L2 – Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Guiding Ideas on Different Improvement: efficient implementation and the way in which ahead (Dominican Republic, Germany, Peru, Philippines and Thailand)
Chair: Good Morning!
Chair: We have now two resolutions nonetheless to be agreed this morning. I hope we are able to see good flexibility this morning as in the previous couple of days. We have now L2 of Thailand and L5 of america. I’ll begin with L2 of Thailand. Earlier than I begin with specifics I would like Thailand to transient us on the newest developments.
Thailand: We had one other 5 hours of informals yesterday afternoon and we managed to agree on a few paragraphs, however we had some paragraphs reopen. There was numerous flexibility proven and I hope the spirit of compromise will proceed as we speak. I’d start by going by way of paragraphs which have been agreed in informals beginning with PP2bis.
Chair: Because the paragraph has been agreed in informals I’d suggest to agree this within the CoW. Can we agree on PP2bis within the CoW? It’s so determined.
We will now proceed to OP7ter.
Thailand: With settlement on OP4bis we determined so as to add a paragraph OP7ter which is agreed in informals.
Chair: Can we have a look at OP7ter, and agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
Thailand: Now we are able to go to PP4bis, it was agreed in informals pending just one delegation.
Chair: PP4bis has been agreed in informals pending Iran. Do I’ve any feedback?
Iran: We will’t associate with this proposal as on this bundle we’re negotiating, pending different paragraphs we are able to agree however we are able to’t absolutely agree now.
Thailand: Subsequent we are able to have a look at OP6alt. It has been agreed pending just one delegation.
Iran: The identical applies to this paragraph.
Chair: We nonetheless don’t have settlement right here, pending the result of different paragraphs.
Thailand: Allow us to attempt PP4. There was a proposal from two ends which contradict, so I want to ask the room to think about returning to the unique proposal by eradicating all of the brackets on this paragraph.
Russian Federation: We want to request a number of extra minutes in order to think about this paragraph additional.
Chair: Do we now have another feedback on PP4?
Australia: I wished to verify we might be blissful to return to the unique with none of the modifications.
Russian Federation: We’re able to show flexibility and return to the initially agreed language.
Chair: Can we agree on PP4 additionally within the CoW? It’s so determined.
Thailand: Can we flip to PP3. There are two primary points on this paragraph. One concerning legislation enforcement measures, and on the finish of the paragraph the reservation from the UK.
Chair: Has anybody determined they will take away their obligations to those elements of PP3 within the brackets? Do I’ve any feedback?
Germany: My understanding from the informals is that the proposal that has been endorsed by many nations is to delete every thing within the bracket after methods and transfer forward with “viable financial options”. I imagine that is the proposal on the desk that we should always focus on now.
PP3.
Chair: Can we have a look at this proposal and attempt to come to an settlement? The proposal of the sponsors is now on the display. Can we reside with this? I’ve no feedback, so I perceive we are able to go away this because it seems now on display? What in regards to the second a part of the paragraph? Sponsors are you able to advise?
UK (?t: We’re blissful to raise our reservation.
Chair: Okay we hold “concrete” within the second half.
USA: We would wish some extra clarification what the added worth of “concrete” is.
Iran: In informals, I proposed this and did jot have the time to elaborate. We want to see a language that’s way more centered. The reason being to deal with help that’s wanted for these functions.
Canada: This doesn not make sense in english however we might suggest “enhanced focus and higher coordinated” as a formulation to specific what Iran needs.
Philippines: We don’t object to the proposals, we simply wished the paragraph to be grammatically appropriate. Transfer concrete after enhanced would make extra sense.
Iran: We want concrete quite than centered.
Chair: As on the display?
Iran: It really works for us.
Chair: Will we agree with this half?
USA: For the sake of flexibility, we are able to settle for this language.
Chair: PP3 agreed.
Thailand: May we now have a few minutes?
Chair: certain.
PP6.
Iran: We will drop our reservation.
Chair: Thanks. So can we comply with pp6? I see on objections. Agreed.
OP8.
Thailand: This was agreed in informals after which was reopened by a delegation concerning a language that we now have used someplace else. So we hope some flexibility might be proven and this settlement shall be agreed.
Iran: We will drop our reservation.
Chair: I see no objections. Agreed.
OP7bis.
Iran: We will drop our objections and agree.
Chair: I see no different feedback. Agreed.
Sudan: On the finish, we might add “illicit” please.
Chair: Any touch upon the gabled 7bis?
Brazil: We proposed the paragraph and we now have no downside with this addition.
Chair: Okay thanks, so it stays agreed.
OP3.
Thailand: Yesterday we agreed in CoW after which it was reopened by a delegation. We even have the footnote…nicely… We might use that in pp2bis however there’s a reservation by a delegation there.
Chair: Okay, allow us to look into it and see if we are able to agree after all of the consultations.
Iran: One of many feedback we made is that the footnote may divide us on the understanding on the widespread phrases we’re utilizing. We perceive we typically must go to footnote, if we now have no alternative, however there are authorized implication of such choices. We all know Latin American nations have urged this already and blabla (sic), however we try to keep away from differing interpretations. We worry the footnote shall be proliferated all through your complete textual content.
Chair: I can take up this para a bit later.
Iran: Sorry for taking the ground once more – simply to make clear, our objection is in regards to the insertion of the footnote, not that paragraph.
Chair: We’re ready for a remaining determination out of your aspect if you’re okay with the idea of the footnote.
Brazil: I believe the advert ref for Iranian delegation might be withdrawn in paragraph 3 and solely the footnote will nonetheless be pending. The footnote doesn’t essentially check with OP3 however OP2bis.
Chair: So can we agree on OP3 within the CoW? It’s so determined.
Thailand: I want to go to OP1.
Chair: We have now right here “strongly” in brackets – can we hold it or lose it? Then we now have member states or “all” member states.
Thailand: Compromise proposal could be to delete strongly, delete all, and delete every thing after the phrase “Ideas” on the 4th line.
Iran: We will’t associate with this proposal.
Thailand: In that case allow us to attempt the Australian proposal to delete strongly, all, and use the Australian proposal as an alternative.
Chair: We now have a barely longer proposal.
Iran: We will solely contemplate elements after “technical assist” being adjusted.
USA: We aren’t able to just accept the final modification made by Iran, we don’t imagine there’s a place on this paragraph for know-how switch. We simply went by way of negotiations over the ministerial declaration consequence doc and need to facilitate the work of the committee with out complicating this.
Australian: We will’t settle for both. This para is about UN guiding rules and we aren’t able to revise what the rules are. This consists of actions and implementation measures and we now have quoted verbatim a kind of motion objects associated to technical assist. We’re doing the very best we are able to to accommodate what Iran is in search of inside guiding rules.
