and private sector coalitions that are focused solely on preventing and reducing substance use among youth. Current use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and prescription drugs among middle school and high school aged youth and drug free community funded community coalitions have some significant departments. Internationally since 2012 the US has also supported the establishment of 234 community coalitions worldwide in 22 countries with more that 6500 members trained around the world. The US remains committed to uphold in our international commitments to advance public health approaches with full respect for human rights and the health of in addressing and countering the world drug problem. We encourage MS to support interventions in the protecting of special populations, including youth, children and women by expanding the availability of the evidence based drug remand reduction programmes, targeting substance abuse treatment and prevention.

Norway: We attach great importance to ensuring that alleged drug offenders and drug users are treated with dignity, respect and in accordance with human rights and the rule of law. They should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, they should receive a fair trial, and punishments should always be proportionate to the crime committed. Extra judicial killing can never be aligned with the human rights we have all agreed to uphold. The International Criminal Court’s Preliminary Examinations into possible crimes committed in the context of the “war on drugs”; clearly show that the drug policies must respect human rights and fundamental principles as expressed in the Rome Statute. Human rights must permeate and inspire all our work on drugs. Norway was pleased to see human rights as a cross cutting issue in the UNGASS Outcome Document, albeit Norway would have liked to see stronger language in many areas and regret that it was not possible to agree on language on the death penalty.

The Human Rights Committee have constantly stated that drug-related offences do not meet the threshold “of most serious crime”. The International Narcotics Control Board has encouraged all States that retain the death penalty for drug- related offences to commute death sentences that have already been handed down and to consider the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences. Norway strongly opposes the death penalty under all circumstances, and is committed to the abolition of this practice. Norway calls on states to abolish the death penalty for drug related offences. We have noticed that one member state of this commission has revised their criminal law provisions – removing the death penalty for a number of drug-related crimes and replacing it with imprisonment or fines. This will save many lives and is an important step in the right direction.

We have ample documentation of the serious human rights gaps that exist in the implementation of drug policies. Access to health services is vital and often denied, causing unnecessary suffering for the individual, as well as costs to society. We see that persons suffering from drug addiction have a higher risk of HIV and hepatitis, as well as other serious illnesses. We need more focus on the health needs of women, as well as of youth. It is unacceptable that avoidable mother to child HIV transmission takes place. Key in this respect is harm reduction coupled with respect for the wish of the individual. The complexities of the drug problem, also results in persons suffering from drug dependency becoming victims of multiple forms of human rights violations and discrimination. They fall prey to ruthless criminals inflicting grave bodily harm, sexual exploitation, involuntary disappearances and even murder. Dealing with these challenges requires a cross-sectoral approach at the national and local level. Equally important, it requires a genuine change of mindset as to how we perceive persons with drug dependency. We need closer cooperation between the UN in New York, Geneva and Vienna to achieve human rights based drug policies. We as member states need to implement recommendations from the Human Rights Council and High Commissioner for Human Rights. We also have to continue to strengthen our cooperation with civil society and the scientific community. If we truly want to achieve the drug related targets of Sustainable Development Goals’ by 2030, we need to make some changes as to how we address the world drug problem.

We have been asking the wrong questions; therefore we have provided the wrong solutions. The question should not be how to punish people for using drugs. The question should be how we can best help people to receive the treatment they need for an illness they have lost control over. The question should be how to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people into society. The question should be how we can facilitate the help so that every man, women, youth, child, ethnic group or minority can receive the help they need. The answers to the right questions can only be provided by sharing and exchanging best practices, by doing research and including academia, by including non-governmental organizations, civil society and the affected communities, and by implementing and evaluating drug policies that are based on human rights.

Belgium: We believe in the importance of applying a gender perspective in drug policy and the development of gender-sensitive measures that are taking into account the specific needs and circumstances faced by women and girls who use drugs. Our government has funded the research project GEN-STAR on gender sensitive prevention and treatment for female substance users in Belgium. This research project has given us insights in the strengths and weaknesses of the current policies and programmes in our country. Recommendations for a more comprehensive and integrated approach, training and exchanging of practices, the intention for gender stereotypes and women’s responsibilities, targeted and gender-sensitive prevention campaigns, and evaluation and monitoring. Secondly and more broadly, Belgium is reforming its mental healthcare landscape. The aim of the reform is to establish a more community based mental healthcare. Bringing care as close as possible to the needs of people with mental health problems, including people with drug problems. Organisational efforts in both acute and chronic mental healthcare programmes by establishing stronger networks between service providers are at the core of this reform. The development of low threshold/ primary care to ensure that mental healthcare services would be more accessible and less stigmatizing. Mme Chair, allow me also to restate the position of my country to call on the abolition of the death penalty to all drug related offences.

Switzerland: In 2015 the international community adopted the SDGs. We all committed to achieving a better and a more sustainable future for all. These goals happen to address the global challenges we are facing today; one of them is the world drug problem. Figures from the most recent World Drug Report show that we need to address key-casts, facts and consequences. Figures from the same report show also that a lot of gaps still remain. We need to know what drug policies are effective and which one are not. This will help us maintain what we have earned so far and find new strategies to adjust to these challenges. The SDGs are interconnected therefore solutions to these challenges must be interconnected as well. In Switzerland, we have realised that drug policies have a stronger impact when we are taking into account the SDGs. In this respect, Switzerland promotes and supports the implementation of the harm reduction packages and of interventions as set out in the jointed WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS technical guide, as presented here 2 days ago. Ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic contributes without a doubt to the achievement of the SDG goals. In addition, drug consumption rooms are part of a comprehensive swiss approach to address the consequences of problematic drug use. Such interventions are key policy tools to mitigate some of the most devastating consequences of drug abuse, but also to support public safety and security. The 2016 UNGASS outcome document make operational recommendations in 7 areas. Today, two years after its adoption we would like to reiterate Switzerland’s support to these recommendations and the implementation. In addition, MS recognised that doing future drug policy operation within SDGs is crucial. We committed with the SDGs to leave no one behind when we formulate as well as when we implement policies. Let us not forget that. To achieve this we recall the need for interagency cooperation as well as between MS and civil society.

China: First I would like to thank all panellists for their presentations. China respects the fundamental rights of drug offenders as they are citizens. China ensures the world that there are not discriminated women and there is no discrimination over vulnerable members of the society. At the same time we need to pay more attention in the harmony for the well-being of the society as a whole. On the eve of this years international drug control day the Chinese government and the Alibaba Group launched the transnational digital platform for drug preventive education for adolescents and youth and this is a non-profit initiative. This is also an innovative model combining internet and drug prevention education which uses cloud resources to provide 3.464 schools nationwide with online drug prevention knowledge and education materials with 10.247 registered teachers and 430.000 registered students the platform aims to cover 90% of primary and secondary schools across the country. With such efforts the youth in China have great capability to say no to drugs.

China has also carried a lot more search in cross-border drug control education projects. This type of cross-border drug education projects produce immediate results. That is to say, if you see or if you feel the pain today then tomorrow if you encounter such temptation you would firmly say no to such temptation. China also worked tirelessly to explore feasible measures and models to address the issue of access to drug treatment for sick and disabled drug users.

Mme Chairperson, I would like to make a comment on the issue of the death penalty, as mentioned by some previous speakers. The reason for us not to be able to reach agreement on the death penalty in this Commision, -the fundamental reason is that this Commision is not the proper place to discuss death penalty. The principle of respecting sovereign rights and equality between States is the basis for the collaboration between countries.

Australia: We very much welcome the opportunity to participate in today’s intersessional meeting on cross-cutting issues. Australia as a member of the CND and the Human Rights Council is committed to upholding human rights in the context of the world drug problem as set out in the 2016 UNGASS outcome document. Australia considers that law enforcement efforts are best focused on disrupting the serious and organised criminal groups that drive the drug trade. Minor or non-violent drug related crimes demands a proportionate response. Out of many years, Australia has found that diversion to treatment and rehabilitation to be far more effective in reducing repeat-offences and reducing harm to individuals and communities. Australia’s national drug strategy recognises the importance of attention to specific groups and populations. While whole population strategies can reduce the adverse impact of illicit drug use, evidence tells us that there are specific population groups that are particularly vulnerable. This is a critical area that deserves more attention and we welcome the 2018 World Drug Report which highlights the importance of gender and age-sensitive drug policies, and also highlights particular needs and challenges of women and young people.

Consistent with that domestic approach Australia put forward a resolution at the 61CND on recognising the needs of vulnerable member of society and enabling a comprehensive and effective response to the world drug problem. The resolution builds on the operation recommendations on cross-cutting issues of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, including drugs and human rights, youth, children, women and communities. It is also consistent with the 2017 INCB report in which SDG goals #1 and #10 on vulnerable populations, social inclusion and access to services. It is also consistent with the underlying principle of the 2030 agenda of leaving no one behind. AU strongly supports the commitment of MS in UNGASS to proportionate national sentencing and to consider alternatives to conviction. Legal guarantees and due process safeguards must be upheld for all individuals, including drug users, in line with the obligations of MS under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Extrajudicial killings of drug users is a clear violation of the right to life set out in that Covenant. Australia opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and for all people. The death penalty is a degrading punishment and completely ineffective in deterring drug use. We welcome the constructive dialogue on human rights with UN bodies as an opportunity for MS to reflect on progress achieved and to consider possible areas for improvement.

Colombia: Bearing in mind that the ultimate aim of the international drug conventions is as far as Colombia is concerned that the policies are people-centered, focusing on the welfare, safety and wellbeing. We believe that any legislative, administrative, social, economic, cultural or educational intervention in regards to tackling the world drug problem has to be based on scientific data and special and specific needs of age, gender and groups, and it should be specially adapted to them. We also believe that communities should participate in the design and the implementation of planned policies and programmes, as part of a comprehensive, balanced and multidimensional approach with full respect for human rights and basic freedoms. Regarding children and young people, we believe that although the 2019 Political Declaration and Plan of Action recognised the need to help specific vulnerable groups such as children and young people, -statistics seems to indicate the opposite. According to the WDR, drug consumption in general population shows that -apart from traditional drug such opium and chang- younger people are using more drugs than older people. Cannabis is the drug commonly used by young people as it is easy to access and it is not considered high risk. The same as for adults; one of the main characteristics of drug consumption in young people is simultaneous use of more than one substance. Evidence suggests that between say 12 and 14 or 15 years of age is when the risk is the greatest of starting abusing drugs, however in most countries and for most drugs maximum consumption levels occur from 18 to 25 years of age. For that reason it is important to better study INCB report which really reveals worrying figures all over the world.

On the subject of women, in the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action the UN referred to the subject in the following way: in article 9 we acknowledge the important contribution of women in reducing the world drug problem and we are committed to making sure that drug control mechanisms would take into account the specific need of women with regards to drugs. We decided to adopt effective measures so that men and women would have access to drug control mechanism -with equality of access, free of all discrimination thanks to active participation throughout all phases of the development and the implementation of all these plans and policies. Although we acknowledge the role of women in tackling the world drug problem we do not have any available data on this. Even when in February 2018 we launched the Inter-American programme for gender equality, and different sub-programmes to combat drugs. The idea is to increase the capacity of MS so that they can dismantle drug trafficking gangs and focus on gender, which will boost the efficiency of anti-drug undercover operations. We must take into account the specific needs and circumstances of women -this is something that is often repeated but research into the role of women as suppliers of drugs is extremely limited- and focus on the role of young people and women in growing and trafficking drugs, according to the 2018 WDR. With regards to all of this Colombia welcomes the fact that for the first time the 2018 World Drug Report has devoted a full chapter to women and drugs. This chapter focuses on specific links to women abusing drugs with taking into account social and environmental factors which can make women vulnerable to drug abuse and the ensuing diseases, -usually mental health issues too. We have to consider the specific situation of women in drug related problems.

The 2018 report reveals figures of prevalence in some countries, although it does not highlight specific regions, those figures are used to draft policies which have gender approach. Additionally and with regards to personal, social and environmental factors that make women vulnerable to drug consumption, the report refers to the following: shows the importance of gender focus in drug policies. In global terms female consumers and only 20% of injectable drug users but they are much more vulnerable than men with regards to HIV or other blood-borne diseases. Women start to take drugs later than men, usually influenced or through intimidation. Once women start using drugs, they start abusing them at a much faster rate than men and this leads to problems with children who then suffer anxiety, depression, social problems and they too may have problems. Women they also tend to self-medicate. Women tend to receive their drug supplies from their partners, including injectable drugs. Women see their partner as uses injectable drugs and they do the same that leads to HCV and HIV. The fact that your partner takes drugs can increase the possibility of suffering from HIV/AIDS by 28% for female drug abusers. Economic deprivation, family instability, mental health issues and low levels of literacy -all give rise to the lack of economic and social resources which make women more vulnerable to drug consumption. Women are stigmatised more than men because this is against their traditional role in society as mothers and educators. Drug consumption in women can also lead to complications in pregnancy, such as in neonatal abstinence syndrome , low birth weight, etc.

With regards to criminal liability in young people, women tend to use different drugs while in prison. They use tobacco and alcohol whereas men smoke marijuana and take pain killers, cocaine, heroin, LSD and opioids. With regards to treatment and care, the 2018 report shows that women suffer systematic, structural, cultural and personal stumbling blocks with regards to treatment for their drug abuse. However, it is stresses the importance of a gender-focus as increasing evidence suggest that involving social services and covering women’s specific needs can improve women’s commitment to leaving drugs on a permanent basis. Now, for prison populations for women, the report says that there are no complete global data regarding trends in the number of women in prison for drug related crimes. However, it would seem that this is increasing all over the world, especially for women who are illiterate or have been victims of abuse or are economically deprived.

Regarding sentences, the proportion of women found guilty of drug related crimes is higher than that of men however the criminal justice system is designed to deal with male criminals and not to taken into account the specific circumstances of women; as carriers, victims of violence, mental health patients. Women can be more vulnerable and face gender stereotypes, stigma and social exclusion. Women in prison have even less access to healthcare to deal with their drug addiction as well as their sexual reproductive health. We believe that all interventions to tackle the world drug problem have to be evidence-based, based on real figures, specific needs of individuals, of families and communities so that measures adapted to them. It is also important for communities to participate in the design, implementation and assessment of programmes as a comprehensive, balanced, multidimensional approach that takes into account human rights and basic freedoms and to protect people’s health and welfare.

Portugal: The inclusion of a chapter on human rights in the 2016 UNGASS outcome document represented indeed a very positive development and in the lead-up to the 2019 Ministerial Segment it in fact crucial to discuss how its recommendations are being implemented at a national level and consolidated in the international drug policy. Mme Chair, we have been implementing a set of policies with directs relevant to the recommendations adopted in the Joint Commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem with regards to human rights: namely, proportionality of sentencing and alternatives to conviction or punishment. The Portuguese policies on drugs encompasses a model of decriminalisation as part of a broader approach designed to dissuade drug use and to promote measures directed to public health concerns with social benefits to all involved. In fact over the past 17 years, Portugal has been implementing a balanced, integrated and comprehensive drug policy, using as its main guidance the principles of humanism and pragmatism. Each individual’s personal circumstances are assessed in order to determine the best response to his/her specific needs, including prevention for those who have not yet been in contact with drugs. Dissuasion for those illicitly using them and treatment, harm reduction and reintegration for drug users. The implementation of a more healthy and evidence based approach was facilitated by the decriminalisation of consumption and possession of all drugs for personal use below legally defined quantities.

The Portuguese approach to drug policies is also rooted in the principle of alternatives to imprisonment for drug use and possession for personal use. As I am sure you are aware, in Portugal, drug use and possession for use remain illegal but they are not considered criminal offences, well within the spirit and the letter of the Conventions. That is to say that portuguese drug policy is based on the respect for human rights through an integrated, multidisciplinary comprehensive approach, ensuring that each component of the model re-enforces the other. 17 years after the approval of the decriminalization law in 2001, we identify several gates: 1) a decrease in drug use among adolescents, 2) the drug use level remains generally below the EU-average, 3) significant reduction of problematic users, 4) a considerable reduction in the prevalence of injecting drug use, 5) a strong reduction of overdose numbers and infectious diseases, 6) a reduced stigmatisation of drug users, 7) a reduced burden of drug offenders in the criminal justice system and finally 8) an increase in the amount of drugs seized as well as in the efficiency of police and customs. Decriminalisation is the most known component of our policy but our approach often includes prevention, treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration. Indeed, based on scientific evidence, the implementation of harm reduction measures, in particular needle exchange programmes and substitution programmes, are a key factor for policy in accordance with the right to the highest attainable standards of health. Mme Chair, our experience indicates that there are remarkable benefits to be gained from implementing policies to reduce the harm caused by drug consumption, and to socially integrate drug users. We believe that criminal sanctions for drug users are ineffective, counterproductive and do not address drug use consequences. In fact, for an addict in possession of drugs, prison is most of the times counterproductive, bearing a negative impact on health and possible new barriers for rehabilitation and reintegration in society with the risk of creating a vicious cycle of stigmatisation.

Another principle for which we have been standing for is the non-imposition of the death penalty for drug related offences, or in fact for any kind of offences. Indeed, we have been underlining Portugal’s unrelenting opposition to the death penalty in any circumstance and in all cases, -and not only for drug related offences. It is our belief that death penalty is a disproportionate and largely counterproductive instrument to achieve the aims of the national criminal justice system. It is also a violation of the basis human right to life. And there is no evidence of its value as a deterrent. Portugal has a pioneering role in the abolition of the death penalty in a path initiated more than 150 years ago. We therefore wish to take this opportunity to call on countries that retain the capital punishment to establish an immediate official moratorium with the view to its permanent abolition. In conclusion, Portugal firmly believes that the implementation of human rights anchored drug policies which are comprehensive and evidence based positive impacts on the efforts to achieve the objectives of the 3 International Drug Conventions of promoting the health and the welfare of humankind.

Iran: Mme Chair, my delegation attaches great importance to the observation of human rights of all members of the society, including drug users, and every effort should be done in order to protect the rights, including the right to health. It is our firm conviction to deal with world drug problem with a balanced comprehensive approach should we follow the human rights based on the society on its totality.

Chair: Now I would like to come back to our thematic debate.

UNODC Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Unit, Giovanna Campello: I will focus this part of my presentation on the matter of what we do to support MS in providing services for children and adolescents, women -including pregnant women, on quality assurance treatment services and systems -a very strong mandate of this chapter, and on treatment as an alternative to imprisonment.

With regards to children and adolescents, a lot of what we do in prevention is completely relevant. Of course there are children and adolescents exposed to drugs at a very young age. This group is usually extremely vulnerable, needs special services and attention, and this where we come in. These are our standards on prevention, that cover all of the prevention work. The international standards on treatment have an entire chapter on providing services for adolescents but in addition we wanted to do something more for this very vulnerable group. We have developed a new psycho-social protocol to support services for very young children that have already starting to use drugs, or have even developed disorders. We have been able to pilot it in Afghanistan for instance and also providing support and training in 17 countries. This work has been taken over by our colleagues at the Colombo Plan but we are very much still involved at a national level by supporting networks of policymakers and professionals at a national level, to sustain the efforts. Once the funding and the training is finished we want those services to keep on going, therefore we help national stakeholders to network among themselves. We are also promoting a global advocacy effort. We are interested in creating a framework that would address drug use in children and adolescence in a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, but are really keeping in mind to have an approach that is inclusive, human rights based and evidence driven. We are starting to think on how to involve different stakeholders, -on different ways and as soon as we have our ideas clarified, we will invite you to join this advocacy effort.

On the services for women, including pregnant women, this has been mentioned already many times. Women with drug use disorders differ in many ways from their male counterparts. There are biological reasons, there are ways in which they are led into riskier behaviours, there are psychosocial differences with women having access to less resources, there are more partners with a substance use problem so they are more responsible for the care of their dependent children and they have a worse history of abuse and trauma. We have developed guidelines along the way and, although somehow women with substance use disorders may carry a reputation of being a difficult patient; severe cases -difficult to deal with-. If you put together a gender-responsive service, women can recover as well as men. Gender-responsive services means they are accessible, they are taking care of issues of childcare responsibilities, also supporting parenting skills, paying attention to the issue trauma, making women feel safe, addressing current mental health disorders and socio-economic marginalisation. For pregnant women with substance use disorder we know that they can sustain a poor health lifestyle that can affect the children to be. It is a very opportune time to open that door to recovery for the mother and for the child to be.

We have been honoured to support WHO in the development of their guidelines; a step to step support on developing gender-specific voluntary and non-judgmental services for treatment of pregnant women with substance use disorder. In addition there is a pharmacological perspective that needs to be considered to avoid opioid withdrawals and also further support the mother in taking care of the child when is born. Breastfeeding also needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, there are basic parenting skills that would be of need to anybody but are also important in this case. We have been very fortunate to support work in Brazil, Mexico, in central America, Egypt and in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan we are supporting an entire mechanism to ensure the quality of the entire treatment system and we take focus on making sure that both the system and the service is taking into account the needs of women.

Regarding the promotion of quality assurance of treatment services and systems, we have heard already many times that treatment coverage is low, -but what about quality? Existing services are often not of high quality and this is why we have developed the standards but we wanted to start giving MS practical tools to use the standards and to really have drug treatment that is accessible, ethical, evidence-based, that responses to the needs of the individuals but also populations as a whole and integrating the healthcare and criminal justice sectors. We have started developing tools that guide and continue cycle of improvement, -where you look at the system, you look at the services, you make an assessment, you plan an improvement and then you start again. We also have a checklist of core standards for all of the systems and all of the services; -how is your management, how is your care, how is your taking care of patients rights and responsibilities, and then depending on the setting you are working with, the kind of substance you are working with, you will have the optional standards.

Also, treatment as an alternative is possible in the Conventions, -there is this flexibility and with very good reasons to. However, only very few MS actually put in practice these kind of measures. Sometimes the legislation is not there, sometimes it is but it is not applied and so there is a great scope for improvement. Last, if imprisonment cannot be avoided, treatment and care should be provided in prison settings.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Orsolya Feher: Let me begin by thanking the UNODC, the Commission and the Civil Society Task Force for this opportunity to speak to you on this issue, the cross cutting issues, today. I believe I was selected because my organizations is a truly youth-led international non-profit advocacy and education organization. We mobilizes and empowers young people to participate in the political process to achieve a safer future. We base our activities, and this speech today, on our experiences being embedded in communities that include children, teenagers and young adults who are exposed to drugs, drug abuse and are directly affected by the decisions that are made in this building about drug policies.

My name is Orsi, I am a Fellow at Students for Sensible Drug Policies and as a politically active young person, I have been in these rooms, in high level policy-making meetings for the last two years and I have heard a lot of talk about protecting young people and overcoming stigma, especially when it comes to vulnerable members of society. This made me really confused because at the same time, a very excluding language is enshrined in the conventions that are regarded as the “cornerstones of the international drug control regime”. I am here to tell you that however prohibited they are, the reality is that drugs are not absent from our societies – hence the existence of this institution; and they are definitely not absent from the lives of young people – hence the existence of SSDP. We are the youth whom drug policies effect, because we are the people who are exposed to drug use and abuse. With chapters on every continent and international allies in civil society and academia, we have accumulated precious knowledge about the people you wish to build a better future for and we are happy to share our experiences with you.

It is a general rule in commerce, that the less available something is, the more valuable it is, and for young people, the more exciting it is to be in the possession of this thing. So, that is why prohibition doesn’t work and hasn’t worked for young people for 60 years. It is because we are cynical, we are cavalier and we are curious. But you want us and you want children to be curious and to explore. You want them to want to learn and be open to new things because every kid should have the right to experience life for themselves and to make mistakes in their pursuit for knowledge. So, when it comes to the sensitive, and often risky, topic of drugs, we are all on the same page – we don’t want children and young people to make grave mistakes. That is why I am here to encourage you to direct efforts towards equipping young people with the knowledge, the skills and the sensitivity to avoid making risky moves about drugs. But also want to remind you of 4f of the 2016 UNGASS outcome document that stresses the importance of recognizing the specific needs of children and young people. As well as the 23 section of the 2009 Political Declaration that committed to work together with youth in a range of settings. We have found it extremely difficult to convey to the United Nations and its member states the specific needs that we’ve uncovered in the past 20 years of our work, so let me tell you what these are and what we have been doing to implement age- appropriate practical measures tailored to these specific needs in the cultural and educational sectors to complement the available services that national agencies provide. We organize community events and educational activities, where the audience is empowered to engage – such as documentary screenings, discussions with researchers on the latest findings about the various effects of substances or state of the art understandings of addiction and addiction treatment – we are creating a learning environment that makes us feel empowered to think for ourselves, to ask uncomfortable questions and to share difficult life experiences, then decide what is best for us in dealing with these. So, we are motivated to be competent, knowledgeable about the harms and possible benefits of consuming certain drugs – be it legal, illegal or pharmaceutical.

We have also developed a Just Say Know peer-education program. The significance of this project is that it was put together by mental health professionals, doctors, addictologists, and researchers together with students. So the curriculum combines knowledge and experience based on science, professional experience and the actual experience of the people that it is aimed at. Instead of teaching that the only acceptable strategy to respond to drugs is saying no, we are meeting young people where they are, in their understanding of the world, and we value their authentic experiences. We build trust, and that is the foundation of effective education and a true on-the-ground early warning system. From this place of trust, we can open a conversation to uncover what specific challenges these young individuals face, what could be the actual strategy for them to stay safe and healthy and how we can support them in making the right moves, as a community.

We are not be able to build this trust if we behave as we know better than them, if we keep information from them, if we assume things about them and we will not be able to build trust if we think that drug education begins and ends in the classroom with doctrines, with one adult positioning themselves above „the children” who consume information, facts about the dangers of some mysterious forbidden molecule. If we keep using stigmatizing language and label those who make choices that we don’t agree with, if we preach sobriety as the one and only way of staying safe, we will be excluding those who need our help the most and we will not adhere to the UNODC principle of “leaving no one behind”.

I think this logic should apply to policy making as well, -if we are aiming to protect a certain group of people, before assuming what’s best for them, let’s ask them. Let’s talk to them about their daily struggles and successes, let’s engage them in creating the systems that they will maneuver their lives within. This approach is what will keep us, the youth, safe, healthy and aware: opportunities for non-judgmental conversation, where we, individuals, are in focus and not some outdated ideology. I am grateful for this opportunity to be here today and to be listened to by you, to be able to put the experience of my peers in focus. However, I am only one of the thousand members my organization has all over the Globe and SSDP is only one of the many youth organizations who are in every day contact with young people who are exposed to drugs and drug abuse. We have actually formed a coalition of organizations that are led by young people: the Paradigma coalition represent thousands of young people in every region of the world. So if the distinguished member states and all the institutions that are empowered by the conventions to make the rules – WHO, INCB and CND, if you all really want to align yourself to your promise in 2016, creating a “A Better Tomorrow for the World’s Youth” you should provide meaningful ways for us to share more often. We are not only easy to find, we are eager to help you help us. We have actually prepared a document that we hope aids you in preparation for the HLMS next year, where we outline the three most important actions member states can take to really create that better tomorrow.

UNODC HIV/AIDS section, Monica Ciupagea: In regards to HIV for women who are injecting drugs, -we have very little data about women who are using/injecting drugs. What we know from various published studies is that about 11 million people who inject drugs -between 20 and 30%- are women. When it comes to HIV is about prevalence. Data presented by UNAIDS year after year shows that HIV prevalence is higher among women who inject than men. There are many explanations about this. Region by region these data are confirmed. When drug use is coupled with sex-work then the prevalence is even higher. What is to do to prevent HIV and HCV among women who inject drugs? There are 9 interventions that are called “The comprehensive package for HIV prevention, treatment and care among PWID”. There were described and published by WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS in 2009, almost a decade ago. They were presented in a number of other publications along with needle exchange programmes, opioid substitution therapy, and HIV testing, antiretroviral treatment and all the other interventions. We are working now more on the overdose prevention, because people have to stay alive.

To effectively implement these interventions for women you have to take into consideration their specific needs and therefore there are a number of key interventions that are recommended, that have to be coupled with the 9 interventions in order to effectively reach the women and address their needs. Among the these are the provision support for childcare, for a safer environment where women can feel safe so they can go and ask for treatment services, -preventing gender-based violence. Although we know very well what to do, the access to these services for women remains very low. According to data from UNODC and the WDR in recent years regarding the effective access to treatment, only 1 in 5 people accessing treatment is a woman. That occurs since -of course- women face certain gender-specific barriers: stigma, discrimination, violence, lack of availability and access to services. UNODC -when requested- is providing support for the revision, adaptation, development and implementation of effective legislation, policies and strategies to be able to address the needs of the women. Also, facilitates that HIV policies and programmes are gender-responsive, supports countries to consider effective and humane approaches like alternative to imprisonment for women, and involves and supports community-based organisation and civil society organisations working in response. Also, UNODC imprements measures to prevent violence, including sexual violence both in the community and in prison.

Together with our colleagues from WHO and UN Women, and the civil society and UNODC we prepared a practical guide on service providers on gender-responsive services. Based on this guide we have a training package which we are rolling out in high priority countries. Building the capacity of service providers and decision makers of how to increase women access to HIV services. We run projects for women who inject drugs -in communities or in prisons- in Pakistan, Nepal, Afghanistan and in Ukraine, also regarding the capacity building we had already have trainings in Afghanistan, Belarus, Egypt, Indonesia, Moldova, Nepal and in Vietnam, and while we are here participants from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are attending our workshop. We are also tackling the law enforcement attitude in regards to HIV services and how they should understand the need to facilitate women’s access to these services. Last, the community plays a very important role in scaling up services and increasing access for women to services.

***

Discussions on human rights end and revert back to the issue of ‘demand reduction’ – please see Blog entry on ‘demand reduction‘ for more information.

Chair: Good morning. I have chaired for 9 months now. It is very important that we don’t fight and say one document is more important than the other. Bear in mind that what we are building today needs to be structured but we also need to decide what we propose in December. We need to bring response to these issues. We need to do this together; no country can do this alone. We need to work with the 2030 agenda in mind. What I want to convey to you from my part and my team is that I stand ready to build something with you which would benefit the whole international community.

Now it is my pleasure to welcome for this organisational segment during which we will discuss the preparations for the High-Level Ministerial Segment (HLMS) in 2019. As we know we still have a number of organisational issues to discuss but first let me express my gratitude to the members of the Extended Bureau and the Secretariat for the invaluable support on this.

First, there is the issue of the proposed provisional agenda for the high-level segment. Which would need to be decided upon by the CND at the time of the 61st session in December. You will recall that, when we discussed to the provisional agenda for the 62nd session in March of last of this year which has now been adopted by ECOSOC, we added a footnote explaining that the agenda of the HLMS, and ‘would be subject of to the outcome of negotiations on the organisational arrangements for the ministerial segment to be held during the 62nd session of the Commission to be held in 2019’. In order to be able to finalise our agenda for our meeting in March – and most importantly to warrant the success of that gathering that will bring together our minsters and other high ranking officials from our national governments as well as other key figures – it will be crucial to be determine at the earliest the themes for the 2 interactive multi-stakeholder roundtables that we, in CND resolution 61/10, decided to hold in parallel to the general debate. In this regard, the topics of the round table as we know are still pending, and this presidency strongly believes that there is no one better suited than ministers and high ranking officials to address the evolving challenges and realities that our countries are facing as well as to exchange practical information with others on tools and developments that might benefit others in order to fulfil our international commitment to face the world drug problem.

