8/4/2019 cnd2011

1/24

April 2011

The 2011 Commission onNarcotic Drugs

Report of proceedings

8/4/2019 cnd2011

2/24

8/4/2019 cnd2011

3/241

The 2011 Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Report of proceedings

Introduction

Mindful of a number of issues, it looked as if the54 th CND would be an intriguing event. Held inVienna between 21-25 March, the Commissionwould be the first for the new Executive

Director of the United Nations Office on Drugsand Crime (UNODC), Mr. Yury Fedotov. It wasalso the first meeting since several states hadobjected to Bolivias proposed coca relatedamendment to the Single Convention onNarcotic Drugs. Furthermore, 2011 marks the50 th anniversary of the Convention: the bedrockof the current prohibition-oriented internationalcontrol system. Expectations consequentlyfocused predominantly upon these issues;how, for example, would Mr. Fedotov approach

the meeting? Would Bolivia make a statementin regard to its proposal to amend the SingleConvention and lift the ban on coca chewing?1And, amidst ongoing tensions within thesystem, to what extent would the delegatesdwell upon the anniversary of the SingleConvention? Some of these issues wereaddressed and as is always the case othersemerged, or re-emerged, as topics of concern.This report aims to provide the reader with a

summary of what happened at the meeting,including at various satellite events (Boxes1 & 2) and offers some analysis of the key

discussions and debates. A detailed accountof the proceedings can be found on theInternational Harm Reduction Association -IDPC CNDblog at http://www.cndblog.org/.

Official UN documentation of the session canbe found at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.html

Mr. Fedotovs opening speech to

the Plenary: A more approachable

Executive Director

This being the first CND for the new UNODCExecutive Director, there was considerableanticipation and speculation regarding the likelytone and content of his opening presentationbefore the Plenary on Monday morning.

Beginning with a nod of recognition towardthe 50th anniversary of the 1961 SingleConvention on Narcotic Drugs, Mr. Fedotovwas quick to declare his disagreement withthose who regard the Convention as being

out of date. In common with his morepugnacious predecessor, Mr. Antonio MariaCosta, he argued that the provisions of the

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is a global network of NGOs and

professional networks that specialise in issues related to illicit drug production and

use. The Consortium aims to promote objective and open debate on the effectiveness,

direction and content of drug policies at national and international level, and supports

evidence-based policies that are effective in reducing drug-related harm. It produces

occasional brieng papers, disseminates the reports of its member organisations about

particular drug-related matters, and offers expert consultancy services to policy makersand ofcials around the world.

http://www.cndblog.org/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.cndblog.org/

8/4/2019 cnd2011

4/24

2

Convention remain valid, as does its centralfocus on the protection of health.2 Unlike Mr.Costa, however, the present Executive Director

retained his diplomatic polish throughout thepresentation; a demeanour maintained rightthrough the ensuing proceedings, includingin his interactions with those holding radicallydifferent views. This should perhaps come asno surprise as, before coming to the UNODC,

Mr. Fedotovs long and distinguished diplomaticcareer included posts at the UN in New Yorkand more recently as the Russian Ambassadorto the UK. The Executive Directorsimmaculate and well practiced style, however,

did not obscure what some considered to bea significant contradiction within his message.Having stated that the conventions werenot out of date, Mr. Fedotov concluded theopening passage of his presentation by urgingthe international community to rejuvenatethe Single Convention, and to re-dedicatethemselves to implementing its provisions.Accordingly, the Transnational Institute wasswift to point out, if the conventions are notout of date, why do they need rejuvenating?3

Mr. Fedotov also reminded the assembly ofthe ambitious goals set by the 2009 PoliticalDeclaration,4 and affirmed his belief in theirultimate fulfilment. The means to achievethese goals, he said, was through the adoptionof a more coordinated approach involving acombination of successful supply reductiontechniques with an increased focus on thedemand side. The Executive Director then ran

through a series of catastrophic figures andthemes a quarter of a million people diefrom drugs each year, users destroy their ownlives, drugs generate crime, violence and soon with no acknowledgement that perhaps

drugs may not always, in and of themselves,cause these occurrences. Mr. Fedotov showeda lack of awareness here of the fact that theproblems associated with the production,consumption and distribution of drugs are alsolinked to many other factors, such as differing

legal and regulatory contexts, specific social,

historical and cultural settings, and economiccircumstances. All of these contribute towardsmaking drug-using conduct more or less risky;

and closer to, or further from, support services.The Executive Director continued by drawinga distinction between traffickers, who arecriminals and users, who are victims. Whilethis formulation is rather lacking in nuance, itspractical consequences may be encouraging,as he went on to say that treatment offers a farmore effective cure than punishment. However,as the UNODC has repeatedly recognised thatonly a small minority of those who use drugs do

so in ways that are problematic for themselvesand their societies, one wonders in what sensetreatment will be an appropriate response forthese individuals. Mr. Fedotov argued thatsocieties must facilitate healthy and fulfillingalternatives to the consumption of drugs,

which must not be accepted as a way of life.Here, his faithful reaffirmation of the objectivesof the 2009 Political Declaration appearedto reflect that documents determination toignore the realities of contemporary social lifearound the world:5 for the fact is that drugsalready are accepted, if not as a way of life,then certainly as a part of life, by hundreds ofmillions of citizens across the world, and thisshows no sign of ceasing to be the case.

A timely reminder that the other key functionof the drug control system is to ensure theavailability of adequate supplies of painmedication was followed by a discussion

of drug trafficking, and the threat it posesto stability and security. Mr Fedotov statedthat each year drug lords earn an estimated$320 billion, a figure which is drawn from UN

sources, but in fact refers to estimates for theretail market. The earnings of the Drug Lordscould more accurately be taken as referring tothe wholesale market, estimated by the UNat $94 billion.6 The use of the higher figureenabled the Executive Director to argue that, ineffect, drug traffickers control the 30th largest

economy in the world.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

5/243

To deal adequately with the complex,global nature of the drug trade, Mr. Fedotovcontinued, we must seriously rethink our

strategy on drug control . This is preciselywhat the IDPC and others have been arguingfor a number of years. Unfortunately, the scopeof the proposed rethink is somewhat limited. Inthis vein, he listed seven elements that shouldbe contained in a new strategy:

1. Integrate drug control into development

2. Coordinate supply and demand reduction

3. Make better use of international legal

instruments (the crime convention, etc)

4. A comprehensive and integrated approach(shared responsibility, regional cooperationetc)

5. System-wide coherence across the UN

6. Strengthen research and analysis

7. Resolve the governance and nancialproblems affecting the UNODC.

It may be argued plausibly that all of theseproposals make good sense. The problemis, however, is a deeper one, and is, in asense, a legacy left over from the failure ofthe UNGASS review process to undertake agenuinely thoroughgoing and comprehensiveanalysis of the failure of the UNGASS decadeto achieve its stated objectives. What wewere confronted with, instead, was another

ritual incantation of support for the creakingdrug control conventions. Many amongst thereformist NGO community had expressed

anxieties that Mr. Fedotov would attempt tobring to the Executive Directors office thehard-line ideology of his national government.In his early statements and actions, and in thisopening speech at the 54th CND, he succeededat least in allaying those fears and seems setto continue the path taken by the Office in therecent past. In this respect, such continuity isin some ways unsatisfactory, but it is certainlymore desirable than a reversal of the changesin outlook displayed by the UNODC in the

latter years of Mr Costas tenure

The Plenary Not quite Camelot

This years Plenary was a somewhat strangeaffair. Some things changed, but overalleverything remained essentially the same.The changes came in the form of a revisedorganisational structure. For the first time, thetraditional thematic debate at the CND, whichusually takes place at the Plenary session,was organised around three round tables.The main objective of this arrangement was toensure that the debate would not consist ofthe usual lengthy country statements, but ofreal discussions; quite a challenge for countrydelegates in the main accustomed to thepredictability of the usual Plenary sessions.

Plenary session at the 54th Commission on Narcotic Drugs Picture: Steve Rolles

8/4/2019 cnd2011

6/24

4

Round Table (a) Regional and

international cooperation in combating the

world drug problem and its connection with

organised crime

The UK opened this, the first of the newround table discussions, by referring to therecent shortage of illicit heroin on the UKmarket.7 The UK delegate told the assemblythat average purities for Class A drugs haddeclined substantially, with heroin plungingfrom an average of 32% to 14%, and cocaineat around 5-10%. These signs of scarcitywere, he claimed, the result of successful,intelligence-led policing, in operations that

retained a tight focus and entailed closecollaboration between law enforcementagencies in various countries, for example theUK and Turkey.