Peru: Equally to Australia the subject of know-how switch is vital for many delegations and the Peruvian delegation can assist it relying on the context. As talked about, there’s not a single point out of know-how switch within the guiding rules. Maybe we are able to put the query in essentially the most respectful and pleasant approach to Iran, what kind of know-how switch are you referring to? Possibly a extra particular rationalization of the know-how on this specific context might assist us get a clearer concept of their specific curiosity within the context of this decision. There’s not a single reference to switch of know-how within the guideline. We will have a dialogue made on a extra stable framework if we perceive this.
Sudan: We do have a reference to satisfactory monetary assist, technical assist and elevated funding which we want to have included on this paragraph.
Australia: We aren’t ready to rewrite the guiding rules.
Sudan: That is from the rules – precept 5 within the appendix of the rules speaking about worldwide guiding rules on different growth. That is verbatim language.
Iran: A lot of questions have been posed in informals. We should always go to the letter and spirit of the guiding rules. What has been mentioned by Sudan is strictly quoting from the guiding rules. We’re quoting from the spirit and letter of the guiding rules. We will additionally assist what has been proposed by Iran.
Chair: Would this proposal be acceptable and assist alleviate the request from Iran?
Canada: Precept 5 offers with public insurance policies and is generally domestically centered. We might reside with this as a PP, the place we might state “recalling that” after which paste this inclusion. International locations that finance or execute AD applications and we’re not conscious that Iran falls onto both class. If we should embody this, let’s be true to the letter and spirit of the rules and recall them instantly in a PP.
Chair: Can we transfer ahead with this proposal?
Thailand: As it’s Friday now, if the room doesn’t object, we are able to associate with this.
Chair: so the proposal of the sponsor is to delete the explanatory half. If we now have this further pp might we then not have “switch know-how” as proposed by Iran.
Iran: We can’t settle for this. We want to have switch of tech and know-how. Underneath footnote, we’re nonetheless recalling this. Two phrases right here have safety. Anyhow, we have to say switch know-how and know-how.
Chair: so a further pp is not going to clear up the problem.
Australia: We have now no probemwith together with the language that has been accurately recognized, however we want to deal with it individually, as proposed by Canada.
Sudan: I want to perceive what you mentioned, are we turning an op right into a pp?
Chair: No, you will have proposed some further language. Canada proposed to place it as pp. There isn’t any settlement on that. I’m asking Thailand to offer me recommendation learn how to proceed.
USA: We, as beforehand acknowledged, have sturdy views on tech switch and as a matter of precept sticking with what the AD guideline says. We will go together with Sudan’s suggestion so long as we replicate the language faithfully within the tips.
Chair: Do we now have every thing in that para that you simply need to see?
USA: This appears to precisely replicate the rule of thumb language now.
Sudan: For the sake of consensus, we now have a problem in the identical paragraph, a reference to related governmental establishments. So right here we are able to embody the opposite blablabla (sic) that addresses the considerations of MS.
Australia: May we transfer this to the top? It’s interrupting the stream of the unique motion merchandise which is enhancing monetary assist, technical assist… so it simply makes extra sense on the finish.
OP3bis.
Thailand: Yesterday at informals, I want to thank Brazil for his or her efforts, no one was prepared to compromise. Is anybody within the room prepared to talk up?
Chair: We try to maneuver ahead, so?
Brazil: Possibly the change of setting might help… it is a polarizing state of affairs with some wanting to maneuver ahead, as it’s a delicate topic… I suggest retaining “druig associated challenges” as it’s broad sufficient for interpretation and we are able to hold half the paragraph. That is excellent to noone, however I want to verify if that is acceptable? We do not need a selected stance – we don’t assist or object to this paragraph.
UK: I thank Brazil. Generally the change of context might help, and we hope we are able to discover a ray of sunshine as we speak within the Cow. On condition that it is a Brazilian proposal, we all the time look to them for stability, we are able to assist this proposal. It’s tough to discover a logical response, however looks as if an affordable means out.
Iran: I would really like this assembly to be completed asap, notably since we’re fasting. To our colleagues who query this paragraph, that is an agreed textual content. Iran will not be inventing something right here. We’re bringing textual content that was agreed final 12 months. These are harmless motions… we now have to beat all impediments, that is the problem of this agreed textual content. So far as it goes, when somebody proposes one thing we contemplate it, however proper now I can’t go together with it. I’ve clear directions. I can’t accommodate delegations if they’re trying to dilute this textual content. We have now political commitments, and we will not overlook about them. I wished to say simply this, we respect efforts, however when you ask us 100 occasions, the reply would be the similar 100 occasions, we can’t change this.
Chair: So Iran insists on retaining this in pp3bis. I simply need to say that there are different paras from final 12 months that haven’t been taken into consideration. Another feedback?
USA: Sadly, we aren’t able to just accept the language as is laid out. Delegations have debated this as it’s fairly controversial. We perceive the considerations by Iran and within the curiosity of compromise, we are able to have a look at the language from the ministerial consequence doc adopted final week as it’s the newest and related doc. We’re blissful to work on further language to facilitate our work.
Iran: This was a compromise to accommodate and I understand how this language has been labored. We’re asking for what was agreed final 12 months to be included verbatim. Our approval of the MD des not imply we utterly agree with sure paragraphs. This has eben talked about in earlier resolutions.
UK: You made an excellent level that we try to interrupt new floor it’s making an attempt to advance the dialog. We had this dialog final 12 months and it resulted within the language we see right here. Are we going to have this dialog yearly? I would like to have optimistic modifications about points we share in widespread within the battle towards medication. If we delette this it nonetheless stands, we had the dialog final 12 months and obtained right here. It doesn’t undermine or change something and it all the time will and we don’t have to have the identical dialog yearly.
Venezuela: We assist this inclusion of this OP3bis.
Chair: I’ve determined to pause consideration of L2 within the CoW. I’m hopeful we’ll discover some options to the open L2. We are going to now take issues of L5
L5. Stopping and Responding to Drug Overdose By way of Scientific Proof-Primarily based Prevention, Remedy, Hurt Discount, and Restoration Help Providers in Accordance with Home Regulation and Circumstances.
Chair: We will proceed with L5. We name on the US to transient us on progress made in informals.
USA: We have now made numerous progress in informals. We have now agreed to nearly the entire PPs, whereas we now have many OPs open there’s one challenge remaining by way of most of those OPs. I like to recommend beginning at PP1.
PP1
Chair: PP1 has been agreed in informals. Can we additionally agree within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP2
Chair: We will proceed with PP2. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP3
Chair: We will proceed with PP3. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP5
Chair: We will proceed with PP5. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP6
Chair: We will proceed with PP6. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP7
Chair: We will proceed with PP7. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP9
Chair: We will proceed with PP9. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP10
Chair: We will proceed with PP10. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP11
Chair: We will proceed with PP11. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP13
Chair: We will proceed with PP13. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP14
Chair: We will proceed with PP14. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
PP15
Chair: We will proceed with PP15. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
China: We have now famous right here there is a matter with civil society. I simply need to verify that “related” applies to all entities together with civil society.
