UNGASS WORKING GROUPS DEMAND REDUCTION ANND CONTROL OF

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000579 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SNAR KCOR PGOV AORC UNCND SUBJECT: UNGASS WORKING GROUPS DEMAND REDUCTION ANND CONTROL OF PRECURSORS AND AMPHETAMINE-TYPE STIMULANTS. SUMMARY: ¶1. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) convened the last two of five Intergovernmental Working Groups (WG) to review progress achieved since the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs. These two most recent working groups approved recommendations in the areas of (1) Demand Reduction (September 15-17),and control of precursor and of amphetamine-type stimulants (September 17-19). The recommendations included proposals put forth by the U.S. delegation to advance drug control objectives and reaffirmed the 3 UN Drug Control Conventions and the commitments contained within the 1998 UNGASS Political Declaration and accompanying Action Plans. ¶2. Chaired by Swiss Counselor David Best, the Working Group on Demand Reduction, reviewed successes, limitations and the "way forward" on implementing the 1998 UNGASS commitments on demand reduction. The USDEL prevented direct endorsement of so-called "harm reduction" policies and practices. Mexico chaired the final working group on precursor chemicals and amphetamine type stimulants and their precursors. This meeting was the most technical of the five working groups and most of the issues were discussed by experts with little politicization. Most delegates spoke about the need to further implement the 1988 Convention and the UNGASS action plan, with particular emphasis on the challenges of substitute chemicals and increasing communication and data exchange on precursor chemical flows and seizure trends. The final documents will be the basis for the 2009 Political Declaration to be adopted by the High-Level Segment of the March 2009 UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). Working Group on Demand Reduction -------------- -------------- ¶3. During the UNODC-hosted intergovernmental Working Group on Demand Reduction (September 15-17),USDEL gained support for advancing effective demand reduction policies and programs. The final conclusions included an endorsement of comprehensive and sustainable evidence-based programs and support for treatment programs that work, key USG objectives. ¶4. The WG conclusions include a key USG objective to ensure a greater understanding of substance abuse, dependence and addiction through awareness programs, and mainstreaming use of screening approaches. This language further advanced a US initiative on screening and brief intervention treatment (SBRT) that was included in a resolution adopted at last year's Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). USDEL also advanced the importance of data collection systems that provide current, comprehensive drug use and epidemiologic data, as well as the provision of effective drug treatment programs in jails and prisons for individuals with drug dependence treatment. The Working Group endorsed both of these concepts in the session's final conclusions. USDEL also inserted reference in the Working Group's final Report on the concept of drug courts as alternatives to incarceration of drug-related offenses. (The USDEL also submitted a conference room paper on all USG objectives.) ¶5. A number of delegates sought to include the term "harm reduction" in the final conclusions. Specifically, the United Kingdom (UK),the Netherlands, Romania and New Zealand strongly advocated "harm reduction" as a new "third pillar" to the counter-drug paradigm of supply and demand reduction. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Japan and Indonesia joined USDEL in blocking any references to harm reduction. Sweden proved to be a key ally in this regard. Despite constraints by an EU Counter-drug Action Plan that endorses "harm reduction," Sweden spoke out strongly against its reference as a "third pillar" and mentioned privately its similarities with the U.S. position on demand reduction. Tunisia, Algeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba were vocal in their opposition of this issue. ¶6. Instead, USDEL emphasized the need for comprehensive and sustainable evidence-based demand reduction programs. There was strong support that such programs should be integrated into local communities and aimed to prevent the use of drugs and reduce the adverse consequences of drug abuse, including HIV/AIDS. ¶7. A number of European delegates sought to highlight the "rights" of drug users to further define the "harm reduction" agenda. Russia, and Algeria, Egypt, and others again expressed concerns about the broad issue of harm reduction. Many of the delegates who sought to block USG initiatives in the other five groups supported our efforts to oppose this language. Specifically, Cuba and Egypt, as well as Japan, Algeria, Tunisia, and others supported USDEL efforts to deflect EU language on the human rights of drug users, as well as efforts to endorse a "right to health" and address issues (such as alcohol and tobacco) within the purview of the World Health Organization (WHO). USDEL further removed language from the conclusions document that promoted the idea of a new legal instrument for demand reduction. It remains unclear whether this proposal emanated from a Member State or rather was pushed by a non-governmental organization (NGO). ¶8. Efforts by the United Kingdom and other European Union Member States were well organized and, several countries included NGOs on their delegation. The UK, in particular, allowed the NGO representatives to speak on behalf of their government and to advocate for increased NGO involvement in the UN-context, the need to take into account human rights for drug users and to support drug user advocate groups (COMMENT: We expect that the UK will seek to re-introduce its language on "harm reduction" and access to opioid substances during the negotiations for the Political Declaration to be adopted at the high-level segment of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. END COMMENT). ¶9. USDEL ensured that references to the availability of opioid substances for medical pain management remained in the context of drug demand reduction and recognized the importance of proper controls, in line with the international drug control treaties. In contrast, the UK sought explicit reference to increased access to opiates for medical use in pain relief and for mental disorders. USDEL, supported by Egypt, successfully argued that the UK language fell outside the scope of the Working Group's mandate. Bolivia and the Conventions ¶10. Working Group Chairman David Best's efficient, fair-minded approach was helpful in a meeting that was fraught with divisions regarding demand reduction approaches. Moreover, the Bolivian delegation made a statement--similar to past interventions in previous UN settings--regarding the need to remove coca from the list of substances controlled by the UN drug control treaties. Bolivia also called for an INCB study on the discrepancies to the schedules of the conventions and on the licit uses of coca. However, the chair shut down Bolivia's attempt to hijack the agenda of the meeting each time, and