He also cited the displacement of traffickingroutes (such as the shift away from theCaribbean route) as evidence of a new andsuccessful form of law enforcement, andas proof of the effectiveness of the types oftactics he had described. It should be noted,

however, that the movement of traffickingroutes in response to heightened interdictionefforts is a time-honoured strategy of organised

crime groups, and that such flexibility hasbeen characteristic of their methods for manydecades8. Moreover, while law enforcementprobably does play a role in the recentdisruption of the UK (and wider European)market, there are certainly other factors atwork, including a considerable fall in the levelsof opium production in Afghanistan due todisease affecting last years poppy crops.9

This statement was followed by others thatfocused on the familiar narrative of quantitiesof drugs seized, numbers of people arrested,and so on. The Ecuadorian delegation,however, attempted to push the debate in amore welcome and analytical direction, statingthat this reiterated focus on repression was

a reductionist one: States are not just drugfactories, or trafficking routes, he said. Thespeaker argued instead for a more balanced

approach that would take into account thecultural dimension of the countries in question.He called for a new form of cooperation;whereas classic cooperation was based uponcommercial principles, what was required wasa cooperation informed by human principles.It would need a greater contribution of moneyand energy from all countries, and wouldstrengthen the institutions of governance andcivil society to fight demand and consumption

as well as supply.

Chile made the point that more effectivedata is required, since this is the foundationof policy, while the French delegate, in acharacteristically elegant Gallic formulation,called for a million tiny co-operations, suchas the technical cooperation involved in thetraining of judges, customs officials and so on.France, the delegate said, would be conveninga ministerial meeting on the cocaine problemalong the lines of those that have already takenplace with respect to opiates.

Several speakers then made reference to thecentrality of globalisation in this discussion.Colombia noted the erosion of respect for thelaw, and advocated measures to strengthen therule of law. The Algerian delegate stated thatdrugs and organised crime are transnational

scourges, and that the approach to fightingthem must be similarly integrated. This was

put more bluntly by Guatemala: If they (thetraffickers) have no borders, nor must we....The Turkish delegate illustrated the fully globalcharacter of the drugs trade with some concreteexamples; noting the growing influence of thecocaine traffic in Western Africa, he said thatits operatives in Turkey were communicating inNigerian, and that local law enforcement couldnot readily match the multi-lingual cooperativeskills of the new, global organised crime.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

7/245

Round Table (b) Revitalisation of the

principle of joint and shared responsibility

as the centrepiece of international

cooperation to confront the challenges

posed by the world drug problem, in amanner consistent with the relevant United

Nations conventions and declarations

In general terms, the principle of sharedresponsibility to address the world drugproblem is now well accepted amonggovernment delegates attending the CND.However, when one looks in more detail intothe meaning, scope and implications of theprinciple, divergences of opinion become easilyidentifiable. This round table revealed such

disagreements, which tended to follow thelines of countries promoting a zero toleranceapproach towards illicit drugs, and othersleaning towards a health based strategy.

It is therefore unsurprising that, for somedelegations, such as Pakistan and Lebanon,the principle of shared responsibility waspresented as essential in the fight against drugsupply and, to a lesser extent, drug demand

through law enforcement led approaches. Forothers, including Argentina, El Salvador and theUSA, the principle of shared responsibility wasperceived as supporting efforts aiming to tackledrug demand and supply through a balancedapproach involving both law enforcement andpublic health and social measures. For DiederikLohman, speaking on behalf of Human RightsWatch, finally, the principle was crucial forsupporting governments in their struggle toensure the availability of controlled substances

for medical and scientific purposes anobjective of the UN drug control conventionsthat is often apparently forgotten by the States.

Similar divergences of opinion were alsohighlighted in relation to the implicationsof the principle of shared responsibility.Consequently, in their country statements,Bolivia, France, and Peru all declared thatsharing information and examples of best

practice constituted an essential part of theprinciple of shared responsibility. For India,Sudan and El Salvador, the principle was seen

to involve the provision of technical assistanceto countries in need this, according to India,also included financial support from developed

to developing countries. Others believed thatthe principle encompasses cooperation tofight not only against illicit drug trafficking, butalso money laundering, corruption and armtrafficking. For Russia, finally, the main threatthat needed to be tackled through the principleof shared responsibility was Afghanistan.Indeed, during the later negotiations in theCommittee of the Whole on Resolution 54/12Revitalisation of the principle of common andshared responsibility in countering the world

drug problem (see below), Russia did nothesitate to call governments to consider theAfghan situation as a threat to internationalpeace and security, which, according tointernational law, could provide grounds for amilitary intervention.

In a statement, Uruguay also called for theprinciple of fairness in order to move awayfrom the stigmatisation of certain developing

countries in the global South, towards a trulycollaborative approach between developedand developing countries.

This round table, therefore, revealed a cleardivergence in opinion between the membersof the CND on what the principle of sharedresponsibility, which seems to be so widelyagreed in theory, actually refers to in practice.

Round Table (c) Addressing key public

health and safety issues such as addictive

behaviours of youth and drugged driving

Here again, the last round tables discussionson drugged driving revealed a clear dividebetween countries, such as China, thatpromote strict drug laws and enforcementto tackle the issue, and others, including

Argentina, Uruguay, and the African Groupthat call for a holistic approach that aim to

address the underlying causes of drug use anddrugged driving through interventions focusedon health, development and social inclusion.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

8/24

6

Several issues were raised by the delegationsto address the issue of drugged driving. First,although much research already exists on

drugged driving in countries such as Canada,the USA and Norway, other countries aroundthe world lack data and information on the issue,which hinders their efforts to respond efcientlyto the problem. This is the case, for example,in Mexico and Sub-Saharan Africa. Second,issues related to drug testing were raised by

the Czech Republic: how should the policedeal with people arrested under the inuenceof legal drugs (such as codeine), or prescribedcontrolled substances (such as methadone

and buprenorphine)? How will policy makersdetermine which amount must be consideredas inuencing an individuals behaviour? Inthat regard, Norway shared its experience onthe issue it is currently the only country thathas established such limits by law. Hungaryalso shared concerns about whether measuresaimed to tackle drugged driving would respectthe physical integrity of the person arrested fordrug testing, and of data protection legislation.Finally, the African Group made it clear thatsome level of cultural and contextual awarenesswas necessary to ensure that interventions areeffective to tackle drugged driving.

Finally, a few delegates shared their experienceon how to address the issue of drugged

driving. For example, the European Union hasdeveloped a prevention programme involvingdrug testing on the road, and has developedthe DRUID research project, which aims

to create a classification system of everyprevention, law enforcement and trainingintervention developed among EU memberstates, in order to assess their effectiveness.Germany also presented its online preventionprogramme on cannabis use, which aims toprovide information to young people about theeffects of cannabis use while driving. Finally,Australia shared its experience on 30 yearsof alcohol driving prevention. Canada and theUSA are planning to co-host an international

conference in July 2011 to share informationand best practice on drugged driving.

Thus, while certainly an innovative attemptto instigate discussion, the results of theroundtables were overall rather disappointing.

Instead of generating genuinely free-flowingdialogue on the selected issue areas, theapproach created what were in many waysmini versions of previous years thematicdebates. Despite the best efforts of thechairpersons and some brief shining momentsof discussion, much of the round table slotswere filled with country statements. Moreover,and reminiscent of the plenary proper, NGOswere not always able to retain their designatedspeaking spots in the running order, a point

to which we shall return. With all this in mind,it will be interesting to see which format thePlenary will take next year.