US: That is being attentive to intersessional discussions that occurred, I perceive utilizing the time period related when ahead taking a look at which organisations could also be current however we’re right here recalling one thing that already occurred and it stands to purpose that the civil society have been all related to the dialogue. I don’t assume we ought to be trying again at earlier conferences and qualifying whether or not a few of them are related or not.
China: We’re versatile however we expect it could be extra exact as there ought to be some civil society associated to one thing right here.
Iran: We will’t agree.
Armenia: As a means out, we recommend to erase the comma earlier than the phrase “and” in order that related will apply to civil society as nicely.
Netherlands: We agree with the remark made by USA and possibly the answer proposed by Armenia might work for us as nicely. It could possibly be a constructive ambiguity because it was defined that this occasion has already occurred.
USA: We’re snug with the formulation on the display.
Chair: I thank Armenia for his or her proposal.
China: We dont assume that the comma might be deleted as a result of UN entities and CSOs usually are not the identical and shouldn’t be below one umbrella. We don’t settle for the deletion of the comma, however we are able to reside with out “related” earlier than civil society.
USA: We might be extra particular with the para and say “and representatives of taking part civil society”.
Chair: I see it really works for China.
Iran: I’m sorry, we can’t comply with that. We didn’t need civil society as such – with out hierarchy. There ought to be related society, that may be very a lot vital to us.
UK: Its a bit unlucky that we now have this on the ultimate day as this has not been a dialogue to date. We don’t need to lose reference to civil society. We will settle for the proposal made earlier however we don’t settle for the elimination of civil society.
Chair: Civil society stays in. China agreed tot his yesterday in informals.
Egypt: Within the consequence doc we simply agreed on, we now have inventory taking B – we categorical gratitude to the chair individuals of xx classes for facilitating thematic discussions with a view to accelerating … then we prolong because of contributors from numerous UN companies, related worldwide group in addition to related nongovernmental organizations. So possibly we are able to use the identical language, instantly from the mid-term evaluate. So as an alternative of civil society, lets say related nongovernmental organizations.
Netherlands: We want to assist the US suggestion. Related to us will not be acceptable. -we might be versatile on nongovernmental orgnoizations as an alternative of civil society, to be versatile and discover a means out.
Austria: To echo Netherlands, it is rather important to maintain the reference to civil society. We might additionally assist the Dutch proposal. We have now mentioned this in informals so we urge the room to maneuver ahead.
Belgium: We insist on retaining the reference to civil society. This assembly has already taken place so this isn’t about actions to be taken.
USA: Everybody who participated has been accredited on this assembly, so to then exclude, or make allusions that some contributors weren’t related, could be a falsehood. Because the sponsor, we want to transfer the textual content ahead. We heard board assist for the paragraph as is offered. The delegate from China appears to have agreed to maneuver ahead as drafted., We might transfer ahead with noting the objection by one MS.
Chair: To not lose time, we are able to transfer …
Iran: Im sorry, we can’t associate with that. The Egyptian suggestion is workable for us, however the terminology is utilized by MS as we speak is not going to assist.
USA: The formulation proposed by the Egyptian colleague could also be language that comes from a doc however it isn’t correct because it excludes the personal sector, it excludes academia, so this isn’t reflecting what truly occurred.
Egypt: I believe I don’t perceive, however we agreed on this doc 5 days in the past. The delegations which have challenge with this language have authorised this actual language 5 days in the past – it´s been there for 3 months. It’s correct. My place is correct as a result of it’s written so. When you have a problem with this, you can have acknowledged that in our months lengthy negotiations. Generally we alter language because it fits us and typically we don´t agree with something that doesn’t swimsuit us. When it´s agreed, they don’t need it.
Chair: I want to cease this dialogue.
USA: The earlier intervention mentions we now have all agreed to this language. I’d laos be aware that every one delegations agreed to this language final evening. I ask that we transfer on to a different paragraph.
PP16
Chair: This has been agreed in informals. Can we agree on this within the CoW?
Iran: At this juncture we now have to think about this additional.
PP17
Chair: This has been agreed in informals. Can we agree on this within the CoW? It’s so determined.
USA: Now we are able to return to PP12. There was a protracted dialogue final evening and we have been very near consensus. We had one concern across the phrases “and socioeconomic”. Others within the room could have taken up this dialogue on the margins and I want to see if we are able to take this paragraph ahead.
Venezuela: We have now listened to feedback from Eire and Belgium and we might not utterly agree with this however to indicate flexibility we are able to agree with this.
Chair: Can we agree on PP12 additionally within the CoW? It’s so determined.
USA: I recommend we transfer on to the OPs. You’ll be aware these usually are not agreed in informals. Yesterday night we didn’t transfer on from the OPs and we made an try and resolve what has turn into the central challenge of the decision which was the problem of hurt discount. We ask to your forbearance on this challenge and want to transfer ahead with OPs that don’t include this reference.
OP2
Chair: Can we agree on OP2 within the CoW?
China: I believe we should always undergo this paragraph by paragraph. I believe we have to focus on OP1 first. It is a working matter for us. We should always comply with the sequence and we hope we are able to discover flexibility to complete as quickly as attainable.
Chair: I’m making an attempt firstly to resolve the paragraphs that are near being resolved.
China: Possibly we have to take this again to informals as we didn’t focus on these paragraphs. For us you will need to comply with this sequentially. This challenge is the idea of the dialogue for different points so all of the paragraphs are associated to one another, and not using a good foundation it’s laborious to debate the associated points.
Chair: The conventional working technique was this manner all week.
USA: If it really works for the room we are able to take one of many proposals from final evening. We weren’t fairly certain this was prepared for the CoW but when China needs to resolve this we are able to assist this try.
OP1
USA: We tried… we took in all suggestions from the room by tabling a revision. We have now seen as we speak that enjoys consensus and is making an allowance for the additional discussions, we tabled a brand new revision yesterday night so we now have in entrance of us what we imagine the closest we are able to get to consensus. We offer a footnote to the decision that may clarify the time period hurt discount – as a compromise. So if we might add a footnote to OP1, I’ll electronic mail the textual content to you rapidly.
Russia: The sponsors of the decision have chosen a really related matter: decreasing mortality from overdose and constructing wholesome societies. We assist the primary concept behind this decision, that Member States should take applicable measures below the conventions to deal with the world drug downside. For the reason that starting of negotiations, we now have proven excessive flexibility; we met many delegations midway and we welcome a lot of our proposals mirrored within the textual content. Certainly, hurt discount has been contentious. We name on Member States to think about what’s a precedence: saving lives or arguing over terminology. When it comes to guaranteeing good religion and worldwide cooperation primarily based on belief and mutual respect of one another’s priorities, will the fee enable a bunch of member states to impose their view on others that oppose many UN values? This might trigger a divide within the fee and impair the drug management measures of states. We’re assured that our fragmentation will profit drug criminals alone, who flood the markets with deadly substances which can declare extra lives. Let’s deal with what unifies us – it’s all in our palms. The accountable members of the fee will prevail find a means ahead. Concerning the sponsor’s proposal, Russia can’t agree with the point out of hurt discount, together with footnotes. We even have one other comment within the textual content; please tell us when we will voice that?