We are coming around to the 10th anniversary of the adaption of the Political Declaration on international cooperation towards an integrated and balanced strategy to counter the world drug problem. This offers a unique opportunity to trigger an exchange of information and views and a candid confrontation of visions to take stock of what has taken place since 2009, including the adoption of the Joint Ministerial Segment and the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document. Together with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and of course a set of resolutions. We also need to start implementing the Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ reform process related to the restructuring of the UN Peace and Security Bureau. The operational activities for developing the UN system and shifting the management will influence for the better how the UN system works and how it interacts with member states and how we work with each other.

In the coming days, with the support of the Secretariat, I will continue to hold intense consultations with the delegations and groups regarding this issue. In the meantime, I would like to open the floor. My understanding of our resolution 61/10 is that we have already agreed that a summary of the Ministerial Segment, by the chair of the general debate, in addition to a summary of the same points of those round tables will be presented at the plenary of the 62nd session.

The presidency will approach delegations and groups in the next coming days, so we can advance on the pending arrangements for a successful ministerial segment.

USA: Having participated in the CND for several years, we see that there is more focus and interest from the president than we have seen in the past and so I think we need to look at this point carefully and to recognise that how the commission organises it itself really is for the commission to decide so I think we need to reflect very carefully on what the president has offered and to think about this and perhaps get back to the Secretary on this. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you for that. And coming back to what I want to share with you. As stated the presidency will be approaching delegation in the next coming days so we can advance on the plenary arrangements for a successful ministerial segment. In UN resolution 61/10, the Commission also resolves that the outline for the way to 2019 is to be presented by the Presidency to the commission at the 61st session for further consideration. Including at its intersessional meetings prior to the 62nd session, in light of the preparations for the HLMS. I am of the view that an outline for the way beyond 2019 should advert the following issues without being restricted. One would be promotion of partnerships and expertise. Another one would be advancing in the implementation of the commitments by developing targets and indicators bearing in mind the plan of action 2009. Another one, the impact of the world drug problem in the obtainment of 2030 agenda and sustainable development and role of the UNODC in this regard. Also, data collection – how to benefit from the expertise of various UN entities, such as the statistic division and UN committee of experts on global geospatial information management, among others. Another one: new time line and resource mobilisation bearing in mind the whole process undertaken by the Secretary General and the alignment of the work of the UN system to the agenda 2030.

But before opening the floor and bearing in mind opinions and concerns addressed by several delegations to this presidency, it is paramount to have a common understanding of the work expected from this Chair. Even resolution 61/10 is not explicit about this. It is clear that the proposal draft that I am to present to the session in December will not necessarily be the final version of the outline to be adopted by the 62nd CND. It will be subject to further consideration, including an intersessional meeting prior to the 62nd session in light of the preparations for the HLMS. While commitments for reaching the common goal are clear, visions and strategies differ. We know that realities on the ground differ from country to country and that they are always evolving. We know that while some patterns remain the same, there are new trends and channels. And we also know, even better than before that international cooperation is the only way to make any progress in this field. Lastly, we know that the outline has to have the simplicity to set the road for the years to come. I now invite delegates for a first round of comments about their views on the outline.

Uruguay: I totally agree with USA. This not an academy, this is the UN’s most eminent body on drugs. Our activity on the next 6 months will eventually decide if we are complying with our duty or not. We have to get a plan of action. We can’t just have a declaration. 2016 declaration was really a landmark. We all know that we can’t stray from UNGASS 2016 now. I think a new declaration is a waste of time but it is critical to mark the path forward. After UNGASS, CND has actually done nothing. We didn’t achieve anything on the 10 resolutions we agreed.
We can’t waste out time on things we don’t agree on – it just needs 1 delegation to say it doesn’t agree on something and then we are stuck. In that case we should stop and move to next point. Most religions ban drugs, that’s one thing … but another thing is killing people that use drugs referring to the Coran. The Coran also prohibits some foods, but we don’t kill people for that! I have to repeat what I said on Tuesday, but Uruguay has not given a written statement, and this is important to be on the record. Uruguay rejects the event of Monday (referring to Trump’s speech in New York). That declaration was made outside CND, outside an open discussion and Uruguay rejects that procedure. And we don’t agree with the contents because they are contrary to the spirit of UNGASS. We need certain elements for the 2030 plan and we need to make an assessment of the last 35 years. Without a diagnosis, there is no cure for a disease. We have to talk about the positive and negative. We have been defeated in the war on drugs. Since it was declared in the 1970s, there is a constant increase in death, consumption. The war on drugs has caused more deaths than the drugs themselves. Any declaration of war gives rise to radicalisation, it leads to stigmatisation and discrimination. Certainly, we will never see a world free of problematic drug use. If I would say, I imagine a world free or prostitution, rich and poor; I would become the butt of all your jokes … and it’s the same with a drug free world! We need to have achievable plans.
We should talk about the problems arising from addiction. Drugs are not the enemy. Some people may have more addiction than others but we all have addiction: alcohol, gambling, some forms of religion. The enemy is not drugs, but things that surround them. We have scientific proof that alcohol is more problematic than some illicit drugs.
I think we shouldn’t lie to ourselves. Certainly not here in CND. There is not a single reality. We no longer see only one point of view regarding drugs. We understand that there are different ways in tackling addiction and drugs and human right. We have to accept that there is no unanimity here. An example: one part of CND doesn’t want to have the death penalty for drug crimes.  We have divergent views, and some fraction say we should not discuss this in CND… We reaffirm that every country is sovereign. So, for the last 3 days, I would like to also talk about harm reduction. We accept that there are different approaches and we have regular reports on measures taken for. My next point is that we know that there are countries that don’t agree with us when we say we have to distinguish some substances from others. Yesterday, Russia said that they don’t agree on that while there is scientific evidence to make a difference between hard and soft drugs. The only argument, the subliminal message here, is that addiction is contagious. If I start with cannabis, it will lead to LSD, then heroin. With that argument, in my childhood, my parents told me not to drink coca cola because if you start with coca cola you will go on with cocaine. Seizing 100kg of cannabis is not the same as seizing 100kg of opioids in a port. Drugs are different just as alcohol is different. It’s not the same to smoke one joint than to smoke a whole package of joint.  On the last few days, I see there is no agreement on banning the death penalty so let’s not continue to discuss the death penalty. I think there is consensus about proportionality of penalties. Let’s not waste time on petty details.

Pakistan: For a moment, I had the feeling that we have to prepare for just another UNGASS… until I looked at 61/10 … we just have to prepare for the next meeting. Madame Chair, we fully support your approach and believe that you handle the difficult task of preparing an informed outline by December well. This is the way we should proceed that we should openly and inclusively listen to all delegations, receive feedback from them and then see how to proceed further.
As a country that has for decades faced a continuous challenge of supply illicit drugs. A country that because of the challenge of trafficking also has the challenge of increasing number of drug use on a domestic level. We are a country that also has many hard-earned successes and just to mention one that Pakistan is a poppy free state thanks to the sacrifice of our law enforcement agencies, thanks to the sacrifices of national stakeholders, thanks to the political will of the country. With this, the 2019 ministerial meeting is not just another meeting for us. We assign importance to it because we believe the meeting will help the international community and the CND to set a positive tone for another useful year ahead on how we can reinforce, redouble, enhance, and promote our efforts in fighting the common challenge of the world drug problem. So just to make the point that we have high hopes, I will address some of specific points. I would like to draw your attention to op.4 of 61/10. There are 2 important things: the mention of an outline and the way forward point. We believe that instead of going into the political debate of which document is more important and which is not, we should try to benefit from the elements that unite us. To be specific, one of the elements that unite us and that can help us towards such a debate is op 1 of 60/1 where we explicitly agreed that all the documents of the 2009 political declaration, the joined ministerial statement and the most recent document of UNGASS are mutually reinforcing and complementary to each other. We would like to focus more on implementing the existing commitments and not really try to define new commitments. We have many commitments we really have to close the gap in their implementation. We wish to see the outcome document re-emphasising the importance of CND and INCB. And similarly, we would like a clear reference to the UNODC in that document.
We have yet to determine and agree on the form of the outcome. While we fully agree with many validations that there is no new policy document required but we are not convinced that we don’t need any substantive outcome. Madame Chair, what we really hope is, that your outline would be prepared in close consultations with all of us and we really hope that the document won’t come as a surprise. We humbly request you to please continue to have close coordination and cooperation from all relevant nations.

Austria on behalf of the EU and its member states: For the EU and its member states, the ministerial segment during the 62nd session of the CND is an important moment for the international community to have a general debate about international drug policy and to reflect upon the future. We need to recognise as the world drug report 2018 has described, the drug situation is worsening in most parts of the world. Even if drug policy challenges differ from region to region both the range of drugs and drug markets are expanding and diversifying. We have a common and shared responsibility as well as an obligation to implement evidence-based measures with realistic aims and concrete public health-based policies that can make an significant improvement whilst long term disciplinary approach. In the EU, the overall approach to drugs is set out in the EU drugs strategy 2013-2020 and in accompanying action plans. The EU strategy is achieved through an integrated balance and evidence-based approach. The recently published European drug report 2018 by EMCDDA is based on sound and revisable data and shows some worrying market trends while also presenting exaltation of consumption. Findings show that the implementation of evidence-based programs and policies contributes to reducing negative health consequences and promote improvements in public health also reaching marginalised and vulnerable groups. On the supply side, the EU law enforcement agency EUROPOL, in cooperation with other stakeholders, has stepped up its activities on that matter notably to improve the operational response. The EU and its member states firmly believe that drug policies should be built on a sound public health approach. Based on scientific evidence and supported by a reliable and objective monitoring systems and evaluations in compliance with human rights recognised as such and international legal instruments. The EU and its member states want to recall the important progress that has been achieved in field of drugs and the successful outcome of the special session of the UN general assembly on the world drug problem held in 2016.  By calling for more integrate, evidence based and balanced drug policy, UNGASS has put a focus on the health side of drug problem. It also reaffirmed the unwavering commitment of supply reduction and related measures, including effective law enforcement, countering money laundering and promoting tradition cooperation. Therefore, we consider the UNGASS outcome document as a milestone and believe that the 2019 HLMS should reaffirm the UNGASS outcome document as the reference document in the field of drugs representing the latest global consensus. About the 2019 target date, the EU advocates a commitment for the next years in the upcoming review process and the ministerial segment on what we want to achieve by 2030 in line with the agenda 2030. The EU recognises the need for a consistent document resulting from the HLMS.
The EU and its member states would like to emphasise 5 elements which can ensure sustainable progression our collective endeavour on the way towards 2030:
– First, the EU fully supports the principle role of the CND and the UNODC as the policy making bodies and leading entities for addressing encountering the world drug problem. However, it is clear for the commission and UNODC to further engage and with relevant UN entities and within the respected mandate join to develop activities and strategies promoting implementation. In this regard we would also welcome closer UNODC cooperation with all relevant UN entities, such as WHO, UNDP, UNAIDS, OHCHR and with INTERPOL including the question of proper mean for effective implementation.
– Secondly, the UNGASS outcome recommendations in line with the relevant goals for 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The efforts to achieve the relevant drug related SDG’s and to effectively to address the world drug problem compliment and reinforce each other.
– Thirds, the EU and its member states strongly support an integrated evidence-based approach, which addresses both demand reduction and supply reduction. Together with equal efforts on both sides, and in full compliance with UN conventions on narcotic drugs. Drug use is a complex phenomenon that needs to be addressed with associated health and social risks, such as infectious diseases, dependency, mental health problems and social exclusion. In this context the EU would also like to recall the principal adequate, proportional, and effective response to drug related offenses has been highlighted in all UN drug conventions. On the supply side responding to new psychoactive substances is one of the existing and emerging challenges. As well as the fact that the criminals continuously seek out new methods to increase profit margins.
– Four, the ministerial segment for the 62nd CND should meaningfully involve civil society and the scientific community. It should reaffirm the crucial role of civil society in the formulation and implementation of drug policies, at the local, national and international level. Without their insightful input we would not have enough information on daily life of drug users. Civil society should be actively involved in the process leading towards the HLMS through the civil society task force and it should also be invited to meaningfully participate in its preparations.  And one other measure to actively involve civil society in this event, we support the civil society task force’s intention to organise a civil society consultation on the margin of the 62nd CND.
– Finally, collecting relevant and reliable data is instrumental for taking a better overview of the drug situation worldwide, reflected in the drug report. We welcome the ongoing work and the improvement of the quality and effectiveness of the annual report questionnaire. These concrete targets are needed to measure the success of our activities that should be reflecting the 7 thematic areas of the UNGASS document. The 7 thematic areas laid down in the UNGASS outcome document fully correspond to the need of integrated evidence based and outreaching approach to drug policy. The efforts of the international community up to and beyond 2019 should be focused on the practical implementations through the proper number of operations and recommendations therein. Therefore, the EU and its member states aspire for our collective efforts to be fully invested in the implementation of the UNGASS outcome.
Finally, on behalf of the EU and its member states allow me to repeat that these 5 before mentioned aspects constitute the EU’s position on a holistic international drug policy based on equal partnership for the whole international community to address the world drug problem.

Argentina: There are different views on the multilateral issues on drugs. We aren’t in favour of some kind of beauty contest at the meeting. What we need is to make progress. You reminded us that in line with resolution 61/1 we need to outline with some points. It is very important to highlight institutions. We are certain that the CND has a primary certain role in certain areas. Let’s not set artificial goal that will then be very difficult to achieve. We don’t want a competitive approach but a convergent one. We stand ready to work with you,

Malaysia: We look forward to continuing such positive ambitions in our efforts to build a common ground on our way forward beyond 2019. Malaysia is of the view that the outcome document whether in the form of resolution, declaration or joined statement should be a precise and forward-looking document, which reflects our visions and directions beyond 2019. Therefore, the objective of the outcome document should be to sustain the momentum in implementing all our commitments and to consolidate efforts which can contribute towards improving the implementation of our commitments in all 3 particular documents. Malaysia values the importance to continue all big commitments including the target outlined in op. 36 of the 2009 declaration and plan of action. While we also note that others may attach greater importance to the 2016 UNGASS outcome document. As a whole Malaysia believes that the elements of this outcome document should pursuit a clear direction within a realistic time line and target to implement all agreed commitments which has not been accomplished. To build on the experiences and expertise acquired in the perceiving ten years to tackle new treats or challenges on to harness appropriate approaches on tools we should facilitate of member states and the secretariat meeting. Malaysia reiterates that no policy document is required. In moving forward our focus should be to improve the implementation of our commitments that caused 3 political documents. Malaysia fully recognises that the 3 international drug control conventions remain as the cornerstone for world drug policy. Malaysia sees the role of CND as the main policy making organ of the UN for drug control matters and the role of the UNODC as the leading entity in the UN system for expressing and countering global drug problem. Malaysia views the one-track single reporting approach which is the is an important tool to a better implementation of UN agreements.

Russia: In accordance with resolution 61/10 you have a very responsible task to prepare an outline. We hope that progress will be placed on our collective efforts. The Russian delegation stands ready to support you in any way. In regard to the basic elements, we reaffirm the policy forming role of the CND as of the UNODC as the leading UN system, the competencies of the International Narcotics Control Board, the World Health Organisation. The door open to legalise drugs, we can’t agree with.

Japan: First of all, Japan wishes to reiterate our full support to the chair and CND in general. We are looking forward to a consensus with the preparation for the ministerial segment. As far as Japan is concerned, we do not see any necessity for us to produce another new policy document next year. Having said that, Japan wishes to share with member states some observations with regard to possible achievement. We think another new target year could be set, it would be 10 years with midterm review in 5 years’ time. CND as a central institution on drug issues should be paid direct once again. A linkage with 2030 agenda should also be mentioned. We reaffirm our commitment to the 3 conventions and think they should be respected and abided to. We think the 2009 and 2016 documents have commonalities and are embedded with each other – it should be pursued in one track.

USA: We have a number of very interesting and innovative things to reference from this morning. If there has been one recurring theme I think that recurred throughout these interesting intersessional meetings it is the responsibility of member states. Those obligations include everything starting from 1961 all the way up to UNGASS. I think we learned that member states are hungry for information that is technical and on expert level and that we not only need this information but that the member states will have to undertake the commitment to transpose that information into our action plans. We have to base our action plans on evidence-based strategies and we need to have effective ways to measure those strategies to look and see whatever in fact we have achieved what we want to achieve. We have heard a lot of discussions about targets vs. goals and on §36 or UNGASS. For us, the key issue is that as we look at §36 it doesn’t really address the challenges we face today. Yes, we have those problems if we were looking at earth from a 30 000-foot level, we would perhaps see those challenges but as we dig deeper, we find that the problems are much more complex and member states are to have guidance, we need to have more details. So perhaps rather than to decide what our goals are at this time, we need to dig deeper to find out what is our problem. So again, information is key. Perhaps we need to look at our internal structure to ensure that we are capturing all the information we need. Too often we think in terms of policies that should be driven down from the top, but the problem is at the ground level where the rubber meets the road, as we say. So, we need to find a way to be more effective in finding out what is happening in our towns, in our cities, how are mayors, how are county directors, how are chiefs of police, how are first responders – how we can help them. In terms of what we need to emphasise in whatever we are going to call the product of the meeting of 2019, we firmly believe in the effective work of the CND and we do not want to see that structure changed. We want member states to have a more effective role, and again we very much appreciate the advice and guidance, the wisdom of other UN entities and NGO’s. But ultimately the decision has to be made by UN member states and it is the task of our political will that action will be measured when we meet in March. We note the suggestion that 2030 is part of our framework, but we would suggest that perhaps it is a parallel framework. And we do need to be cognisant what is going on in that arena. It is definitely if we drew a thin diagram we would see that the world drug problem and the mandates of the commission definitely are connected with what happens with the SDG’s. But we are also independent, and we also have the singular focus on the world drug problem and we should not lose sight of that. As we think in terms of the future again information is key. If we don’t know how we are to achieve the goals if we don’t identify the targets from those goals, if we don’t know the indicators that will tell us how we achieved those targets and our goals, we won’t know where we go. I think it is unlikely that we have the question of ARQ settled by the time we meet in March, so perhaps we can focus on what member states do, what can member states do, what is our responsibility. How could we do that better, faster and more innovative? It was very interesting for example to listen to the presentation of the representative from Mexico, who highlighted an electronic system for prescription medicines, so that the state could than monitor the dispensations of the precious and vital medicines. That’s the kind of information that we need to keep sharing. Yes, the world drug problem is growing. But it’s not growing simply because of the framework we have. It’s the world we live in. We are living in an electronic world and those who are committing crimes are, they are on the internet, they are on the computers. We talk about money laundering for example. Money laundering was so key for us, in the beginning days of going after organised crime, because money laundering is actually the money footprint of the criminal, and so we can follow that footprint and find that criminal. In today’s world we don’t have the luxury of just having money laundering, now we have bitcoin; we have other ways that criminals are using, specifically to avoid leaving that footprint behind. We relied in the past on the DNA data for the plant-based substances, for cocaine and the opioids. We could detect from those plant-based products where they came from. When we turn to synthetics we don’t have that. So, these are challenges, and when we look at the goals we have to realize, we have to identify what are our challenges. As we prepare for 2030 all of our domestic agencies will be focusing on how we as individual governments achieve the SDGs.

Iran: The Islamic Republic of Iran attaches great importance to collective efforts in the 2009 political declaration, the joint ministerial statement and the UNGASS outcome document – these are based on the principle of complementarity and mutually reinforcing. Which is conclusive to make comprehensive political framework to bind the board of the international community in post 2019. In this connection the targets set in op. 36 of the 2019 political declaration are an unfinished job. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no need to negotiate new policy documents. On the same token and on one track approach, we believe that it is not only for a single report post 2019 but also for single implementation of the comprehensive political framework as contained in the 3 documents, hence we support the 2019 ministerial segment should be an opportunity for a comprehensive review as to progress and challenges regarding the implementation of 2009 political declaration. On the outline for beyond 2019, we believe that it could be a short document capturing the following elements: Report on the results of the implementation of the 2009 political declaration; Reaffirmation the commitments contained in the conventions; Reaffirm the role of the CND; Reaffirm the UNODC’s central role between the UN system; Single track follow up for implementation of the commitments as well as reporting of progress beyond 2019; Ten year time line to the midterm review in 2024; Recognising the importance of providing assistance and financial resources.

Singapore: It has been clear here to all of us during the last days of the intersessional meeting, that every country faces different challenges but what binds all of us together is our common commitments to the 3 international drug control conventions.  My delegation supports your efforts in crafting an outline to present in December 2018. I believe that the member states of the commission have yet to come to an agreement on what this outcome is supposed to be and advance to further discussion. Based on what all member states said, we do not see the need for a new policy document and we should be mindful in setting a realistic time line. About the UN reform: in Singapore there is a strong support of ne reforms, but we are also aware of that it is a very fluid and developing. Taking this into account in drafting the document, maybe something a little bit more general could be useful. Of course, we support the role of CND and UNODC as an essential role in addressing the world drug problem. With regard to the elements of the outcome, we mentioned that the work has really started from 60th CND and now we have a good basis for achieving a successful outcome for our ministerial segment in 2019.

Colombia: My delegation fully shares the vision of focusing on working on everything that unifies us and leaving out things that we disagree on. Our president said yesterday that if we want Colombia to live in peace, we have to stop the drug trafficking. While it is a global problem that affect all of us, it effects all of us differently. What maybe the problem today may not be the problem tomorrow… as example in the beginning, Colombia started with the production of marijuana a, then cocaine, then armed groups came, now we have a problem of internal consumption.

Egypt: My delegation is quite happy with this new format of meeting, which allows more interaction, for questions and answers and though better and deeper understanding of the matter at hand. My delegation also assures you of our full support in the coming discussions for the preparation of the ministerial conference which we hope will be successful in bridging the gaps which we do have among ourselves and we believe are not as distant as we may think. The 2019 HLMS presents an important opportunity for the implementation of commitments to addressing the world drug problem. Before we start discussing how do we view the outline needed for the preparations of the coming conference, my delegation believes there is a need to have further clarity on the aim of the outline and how it will be presented. It is in our view that such an outline that will be so important to drive us in the discussions to come, should not by any mean prejudge the work of the coming Chair. Egypt reaffirms the 3 drug conventions as the cornerstone of all our efforts toward the world drug problem, the political declaration of 2009, the ministerial statement of 2014 and UNGASS outcome document of 2016, as well as reaffirming the primary goal of the CND. My delegation among others shares the views that there is no need for a new policy document and that it is the time for implementations. The question of the relationship between the 3 documents, namely the political declaration, the ministerial statement and UNGASS outcome document remains the main question in hand. It is through further exploring the complementary and mutually reinforcing nature of these documents that we can be on the right track to reaching a one track approach in which we have the main political guidance from the commitments of member states to the political declaration and its targets. My delegation asserts that the importance of the targets listed in op. 36 of the political declaration to guide our way in implementing the UNGASS outcome document. The claim that op. 36 is outdated is rather something that we cannot agree with.  Any approach to the ARQ before reaching an agreement on the one track approach would be putting the cart before the horse and prejudging the whole discussions. In the end it will be as important to my delegation, that once we achieve a resolution that reaffirms all commitments that we have a follow mechanism with vivid time line for implementation. My delegation is open to any proposal to how the time line will look like provided it will allow for proper review of commitments. Thank you

Tanzania: I come from the part of the world where a few days ago we were dealing with a medical doctor and a few nurses stigmatising the mother of a child and refusing an addict methadone because she was late to go to a methadone clinic. An indication that a lot of people have not understood the severity of the problem we are dealing with. Sessions like this provide us with the opportunity of understanding the problem that we are facing in our countries. We reiterate and reconfirm our support of the CND and its role. We fully support the 3 international drug conventions and we look at the political declaration and plan of action document of 2009, the outcome document of 2016 as mutually reinforcing documents. Actually, we don’t see any confusion or any disparity between them. Initially our country, like any other country, began the tackling of the problem with the attack on the supply. But later on, we came to the realisation that we need to look at the problem in a more complex way… meaning that issue of supply, the issue of demand, the issue of harm reduction. We are doing great work and we are looking at the CND next as a point of reference.

Switzerland: All of us have learned a lot this session and we specifically appreciate the exchange with experts that actually deal with victims of the drug problem. We agree with previous speakers that we should focus on commonalities, find solutions and work together in finding solutions. We thank you very much for your work on the outline, Madame Chair. We support it very much and wish that priorities discussed in round table discussions and during general meeting to be included. It should also endorse the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, which includes the commitments made in previous documents such as 2009 political declarations. It should also highlight the interconnectivity of international drug policies to the SDGs. As part of the ongoing efforts to facilitate greater cooperation between government, institutions and other key stakeholders, the role of other UN agencies as well as civil society should be highlighted in the document. With regard to the round tables, we would like to align ourselves with the EU statement when they proposed 2 topics namely the review of implementations of commitments made as well as we focus on the implementations of UNGASS.

Peru: We consider that this debate that often brings us to compare the 2009 document with the UNGASS outcome. That is a stumbling stone. No delegation is against UNGASS 2016, the implementation of UNGASS 2016 will support in achieving those goals.

UK: We fully support the intervention made by Austria on behalf of the EU. We listened carefully to the intervention made this morning and agreed with his excellency the Ambassador of Uruguay that it is of utmost importance to discuss the important issues at the meeting in March and we hope that the intersessional process continues in the same way. I also agree with the representative of Pakistan that during the intersessional process it is important that we listen to each other to ensure we come to an agreement on the way ahead. The UK recognises the UNGASS outcome document as a reference document which build upon the progress made in 2009 political declaration and strengthens the global consensus on drug policy. The UK reaffirms our commitment to the 3 international drug control conventions and the UK remains fully committed to upholding its international obligations under these conventions. The outcome document of the HLMS should include key elements in human rights to ensure global drug policy is situated within the UN priorities protecting health and human rights, promoting development and advancing peace and security. It is also important that civil society and the scientific community continue to participate in the commission.
The UK doesn’t believe that a new policy document will be required in 2019. Rather international efforts should now be focused on implementing the UNGASS outcome document which provides comprehensive guidance for addressing the world drug problem. We do take note of the requests by member states that specific targets are required post 2019. Any targets must reflect UNGASS. As the ambassador of Argentina said, it is important that we work together to find the points of convergence going forward. We must assure that our work here is aligned with developing SDG’s. The UK remains committed to UNODC and the current mechanism. For the UK UN reform means ensuring that the UN has more impact and can deliver on its peace and security core purposes on the 2030 SDG’s.

Chair: Morning session adjourned.

* * *

AFTERNOON SESSION

Czech Republic: With regard to the increasing incidents of drug use, production and trafficking, it is obvious that our interventions didn’t achieve any of its objectives. In light of this we the need to build a new framework for global drug policy on the basis of conclusions of the success of the previous documents. We would like to stress that since we all signed the document in 2016, it should mean in real politics to focus on help rather than punishment and on achieving realistic goals on harm minimisation rather than on zero tolerance. We also strongly encourage and believe in much stronger involvement of all relevant UN agencies such as WHO, UNAIDS, UNDP as well as civil society in all decision-making process. Close coordination is important for balance and comprehensive approach to world drug policy problem and gives perspective and insight based on scientific evidence, professional experience and practice. We believe that the people centred approach based on UNGASS outcome document is the core of the international drug control system. Issues of public health, harm reduction, human rights, proportional sentences or sustainable development must all be considered for the international policies to be affective in the future.

Morocco: The problem of drugs remains a common challenge, a challenge that knows no borders. And the actions of the international community in the years to come must be based on a true evidence-based diagnosis free of geostrategic or political considerations. The global struggle against drugs in an ongoing operation and there is a need for international cooperation in this regard. Is our cooperation functioning perfectly and did we do all that we can to enhance this cooperation bilaterally or multilaterally? At times countries are hesitant to answer that question. Even when we seek information from Interpol or other platforms, there are three possibilities either no reply at all, or vague information or miss information. In those cases, states are asked to reconsider their policies and implement effective and renewed modes for cooperation. A well-balanced approach would be of particular relevance for our country. The actions we undertake should be complementary, not contradictory in nature all the documents that have been furnished to date, provide us with a basis and perhaps they should be matched to new trends and patterns in the global drug situation. Here we recognise the role that the CND plays in assisting, guiding and furthering international consensus in this area within the UN system.

Nigeria: Nigeria believes that the outcome of the ministerial segment should extend the target dates of the 2009 political declaration and plan of action beyond 2019 and enforce deeply on information and expertise, on efforts, achievements thus identified and best practices to address and conquer the world drug problem. Nigeria also restates our commitment to the effective implementation of the 2009 political declaration and a plan of action on the world drug problem. It is essential to also indicate that my delegation has actively participated in all intersessional meeting of all UNGASS outcome documents. We believe the UNGASS documents, including this operational recommendation is a milestone in the efforts of the international community to effectively address and counter the world drug problem and promote a society free of drug abuse. Nigeria maintains a notion that international cooperation remains inevitable in global drug control. It forces information sharing and provides the platform on which the drug control issues are implemented along the principle of shared responsibility. We will continue to respond to mutual legal assistance requests from other countries on drug related issues to strengthen our commitments to those initiatives. We also encourage our partner countries to respond timely to our requests as information is time bound. The mode of consummate of illicit substances remains a complicated issue that needs close attention in the effort to addressing illicit drug trafficking. It remains a significant challenge in drug law enforcement as no single matter suffices and new techniques are continually emerging. The seizure of cannabis accounts annually for the highest drug seized in Nigeria. Unfortunately, as the cultivation of cannabis persists many hectares of farm lands are dissipated to illicit cultivation and thus deprive the population if the use of this lands for cash crops farming. Nigeria remains deeply concerned about the abuse of prescription drugs and the abuse of substances not on the international such as Tramadol. Effective drug prevention contributes significantly to positive engagement of children youth and adults within their families, schools, work place and community. Worrisome also is the emergence of new psychoactive substances and challenges they impose on the health of persons. Our primary responsibility as member state in the area of drug control is to ensure adequate affordability and availability of controlled substances for those who need them for the relief of pain and medical and scientific purposes while preventing diversion for illicit purposes. Nigeria notes with great concern a new trend in the use of adulterants in drugs of abuse. Our national drug law enforcement agent’s laboratory reveals that drugs are now increasing cut with multiple highly toxic adulterant. In some cases, as many as 10 different adulterants. The information is in addition to impurity from the drug manufacturing process. I would like to conclude by reiterating Nigeria’s appreciation for technical support received from the UNODC, the EU and all our development partners. We believe that in line with principles of common and shared responsibility the continuous tracking of cooperation through information sharing and capacity building of law enforcement officials by states will enhance measure for addressing the world drug problem.

China: The Chinese delegation would also like to cooperate with the chair in the following process of consultations and discussions. I hope consultation to come will be transparent and taking into account the opinions from all sides. Certainly, with support the positions of many delegations that means we should seek common ground while leaving our differences aside so that our discussions will be focused on points on which we can reach consensus. At the same time, with the regard to the post 2019 process we should emphasise the following points. First of all, we should reiterate our commitment to the three international drug control conventions. They form a corner stone of the present regime of drug control. Secondly, we support the role of CND as the policy making organ of the UN. We offer support the UNODC, UNDP and WHO to carry out their functions with the regard to drug control. We hope that jointly we will follow up three political documents that means that 2009 political declaration the 2014 ministerial declaration as well as the outcome document of UNGASS of 2016. With regard to the reform of the UN as mentioned by the chair in the morning, we will like to make the following comments: we support an even more important role of UNODC within the UN system. With the regard to the objectives mentioned in operative paragraph 36 of the 2009 document we believe that even though these objectives are ambitious they are still very useful and of benefit to us, because they will point out direction for our work in future. At the same time, we will be reminded time again of the fact that it is still a long way to go. As we know that to reduce poverty or remove poverty is very difficult, however we are still making every effort to persist in this direction. It is important that governments convey the correct message to society and to population as well as the correct political direction of message to make it clear to young people so that they can judge what is right and what is wrong. To take a very simple example: when we are educating young people, we should tell them that you can choose to kill a person or not to kill. But if we tell the young that after you kill a person then we will provide you with such options – this is ridiculous. Therefore, we should still orient ourselves to majority of society and integrate a balance approach to issue of drugs.