The Plenary Operational and Normative

Segments

Having run the roundtable sessions on theMonday afternoon, Tuesday morning sawthe Plenary return to its normal business,including the usual issues. These includedadministrative, management and budgetaryissues, the implementation of the internationaldrug control treaties, changes in the scopeand control of substances, the work of theInternational Narcotics Control Board (INCB)(see below), the implementation of the 2009Political Declaration and Plan of Action,demand reduction and related measures, supplyreduction and related measures, and counteringmoney-laundering and promoting judicial

cooperation to enhance judicial cooperation.As is to be expected, most discussionsunder these agenda items followed thefamiliar pattern with member states presentingnarrative accounts and statistics relating to thenational efforts undertaken since they went

through the same or eerily similar motions inprevious years. Of note was the fact that aconsiderable number of country statementsmentioned the harm reduction approach as anormal part of domestic drug policies. There

were also a number of other specic items thatstood out from the crowd. In terms of country

8/4/2019 cnd2011

9/247

interventions, one of these was Venezuelascritical response to the INCB Report for 2010;an issue discussed further below. Mindful of

not only the Boards recent work on the issue,but also a related resolution in the Committeeof the Whole, another area of interest related tothe agenda item on international cooperationto ensure the availability of narcotic drugsand psychotropic substances for medical andscientic purposes while preventing diversion.

This produced a number of very positive nationalstatements and included a highly informativeand, at times, moving presentation by GilbertoGerra. The presentation by the Chief, Drug

Prevention and Health Branch of the UNODCsDivision for Operations, was very effective inhumanizing the consequences of untreated painand bringing a sense of reality to what can oftenbe the abstract environment of the Commission.Mr. Gerra also informed the session of thework of the UNODC in the area, including anew discussion paper on the issue. Anotherextremely valuable UNODC presentation wasthat of Angela Me of the Statistics and SurveySection of the Division for Policy Analysis andPublic Affairs. In this the delegates were givena nuanced picture of the World Situationwith regard to drug abuse and reminded that,in order to allow the UNODC to engage inmeaningful analysis nation states must invest indata collection and complete the Annual ReportQuestionnaires in a fuller fashion.

The Committee of the Whole:Problematic, but productive

The Committee of the Whole (COW) is thearena where resolutions are subjected toscrutiny and debate by Member States priorto their going before the Plenary for adoption.This process often involves attention to theminutiae of language and phrasing, and canbe tiresome. However, it provides insightinto the political relations between statesand the political wrangling by which the finalversion of a given resolution is constructed.

Alberto Groff, of Switzerland, chaired theCOW this year. While Mr Groffs politenessof manner may have prolonged and at times

overcomplicated the proceedings, the Chairsucceeded in shepherding a wide range ofoften fiercely negotiated resolutions throughthe Committee.

Key among these was Resolution 54/11,Improving the participatory role of civil

society in addressing the world drug

problem.10 This was an important resolutionfor NGO delegates at CND, and its passagethrough the COW was watched with particular

interest. Originally sponsored by Uruguay, itrapidly found co-sponsors, first among otherSouth American countries, and then moregenerally.

While much of the lengthy debate to whichthe resolution was subjected was technicalin nature, and concerned references to UNdocumentation and the use of approvedforms of wording, it was obvious that theseissues served as a proxy for more substantial

disagreements surrounding the engagement ofcivil society in the politics of international drugcontrol. Delegates had arrived at the CND onMonday morning to be confronted by a good-natured but noisy demonstration against theinternational drug war.11 It appeared that someof the governmental delegates associated civilsociety participation solely with throbbingsound-systems, and young people in colourfulclothes and cannabis-leaf badges. A number

of those seeking technical amendments tothe text seemed to suspect any civil societyinvolvement as representing the thin end of

a dangerous and disorderly wedge. Thus,an early intervention by China suggestedthe insertion of text to the effect that CNDwelcomesconstructive and orderlyparticipationin line with ECOSOC regulations (italicsadded). Indeed, it was those countries, suchas China and Russia, which lack a traditionof civil society involvement in processes of

governance that demonstrated the greatestdegree of unease with this resolution and the

8/4/2019 cnd2011

10/24

8

measures it proposed. On the other side, theearly South American co-sponsors, the UK,Germany, the Czech Republic and many others

showed strong support. From the outset, itwas apparent that the resolution was going tosuffer a stormy passage through the COW.Delegations from the UK and China clashedover the wording of the preliminary paragraphs,with China calling for the use of language taken

directly from the 2009 Political Declaration.The UK responded by showing that thelanguage was already taken from that source.The UK delegate then went on to express her

view that civil society engagement was anissue that went beyond the treaty-based workat CND. The drug control conventions, sheobserved, do not deal in detail with demandreduction, for instance, and she warned of therisk that the drug control system will continueto miss out on the wealth of expertise presentin civil society. As if to underscore the point,the Russian Federation intervened to expressits alleged confusion about the purpose ofthe resolution as stated in its original title,which was, Efficient measures to improvethe participation of civil society in the CND.What are these efficient measures? askedthe exasperated Russian delegate. NGOscan attend, there are measures for them tospeak what more can we do? he pleaded.A flurry of conflicting interventions surroundingthe use of language in the text prompted the

Chair to suggest that resort to informalsmay be necessaryinformals being bilateral

or other small sessions held in private, withthe object of finding compromise between themain antagonists. The Argentinean delegationpointed out that the problem with this approachis that, by their very nature, informals excludelarge numbers of Member States. In theevent, however, discussions on the resolutionwere postponed until the difficulties could beresolved in informal meetings.

Following these at times heated debates,

the resolution as finally sent to the Plenarydiffered considerably from the original draft,

though it picked up a total of seven sponsoringstates along the way. This masked the factthat Uruguay had come close to withdrawing

sponsorship of the resolution in its finalform. The most obvious modification wasthe removal of any specific reference to CNDin the title. Nonetheless, the essential pointremains that the resolution, encouragesMember States to ensure that civil societyplays a participatory role, where appropriate,in the development and implementation ofdrug control programmes and policies... Italso encourages Member States to cultivatean environment that promotes innovation

and to take account of promising approachestaken by civil society These are potentiallyimportant agreements. The differencesbetween the original and final texts are perhapsat their most significant in the last operativeparagraph, which had requested the UNODCto review the consultation mechanisms in otherUN bodies... The meaningful engagement ofNGOs with the political process in other UNbodies, such as UNAIDS, is much more highlydeveloped than it is at CND, and the resolutionwould have allowed their model to be proposedas an example. As it stands, the agreed finalparagraph does still permit Member Statesto report to the Office their experiences ofworking with civil society, and this information,and suggestions, may be made available toother Member States upon their request.

Another resolution of note was 54/13,Achieving zero new infections of HIV

amongst injecting drug users and otherat-risk populations. This comes at a timewhen, outside of Sub-Saharan Africa, one third

of new HIV infections occur among injectingdrug users, while many governments remainreluctant to adopt harm reduction focusedapproach with regards to drug use.

The main discussions around the resolutionconcerned Russias request to include apreambular paragraph on demand reduction,

drawn from operative paragraph 4 of theGeneral Assembly Resolution 64/182.12

8/4/2019 cnd2011

11/249

Supported by China and Colombia, Russiasmain argument was that demand reductionissues are fundamental from the point of view

of the effectiveness of measures aimed to stopHIV/AIDS, and justified their proposal with theneed to ensure a balanced text. This request,however, was blocked by the UK, Argentina andNorway. The UK was particularly resistant tothis addition from Russia and strived to protectthe integrity of the resolution. The discussions

on the resolution revealed once again theinherent tension between public healthimperatives and more ideologically drivenlaw-enforcement zero-tolerance approaches.

After heated and lengthy discussions betweenthe UK and Russia, Argentina finally provided acompromise solution by mentioning Resolution64/182 itself rather than its specific content.The suggestion to include inter-aliaparagraphs 4 and 5 of the Resolution put anend to the discussions.

A few additional modications were made to the

resolution, in particular on operative paragraph

3, where the request to UNODC to intensify

its focused efforts to scale up evidence-based

interventions which have been unequivocally

shown to reduce transmission of HIV in injecting

drug users, as set out in the WHO, UNODC,

UNAIDS Technical guide for countries to set

targets for universal access to HIV prevention,

treatment and care for injecting drug users

(emphasis italics added), was changed into to

continue. The reference in full compliance

with the international drug control conventions

and national legislation was also added tothe paragraph. This is problematic because

countries operating under legislation that

prohibits substitution therapy or syringe

exchange programmes will be able to keep

applying their punitive policies against drug

users. It is also disappointing to notice that, once

again, the term harm reduction was carefully

avoided in the resolution, the drafters preferring

to refer to evidence-based interventions.