Chair: I name on everybody to verify on the footnote that I don’t see imposing on different states. Please make your remarks now.
Russia: We assist this para however we suggest eradicating drug checking tools. We’re on the view that such practices are aimed on the persistence of drug abuse and the popularity that drug use is a standard phenomena and this under no circumstances helps cut back fatalities, quite the opposite, it contributes to drug use so we don’t assist.
Eire: we strongly oppose deleting reference to drug checking. It is a scientifically validated observe that helps us detect developments. We have now accepted the world hurt and harms, we now have additionally seen discount seem over 13 occasions. These are fundamental ideas and I’ve difficulties digesting why that is such a contested phrase. The UN helps restoration however it’s laborious to get well when one is lifeless. That’s the place hurt discount are available, retaining individuals alive.
USA: If we are able to return to the textual edit proposed by Russia…through the informals final evening, the Russian delegation has expressed considerations and mentioned they may come again to CoW with options. I’d ask the room if we are able to settle for this, displaying we don’t need to impose something… can we settle for scientifically validated public well being companies?
Holy See: Turning to the footnote, we want to not have any point out of hurt discount as a result of we’re satisfied that focus ought to be on stopping drug use.
Germany: The reference to hurt discount in textual content is appropriate to us, and we respect the proposal of a footnote. We might additionally prefer to hold the reference to drug checking however within the spirit of compromise, we’re able to compromise.
Switzerland: A number of the remarks made point out that we’re imposing hurt discount on nations that don’t reignite this technique. This para incorporates a document variety of caveats – we encourage MS, not impose something. I’m struggling to know this stance, seeing all these caveats. If we now have a footnote, we now have an different caveat by recognizing that hurt discount will not be permissible below some MS home authorized idea. We can’t perceive how this suggests something?
Spain: We assist the idea of hurt discount, hurt discount works and on this textual content we aren’t imposing something in any respect however simply need to see our place that hurt discount works is mirrored. We due to this fact is not going to cease calling for its inclusion.
Czechia: Drug checking is essential for us however within the spirit of flexibility we might be capable to associate with the US proposal, however our desire is to incorporate it within the textual content. The place of us on hurt discount we’re versatile on the place will probably be included however it’s completely essential to have it within the textual content. Within the spirit of consensus and suppleness we should always have this reference within the textual content.
Norway: I need to be aware there’s a giant majority of MS with hurt discount practices and plenty of have expressed assist for the inclusion. Our place will not be solely to assist the observe however to assist the terminology to make use of the correct phrases to explain what we’re doing. We don’t function with crimson traces however that is as near a crimson line as we’ll come. We imagine Vienna consensus will not be finest served by a small variety of nations blocking this consensus. If we discover ourselves to be a small variety of delegations blocking one thing we is not going to block this challenge, however as a result of we’re within the majority we insist on this being included.
EU: It is a decision about overdose prevention and hurt discount is exactly about saving lives. That is exactly why that is so vital for us. It says explicitly if this isn’t allowed domestically then you definitely don’t must do it. There are caveats over caveats so it’s actually unattainable to argue towards this in good religion. There isn’t any try and impose this on you. There are nonetheless misconceptions as to what this implies – somebody mentioned it’s about legalising medication. We additionally had discussions in informals yesterday and we imagine it doesn’t make sense so as to add extra caveats within the informals. We don’t assume the footnote is useful however we recommend we should always have a definition to offer extra steering on what is supposed right here.
Netherlands: This is a crucial decision for us to avoid wasting lives. Hurt discount is about saving lives. We have now a protracted historical past with this method and it’s all proof primarily based, we aren’t inventing issues however working scientifically to assist individuals save lives. We’re standing for hurt discount. We have now had lengthy discussions this week and there are numerous totally different approaches throughout nations. The textual content drafted displays all of those variations. We thank the sponsors for making an attempt to accommodate everybody. We need to get alongside and we need to assist the textual content as drafted.
Finland: Sadly, our small delegation couldn’t take part in informals final evening. We had this dialogue for a very long time however for the primary time, we’re actually having it. We’re having it as a result of persons are dying and all of us want to seek out our personal scientifically proof supported methods to cope with this. We aren’t imposing something right here. We will go together with the US´s suggestion of deleting drug checking, as a result of we can’t have this in our nation (sic). We additionally stand for mentioning hurt discount – the critique towards it has been that we don’t know what it means however a footnote could be giving readability. All these caveats acknowledge limitations, and hurt discount is what is going on around the globe.
Austria: I echo what the Dutch colleague mentioned. Concerning the elephant within the room, we additionally need to hold hark discount on this para. All of us agree that substance use dysfunction is a fancy dysfunction and never a query of willpower. There are numerous therapy choices, they usually work for some individuals, for another, different measures are wanted. Hurt discount will not be about legalizing or serving to individuals use extra medication however about accepting the truth that some persons are utilizing medication and also you want these measures to assist them survive and reside higher lives.
Venezuela: Within the para the place we recommend eradicating tools, we assist. We don’t all have the identical entry. On the subject of hurt discount, we assist the elimination of this – not due to the working however as a result of it’s one thing all of us perceive otherwise. It’s good to avoid wasting lives and all however it isn’t apparent sufficient. It isn’t only one MS eager to do away with this.
New Zealand: On drug checking, we assist Eire´s feedback. We have now now legalized it and never only for hurt discount functions but additionally for amassing intelligence, so we discover it extremely helpful for our legislation enforcement. I acknowledge that the sponsors are okay with deletion and we dont need to block consensus. We’re a robust supported of hurt discount. We have now supported this decision for all the explanations others have talked about as we speak, so we assist the paragraphs as proposed.
Portugal: we assist the textual content as is at the moment. We have now all the time carried out hurt discount in Portugal and we expect it is rather vital to be named on this textual content. If we contemplate what occurred within the 90s in Portugal (…) we want to have drug checking retained as it is rather vital measure to avoid wasting lives and accumulate information, however we are able to reside with out it.
China: I want to ask UNODC if they’ve a definition for this time period. Can UNODC verify if the WHO definition can be utilized in UNODC paperwork?
Singapore: It is a crucial decision and addresses vital matters. We’re very eager that we are able to discover widespread floor. My delegation has been constant and clear, we now have heard impassioned statements about why it is crucial of their context to avoid wasting lives. We have now totally different view and powerful considerations about hurt discount and what it entails. We have now made some proposals which have been rejected. We had a dialogue final night, a really attention-grabbing proposal from Mexico with language we might have a look at. This language and something that approximates it will probably’t be supported by us. We have now some options my colleague can learn out in a second. We try to succeed in widespread floor right here we now have considerations in regards to the time period right here and it’s a time period we now have not used earlier than. We’d like to consider the impression this may have on our insurance policies. We perceive others’ considerations however ask that they contemplate the impression on our delegation. My colleague will recommend a brand new paragraph that may not be a footnote:
USA: We’re cognizant of the interpretation time left within the CoW. This dialogue has taken over. I ask if L5 can transfer on from this dialog and return the CoW to different discussions. We want to have some casual discussions and return the CoW to L2.