Netherlands: We fully ally ourselves with the statement made by Austria on behalf of the EU. I believe you still seek guidance on the form and the value of the outline and just to share our understanding of this outline: We trust that it will include the key elements and hopefully in quite detail. Also, basis or an index for the possible short outcome documents in 2019 that needs to be adopted by ministers, it could include those elements where there is common ground, but also those where you see that are still divergent fuses and differences and come with possible solutions. We agree with comments made by various colleagues in the room, that this outline should include the fruit of our work and discussion we will have in the coming weeks and months, but it should not prejudge the work that still needs to be done by the next chair and by ourselves starting from January. We have seen that there can be a big difference and big gaps between our perceptions and at the same time, we are far away from achieving our goals and objectives in addressing the world drug problem in an effective manner. Let us work in a direction that focuses on commonalities instead of the differences. In that perspective, let me make very clear that for the Netherlands resolution 60/1 and mainly op1 to 4 are a sound basis that there is a common ground in recognising that the different commitments to addressing the world drug problem are complementary and mutually reinforcing whilst also recognising that UNGASS outcome document is the most recent consensus and it also reaffirm their commitments to implementing  provisions of 2009 plan of action. We think there is no need to repeat this discussion we already had two years ago and there is no need for another new policy document. We should focus our efforts after 2019 on implementing what is already there and the commitments we have. We reaffirm the principle role of the CND as the policy making body of the UN, with prime responsibility for drug control. And the UNODC as the leading entity in the UN system for addressing and countering the world drug problem. We believe that in order to effectively address to world drug problem and implementing our commitments announce intense cooperation is necessary including with the WHO, UN Women and OHCHR. A partnership is also outlined in SDG17 are crucial to achieve our ambitions and we would also like to encourage for some more cooperation with ECOSOC. We think that is very valuable to our work. We recognize that we need different issues on targets. Targets are an important drive for our policies and that will define the way ahead. At the minimum possible targets should include all UNGASS outcome documents elements. And I can also say that defining targets indicate that it is not just a political process from our side, but it is also very technical process. We believe, that an outline should include a strong commitment for a one-track approach and strength in data collection instruments capacity. We have a firm base there already in 60/1. We believe that it is a crucial part of the way forward after 2019. Better data and statistics on various elements of the world drug problem is needed to get a realistic picture of the problem and understanding it and to bend our discussions and policy decisions as well as our interventions. And also, then to be able to take stock in 10 years’ time on where we stand. We also think that the work we do here in the commission is fully integrated with the relevant sustainable development goals 2030 development agenda and our efforts to minimize drug harms our mutually enforcing and link with the agenda 2030 should really reinforce and strengthen efforts on both sides. Finally, we believe that an outline should include a time line, to guide our efforts and a point on the horizon for the CND to take stock of the progress made, regarding the implementation of our commitments and operation recommendations. A 10 years’ time line seems to make sense and could possibly be accompanied with a midterm moment to take also stock.

Spain: We too fully support the statement made by Austria on the behalf of the EU and we’d like to make some additional comments on national capacity. We’ve seen very intense interesting debates and we’ve gone into a lot of debate, plus we had the participation of the civil society which is priceless, and we hope that this will be repeated in the future Intersessionals. We affirm the CND and UNODC are the UN bodies that work to combat the illicit use of drugs and we’re all involved in the process that will culminate in March 2019 with resolution 60/1 and 60/10 as the main input. We believe that differences among the debated policy documents are not that great. We have to ass’s paragraph 36, but also paragraph 40 of the 2009 declaration. It talks about the extraordinary session which really is in line with current methods of production and we need to work on that, because the 2016 document is the most valid for implementing policies and we’ve said rather than talked and draw new documents. We must implement recommendations and proposals and the UNGASS document is full of them and we should not waste that or squander it. We believe that we must be pragmatic in our approach to this outline document however we wish to call it and we do support it in principle and in you and your team. On issues such as the death penalty and harm reduction of which the consensus is that there is no consensus; they should still be included in the outline, because whenever these subjects are discussed they don’t appear in the documents and it is as though we hadn’t raised the issue and I feel that we’re almost hiding that from our populations. I want to defend the stance taken by my delegation that we’ve never had a document that featured the words harm reduction, and yet these are the words that are pounded around quite frequently, so it’s rather disappointing not to see them anywhere. The ambassador of Uruguay says there’s no problem with regards to different opinions. We cannot oblige countries to implement policies and strategies which have been positive for us. UNODC provides extraordinary documents with lethal information, if we had more document on we would be able to design policies and strategies that would be more effective. And finally, with regards to reform of agenda 2030, the process which will culminate in March 2019, is an inextricably linked to UN reform and we truly hope that reform will reveal the preeminence of UNODC and CND. Regarding the sustainable development goals of 2030, we agree they must be linked to put only those which are relevant, so it is not to dilute the impact of the major issues with regards to drugs.

South Africa: Let me also welcome your opening remarks this morning, where you cautioned delegations to desist from elevating one document at the expense of another.  On that note we want to underscore the complementarity between political declaration of 2009, the ministerial declaration as complemented by the UNGASS outcome document and the three drugs convention. To us, we consider that to be the most appropriate approach in reaching a comprehensive and all-inclusive strategy to address the world drug problem. We also want to register the relevance of op 36 of the political declaration in guiding this process beyond 2019. My delegation subscribes to the view that there is no need for any policy documents post 2019. In this regard we call for the focus on the implementation on the already existing commitments. We call upon the member states to identify the necessary technical assistance needs, the provision of capacity building and we encourage the international corporation to address the world drug problem.

Sri Lanka: Along with all the measures proposed during this session, I would like to reiterate the fact that the need to explore more too see that the current drug policy address the root cause of the drug problem. All the drug related issues which has become more complex in nature, emerging trends relate to drug addiction. If you look at the causes of drug addiction mindfully, deep inside you mind, it will make you realised the root cause of the problem. That these people are not addicted to drugs, even if appears to be so that they are addicted to drugs, they are absolutely addicted to the sensation they get in their mind. When they take drugs, they feel a particular sensation, which they see as pleasurable. In their mind they start liking it and they tend to take more and more drugs to increase the sensation. Therefore, with all the measures we have discussed during the sessions, I strongly suggest that we need to pay our attention to the root cause of the problem which exists in the mindset of the people. That this is where the primary problem exists. However, we have put all our emphasis on the secondary problems which come from the primary problem. That is where the mindfulness technique becomes a very powerful tool, which allows people to realize within themselves the reality. They will realize that they have been suffering due to a sensation that is just a refection when image occurred in their mind and not due to an outside object. Once they realize this point, they don’t tend to react on it that is to take the drug in. With the technique of mindfulness, they all practice to observe their sensations and they see the sensations come and go without reacting to it. The skills are great insights to how powerful is this technique to generate pleasurable feeling in their minds, which prevent themselves to react and go for drugs or so-called pleasurable feeling. Madam chair my humble request and wish is that CND, UNODC, other organisations and distinguish delegates realize the importance of mindfulness and consider the points which are mentioned in this statement for the inclusion with the international drug policy framework. In order to protect our youth and children our future world and the drug problem.

Brazil: I assure, you have our full cooperation and trust in conducting the work that will allow us to produce an outline for the way beyond 2019. One that can truly help us in our negotiations towards the ministerial segment, pointing to areas of our commonalities as well as indicating possible ways of tackling those areas where we still don’t have consensus. We have to be pragmatic and overcome this artificial divide between the ties of our previous commitments. We do concur fully, and we affirm in the central of the CND and UNODC. And this relevance depends as well on the increased cooperation with other relevant UN entities to keep CND an UNODC in the center of discussion. We share the view that we do not need new policy documents, we feel that our way forward will reaffirm all the commitments we made on the past decade and that need to accelerate the implementation of the operation or recommendations approved by the member states in 2016. We did not believe that singling out specific paragraphs of any of the documents will provide as a way forward, but if we manage to bring forward the documents that we’ve agreed on in this decade in their entirety we could have a clearer direction and a common path. Those documents have been negotiated on long nights to make sure that there is balance within them. And when we start picking paragraphs we abandon the balance within them. And when we start picking paragraphs we abandon the balance and then it becomes very difficult for us to achieve consensus. My delegation is of the view, that we will only be able to make progress in implementation, if we are also able to adequately asses the results of our action. We need in a short and clear period of time to be able to have access to this improved data to support evidence-based discussions. And the updating of the ARQ’s is essential part of this process. We understand that better data will enable us to better asses the results of our policies and then allow for a meaningful review of our commitments a few years down the line. I was also glad madam president, to hear your view on the outline includes the need to further discuss how to increase the interaction between the work of the CND and our commitment to address the world drug problem and the UN wide commitment to contribute to the sustainable development goals. I think that is a point where we still have a lot to debate.

Algeria: Our delegation wishes to assure you of its full support regarding your commitment and your leadership ensuring that a climate of dialog and exchange prevails in keeping with the objectives of resolution 61/10 and the general guideline regarding the path to follow post 2019. There are undoubtedly different viewpoints, but it is important that we agree on a common path to follow. In our national capacity we wish to highlight the following elements. The significance of the three international drug control conventions and the INCB which is responsible for their implementation. The central role played by the CND, which is the leading organ with regard to the global drugs policy. Negotiations on the new political document is therefore neither timely nor welcomed. The political declaration of 2009 and the joint 2014 ministerial declaration an UNGASS document of 2016 are mutually reinforcing and complementary in nature as it has been recognised in resolution 61/1 of the CND and therefore can serve as a solid basis for our negotiations.

Germany aligns fully to the statement pronounced by Austria on behalf of the EU and I want just to flag that to my government the holistic approach of UNGASS is the essence and we are very satisfied that the EU in the last 10 days has reaffirmed its adherence to this holistic point of view in a common position.  I would like to share a reflection of caution. The ministerial segment is a moment when the leaders meet, and it sends a message to the public – a message that should be credible. And my note of caution goes in the direction of targets. If we were the board of pharmaceutical company of course we can set a target that we double the output of pharmaceutical pills, but the CND is not a board of a pharmaceutical company. We do not manage and steer the world. The other half of the actors are criminals and we have to react to them. So, I would suggest that we should rather not fall into the trap and setting targets than then we have to review and every time we would review them we have to admit complete failure. We have not achieved the goal free of drugs. We are living in the world full of drugs. And we will not create or achieve credibility, if we set targets, which we know we will never be able to fulfil. However, we should flag ambition and really strong commitment to reinforce our efforts where it is necessary.

Canada: On the role of the CND and the promotion of partnerships, we fully support reinforcing the central role of the CND in addressing world drug problem. While we are generally not supportive of renewing specific targets, we do, having heard some of the views in the room, see that there may be some merits in a discussion on targets that would help up measure progress against the UNGASS recommendations and set for example health and human rights as related policy goals. With regards to data collection, the one-track approach, we are prepared to continue the discussion on this issue. We fully support the importance of basing policy and approaches on scientific data. This is in fact the key element of Canada national approach to drug problem, so we do see some value in that. On the time line – no strong views from our perspective. We heard 10 years as a time line, which makes some sense to us and we would be prepared to join consensus on that. Finally, on a broader point, and I do understand the various positions with regards to the various standing of the documents that we have developed. We consider the 2016 UNGASS document as the basis for our work, that there is a common theme about the need to move to implementation, and if I may paraphrase that believe. It was Dr. Gilberto Guerra earlier this week, jokingly I think, that CND could perhaps just pause its work and really start implementing the very vast body of policies that has developed over the years. And frankly from our perspective, this is a very key point here. We need to listen to those experts that tells us that it is time now to move to action.

Slovenia supports the common statement of the EU presented by Austria. We would like to be oriented to the future and not to the past. It is the reason why we support UNGASS document. The main objective of all of us is implementing this document all over the world. From that reason the first goal of the ministerial conference is to open the door by consensus of all of us to support UNGASS document and activities based on it and to help implement it all over the world.

OHCHR: Zaved Mahmood:  Madam Chair, Excellencies, Good Afternoon! I thank you for allowing the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take the floor this afternoon. This year, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns 70. Also, in this year, we observed the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration on declaration and program of action on human rights. These anniversaries provide a unique opportunity to reflect on and strengthen the relationship between drug control efforts and human rights. The recent report of the High Commissioner on the implementation of the joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem with regard to human rights discusses good practices, identify gaps and provide recommendations for addressing those human rights gaps. Our office encourages this Commission to consider those recommendations in your deliberation for the preparation of the high-level segment of 62nd Session on the Commission to be held in March 2019. We hope that these recommendations will strengthen this Commission’s efforts to advance human rights in drug policy debates. Madam Chair, in is a firm commitment of Member States “to respect, protect and promote all human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals and the rule of law in the development and implementation of drug policies”. Despite this clear commitment, the right to life has continued to be challenged in some States. A dramatic upsurge in extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention and arrest, enforced disappearance and other serious human rights violations has been reported in the context of the “war on drugs” campaign launched in those States. There have been some alarming tendencies towards a deeper militarisation of the responses, or heavy-handed law and order approach, to counter drug-related crimes. Such approaches have disproportionately affected vulnerable groups and has repeatedly resulted in serious human rights violations, including costing the lives of thousands of people. In June 2017, the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged States to examine the effectiveness of the war-on-drugs approach and its consequences for human rights. (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/2017/June/message-of-united-nations-secretary-general–antnio-guterres–on-the-international-day-against-drug-abuse-and-illicit-trafficking.html) Madam Chair, ensuring that governments are held responsible for protecting human rights through drug laws, policies and strategies requires tracking data and conducting regular assessments of the human rights situation as it relates to drug control. On several occasions, human rights treaty bodies have recommended that States provide data, statistics and information on issues related to human rights in drug control efforts.  There is a growing realisation that the traditional indicators regarding arrests, seizures and criminal justice responses are inadequate to show the real impact of drug policies on communities. The success of drug control strategies should be measured through an assessment of the impact of drug control efforts in the enjoyment of human rights and other critical aspects such as security, health and socioeconomic development. In her recent report A/HRC/39/39, the High Commissioner for Human Rights encouraged States to collect up-to-date, comprehensive, dis-aggregated and transparent data on drug control efforts. The data gathered should also be used by States to analyse the impact of drug control efforts on the enjoyment of human rights, and to enhance compliance with international human rights norms and standards in the administration of drug policies. The data should also help to produce information for the public and policymakers about the impact of drug policies, whether positive or negative, and to assess the need for relevant human rights training of law enforcement, prison and judicial officers and others involved in the implementation of drugs laws and policies. The UNGASS 2016 outcome document recommends that States consider including information, on a voluntary basis, concerning, inter alia, the promotion of human rights, when furnishing information to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs pursuant to the three international drug control conventions and the relevant Commission resolutions. OHCHR has developed a set of human rights indicators for the realization of human rights, and guidance on a human rights-based approach to data collection in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.  Both can provide guidance in strengthening and streamlining existing data-collection and analysis tools in drug control efforts. Aligning the current way of measuring and evaluating drug policies, with the 2030 sustainable development agenda and human rights would have two clear benefits;

• First, such harmonisation would help to overcome many of the limitations of drug policies resulting from suboptimal metrics for measuring their impact, and
• Second, help to ensure drug policies enhance, rather than hinder, efforts to achieve both the SDGs and State’s human rights obligations.

The human rights approach should not only be used for data collection through the ARQ process at the international level. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of CND Resolution 60/1, efforts to strengthen data collection and analysis tools at the national level should also be informed by human rights indicators. Madam Chair let me conclude by quoting the High Commissioner Michele Bachelete. In her maiden Statement to the Human Rights Council on 10 September, the High Commissioner stated, and I quote: “Drug issues everywhere are best tackled through a focus on health, education and opportunities – not the death penalty, or death squads.” (https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23518&LangID=E) Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair: I have taken note of all of your comments and I will work on reflecting them in the work that will be developed in the coming days. Let me mention again that my intention is to be in constant communication with all of you, with all delegations and groups for advancing this proposal, so that we are on time to have everything ready. In the upcoming October and November organisational segments we will have the opportunity to further fine tune the outline for the outcome in order to have ready the product to be presented to the reconvene session in December. Now I would like to move to the other business items. As mentioned on Tuesday, I would like to briefly touch on several issues. The first one is the preparations for the 61. reconvened session in December. As you will recall it was agreed by the CND at the reconvene 60th session of December 2017, the date for the reconvene 61th session are the 6th and 7th of December. Some of the members of the bureau have announced as well that there will depart Vienna in the second part of the year and some of the regional groups will therefore have to nominate bureau members for the remaining period of the 61th session. We have already been notified of the nomination of his excellency ambassador Monsieur Ahmad Khan, permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN Vienna for the position of the second vice chair for the remaining period of the 61th session. The election will happen at the opening of the reconvene 61th session in December. I invite the other regional groups concerned to come up with nominees to take vacant post as soon as possible.

Now I would like to move to a special segment on 5th of December. As it was decided at the 25th of June intersessional meeting of the commission, we will all have during the reconvene session of the 61th session an additional meeting to broader the preparations for the ministerial segment in March 2019. General assembly sitting arrangements will be used. The proposed program of the work of the special segment in December is: opening of the special segment, the adoption of the agenda and other organizational matters, the general debate on the preparations for the ministerial segment and other business. And of course, the closure of the special segment – no comments from the floor.

Now I will move to the item regarding joint meetings with the CCPCJ on 6th of December. In line with the ECOSOC decision 2011/259 on 7th December the CND will hold two meetings jointly with the CCPCJ for the purpose of considering the items included in the operational segment in the agendas of both commissions. With regard to the agenda item entitled Policy directives to the drug program of the office and strengthening the drug program and the role of the CND as its governing body including administrative budgetary strategic management questions, their commission will have before it a report of the executive director on the implementation of the consolidated budget for 2018/2019. The UN Office on drugs which will also be discussed at FINGOV prior to the session in December. Pursuing to CND resolution 59/9 the commission will have before it at the reconvene session in December the report of the executive director on gender balance and geographic representation we think the UNODC.

I would further like to report that the commission will most likely also have before it a conference room paper relating to the strategic frame work for 2020 for UNODC. It is my understanding that this matter will also be discussed during the meetings of FINGOV prior the reconvene session in December. I kindly invite all the members of the commission to engage thoroughly with the FINGOV bearing in mind not only the importance of the issues at stake, but also for particular contexts for addressing those issues deriving by the ongoing reform process.

Now I will move to another item which is the separate CND meeting in the morning of the 7th of December. I would like to inform you that the morning session from 10am to 1pm on the 7th of December, will be devoted to a separate meeting. On that commission will consider the remaining the items on its agenda including agenda item 5 which deals with the implementation of the international drug control treaties. It is expected that pursuing to CND resolution 58/10 and following past practice our representative of the WHO will report to the commission at the time of the reconvened session about the outcome of the 40th meeting of the WHO expert committee on drug dependence which was held in Geneva from the 4th to the 7th this year and that was dedicated to the critical review of the cannabis plant and resin extracts and tinctures of cannabis delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and isomers of THC. The WHO will further brief the commission about the outcome of the 41st meeting of the ECDD which is scheduled to take place in Geneva in November 2018. In that meeting the committee is expected to undertake critical reviews of cannabis plant and resin extracts and tinctures of cannabis delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and isomers of THC as well as a number of new psychoactive substances NPS including Fentanyl analogues and other psychoactive substances.

Egypt: Can the secretariat kindly specify the exact date of the meeting in November?

Secretary: The information is already available on the website of the ECDD.

Iran: The findings of the ECDD: will it be directly shared with us or it is supposed to be discussed within the WHO frame?

Secretary: You had been already sent information about the outcome of the ECDD meeting.

There was a resolution a couple years ago in which the commission asks the WHO to provide information on the outcome of the ECDD meeting at the reconvened session. But so far, any communication will be the same as it was just a couple of weeks ago: ECDD informs WHO, WHO informs the secretary channel and the secretariat here on behalf of the secretary channel informs member states.

Chair: I would like to now move to the composition of the bureau of the 62th session of the CND. In this regard I would like to remind delegations that following the closure of the 61th session, the 62nd session will be open for the purpose of electing the chair, three vice chairs and the rapporteur for that session. The officers to be elected by the commission for 62nd session will be from regional groups as follows: the chair will be taken by the African group, the first vice chair by Asia Pacific group, the second vice chair by Eastern European group, the third vice chair by Western European and other states and the rapporteur by the Latin American and Caribbean states.

Secretary: Back to the question raised by Egypt. The dates are 12th to the 16th of November. I would like to inform the chair about something that is not a pleasant announcement. Since the beginning of this biannual we have explained again that the budget is not enough to cover the travel of all commissions. But until now we are receiving the same number of requests. Next year the budget will be cut another 10%. The measure we will do that in the upcoming session we will only cover economy class tickets.

Chair: Next agenda point: contributions to the work of the ECOSOC. The 2018 high level political forum was held in July 9 to 18th of July in New York and the theme was transformation toward sustainable and resilient societies. As chair of the CND I was invited to report on the work of the CND at its 61st session at the coordination management meeting of the ECOSOC. Action was taken by ECOSOC to consider the report of the CND on its 61st session as well as to approve the provisional agenda for the 62nd session. At that occasion also, there was a panel discussion with other chairs of the functional commissions including CCPCJ, the commission on the status of women and the UN statistical commission. On the 23rd of July the general assembly adopted resolution 72/305 entitled review of the implementation of general assembly resolution 68/1 on the strengthening of the ECOSOC that also deals with its subsidiary bodies. I have already identified the UN reform process as one of the key elements for a possible outline. The CND will have to reflect on the implications deriving from this resolution for its own working methods.

Moving on. I would like to inform you that an intergovernmental expert group meeting on international challenges posed by non-medical use of synthetic opioids will be convened on the 3rd to the 4th of December at the VIC here immediately preceding the recombine 61st session of the CND. The UNOCD was requested that together with the INCB and the WHO organize such meetings on the on medical use of synthetic opioids with a view to learn more about the challenges and to produce core elements for an international response. Invitations will be sent very soon. I would also like to announce that the subsidiary meeting of the CND will hold their next meeting in period ahead as follows HONLEA Asia Pacific will take place in Thailand from the 2nd to the 5th of October. HONLEA Latin America will take place in Chile from the 22nd to 26th of October. I also would like to announce that in line with past practice I will be providing a briefing to delegations in New York on 3rd of October, which is next Tuesday. Which is exactly one day before the 3rd committee of the general assembly will start considering its agenda item on international drug control.

Secretary: As Mr. Brandolino has informed you during the session in March, there is a lot of inter-agency work that has been ongoing in response to the goal that was made in the UNGASS document that UNODC and CND would enhance their cooperation with other entities. And what we have seen this week is that other UN entities are actively participating in the work of the CND – information will also be posted on our website. We will also encourage UN entities to provide information for inclusion in our good practices data base which is also available in our website. More information will follow in future meetings.

Chair: Any other issues? No. I would encourage all delegation to remain seated for the 3 civil society videos that have been sent in for our earlier debate on issues that have to deal with drugs and human rights.

Videos are on vngoc.org

Chair: Closing. In the next few days we will get in touch with all of you and we will work on tackling the world drug problem from a practical and realistic and human angle.

Chair:  Good morning, welcome back. Agenda adapted. Composition of the bureau – following of the election of the bureau, there is a pending nomination for second vice chair from Eastern European States, please inform the Secretariat ASAP.  The dates set for 62 session including the high level segment are: HLMS 14-15 March, Regular Session 18- 22 March, reconvened 12-13 December, 2019. We will also hold a series of intersessionals, the next ones will be held on the 25th , 29th February and 7th of March. Regarding the preparations for CND, the invitations for the HLMS were sent and the deadline of draft submissions will be 4 weeks prior of the commencement that is of 14 February. 1st of March to be informed about the rep for HLMS and whether they wish to address the Commission. All information are contained by the note circulated by the Secretariat. We will have minsters of Cabinets and Representatives of lower ministerial level. Should health of state or governance, they will need to submit their names on a separate box. During the general debate, statements are requested to be of 5 minutes – 500 words to allow time for everyone. Longer statements can be posted on the website of the Commission. Regarding the roundtables: the themes , as were agreed upon, pursuant of 61/10 resolution, each consist of a panel composed of 5 panellist nominated by the regional groups and one by CSTF and in addition it could include 2 speakers elected by UN. A rep from UNODC will make intro remarks. The names must be submitted a month before the commencement – 14 February.  Round-tables will be co-chaired by 2 reps of regional groups. Interventions are recommended to be limited to 5 minutes, interventions from the floor to 3 minutes. Chair will summarise and present to the plenary. Further info on the matter and organisation is contained in the note prepared by the Secretariat. I see no comments.
A summary by the chairs will be presented prior to the closure of the segment. I hope that is acceptable.

During HLMS, member states called for a short concise and action oriented outcome that will send a strong political message and I am pleased to say we are progressing and are in a positive spirit. We are building on the work of the 61st session and I want to express my sincere appreciate for the work of the previous chair. Building on the feedback received on the skeleton, a zero draft document was shared with the permanent missions last Monday. We take general comments today, we will have an informal meeting to discuss this tomorrow, so we will not go into a para by para work today.  With the consent of the Africa group, Ambassador Vivian Okeke of Nigeria will support me as a facilitator in the upcoming negotiations. We will only go into the first reading tomorrow, but I am happy to take any general comments right now. I open the floor for statements.

Japan: Thank you for your guidance & commending the work of Ambassador Buenrostro Massieu. Balanced document well developed on the skeleton we discussed last year. We welcome the process in which it was developed, and we are preparing in an optimistic spirit for the 62nd session. Also, the volume of the document is appropriate, but we have to keep in mind that it is a ministerial declaration, we are not making a new policy document, so we should think about setting a page limit. We don’t want to see a long document and self-repetition. We are not making a new policy document, we don’t have to repeat all the elements, we don’t have to reference all policy items. All MS have important issues, but if we want to mention all of them, we miss the purpose of the exercise. Regarding the political message, this is not a working level document, so the message is very important – from that standpoint, it would be appropriate to highlight 6 and 7 paragraphs of the political declaration: promoting and protecting health and well-being of humanity & society free of drug abuse so people can live in health and prosperity, social problems, health and so on. This would be very much appropriate as a political statement and I suggest we bring this to the top of the preamble. Without increasing the volume, we can strengthen the political message this way. Given the characteristics of the meeting, several issues are of high importance to mention: single-track, data collection, new target date – these are the key issues form the standpoint of my delegation. We should stick to this as a core.

Romania, on behalf of the European Union: The EU and its Member States would like to thank you for guiding our work towards a successful Ministerial Segment of the 62nd CND session. First of all, allow me to express our sincere appreciation for the ambitious and speedy manner in which you are conducting the consultation process. The informal brainstorming that you have organised and the draft skeleton of the ministerial document that you have kindly shared with delegations have been particularly helpful and have enabled our collective work to start on a positive track in the beginning of this new year. We strongly believe that our joint efforts, in line with the principle of common and shared responsibility, should be focused on achieving a balanced ministerial outcome document, to address the world drug situation in an effective and sustainable manner by 2030. We, the EU and its Member States, are glad to see that a number of important issues are covered by the zero draft. We are looking into it carefully and will be actively contributing to the consultations. For the time being, the EU and its Member States would like to reiterate the elements that we believe shall be the foundations of the outcome document of the Ministerial Segment. First, the EU and its Member States fully support the principal role of the CND and UNODC as the policy-making bodies and leading entities for addressing and countering the world drug problem. It is key for the CND and UNODC to further engage with all relevant UN entities, including the WHO, UNDP, UNAIDS, UN Women and OHCHR. Second, it is important to commit to implementing the UNGASS Outcome Recommendations in order to obtain concrete improvements and measurable progress by 2030. UNGASS broadened global drug policy, through putting an adequate focus on both demand reduction and supply reduction. We strongly believe that equal efforts shall be invested in all areas of drug policy, in full respect of the UN Drug Conventions. Building on evidence on their effectiveness, we commit to minimize the adverse public health and social consequences of drug use by effectively implementing harm reduction policies. These policies represent a key measure in reducing the incidence of HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis and other blood-borne diseases. At the same time, they promote the respect of human rights of people affected by drug problems. The UNGASS Outcome Document addresses the health side of the drugs problem: effective access to and availability of controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes, vulnerable members of society, emerging and persistent challenges and threats, and the link to human rights and the relevant Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time, the UNGASS Outcome Document also reaffirms the unwavering commitment to the UN drug conventions, supply reduction and related measures, including a call to implement effective law enforcement, to counter money-laundering and to promote judicial cooperation. Therefore, the UNGASS Outcome Document is the most recent consensus and the most comprehensive agreement of the international community in the field of drugs. It is a milestone and a progressive step towards the improvement of the current situation on international drug policy. Third, the EU and its Member States uphold the principle of adequate, proportionate and effective response to drug-related offences, as highlighted in all UN documents on drug policy. We have a strong and unequivocal opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances and we consider that the death penalty undermines human dignity. Fourth, CND’s commitment to contribute to the attainment of the drug-related Sustainable Development Goals should be reaffirmed. It is important to implement the UNGASS Outcome Recommendations in line with the relevant SDGs of the 2030 Agenda, bearing in mind that the efforts to effectively address the world drug problem and to achieve the relevant SDGs are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Fifth, the EU and its Member States advocate for an integrated, balanced, and evidence- based approach. Collecting relevant and reliable data is essential to get a better overview of the drug situation worldwide, and to allow for evidence-based policy-making. Improving the quality and effectiveness of the Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ) and enhancing the capacity of countries to report data is crucial, as the ARQ is the necessary tool to report on the implementation of the international commitments to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem. This is why the document to be adopted by the Ministers in March 2019 shall prioritize to enhance data collection, improve capacity building, and strengthen and streamline the ARQ. Sixth, it is important to commit to the continued involvement of civil society, academia, scientific community and all relevant stakeholders in the deliberations on the international drugs policy, as they play a crucial role in providing knowledge, hands on experience and scientific evidence, respectively in support of the evaluations of drug control policies and programmes, and therefore in assessing and addressing the world drug situation. Through their efforts on raising awareness on the harmful effects of drugs and drug use and through the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services for people who use drugs, civil society demonstrates it`s important role in preventing drug use. Distinguished Chairman, Distinguished Facilitator, The EU and its Member States are pleased to continue to support you in the efforts of preparing a meaningful and action-oriented ministerial document, which broadly reflects the aforementioned elements. We are pleased to continue to work closely with you in the challenging task of defining a ministerial document which reflects a balanced, comprehensive and evidenced-based approach. Thank you very much.

Nigeria: Thank you for your trust in nominating me to work on the draft and I express my appreciation for the work of the previous Chair. I call on all the delegates to give their support for the good short and concise document with a strong political message. I would like to see at the end of our efforts that we met our goals and fight the world drug problem.