Not all resolutions were so contested. This wasthe case with Resolution 54/5: Promoting

rehabilitation- and reintegration-oriented

strategies in response to drug use

disorders and their consequences that are

directed at promoting health and socialwell-being among individuals, families

and communities.13 Further enshrining the

necessity and value of drug treatment withinthe UN drug control system, 54/5 passed tothe Plenary without major conflict. Proposedby Hungary on behalf of the EU, it encouragesMember States to ensure access to evidence-based and humane treatment, care and relatedsupport services and urges them to identifyand firmly counter discrimination against and

stigmatisation of drug users. The resolutionemphasizes that effective drug treatment mustbe tailored toward individuals, and includemeasures to achieve social integration; thelatter even to comprise positive discriminationprogrammes to facilitate the employmentof drug users. It states that treatmentmust be evidence based and regarded as akey element of national efforts at reducingillicit drug use. Finally, the text involves theimportant recognition that a diverse range oftreatments should be provided, covering boththe medically assisted (which includes OpioidSubstitution Therapy) and psychosocialforms. The Executive Director was asked toreport to next years CND on the progress in

implementing this resolution.

It will be recalled that a core objective of the1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugsis to limit the use of controlled substances

to medical and scientific purposes. However,despite the adoption of various resolutionsby the CND over the years, includingResolution 51/9 in 200814 and Resolution53/4 last year15, along with various reportswritten by the INCB, UNODC and WHO onthe matter, many governments have oftenignored that prerogative, and instead focusedoverwhelmingly upon the suppression of illicitdrug use. As a result, millions of cancer and HIVpatients suffer from moderate to severe pain

for lack of available controlled medicines; allissues touched upon in Mr. Gerras presentation

8/4/2019 cnd2011

12/24

10

in the plenary. There is also ample evidencethat opioid substitution therapy is an effectiveHIV prevention tool since it reduces the use of

contaminated needles.16

This years resolution54/6, Promoting adequate availability of

internationally controlled narcotic drugs

and psychotropic substances for medical

and scientific purposes while preventing

their diversion and abuse reiterates mostof the contents from 53/4. It was therefore notsubject to much controversy and was adoptedquickly by the Committee of the Whole. Thelast operative paragraph of the resolution callsthe UNODC Executive Director to report on

the implementation of the resolution next year.

Including the resolutions discussed above,which are the most significant ones for theNGO community, the often slow-moving andfractious Committee scrutinised a total of 15resolutions before passing them on to thePlenary. The EU sponsored a resolution onimproving data, continuing a significant themefrom last year. Reference to former debateswas also made by a resolution sponsored byColombia and Peru, which sought to revitalisethe principle of shared responsibility. Noisesof discontent about permissive drug policiesin certain Western countries, a familiar topicfrom the last few CNDs, continued to beheard at this one. The US also presented a

resolution promoting international cooperationto prevent drugged driving, the title of whichwas altered to include the rather more cautiousterm, drug-affected driving.

The World Health Organization at the

CND Still marginalised

As we have noted in past reports, the WHOis frequently marginalised during CNDmeetings.17 This is especially so relativeto the INCB, even though the WHO is alsoa recognised treaty body in the UN drugconventions. Such a situation was arguably lessapparent this year due to the prominence in the

plenary of the issue of availability of controlledmedicines; something with which the WHO isintimately engaged. Several WHO statements

consequently spoke about this topic in detailand also referred to a recently published WHOpolicy guideline Ensuring Balance in NationalPolicies on Controlled Substances: Guidance

for Availability and Accessibility of Controlled

Medicines.18 This report was developed aspart of the WHOs activities under the Accessto Controlled Medicines Programme. Althoughon this and other aspects of its activities theWHO works closely with the INCB, it wasinteresting to note tht the delegates from

Geneva felt it necessary to mention ketaminewithin the WHOs response to the INCBAnnual Report. Then it was noted, as wehave already stated before, it is far from clearthat the harm related to the misuse of ketaminewarrant scheduling and therefore the scientificassessment by WHO is urgently requiredbefore such measures are taken. This seemedvery much like a response to the ongoing callsof the INCB for the CND to add the drug to thelists of controlled substances; a move that isbeyond the Boards mandate and encroachesupon that of the WHO.19

Indeed, the fact that the WHO continues tobe undeservedly sidelined was evident on anumber of occasions at this years CND. First,Resolution 54/6 presented a joint INCB/WHOproject on developing a manual on makingestimates for country demand for medicalsupply of drugs, as a discrete initiative of the

Board. Moreover, the preamble quotes anow withdrawn and replaced WHO guidelineand overall gives the false impression that theUNODC and the Board had taken the lead

on the issue. These were innocent oversights,but they reflect an imbalance in perceptionsof the WHO and other bodies within the drugcontrol apparatus. Secondly, on one of thefew occasions that the work of the WHO wasmentioned by a state in the plenary debate, itwas to criticize it for not recently convening

a meeting of the Expert Committee on DrugDependence (ECDD), the body responsible

8/4/2019 cnd2011

13/2411

for giving advice on scheduling to the CND.As the WHO explained, the reason why theCommittee has not met since 2006 is simple;

a lack of money. To be sure, the IDPC concurswith the view of the WHO that the ECDDcannot be expected to perform the role givento it by Member States unless those samestates are willing to pay; a similar predicamentto that of the UNODC, though one that isconsiderably less talked about (see below).

As a possible solution, it was suggested thata funding stream could come from theCND secretariat, from Member States or otherexternal sources mobilised by either the CND

in Vienna, or by the WHO in Geneva withstrong endorsement from the CND. It is ourhope that the funding problem will be solvedsoon. Without meetings of the ECDD therewill be no recommendations on schedulingand as a result the CND will not be able tomake decisions on this issue.

NGO engagement: Catching up, yet

still behind

According to UNODC, over 150 NGOdelegates representing 60 ofcial NGOsattended this years CND. However, fewer NGOrepresentatives were invited to attend the CNDas members of country delegations. The UK, forexample, which had four NGO representativeswithin its delegation last year, counted onlyone at this years session. This was no doubt

a reection on the planned resolutions. As inprevious years, the Vienna NGO Committeeon Drugs (VNGOC) was responsible for

coordinating NGO involvement at the CND.The NGO lounge provided a useful space forNGO delegates to meet before and between thesessions and to consult useful documentation onthe CND proceedings. A table was also madeavailable to NGOs to display documentationin front of the Committee of the Whole. TheVNGOC coordinated NGOs statements atthe round tables and Plenary and, as discussed

below, organised several informal dialogues withthe Chair of the International Narcotics ControlBoard (INCB), the UNODC Executive Director,

and the Chair of the CND. Independent of theVNGOC process, Mr. Fedotov also made timeto see a delegation from the IDPC. Finally, NGOdelegates organised a series of well-attendedside events on drug policy issues in the marginsof the CND (See Box 1). Although NGOs gainedmuch visibility at the CND, particularly via themuch welcomed VNGOC organised dialogues,their participation in ofcial discussions remainslimited and, as noted above, is still nowherenear that in other comparable issue areas. The

functioning of the round table sessions wasparticularly representative of this.

There had been some hope that the new roundtable arrangements would provide greaterspace for NGOs to intervene in the official

debates. For the first time, NGOs weresupposedly given the same right as memberstates to participate in the debates at anygiven time provided the Chairperson allowedthem to speak rather than only at the end ofthe debates, if time permitted. Although theVNGOC facilitated six formal requests fromNGOs wishing to intervene during the roundtables,20 only one had the opportunity to speak.As mentioned above, a Human Rights Watchrepresentative spoke about the principle ofshared responsibility at round table (b). As withthe Plenary proper, time constraints certainlymade it difficult for all speakers, including thosefrom NGOs, to take the floor. That said, while

slowly changing, the embedded culture of theCND is such that NGOs are seldom includedin formal proceedings as a matter of course. Ahigh profile exception this year was a Plenarystatement by the International Harm Reduction

Association (IHRA), on behalf of IHRA andother NGOs, including the IDPC, HumanRights Watch, Open Society Foundations andTransform. The statement called governmentsto cease using the death penalty for drugoffences; a policy option currently retained

within 32 jurisdictions.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

14/24

12

BOX 1 NGO side events

This year, civil society groups were highly visible at numerous side events that drew

attention to the flaws of the international drug control system, as well as opportunities forimprovement. These events were targeted at the member state delegates as well as thosefrom NGOs and provided a forum for discussing key drug policy issues.