L2 – Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Guiding Ideas on Different Improvement: efficient implementation and the way in which ahead (Dominican Republic, Germany, Peru, Philippines and Thailand)
Thailand: We have now been engaged on a bundle with various delegations. Lots of you will have seen us working round this room doing shuttle diplomacy. I’m afraid we is not going to attain settlement among the many primary regarding delegations. We have now a proposal we actually want to invite the room to take a look at and we imagine is closest to consensus. This has been agreed among the many unique sponsors. We might suggest this remaining bundle to the room:
Iran: With the footnotes included Iran can contemplate this however deleting these paragraphs. We will’t associate with 3bis and we want the paragraph because it was final 12 months. We will’t agree with paragraph 1.
Finland: We will assist this compromise.
Belgium: We will categorical our assist for the bundle deal as it’s negotiated.
USA: This isn’t a great proposal however we’re anxious to succeed in consensus and thank Thailand for his or her work.
Australia: We will reluctantly assist this bundle.
Denmark: We will assist this bundle deal.
Brazil: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Netherlands: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Austria: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Guatemala: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Spain: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Poland: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
???: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Canada: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Norway: We will additionally assist this bundle deal.
Colombia: We’re consulting with our capital on this proposal and we might want some extra time to offer our clearance.
Chair: With numerous assist for this bundle I ask for flexibility.
Iran: We will’t assist this.
Thailand: I’m a bit perplexed by the assertion, although I don’t need to single anybody out. Thanks for the assist throughout this course of. We are going to proceed to desk this proposal and we might take it to consideration of the plenary. Since that is the one decision on provide discount tabled I believe that needing to vote on it will ship a perplexing sign to the worldwide neighborhood, traffickers, cultivators. I invite everybody to think about additional this proposal earlier than we contemplate this earlier than the plenary.
Russian Federation: We want to suggest another. On the one hand we be aware that the agreed language from final 12 months’s decision can’t be accepted once more. We assist the agreed language as a principled place. If we agree on one thing we should always stay dedicated to it. We’re looking for compromise so we might suggest the next language for the preambular paragraph to resolve the thought mirrored in 3bis. The proposal is as follows:
Iran: What has been mentioned from Thailand has shocked us, we now have all the time supported this decision. We at the moment are hindering us and making boundaries to nations tackling illicit trafficking. International locations on the frontiers of trafficking are being punished. We’re battling in numerous fields together with those that are pioneers of sanctions. There isn’t any settlement on this decision, there is no such thing as a consensus. If it goes to the plenary the decision solely comes from the sponsor however has no consensus. Our proposal is focused on these two paragraphs. We don’t need to go paragraph by paragraph however need to focus on sure issues, however there is no such thing as a consensus right here. We have now not made any proposals on beforehand endorsed paragraphs however now two paragraphs are being singled out. Keep in mind Iran has constructively engaged. If it goes to the plenary we should verify with Tehran how we’ll handle this.
United States: We’re transferring nearer to consensus, we want to suggest variant as follows:
(The online stream has misplaced connection)
Egypt: We are going to attempt our greatest to shut this. I want to add “notably addressing” as an alternative of “reference”
Australia: Thanks for these options. I believe it´s good to have app to match the OP. We want the proposal by the US.
Chair: Okay can we comply with this?
Iran: Even the Russian proposal doesn’t get pleasure from our assist as we now have not been consulted.
Chair: Okay it’ll plenary. Pricey colleagues, I ask for five extra minutes of your time as a result of I believe L5 can come again now.
Chair: Earlier than we transfer to L5, it’s deliberate that Plenary will begin at 3pm however they won’t begin earlier than we conclude.
We have now made all the hassle to accommodate all views voiced through the negotiations. A fast apology to the room, as quickly as I began chairing informals, I dedicated to a clear course of. We had, through the break, an off-the-cuff casual with various nations and I apologize for not conducting that in a extra clear matter. What we now have on our display is what we imagine is the closest we are able to get to consensus. With some flexibility on each side of the hurt discount debate, I hope we are able to transfer ahead. If we are able to flip to OP1, please.
OP1.
USA: We beforehand eliminated checking tools with respect to the opposition expressed by some within the room. Right here, we are able to change hurt discount with “different public well being interventions to deal with the hurt related to illicit drug use” in OP1 and OP7. Can we settle for the edits in OP1?
Chair: So we now have OP1 with edites as on the display, eradicating drug checking tools and changing hurt discount as a terminology.
Canada: Thanks to the sponsors for his or her most flexibility. We discover it very unlucky that science primarily based interventions that save lives have now been eliminated all through the textual content. We’re assured we’re transferring in the proper course so Canada want to cosponsor the decision.
EU: I echo the phrases of my Canadaian colleague. We aren’t actually certain if this brings us closed to consensus, if we delete in 3 cases and go away it in a single. We’re unclear learn how to proceed… we aren’t snug to go throught those the place hurt discount is deleted after which deal with just one, as it’s a bundle and we want to considerit it in its entirety. I may also announce that the EU and its member states are blissful to consponsor.
Chair: USA, will we contemplate it as a bundle or will we go para by para?
USA: I recommend we clear it up as a lot as attainable, so if we are able to havy any paragraphs agreed within the CoW, we want to and if we attain one the place we cant, then that os the place we’ll find yourself.
Chair: Okay, so the primary two audio system suggest they gained’t agree on this till, they see the way it goes.
Switzerland: We aren’t proud of these deletions, however I believe if this helps deliver the decision ahead, we are able to present flexibility.
New Zealand: Because of the sponsors for all their laborious work. We’re additionally not blissful that the variety of hurt discount mentions have been lowered to 1 however maybe thats the signal of excellent diplomacy that no one is blissful. We may even consponsor.
Norway: Comparable place as earlier audio system. We want to cosponsor as nicely.
Australia: We’re additionally not blissful the place we ended up, given the numerous proof and the effectiveness of hurt discount measures in reducting overdose deaths. We’re conscious of the necessity to transfer ahead although. We are going to cosponsor.
Guatemala: We will assist the proposals to vary the texts. We aren’t proud of it however we are able to be a part of consensus and want to cosponsor.
Peru: We aren’t going to specific any positions concerning our emotions on the decision however we commend the US on their work and we’re prepared to just accept the amendments and we want to cosponsor.
UK: We have now already cosponsored. This para now, given the change of the terminology, may be very altered. There have been 7 caveats to mitigate the hurt carried out by hurt discount… now I believe it’s a bit ridiculous, so I suggest the deletion of these caveats as follows: “ as applicable”, take our “taking into account home…” and take out “ in accordance with home legal guidelines”.
Colombia: We want to see extra mentions to HR within the new textual content however we perceive the necessity to take away a few of these to satisfy consensus. We want to cosponsor this decision.
