Progress amidst uncertainty: Report of the 69th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Make sure to also check out our post-CND webinar: CND 69 and drug policy reform: Unpacking key implications

Executive summary

This report provides a detailed account of the 69th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), held in Vienna from 9 to 13 March 2026. Although the session did not bring changes as dramatic as those of the previous two years, it was consequential. It demonstrated the potential of a new paradigm at the CND, as the end of consensus creates space for more ambitious policymaking and new approaches to negotiations. At the same time, geopolitical upheaval produced a more divisive environment and heightened uncertainty about the future of the United Nations (UN) system. In other words: progress amidst uncertainty.

The key takeaways are:

The demise of the ‘Vienna consensus’ is accelerating. For the second year in a row, every CND resolution was adopted through a vote. The practice of breaking away from consensus is spreading. In 2025, only the USA called for votes on resolutions; in 2026, China and India did so as well. While the votes in 2025 were linked to the Trump Administration’s ideological agenda, those in 2026 reflected substantive drug policy disagreements. Nevertheless, most resolutions passed with large majorities, showing that countries continue to value broad agreement.

As voting becomes the ‘new normal’, novel approaches to negotiations are emerging. On the second day of the CND, the sponsors of the resolution on alternative development announced that they would close negotiations and bring the text to the plenary for a vote, even though several paragraphs remained disputed. This marked a sharp break from past practice, when talks would have continued until the end of the session and sponsors would have weakened the text to secure consensus. If mainstreamed, this approach could dramatically change the CND by shifting power from countries willing to veto resolutions to the sponsors of the text. There are also encouraging signs that it could enable a more dynamic and productive policymaking process.

The independent review panel is finally in place, with a balanced membership and broad support, but a difficult course lies ahead. After some delay, the panel of independent experts established in 2025 to provide recommendations on the future of the global drug control regime was constituted. With the election of candidates proposed by Belgium, Czechia, Estonia and the USA, and the appointment of the Singaporean expert as co-chair, the panel is well balanced in geographic and policy terms. Remarkably, all plenary statements concerning the panel were positive, including those delivered by Member States that had abstained or voted against its creation in 2025. However, delegations also flagged issues likely to prove divisive, including whether experts can act independently and how disagreements among panel members will be resolved. The panel will determine these matters itself, under close scrutiny from Member States.

The taboo surrounding harm reduction continues to break down. Resolution L.6, tabled by Finland and Norway, was the key resolution at this CND. It sought to promote a public health approach to drugs at a time when security-focused narratives are dominant. Following extensive debate, the text included two supportive references to ‘harm reduction’—only the second time the term has appeared in a CND resolution. Argentina and the USA were the only countries to vote against it. Although the language remains heavily qualified, its adoption may represent a historic step towards normalising harm reduction within the global drug control regime.

The USA called for a militaristic approach to drugs and faced little backlash. In the months preceding the CND, the USA violated fundamental principles of international law through the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on drug-related charges and an ongoing campaign of military strikes against civilian boats alleged to be carrying drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean. Only China and Brazil condemned these grave events; most delegations remained silent. Far from distancing itself from these actions, the USA invited other Member States to join its ‘new’ militaristic approach. It also called for a repressive revision of the global drug control regime, refocusing efforts on drug suppression at the expense of the health, human rights and development dimensions of drug policy.

The Trump Administration doubled down on its reactionary agenda but remained isolated. In 2025, the USA called for votes on all resolutions on ideological grounds, targeting references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gender and the World Health Organization (WHO). A year later, the USA remained committed to this agenda but had failed to gain significant support. Only Argentina followed the same path.

Access to medicines became a key political flashpoint. Ensuring access to controlled substances for medical purposes is one of the core goals of the international drug control regime, yet it has long been overlooked. At this session, the issue prompted extensive debate and was invoked to justify votes on two resolutions, L.2 and L.3. It also reshaped diplomatic alliances, with China and India seeking to align themselves with African countries that have championed access to medicines for years.

Amid a financial crisis, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) faced growing calls for reform. The financial crisis affecting the UN system was keenly felt at the CND, with an entire day of proceedings taking place in English only. The UNODC is also facing its own funding emergency. At the CND, the USA demanded a review of the agency’s programmes to focus strictly on the suppression of drug trafficking. Other major donors, including Germany, Japan and the UK, also called on the new Executive Director to propose efficiency reforms.

Friction between the UNODC and the human rights system is intensifying. In a remarkable development, the UNODC used a plenary statement to accuse ‘certain agencies’—a veiled reference to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)—of promoting guidance that diverges from the drug conventions and makes cooperation with Member States more difficult. Yet the UN human rights system is not withdrawing from Vienna. On the contrary, it was represented at this CND to an unprecedented extent, with statements from four human rights mechanisms addressing the prevention of torture, racial justice, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and counter-terrorism and human rights.

Civil society continued to play a key role in raising substantive issues. Despite growing polarisation, most CND delegations continued to avoid divisive or politically sensitive questions. It therefore fell to civil society—whose presence in Vienna is increasingly constrained by funding cuts—to bring critical drug policy debates to the plenary. At this session, civil society interventions addressed the US military campaign against so-called ‘narcoterrorist’ groups, the planned closure of UNAIDS, and the WHO’s decision to retain the coca leaf in the strictest schedules of the 1961 Single Convention, among other issues.

Progress amidst uncertainty: Report of the 69th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Executive summary

Previous reports in this series:

Downloads

Topics

Regions