Afghanistan: We don’t have many things say – about the political message, we believe in its importance and we shouldn’t keep it only as a message, we need clear commitments on the political level that are measurable and guarantee that this will be delivering something in achieving our goals, otherwise it is just words. We strongly agree with the delegation of Romania in reaffirming UNGASS, it is the most recent document indeed but unsure about 2009 as we need to reevaluate the goals. There are differences between UNODC and EU reports, UNODC is the most reliable for us, but they need support from the MS. So, it is important to create measures that guarantees UNODC’s enhanced and independent data collection and reporting. These are the most reliable data on the planet and we should keep them away from the influence of states – the strong, the small, the good, the bad. We welcome Europol latest report, it clearly says there are a lot of heroin routes across Europe. Compared to the ones in our region are miniscule but we commend the EU’s transparency and genuine treatment of this issue and we encourage other states to do the same instead of playing the victim and destroying the true picture. A new regime to solve the problem should be adopted, it is all of our problems – we can’t close our eyes to it. Thank you.

Pakistan: We sincerely commend your work in preparing the draft.  We have mixed feelings – we are satisfied and concerned, we are also optimistic and fully prepared. We are happy that we have in our hands a good starting point, a document we can build on and transform it to an ambitious declaration. We are satisfied because the zero draft contains many important elements that were previously highlighted on the floor, including Pakistan. We are sad because some of the points, some points that we debated in lengths, core issues are not reflected. We are concerned that the operative part doesn’t contain strong and clear ambitious political messages. It is not just a routine resolution, this should be an important reference doc for the next 10 years. We would like this to contain strong political messages. We are surprised… we seen elements that are not part of the mainstream debate, for example we don’t understand where the notion comes from regarding single track goals. We look forward to a more specific discussion tomorrow.

Russia:  We expected to provide addition impetus… The nature of the ministerial document implies necessity of strong political measures. We see a potential for further discussions. This should be strong concise and action oriented and also strengthen commitments and guide the international community. The zero draft contains most elements we discussed, and it is a good starting point. Let me comment on some elements that are of utmost importance to my delegation: the goal of eliminating or eliminate or significantly reduce drug markets, production, trafficking, consuming etc.  We need more consolidated efforts from all stakeholders and send a strong message to the international community, so we welcome the inclusion of those goals in the document. The UNGASS document developed technical tools to achieve those goals and offers strategies. The paragraph 8, way forward, seems controversial. We don’t believe that in 2 years the time will be right to revise these goals. As expressed by many delegations, the emphasis beyond 2019 should be on implementation on bridging gaps. We should be more precise what we mean by bridging gaps and new challenges – plant based drugs should not be overlooked, they continue to pose serious threats to our societies. In our view, one of the most serious threats is posed by the legalisation of drugs, it cannot be tolerated or excused by our community. The document should put emphasis on complying to the conventions. We thank you for your efforts, Mr. Chair.

USA: Thank you for the draft, we support the document overall. The key is the high level political message – each of the pivotal points not just in the US but in this room. This should be ambitious to curve the drug problem but recognise to be effective, governments should implement national. We recognise that this current draft affirms support for conventions and 2009, 2014 and 2016 – the latest consensus. These serve as the framework to guide our work and underscores the leading role of CND, UNODC, INCB and WHO. Protecting these will be a US red line in the future. The political commitment should carry beyond 2019: urgent and intensified national action including multilateral cooperation. On data collection, we should include specific guidelines. Any language in the deliverable should not stray too far in the weeds. Regarding the single track approach, we do believe this could be based on the OP1 60/1 – the efforts to streamline ARQ, share data already collected and consider that MS will continue to find solutions on the next intergovernmental meetings on ARQ. 2030 data and single-track should be separate. CND work requires specific expertise, the 2030 is wide ranging. Here we should focus on drug, a too wide. Many aspects of our work is related to the broader agenda but we should focus so we can work on an expert level. CND regular session can serve as a vehicle to operationalise this intensified collaboration to discuss technical level resolutions and real action to address health and well-being, in particular youth our most precious asset.

Turkey: Thank you & welcome the draft. We are disappointed that there is no paragraphs mentioning the connection to other forms of crime. We know terrorist groups benefit from drugs and this linkage is one of the reasons we cannot achieve our goals. I will address this more specifically tomorrow.

Egypt: Thanks, and well wishes for the Chair. The zero draft is an excellent base for our deliberations in the coming weeks. The main points we think are crucial to highlight are: need to continue to achieve a society free of drug abuse, universal adherence to the conventions and full implementation is key to the functioning of the international drug control system – especially following 2009, 2014, 2016, these are complimentary and mutually enforcing documents, so we should focus on a single track approach. Achieving that approach, we reaffirm our commitments to the goals in the political declaration … and op 36. This will get our efforts streamlined with the ARQ reflecting it. Thank you again for your work, we fully support your work Mr. Chair.

Singapore: Thank you, generally we are happy with the document, it is comprehensive and balanced, but we believe can work towards a better document. We think a strong political message is appropriate as this will serve as a reference point for the coming years.

Algeria: MS have different positions it seems some of those are not included in here, but we see the zero draft as a good starting point. We are satisfied with the structure, we see the conventions are mentioned as a cornerstone and full respect to the sovereignty of states. We noticed that the security based approach should be more balanced, and I join the delegation of Turkey emphasising the linkage of drug trafficking to other crimes. Further comments will be proved tomorrow.

Portugal: We fully align with EU. Inter-agency cooperation deserves a clear deference in the document. Reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in is missing – the reduction of suffering and stigma is an important goal. Regarding the, ARQ I will not repeat what others have said, but maybe we clear up what one-track means. We understand the balance you try to strike in here, but we think a reference to a specific op is not suitable for a ministerial document.

Namibia: Thank you for your work, supporting Chair.

Italy: Fully aligned with EU statement & thanks, we welcome the zero draft. There are many elements that should be easy to find consensus on as it is based on agreed language. On the other hand, there are aspects that probably requires more in-depth discussion. We would like to see a more prominent standing for UNGASS recommendations, this is not simple a document among the others, but a milestone, the most recent consensus as recognised by this Commission. It is the most comprehensive set of commitments, it has been recognised that its implementation contributes to 2009. We need to make sure the langue in this document is suitable for a high level ministerial declaration and we are afraid some elements reflect technical level conversations, in particular singling out a paragraph and the single track… we need to refine the language and put these into context. It’s important to reference the determination of MS to work together to combat national and trans-national criminal organisations – this could be one of the underlying political messages we consider important. We are optimistic and look forward to contributing further.

Austria: Thanks. We see a fruitful continuation of the previous sessions and happy to enter into this year. We align ourselves with the EU statement and want to echo US, Japan, Turkey, Italy but we will go into detail tomorrow. Regarding the structure, we support the idea of highlighting the political message and agree that some of the text might be a bit too technical. Focus on international cooperation might be a good idea, mutual assistance should be stressed also with UN agencies. As a political message, referencing criminal groups and the linkage to drug issues… we have to think about what kind of press release could come out of the segment. We also have to underline that we have two target groups when we discuss the world drug problems: victims who need our support, we want to see their protection highlighted, and crime groups.

Germany: Thank you for producing this zero draft. Addition to the EU statement, along with Pakistan and Italy, we remark that the length of the document is basis for happiness, but the language lacks the character of message and political resolve. We have to work together to include this. One, to the wider public, dramatically increase our commitment and resources. Second, addressing young people, target group pf utmost importance, message of prevention and taking care of our youth. In this sense, some references to previous documents don’t fit in this document. Japan and Austria, the first 10 lines are the most important and we have to focus the core of the message there.

Netherlands: Align to EU. Zero draft builds well on our previous discussions. I don’t have detailed instructions yet but tomorrow we can discuss the details. From the Dutch perspective, we think a certain balance is missing in the document. We see UNGASS as the most recent and comprehensive agreement and it is not reflected here, in particular attention to human rights which is key to the functioning of the drug control system. IT is a ministerial document, so I agree the language needs to be less technical and it should start with clear political messages. One of the main elements that we have to work on beyond 209 is the single track approach but it will be difficult for minsters to work with this if we don’t define what we mean by this. We think more should be added to this element besides data collection.

Morocco: Thanks, good basis. Three political documents are important. The UNGASS represents the latest consensus, we should focus more on this as it captures new realities and details operational recommendations. We agree with Japan and assure you of our full support Mr. Chair.

Guatemala: We agree with Austria and Germany, we have to start the declaration by showing strength and saying what we are willing to do and the goals we are trying to achieve besides the 2030 agenda. We are ready to work.

Jordan: Support for the zero draft.

Tunisia: Good work on the zero draft, looking forward to the further debates.

Mexico: Thank you for your kind works, support for your work Mr. Chair the fine tuning will be easier with this basis, including gender and prevention, the draft goes in the right direction in setting the tone for the future work for the commission. Data collection

Brazil: Thanks, and support. I will make specific recommendations tomorrow, today I welcome the draft and your work. We echo previous statements about the language and political messages, so this is suitable for a ministerial level discussion. We have to work on translating the message to translate to the work outside of the CND and position these on top of the text. We feel we should highlight UNGASS as the most recent consensus and the work that can be done to implement the recommendations.

China: Thank you for the zero draft, it is a good basis, we fully support your leadership. We will provide our comments tomorrow.

France: Fully aligned to the EU and thank you for your work. Utmost importance to commitment to implement the recommendations of the UNGASS outcome document that focuses on the health aspect of the world drug situation, it is a milestone therefore it is not only the most recent consensus but a most comprehensive policy document. Our priority should be taking stock of this implementation. To achieve a meaningful work, we have to strengthen data collection and improve capacity building and streamline the ARQ. Human rights have to be mentioned and promote proportional sentencing and policies responding to drug related offences, this has been emphasised by the INCB in November and he has particularly stressed the importance of human rights, he invited MS to abolish the death penalty. We need to recognise the important contribution if civil society, academia and the scientific community and their meaningful involvement has to be emphasised Inter-agency cooperation and other international and regional organisations is a key element in achieving a comprehensive work in the next decade. Joint commitments and progress toward addressing the root causes of the world drug problem should be considered. We look forward to working with you on this.

Australia: We consider this document to be a balanced one and a good starting point. We look forward to a meaningful HLMS and further international cooperation. Heading into CND 62, we are focused on international drug control regime, 2009 and 2016 – we consider these complimentary and don’t see a need to negotiate a new policy document at CND but more on the implementation. Access to controlled drugs, cross cutting issues – human rights with focus on vulnerable groups and we aim to build on previous efforts.

Uruguay: Thank you. UNODC and INCB – we have to say something about what happened in the last 10 years, the progress and failures to have a clear picture of where we are and where we want to go. Uruguay thinks we need to have more emphasis on human rights in the declaration, and mention the abolishment of death penalty. We don’t think a mentioning of a specific paragraph is needed as we have the UNGASS outcome document to reference. We have to think about the language, but we need to look forward too.

Colombia: Thank you and we support your work. This is a great starting point, concise, compact and action oriented. There are two issues that are not mentioned, and we think should be considered: NPS and the use of IT in drug trafficking. Traffickers are always one or more steps ahead of us. We are discussing policies that don’t take into account new trends. There is no normal process for CND in preparation for the next decade, we should allow all delegations to speak their own languages.

Iran: Thank you for your work, good base for negotiations. We have happiness and concerns as Pakistan, we will share it in detail tomorrow.

Philippines: Congratulations on your work, we fully support the Chair. In as much this is a ministerial statement, strong message in combatting the world drug problem, we wish to point out the key elements we believe are: comprehensive balanced approach, focusing on supply and demand reduction, emphasize on effectivity of supply reduction strategy, taking away the reach of the public with particular focus on youth. Drugs know no border so international collaboration, capacity building technical assistance, data sharing is important.

Thailand: Thank you for this good basis of discussions. We attach great importance to these elements: strong, simple, universal political message and the placement of these on the top of the document; focus on unresolved significant issues, such as the implementation of the single-track approach and how to improve data collection. We will share detailed recommendations in the days to come.

Ecuador: This draft zero is a good basis, the way forward section will be ratified by the ministers, so it needs to include a strong political message.

Chair: There are no other flags raised, so I will inform you all that following the proposal of the Mexican delegation, we invited Ms. Me to present on data collection. We will also have a statement from VNGOC in the agenda point other business.

Changes in the scope of control in the scope of substances – Secretariat to update.

Secretariat: In response of the many requests, we have been following up with the WHO referencing their presentation at the reconvened. The inquiries regarding the timing of when we can receive the notification of the WHO, the recommendation 41 ECDD are undergoing a clearance press, there is not much I can say at this time. As soon as we receive any notification from the DG of the WHO that will be brought immediately to your attention.

Egypt: Having a decision on the recommendation at CND – is there a specific time in which the WHO has to present their recommendation so that they will be taken up at the regular session?

Secretariat: Conventions themselves don’t set a specific timeline, but the commission has been looking at it and there is a resolution that encouraged WHO, I can share this resolution after the meeting, to share the notification 3 months in advance to give enough time to MS to make informed decisions. It will be up to the commission to decide if it wants to take any decisions or ant to postpone their consideration.

Egypt: Are there any precedents of postponing to the reconvened for example?

Secretariat: In recent history we have not been in a similar situation. The meeting of the ECDD took place relative late in the year… the ECDD as such is an advisory body for the WHO, the notification has to come from WHO itself. As far as I can go back in history, there is no precedent … to be honest, we don’t know if the notification will come in a matter of days to we have to give time to the WHO too.

Chair: ECOSOC has invited us last year to input on the thematic review on the high level political forum – a central forum for the 2030 follow-up. It will meet in New York 9-18 July 2019 with the ministerial segment 16-18. 70/1 HLPF conducts thematic reviews on SDGs including cross cutting issues to be supported by functional commissions. It seems to be empowering people and ensure qualities, it will review SDG4, 8, 10, 13, 16. The secretariat will prepare a draft thru the chairs of regional groups, 10 January I participated with CCPJ vice chair in the annual discussion with the expert bodies and functional commissions.

Secretariat: As we are waiting for Ms. Me, to give information on side events during CND62, the guidelines were shared on the 28th of November. Application period January 7th to 24th. Within the 1st week, we received 73 applications for which 12 were eligible for high level events.
As to what ministerial participation means, it is cabinet ministers. When it comes to events during the regular session, they are also accommodated on the first come first serve basis.

VNGOC: Vienna Civil Society Hearing 26th February, 10:00-13:00, C1 VIC

Angela Me, UNODC: On the work responding to review existing data collection: July 8-10 an expert consultation: invite national experts to take recommendations and how concretely these can translate to capacity building & ARQ review. We are preparing a draft with UNODC to prepare for this. We have submitted a paper to the UN Statistical Commission on drug statistics, this should be out soon on the website. Basically, we recall all what happened in Vienna and the importance of 2019. It is for the Statistical Commission how they can support our work, for example, national experts would like to be included to benefit from statistical expertise. SDG indicators relevance for drugs, we tried to promote that agencies that report on SGD indicators relevant to drug use they could desegregate the data by drug use to complement the work we do with the ARQ… of course we should avoid data duplication, so the group that oversees that data collection have made a call to consider desegregating data collection regarding people who use drugs.

Chair: I open the floor for comments

Austria: Date of the statistical committee’s meeting?

Angela Me: 5th of March.

Chair: Any other business?

Secretariat:  Due to our financial situation, the travel budget is on a strong decrease. We have been receiving travel support requests, we can only provide those who really need support, with economy class tickets.

Mexico […]

Chair: About tomorrow’s informal: we will read the document para by para and will be chaired by ambassador Okeke. Meeting adjourned.

Chair: Welcome. Adopting agenda. As for preparations for HLMS, I would like to remind delegations that the session is from 9:30 on the 14th  of March in the plenary hall of the M building. We will start with the formal election of the permanent representative of Croatia who has been nominated for the position of second Vice chair by the Eastern European groups. Opening of the HLMS: there will be a ceremonial followed by a formal opening, short statements will be delivered by a representative of the scientific community, youth, civil society. Governments were invited to inform the Secretary of their ministerial delegation, I was informed we had 35 nominations for ministerial speakers at cabinet rank. We have in total 102 speakers. Mr Evo Morales Ayma president of Bolivia & Pravind Jugnauth, prime minster of Mauritius are also to be expected at the session. Today we are drawing lots for the other speakers – the names participating have been prior communicated – E/CN/2019/10. The afternoon sessions will continue into the evening after a short break, due to the long list of speakers. Chief of protocol at UNOV is present to assist us moving on to the drawing of lots. (MS taking slots). Speakers not present will be moved to the next slot on an ongoing basis. Change of slots is possible according to the UN protocol. Representatives other organizations, including civil society, will be assigned in accordance with the rules of procedure – pending time on a first come first serve basis. Regarding the general debate, the statements are requested to be kept to 5 minutes long to enable everyone time. More extensive texts can be made available online and all statements will be made public on the CND website. A summary by the chair on the plenary of the HLMS will be presented at the end of a session. I will make these remarks that are not subject to negotiation. Regarding the roundtable discussion that will be held parallel to the plenary, the themes were already agreed upon as such: (1) taking stock of all commitments, (2) safeguarding the future. Each roundtable shall consist of 5 panelists nominated by the regional groups and one by the CSTF. In addition, speakers will be nominated by UN agencies who are selected on a first come first serve basis. Assigning of co-chairs has been done by the drawing of lots: (1) a representative from the Ministry of Health, Norway of Western European Group and a representative from the Eastern European Group, (2) Mexico of Latin America and Caribbean and Asia Pacific Group. We are still missing a few names so MS are hereby encouraged to share the names There will be no list of speakers after the panel and the floor will be opened by the co-chairs. Speakers will be raising their flags in indication of request to speak, no prior application necessary. All interested delegations will be able to follow and participate in board room A. A summary of the event will be prepared by the co-chairs. About Ministerial Declaration: We have been engaged in a very intensive negotiation process over the past few weeks. Thank you Ambassador Okeke for facilitating these negotiations.

Nigeria: We are still finishing the declaration. We made good progress yesterday, we worked very late and so I would like to thank the work of Ambassadors who were invested in finding a middle ground though the work was at times tedious. The appeals to keep the Vienna spirit of consensus have been fruitful and later today I am hopeful that we will be able to finish up. I would like to appeal to those delegations that are holding on to their strong positions that they should help us conclude these lengthy negotiations. We still have 3 paragraphs to close and when you invited me to address the floor, I was actually right outside talking to delegations. Please ambassadors, reach out to colleagues so we can resume our work today and conclude the debates on the paragraphs. We can’t have 100% satisfaction regarding our countries’ satisfaction, it is a matter of compromise. The world drug problem is very important to each and every one of us so I would like to remind you of the saying about the water and the baby. Thank you for giving me the floor.

Chair: With these words, I move on from this item and suspend the debate on the preparation for the HLMS until tomorrow morning at 10 am. The informals will be held today, you will be notified later on. Can we agree to this? It is so decided. Preparations for the 62nd CND. As you recall, we agreed that on behalf of the commission, I submit a draft decision: CND decides to postpone the decision regarding the critical review on Cannabis and related substances to allow more time to consider the decisions to be made. There are states who have preferences for the voting to take place at the reconvened session while some other have a preference for this to take place during the 63rd session. I propose that CND doesn’t vote at the upcoming session and will decide later on about the date of the decision. The text of the decision is made available online and will need to be formally acted upon during consideration 9a. This will be considered on the morning of the 19of March while the COW is suspended so all delegations can focus on this issue. The voting procedure was presented at our last meeting and it is made available online. I am pleased to have Justice Tettey from the laboratory section of UNODC with us here today.

Justice Tettey, UNODC: Proposed scope of control of substances. Colleagues outlined this matter last time so today I am giving a short primer on the substances we are to consider.  Overview of the situation leading to the decision by the WHO: there is a trend in NPS. Since 2009, we have gone up to hundreds of monitored NPS, with the peak in 2015. We are currently in a plateau state but if we believe the trends we’ve seen, we are reaping the benefits of controlling efforts coming from CND and member states. The entire story also needs to mention synthetic opioids – there is an exponential grow and this is tied to opioid fatalities. Earlier this week, UNODC released the current NPS Threats in line with UNGASS decision to identify the most prevalent and harmful NPS. What we captured in this study is that we are experiencing a lot of issues with synthetic cannabinoids that are involved in most NPS deaths. Looking at the scheduling decisions since 2015, you see the increasing of the work of CND. This year, WHO decided to look into four synthetic cannabinoids and opioids as well as one cathinol. In the 1961 convention, Schedule 1 contains the most harmful drugs like heroin, you are now requested to add four fentanyls. If you decide so, these substances will be restricted to medical use and manufacture and moving will be very restricted. Measures will be implemented to restrict countries’ activities. In the 1971 convention, for schedule 2, you are considering four synthetic cannabinoids and one synthetic cathinone. If you decide to accept the recommendations, you are looking at limitations to medical and scientific use, controls on manufacture, trade and distribution and will keep strict records and reports.  Regarding certain precursors, we are looking at the tables in the 1988 conventions. In table 1, pre-precursors for the manufacture of ecstasy and amphetamines are recommended to be placed. Similar compounds are to be considered for table 2. From the scientific point of view, there is nothing unusual. The parties shall take measures to prevent diversions to illicit handling of these substances and cooperate one-another to that end as well as reporting to INCB. In terms of the timeline of implementation, under ’61, the decision will kick in after a month of the decision. For ’71 and ’88 it takes about 180 days.

Mexico: Can we be guided to the beginning of the presentation about the scourge of NPS? For what could be the reasons for the plateau you mentioned lack of innovating from producers. There is a possibility that the innovation is actually, in the contrary, so high that there are so many that we don’t detect them because of the fragmentation of NPS. I am looking here to enhance our understanding of the issue.

Justice Tettey, UNODC: There are multiple reasons, you are right. Some components are that most MS used to respond with individual scheduling of substances. Some don’t stay on the market because of user preferences, but perhaps something critical was in the measures taken on the national level – analogue scheduling. Chemists can’t play around blanket bans. This is not a procedure we can take on an international level because the conventions are calling to consider substances one by one and we have to look at access to medical and scientific use in each case. To balance this approach, the decision from UNGASS was to look at the most prevalent and harmful substances so we are looking at hospitalisations, fatalities, etc. For countries it is important to work with analogue legislation.

Chair: Preparation for the work of the Committee of the Whole – draft resolutions and decisions. I thank the first vice chair for being able to chair the COW. The COW will start on the 18th of March at 3pm in line with past practice. By 14th February, we received 8 draft resolutions tabled by MS – they have all been posted on the CND’s website in various languages. I invite sponsors to start informal consultations as soon as possible, the 14th of March provides a great opportunity, for example, to present their drafts. Provisional agenda for the 63rd session of the CND needs to be agreed upon under agenda item 15 during the 62nd session. It was shared with the extended bureau and chairs of the regional groups were asked to discuss this within their groups and submit comments latest by tomorrow noon. In terms of other business, as far as side events during the 62nd session are concerned, during the application period, the secretary has received over 100 valid applications. The program is made available on the website of the CND. Contribution to the EcoSoc. To contribute to the HLPF, we were invited and greed to follow the practice of previous years. The CND contribution, implemented all comments received by the deadline, is already submitted. If there are no further comments, we will meet tomorrow morning to adopt the declaration. Thank you.

Secretary: Under Ambassador Okeke’s leadership, informals will be conducted today at 4pm and we will resume the intersessional tomorrow at 10am.

Chair: Apologies for the delay. In continuance of yesterday, we agreed to suspend the meeting to consider the 2019 Ministerial Declaration. I will give the floor to facilitator, Ambassador Okeke now.

Amb. Okeke, Nigeria: I happily report we were able to conclude the informal consultations on the draft declaration yesterday night by 9:50pm. I know we have spent a lot of time this morning waiting for this so listen to me, I consider this effort a milestone in my diplomatic career.  It was a long and laborious negotiation starting last December. As a chair of the Africa group, it was our responsibility to find the chair for the next period. Ad the time the Chais was the only viable candidate we could find, he just arrived to Vienna at the time, The rest of the ambassador decided that since he is new I should assist him. With full support from African colleagues, we started to work based on the wonderful work of previous chair. There were debates and either the room is divided or the proposals don’t meet consensus. The task we had was to ensure delegation meet at the table. I must applaud the work of the ESPAS who spent countless times each of you repeat themselves asserting their positions and also delegations who brought some sense of focus. Some delegations here decided to be a punching bag so I appreciate your patience. The most acknowledgement goes to delegations who tried to build consensus and peace, find solutions, Ambassadors from Japan, Russia, Italy, Finland, France, Portugal, Peru, Mexico, New Zealand, Austria, UAE, Egypt and numerous female ambassadors who put in the work and encouraged me. Thank you today on International Women’s Day. I also thank the Secretary of the UNODC, UNODC and the team for your support. Some asked if the declaration is even needed. If there is something to take away in all of this is the unwavering commitment to respond to the world drug problem. No one is immune to this scourge. Some are remotely some are closely connected, the issues come in many forms but we are all in this together. So I congratulate all of us for the teamwork we demonstrated. We are making an effort, we don’t guarantee that we will solve it, but we are making an effort. Ambassador of Singapore, Colombia, Algeria, Uruguay, USA, Norway, Iran, SA. Thank you for giving Africa this moment. Now I present the report formally to the Chair.

Chair: Thank you ambassador Okeke for your dedication for facilitating this work and the Secretariat for their support. Thank you, all delegations, for the flexibility shown during the consultations. I propose that the Commission to endorse the text of the draft declaration. Do we agree to that? (APPLAUSE) Happy International Women’s Day. Now I open the floor for statements, please keep it short.

Japan: Thank you for your work, we are in good shape for next week. Openness, leadership, dedication, great stewardship, flexibility – it is good that CND is able to come up with a single voice to the World that we are able to address this challenge of drug. It is a good reflection of Vienna based diplomacy.

Nigeria: We should all be proud of what we’ve achieved. The last few months were spent in tireless efforts and sleepless nights, we were not always looking at each other with smiles but we kept solidarity and determination. Before we reached the consensus, only a few believed it was possible. I had to approach Afghanistan to ensure we will have an outcome document and he showed his willingness and comradeship a few hours later. Your leadership and the transparent process and passion will go down in history, Ambassador Okeke. I will not forget the efforts of the Secretary, when she spent additional hours preparing for meetings after everyone went home at 11pm. I am sure it will not go unrewarded. Chair of CND, I applaud your leadership from behind the scenes.

Italy: The list of colleagues we need to thank has to start with the ambassador of Mexico. She paved the way to the result we achieved today. We demonstrated that even on difficult issues, there are common denominators that can lead the way for cooperation. I congratulate our facilitator and you. I hope our ministers will be happy with what we had done.

3rd Vice Chair (Italy) assumes Chair

Egypt: I am not sure where to start, the beginning and ending of any speech on this declaration should honor our facilitator. This paper was so many times in jeopardy – many people doubted it will happen and it is you that made it possible. This is not only an achievement, it is proof how African ladies can work, we are very proud of you as part of the African group. It is this group of people who are sitting here who were able to produce this paper and this goes to show that despite our differences, we can work together.

Mexico: Thank you for your wonderful efforts as facilitator. All delegates have been working very hard, I know each of you by name by now. On women’s day I want to acknowledge the Secretariat too. This is a work done by all of us – multilateralism has won. Let’s keep on working together.

Chile: Thank you everyone.

Colombia: I commend the endurance, the vision […] of Ambassador Okeke.

Afghanistan: Thank you for your committed and patient leadership, Ms Okeke.

Singapore: We’d just like to add our voice to the chorus appreciating your work, the chair and of the Secretariat’s.

South Africa: I want to congratulate that we have all women on the podium today. Applause. Thanks to the Secretariat a lot! Thanks for the flexibility of the delegations, the chair for his leadership but most importantly, our heroine, Ambassador Okeke – you’ve done Africa proud.

Portugal: It was the last two female chairs of CND and madame facilitator that had lead the way of the success today.  

Russia: Fantastic job in our efforts moving towards a world free of drug abuse.

United States: Joining in the chorus to thank the women in leading us through this long road. As a female diplomate, I want to point out that the leadership of other ambassadors has been a positive example for all of us.

Peru: Thank you.

Brazil: Thank you. This is the main event to showcase female leadership.

Guatemala: Thank you, magnificent job. We are pleased to see this document, it doesn’t reflect everything we wanted but it is safe, encourages and showcases to the world the strength of the Vienna consensus. Recognising that I came from a woman and she came from a woman, I would like to recognise your ladies’ leadership.

Germany: I have the feeling there were not so many countries from the EU thanking you. I think we were very vocal in asserting our positions in the process so now I want to add my voice here and be vocal about our gratitude. We are impressed how the CND has been chaired in the last few years by female leaders.

Austria: Many words have been said today, so … flowers and applause.

Uruguay: Joining in the round of gratitude, especially thanks to Vivian Okeke and the staff of Nigeria.

Algeria: Thank you.

Argentina: Thank you.

Ambassador Okeke, Nigeria: Thank you – multilateralism is the way to go. We have to solve the world drug problem together Thanks for those who paves the way before me, those who encouraged me and those who have worked tirelessly in achieving this paper. Thanks for the drafters too.

Chair: Meeting adjourned.

[Group photo taken.]

Chair – Today is time for the Organizational Segment. This is our 4th day of the 4th intersessional meeting. We listened to interesting presentations and it was an interactive, dynamic session. I thank you for your cooperation. Proposed agenda for HLMS has to be decided in December. I hope today will prevail as an opportunity to discuss the way ahead.
We have a clear framework to address the world drug problem, but the execution differ on the ground. Our challenge is to better organize the ministerial segment to ensure most participation possible. Now, regarding the themes, we got a preliminary proposal, based on which, I would like to submit my suggestions. I remember getting to a point of almost consensus last March but I did listen to you and it seems there are ideas floating in this room. For the round-tables: 2019 target date for taking stock, road ahead for fostering our efforts to counter the world drug problem. I would take this proposals forward but I would like to hear from you first. I will be available to receive additional input, but any further inputs should be shared by Friday the 2nd of November to allow time for the Secretariat to adequately prepare. For the outline of the way beyond 2019, I express my deepest appreciation for all delegations to engage in constructive dialogues, the views and suggestions were of great benefit to this presidency, we came out with a clearer understanding. I shared with the extended bureau a proposed outline for beyond 2019 that was immediately circulated. This gave us a basis for discussion and we started with the consultations, so it served a good purpose

I understand there is a lot of common ground and I have the mandate to present the outline that is a guide, not a binding document. As a reflection of this stance and benefiting from flexibility, I consulted with the regional groups to get feedback on the outline. Before opening the floor for your feedback, the exchanges of the intersessionals confirmed that we have a clear framework to conduct our business, in order to envision beyond 2019 we need to know where we are and want to go next. We will bear in mind the realities on the ground, the new operational realities to which the commission and the office have to adequately step in. Emerging from the common understandings to the content of the outline I propose are: preamble, stock taking, work beyond 2019.
After dialogues with regional groups, once we received additional feedback from delegations, we will work on the specific content of the outline. The ideas we generally got was these sections. I will be building this outline with all of you in a process that everybody feels comfortable with, this is something we all take seriously. I want to make sure the next chair from the African group has good advance on the work we do. The mandate I have allows me for the outline to be a suggestion, it is not a binding document, it will be up to the next chair to propose a final draft. I will avoid unnecessary controversies and I encourage you to be on the same track, I saw a lot of common ground in the past meetings and we should build on that to be productive. Everybody knows where we stand what our priorities are. What I would like to add are that 3 conventions and 2009, 2013 and 2016 documents serve as a basis when we look into the future. So let’s aim to be sensitive, sensible – in implementation we need to do a lot and accommodate taking the next steps. A meeting at the expert level will take place next Monday in room C3 to exchange views and address pending items. We will be keeping informal consultations in November and we will be ready on the 30th. I will be putting all my hours into this important task and I am counting on your support and flexibility to have a productive fifth intersessional to be able to comply with my mandate. Now, I open the floor for comments.