Egypt: We will associate with the present formulation and we expect we should always take out the opposite caveats as right here HR will not be talked about.
Saudi Arabia: We will associate with this paragraph however we must hold “in accordance with home legislation”
China: We might echo the delegate of UK and we are able to assist this. Nevertheless, we expect even whether it is voluntarily developed we should always comply with home legislation and agree with the Saudi suggestion. We expect below the three worldwide drug management conventions is essential, so we must also hold this.
Philippines: With the present formulation it seems we’re retaining with home legislation, will we nonetheless want the opposite point out of home legislation in the course of the paragraph? The primary point out of home legislation ought to cowl every thing that follows.
Chair: Can we agree with what we now have on the display now, that we delete some caveats.
UK: I agree with the Philippines from a grammatical perspective this ought to be eliminated.
Iran: We might want to assume as we now have not been concerned within the bundle. We have to see what has occurred within the different paragraphs.
Iran: To be clear we didn’t suggest something however we didn’t change the proposals and cleansing the textual content might indicate there’s settlement. Please don’t tidy the textual content as we’re having discussions on this nonetheless.
USA: Maybe we are able to point out this has been accepted pending Iran and transfer to the subsequent paragraph.
China: I need to make clear if it is a bundle or not?
USA: As famous beforehand the complete intention was to barter this in full transparency. I’ve not been conscious of any conversations a few bundle deal.
China: We’re near consensus and really versatile for all of those points. We will assist this paragraph.
Chair: Can we are saying this OP is agreed, pending Iran?
Iran: We can’t say agreed, it’s pending.
Canada: We’re agreeable to this paragraph however we might recommend saying “harms” plural.
USA: With respect to pending this implies there is no such thing as a consensus however we now have reached consensus bar one delegation.
Iran: It isn’t useful to be so particular towards one delegation. They’re inventing ideas within the UN literature when it isn’t such. I don’t need to polarise the assembly. This paragraph may hurt the Iranian delegation.
Chair: We transfer now to OP6
OP6
Chair: This is likely one of the paragraphs the place hurt discount has been changed. Can we comply with OP6?
China: We have now a query for the sponsor as to what’s meant by “outreach initiatives” right here.
US: That is associated to initiatives and good samaritan legal guidelines.
China: Within the spirit of consensus and suppleness we are able to comply with this.
Canada: Right here once more we recommend harms as an alternative of hurt.
Iran: We’re nonetheless unable to just accept this paragraph as with the earlier paragraph.
Switzerland: As mentioned earlier than we aren’t proud of eradicating hurt discount however we are able to settle for what’s seen on display.
(…)
Chair: We have now the identical state of affairs as in OP1 so I’d suggest to do the identical with OP6 as nicely and proceed to OP7.
OP7
Chair: Canada needs to recommend “harms”. Thanks Canada. I don’t see any feedback on OP7.
Iran: It’s unlucky that within the three paragraphs the time period “hurt discount” has been dropped. We nonetheless do not need any reference to that.
United States: Thanks Chair. The ambassador from Iran has indicated that the reference to hurt discount has been deleted from this paragraph and he’s appropriate. If you need to see a reference to hurt discount I’d recommend that following this dialogue we are able to go to OP3.
Canada: Within the final line we might take away the phrase “narcotic” only for extra generality right here. And because the UK noticed for OP1 or OP3 now that we’ve chosen some extra universally agreed language, possibly we are able to dispense with a few of the caveats which might be getting in the way in which of comprehensibility of this paragraph. So we might take out “in accordance with home legislation” by way of “conventions” as we have already got that greater up.
United States: Apologies for our sloppy drafting expertise. We have now left a redundant reference on the finish so we might recommend chopping off the final half beginning with “measures”.
Switzerland: Sorry to take the ground once more. My delegation want to announce that we’re co-sponsoring this.
Iran: Earlier than “civil society” I believe possibly it ought to say “related”. We additionally could not need to delete each of the caveats; maybe we are able to deliver again the primary one.
Chair: Can we transfer to a different OP? As proposed, let’s transfer to OP3.
Canada: We might suggest ending the paragraph after “illicit drug use”
OP3
United States: We tried to resolve the problems across the time period “hurt discount” and in the long run we now have landed on a formulation that was acceptable to nobody so we hope that this single reference will deliver us to consensus.
Russia: From the very starting we now have been delicate to what different delegations have instructed us and we’re listening fastidiously to the wants of different delegations and we’ve heard that an vital side is their dialogue across the matter on totally different practices and methods for us to avoid wasting lives. You’ve seen that almost all of the time within the CoW we now have spent discussing this idea. Russia has expressed its personal place on these measures however we haven’t prevented others from highlighting their achievements on this space. We see how different delegations worth this and we see that by adopting this we encourage additional dialogue and alternate of concepts on this space. Particularly in one of many final OPs there’s details about an open ended intergovernmental working group convened to debate this matter so there shall be loads of alternative and Russia encourages this to debate the achievements of different delegations. We have now proven flexibility on the caveats. I’ve a number of occasions expressed that Russia doesn’t want caveats on this decision. We need to make it as operational as attainable. I want to say that plainly another delegations don’t perceive what place they’re leaving us in by leaving the time period hurt discount in an operative paragraph which continues to be unacceptable to my delegation so we gained’t be capable to be on board with this if this reference stays on this a part of this decision. So now we’re to determine whether or not we would like a very good decision, a very good dialogue or we would like ruined worldwide cooperation.
Iran: We have now mentioned that we are going to attempt to discover so far as attainable the consensus however in fact consensus doesn’t imply that we now have to compromise the rules. There’s a reference right here about hurt discount. I perceive that if we discover a compromise throughout it that’s higher however anyhow we now have to know the restrictions. The margin of appreciation to all of us will not be an excessive amount of. So so far as this operational paragraph has a reference to hurt discount we might contemplate one other paragraph. We should always perceive the considerations of all delegations and we’re prepared to work with Russia in addition to others. And we pay a value for that.
United Kingdom: The UK has been listening fastidiously with out being too actively concerned relating to the problem of hurt discount. We imagine that disagreements are what the discussions are all about right here and it enriches our experiences. If we didn’t disagree there could be no want for the UN however we’re right here to study from one another and we’re right here with an open thoughts to attempt to settle for practices from different locations in order that we are able to enhance our personal efforts to sort out these vital points so I hope we are able to have a extra optimistic method relating to tolerating the views and practices of different locations. I believe that the UK particularly has been very open to language that may not be our first alternative however that we’re open to accepting as a result of we attempt to perceive that everybody is totally different so I want to commend the efforts which have been made by the Russian delegation however from everybody else in revolutionary and various methods. There shall be no ruining of the Vienna spirit.
Germany: We subscribe to what our colleague from the UK mentioned. We additionally confirmed a really constructive method and stay silent on many issues but when we’re going to focus on hurt discount and different measures in an open ended intergovernmental knowledgeable group I discovered it fairly unusual that we aren’t capable of point out one of many matters we’re going to focus on in that group on this decision so for us it was already laborious to see that the time period hurt discount has disappeared from this decision in lots of paragraphs and now we’re going to delete it within the final one the place it remained and I believe that isn’t a process that my authorities could be able to assist.