The IDPC was instrumental in organising or facilitating the holding of a series of events incollaboration with its member organisations. The first event co-organised by the EurasianHarm Reduction Network discussed issues related to overdose prevention and put particularemphasis on the effectiveness of Naloxone to prevent death related overdose around theworld. The second event featured examples of diversion mechanisms from custody totreatment in different socio-economical and cultural contexts, including Malaysia, the UnitedArab Emirates and Latin America. The third event, co-hosted by the Transnational Institute,

introduced a reinterpretation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs22 and within thiscontext discussed the recent Bolivian proposal to remove the international ban on coca leafchewing and its implications for the Convention. The key points on the coca issue werepresented by Dayana Rios from the Bolivian national delegation. A new global campaignCount the Costs was launched by Transform during another side event.23 This campaignseeks to highlight the negative consequences of the current drug control regime, on thebasis of the 50th anniversary of the 1961 Single Convention.

Other side events of note included a session on proportionality in sentencing for drugrelated offences organised by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; the impact of drug

control on socio-economic development, hosted by the Open Society Foundations, theThe Nossal Institute of Global Health and GIZ, the German government developmentagency; and person-led recovery, organised by San Patriagnano, Wired In and the VNGOC.Another side event co-organised by the VNGOC, this time with the UNODC, entitledBuilding on beyond 2008 recommendations: Partnerships for effective drug policy, wasalso particularly interesting, featuring examples where the VNGOC and UNODC supportedNGOs advocacy work towards government officials in countries as diverse as Argentina,Kyrgyzstan and Senegal.

Each event was well attended by both NGO representatives and, perhaps understandablybearing in mind the range of other events taking place at the same time (see box 2), to

a lesser extent by government delegates. Nonetheless, the events provided a space fordiscussions on the weaknesses of the current system and opportunities for alternativeapproaches to drug control. It was also a good opportunity for NGO delegates to meetwith government representatives and UNODC staff and engage in meaningful discussionson drug related issues.

It should also be noted that NGOs favouring the shape of the extant control system wereinvolved with side events. Key amongst these was The right of children to be protectedfrom narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. This was organised by the InternationalFederation of NGOs, IOGT International and World Federation Against Drugs.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

15/2413

The NGO informal dialogue with the INCB

President: A move in the right direction

The INCB is well known for its lack of

engagement with civil society. NGO delegatestherefore welcomed positively the informaldialogue organised by VNGOC betweenNGO representatives and the INCB Presidentat this years CND. The 45-minute encounterwas an opportunity for NGOs to engage in aconstructive dialogue with the INCB President,Prof. Hamid Ghodse. Overall, the meeting wascordial and showed a growing willingness fromthe INCB to engage with NGOs. As for NGOs,they took advantage of the meeting to discusscontroversial issues with Prof. Ghodse.

A question was raised, for example, on thenew process by which local civil societyorganisations can engage with the INCB duringthe Boards country visits. One of the NGOdelegates requested the INCB to intensify itsefforts to reach out to civil society organisationsin countries where NGO work may be hinderedby security issues or corruption. Only then can

there be a real exchange of information andmeaningful engagement with civil society. The

INCB President did not seem to be opposedto the idea, but remained quite vague in hisresponse and on how he would ensure theengagement of these NGOs in the INCBcountry visits.

Another contentious issue discussed during theinformal dialogue was that of drug consumption

rooms, which the INCB has largely criticised in

its annual reports. The response of the INCBPresident therefore came as a surprise in theframework of harm reduction, and if controlleddrugs are prescribed, then the concept of drugconsumption rooms is acceptable.

Finally, the INCB President carefully avoidedproviding a clear response from the call fromthe International Network of People Who UseDrugs (INPUD) to ensure the meaningfulparticipation of drug users in drug policy

debates. Instead of responding to the INPUDrepresentatives concerns, Prof. Ghodsementioned the importance of comprehensivedrug dependence treatment for drug users.

Consequently, although this type of dialogueis certainly a welcome development, ProfGhodses performance suggests that there is

still much work to be done to increase the linksbetween the INCB and the NGO community.

The NGO informal dialogue with the UNODC

Executive Director: A new era of cordiality?

Another noteworthy event from the 54thsession of the CND was the informal dialoguebetween NGOs and Mr Fedotov. Former

Informal dialogue between the UNODC Executive Director, Mr. Fedotov, and NGOs Picture: Steve Rolles

8/4/2019 cnd2011

16/24

14

Executive Director Antonio Maria Costaalways showed some level of resistance inmeeting NGO delegates, not hesitating in

resorting to an army of bodyguards to attendmeetings with civil society, or directly insultingthe delegates during the dialogue. In thatregard, this years meeting with Mr. Fedotovshowed some improvement, with a feeling thatNGOs were indeed taken seriously. Indeed,as a symbolic step forward, at the end of

the meeting Mr. Fedotov invited every NGOdelegate present at the meeting to have theirpicture taken with him.

From the start, Mr. Fedotov made it clearthat he was new in the office and may not beable to respond to every question. He wastherefore accompanied by Sandeep Chawla,Director of the UNODC Division for PolicyAnalysis and Public Affairs and seen by someto hold progressive views on a human rightsand health based approach to drug policy, aswell as Gilberto Gerra.

Several issues were raised during the dialogue,one of which concerned Mr. Fedotovsopening statement, in which he talkedabout the rejuvenation of the drug controlconventions. According to Mr. Fedotov andMr. Chawla, the conventions should be not be

changed, but rather should be implementeddifferently, according to the current geo-political circumstances, with a more balancedapproach to tackle both demand and supply.When asked about decriminalisation, Mr.

Fedotov replied that he was prepared to lookinto the issue and draft a discussion paper onthe matter. As for meaningful engagement withcivil society, the Executive Director declaredthat any government should reflect the will ofits people and civil society, and that he was infavour of closer cooperation with civil society.

There was one particular moment of tensionduring the meeting willingly or not, Mr.Fedotov failed to respond to INPUDs question

about the role that drug users should play inreviewing drug policy and practice. After asomewhat agitated reminder from INPUD,

Mr. Fedotov finally responded by stating thatUNODC was dependent on member Statesto take its decisions, and that, therefore, drugusers should get involved through their nationalgovernments in order to bring their demandsto the international sphere.

The NGO informal dialogue with the

CND Chair: The beginning of a beautiful

relationship?An informal dialogue meeting between the CNDChairperson and civil society delegates tookplace on Tuesday 22nd March. The room wassmall and very crowded, an indication of thelevel of interest and participatory enthusiasmon the part of civil society representatives atthe CND. For her part the Chair, VeronikaKuchynov Smigolov of the Czech Republic,was courteous, receptive and even-handedat an event at which the division in the NGO

community were apparent.

Indeed, despite a hostile intervention concerningthe funding of reform oriented NGOs, the Chairwisely refused to be drawn into the debateand instead listened attentively to suggestionsfor greater civil society engagement from allquarters, taking notes continuously. Delegatesdrew attention to the fact that the treaty bodies ofthe UN drug control system are well behind manyother UN bodies in their level of integration of civil

society participation. UNAIDS, for example, hasNGO representatives on its governing body, theProgramme Coordinating Board.21 Ms KuchynovSmigolov did a lot of nodding, and made someafrmative noises, without necessarily makingrm promises. However, as an informal meeting,this was seen by all partners as the beginning of alonger term process of meaningful engagement,and the Chair came across as one who wasacting in good faith.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

17/2415

BOX 2 Country and UN Satellite Events

A number of side events took place in parallel with the CND proceedings. Among them were:

Tackling methamphetamine The experience of New Zealand. Organised bythe Permanent Mission of New Zealand.

The drug situation in Pakistan and the expanding partnership between

UNODC and the Government of Pakistan. Organised by the Permanent Mission ofPakistan and UNODC/Integrated Programming Branch.

Innovative criminal justice system approaches to reducing drug use and crime.Organised by the permanent Mission of the United States of America.

UNODC study on illicit nancial ows. Organised by UNODC/Studies and ThreatAnalysis Section.

Presentation of the cooperation programme on drugs policies between Latin

America and the European Union. Organised by the Permanent Mission of Spain.

Enhancing cooperation in global data collection The way forward. Organisedby UNODC/Statistics and Surveys Section and the European Union.

The growing challenges of designer drugs. Organised by UNODC/Laboratory andScientic Section.