Pakistan – We agree it is important to take stock and talk about the implementation of joint political commitments for HLMS. We hope stock taking will help set us clear goals for beyond and mobilize fresh political momentum and renew the spirit of consensus to address all aspects of the world program. It’s a collective responsibility to make HLMS a great success and we have 3 specific matters: I will mention: (1) process of preparations should be conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner, closely aligned with the mandate we agreed on 60/10. We should aim for the optimum use of precious time allocated for intersessional meetings. Given the significance of supply reduction, we were expecting more form UNODC in terms of import. During the intersessionals, we saw tendencies to externalize blame and responsibility, this is counterproductive our discussion should remain focused on our agenda and mandate. I reiterate our firm commitment to contribute to the preparation process. (2) round-tables: we know there are good proposals, but we should avoid duplication of discussions. How would stocktaking there differ from the HLMS plenary? We would really insist on consultations, one round table should specifically address the one common point widely agreed, the follow-up: how do we enhance international cooperation, principle of shared responsibility and most importantly, how to mobilize necessary means of implementation that is rarely addressed. (3) Outline for beyond 2019: I really thank you for the informal meetings, we share agreement on simple structure so we can achieve consensus. These should underscore the significance of the 3 conventions as cornerstones, underline the treaty mandated role of institutes, post 2019 should be guided by the three documents, reiterate the goals of 2009, plus a clear process including timeline. We should culminate the talking about 2009 and 2016 in an integrated track to avoid parallel work. As for data collection, feed into the process of UNODC and review ARQ and streamline plus improve data collections tools. We would like to see a strong call for enhancing international cooperation.

Peru – Thank you for your leadership, it is not an easy process. We won’t repeat what we already spoken about in relation to what we believe the beyond 2019 form it should take, I would just like the underscore the issue of round-tables, we are flexible regarding the numbers but regarding the two sections you’ve mentioned, we believe we can work on those and nuance them further. In general, we are in favor of it. We also believe in making progress towards a one track approach, the document emanating from the process in 2016 contributes to the 2009 declaration, this is at the heart of the single track approach.

Austria on behalf of the EU – Reaching an agreement on the outline will facilitate our work for the next 10 years, we are interested to listen to different opinions and deliberation of the commission. We are in favor of submitting the outline at the reconvened session. We are strongly committed to the CND. We welcome your commitment to consult with the regional groups and the interactive discussions. The forthcoming HLMS is an important moment to have a debate and reflect on the future – we reiterate these elements shall be foundations of the document: 1, we fully support the principal role of UNODC and CND. It is key that we engage with other UN bodies as well. 2, implement UNGASS in line with SDGs, they complement and enforce each other. 3, comprehensive and evidence based policy making, full compliance with the conventions on supply and demand reduction. We support prevention, harm reduction measures and adequate access of controlled substances for science and medical purposes; We think proportionate response for drug related offences is also an important part of the conversation. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. 4, for an integrated, balanced, evidence based approach, reliable data is an important basis. Improving the ARQ it is the backbone of reporting: HLMS should prioritize this. 5, civil society and scientific community to be actively engaged and the CSTF to be meaningfully included.
We remain committed to address the threats we face, we will engage with the international community to respond. For us the 7 thematic areas laid out in the UNGASS outcome document are a comprehensive guidance in addressing the world drug problem. We’d like to see measurable progress and think that strengthening the links with SDGs are key.

USA – We appreciate your work. We support the outline for the 2019 deliverables that were based on the consultations. Beyond the structure, we think these should be included: 1, reaffirm support for the conventions, the 2009 declaration, the 2014 and 2016 documents. 2, underscore treaty mandate roles of INCB and WHO. 3, we should exclaim now is the time to double our efforts for national implementation of agreements, no need for a new document. 4, deliverables should establish a new target date for us to take stock, this could feed into SDG preparations or benefit from SDG efforts – the 2030 agenda includes a broad range of efforts, but ours need specific expertise. While the drug problem relates to the SDGs, we think it shouldn’t distract us from our main job. 5, measurements. We all agree the need to assess ourselves, we just need to agree how. 6, UN reform it is up to ECOSOC and they will inform he CND, so let’s not focus too much on this. We believe areas where we agree are much stronger than where we divert. For round-tables, we endorse your proposal, but request more specificity.

Iran – You encouraged us to provide specific comments on the outline beyond 2019. We have the following to say: outline could be a forward looking short document capturing these: 1, a stock taking exercise in light with the target date; 2, commitment to the conventions; 3, targets OP36 of 2009; 4, recognition that the political documents are mutually reinforcing and there is no need for a new document; 4 recognition of the political documents’ complementary nature; 5 no need for a new normative policy framework; 6 focus on implementation of current commitments; 7 confirmation of CND’s policy making role; 8 reaffirm the UNODC’s central role; 9 single track follow-up system; 10, high quality data; 11, 10 year review; 12, CND contribution to SDGs; 13, recognize the importance of means to contribute to technical assistance. As for the round-tables, we suggest these topics: identifying trends, achievements and gaps; means to enhance cooperation; CND to continue its inclusive and transparent conduct. In conclusion, we reiterate our commitment to reach a consensus based agreement of the way forward.

Chile – We view your proposal for the document’s structure very positively. It is important to take stock in areas where we made progress since 2009 and areas where there is still work to be done. This will help us to continue on the right path. For us it’s important to have more information: document HLMS should be brief and concise, should not contain elements which could be interpreted that reduce the importance of the 3 treaties we view as the binding legal program to address the world drug problem. We reemphasize that we see 2009 and 2016 as equally important. We believe 2009 contains areas where can continue to make progress and we believe in the single track progress. We assign utmost importance to the round-tables having a balanced content and reinforce the role of CND. We support your proposal for the content.

Japan – In response to your questions. As for the round-tables, we support very much your proposal. We are looking forward to see the details. For beyond 2019, we welcome your suggestion of avoiding unnecessary political dispute and focus on common ground. As for the preamble, it would be important to conform the guiding principles, including central role of CND and the significance of the conventions and policy documents, their mutually reinforcing natures, so we ask you to reiterate those to provide us a common ground going forward. We also think it’s important to identify a new target year and how we proceed with taking stock then. Your proposal seems like a sound basis for our discussions, we are ready to engage in a constructive dialogue.

Germany – We align ourselves to the EU statement. Here are some reflections: there is an emerging consensus that we don’t need a new political paper. When it comes to ministers, it is not an environment for technical discussions… HLMS must address concerns to recognize reality… for example, NPS and must honestly addressed, so must the gaps. The ministerial declaration must be ambitious and convey a message of resolve. A message of credibility, standing on common ground – improving our database. Outside parties can question our work if they see we work based on a fluffy database, especially in the face of growing drug consumption. Ministers should orient the future work of CND. A final comment on the UN reform and SDG issue: I think your proposal is wise and perhaps the preamble is a good place to state that dug policy work and SDGs reinforce each other.

Chair – Besides what you have said, the next chair will love your remarks, and so do I. Thank you.

Malaysia – We welcome the consultation in various regional groupings, it’s important the draft presents a clear picture. Building on your proposal, we suggest the outline to be built on a common ground based on shared responsibility: object of the HLMS should be clearly stated which is taking stock since 2009 and reaffirm commitment to the three conventions, the role of the CND, UNODC. We think it has to be emphasized that the MS respect the sovereignty of other MS when implementing global drug policy and CND should prevent unnecessary dispute. We underscore the mutually reinforcing nature of the political documents. Building on expertise, commitments and implementation mechanism: one track approach. Regarding the review and follow-up actions, we think clear timelines and identification of areas. With regard to the UN reform, it will bear a considerably impact on the whole system, but given the ongoing development, we think this issue should be omitted from this paper.

Singapore – Our delegation has contributed to the regional meeting, but on the proposed topics, we think we should work on further to achieve wider consensus. We think this is a good basis, but we think as a non-binding document, the more common ground it achieves, the more it can achieve and it can signal the significance of CND, which is vital for my delegation. We would like to reaffirm the central role of CND, the commitment to the 3 conventions and the 2009 and 2016 policy documents. We follow practical guides from 2016 especially regarding international collaboration. The impact of the UN reforms is unclear and we don’t think it should be an element of the HLMS. We should continue our conversations on the one track approach. We welcome the contused consultations and count on your leadership.

Switzerland – We support Austria’s declaration on behalf of EU. Our position on the death penalty is that we should establish a moratorium of these harsh sanctions. With regard to the outline, better data is indeed key to understanding how we can work better.

Cuba – There is still a number of outstanding issues, so we hope we can achieve consensus under your leadership. The expectations are high for 2019, it is an opportunity to review all we’ve done. Paragraph 36 is challenging as are the SDG links, but let’s not stop trying to achieve them because of that. There is no need to negotiate a new document re commitments, we should focus on assessing and implementing the existing ones. The 2009, 2014 and 2016 documents are complementary and strengthen each other. We support a document that states a same consideration should be given to all of them Beyond 2019 greater commitment and political will. We’d like to reaffirm the CND’s role, same as INCB and WHO.

Norway –

Madame chair, thank you for giving us the floor in order to contribute to the discussion on this 4th intersessional meeting and to come up with some of our views. Since this is the first time my delegation takes the floor, I would also like to thank yesterdays, the day before and todays panel for setting the stage in an excellent way, thank you all for your contributions.  (The presentations from the panel-participants have facilitated an active and interactive discussion, also with a view to the 62nd session of the CND.) Our statement will cover supply reduction, discussed on day one, and also some of the topics we already have and are going to discuss today.

In view of the latest World drug report 2018 I would like to quote some sentences stated in booklet 2 of this report: “Opium production is at its highest level since UNODC monitoring began and cocaine manufacture is at its highest ever level”. “Cultivation of both, opium poppy and coca bush show a marked increase”. “Marked increases in quantities of amphetamine-type stimulants, cocaine, plant-based new psychoactive substances and sedatives seized”.

The report contains even more sentences and figures that makes everyone reading the report concerned, and we should ask ourselves whether the way we attack the problem “supply reduction” is the best way to go.

For example is eradication of areas used for cultivation, as a figure, maybe not a proper way to show results, having in mind that the efficiency of how much can be grown on each hectares is rising, nearly simultaneously with the destruction. And if, I say if, the eradication will lead to a significant decrease of cultivation areas in certain countries and the price for opium poppy and coca bushes will double or triple, there still will be so much to gain in the value creation chain, that a dealer in Norway, and the whole criminal network behind, is still earning a lot of money.

Saying that, Norway will off course still contribute to development in several countries, both with knowledge and financially contribution, something we’ve always done in a larger scope. But the time is maybe ready to think new and in a different manner, to solve the challenges, especially farmers and small municipalities and communities are facing in many of the drug cultivation areas.

As a representative of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security to talk only about supply reduction will truly not solve the challenges. It is actually the combination of both, demand reduction and supply reduction that brings success. And therefor I would like to talk about what is going on in my home country these days.

Norway is in a process of formally changing the authorities’ response regarding the use of drugs and the possession for personal use,  from punishment to health, treatment and follow-up. We will transfer the responsibility for such drug related issues from judicial authorities to the health- and social sector. Norway will not legalize the use and possession of drugs for personal use, but decriminalization does not prevent to have more focus on harm reduction efforts.

Punishment for drug use or drug possession does not have a significant preventive effect on drug users, in order to prevent new crime, and is therefore counterproductive.

The reasoning behind the drug reform is a recognition that substance use is essentially a health challenge. Criminal prosecution of use and possession of illicit drugs for personal use has contributed to stigmatization, marginalization and social exclusion and may have prevented individual users from having appropriate and customized health services and follow-up.

The Attorney General of Norway has in priority circular in recent years stated that the focus should be on serious drug offences, and that investigative efforts should be directed against criminal networks to identify drug traffickers on higher level and confiscate profit. Efforts against the user environment, as a main activity, should be to prevent new recruitment and to get information about serious drug violations, and not be used to achieve greater numbers regarding statistics in the field of less serious narcotic offenses.

I should maybe mentioning that in our country the Attorney General is an independent body within the judicial system and therefore cannot be used for political purposes. His statements are based on current  legislation, court decisions, knowledge and field experience.

The Attorney General priorities have been followed up by the police. Criminal cases related to drug use and drug possession for own use, pursuant to the Medicines Act, stating the criminal liability for such offenses, have decreased by more than 30 % since 2014.  In recent years, it is therefore more common for prosecutors to use “waiver of prosecution with conditions” as a possible reaction regarding use and possession of drugs for personal use, especially with regard to young people between the ages of 15 and 18, but also up to 25 years.

In this context and where possible, police resources, in this way set free, will better be used to raise efforts against those who are selling drugs to prevent and investigate street sale in a larger scope.

I would like to say a few more words about prevention. The main strategy for the Norwegian police is and will be to prevent crime, especially among young people or in cases regarding the misuse of younger people. Prevention of substance abuse and related crime must be seen in conjunction. The police will therefore always cooperate closely with other actors, such as health authorities and municipalities, to help drug users and thereby prevent crime. It is a priority task for the police to prevent recruitment of young people into environments, using or selling drugs.

By doing so, demand reduction and supply reduction will go hand in hand and complement each other. And we think this strategies will lead to lower demand and hereby influence the supply side and figures.

Let me at the end, and having in mind day one, also say that. From our perspective, it is important that we continue discussing the death penalty in the CND and the CND-environment. Norway participated with the Ambassador at the important side event on Drug-related offences, justice responses and the use of the death penalty yesterday. We will continue to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty for all crimes, including drug related crime. Having also in mind, and by pointing to newest information from the High Commissioner for Human Rights we deeply regret that people are being executed because of none violent drug related crime also in this week, and while we are discussing this issue here in Vienna.

Thank you for your attention and good luck for the rest of our meeting.

Australia – CND next year provides a good opportunity to look back on the past 10 years of international cooperation and achievements. PDPA and UNGASS are important documents. We appreciate your proposal for roundtables and we see it as a useful starting point. 2019 will be an important momentum to continue our work on human rights and strengthen our links to civil society and academia. We support the proposed outline. We look forward to develop partnerships and we found the last few intersessionals very useful and interested in continuing such exchange.

Russia – Various reviews are undertaken in the UN system with the same structure: conclusion, outstanding issues, future tasks – I don’t see why our structure should not comply with this. We believe it’s important for the documents to contain the clearest language. There are concerning terminology in the round-tables like “sunset clause”. This means 2009 should be put in the archives? In another column, our commission is called the main deliberative body, but we are rather the main decision-making body. We ask you to pay particular attention to the ambiguous language. As for the outline, the guiding principle of the commission ought to be that documents from 2009, 2014 and 2016 are mutually enforcing. We have a consensus on this so I am surprised that some colleagues only spoke about the 2016 UNGASS outcome document. We also don’t see a need for a new political document. We think the outline should contain a call to comply with the conventions. Recently, there have been challenges to the conventions, it is a real challenge to drug controls work and raises the issue of compliance. We should not overlook this but reaffirm our commitment to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs; the central role of CND; UNODC as a leading organ in the UN system to address the world drug problem; INCB – we would like to see an interaction among UN agencies. We should also establish a timeline, we might need an interim review. We think it will be hard to see a breakthrough in such short term as some colleagues proposed 2024… we think 10 years is sufficient.

Spain – We support Austria’s statement. It contains all our immediate concerns, suggestions and we support your proposal. We need to receive input from civil society and academia. We think the document should be aspirational and should not be restricted to the only paragraph that contains obligations. The world drug problem is changing and it must be addressed from a position that takes those in account. We have biannual reports, these should be kept in mind. We should also think about issues which we have no agreement on, we can recognize that we don’t agree and the matters are being reviewed. The readers of the documents don’t know the motives and rationale are behind crafting the document, so it’s important that we have agreement around which topic we disagree on. We don’t think the document should not set forward obligations, but outlines.

Netherlands – Fully aligned to Austria’s statement on behalf of the EU. IT’s very important to make sure everyone feels ownership over the outline. We support your proposal and the consultations. I would like to reiterate our view is to focus on areas where we can find common ground we believe there are more issues that unite us and we should explore them. We support your proposal for the round-tables’ themes. We think it’s important to express how our work is linked to relevant SDGs, human rights and reiterate CND’s central role but also WHO and INCB. It’s important to build on the biannual reports, take stocks, and take input from civil society, academia and other UN entities. We would like to see strong focus on the UNGASS recommendations and a timeline is also important. We know targets are important drivers of policy making, defining targets and indicators are not a purely political process, we need experts and technical details that might not be appropriate for ministers. 2019 has to streamline a one-track data collection process to better understand the world drug problem for us to make better informed decisions.

Namibia – Resolution 61/10 – input of relevant stakeholders. MS agreed on commitments and practical measures to counter the world drug problem. Our crucial task is the effective implementation hence no need to negotiate a new document. We expect a concise and short document, underscoring the three conventions reaffirming the role of CND and UNODC.

China – 1, We reiterate central role of the CND and 2, the 3 conventions as cornerstones. 3, The conventions mandated role of WHO and INCB that we also reiterate. 4, We think post 2019 efforts should be guided by collective political commitment in the documents of 2009, 2014 and 2016. 5, Op 36. 6, We need a clear timeline for beyond 2019. 7, We should accelerate existing commitments and out shared responsibility. As for the round-tables, we are flexible and our colleague from Iran had a good idea and we are ready to discuss this further.

Morocco – We reaffirm our commitment to 2009, 2014 and 2016. This represents our last consensus. In relation to all provisions of 2009, for the success of one of the provision to be achieved, all other have to be implemented as well. UNGASS contains operational recommendations, we have a multidimensional approach – civil society is a vital element in this process. Your proposal is an important basis for dialogue. It’s vital these issues to be treated under shared responsibility

Czech Republic – We are fully aligned by the Austrian statement. We consider the 7 UNGASS chapters as cornerstones for a balanced drug policy. Improving the ARQ is a key element for providing an effective response to the world drug problem. Proportionality sanctions, protecting vulnerable members of society and human rights should be an integral part of the way beyond 2019. HMLS should have two topics: taking stock, policy making based in scientific knowledge.

UK – Thank you Madam Chair. We fully support the intervention made by Austria on behalf of the EU and the UK would now like to address the specific questions posed by the Chair on the Round Tables and the Outline Doc.

First: Round Tables. The UK supports the Chair’s proposal to hold two Ministerial roundtables; one on taking stock and one on the way ahead. This will allow Ministers to have a comprehensive and meaningful conversation which takes into account where we are and where we want to go beyond 2019.

Second: Outline Document. The UK would like to thank the Chair for taking into account the comments made during the regional group meetings and welcomes the Chair’s suggestion that further consultation will take place. Continued consultation will ensure that the development of the outline doc is done in a clear and transparent way and will bring us closer to consensus – we thank the Chair for her leadership to date to ensure that this is the case. We support the suggestion by the distinguished delegate of the Netherlands that it would be helpful if these consultations are structured around specific discussion points. With regards to the content of the Outline Document, there appears to be consensus on a number of points, namely: 1. That a new policy document is not required in 2019, rather international efforts should now be focused on the implementation of the existing commitments.

2. The continues central role of the CND and the mandated roles of INCB and WHO – a successful Ministerial meeting in 2019 will be a testament to the CND’s primary role

3. The commitment to implementation of the three drug control conventions and other relevant international instruments – as was reaffirmed in the UNGASS Outcome Document. These points of convergence should form the foundations of the Outline Document and can be built upon for the final document adopted by Ministers in 2019.

In addition to this, the UK would welcome the following five points to be covered in the Outline
Document: 1. It is important that the outline document reaffirms the continued role of civil society, the scientific community, academia and other relevant UN entities – these parties should also be invited to meaningfully participate
in the Ministerial segment and we would like to thank the Civil Society Task-force for their contributions to date

2. We must also ensure that our work here at the Commission, is aligned with the relevant Sustainable Development Goals and therefore believe that establishing a timeline for implementation for any outcome agreed at the Ministerial Segment in 2019 would be helpful in this regard.

3. In order to maintain the work of the UNODC on evidence based policy making, the UK supports the work to strengthen data-collection by enhancing national statistical capability and drawing upon the expertise of other UN entities – this will help to ensure that we can move towards a “one track approach”.

4. As set out in the UNGASS Outcome Document, any commitments to address the world drug problem should be done in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

5. Finally, it is the view of the UK that the UNGASS Outcome Document provides sufficient guidance to inform our work to address the world drug problem beyond 2019 – as the distinguished delegate of Norway set out – the UGASS Outline Document includes and builds upon all aspects covered in the 2009 Political Declaration. We take note however, of the requests from some MS that the targets in OP 36 of the 2009 Political Declaration should be reaffirmed. We do not share this view, but it is important that we use the planned consultations to work together to find points of convergence on this important issue.

Madam Chair, we trust that throughout the coming months, we can collectively come to agreement on the way forward, to ensure that we can consolidate and build upon the progress already made to deliver the drug control treaties’ objective of ensuring the ‘health and welfare of humankind’. The UK stand ready to support the Chair and the Commission throughout this process. Thank you.

Korea – We reiterate our commitment to the 3 documents. The HLMS is a critical junction and support your preparatory efforts. 2009 and 2016 are mutually enforcing and a post 2019 procedure should be based on the communities. We agree there is no need for another policy document. Measured approach to take into account evolving trends and challenges. CND’s prime responsibility for drug control measures should be reiterated. CND’s contribution to the 2030 agenda should be outlined.

Italy – We align ourselves to Austria. We would like to focus on issues where consensus was possible. Additional points from us: active involvement of civil society in the preparation and during the segment. CSOs play a huge role in combating the drug problem. The relevance of UN reform. The nature of the document might be a linguistic issue, but seems like we agree we don’t need a new policy document, but we do need a political document – there will be ministers coming to Vienna after all. Your proposal seems balanced for the round-tables and could provide a basis for a fruitful discussion. We would appreciate more indications in respect to your plans for next Monday.

Brazil – Given the tight time-frame, the timeline should be a widely accepted outline – we trust your leadership on that. We would really appreciate a provisional timetable of the consultations for our delegation to schedule our activities. We also suggest you propose a very clear timeline for MS to have a substantive debate before we have to reach a decision. My delegation thinks the discussion should include: conventions, complimentary nature of 2009 and 2016 documents, the role of CND and UNODC, need for increased coordination with other relevant UN entities, UNGASS, improved data collection and technical assistance. We favor a 10 year timeline and a 5 year midterm review.

Egypt – We wish to see in the outline: reiterating that the 3 conventions remain the cornerstones for conducting drug policy aiming at achieving a world free of drugs, CND is the main policy making body, the 2009 and 2016 documents represent the commitments of the international community and we recognize those are mutually reinforcing documents – we should streamline the relationship between them and what would a single track approach be, all efforts to strengthen data collection should reflect that single track approach, HLMS should be based on commitment and compliance with the aim to identify the gaps and actions needed to be taken in the implementation. In regards to OP36, we should extend the target date. The outcome of the HLMS should include a clear timeline, we remain flexible but share the concerns of some delegations towards linking that to the SDGs. We think we are in a late stage to include new items, so we are not enthusiastic to include the UN reform, although we acknowledge the importance of the topic. In order to achieve our task, we would like to share a concern: the secretariat presented an amended proposed agenda for 2019 in one of our regional meeting. As for the round-tables, we remain open but believe we should focus on identifying the gaps and the actions to foster implementation. We welcome the informals to reach a compromise, but we think it should not be submitted until we reach consensus.

Thailand – We support your proposal. We attach great importance to these elements: central role of UNODC, underline the significance of the three conventions, OP36, complementary nature of 2009, 2014 and 2016, set a clear a timeline beyond 2019.

Nigeria – I join my colleagues in reiterating the need to underline the role of CND. It would be useful to maintain a simple and clear style. 2009 identify the gaps and the actions to be undertaken to close those gaps. Any outcome of HLMS should give ample explanation of the extension of the target dates outlined in 2009.

Canada – There is much more that unites us than divides is which going to lead us to a successful HLMS. I would like to commend Austria, Norway and Germany’s statement. We should keep Germany’s remarks in mind as we talk about the post 2019 direction. We support your proposed outline. The ministers will be here to take stock and an equally important bit is the way forward – here we focus on a one track approach. It is clear we prefer the 2016 documents, in our view it is the most balanced, most recent, but we are not opposed to the one track approach the reinforces both documents. We should come to a common understanding of what that one track approach really means and how that relates to CND and the UNODC. For us a key feature is improving data collection, updating it essentially, building national capacity. The exception of overlaps on the documents are the target dates, simply renewing them would not reflect all our work, but forgetting them is also not our wish. We could use it as a basis and essentially, updating and extending those targets is what we think would be good – that guides inspires us.

Chair – We have more delegations wanting to take the floor, but I would like you all to have a proper lunch for the first time this week so I adjourn the morning session.

*AFTERNOON SESSION*

Algeria – My delegation thanks you for your leadership. The outcome of the HLMS will depend on the consensus based presentation in December so we welcome the continuous dialogue with the regional groups. Our position commits to the 3 conventions as cornerstones, the leading role of CND and UNODC, the complementary 2009, 2014 and 2016 political documents. We don’t think it is necessary or appropriate to produce a new document.

Portugal – We fully align with the EU’s statement. We think after the morning, we can see a consensus on several issues and we agree with the round-table proposal and the structure of the outline. We all seem to agree on the central role of CND, INCB and WHO, same for not needing a new policy paper, improving data collection and mutually reinforcing nature of the political documents of that last decade. The op 36 is the only point of conflict. We think we can have a reference in the preamble and when we state CND holds a central role that is perhaps enough input to the UN system reform. We promote inter-agency cooperation and the inclusion of civil society. It would be useful to have the timetables as soon for delegations with small staff.

Slovenia – We support the EU’s statement. HLMS is an important event, for us it is also important to have a common approach to the global drug problem. I hope we will find consensus at the conference. We think we should be oriented towards the future, while we respect all political documents produced In the last decade, for us UNGASS 2016 is the most important it reflects the latest consensus and is oriented towards the future.

Uruguay – We understand that the outline should be subject to consensus and we will make sure the new approach to 2030 will take into account UNGASS. We also think it is a need to record the disagreements, we agree with Spain on the importance of noting this fact. The 3 conventions are cornerstones for the efforts to control drugs, CND is the central role but not the only one, so there is a need for enhanced cooperation with other elements within the UN. In terms of the outline, we believe we shouldn’t duplicate our work and reject adopting a paragraph from 2009 that doesn’t take into account the achievements since. We think it’s important to find a balance between failures and success and address both, otherwise we can’t have a comprehensive way forward.

Poland – We align ourselves with the EU’s statement. We think our future work should be based on the 3 conventions, we confirm CND’s role and think civil society and scientific community should have an important role. ARQ improvement and data collection betterment is crucial in our view. Our Canadian delegate noted that 2009 targets don’t reflect the complexity of the world drug problem nor the achievements of the Commission, so we favor the UNGASS outcome document.

Argentina – We believe the round-tables are good opportunities to address important themes relevant for the discussions. The outline document’s structure, we agree on your suggestion.

Colombia – I thank you for your work with regional group. We presented our stance in those consultations. I have some additional brief comments. We don’t need to always reiterate elements, we have CND – it is what it is. The conventions are there – they are legally binding documents, we signed them. I don’t see what we gain by reiterating our commitments. It could be that I am new to Vienna and don’t understand. We will not oppose such action to be taken, but it seems unnecessary. 2019 serves an important function, to take stock since 2009. It is not like any other CND meeting, but what I think we will see is higher participation by high level positions, so maybe a document that reflects that would be useful. Ministers will be hear in great numbers and with great enthusiasm and if we issue a negligible paper, that would not be appropriate. I agree with many points made today, so I agree with not creating new obligations but achieving better implementation. In terms of political commitment this is what we need. In the 2009 declaration, the targets are too broad and we lack indicators on how to progress. We talk about a follow-up term… in 5 years or no years, the same can happen if we don’t have meaningful indicators. The concept of common and shared responsibility, in the end of the day we are all affected, so we think it is key. We also think we have to have a comprehensive approach that envisages the thematic areas from 2016. We had consensus on that and the outlined areas are relevant. International cooperation is vital and is one of the main drivers on how we progress – in its broadest sense, including sharing information. In addition, the human rights issue should be included we believe. How can we make better progress? If we haven’t taken proper stock of 2009, we can’t set new goals. We are not in favor of just extending the 2009 timeline. We agree one of the round-tables should be about stocktaking, but I don’t see the ministers coming to a conclusion on this. Expert level discussion perhaps would bring more results.

Interpol – I would like to underscore an element that is essential in the ministerial declaration. The role of law enforcement agencies, especially dismantling criminal organizations. Interpol would be grateful if the outcome HLMS would mention partners outside of the UN system and recognize the contributions we made and the support we are able to offer.

Chair – We will resume the discussion on supply reduction.

(panel) UNODC – I will speak about the nexus of fire arms and drugs trafficking. Firearms play a particular role in drug trafficking – we’ve heard this before this week. It is an instrument that enhances the potential of harm. Recent cases based on press show us the question is not whether but to what extent this nexus exists: Italy – Albania crime group exposed, drugs and firearms are their main business. Arms are durable goods, so the amounts differ when compared to what is seizable in drugs. The arms trade is clearly linked to drug cartels in the Americas. The vast majority, as opposed to drugs, firearms are produced legally and then get diverted. Some weapons are seized in a drug bust and then if we look at the history of the arms, we find out a lot. Sometimes the drugs cases absolve the arms case. It is an important gap in the criminal justice response to look at crimes more widely. There is a growing recognition but are no instruments to address these linkage. We need more investigations on the firearms when they are seized in an operation. Sometimes they are just confiscated and are not used in the investigation.

(panel) UNODC – Regional judicial cooperation has two main tasks: create and promote network. To connect all existing networks and agencies, we play the role of a global facilitator. All kinds of crimes can be connected to drug trafficking – I would like to remind you to the presentation of the colleague from Afghanistan. Our operations have two elements. We have a network of facilitators – officers, prosecutors or judges, experts on national judicial operation. Their mission is to facilitate a dialogue and information sharing. It means that if one prosecutor is dealing with a drug trafficking case, he and needs to send a request, he can contact the partner facilitator, who serves as a contact point for the destination country. This way we can monitor information sharing as well. The second point is the regular meeting of contact points. We need contact points with impressive experience and this way they can link personally. The exchange of good practice is a key aspect in international cooperation. The colleague from Spain asked from results. I prepared a slide about central qualities. 90% of our inter-regional cases are resolved. My next topic is networking the networks. As was said, drug trafficking is an organizational, very complex business with various roles. A lot of crimes we deal with are not directly linked to drugs, so we need a lot of specialists, officials with specific competencies. Drug trafficking also mostly is transnational, so we need a good connection of networks. Sometimes criminal groups operate as companies, what they are after is money. That is what we aim to address too. No criminal keeps money in his house – we are speaking of millions and those are put into accounts and can go through a number of countries. Spain asked for something more concrete, so UNODC is trying to become an international facilitator of international judicial cooperation. We are trying to combat organized crime, but we need funding and your collaboration. We have CRIMJUST for strengthening criminal investigation and criminal justice cooperation along the cocaine route in Latin America, the Caribbean and West Africa. It is a joint initiative funded by the European Union, implemented by the UNODC in partnership with INTERPOL and Transparency International. The overall objective CRIMJUST is to contribute to effectively fighting organized crime in general, and drug trafficking in particular, along the Cocaine route in Latin America, the Caribbean and West Africa in line with international legal instruments and human rights.