indicated that these issues were not the purview of the meeting. Several other delegates including Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Egypt also voiced opposition to the Bolivian interventions and highlighted that state parties to the conventions did not have the option to decide whether to implement their provisions. Precursor and Amphetamine-Type Stimulants and their Precursors -------------- -------------- -------------- ¶11. The last UNGASS UNODC-hosted intergovernmental Working Group on precursor and ATS (September 17-19) was chaired by the Vienna-based Mexican DCM Ulises Canchola Gutierrez (Mexico). The final conclusions adopted by the WG included all of the five USG objectives, and with minimum controversy. These key points included promoting greater compliance with CND Resolution 49/3 that invites States to share legitimate commercial requirements for the most common methamphetamine precursor chemicals; targeting use of substitute chemicals in the production of (ATS); promoting control of machines and equipment necessary for production of amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS) production-as recommended in Article 13 of the 1988 UN Convention; increasing cooperation between industry and governments through promotion of international best practices, and development of an international code of conduct for industry-as called for in the 1998 UNGASS commitments; and highlighting the role of the INCB in facilitating multinational law enforcement cooperation targeting precursor chemicals. The USG submitted an interagency-agreed paper as a conference room paper. The Players: ¶12. The precursor chemical/ATS WG focused on the technical subject matter and there was little attempt to politicize the discussions, as in the previous WG meetings. Member States that had previously sought to emphasize differences, such as Bolivia, Honduras, and Algeria, instead emphasized the need for increased cooperation to prevent diversion of precursor chemicals. The key players in this meeting were also different than the previous four WGs. Sub-Sahara African countries sent technical experts who were surprisingly candid about their challenges. These African delegations focused on the need for funding and equipment, as well as training and capacity building. The Brazilian delegate requested assistance from the INCB in encouraging governments (including their own) to develop interagency coordination mechanisms between administrative and law enforcement authorities. The European Commission (EC) delegation, as the competent authority for EU member States, supported many of the USG positions and coordinated closely with the United States prior to the meeting. Notably absent for most of the meeting were the delegates from Egypt, Cuba, and Iran-although they did show for the adoption of the conclusions. UNODC versus INCB ¶13. Rivalry between UNODC and the INCB for leadership in coordinating chemical control was one theme that emerged during the review of the UNODC documents. The UNODC paper prepared for the Working Group omitted any references to the current prominent role of INCB in collecting data, promoting coordination and sharing of data in support of operational activities. The first draft of the conclusions (drafted by UNODC) called for the establishment of a new "coordinating donor mechanism" for precursor control without mention of the current efforts of INCB in collecting data, establishing a clearing house, setting up a special surveillance list for non-controlled substances and/or support to operations. In contrast, most Member States emphasized these issues and implored others to increase support to INCB. INCB received strong support in the final draft and the references to the creation of new mechanisms were also watered down to ask Member States to step up efforts to advance existing efforts. Member States also voiced strong support for INCB's role in facilitating international law enforcement cooperation to prevent precursor chemical smuggling, and urged the INCB to continue to serve this vital role. ATS: ¶14. Mexico outlined its national successes in controlling methamphetamine production through the banning of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine. While many praised Mexico and other Central American states for their bold action to limit the diversion of these chemicals, there was no consensus to pursue a blanket ban due to the legitimate commercial requirements for these substances. Russia raised the issue of non-scheduled chemicals as new precursor for the production of ATS and the need to update schedule I and II in article to include substitute chemicals. In response, the USDEL also noted that the problem of substitute chemicals required frequent updating of the "limited special surveillance list," to target substitute chemicals. The USDEL also recognized that the 1988 UN Convention already includes a process to include new or change the scheduling of precursor chemicals as necessary. The final conclusions included recommendations to target the problem of substitute chemicals, as well as other emerging trends, through analysis, data sharing, increased domestic legislation and support to UNODC and the INCB. ¶15. The Russian delegate also suggested that some chemicals used in the production of heroin and cocaine could be "marked" at the point of manufacture (by adding identifiable agents to enable tracing) in order to assist in backtracking investigations. Several Member States including the USDEL and the EC opposed it. The final conclusions only notes that the practice of "marking" certain chemical shipments merits possible consideration, but also notes that any possible use of markers must also take into account the potential burden posed to authorities and industry. ¶16. France underscored the need for increased cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry. The EU noted that the INCB plans to develop a code of conduct for use by industries involved in the production, transport and storage of precursor chemicals to increase cooperation-as called for by the UNGASS commitments. Russia underscored the importance of this "code of conduct," as did the USDEL. Other delegations joined in supporting USDEL language encouraging the development and implementation of the code of conduct. Side Meeting on Drug Use and HIV ¶17. On the morning of Thursday, September 18, UNODC hosted a meeting for leading bilateral and multilateral donors to discuss interest in holding a regular donor meeting on Drug Use and HIV. Participants included representation from UNODC, UNAIDS, WHO, INCB, World Bank, Global Fund, Netherlands, United Kingdom (chair for the meeting),Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada and United States. The participating parties agreed to meet regularly to discuss best practices and coordinate activities around Drug Use and HIV, and larger, private donors would be invited to participate as well (e.g., Clinton Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). Plans were made to meet in February 2009 around the margins of a Dutch-led HIV donor meeting. The purpose of this gathering would be to finalize plans for this group and to develop an action agenda. Dutch representation would chair and host the meeting. SCHULTE