Universal access for drug dependence treatment and care: Hidden dimensionsof a complex disorder. Organised by UNODC and WHO in collaboration with theVienna NGO Committee on Drugs.

Alternative development: The Peruvian experience. Organised by the PermanentMission of Peru.

Results of a comparative study on drug use in emergency rooms. Organised byUNODC/Integrated Programming Branch.

Healthy and safe children through family skills training programmes Organisedby UNODC/Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Unit.

Bolivias proposal to amend the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.

Organised by the Permanent Mission of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

18/24

16

The International Narcotics Control

Board Comprehensive and largely

uncontroversial

As is the norm, the President of the INCBused the statement at the plenary of the CNDto highlight the main themes of the BoardsAnnual Report. Noting that this year marks the50 th anniversary of the Single Convention onNarcotic Drugs, Prof. Hamid Ghodse beganby reecting upon the achievements made inthe implementation of the convention. Beyondobserving the near universality of accessionamong UN member states, Prof. Ghodse

highlighted that the convention had beensuccessful in almost fully eliminating thediversion of narcotic drugs at the internationallevel, but noted, much work needs to be doneto prevent diversion at the national level. Asthe IDPC has noted in various publications, theBoards concern with the issue of diversion hassometimes in recent years taken precedenceover any comments regarding the use of certaincontrolled substances for medical purposes.24

This has been particularly the case for drugsinvolved in opioid substitution therapy. Wetherefore, welcome the INCBs production of aspecial supplement to this years Annual Report

on the availability of internationally controlledsubstances for medical requirements; an issuethat received prominence within the Presidentsstatements to the CND, favourable governmentresponses in the plenary and something towhich we will return.

Mindful of the thematic nature of chapter oneof the Boards Annual Report, Prof. Ghodsealso gave attention to this years topic ofconcern: corruption. In so doing, he noted,The Board recognises the heroic efforts ofthe officers working to protect society fromdrug trafficking, whose lives are placed indanger on a daily basis. Unfortunately, theirefforts and sacrifices are often compromisedby corruption and intimidation. Indeed,corruption and intimidation are the toolsmost effectively used by organised crime tocounterdrug control efforts and ensure an

unimpeded flow of drugs. There is much tobe said for raising concern about all aspects ofdrug related corruption. The choice of topic,

both in the Presidents statement and theReport for 2010, nonetheless, raises furtherquestions in relation to what can be called theBoards mission creep.25 As a TransnationalInstitute response to the INCB Annual Reportupon its release pointed out, While the Boardfrequently oversteps its limitations related tothe 1988 Convention, they now seem to beexpanding their reach to the UN Conventionagainst Corruption and the UN Conventionagainst Transnational Organized Crime, for

which they have no mandate at all.26

On a more positive note in terms of theBoards mandate, Prof. Ghodse used hispresentation to state publicly that the INCBis committed to a constructive dialoguewith non-governmental organisations. TheIDPC has held up the Boards longstandingreluctance to engage with civil society as

a major example of its selective reticence:areas where the INCB sometimes refrainsfrom engagement in issues and activitiesalthough its mandates suggest otherwise.27Such a message, as well as acknowledgementthat, assisted by the VNGOC, the Board isseeking to include meetings with relevantNGOs during each country mission is ofcourse greatly welcome. It is the hope ofthe IDPC, nonetheless, that future INCB-NGO interaction is more productive thanthat displayed at the Presidents informal

discussion with the VNGOC on the Monday ofthis years CND.

In relation to other significant parts of the

Annual Report the President flagged up anumber of special topics, some of which hadbeen initiated by earlier CND resolutions.These included work on questionnaires relatingto the regulation of cannabis seeds (Resolution52/5), the collection of information on syntheticcannabinoid receptor agonists (Resolution

53/11), recommendations that states shareinformation on alkyl nitrites (poppers) with

8/4/2019 cnd2011

19/2417

the WHO and requests to states to providethe INCB with information on date rape drugs(Resolution 53/7). Prof. Ghodse also stressed

that the Board was gravely concerned aboutthe increasing variety and availability ofdesigner drugs, substances of abuse that havebeen designed to avoid control measures bymeans of a minor modification of the molecularstructure of controlled substances, resulting ina new substance with similar effects. In order

to avoid delays in placing individual drugsunder national control, he invited governmentsto consider generic scheduling, where thenational legislation allows it.

Moving onto the weaknesses in internationaland national drug control systems identifiedin the Annual Report, Prof. Ghodse, amongother areas, chose to mention increasesin cocaine trafficking in Africa, increasingabuse of virtually all types of drugs in thatcontinent, concern for drug related violenceand corruption in Central America and theCaribbean and South Asia as a source ofephedrine and pseudoephedrine for the illicitmanufacture of methamphetamine. In termsof positive developments, he was pleasedto note a decline in coca bush cultivation inSouth America and a drop in opium poppyproduction in Afghanistan. This was mainly theresult of a fungus, he pointed out. However,Prof. Ghodse continued, there is no room for

complacency given that opium stockpiles inthe region are equivalent to 2.5 years of theglobal illicit demand for opiates. Again, this

is a fair point, but one cannot help wonderingabout the source of such precise figures.

In discussing the Boards work in relation toprecursor control in article 12 of the 1988Convention, the President noted that theprecursor control regime had strengthenedover the past two decades and highlighteda number of undoubtedly valuable initiatives;Project Prism, Project Cohesion and thePre-Export Notification Online System (PEN-

Online). As alluded to with reference toSouth Asia, Prof. Ghodse noted that with

the increased control of traditional precursorchemicals, non-scheduled substances werebeing increasingly used for the production

of methamphetamine and as such urgedgovernments to refer to the latest version ofthe Limited international special surveillancelist of non-scheduled substances.

As noted above, the INCB Report for 2010included a Supplement. Entitled Availabilityof Internationally Controlled Drugs: Ensuring

Adequate Access for Medical and Scientific

Purposes, this contained a number of keyfindings that Prof. Ghodse duly transmitted

to the plenary session under agenda item4c. Key among these was that a group ofdeveloped countries consumes 90% of theglobal consumption of opioid analgesics:Australia, New Zealand, the United Statesof America and several European countries.On the other hand, the President stressed,80% of the world population has limited or noaccess to opioid analgesics for the treatmentof pain. Noting that the Board monitors theglobal supply of, and demand for, opiate rawmaterials, Prof. Ghodse was pleased to

reassure the international community that theglobal supply of opiate raw materials is morethan adequate to ensure that opiates can beproduced in the quantities required for medicalpurposes. Similarly, he continued, there issufficient global capacity for the manufactureof synthetic opioids. While this is the case,a clear theme to come from the Presidentsstatement was that benefit from this situation

was unequal around the world. Growth rateswere caused mainly by increases in manufacturewithin states with already high consumptionwhile in low consumption countries levelsremained low or even decreased. Pointingout that access to medicines containinginternationally controlled substances is limitedor almost non-existent in many countries, Prof.Ghodse noted that differences in consumptionlevel exist between regions, but also betweensimilar countries within the same region. In

reference to this, he urged states to check thedata within the Report to ensure that patients

8/4/2019 cnd2011

20/24

18

were not suffering due to a lack of adequatepain treatment. Bearing in mind the Boardsprevious proclivity for privileging strict drug

control over the availability of pain medication,the President also made some positive andwelcome statements about the barriers to theavailability of narcotic drugs. Identifying themajor barriers as concerns about addictionand resistance to prescribe, he noted thatthese need to be overcome through the

provision of training for doctors and healthcare workers. Competent authorit ies willalso need to verify whether overly restrictivelaws and administrative burdens play a major

role in the low levels of consumption of theircountry, he continued. Although it is difficultto ignore the Boards tendency to regulateconcerns of medical availability of painmedication to secondary consideration,28it was also positive to hear news of theBoards work with the WHO in developingguidelines on estimating requirements for

internationally controlled substances. As thePresident noted, these will no doubt assistGovernments with low levels of consumptionof controlled substances to become awareof their requirements and, ultimately, submitto the Board estimates and assessments thatreflect more accurately those requirements.