Chair – There are only a few video messages left then we will return to the organizational matters before we adjourn the meeting.

https://www.cstfondrugs.org/resources/civil-society-presentations/october-intersessional/

Chair – I thank you for your comments, we will reflect on them. Now let me address the themes of the round-tables. IT is clear that before we take a final decision, some fine-tuning will be needed as some new views emerged today. Let me reiterate that November 2 is the deadline to submit your suggestions, I hope this is sufficient time. About the possible duplication if the stock-taking. My take is that a well-organized event would not necessarily result in a duplication, because the debate will focus on national perspectives. On the 9th of November, we can come back to this topic and reflect again. Regarding the outline, the 29th of October will hopefully see a draft. I would like to invest time in building a common understanding on this however. November 5-30 will be the time of the informals but will circulate the timeline before we begin the process. As for the consultations, we have to be flexible and understanding of each other and m amazing team is working on scheduling. We will try to avoid short-notices. I would like to host a reception before the last intersessional with guacamole. Our last point on the agenda is other business. I hope everything I said is clear enough and I open the floor for comments.

Spain – We are looking at an intense period – could we circulate the latest version of the text for those who are not able to attend?

Secretary – Usually we send out a special message after the meeting. Are you referring to that?

Spain – Yes.

Chair – Absolutely. As mentioned on Monday, I’d like to touch on the reconvened session. I recall that invitations were sent out and annotated provisional agenda was made available on our website. The 5th of December will see an additional meeting devoted to preparation to HLMS, conducted in an open setting. The agenda for the day: opening, adoption of agenda, general debate on the preparation on the HLMS, other business, closing. On the 6th of December, there will be a joint meeting with CCPCJ. On the 7th of December, the morning session will be devoted to the implementation of international drug control treaties. Our representative of WHO will orally report on the outcome of the 40th meeting of the WHO ECDD & 41st meeting of the ECDD. I don’t see comments from the floor, so my last point is the composition of the bureau at the 61st CND. The officers to be elected for the 62nd session: Chair from the African group; vice chairs Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe groups; Rapporteur: Latin America and Caribbean states.  The financial implications of the budgetary cuts will be discussed by the Secretary.

Secretary – I explained last time that our regular budget was cut. We already had challenges of covering the tickets of the commission, so we are now in a difficult situation. For the reconvened sessions of CND and CCPCJ we are not in a position to pay for business class tickets, only economy.

Chair – Intergovernmental expert group meeting on international challenges posed by the non-medical used on synthetic opioids 3-4 December at the VIC. That IGM will discuss resolution 61/8 with a view to learn more about the challenges and possible responses. The main meeting of the subsidiary bodies of CND will be held in Azerbaijan in November. Please encourage your capitals of your regional groups to actively participate in this meeting.

In line with best practice, I reported to New York on the workings of CND on the 3rd of October. I believe the briefing was well received and I found it useful. I see no comment from the floor so I thank you for your participation and am closing our session.

Chair: In memory of Ambassador Christine Stix-Hackl – 1 minute of silence.

Thank you. Let’s turn to our agenda points. Proposed dates for the roundtables have been circulated and tomorrow at 9 am we start with informal consultations for fine-tuning. Regarding the draft outline, it was sent out last night so now you can review it. It is a draft I prepared based on your suggestions including these chapters: preamble, stock-taking and the road ahead. The final version will be presented in the reconvened session in December. The current length could be overwhelming, but it is only indicative and the outcome document will come from the next phase of our negotiations that will be more political in nature. The informal dialogues will begin on November 12th – I am counting on your cooperation. Let us proceed on the normative segment. Congrats on 50th anniversary of INCB.

President of INCB: Honored to be here – we are working along the most widely recognized convention that is aiming to secure the health and welfare of humankind by ensuring substances for scientific and medical purpose while avoiding diversion. I have to call your attention to the presumption of innocence and respect for rule of law. As with other international treaties, the legislative and administrative measures are left to the discretion of national governments. While it is true that in some cases, policies are adopted under the name of drug control led to undesirable results and this is a function of legislative choice made by states. The conventions have been incorrectly fought by requiring states to adopt laws that have negative consequences, ie. deficiency in the availability of medicines for legitimate rational medical use, overly punitive responses to drug related crimes, stigmatization and marginalization of people affected by drug use – most of those which violated human rights. This narrative challenges the consensus international drug control conventions and it undermines the normative. Regarding Cannabis legalization, the criticism at the conventions has been used by some as a mean to deflect responsibility from failed approaches to drug control that were adopted on the national level. It is a result of the lack of understanding of convention, their main objectives and normative content. The implementation choices affect governments and civil society groups. The lack of substances for legitimate use continues to be a health problem a situation that has been falsely connected to the international framework. The 1961 preamble as amended by 1972 protocol, and the 1972 convention states that our main objective is to fostering health and welfare of humankind and the conventions recognize the indispensable nature of drugs and has a stipulation that their availability for medical use should not be unduly restricted. ‘61 and ‘71 established a system of administrative control, regulating production, manufacture, import, export, etc. whereby states themselves evaluate domestic requirements and then report to INCB. In many states the access has been hindered by lack of capacity and training. The lack is not attributed to over-regulation indicated by international framework, but more to improper state level implementation. The main obstacle is lack of capacity and investment in health care systems, in terms of staff and facilities. Thus governments urgently need to address capacity in health care and work to increase the know-how of professionals. States should also provide legal and regulatory frameworks. In emergency situations, ie. humanitarian disaster, the conventions allow simplified control. We also saw devastating results of over prescription, particularly in North America, this leads me to mention reasonable medical use. Many people lack access to medicine while in other parts of the world, aggressive marketing and over prescription lead to an other kind of crisis. We must do better. Turning to the issue of respect for human rights. Violations have occurred not because of the conventions but in spite of them, I wish to reiterate in the clearest possible term that if drug control measures are adopted, they must recognize international human rights agreement – the health and welfare of human kind is the objective of the conventions and this must be in full enjoyment of human rights. Violating this in the name of drug control is fundamentally inconsistent with the international drug treaties. Extrajudicial responses can never be justified under international agreements. Drug related crimes must be responded in the truest form of criminal justice in full recognition of the universal declaration of human rights. In addressing suspected drug related crime, states are required to be proportionate. The conventions provide the possibility to apply education rehabilitation and social reintegration as responses, in particular regarding people who use drugs. Criminal justice policy lead to high rate of incarceration, including those with minor offences. This is a result of national policy. In many countries, governments chose to use strict responses. Certain groups have been disproportionately affected by this, systemic discrimination is a fundamental issue. It cannot be attributed to the conventions. On the issue of capital punishment, the conventions remain silent for the death penalty, the board is compelled to draw the MS attention to the understanding of the larger UN family and it’s stance that capital punishment for drug related offences is not commended and member states should consider the abolishment of capital punishment at large. MS are required to pay special attention to the prevention of abuse, early identification, care, treatment and social reintegration. We also call upon MS to ensure training of personnel delivering these. States should avoid those measures that do not have measurable successes and adopt the best practices. Insufficient mechanisms exist to foster integration and fighting stigma. Women, the backbone of our community, and children, our future, are more affected by stigma… unnecessarily. We see underlying problems here such as the lack of epidemiological understanding. Finally, the conventions as they were agreed, limit exclusively the production, manufacture, import export, distribution, use and possession to scientific and medical application. This is a general obligation and leave no room for recreational use. In the past years, the restriction of such was challenged by some states in relation to the legalization of Cannabis. As the board is responsible for monitoring the implementation of conventions, INCB has cautioned that legalization measures are inconsistent with the obligation of MS and constitute a serious violation. Respective of the jurisdiction of the states in question, some are characterized as experiments, but it is still a clear violation of the international drug control framework. To turn a blind eye to this, the board would not fulfil its mandate. We will continue to work that the potential of the conventions is fully realized.

Chair: thank you, I now open the floor for national statements.

Russia on behalf of like-minded countries: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Columbia, Congo (?), Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kurdistan, […] , Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Korea, Serbia, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of INCB, that is empowered by the cornerstones of international drug control system, the three international drug control conventions. Today the 3 conventions are among the most worthy, widely agreed policy papers with international consensus. On the occasion of the anniversary, we support the INCB and commend their work as the independent quasi judiciary body. We reiterate our commitment to ensure overall safety and health for mankind. We ensure of our unwavering commitment to this as stated in the treaties and the principle of common and shared responsibility.

China on behalf of the Asia-Pacific group: Our group welcomes this opportunity to interact with the INCB and congratulates the board. We support the 3 conventions. Regarding implementation, we reiterate that the convention constitute as the basis of our work. This was restated in consequent policy documents such as 2009 and 2016. We reiterate our serious concern regarding the legalization of Cannabis as it clearly violates the treaty. The legalization of illicit drugs for non-medical use poses significant threats to the health and welfare undermining the stability of the international drug control system and our efforts to counter the world drug problem. We recognize that conventions allow flexibility, state parties shall nonetheless should adhere to the principles. In conclusion, we reiterate that our international efforts to promote health and welfare we call upon all members to fully comply with the conventions.

Austria on behalf of the EU: We thank the INCB for its work and welcome them today. The interventions today demonstrate the importance and our unwavering support for INCB from the members of the commission. We support for the conventions and will continue to support the board’s work… mainly through country visits and informal dialogues. We support the availability to medical and scientific use. We thank the INCB’s operational work, specifically on NPS and precursors. We appreciate the communication and information exchange systems. In the future the INCB’s role should remain crucial to the UN architecture with strengthened interagency cooperation with the WHO and other relevant bodies. We welcome the strengthened dialogue between INCB and civil society. The EU and MS always called for an integrated and balanced approach and we deem INCB’s input as valuable. We welcome the reports of ICNB – these support the implementation of a human rights based approach to ensure the welfare of human kind in line with the conventions. In preparations to the next CND, these are key elements to guide our work. The universal declaration of human rights and the 3 conventions are basis of this guidance.

Singapore on behalf of South-East Asian nations’ group (10MS): We are committed to address the scourge of drugs. We have always supported a no tolerance approach to drugs and promote communities free of drugs. As part of the international community, we always recognized that the conventions are the cornerstones of drug policies. More recently, we contributed to the 2016 document that underscores the conventions and is aligned to our aims to counter the threats of drugs. We believe each member state has a freedom to decide how to tackle the problems within their countries, but it has to be within the framework within the conventions. Legalizing recreational use is definitely not within the framework. We are sending the wrong message by adapting these laws, it contradicts our efforts and doesn’t guard our children from harm. It also threatens public safety. Illicit drugs are harmful substances, the removal of legal sanctions will not solve the problem in our region, it will lead to increased demands and will result in more addicts… including our children… Our position is clear, we stand firmly against the legalization of drugs, we take firm steps to save our children from drugs.

Russia: Colleagues, we highly value the role of the board in implementing the conventions. On 17th of October, the board made a statement about an issue Russia is concerned about, as are many other MS. This was set forth by the South-East Asian group, which we fully support. What I am talking about is Canada’s decision which has been discussed many times during the intersessionals. In June, about 20 states took a firm stance against this decision. Many appealed direct to Canada to abstain from the implementation of the new law. These calls fell on deaf ears. Canada is celebrating the victory and calls upon the government to legalize, as a next step, heroin for example. In the Canadian press there are many issues discussed, including drug-dollars. There is just one thing though, the international legal aspect, that has been excluded in the conversation. From an international legal point of view, directly with the mandate of CND is an out and right violation of obligations as it exceeded the drug control conventions. Our international agreements allow medical and scientific use but not in any manner recreational use as will be the practice in Canada. Concretely, it is a violation of a huge number of provisions. Under the new law, the Canadian government will have a difficult time respecting the rights of the child. In line with this new law, even if it is applied to those above the age of 18, it will be clearly more accessible for adolescents as well and the government will not be able to effectively stop this. INCB has expressed concerns over the effect of this new law on public health, in particular that of the youth. This law runs against international political agreements such as 2009 and 2016. Against this backdrop, it is difficult to take seriously the appeals of Canada to build a new, rules based world order as Canada is disregarding rules in the most barefaced manner. It opens Pandora’s Box, introducing selectivity in implementing the conventions. This might encourage other countries to not comply. Consciously violating the drug control regime, Canada is creating the World’s largest drug market, which will promote a flow of this substance to other countries. The new law appears cynical in the light that Canada is a member of CND and we are coinciding with the review. According to the declaration of 2009 the international community in March will be taking stock. Turning a blind eye would lead to new violations. The UN conventions have a lot of measures in case of violation, we suggest that CND consider applying punitive provisions. This should become a subject of discussion during the HLMS in March. Our task is helping Canada to come back within the boundaries of international law. We must ensure CND has membership only to those who comply and not allow a Trojan horse.

Kyrgyzstan: Congrats to the ICNB. Being the part of the 3 core conventions, in our national capacity, we acknowledge the norms of the fundamental conventions that non-medical consumption should not be allowed. Revision needs a balanced, gradual systematic approach and it should be duly studied and fully justified. At the same time, we fully support INCB which noted that legislation is contrary to the provisions of relevant conventions. In conclusion, we are ready to cooperate with UN in the fight against illicit drug trafficking.

Norway: The main goal for any drug policy should be to prevent harms. Norway pursues a knowledge based policy that aims to save lives and ensure dignity. We are in the process of changing our legislative approaches, however, we will not legalize the use and possession as agreed by all MS, the 3 conventions and relevant instruments that are cornerstones. […] We appreciate the timely mention by ICNB of the importance to respect human rights. We call all MS to comply with their treaty obligations but we understand that these have to be adjusted to the realities on the ground locally. The right to health must be ensured to all, without regard to age, race, etc. We constantly state that drug related offences don’t meet the seriousness of the death penalty. Norway strongly opposes the death penalty and commits to the abolishment of it. Serious human rights gaps exist in national drug policies. The complexities of the drug problem also results in PUD being victims of human rights violations. We hope today’s session will contribute to addressing these issues.

Turkey: We reiterate our commitment to the conventions as cornerstones of the system and the role of INCB. We believe that the information sharing platforms, developed by the board, are important tools to strengthen international cooperation. We expect the board to consistently improve their tools.

Kazakhstan: As an active member, we fully support the implementation of the conventions. Today, colleagues stressed this and Cannabis is stated to be only allowed to be used in medical and scientific contexts. We believe all CND members should advocate for the full implementation of the drug control system.

Colombia: The conventions are cornerstones and they provide ample flexibility […] we reiterate our commitment.

Indonesia: We fully associate ourselves to Singapore’s statement and would like to add that we take note of the INCB’s stance regarding human rights. We are on the view that for drug control to be useful, we have to strike a balance. We revere human rights and fundamental freedoms, but human rights are for the protection of people, including protection from the threat of drugs and criminals. So the rights of those who fall victims to drugs and drug related criminals should be prioritized – let me underline that each country has the sovereign right what is the most appropriate approach to respond to the drug problem. I understand the importance of UNGASS outcome document but we think it should be implemented in a comprehensive and balanced manner in line with the 2009 document.

Switzerland: In terms of compliance, there are many point besides cannabis to be raised. We must remember what unites us – drug policies must promote the health ad welfare. Safe injecting facilities have helped us reach populations that are usually not reachable and we are able to promote safety and prevent the spread of blood borne infections. Medically supervised injection rooms help PDU to be connected to welfare services and keep them safe. We welcome the INCB’s call for closer collaboration with civil society. Gender inequality continues to be an issue. All countries should implement gender-sensitive treatment. The use of drugs among vulnerable groups such as women and youth keeps growing. SDG 3 and 5 – we must emphasize equality when responding to the drug problem. Drugs are a horizontal issue, requiring a social response. Solid inter-agency cooperation and dialogue with civil society has been enshrined in the UNGASS outcome document. We are actively engaged in a strong multilateral system. We are committed to the global approach and the 3 conventions as well as other relevant instruments.

Netherlands: We align ourselves to Austria are committed to the implementation of the 3 conventions and other relevant instruments such as the global declaration of human rights. Balanced national policies should respect human rights, contribute to the 2030 agenda. People who use drugs are often deprived of adequate and dignifying treatment. The efforts in many countries for rehabilitation and reintegration has been successful, these are element of our treaty obligations. World-wide, too many people have insufficient or no access to medicines, we must continue to explore innovative and evidence based approaches toward the implementation problems we face in the current framework. On the nature of the discussion – we understand that due to ongoing development some might feel the need to discuss Cannabis regulation, we are ready to discuss and are aware of the sensitivity. We highly value the Vienna spirt and look forward to continue the discussion with the focus on what unites us. We don’t support a discussion where member states are singled out. As the president of INCB mentioned today, the debate should be addressed in a broader context, not focus on certain chosen elements of the conventions and the discussion should not come on the expense of other important agenda points.

Vietnam: we align to the Asia-Pacific group’s statement. We express a grave concern of the legal obligations’ breach by a member state. This undermines the integrity of our work and poses a serious threat to public order, safety and security. We vision of a drug free society and urge MS to adhere to the conventions.

Tajikistan: We support our regional group’s statement. Our main concern is the production of drugs in our area. We have reason to believe that adopting laws that contradict conventions will serve as an example for other countries and we worry about the challenges. We remain committed to all international conventions to counter drug trafficking. We stress the role if INCB and call the board to address the issue.

China: We welcome the discussion on the compliance to the treaties. The treaties are the most widely accepted conventions and form the cornerstones of drug control framework. Since their entry into force, thanks to our collaboration efforts, we have convened serious commitments. INCB, CND, UNODC and WHO all carried out fruitful work in laying rules based international order. Despite significant progress, we should not be complacent. We still face emerging challenges, such as NPS and the darknet. We should not put the blame on the conventions for concerning situations in certain areas – on the contrary. Cannabis is a substance explicitly scheduled and its harm have been long proven. China is deeply concerned by the recent rhetoric by some specific countries that lead to the erosion of the 3 conventions. In particular, the legalization of non-medical use has been stated by the ICNB on the 17 of October to be a threat to the international order. China believes that no scheduled substance should be legalized for whatever reason. As a state party to the treaties, we earnestly adopted a comprehensive measures to supply and demand reduction with achieved remarkable results. As evidenced by the flattening curve of drug abuse, China registered a 3.8% reduction in the number of drug abusers and even more among those under 18. Any action undermining the drug control regime threatens our shared interests.

New Zealand: We welcome the INCB’S report and the inter-agency cooperation. We are fully committed to the drug conventions. We followed to conversation today and have a few points to add. Regarding the non-medical use of cannabis, we thank Canada for their transparency. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting the same results. We know that Canada has not taken this decision lightly, they have the interest of citizens at the heart of their new policy. We welcome an open debate on the issue, these are questions we battle on our domestic level. We agree with Netherlands that singling out nations is not really Vienna spirit and, especially with the HLMS rapidly approaching, we should not be distracted by one topic. We see a number of relevant topics to the implementation: proportionality in the criminal justice response, in particular death penalty, equitable access to treatment and human rights obligations. If we look at this, we have to look at all matters on the table. We are looking forward to discuss this at next CND and reiterate that conversation needs to remain broad.

France: We align ourselves to the EU’s statement and reiterate our commitment to the conventions. We align ourselves to countries that called for respect to the international regime, but it is not part of the CND’s mandate to judge any state’s decision and so we welcome the INCB in these discussion. It -is precisely that INCB holds the legitimacy to choose a response to non-complying countries.

Iran: We align ourselves with the Asia-Pacific group’s statement and Russia’s statement on behalf of like-minded countries. INCB pointed out that legalization of Cannabis is incompatible to the legal requirements of the conventions. In our national capacity, we reiterate our commitment to the 3 conventions. Defying the rules based international order will have serious consequences on other member states.

Italy: We align to the EU’s statement and join groups of states that commended the INCB. Effective, successful and sustainable implementation should be based on fundamental human rights. Drug dependence is not a crime, it is a complex health disorder. It is crucial that state parties adopt scientific evidence based approaches with the principal of proportionality of sanctions. The conventions provide enough flexibility to respond to issues with other than punishment. We welcome the board suggestion to abolish death penalty, we remain strongly opposed to this form of punishment in any circumstance. While the drug problem has evolved, the drug conventions remain the basis of our architecture.

Japan: We align with the Asia-Pacific group’s and Russia’s statements. The issue of implementation is of great importance as the conventions are the cornerstones of the international drug control system. CND has been aiming at a united response and we firmly believe this should be maintained. From this aspect, we are concerned about the legalization of Cannabis.

Pakistan: We fully share the view that the conventions are basis and continue to provide us a legal framework. Effective implementation is imperative and we reiterate our support for the INCB to monitor treaty compliance.  We share the concern about legalization of Cannabis. As a country most affected by the transit of drugs, we are concerned about the consequences of such decisions. We encourage the board to address this. In preparation to HLMS, we have to strengthen collaborative efforts.

Singapore: The INCB has played an important role and we commend them in aiding CND in addressing emerging challenges.  One of these challenges is the legalization of Cannabis for non-medical use. We express deep concern and regret on Canada’s decision. The INCB stated that Canada contributed to the weakening of international drug control framework and are concerned about health consequences, particularly when it comes to youth. We maintain that the 3 conventions are the cornerstones. While we agree that countries have to respond in accordance to national specifics, it has to be within the frames of the conventions and recreational use is not permitted. A literature review from our Institute of Mental Health confirmed the harmful and addictive nature of Cannabis. Our position that it should remain an illicit drug. We call on the international community to uphold the international drug control system.

Malaysia: [aligns to previous statements] We commend the ICNB’s work and fully recognize it’s role as a quasi-judicial body. The world drug problem is a collective problem. We believe that the recent policy documents outline a good framework. We witnessed new and alternative approaches which might impact negatively our collective efforts to address the world drug problem. Our efforts should be based on shared responsibility. The disastrous effect of drugs does not only effect drug users, it effects national security. We have to commit to the vision of a society free of drug abuse that we agreed on in 2009, 2014 and 2016. Any measures must be guided by this noble vision. The decision by some countries for non-medical and non-scientific use we understand are in response to local specifics but decisions must be strictly in line with the 3 conventions, the cornerstones of our system. New approached might have a spillover effect and run contrary to our longstanding principles. Each country has the responsibility to respond the way they see best in context to the national and cultural specifics, but it must remain in accordance to our agreements.

Canada: My remarks will focus on the gaps the INCB has recognized. First, regarding the domestic regime of Cannabis regulation – it came into effect in October and we indeed did not take this decision lightly. It has not been cynical, we have a seriousness of purpose and have been transparent since the beginning. We listened with interest and continue to engage with interested colleagues. The use of cannabis has been the highest in the world, particularly among youth. Our prohibitive approach did not lead to success. In order to keep the substance away from youth and take money out from the black market, we decided to regulate access in a legal framework. We are committed to measure the impact of this new policy and we have offered the outcome data. We remain a strong supporter of the 3 conventions, we are not challenge it and we don’t advocate for legalization in other states. Today theme is a broad one and our discussion must be so as well: Articles in conventions assign responsibility to take measures to aid persons affected by drug dependence. They all recognize the right to physical and mental health, there is no question that treatment of drug abuse is our obligation. We welcome the ICNB’s president stress on the human rights. It is as much of an obligation of MS as the suppression of drug trafficking. The stigmatization of people who use drugs impede them seriously to seek treatment services. The lack of access to evidence based programmes is a fundamental challenge. Not only are states obliged to provide such services, it has to be rooted in evidence. This is not a rich country solution – on the contrary! Indeed, the INCB has highlighted that treatment is highly cost effective because of reduced crime rates and costs for the criminal justice system. We adopted a new national strategy that is supported by strong evidence. CND members will recall that 2016 outcome document and other relevant international agreements constitute as the cornerstones – what constituted as a relevant agreement, there is no dispute that the universal declaration of human rights is relevant. Canada remains gravel concerned that human right violations in the name of drug control undermine our objectives to the well-being of humankind. We commend and support ICNB’s call to abolish the death penalty. It is against the norm of international law. We reiterate the call for proportionality in response to drug related crimes. We are reviewing our own sentencing policies at the moment to ensure Canadians can enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms. We remain concerned about the continued human rights violations, unproportional responses and lack of evidence based treatment services.

In light of the numerous comments today, I would like to add a few remarks in response to erroneous claims. Our objective is to keep the substance out of the hands of youth and the profit out of the hands of criminals. Some of the measures we put in place include significant penalties for those who enable youth to consume drugs, promote Cannabis, accompanied by a robust education and awareness campaign together with surveillance. This is a major effort – Health Canada has utilized many information outlets with the evidence based approaches that helped to drop tobacco consumption in recent years. Our tobacco strategy is a massive public health success story, particularly regarding youth. On the concerns of effects across our borders – trafficking remains a serious offence, our customs act remains in place, law enforcement agencies work internationally and we established a tracking system to prevent diversion of Cannabis. Our previous approaches were consistent with the conventions and were not successful. We are not challenging the conventions, we are making a domestic decision to effectively counter the problems we face in Canada. We are committed to find solutions to promote the health and well-being of people, we recognize our treaty partners pursue different approaches and we do not advocate this as a solution to others. Our commitment remains unchanged and it has been recognized by member states as we have been reelected to be on CND after the announcement of the planned domestic legislation. We will continue to respond in an open and honest way to raised questions and concerns. Our work is very important and if we adopt a tone that is hostile in these rooms as at least one delegation did today, we will inevitably suffer.

Egypt: Congrats to INCB on their anniversary, we reiterate our support for their role and work. We believe in the role of INCB, ECDDA and INCB are crucial. My delegation stresses the most important role of INCB as ensuring that the provisions are implemented in MS and ensure there is no violation – this applies to our discussion today very much. We are concerned about the violations caused by the measures some MS took towards legalizing illegal drugs for non-medical purposes. These are clearly not complying with the agreements we all signed. The nature of the world drug problem does not allow such behavior as any action taken in one member state effects all the other treaty partners. This is why we come together here. In this regard, we ask INCB and CND on elaborate on how to address violations.

Belarus: In the national capacity, we would like to emphasize the INCB’s role and their clear position that legalization for non-medical and non-scientific use is incompatible with the conventions. International cooperation is an important pillar for the work of CND.

Chair: Our colleague from UNODC, director of division for operations, will not be here in the afternoon so with your permission, I will hand it to her right now.

UNODC: I would like to talk about our next topic, Chapter 6 of the UNGASS document. Everything that UNODC does, here and on the field is very much aligned to the SDGs and the UNGASS outcome document. Some key facts to mention is that financial contribution from MS represents te largest share of UNODC’s budget. Our expenditures last year 23% was spent on alternative development, treatment, etc and another 23% counter organized crime. We have 17 field offices and 62 program presences with a total over 1000 personnel who deliver technical support. As various other topics thematically reviewed by CND, we will talk about two areas…

UNODC’s deep technical knowledge and field offices network is a basis for our work, our leadership in the response to the world drug problem. In South-East Asia, we are confronted with a new patter of NPS that are not tied to traditional production sites, so the drugs-flows show a much more complicated pattern lately. We are looking to help member states in this changing reality. West-Indian Ocean, the heroin trade, a better understood regional issue, we move around in vessels where the problem is more concentrated. We see a much stronger inter-regional response. Heroin flows are up but there is a belt across the Indian Ocean that is staffed by UNODC and is taking care of the problem. We get information from prisoners, we have good access to difficult-to-get information and with the help of maritime reports, we reevaluate law enforcement responses there. Two more things to mention, we do a lot of work around the globe to translate information and we do have a strong cooperation with various other regional entities and also one bread-and-butter type of activity is our ability to support intelligence agencies’ collaboration across borders. A specific cooperation I would like to mention is between Japan, Russia and UNODC in response to the issues in Afghanistan.

Chair: Morning session adjourned, we will continue with national statements in the afternoon.

* * *

AFTERNOON SESSION

UK: We thank INCB for their work, a lot of issues have been brought up today. We are fully committed to the implementation of the conventions. As MS reaffirmed all aspects of drug response should be conducted in line with the conventions and the universal declaration of human rights. We welcome the increased inter-agency cooperation and looking forward to the OHCHR to continue join our meetings. We will advocate for HR at the core of drug policies. The conventions allow proportionate criminal response and we welcome the INCB’s report on this. We remain committed to implement the relevant UNGASS outcome document chapters. The preamble of 1961 states the availability must be ensured for medical access, despite this there are millions of people without adequate access to essential medicine. It is clear there are a broad range of issues that need to addressed, as such we think we cannot take a narrow approach, we do not believe that singling out MS is a productive measure. We must continue to build on consensus.

Australia: We are pleased to celebrate the INCB, welcome them today and continue to support their work and role. We continue to be guided by the conventions and our national strategy that is an evidence based strategy. Regarding HLMS, we should focus on tangible outcomes – human rights, access to scientific and medical use, proportionality. We support alternatives to conviction, the abolition of death penalty and a work built on our achievements to date.

Uruguay: I believe INCB’s presentation will make history. We thank the particular thematic focus on human rights, which is indeed a priority. The 3 conventions can be only implemented in compliance to these rights. The recommendation was made to abolish the capital punishment – thank you. We feel more must be done. I am addressing the president of INCB: we refer to the conventions as the cornerstones, but you have not used these words. INCB has however referred to the UNGASS outcome document as such… in this room, many people refer to the conventions as if they were the ONLY cornerstones. We reached consensus only 2 years ago where we said the bedrock are the 3 conventions and the other instruments – which instruments? Undoubtedly, nobody would deny the universal declaration of human rights is part of that. Uruguay has always stated that any declaration must highlight this. Our first convention are too old so alongside them, we must respect human rights as a basis for our work. The conventions were signed 57 years ago and MANY thigs have changed. We are not trying to change anything, we are unable to change them, we are unable to reach consensus on any substantial amendment. A position today was made, referring to a legal report, and we know a request was made by the Russian Federation – here, I would like to thank the Russian Federation – this was made because it was a run-up to a trap. We knew Canada was going to be put on the spot. This is what we witnessed all morning and there is no delegation who accused Canada would explained why they disrespect the conventions or followed the Chair’s instructions. We are all here because of Canada? We can’t go along with that. I would like to read out a UNODC statement from 2006 – a global survey on Cannabis was requested and published in the World Drug Report. The global community is concerned as the most popular illicit drug is Cannabis and we’ve seen an increase in use. The report shows that suppressing the use of Cannabis is impossible, the final conclusion was that it is an inconsistent issue. If you walk 4 minutes from here, you can buy male plants in a regular shop. The global ambivalence, talking about it for ten years.  This inconsistency is laughable. Cannabis was not discussed in UNGASS. The representatives from Russia pointed out that in March 2019 the issue of Cannabis will be raised and we would like to make sure this is indeed on the agenda for HLMS, but we want to avoid singling out any country. Let’s turn to the matter of substance, because UNODC stated themselves that we are lagging behind understanding the problem. The legal regulation of the Cannabis market has been a topic and have occurred in many other countries, so why such treatment of Canada?! So we support the discussion of Cannabis in March but I would like to appeal to INCB: we have enough pilot experiences with regulated markets, we have scientific data… is there any scientific evidence from any of those states where there has been a deterioration of public health? Are there evidence that young people consume more? I would like to know what is the justification to back claims? We could ask WHO to draft a report on Cannabis and the dangers posed prior to March and use that for the basis of our work. I would like to commend Canada and thanking for refraining from hostile narratives such as many states have been done. Canada has fostered a Viennese spirit.