Chair: I ask yet one more time can we hold hurt discount in OP3?
China: I remembered this morning I requested a query however I haven’t gotten the reply. I requested a query to UNODC in regards to the definition of hurt discount and in addition when there’s a definition that hasn’t gotten any widespread consensus can it even be accepted by UNODC or as a result of we’re right here we are able to’t have simply 50 nations decide for over 200 nations.
Russia: We can’t assist this paragraph with a reference to hurt discount measures.
Chair: We can’t obtain consensus on the truth that we might have “hurt discount” in “OP3” however we additionally can’t have OP3 with out HR in order that’s the deadlock.
Germany: To point out our flexibility we might be ready to maneuver “hurt discount” from this OP and to place it within the OP the place we now have the open ended intergovernmental working group after which it could match what Russia is wanting.
Russia: My delegation by no means mentioned that we might be prepared to place hurt discount in any paragraph on this decision. What I mentioned is that we might be prepared to take heed to our delegations and what they spotlight throughout forthcoming conferences supplied we undertake this decision by consensus. Subsequently there is no such thing as a place on this textual content the place Russia might assist the insertion of hurt discount. Our proposal could be whether or not we are able to use the identical elegantly developed different that we developed for OP1 and CND will keep useful.
United States: This was a really fastidiously thought-about location for the time period hurt discount and I’d ask Germany if we couldn’t transfer the time period as we thought-about very fastidiously the place and whether or not to put this.
Norway: Our place that we now have acknowledged earlier has not modified and I don’t imagine that we’re able the place the various member states have modified their opinions. I had the same impression to that expressed by Iran that we contemplate these amendments collectively. We might have most popular to have hurt discount in all these OPs however have been prepared to just accept it in a single. However we is not going to settle for the elimination of the time period hurt discount from this OP.
Czech Republic: Clearly we hear to one another. A compromise has been made and we’re additionally not blissful that hurt discount will not be in each sentence however we’re prepared to compromise. We nonetheless insist on retaining hurt discount in paragraph 3.
Egypt: In OP3 we need to have “encourages” as an alternative of “additionally calls upon”.
Venezuela: Your abstract is sensible. Following up on the query by China, if we do have a transparent definition, equivalent to “hurt discount is these actions we take to keep away from or save well being,” can we take the phrase “hurt discount” and substitute this by its definition within the textual content? Whoever can inform us what the precise definition is, possibly we are able to simply put this definition rather than the time period hurt discount. As a result of I don’t assume when anyone explains that hurt discount is “to avoid wasting lives” then no one goes to be towards this. So long as there’s not this undefined time period will probably be simpler. I believe it’s not so tough for many who promote hurt discount; they will outline it simply.
China: We share the identical opinion as our delegate from Venezuela. Possibly if we attempt once more to compromise in another paragraph that’s a means.
Chair: I’ll take the three audio system after which I’ll conclude.
Singapore: We need to assist the edits and want to introduce a footnote which might learn “recognizing that there’s no typically accepted definition of drug-related hurt discount and shouldn’t be carried out on the expense of different vital actions designed to cut back the demand for illicit medication, for instance, drug abuse prevention, therapy, and restoration”
Mexico: I’m not going to touch upon the textual content anymore. I simply need to categorical my delegation’s respect to your job and dedication. I need to categorical to all delegations that we now have been a part of a really intense debate and sadly we now have solely reached consensus on two of the problems and it has not been due to lack of will from the chair. It’s solely on our aspect of the accountability that we now have not been capable of attain a consensus. Concerning this decision I need to categorical to the sponsors that Mexico thinks that they will make a really courageous stance on this downside and Mexico would assist this if taken to a vote.
New Zealand: I wished to touch upon what China and Venezuela have mentioned. I used to be performing some analysis on-line and that is from 2000 from the UNODC’s predecessor. There’s a demand discount glossary of phrases which has a definition on hurt discount and fairly a prolonged definition. I don’t know if that may transfer us ahead however I simply wished to specific that from my understanding there’s a definition.
United States: We have now considerations with the footnote proposal as a result of it’s not an correct assertion. Along with the UNODC assertion there’s a definition that has been authorised throughout the WHO and simply to remind the room, the WHO Is among the orgs that we cooperate with as listed within the treaties and the rule is to information us on scientific issues. So whereas they’re not charged with giving us definitions we should always look to them for experience so we might suggest to say one thing in a footnote like “hurt discount as understood by the fee on narcotic medication consists of solely these measures meant to minimise the unfavorable bodily and social impacts together with the transmission of bloodborne illness incurred by behaviours associated to the misuse of medication, which might be in line with events obligations below the three united nations drug management conventions”
Egypt: We will associate with the footnote launched by Singapore. We expect it’s truthful sufficient that involved events ought to put their considerations there and we ought to be balanced. So if it’s launched right here it’s truthful for the opposite celebration to offer someplace to regulate their worries. Proper now we’re within the CoW so we’re going to go for the plenary and have a vote for the primary time in a number of years. Previous few years we stayed on the CoW till 3AM so we want to proceed and we now have carried out this previously as a way to attain consensus and we need to protect the Vienna spirit and never strain the delegations to do one thing that may have a unfavorable repercussion. So we want to protect the Vienna spirit and have one other spherical of session between the delegations. Possibly we are able to do one thing artistic between the involved delegations so that is my proposal, Chair, if delegations need to protect the Vienna spirit.
Chair: We have now already been discussing this for fairly a while. I’m blissful to take a seat right here till 3AM however I don’t assume there’s a lot assist for it.
United States: In our earlier casual conferences the positions of member states have been made clear and it doesn’t seem that additional dialogue within the CoW shall be fruitful. I acknowledge the feedback made by our Egyptian colleague and I applaud the thought however I believe the positions are clear to the sponsor. We’re in your palms however what the sponsor would suggest is to wash the textual content and hold the footnote that’s the correct illustration of the WHO place after which ask the Chair when you might transfer the clear decision to the plenary.
Chair: Thanks we’ll go to the start to wash it.
Russia: Constructing on the intervention of our colleague from Egypt I want to say that Russia has been a accountable member of the CND since its institution. We will inform you for certain that by no means has the spirit of consensus been damaged however I’ve to be frank at this time limit for the reason that determination is to maneuver it ahead. Since will probably be moved ahead we’ll vote towards it. We nonetheless have time till the plenary so if we are able to suggest something we might recommend taking out the controversial time period “hurt discount” in case they need the decision to be adopted by consensus and protect their mutual belief and respect within the fee which is at the moment and has been for nearly 80 years a characteristic of Vienna and we have been happy with it. We imagine that we nonetheless have time for the proper determination to be made, every thing is in our palms, so let’s use this time correctly.