As is almost ritualistic at every CND session,the Boards Report, and this year particularlythe Supplement, were welcomed by all MemberStates making statements within the plenary.In fact, this year there were only a few voices

of dissent in relation to the INCBs activities.Although Colombias statement on behalf ofGRULAC was positive, these came from LatinAmerica. Upon taking the oor on one occasion,a Uruguayan delegate pulled the Board up onits use of the emotive term crack rather thanhydrochloride base when referring to productionand problematic use within the region. Boliviaalso made the briefest of mentions to the issue

of coca and the INCBs hostility towards thepractice of coca chewing. This was perhapsreective of uncertainty in La Paz as how to

move forward on the amendment proposal. Amore forceful challenge, however, came fromVenezuela. This was in relation to what it feltwere inaccuracies within the Report for 2010.In the rst instance, the delegation arguedthat reporting of the establishment of a new,US supported, naval base in Honduras for theinterception of light aircraft smuggling cocainefrom countries including Venezuela was biased.Further irritation was displayed in relation to aparagraph that was seen to imply that Venezuela

was a main source of cocaine seized in WesternEurope. Clearly unhappy at the lack of accurateand open references for the Boards sourceson this issue, the delegate stated that thesesections of the Report put into question theaccuracy, transparency and objectivity of theBoard. It was also suggested that in usingsources in addition to the information suppliedby governments themselves, in this case from

the World Customs Organization, the Boarddisplayed further bias. In a later rebuttal on thispoint, Prof. Ghodse noted that it was regrettableif the Boards output was seen as biased andattempted to clarify the issue. In so doing,Ghodse pointed out that the Report statedthat the shipments of cocaine had originatedin Venezuela. This was different to being thepoint of production. Interestingly, while in thisinstance the President of the Board was moreaccurate in his account, it is true that the Boarddoes still suffer from a lack of transparency and

at times opaque references towards the sourcesof its information - issues raised in previousIDPC publications.29 The IDPC would, however,challenge the notion put forward by Venezuelathat additional sources of information are anegative contribution to the quality of the INCBAnnual Report. On the contrary, providing theyare credible and accurately cited, such materialcan only add to the richness of the document.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

21/2419

UNODC nances A dangerous

structural problem

Although the UNODC has a new ExecutiveDirector, one of the constants to emerge fromthe 54th CND was a message of concern fromthe head of the Office regarding the state ofUNODC funding. As Mr. Costa had regularlydone, Mr. Fedotov used his opening statementat the session to stress the view that the Officefaced severe funding shortfalls, or as he put ita dangerous structural problem. [T]he moredemand for our services grows, the ExecutiveDirector pointed out, the more precarious our

core operations become. We are strivingto do more with less, he continued, whileensuring that our work achieves positive resultsand is efficient and cost-effective. In relationto this last point, Mr. Fedotov announced thathe was giving independent evaluation a keyrole in assuring quality and accountability ofUNODC projects. But in the long run, henot unreasonably concluded, our fundingstructure is not viable. Without a proper and

timely solution to our governance and financialchallenges, UNODC will no longer be able tocarry out our mandates effectively.

A cursory view of the financial predicament ofthe Office substantiates such a belief. As hasbeen the case for many years, the UNODCcontinues to be heavily reliant about 90percent upon voluntary funding; a figureexpected to have been around $215 millionin 2010 reflecting, as with 2009, a reduction

of about 17 percent compared to 2008.30Moreover, less than 1 percent of the UNregular budget is allocated to the UNODC.This amounts to $42.6 million in the biennium2010-2011; less than 10 percent of the totalUNODC income. Within this context, mostfunding is also earmarked for special purposesand programmes; figures that both look setto marginally increase over the 2010-2011biennium. Indeed, unearmarked general-

purpose funds constitute less than 6 percentof the UNODC budget for the biennium 2010-2011. These limited and, in the long-term,

shrinking funds have to pay for core functionssuch as policy analysis and research, strategicplanning, independent evaluation, advocacy,

management of donor relations, field officesand financial monitoring. In 2010-11, 95percent of general purpose funding came froma small group of major donors. It is fair to saythen that such a financial model not only lacksboth predictability and flexibility but also hasthe potential to distort programme priorities.31Consequently, as in the previous year, 2010saw the UNODC engage in substantive costsaving measures in relation to its general-purpose budget, including temporarily freezing

posts and moving others to programme supportcost funds. While overall presented once againas a financially austere consolidated budget,(including both the fund of the United NationsInternational Drug Control Programme and theUnited Nations Crime Prevention and CriminalJustice Fund) the revised budget for the drugcontrol programme for 2010-11 does showan increase in general-purpose income. This,however, reflects a one-time contribution of$7 million from the Russian Federation ratherthan any alteration of the downward trend.32 Itis interesting to note that, among supportingother core activities, these additional fundswill be used to strengthen the IndependentEvaluation Unit.

In light of the UNODCs funding problems,the Commission considered the work of theOpen-ended intergovernmental working groupon improving the governance and financial

situation of the United Nations Office on Drugsand Crime: a group established pursuantto an ECOSOC decision and CND andCommission on Crime Prevention and CriminalJustice resolutions in 2009.33 A number ofspeakers in the plenary considered it a usefulforum for discussion and consultation amongMember States and with the Secretariat. Otherdelegations called for an increased share ofgeneral-purpose funding to support the coreand normative functions of the Office. These,

and other calls to shift away from a project-based to an integrated programme-based

8/4/2019 cnd2011

22/24

20

approach, were positive contributions to thedebate. Nonetheless, the fact remains that untilMember States are willing to increase financial

contributions to the unearmarked general-purpose fund, the UNODC will struggle todeliver the services that those same memberstates demand. This includes the collection ofgood data and robust analysis thereof in keyoutputs such as the World Drug Report. As willbe recalled, these are both issues specificallymentioned in Mr. Fedotovs discussion of anew UNODC strategy.

Conclusions

Overall, this years CND session can be regarded

as a mixed bag that, in many ways, reected the

revised dynamics of the Plenary; some things

changed, but things mostly remained the same. The

eagerly anticipated contributions from Mr. Fedotov

conrmed the diplomatic prowess and elegance

of the new Executive Director, but, as was to be

expected, did not reveal any reformist impulse in

relation to the re-occurring theme of the event; the50th anniversary of the Single Convention. While

this was the case, Mr. Fedotovs clear intention

to continue the Ofces pursuit of a more health

oriented and human rights based approach to

drug control must be welcomed. The nature of

the Executive Directors engagement with the

NGO community was also a positive sign and

was representative of the success of the VNGOC

to generate links between NGOs and the UNs

drug control apparatus and the Commission. That

said, within the formal functioning of the CND,

NGOs remained peripheral leaving the body outof kilter with other parts of the United Nations.

The fundamental tensions among Member States

on the issue were plain to see in the negotiations

surrounding Resolution 54/11. Similarly, as

revealed during negotiations on Resolution 54/13,

the issue of harm reduction clearly remains a

fault line with the Commission. Having become

abundantly apparent as a manifestation of the

cracks within the Vienna consensus at the High

Level Segment in 2009, dissonance at the

54th meeting emerged in both the COW anddiscussion of the draft report of the meeting. Last

year the report had noted differences of opinion on

the issue. This time, however, the draft contained

no mention of the term, despite the fact that

many countries had referred to the approach in

statements and interventions. This led to a protest

in the closing session by Norway on behalf of six

European countries.34 Indeed, while there are some

areas of agreement among members of the CND,

access to essential medicines for example, there

remains a clear divide between those preferring a

health oriented and human right based approach

and others that privilege zero-tolerance and law

enforcement. It will be interesting to see how the

INCB and, having become more familiar with the

dynamics of the Commission, Mr. Fedotov, will

deal with this increasingly pressing challenge in

the following year.

8/4/2019 cnd2011

23/2421

Endnotes

1 Jelsma,M.(2011),Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing: Bolivias

proposal to amend the 1961 Single Convention, (Amsterdam:

TransnationalInstitute,SeriesonLegislativeReformofDrugPolicies,Nr.11). http://idpc.net/publications/lifting-the-ban-

on-coca

2 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2011/

March/2011-03-21-cnd-opening-session.html. All further

quotes from Mr. Fedotov are from this speech unless

otherwiseindicated.