USA: We have some states that exercised their prerogative but USA has not legalized Cannabis, I just want to make it clear. ECDD will conduct their review on Cannabis and we look forward to the results of that. We are concerned that INCB will not be able to provide direct advice to the WHO in this process and we suggest that WHO and INCB work together so that whatever comes out from the meeting, we will have the opportunity to study and follow it. It is important to remember why we are here – to gather information in preparation to 2019. We agree with those who raised their voice against criticizing treaty partners. We are grateful for the drafters of the conventions so we have enough room to adapt the conventions to national specifics. Here, words matter… we recommend people go back and read the treaties. They don’t mention compliance, the INCB is empowered to aid MS to adhere to the rules. We all agree that health and welfare of mankind is our main aim. We confess that it is difficult for us to understand Canada’s decision but we appreciate their work on controlling trafficking and ensuring access for medicinal and scientific use.
Without the assistance of INCB we couldn’t make the progress in countering our devastating synthetic opioid crisis. We also recognize that interpretation of treaty compliance remains with member states. Here at the CND, we should be focused on addressing the depth of our problems and our common goals.

Belgium: Protecting health is our primary goal, while upholding human rights and so the debates here should be open, honest and constructive within these topics. Judgements about other members, threatening them, should not have a place here. We thank delegations for continually providing the commission with information. We warmly thank INCB for their work towards increasing access to scheduled substances for medical and scientific purposes.

Dominican Republic: We commend the INCB and their work. We are on the view that the 2016 UNGASS outcome document represents the latest consensus. We recognize the immense challenge the INCB must shoulder and that coordination among agencies is crucial. We think consumption of psychoactive substances poses serious challenges to our societies. We continue to promote international cooperation and commit to the three conventions.

Venezuela: As the competent monitoring body and making efforts to strengthen multilateralism, we thank INCB. We further strengthen our work for the health and well-being of our people. Striking a balance between preventive actions and full-on attack. We are focused on the principle common and shared responsibility while being aware that it has different impact on states… we reiterate that the conventions are the cornerstones and architecture of the drug control regime.

Holy See: We have often reaffirmed our firm intention and give global moral support and drug related problems. Our common global efforts rest on the recognition that universal action calls for international action. Ultimate success in combatting the world drug problem relies on all states promoting health and well-being of people, facilitating healthy lifestyles based on evidence. A key body is INCB and we thank the president for his briefing this morning with a clear message on legalization and death penalty. Be assured of Holy See’s support for the treaty mandated work of the INCB.

(NGO) John Walsh, Washington Office on Latin America: The UN drug treaties expressly limit cannabis use to medical and scientific purposes, and cannabis is placed under the strictest of the conventions’ control schedules. But cannabis is today, and has long been, by far the world’s most widely used illicit drug. Implementing the UN drug treaty obligations has led to the criminalization and incarceration of tens of millions of people around the world. Instead of persisting with efforts to ban cannabis markets, an increasing number of subnational and national jurisdictions are choosing to provide for legal, regulated access to cannabis for adults for non-medical purposes. Legal regulation, these jurisdictions are deciding, will be better suited to promoting the health, security, and human rights of their citizens. But the legal regulation of drug markets for non-medical purposes clearly contravenes international drug treaty obligations. The treaties do afford certain latitude for countries, providing considerable room for maneuver for policy makers on a range of crucial issues, including the decriminalization of the possession of drugs for personal use and the implementation of an array of harm reduction services. However, there are limits to the latitude afforded by the treaties, and one of the clearest limits is that legally regulated access to non-medical cannabis—or non-medical use of any of the other over 250 substances within the treaties’ purview, for that matter—is out of bounds. Appealing to States’ positive human rights obligations provides a powerful rationale for the legal regulation of cannabis. But grounding regulation in human rights arguments, however valid, does not automatically resolve the problem of drug treaty contravention that is entailed in cannabis regulation. Yet cannabis regulation is moving ahead all the same. The ‘Vienna consensus’—to the extent that it ever truly existed—is fractured, and starkly different national approaches to cannabis is among the key reasons why. What to do? Reaching a new global consensus to revise or amend the UN drug control conventions in order to accommodate legally regulated markets for cannabis does not appear to be a viable scenario for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the limits of flexible treaty interpretations have been reached and overstretching them any further would result in undermining basic principles of international law. States that intend to move towards legal regulation, or that have already done so, are obliged to explore other options to reconcile such policy changes with their obligations under international law. The World Health Organization (WHO) can recommend after a critical review by its Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) to ‘un-schedule’ a controlled substance, and the CND can adopt the recommendation by a simple or two-thirds majority vote (for the 1961 and 1971 conventions, respectively). In fact, the ECDD’s first-ever critical review of cannabis is underway, and is likely to lead to changes in the classification of the various cannabis-related substances under international control. It remains to be seen whether the WHO would recommend removing cannabis from the treaty schedules altogether, but such a recommendation would seem unlikely to get the required CND majority under present circumstances. The only other options that do not require consensus are either UNILATERALLY by late reservations or by denunciation and re-accession with new reservations (as Bolivia did with regard to coca), or  COLLECTIVELY  by inter se treaty  modification, whereby two or more States agree to change certain treaty provisions among themselves alone. The inter se procedure—based on Article 41 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)—was specifically designed to find a balance between the stability of treaty regimes and the necessity of change in absence of consensus in order to respond to changing circumstances and social conditions. The inter se option would require that the like-minded agreement includes a clear commitment to the original treaty aim to promote the health and welfare of humankind and to maintaining the original treaty obligations vis-a-vis countries not party to the new inter se agreement. As I noted, human rights arguments do not erase the issue of drug treaty non-compliance. But they do provide a strong justification for a State to enter into a temporary period of non-compliance, with the goal of formally altering its relationship to the obligations that it can no longer meet. Such a period of transitionary ‘respectful non-compliance’ could set the stage for two or more States to avail themselves of the inter se option for treaty modification. So, returning to the question I posed in the title of this presentation: ‘Can cannabis be regulated in accord with international law?’ Is it possible for non-medical cannabis regulation to proceed within the bounds of international law, rather than straining against them? I maintain that the answer is ‘Yes, quite possible.’ That does not mean, however, that it will be easy. Successful implementation of the inter se procedure will undoubtedly require some time and careful consultations before a group of States can agree among themselves on the best way forward. Applied with caution and reason under exceptional circumstances, inter se treaty modification can provide a useful safety valve for collective action to adjust a drug treaty regime that appears to be frozen in time. Taking recourse to this not-often used mechanism will surely be contested by other treaty parties, but in the current polarized climate of international drug policy, and in the absence of realistic alternatives, the inter se option is ‘perhaps the most elegant way out’. An inter se agreement would also open the possibility of international trade between regulated licit markets, enabling small farmers in traditional Southern producing countries to participate, and also diminishing the risk of a corporate capture of the emerging licit markets. Closed national systems of regulation are unlikely to fully replace existing illicit markets that are partly dependent on international trade to accommodate product variety and quality, cultural diversity and consumer preferences. To conclude: the coordinated, collective response to treaty breach required by inter se—combined with the clear appeal to citizens’ human rights, health, and security in justifying cannabis regulation—offers a markedly better path forward than ignoring or denying treaty breach, which risks eroding fundamental principles of international law more generally. The collective inter se procedure is also a more promising approach than the chaotic scenarios of multiple unilateral reservations and legally dubious treaty re-interpretations. Earlier this year, during the CND’s 61st session, WOLA and our colleagues at the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Global Drug Policy Observatory (GDPO) launched a report, Balancing Treaty Stability and Change, that explores in detail the rationale, potential legitimacy, and feasibility of the inter se option for treaty modification. Research articles on cannabis regulation and the UN drug treaties are also featured in the latest volume of the journal International Community Law Review. As more jurisdictions opt to regulate non-medical uses of cannabis, we invite your serious consideration of the dilemma before us and the merits of the inter se option.

INCB President: Thank you for your active engagement today. We will try to accommodate the needs of member states. We are 50 years now, so we probably know the proper way of managing issues. We are open for dialogue when MS need our assistance. I am about to have a meeting with the WHO right now, but there exist a report on the effect of Cannabis already, you can read the full paper on the WHO website. Next week, the critical review of the substance contained in the Cannabis plant will commence and we look forward to talk this through at CND.

Chair: We will have a short break until we rearrange the podium. Presentations will be posted on the CND website.

(panel) WHO: WHO Director General congratulated INCB yesterday – we are a specialized agency on health. We have new strategic goals of 3 billion that is firmly based on SDGs and human rights principles. We aim to have 1 billion people protected and covered by universal health coverage and safer lives. Our new operational focus is on country impact, in particular, low-income areas.  In context of WHO strategic priorities, we shall aim to leave no one behind: universal health coverage & promoting healthier populations by accelerating essential treatment for non-communicable diseases and mental health. Recent and future relevant high-level events: Third High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the prevention and control of Non-communicable Diseases, UN General Assembly High-Level MEtting on ending Tubercolosis, The Global Conference on Primary Health Care, High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly on Universal Health Coverage. WHO activites on psychoactive substances and related issues are not restricted to scheduled substances, focuses on public helath and is implementing a range of specialized technical programs. Plus there is the treaty-based function of ECDD. Together with the UNODC, we also work on the epidemiology of drug use not just regarding scheduled substances – Examples: field testing of international standards on treatment of drug use disorders with subsequent implementation on country levels, multi-site implementation study on community management of overdoses including the use of naloxone, dissemination of WHO guidelines on substance use during pregnancy, technical guide on prevention of mother-to-child transmission, strategic advisory group to the UN on HIV, global estimates on the number of PUD, interagency technical working group on drug epidemiology. We reviewed synthetic opioids and have recommended for scheduling car fentanyl, ocfentanyl, furanyl fentanyl, acryloyfentanyl, THF-F and will review 5 fentanyls and tramadol next week. We will also hold an intergovernmental expert meeting on synthetic opioids in collaboration with CND, UNODC, INCB in Vienna on the 3rd and 4th of December.

USA: We are interested to read the outcome of the expert review and we are pleased to see the number of fentanyls on the list of the review. We are eager to learn more about the outcome on Cannabis and we are curious to learn for example what the threshold of CBD content is and how that will appear in the treaties. There will be a number of question as you could see from this morning so we encourage the science to be irrefutable.

Canada: Let me just echo my American colleague and thank WHO for their work on scheduling. You made a comment about the privilege of ECDDA meeting to hold closed meetings. Could you let us know why these decisions are taken?

Russia: Mr Voznyak (WHO) mentioned human rights are the basis of every decision which must be true. From a medical point of view, to what extent does drug use has an effect on an unborn child?

Spain:  Current trends made I essential for WHO to participate and in the context of the ECDDA, cooperation must be mutually enforced. Any opportunity for exchange must be supported.

WHO: To the USA, technical challenges present in the review on Cannabis was mentioned. In 2006 we prepared a document and in preparation of the expert committee, from different aspects, the document was updated and it can be find on the WHO website now. These materials will be the basis for the planned report on Cannabis. There are significant technical issues that are not easy to address with current science, but we undertake efforts to close gaps. When it comes to the deliberation of the expert committee, it is entirely up to the discretion of the chair and this not a permanent role, we have strict rules on the composition of expert committees. They came to a decision to hold closed session and they have the right to. [In response to Russia] When it comes to the impact on the fetus, there are indications that almost all psychoactive substances have negative effect on development. The most dramatic is alcohol, but if we speak about Cannabis, there is scientific data that there is some negative effect on newborns, but these are much much less than with alcohol. I understand that Spain is encouraging us to strengthen our collaboration – we are implementing our MoU and are carrying out joint activities. We are fully committed to continue and strengthen this collaboration.

(panel) UNDP: [SDGs] is becoming the most displayed slide in this building. Member states committed to leave no one behind, among others… illicit drug markets and addressing them cuts across many issues. The Secretary General called on MS to ensure the approach in tackling drug issues promotes equality, human rights, sustainable development and greater peace and security. There are many underlying issues, poverty, cultivation of illicit crops for livelihood, gender inequality, he range of services to treat drug abuse rarely recognize gender specific needs of women. IN some countries admitting to use drugs can lead to the termination of parental rights that can prevent women to seek help to begin with.  As for alternatives to incarceration – in countries where data is available, a higher proportion of women is imprisoned for drug related offences with poor conditions and lack of health services. Keeping people outside of the criminal justice system in the first place by decriminalizing possession of small amounts for example is a first step towards achieving the SDGs. Due process is also essential. Some quick word on human rights guidelines, if I may… We have issued several handbooks and all MS seem to be clear on the guidelines, but what is missing is a monitoring and evaluation system. We anticipate that these papers can provide a blueprint for MS to meet their international human rights obligations. UNGASS, that represents the most recent consensus, will be reviewed and we hope that MS that wish to strengthen their commitment and adhere to leave no one behind will step up their efforts.

EU:  I would like to thank UNODP and WHO for their presentations. It is important to have this inter-agency collaboration for long standing progress.

(panel) Interpol: We have the mission to facilitate international cooperation with respect to international human rights. As crimes become more globalized, we established networks to bring police forces together and maintain crime databases which was consulted 3.4 billion times last year. An example: few years ago, the British police was looking for a murder suspect in a drug related organized crime situation. We managed to identify the finger prints with help from Canadian data and the person was found in Kenya, then sentenced in the UK. It is important to use and populate the databases therefore. We have specific areas for types of crimes. Our drug related database sees 140 countries participating. We have a large body of data on criminal activities, phone numbers, financial information, etc. The Relief database: when traffickers send drugs, they also send a metallic tracking device and these leave unique traces on the packages. Using these, we were able to identify packages on different parts of the World and we were able to trace it back to their production site. We found that proceeds of drug crime are mostly flowing to criminal groups involved in armed conflicts. Interpol provides operational support to law enforcement bodies to dismantle criminal organizations, in Africa it is mainly concerning cocaine. In the Asia-Pacific region, we work with many intergovernmental organizations. The 62nd session of CND will be a crucial opportunity to further discuss cooperation.

Russia: Thank you for pointing out that proceeds of drug crimes go to activities that violate human rights. I have no question but a wish for Interpol to participate in these meetings more often.

USA: Indeed, Interpol red notices are crucial to our work, it really catches the fugitives. Thank you for bringing these topics to our meetings. Your services in training police is also appreciated. We value your assistance.

Morocco: It was stated the Interpol can provide information on the machines packing narcotics. Is there a follow-up procedure to obtain that information? If we seize packages, does this go to national authorities, providing evidence?

Interpol: Thank you for your comments Russia and USA. In response to Morocco, the Relief database uses accurate photographic evidence working with algorithms. The ordinary procedure is this: first we address the national police force, the country’s judicial body and then the process can be started. The photos need to comply with specific standards, we are testing this system right now but there is a protocol in place.

(panel) Nigeria: I start my presentation reiterating that the 3 conventions are key in combatting the world drug problem. Nigeria considers equally important the 2009, 2014 and the 2016 documents. Our conviction that these are complimentary and mutually enforcing documents. The significance of supply and demand reduction cannot be overemphasized. Tramadol is most popular illicit drug after Cannabis Sativa. These are not manufactured in Nigeria, most of it is imported from India. Over 6000 kg of the substance was seized, one eight of the world’s seizures. Thanks to the positive collaborative efforts of the UN, we were able to make these seizures. Information sharing is a basis for strengthened drug control.

Egypt: Thank you for this speech that accurately captures the situation in the Middle East and Africa. I cannot stress the seriousness of the issue of tramadol.  The problem of synthetic opioids has to be taken seriously.

USA: Mutual legal assistance – with this new platform, are you engaged in a single type of network? How do you interact multilaterally?

(panel) Nigeria: The relationships were established informally, but now they are based on country requests and are official.

(panel) Pakistan: Meaningful international cooperation is the basis of successfully addressing the world drug problem. In the face of persistent and new threats, strengthening common and shared responsibility is crucial. Without it, none of the documents can be translated into actions. This is not just about timely share of information but also concrete assistance and knowledge transfer. It is vital to suppress transnational criminal organizations. As we prepare for the next CND, we must assess how far we’ve come in implementing our commitments and our score card is mixed. Post 2019, the Commission should play the lead role in close cooperation with relevant entities. We hope the HLMS will provide fresh political guidance in terms of implementation. The tendency to selectively pick the commitments will not lead to – we must make best use of regional and multilateral mechanisms. Children and youth are a huge asset, we have to implement effective measures to foster their health. UNODC’s programs should be within the needs of member states. Pakistan is confronted with 2 challenges: drug trafficking and drug abuse. We are part of various regional groups and our agencies swiftly respond to legal assistance request. Many law enforcement officials have been trained in Pakistan.

Egypt: More of a comment than a question. We are happy with the post 2019 vision presented here. The nature of international cooperation was mentioned and it should not be by sitting together but a lot needs to be done when it comes to capacity building and technical assistance or technology transfer. This is a point we agree on with Pakistan and wanted to highlight.

Russia: Outstanding statement from the frontlines! In your region, there are close links between drugs and terrorism – what’s your opinion as to the nexus between the two and addressing this threat?

Iran: Our countries are most effected and we have a good cooperation among our colleagues which resulted in huge seizures. Less than 2 weeks ago the UNODC established its first sub-office in a province bordering Iran to which extent will this enhance regional cooperation?

Vietnam: Not a question but a comment to thank for this statement. MY delegation shares the view on international cooperation and we’d like to see more of this discussion, especially as we are coming closer to the 2019 review.

(panel) Pakistan: Thank you for your comments and questions. It is obvious that the nexus exists between terrorism and drugs. As for combatting it, there are platforms and regional initiatives – only through cooperation can we be successful. Answering Iran – in my understanding this is essentially assistance to national authorities. The drug phenomena has several dimensions to it and we would like to work even more closely with our regional partners to effectively address this.

(panel) France: Our topic today is at the very core of combatting drugs. We are very much attached to upholding human rights in our international cooperation. We are facing increasing threats to the safety of our societies. The importance of cooperation has been reiterated many times by members of CND – UNGASS breaks it down to actual recommendations. France since 2016 has been working alongside 40 MS and UNODC to support a prevention campaign “Listen First”. Targeting young people and their friends is the most efficient way to address the issue. We support the INCB learning initiative and welcome the hosting of a seminar for French speaking African countries. Technical assistance is of essence when it comes to combatting of criminal organizations that are exploiting technological innovations such as the darknet. It is our common responsibility to take part in the conversation with the Vienna spirit. France will fully play its part to arrive at an understanding.

NGO: https://www.cstfondrugs.org/resources/civil-society-presentations/

Russia: I really admire the work of the representative from Kenya – without major funding they are carrying out necessary work. Narcotics are one of the most dangerous threats that many African countries are facing.

NGO: The most commonly abused drugs, besides alcohol and tobacco, are Marijuana. It is popularized in Kenya and the discussion of legalizing it is in front of the Parliament. In many parts of our country, Cannabis is held as a religious tool. The Rastafarians have their roots in Arica, so there is a huge amount of people support this bill. An other one, called “Khat” is not very known outside of our region. Kenya is a transit point for narcotics, so even the ones that are not rampant in the country find their way in…

Chair: Thank you for the presentations. We have two more experts and an NGO representative before adjourning the meeting.

(panel) Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD): As a region, the Americas play a central role in drug policies. We have contributed to the implementation of all chapters. We are training and certifying a new generation of professionals. We established a consortium of universities to research drug related issues. We support member states in strengthening their capacity to suppress supply. We bring together experts to discuss cross cutting timely issues. We help member states exchange best practices. We are leaders in approaching drugs as a health issue and have undertaken innovative gender related projects. We promote alternatives to incarceration. Evidence based policies must include the collection and analysis of relevant data. We are establishing regional drug information networks. We have a multilateral evaluation mechanism – the only peer review tool of its kind in the world.

(panel) OESC: We’ve been joining forces on many departments and contribute to global efforts […]

NGO: https://www.cstfondrugs.org/resources/civil-society-presentations/

Chair: Thank you professor, this was a very important presentation. With this, we are closing our meeting but before that – any final comments and questions? Interpretation is off from now on, so please speak English.

Colombia: Regarding the work of CICAD- we benefit largely from this program.

USA: support for CICAD.

Russia: CICADs scope is much broader than mentioned here. We thank you for this. To the professor – what can communities and/or families do?

Spain: importance of information exchange!

NGO: In response to Russia, there are evidence based practices families can take – there are many practices, you can look at the blueprints website of the University of Chicago but we also have a research on that. We try to convey the evidence of the developing brain and we found that they are keen to understanding that.

Chair: Meeting adjourned. Thank you.

Chair: We focus now on the 2019 target date.

(panel) Statistical Committee / Angela Me: Our five targets are, as you know, eliminate or reduce significantly and measurably (1) illicit cultivation of opium, coca and cannabis (2) illicit demand of drugs and drug-related health and social risks (3) illicit market of synthetic drugs (4) diversion and trafficking of precursors (5) money-laundering related to drugs.
Mr Fedotov said in the World Drug Report, the range of drug markets is expanding and diversifying as never before. If we look at the use of drugs from 2009 to 2015, we can see about 30% more people using drugs and a 12% increase in drug use disorders. People who inject drugs and HIV among this group showed less prevalence in 2016 than in 2011. We have now data from 108 countries while previous data was from around 80 countries. If we look at drug-related deaths, there is an increase of 16%. Based on WHO data, we can see there was an increase both in total and directly drug-related deaths. We are at a record high for opium cultivation and cocaine manufacture. In terms of trafficking, the main routes haven’t changed much. While before there was no cocaine going to Asia, it seems there is more and more new markets emerging there which would probably explain the increase of demand in these regions. As for synthetics, we are looking at seizure data, which has its limitations, but if we see an increase in seizure that can definitely mean an increase in supply… but these huge increase means the improvement of data collection as well. Precursors, since 2009 have become more controlled, but their impact is different since then. Touching on the Cannabis market, the thing that changed most since 2009 is that we see a sharp decrease in 2016 in terms of seizures but some other indicators have shown an increase on the market. In terms of use, we measure perception of use and this has increased significantly… but what kind of increase? If we look at the different natures of Cannabis markets in western countries, tobacco and alcohol use has decreased significantly, which is partly can be a result of awareness campaigns, but compared to Europe, more youth using Cannabis in the US, but they also consume less tobacco in the US. The issue is not black and white, you can always find numbers to show what you want it to show. In this graph you can see that in 2007, the Cannabis market started to change, way before the new legislation, so when that was a case, the market already had expanded.  Any change after the legislation is partly due to this ongoing trend as the perception of the risks associated with Cannabis have decreased – to differentiate cause and effect is difficult. If we compare states that allow medical use and those who don’t, we see similar expansion of the market nevertheless. The number of people using Cannabis has not changed dramatically, neither did the patterns. What changed is the amount and the perception of risks, and the price of Cannabis. The major features of the changing Cannabis market are: medical use, private sector involvement, advertising, and different new legislations.

Chair: That was very interesting. I am taking the first round of questions.

USA: We appreciate this invaluable data, I have questions about the perception indicators. We noticed the graphs were very US focused and we gladly share our data widely, but we are wondering if you have data from other countries as well?

Morocco: We managed to reduce by 65% the Cannabis cultivation that is stated clearly in various UN reports. Could you give us more information on the new tendency of the production and emergence of new regions?

India: This upcoming session in March is very important and we expect this topic to come up. When we talk about increase in the use of drugs, it is important that we indicate if it covers the same areas and data collection tools. A word of caution, when you present use of drugs and HIV on the same slide, people seem to link the issues to each other. Yes, there is a link, but is it a 1-to-1 correspondence? Please take this into account when you present data.

Angela Me: Thank you for clarifying perception, the first one is based on experts and their estimation of prevalence of use, the other one was relying on other indicators… yes, I apologize I didn’t make it clear. I guess what I’m saying is that it seems to be much cooler to smoke cannabis than cigarettes in the US. We do rely a lot on US data, because there is a lot of input…from a research point of view, this is a good way of understanding the possibilities. I do take the point that it is very US focused. As for Morocco, we haven’t seen a change in the region and I think it’s important to understand the difference between the herb and resin. In total seizures, resin is much less and the herb is cultivated everywhere, inside, outside… we are not able to measure it so precisely. It is unfortunate that resin is based in very few countries and so we focus on them in these prospects. It is also an important point that India raised, much has changed in data collection. On drug use, we have huge gaps in data but where we do have data, the trends are similar. I mentioned HIV only in the context of injecting drug use and we see a decrease in the relation between the two and some say that the current HIV prevalence is not as much related to drug us anymore.

Slovenia: Of course we are talking about HIV, but we have to know that we invest a huge amount into this important issue. About Cannabis, I am interested in the data for the future. It is based on the occasional use, but we didn’t have data on regular use. From the public health perspective, what do you think we can expect? Do we repeat the US epidemic? Do we need to invest more in prevention? Treatment?

USA: It is interesting to think about the trend forecast and some things continue to increase. Would these be much higher if it was not for the work we’ve been doing and what has your office been doing?

Angela Me: There are researchers that try to model the impact of different legislations, but as you said it depends on interventions a lot. What we try to do is learn from others. I tried to show the differences between Europe and USA so we can learn something for the still contained market in Europe. We have a saying that it is a bit like weather…

(panel) Nigeria: It is the duty of every MS to develop an action plan to deal with these issues. […]

Egypt: We totally subscribe of the views expressed just now. How does the panelist assess the regional cooperation within the African continent?

India: Towards the end of the presentation, you said international cooperation and supply reduction are the keys. Since 2009, we have the 3 fundamental pillars established – how can we exclude demand reduction from our dialogues and say we have a balanced approach? As for op36, it is true to some extent that we should try to look at new ways while continue our efforts.

(panel) Nigeria: It is very much possible, catching up. While we say these issues are global, they are very much local. Why would you do nothing internally? UNODC is doing a great job. I agree with the colleague from India.

South Africa: I subscribe to the views expressed by Egypt and India. Regarding op36, the basic documents, we’d appreciate the streamlining of the discussion.

(panel) Mexico: It was important to see the technicalities presented by Angela. Delegations are called upon to improve data collection as a basis for the future work of CND and the work that has been done is impressive. As for the instruments and goals, this is obvious for us in Mexico, but it is worth pointing out. We have utilized a great number of resources and international agreements, even called on the armed forces for the eradication of illegal crops. We have a great number of programs to reduce drug production. We launched broad ranging campaigns for demand reduction, in full respect of human rights, we have set up harm reduction programs. We involve stakeholders from civil society, the private sector, and academia. We have set up mechanisms between different parts of the judicial system to properly execute those involved in illegal trafficking. These quantifiable and tremendous efforts lead to a “diagnosis” that there is no reduction in drug consumption, there is indeed an increase in proportion of the increase of population – we look at the prevailing age of first use with concern. There has been a considerable increase in many aspects of consumption and potency. We are convinced that new drug related international agreements should be built on all previous agreements – it is not like the newest is replacing all the previous ones though UNGASS is the most holistic and most action oriented paper. We have identified a clearer and broader vision of the illicit market by now, as Angela has shown us, there are a number of factors we have to keep in mind. We think UNGASS chapters helps us identify the facets of the phenomena efficiently and we began a process in Mexico that moves us from discussion to action. We opened a dialogue with grassroots civil society groups, various other governments, and CICAD to draw on learnings in developing our actions. Our public health actions go beyond simple demand reduction, we work on making pain relief more accessible and balance out the gender divides, we address human rights issues and we have a broader based approach in law enforcement. We are looking for alternatives and proportional responses. We produced a document that deals with all these salient issues and builds on UNGASS – this is available for all of you, copies are left up front.

India: These interventions that we address issues with have to change overtime […] as the issues change. An observation about drug cultivators- that they are considered a victim of organized crime. Economics look at it that they are entrepreneurs who benefit from the economy of the market. If we look at it that way, we have to think about how we incentivize these farmers.

Brazil: Although we are geographically far, we are the same region and we share a lot of challenges. A specific point you mentioned was increasing links to organized crime, which is a reality that largely concerns Brazil, especially the increased violence in the Latin American region. We have a large number of people in prison for trafficking and it is increasing, but it has not affected public security so far. Still, we are aiming to go for the roots of the issue as well. How can we take actions against money laundering and synergies between other areas of UNODC’s work regarding crime organizations dealing with drugs and other forms of organized crime?

Russia: What about cooperation with civil society when devising Mexico’s policy on countering drugs?

(panel) Mexico: I agree completely with India. There are universally applicable elements in our national strategy – we are always running behind so the point of international cooperation is to help foresee damaging effects. Criminal organizations communicate among themselves, so one precursor produced in India easily finds its way to Mexico. We have to think about common denominators and this is how we think we should develop drug policies, depending on national priorities. In spite of the distance between Mexico and Brazil, we are the same region and it is very important to our region what UNODC have done. We shouldn’t be surprised that we found links between issues through the financial flows. We have to recognize an other criminal aspect, we have to respond for example to weapons trading with respect to the different dynamics of the market. Finally, in response to Russia, transparency and openness has been a key with all stakeholders, not just CSOs but academia and legislative bodies as well.

OAS: CICAD is as good as it’s member states and we really appreciate and thank Mexico for chairing the dialogues and their work.

Switzerland: Since we are talking about stock taking in a way, have you made estimations on the money spent on the drug markets by organized criminal groups and the tax payer’s money that has been spent on various actions.

USA: the goals of 2009 are silent of this issue, we have to get specific on the issues we have to overcome in terms of access and availability. We are looking forward to concrete and practical steps. I just wanted to make this observation in this discussion and we thank you for your great presentation.

(panel) Mexico: Yes, we recognize the work of CICAD in our region is really working hard together. We call on other regions to do the same. I thank Switzerland’s comment – this is one priority we have and are making efforts lead by an independent body, the national statistics institute, so that we have more precise estimates available regarding the costs in both direction. As for the USA, we are grateful for this comment and we acknowledge the work done by the region to understand how illicit markets are functioning.

(panel) Health Canada: About the opioid crisis and our response to that – it a health approach, grounded in evidence. It has four pillars, based on UNGASS. We lost thousands of lives to the crisis, mainly between the ages of 30 and 39, and mostly men. As demand reduction measures, we developed national prescription guidelines that provides updated information for medical professionals and patients about the use of opioids for chronic pain; We informed Canadians about risks associated with opioid use through warning stickers and mandatory patient handouts; We increased the transparency in marketing and promotion of therapies for pain management by engaging pharma companies. As for supply reduction, we akejded the controlled drugs and substances act in 2016 to make it illegal to import an unregistered designated device (ie pill press), to enable border agency services to open international mail, to extend offences and penalties for pre-production activities; we also engaged with the US and Mexico through the North-American Dialogue on Drug Policy; we implemented the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sythetic Drug Initiative to prevent diversion of chemicals from foreign sources that fuel clandestine drug labs and reduce illicit drug production. We also introduced enhanced protocols and detection technology for frontline Border Services Officers interdicting illegal opioids at our borders; We improved monitoring of distribution channels and increased knowledge-exchange among international law enforcement agencies; We are working closely with international partners. As for the diversion of and illicit trafficking of fentanyl and precursors, related chemicals intermediates have been scheduled and we are conducting scientific analysis of potential precursors such as benzyl fentanyl and analogues, desproplonyl fentanyl and analogues, norfentanyl. We are continuing to engage our law enforcement partners at the RCMP and CBSA to monitor for new precursors across all illicit substance groups.

Russia: We’d like to express solidarity for the victims of the opioid crisis – this is reason for international cooperation in response to drug problems. We would like to know more on the sources of opioids that entered the market and the triggers for the crisis.

(panel) Canada: Than you. Both of those issues are very complex. We are looking at indications of poverty, trauma, gender issues – we are increasing our focus on how to develop prevention tactics. For the rest, I will have to come back to you with an answer.

USA: Has Canada made a commitment to make the current situation an opportunity to collect better and more data in order to share with us how Cannabis’ new regulation impacts the issue? Would you like to make comments on the toolkit that could provide us more insight into fighting the opioid crisis?