China: I need to return to OP3. I’m wondering if there’s any extra additional compromise on this as a result of we now have additionally tried our greatest to delete the time period “OP3” and use the identical time period as OP1 after which within the footnote we are able to say that some of these measures could also be taken as hurt discount in some nations. I hope that may assist as a result of we do respect the entire efforts and compromise and suppleness which have been proven on this room. And we do respect hurt discount measures which have been taken in some nations and our largest concern is simply ambiguity. Except there’s a actual definition we can’t have it within the textual content but when we are able to have it within the footnote that some nations are utilizing it then we could also be snug.
Sponsor: Might I ask for 5 minutes of the CoW’s time?
Chair: Sure
Chair: We’re again. We have now agreed PP1, PP2, PP3, PP4, PP5, PP6, PP7, PP8, PP9, PP10, PP11, PP12, PP13, PP14, PP15 agreed in informals. Can we agree on PP15 in CoW?
Iran: We have now already urged “related” civil society.
USA: We recommend transferring ahead.
Chair: PP16 can also be not agreed in CoW – can we? I see no feedback. PP16 agreed in CoW. PP17 agreed in CoW. OP1?
USA: We suggest deleting “as applicable” to wash up the textual content. Delete “making an allowance for…”. And please simply proceed with cleansing up the textual content. We might ask if the room might contemplate this paragraph?
Iran: We aren’t able to agree with this para.
Chair: We proceed with OP2.
Russia: We have now urged deleting “drug checking tools” and for some purpose it’s now again within the textual content. We imagine these practices condone drug use. CND might no undertake measures that could possibly be seen as selling drug use.
USA: Russia has objected to it in OP1, not in OP3, however within the spirit of comrpmoise, we are able to take it out.
Iran: We object as nicely.
USA: OP2 will not be agreed within the CoW.
OP3
USA: Sponsor proposes accepting Egypt edits. Is that this now acceptable to the room, with out the footnote?
Russia: We can’t settle for it.
Chair: Can we settle for the footnote?
USA: We don’t imagine that the footnote is important.
Chair: Can we comply with OP4? Agreed in CoW. OP5?
China: I’m just a bit confused by “together with”.
Chair: In all probability was added throughout our discussions.
USA: For readability, we are able to take away “together with” earlier than “toxicology”. After which the second “together with” was taken as much as fulfill one of many delegations throughout negotiations, so I want to put it to the room to undertake.
Chair: So will we settle for OP5? Agreed in CoW. OP6?
USA: We settle for the suggestion on the display “different public well being interventions to deal with harms…”
Iran: We additionally urged to incorporate “switch of know-how”.
USA: The sponsor would suggest transferring ahead, understanding that this isn’t agreed in CoW.
OP7.
USA: We suggest eradicating “related” and accepting the textual content with eradicating the brackets.
Chair: Can we go together with this textual content?
Iran: Concerning civil society on this paragraph, we insist on “related civil sciety”
USA: We suggest transferring ahead and noting it isn’t agreed in CoW.
Chair: OP7 will not be agreed. OP8?
Russia: Can we suggest a minor addition to make the language constant, simply so as to add “scientific” earlier than proof primarily based.
Sudan: After “organizations” add “inside their respective mandates”.
USA: Within the spirit of consensus and being versatile, we are able to incorporate these options.
Saudi Arabia: We requested the deletion of “different UN entities” earlier and it was authorised final evening.
Chair: That is the textual content that we now have now.
Saudi Arabia: I keep in mind it being eliminated final evening.
USA: We famous that there was some objection to the time period however very restricted so we retained that language.
Chair: Can we then comply with OP8?
Iran: We should insist on our deletion and I would really like a couple of minutes to speak to our sponsors.
USA: The US needs to include as many views as we are able to so we’re blissful to tackle the edit proposed by our colleague from Saudi Arabia and we ask if the room can settle for this.
Saudi Arabia: because of the US for his or her flexibility.
Chair: Can we comply with OP8 within the CoW?
Iran: Yesterday we requested about OP8 and we now have not gotten any solutions from the sponsors and due to this fact the entire paragraph in our view doesn’t should be right here. Lastly if we should contemplate this proposal it shouldn’t be confined solely to scientific experiences. That is one other factor which we now have to think about, simply off the cuff, I don’t need to suggest however I used to be pondering if we get some concrete solutions then we’d be capable to alter this.
United States: We be aware the feedback nevertheless we now have been coping with this paragraph for weeks and we want to transfer ahead noting that OP8 will not be agreed in CoW.
Chair: I’m noting that OP8 will not be agreed in CoW and transferring to OP9.
Venezuela: Again to OP8 we don’t see the half that reveals that every thing shall be in all six UN languages. That’s the solely means we now have carried out it and it’s crucial to us. For my delegation English will not be our first language so for us to have the ability to take part it is rather vital.
US: We might be blissful to be versatile right here so long as the interpretation into UN languages is caveated with “topic to the provision of additional budgetary assets” in order to not put a burden on UNODC in a liquidity disaster. We might ask the room if they will settle for this language.
Chair: I’m asking when you can settle for this transformation with the understanding that OP8 will not be accepted within the CoW.
OP9
Chair: Can I ask the room if we are able to comply with OP9? We will comply with OP9 within the CoW. We have now gone by way of the decision that isn’t agreed in its entirety. US, you will have the ground.
USA: We might ask that the chair move this decision as at the moment drafted to the plenary.
Chair: I’ll switch the decision..
Title
Russia: We haven’t but thought-about the title. If we are able to check out it. Russia has a proposal on the title. I really feel that the present spirit within the room and their attitudes to what my delegation is saying is dangerous. I really feel there’s a consideration that Russia is inflexible within the room. We want a shorter title and as I’ve been constant all through our interventions I’d recommend that we’d like no caveat within the title. It’s the primary time I’ve seen a caveat within the title. I’d suggest to think about ending this paragraph after “method” within the second line.
Chair: Can we comply with this?
Canada: We will comply with this deletion and if we might add “harms”.
United States: I apologise for neglecting to deal with the title and thanks to Russia for bringing this up. All through this decision we now have been express that the phrases and proposals and the invitations all through this decision are meant to be throughout the context of every member states inner state of affairs in accordance with their circumstances. The US doesn’t object to the elimination of the final half, it makes it shorter and extra readable however I’d welcome it if others intervened from the ground in the event that they assume that this caveat within the title helps them with the decision. I’d put it to the ground and welcome delegations to be candid about this.
Sudan: That is about OP8. My understanding is that this isn’t agreed. So there’s a minor factor in OP8 that I wished so as to add if attainable.
USA: If we are able to proceed with the title, I’d hate to not accommodate a single letter – can we see if anyone has any challenge with the title? Then I want to revisit OP8.
Chair: Can we comply with the title as is on the display now? (possibly add title) Agreed in CoW.
OP8.
MS (?): I believe worldwide challengers have been forgotten.
Chair: Can we settle for this, regardless of op8 no being agreed in CoW?
USA: Sure.
Chair: Thanks. We’re sending this to plenary.