3 Blickman, T. (March 2011), Some reections onUNODC

ExecutiveDirectorFedotovsopeningspeech.http://www.tni.

org/article/time-realistic-new-international-drugs-framework

4 UNODC (2009), Political Declaration and Plan of Action

on International Cooperation Towards and Integrated and

Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem(New

York: United Nations). http://www.unodc.org/documents/

commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-

English.pdf

5 IDPC(2009),The High Level Segment of the 2009 Commission

on Narcotic Drugs- The Political Declaration: A Missed

Opportunity. http://www.idpc.net/publications/missed-

opportunity

6 UNODC(2005),Estimatingthevalueofillicitdrugmarkets-

Chapter2ofthe 2005 World Drug Report.http://www.unodc.

org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdf

7 Hallam,C.(2011),IDPCBrieng Paper - The heroin shortage

in the UK and Europe. http://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-

brieng-heroin-shortage

8 McAllister,W. B. (2000), Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth

Century: An international history (London and New York:

Routledge)

9 UNODC (2011), Afghanistan Opium Survey 2010. http://

www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/

Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdf

10 United Nations (2011), Commission on Narcotics Drugs:

Report on the 54th Session. Advance Unedited version

ECOSOC http://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/

session/54.htmlp.36

11 This was organised by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

(http://tasz.hu/en).

12 General Assembly (30 March 2010), Resolution 64/182:

Internationalcooperationagainsttheworlddrugproblem.http://

www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20

international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20

drug%20problem.pdf

13 UnitedNations(2011),Commission on Narcotics Drugs: Report

on the 54th Session.AdvanceUneditedversionECOSOChttp://

www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.html

pp.18-19

14 UNODCResolution 51/9: The need for a balance between

demand for and supply of opiates used to meet medical

and scientic needs http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-

Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdf

15 UNODCResolution53/4:Promotingadequateavailabilityof

internationallycontrolledlicitdrugsformedicalandscientic

purposes while preventing their diversion and abuse http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-

53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdf

16 World Health Organization (March 2007), World Health

Organization Brieng Note Access to controlled medications

programme, http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_

safety/access_to_controlled_medications_brnote_english.pdf

17 IDPC(2009),The 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drugs and

its High Level Segment Report of Proceedings, (Witley,

Surry,UK:InternationalDrugpolicyConsortium),p.14.www.

idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_

EN2009.pdf

18World Health Organization (2000),WHO Policy Guidelines

Ensuring Balance in National Policies on ControlledSubstances, Guidance for Availability and Accessibility for

Controlled Medicines(Geneva)http://www.who.int/medicines/

areas/quality_safety/guide_nocp_sanend/en/index.html

19 IDPC (February 2008), The International Narcotics Control

Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform, BriengPaper

7,p.9.http://www.idpc.net/publications/international-narcotics-

control-board-current-tensions-options-for-reform

20 ViennaNGOCommitteeonDrugs(March2011),Contributions

from the NGO community to the round tables held at the 54th

session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

http://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/

Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20

to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdf

21 http://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/

unaidsprogrammecoordinatingboard/

22 Bewley-Taylor,D.& Jelsma,M.(2011), Fifty Years of the

1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs: A Reinterpretation,

(Amsterdam: Transnational Institute Series on Legislative

Reform ofDrugPolicies,nr. 12).http://idpc.net/sites/default/

les/library/fty-years-of-1961-single-convention.pdf

23http://www.countthecosts.org/

24 IDPC (February 2008), The International Narcotics Control

Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform (Brieng

Paper7),p.10.

25 IDPC (February 2008), The International Narcotics Control

Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform (Brieng

Paper7),pp.8-9

26 http://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1176-incb-

report-mixed-thoughts

27 IDPC (February 2008), The International Narcotics Control

Board: Current Tensions and Options for Reform (Brieng

Paper7),p.p.17-8.

28 Taylor, A.L., Gostin L.O. & Pagonis, K.A. (January 2008),

Ensuring Effective Pain Treatment; A National and Global

Perspective,The Journal of the American Medical Association,

Vol.299,No.1

http://idpc.net/publications/lifting-the-ban-on-cocahttp://idpc.net/publications/lifting-the-ban-on-cocahttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2011/March/2011-03-21-cnd-opening-session.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2011/March/2011-03-21-cnd-opening-session.htmlhttp://www.tni.org/article/time-realistic-new-international-drugs-frameworkhttp://www.tni.org/article/time-realistic-new-international-drugs-frameworkhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/missed-opportunityhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/missed-opportunityhttp://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-briefing-heroin-shortagehttp://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-briefing-heroin-shortagehttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://tasz.hu/enhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/access_to_controlled_medications_brnote_english.pdfhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/access_to_controlled_medications_brnote_english.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/guide_nocp_sanend/en/index.htmlhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/guide_nocp_sanend/en/index.htmlhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/international-narcotics-control-board-current-tensions-options-for-reformhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/international-narcotics-control-board-current-tensions-options-for-reformhttp://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/unaidsprogrammecoordinatingboard/http://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/unaidsprogrammecoordinatingboard/http://idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/fifty-years-of-1961-single-convention.pdfhttp://idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/fifty-years-of-1961-single-convention.pdfhttp://www.countthecosts.org/http://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1176-incb-report-mixed-thoughtshttp://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1176-incb-report-mixed-thoughtshttp://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1176-incb-report-mixed-thoughtshttp://www.druglawreform.info/en/weblog/item/1176-incb-report-mixed-thoughtshttp://www.countthecosts.org/http://idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/fifty-years-of-1961-single-convention.pdfhttp://idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/fifty-years-of-1961-single-convention.pdfhttp://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/unaidsprogrammecoordinatingboard/http://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/unaidsprogrammecoordinatingboard/http://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.vngoc.org/images/uploads/file/CND%202011/Contributions%20from%20the%20NGO%20Community%20to%20the%20Round%20Tables.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/international-narcotics-control-board-current-tensions-options-for-reformhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/international-narcotics-control-board-current-tensions-options-for-reformhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/guide_nocp_sanend/en/index.htmlhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/guide_nocp_sanend/en/index.htmlhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/IDPC_CND_Proceedings_EN2009.pdfhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/access_to_controlled_medications_brnote_english.pdfhttp://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/access_to_controlled_medications_brnote_english.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-53-RelatedFiles/E2010_28eV1052082.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Res-2000-until-present/CND-2008-Session51/CND-51-Res-2008-09e.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://www.politicheantidroga.it/media/397109/a-res-64-182,%20international%20cooperation%20against%20the%20world%20drug%20problem.pdfhttp://tasz.hu/enhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/al/commissions/CND/session/54.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_Opium_Survey_2010_web.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-briefing-heroin-shortagehttp://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-briefing-heroin-shortagehttp://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap2.pdfhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/missed-opportunityhttp://www.idpc.net/publications/missed-opportunityhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND-Uploads/CND-52-RelatedFiles/V0984963-English.pdfhttp://www.tni.org/article/time-realistic-new-international-drugs-frameworkhttp://www.tni.org/article/time-realistic-new-international-drugs-frameworkhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2011/March/2011-03-21-cnd-opening-session.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2011/March/2011-03-21-cnd-opening-session.htmlhttp://idpc.net/publications/lifting-the-ban-on-cocahttp://idpc.net/publications/lifting-the-ban-on-coca

8/4/2019 cnd2011

24/24

29 See for example IDPC (February 2008), The International

Narcotics Control Board: Current Tensions and Options for

Reform (Brieng Paper 7). http://www.idpc.net/publications/

international-narcotics-control-board-current-tensions-options-

for-reform

30UnitedNations, Economic and SocialCouncil, Commission

onNarcoticDrugs,Fifty-fourthSession,Vienna21-25March

2011, Activities of the United Nations Ofce on Drugs and

Crime: Report of the Executive Director, E/CN.7/2011/3-E/

CN.15/2011/3,p.18.

31UnitedNations, Economic and SocialCouncil, Commission

onNarcoticDrugs,Fifty-fourthSession,Vienna21-25March

2011, Activities of the United Nations Ofce on Drugs and

Crime: Report of the Executive Director, E/CN.7/2011/3-E/

CN.15/2011/3,p.18.

32United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Commission

onNarcoticDrugs,Fifty-fourthsession,Vienna 21-25March

2011 , Implementation of the consolidated budget for the

biennium 2010-2011 for the United Nations Ofce on Drugs and

Crime: Report of the Executive Director, E/CN.7/2011/11-E/

CN.15/2011/11,p.8.

33 UnitedNations,EconomicandSocialCouncil,Commissionon

NarcoticDrugs,Fifty-fourthSession,Vienna21-25March2011,

Work of the standing open-ended intergovernmental working

group on improving the governance and nancial situation of

the United Nations Ofce on Drugs and Crime: Not