(panel) Canada: Yes, we have made a commitment. We are hoping to establish a data observatory, similar to what is present in the EU – of course it depends on funding. Our Cannabis survey is public and available now. We are focusing now on drug use within the university age population and we will conclude that in the next 2 years. We are also looking at a possibility of an NPS survey. We will continue to share all the information we can regarding our new legislation and consequences. We are developing an evaluation framework to assess treatment and therapies. As for the toolkit, we are happy to share whatever we can share with you and continue the dialogue.

(panel) NGO: Ann Fordham (International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), United Kingdom: Excellences, ladies and gentlemen, dear civil society colleagues, Thank you, Madame Chair for the opportunity to present here today as part of the panel on ‘taking stock of the implementation of the commitments made to jointly address and counter the world drug problem, in light of the 2019 target date’. Firstly, as a civil society representative, I would like to thank you, Madame Chair and the CND Secretariat, for your continued commitment to the meaningful engagement of civil society in this forum. The practice of civil society engagement at the CND is being increasingly held up as a good practice example, and the great strides that have been made on that front in the last 10 years is strongly welcomed and appreciated. The role of civil society is to bring the realities on the ground to bear on these important discussions. In formulating social and public policies, it is fundamental to consider the impact on the lives of people and communities, on public health and human rights, both at the core of the values of the United Nations. Thank you in particular for your collective support for the Civil Society Task Force of which I am a member. We have continued our work after the UNGASS to engage global civil society from all regions of the world in the lead up to 2019. We have just closed the global online consultation to seek new inputs from civil society on their views on the last decade of drug policies and ideas for the future. The results of the online consultation will be presented here in Vienna on the 5th December and we invite you all to attend that important session. My intervention today however, is on behalf of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC). IDPC is a global network of 177 civil society organizations from over 60 countries. We come together to promote objective and open debate in drug policy making and call for evidence-based policies that are effective at reducing drug-related harm that are based in the broader priorities of the United Nations – human rights, development and peace and security. In Resolution 60/1, member states agreed to take stock of the implementation of commitments made to jointly address and counter the world drug problem, in particular in the light of the 2019 target date. As a contribution towards this critical discussion of ‘taking stock’ and in the absence of a comprehensive formal review process, IDPC has produced a civil society shadow report that reviews progress towards the overarching goals from the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action. In addition, the report also seeks to evaluate whether and how the implementation of the Political Declaration has contributed to the broader UN priorities of protecting human rights, advancing peace and security, promoting development. Finally, the report offers recommendations for new goals and metrics for the next decade on drug control, focusing on UNGASS implementation and the SDGs. In terms of the methodology used, in addition to looking at the progress against the targets from operational paragraph 36, we selected 33 actionable and measurable actions out of the 234 actions in the Plan of Action. We looked at the data available between March 2009 and July 2018. The data is largely taken UNODC and supported by other UN data from WHO, OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP and others, as well as academic and civil society research. There is a great deal of data in the report and I invite you to read it. We have hard copies executive summaries here with us today. For now, I will briefly share the headlines. Firstly, with specific reference to the first two targets from operational paragraph 36:

– On target 1 which seeks to reduce or eliminate the cultivation of certain plans. Data from the UNODC shows us that over the last decade, there has been an increase in opium and coca cultivation which are now at record levels.

– On target 2 which seeks to reduce both illicit demand as well as health and social risks, we note an average increase by 31% in the global demand for all drugs. With respect to reducing health and social risks, we have not seen a reduction in HIV, hep C and TB prevalence among people who use drugs, overall infection rates have remained stable – and in some regions are still increasing. There has been a worrying increase in drug-related deaths – with WHO reporting some 450,000 deaths in 2015. Around a third to one half of these are fatal but mostly preventable overdoses and the rest are from complications relating to HIV, hepatitis or TB infection which are also preventable and treatable.

– On target 3 which seeks to reduce availability of psychotropic substances, including synthetic drugs, there has been a huge increase in the number of new psychoactive substances on the market. In addition, the available data shows increasing production and expanding markets for methamphetamines, and the record levels of the illicit use of prescription drugs in some parts of the world.

– On target 4 which seeks to eliminate and reduce the diversion and trafficking of precursors, despite the best efforts of member states, the INCB reports an increase in the use and number of precursors.

– On target 5, to eliminate or reduce money laundering, again despite tighter controls, estimates are that less than 1% of all money being laundered is currently being seized. In parallel, we looked at the impact of drug policies on the fulfilment of human rights, and in particular on the right to health. Globally only 1 in 100 people who use drugs live in countries with adequate coverage to both needle & syringe programmes and opioid agonist therapy. While for evidence-based drug treatment, there is reportedly little increase in the availability of drug dependence treatment between 2010 and 2016,  and coverage remains low for many key treatment interventions such as detoxification, OST, peer support groups, cognitive behaviour therapy to name a few. In terms of access to controlled medicines, around 75% of people remain without access to adequate pain relief – this is primarily in the global south. The WHO has estimated that 92% of the world’s morphine is consumed by only 17% of the world’s population. In terms of other human rights impacts, we see a continued use of the death penalty for drug offences and a very troubling increase in the number of extrajudicial killings in the name of drug control. With respect to human rights associated with incarceration and disproportionate punishments, according to UN data, one in five prisoners worldwide is incarcerated for drug offences, the overwhelming majority of whom are for drug possession for personal use. In certain regions, this proportion is even greater for women – who are the fastest growing prison population in many parts of the world. Finally, in terms of advancing development, there has often been too great a focus on eradication measures at the expense of a broader development focus that takes into account the particular issues faced by communities in both rural and urban contexts.

Finally, in formulating the next phase of drug policy, we call on Member States to honestly consider the progress, or lack thereof, that has been made towards the overarching goal in the 2009 Political Declaration to significantly reduce or eliminate the illicit drug market, as well as progress made towards implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document. As our shadow report states, it is difficult to credibly claim progress given the reality of a robust and growing illicit drug market coupled with a rise in both drug-related harms as well as devastating policy harms. Ten years ago, the previous UNODC Executive Director, Mr Costa referred to the ‘unintended negative consequences’ of drug control as part of the previous 10-year review – that paper is unfortunately as relevant today as it was ten years ago. In addition to offering up our shadow report as a key contribution to this important phase of ‘taking stock’, the IDPC network has four key asks for the 2019 process:

1. The international community should consider adopting more meaningful goals and targets in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UNGASS Outcome Document and international human rights commitments, and move away from targets seeking to eliminate the illegal drug market.
2. Member states should meaningfully reflect upon the impacts of drug control on the UN goals of promoting health, human rights, development, peace and security – and adopt drug policies and strategies that actively contribute to advancing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, especially for those most marginalized and vulnerable.
3. Global drug policy debates going forward should reflect the realities of drug policies on the ground, both positive and negative, and discuss constructively the resulting tensions with the UN drug control treaties and any human rights concerns associated with drug control efforts.
4. Beyond 2019, UN member states should end punitive drug control approaches and put people and communities first. This includes promoting and facilitating the participation of civil society and affected communities in all aspects of the design, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of drug policies.

Thank you for your consideration and your continued commitment to civil society engagement.

Germany: Thank you for bringing civil society perspectives to this discussion. We welcome the development in CND for CSO participation. Have you experienced similar progress in international drug policy debate?

Switzerland: Useful shadow report. Regarding access to controlled medicines, you mentioned a huge number of people do not have sufficient access. Can you provide more data? Regarding money laundering, you mentioned we are not close to the corresponding target, can you elaborate on where that data is from?

Austria: Alternative development – how do you assess progress?

Norway: The findings of the shadow review are depressing, but this honest approach is very valuable approaching 2019. Regarding moving towards more useful targets you mentioned, what would you suggest?

EU: My question has already been asked by Norway so let me just praise the high quality of your publications, in particular the shadow report recently.

(panel) NGO: Yes, there is definitely progress in terms of civil society participation, especially here in CND and it can been seen in the progress of drug policy as we are now more aware of the “recipients” of drug policy. The improvement of inter-agency cooperation and other UN agencies being visible in this forum has shown great progress as well which an important contribution. It is in the report, but it is indeed an important keypoint that we’ve seen a failure in making controlled medicines available adequately to people who need it. The data on money laundering is from a 2011 UNODC report. In response to Austria, we think adequately sequenced AD is key but most efforts are focused on eradication over real issues of affected communities, we highlight positive examples in the report from Thailand for example. Regarding “better targets”, we see that the targets solely focused on eradication and elimination are not close to being achieved and this is not the first time CND sees a conversation about a plan and noting no progress in terms of reducing the illicit market… Angela Me presented this morning that the market is booming. We think that in line with the 2030 agenda, focusing on drug-related harms, scaling up evidence based treatment and harm reduction services, reducing poverty in areas of illicit cultivation and trafficking, improving citizen safety reducing corruption would be something that serves us 10 years from now as we indicated in the last chapter of our shadow report. Thank you for the questions.

Angela: Just to comment on the report, the message is clear… Evidence points to the progress towards targets being disappointing but we are happy to work together to compare data that are comparable.

UNODC: I want to acknowledge the efforts of VNGOC and NYNGOC to involve CSOs constructive in these discussions. I have a question, in Mexico we had Confedrogas and identified lack of data collection and indicators regarding cross cutting issues. What do you think?

(panel) NGO: Yeah, that could be something for the coming phase. I know there is work going ont o revise the ARQ, I think it would be important that data collection efforts reflect the much supported one-track approach. It is also important to consider where data is collected by other organizations – it would be worthwhile to connect to these data collection instruments. I also think other UN agencies could be called upon to share and further collaboration with the UNODC.

Slovenia: Short question, do you think the bad results are a consequence to the global economic crisis?

(panel) NGO: maybe we need to call the World Bank to answer this. This brings us an important thing though, the singular focus on drugs ignores so many other factors as to why people engage in drug use and the drug markets.

Angela: We looked at this issue a few years ago and it is in the World Drug Report.

UNODC: I am going to be the half empty guy… if we look at the targets of the 2009 declaration, the numbers are clearly not delivered. We are working very actively on this however. We are a custodian of the SDGs, we hope we will be able to develop a solid methodology. We have some data gaps and issues that prevents us to really look at where we are. We identified four critical areas: availability, data quality, lack of focus, lack of consolidated methodology. Regional coverage of ARQ replies, we see a general increase, but it is still really low in Africa and Oceania. Quality issues are mostly related to lack of uniformity, both in terms of criteria and methodology. The topics are often prove to be insufficient or not focused enough to monitor efficiently. We are missing methodology consolidation as well in many areas of interest. As for possible solutions, slide.

USA: National focal points – this is something we can certainly support to be included in a resolution. We remember it has been done in the past so what do you think about a more regional focus in our efforts for data collection? We listened to CICAD’s work in this area, so we are wondering if we can use more instruments for better and more responses from states outside of the western hemisphere.

Italy: Some of the graphs you showed are really depressing for some regions… this is a good indicator for what we have to think about more in preparation to 2019.  Regarding the last slide about elements to be improved, I just want to thank you.

Nigeria: Regarding the data collection in Africa, is your data derived from one region or is a general information? What do you think might be possible causes for our inability to collect sufficient data?

EU:

UNODC: On focal points, we don’t have this indication from countries. We have a sister data collection on crime and there is a resolution on there, countries appointed focal points, but we don’t have that for the ARQ. In terms of issues in Africa, we have set up an expert committee and in their opinion, the collection is difficult because we are missing a link between capitals and Vienna… there is a lot of information on the ground, of course with varying quality, but if we fill this communication gap, we would be much ahead. Thank you for the support from the EU.

* * *

AFTERNOON SESSION

UNODC: Opium poppy cultivation in the World in the past 9 years, figures have doubled. It can mainly be attributed to the production in Afghanistan, 83%. Since 2009 global coca production showed a decreasing trend until 2013 and it has been extremely up since. We have 90% more production than in 2009. How come this happened despite efforts by nations? There are security issues in the production areas, including terrorist activities. There is a strong correlation between the drugs and terrorism. On this map, you can see that areas controlled by terrorist and other armed groups, including the Taliban, opium cultivation is up.  This also means a weakened rule of law and security. In Peru, we see that it is strongly correlated how terrorist, insurgent and non-state armed groups control areas and poppy cultivation trends.  In Colombia, the area of coca cultivation has shrunk and farmers are encouraged to grow different crops. However, since the early 2000’s, the number of victims of violence involved in coca cultivation have increased. As a conclusion (slide)

Pakistan: We recognize the progress has a lot left to be desired. We’ve heard delegations saying that our targets are too ambitious and maybe not achievable. We saw now that the challenge lies in our efforts and we should not lower the bar… Now, coming to the topic at hand, what is UNODC’s response to address the spike in production? What has UNODC done in the recent past? I remember in a few months back, we were given a briefing about a new strategy to address this issue and I remember many MS, including Pakistan, supporting more consultations but we were not involved in any follow-up.

Colombia: Just what happened in the past few years, as we said on previous occasions, cocaine is reaching the market in increasing amounts. The number of seizures have increased, but the number of cases involving violence have also grown.

Peru: There has been a reduction of 70% when it comes to drug seizures. We have problems in many regions, in particular when it comes to terrorism. Drug trafficking, production, etc on our Columbian border is a great concern for our government. […]

UNODC: Colombia is right, I only presented the production side. Further indicators of the market are not presented here…

Colombia: I guess I wasn’t clear. The exercise here is looking at what we’ve done… we talk about reducing victims and human rights and reduction in communities affected – this could be an overall aspect for ministers. The reduction of production is of course a positive effect, but for today’s exercise, I don’t know.

Angela Me: It depends on the revision countries want to do in 2019. Your point is very valid and going beyond the targets and seeing the implications of drug policy on other issues is again I think valid…it is up to CND in what lenses they want to look in 2019. In response to Pakistan, what you mean I think is Sarto (?). I am going to inform my colleagues that this community wishes to be more informed about this project.

Afghanistan:  I fully agree with Pakistan, we can’t change the goals but we should take a look at what we have done. In 2001 when the Taliban took over the production of opium and throughout their expansion… there was a good opportunity in 2005 to take control of the situation, but at that time Afghan regime did not have enough and proper security forces. We were under budget and had to spend money on various services, so we lost an opportunity to scale up our forces and tackle the problem. We are always behind the Taliban and NATO troops withdrew in 2014… now we are down to a few thousand troops, so the Taliban are expanding. We see the increase of Taliban rule and so opium cultivation as well. There has been a trend drugs following insecurity. In 2017 we had our most difficult year for the national army and we suffer a number of losses daily in fighting ISIS and the Taliban. Our security forces are exhausted so in practice, counter narcotic forces is not possible for us to be a priority. As long as we don’t tackle the Taliban, we can not tackle this problem. Even if have some more targets, it would be unrealistic to expect any kind of change in Afghanistan. Why do we develop policies that do not work? We talk from different context and for Afghanistan, the impact of heroin is different than other countries. The human impact of that is disastrous to people who are addicted to heroin – we don’t have capacities to deal with these situations, it is not a problem, it is a disaster. Somebody choses to smoke cigarettes, other choses heroin, it is up for people. Many people use drugs for enjoyment, but in Afghanistan, people are consuming opioids to deal with the misery that their lives are. We are coming from different context and we develop global policies and allocate budgets, we do that from our contexts. That is why it doesn’t work. We need genuine support from the international community so in the future what we need is investing money carefully, looking at the people who really need our support. We have 50% of our population under the poverty line. It is a problem for our country but we never say it is created by others… but we call on our treaty partners to pay attention to important details, like where do the precursors come from? The precursor to produce heroin from opium is very illegal in Afghanistan, so where is it made?

Iran: Illicit cultivation covers 3 issues: coca, opium and cannabis but I did not see any conversation on Cannabis. On one of the slides, from 2009 to 2017 around 4 thousand people have been killed in terrorist attacks, does that only apply to Afghanistan? Meanwhile, the same amount of law enforcement and so officers have been killed fighting criminals.

UNODC: At the moment we are not observing Cannabis but I understand Angela presented on the topic this morning. Regarding the victims, the numbers were only related to Afghanistan.

Chair: Thank you for the presentations. I am now opening the floor for the thematic debate.

Austria on behalf of the EU: In 2019 we will decide on how to go forward, we consider the commitments of 2016 as logical and progressive guide representing the most recent consensus. In the view of EU and its MS, since 2009 we witnessed an evolving reality and many new challenges. We have adapted accordingly, in 2016 building on 2009, the international community adopted the UNGASS outcome document. This has shaped global drug policy towards an even more balanced approach, we included risk and harm reduction, emerging, challenges, access to substances, link to human rights, whilst reaffirming our unrewarding commitment to supply and demand reduction. For us, we advocate for a full implementation of that document and propose to put this at the center of our work following 2019.

Colombia: We are moving forward with our commitments in the framework of the conventions. The world drug problem continues to challenge many important aspects of well-being. 2019 was considered to be a deadline for the 2009 goals, but we need to bear in mind that that realities and circumstances are changing. In this context, we would like to highlight the importance of phenomenology, the strengthening and optimizing of information sharing. There is a need to draw on complete information. We need solid methodology to advise efficiently on addressing problems and we have to include more appropriate indicators, including the lessons learned on different levels of drug policy.

UNODC: It was clear for MS in 2009 that synthetic drugs pose a specific challenge. For every synthetic drug, you have a number of precursors and when you look at scenarios of manufacture, it can move thousands of miles just because of demand. In 2009, it was recognized that any solution will be global. There is an absence of global monitoring system though. In addition, there is a low capacity in most countries to identify precursors…. this would be the first step to any successful regulation. I will demonstrate the best practice of international cooperation:

Now we are able to understand more of NPS and work on a global monitoring system, global forensic support, etc… now we are able to pick up best practices, exchange information in order to timely identify new substances and their precursors. In terms of making decisions on a global level, we understand substances more and are able help the work of CND and WHO. National legislative responses, we understand are taking some time, but now we are able to coordinatedly assist MS and publish risk communication booklets twice a year. Moving into 2019, we can say we’ve never been in a better position to understand the synthetic drugs market, we work with countries to reduce risks on country and regional levels as well.

USA: I can not thank you enough for your work. Can you tell us more about what interventions will be included in the UNODC toolkit that you touched on?

China: What is the main challenge in terms of scheduling NPS?

UNODC: The toolkit should be able to guide you in your national interventions. We are not going to reinvent the wheel, we are trying to make your decision making easier. We will bring on board resources on prevention and treatment from WHO and other agencies, other valuable input. Net march, we will try to have an electronic toolkit ready on forensic capacity and precursor information for example. The main challenge in scheduling has to do with the amount of information. We need solid information on the risk of abuse and effects, among others. We are not able to get these in some cases… the chemicals are not used as single items so we are not sure which causes dependence. In the future, having now the toxicology model, we will be able to work more efficiently.

Iran: […]

UNODC: In terms of coverage of laboratories, we are working hard on data collection but we have countries with very good forensic capacity don’t participate, because of regulations, we can not send them samples… We have been making efforts through the CND to remove obstacles for these countries to receive drug samples. Hopefully, we can revisit parts of this conversation in the future. Secondly, forensics is not cheap so some countries still not able invest in this. Finally, the early warning systems should enjoy sufficient political support.

Morocco: I would like to inform you that my government has been facing transnational organized crime groups bringing in synthetic drugs to an increasing extent. We saw ecstasy tablets coming from European countries. Is there a UNODC initiative to help us protect borders and detect these substances?

UNODC: We have training programs for law enforcement and laboratories. Next week for example in Panama, we are bringing together experts. They will learn to identify substances and have resources to work efficiently. Drug testing kits are cheap and we are sending them out to train officers.

Mexico: There are processes which can be harmful for the environment so what analyses or proposals does UNODC have to help us improve the final destination destruction of precursors and NPS?

UNODC: I get the feeling we are not promoting our resources well enough. We have a project developed in 2010, a guideline for disposal. We made it very simple in the past years with colors, easy instructions. This is all available as an illustrated guide and computer based materials as well, in English, for officers’ training. The idea behind this was in response to one of the SDGs about clear water.

NGO: Peter Sarosi (Rights Reporter Foundation,  Hungary) I would like to thank you, Madame Chair, and the Vienna NGO Committee, for giving me this opportunity to speak about the drug-related crisis faced by society in my region, Central-Eastern Europe. This crisis is not caused by drug use itself. It is driven by bad drug policies, based on a faulty assumption that we can make our societies drug-free by punishing people who use drugs, instead of supporting them to stay healthy and alive.  In most of the countries of the region, the majority of injecting drug users belong to deprived and marginalised communities. It is important to understand that for them, harm reduction services, such as needle and syringe programs, are not only about reducing the negative consequences of drug use, such as infections and overdoses. For them, harm reduction is not just an extra option on the menu, not just the first step to recovery. For them, harm reduction programs offer the only opportunity to be treated as a human being – and sometimes the only chance to stay alive. During the early years of this century, thanks to international assistance from the Global Fund, Central-Eastern Europe made huge progress in building up a harm reduction system of care and support.  With great sadness, I have to report that this system of care and support is now collapsing in most countries of the region, due to the retreat of international donors and the lack of funding and support from member states. The UNGASS outcome document required member states to provide HIV prevention interventions in accordance with the WHO’s technical guidelines. In most countries of our region, however, provision of these services has dropped dramatically since 2016, and now qualifies as extremely inadequate in terms of those guidelines. Sadly, this is a typical example of failure to invest appropriately, where international commitment by member states is not translated into action, and inaction leads to death and suffering. My organisation, the Rights Reporter Foundation, specialises in making movies. We have for many years been documenting this crisis on our website, Drugreporter. We have filmed how the crisis evolved, and how programs have faced shutdown in Hungary, in Montenegro, in Serbia, in Russia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Romania and others. In recent years, almost all the needle and syringe programs in these countries have closed down. We have filmed how HIV and hepatitis C epidemics broke out as a consequence. I can show you graphs of growing infection rates – but graphs don’t show the whole picture. The purpose of making movies, was to allow us to look beyond the numbers, and bear witness to human stories of suffering in the shantytowns and ghettos of our cities. The international drug control system was created with the declared intention of promoting public health. But most of the people who inject drugs whom we interviewed have never been afforded the same opportunity to make healthy decisions about their lives as most of us who are sitting in this room. Most of them live in poverty and are dealing with multiple social and psychological issues, from homelessness to childhood trauma. They are the living reminders of the moral failure of our societies to treat every human being with respect.  Harm reduction is not the opposite of abstinence or recovery. It is about supporting people, where they are at, as fellow citizens in need of help, and treating them with respect. Not as problems to be solved, but as part of the  solution. By producing films about harm reduction among vulnerable people, we came to realise that for them, abstinence is often not a real choice. To ask someone who lives on the street to quit drug use is like asking someone with one leg to ride a bicycle – or asking a traveler to give up his hat in the desert. Repressive policies based on the idea of fighting a war on drugs are pushing vulnerable people deeper into a vicious circle of poverty and drug use. They don’t need our sermons and judgment – they need our support to stay alive and healthy, and they need it where they are at. Unless we bring harm reduction services to people where and how they need them, our investments in treatment and recovery will be wasted. Without harm reduction, the road to recovery is a road that leads nowhere. It is a stairway without steps. The dream of a drug-free society might be a positive dream for many – but the dream is a nightmare for those who, in the name of an unachievable ‘drug-free society’, are denied access to live-saving services. Some people say there is a funding crisis for harm reduction. I don’t agree. A funding crisis happens when governments don’t have the money to deal with an issue. In this case, governments do have the money, but they choose to fritter it away on implementing repressive laws to punish people for trying to ease their pain. Every year, we spend billions on arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning people. Harm reduction programs cost a small fraction of the money required to arrest and imprison people and unlike punishment, they produce positive effects. I urge all member states to quit their dangerous dependence on repression – and instead, use their resources to keep people healthy and alive. Thank you for your attention!

NGO: Hussein Abdalla Tayab (Muslim Education and Welfare Association (MEWA), Kenya: http://vngoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MEWA-Taking-Stock.pdf

UNODC: You all saw Angela’s presentation in the morning, so I will try to go a bit further in terms of trends. Trends are also influenced by the growth of the estimated global population. If you look at changes in prevalence, you can see the increase of 16%, 9% in regards to opioid and 8% in the use of cannabis. The use of most other substances remained consistent. These have been brought on by
Most countries in Asia don’t conduct any kind of drug use surveys at all. In any given year, there are a number of changes in the collected data. In the US, if you compare, there is a 50% increase in the users of Cannabis in the past year, but more alarmingly 100% among the daily users. The trends in terms of injecting drug users and HIV have been hopeful, but methodological changes can affect our data thought the number of reporting countries have grown. The mortality rate has increased by 7% since 2009 that are directly relatable to drugs.

Turkey: About this figure, death rates between 2009 and 2016. Is the growth of the population taken into effect when we diagnose a growth?

Slovenia: I only want to point out that we can reduce a lot of these deaths… if we want. We know how HIV treatment works, it is 99% effective in my country. I have always advocated that addiction is a disease and I would like to point to the treaties at this point… these people need medical attention.

UNODC: This 7% is in the rate per population, so it has taken it into account, yes. If you look at only the numbers, the increase is 16%.

NGO Brun González Aguilar (International Network of People who use Drugs (INPUD), International) : Excellences, Ladies and gentlemen, Dear colleagues, My name is Brun Gonzalez and I am Chair of the International Network of People who use Drugs, a peer-based global network working to protect the health and defend the human rights of people who use drugs. I would like to thank the Chair and the CND for the opportunity to bring forward the voices and perspectives of the international community of people who use drugs to this space. Our voice has not been heard often enough here in Vienna, or in drug policy development overall. Drug policies cannot continue to be debated and developed, without the input of those most directly impacted by drug policies, that is, people who use drugs. We celebrate the process that is being fostered and enabled through the new seven-themed structure delineated in the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document. The Outcome Document, ratified by member states, reaffirms a commitment to the “comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centered set of universal and transformative Goals and targets” that is the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, signaling an unprecedented shift towards ensuring that public health, development and human rights concerns do not remain peripheral, but are prioritized and become central to all policy development, including drug policy. We again welcome member states commitment in paragraph 4 of the outcome document to work towards drug policies that respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the inherent dignity of all individuals, including people who use drugs who are affected or negatively impacted by the current criminalizing and stigmatizing paradigm. Developing proper monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the commitments made to jointly address and counter the world drug problem is fundamental. Following the principles described in the SDGs related to Prosperity, Peace and Partnership, and according to the simple logic of “Nothing About Us Without Us” which means that key affected populations should be involved and participate proactively in every stage of the design, development, implementation, monitoring and  evaluation of any and every public policy that is supposed to address their needs and/or that directly affects or impacts them in a specific way; we are still as open and willing as ever to cooperate with relevant UN agencies including those with mandates respectful of human rights and who are willing to collaborate with civil society to achieve these goals. The international community should recognize that existing punitive drug policies fuel violence and unrest, and threaten democracies and individual freedom. Going forward, drug policies should seek primarily to reduce violence, strengthen governance, community systems and the rule of law, and promote the wellbeing of society, in particular those most marginalized and vulnerable. If we truly are now preparing to take stock of progress made and delineate the global drug strategy for the next decade, we firmly believe that simple common sense is enough to acknowledge the need of moving away from clearly ineffective and heavily harmful policies that rely on prohibition through criminalization. Continuing the “war on drugs” means a continuation of militarization along with armed confrontation and disproportionate spending on security, enforcement and supply reduction strategies at the expense of, and completely diminishing capacity around, establishing and promoting peaceful and just communities and societies. Under this new collective realization of the global issues we are all facing, which is the source and engine of the SDGs, we want to bring your attention to the fact that war-driven prohibitionist models and the unrealistic and undesired “drug-free” objectives actively undermine the SDG Agenda which is “determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence”. The SDG Agenda stresses inclusivity that is “all human beings… can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment” and have the right to pursue “prosperous and fulfilling lives” without severe impediment. We, as the international network of people who use drugs call for drug war peace.  “There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.” Drug-free objectives are not only unrealistic, they are dangerous and harmful. They are used to justify widespread human rights violations, and an overly punitive approach that directly undermines health, development, peace and security. It is people who use drugs that are most directly and severely impacted, as drug free objectives contradict and interfere with the rights of autonomy, self-determination and the free development of the individual.  We recognize that currently there is no consensus amongst member states on drug policy. With this in mind we would like to bring attention to the SDGs principle on Partnership, which clearly states that the efforts and guidelines should be “based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people. „Currently, the prohibitionist system that is the three drug control treaties, are showing significant cracks and challenges, and thus their continued existence needs to be questioned. Current drug policies undermine SDG 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; SDG 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries and SDG 16; Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Paragraph 8 of the Declaration of the 2030 Agenda contains a strong reference to the common ground that hopefully we can all easily arrive to, using nothing more than clear-headed pragmatic reflection: “We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity. A world which invests in its children and in which every child grows up free from violence and exploitation. A world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed. A just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.” This should be used to guide decision making in drug policy development. Right now, in many different countries around the planet, our communities are still subject to: compulsory drug detention that use torture and/or forced and unpaid labor in the name of treatment; death penalty for drug offences and open promotion of violence targeting people who use illegal substances; an epidemic of preventable drug overdose deaths, where globally over 200,000 people die each year and the number is growing due to NPS and the fentanyl family of compounds which are now present in pretty much every kind of psychoactive substances. Extreme examples of the harmful impacts of current policies are state sanctioned extrajudicial killings of people who use drugs, which have led to the loss hundreds of thousands of lives in just the last decade, and continue unabated, and led to the mass murder and disappearances amongst citizens, including youth in some countries. Drug policy must align with the human development agenda. The loss of life and atrocities committed in the name of the war on drugs must end. Instead, the world must move to health and rights-based approaches. Member states should address the impact of repressive policies on communities, including forced crop eradication or mass incarceration of PWUD. As people who use drugs, we promote the incorporation of full spectrum harm reduction strategies and policies that acknowledge the realities surrounding psychoactive substances, opiates and injecting drug use; a few examples could be substance analysis services, harm reduction for non-injected substances along with stimulants and supply side harm reduction. Drug policy needs to align with current world realities. Member states should acknowledge and reflect upon the realities of experimentation and innovation already going on, including cannabis regulation, medical cannabis systems, drug checking, decriminalization models and drug consumption rooms. We, as the voice of people who use drugs strongly affirm and believe that the post-2019 strategy should focus on inclusion, participation and community involvement. Drug policy should not continue to be encapsulated in a “parallel universe” that is isolated from the broader global governance agenda. People who use drugs are a fundamental part of the world, we are citizens, we are human beings, we are community.

(video message from the Council of Europe): We have a platform for drug policy, Pompidou, established in 1971. We promote a balanced approach in response to drugs and trafficking. Our group offers a forum for open debate and links researchers and practice to political debates. We develop cooperation with 50 countries, even with countries outside of Europe. We work on developing frameworks to work with vulnerable groups. We welcome the UNGASS of 2016, where members of CND reviewed 2009 and updated their commitments. (video to be added)

Chair: If there are no further comments or questions, I will close today’s meeting. Regarding the topics of the roundtables, I thank you for your inputs during the informals this morning. We will be circulating the revised version. As for the draft, in compliance to the mandate set out, I prepared it based on your suggestions. It contains, preamble, stock-taking and looking ahead. We are aiming for a reasonable length, keep the document factual, streamlined and focus on common grounds. This can be refined as is very long at the moment. I will take general comments tomorrow so on Monday I can present you with a lighter version. There is a proper process for agreeing on the final version and I expect to work with you on Monday – I am aware I have a mandate to prepare an outline and I need your input for this so I can leave that outline at the reconvened. See you tomorrow, thank you!