Chair: We had a profitable morning and hopefully we will proceed on this means. I want to open this afternoon with our decision L4 of Belgium. The title is being negotiated in informals however I’ll give the ground to Belgium to tell us of developments
Belgium: Thanks and completely happy to listen to that progress has been made with Chile. Final night time we uploaded a clear model that took under consideration all the paragraphs that have been agreed within the CoW and informals. In the present day we’ve mentioned informals and made great progress due to the willingness to compromise of a number of delegations. If you need, we want to focus on the paragraphs we’ve agreed in informals.
Chair: I agree. In the event you have a look at the textual content on the display the primary PP agreed in informals is PP3. Can I see PP3 please? I’m asking if we are able to additionally conform to this within the CoW. I don’t see any feedback so I’m asking if we are able to conform to this. So, we’ll conform to PP3 within the CoW It’s so determined The subsequent that has been mentioned in informals is PP5. You’ll be able to see it on the display. I suggest that we agree on PP5 in CoW. It’s so determined. The subsequent you possibly can see is PP6 which you’ll see on my display. I don’t see any feedback on PP6 so I suggest that we agree on PP6 additionally within the CoW. And it’s so determined. The subsequent agreed in informals is PP13. I don’t see any feedback on PP13. I suggest that we agree on PP13 within the CoW. It’s so determined. The subsequent on my checklist is PP17. Do I’ve any feedback on PP17? I don’t see any feedback so I suggest that we agree on PP17 within the CoW. It’s so determined. The subsequent on my checklist is OP1. OP1 was pending China however I believe now it’s good to be agreed upon. I don’t see any feedback so I suggest that we agree on OP1 additionally within the CoW. And it’s so determined. The subsequent on my checklist is OP2. Please have a look at the textual content of OP2. It has been agreed in informals. I’ve Pakistan.
Pakistan: thanks and good afternoon. We want to add “calls upon member states, inside their means,” thanks.
Chair: We’ve an modification in OP2 that has been agreed in informals. Can we agree on OP2 because it stands now? Within the CoW? I suggest that we conform to OP2 together with the modification within the CoW. It’s so determined. I’m now shifting to OP4. OP4 has been agreed in informals. I don’t see any feedback I suggest that we agree on OP4 within the CoW. And it’s so determined. The subsequent on my checklist already agreed in informals is OP8. Fastidiously crafted if I don’t have any feedback I suggest that we conform to OP8 additionally within the CoW. And it’s so determined. We’re simply cleansing it and the subsequent OP that I’ve on the checklist that has already been agreed in informals is OP9. Only a second…we see now OP9. Paragraph OP9 has been agreed within the informals. Since I don’t see any feedback I suggest that we conform to it additionally within the CoW. And it’s so determined. I’ve yet one more para left that was agreed within the informals. It’s OP10. I don’t have any feedback so I’ll suggest to agree on OP10 within the CoW. And it’s so determined. Belgium, how do you intend that we proceed now. Lets begin with the title.
Belgium: Sure and just a few background. The title was taken from the earlier decision and we’ve barely modified it to raised match this one. We’ve chosen to incorporate “bettering the rational use” as a result of addresses issues raised by China about stopping China however I perceive that they wanted to examine so perhaps we are able to hear from them
Chair: I perceive. Can we now see if we are able to agree on the title? China.
China: We hope that we are able to make some slight amendments. We had “schooling” after which on the finish of the title we had “whereas stopping diversion into illicit channels and for non-medical use”
Belgium: Thanks for this proposal. I believe we are able to agree with “schooling” as a result of we additionally addressed this in informals in order that’s an excellent suggestion to enhance the textual content. With respect to the final a part of the title we had a dialogue on a number of events. We’re nicely conscious that we have to stop diversion whereas ensuring there’s sufficient managed drugs however that’s why we added “bettering their rational use” I perceive that including the final half just isn’t sufficient so perhaps if I can suggest another choice and alter “bettering” to “making certain” as a result of in our understanding rational use of remedy is ensuring that it’s used within the right means so not too little however not an excessive amount of so I believe we would be capable to accommodate for China’s issues if we substitute “bettering” by “making certain” and delete the final a part of the phrase.
Chair: Thanks. I’ve the UK then China.
United Kingdom: thanks madam chair. We thank the delegation of China for proposing these additions. For us it’s a particularly lengthy title so perhaps within the interim we can assist to provide you with a extra concise title. I do know there’s been lengthy discussions however perhaps we can assist to make it a bit shorter. Particularly with the addition on the finish it simply makes it very lengthy. We need to convey what’s within the paragraphs with out recreating them. We need to assist create a title which doesn’t itself change into a paragraph.
Chair: I’ll name China.
China: Thanks colleagues from Belgium and the US. We actually suppose that the phrase “rational use” is nice, nonetheless we’ve to emphasize stopping diversion so we nonetheless hope we are able to maintain what we prompt on the finish of the paragraph thanks.
Chair: I suggest we return to the title at a later stage
Belgium: One of many different PPs that was open, PP12, it is a very delicate PP that we’ve labored on very arduous with a number of delegations, particularly South Africa, we hope China can associate with this PP with none modifications.
China: We’ve been agency in supporting the three drug management conventions. We’ve emphasised strengthening anti drug work that our nation has carried out. We’ve additionally emphasised steadiness, we wish right here so as to add the phrase “prevention of diversion into illicit channels and misuse”. After session we need to show flexibility. We hope different international locations will present the identical flexibility and can take our issues into consideration.
Chair: We will additionally agree right here on PP12? I’ve no feedback? It’s so determined.
Belgium: Thanks China for the pliability and South Africa. We all know affordability is a vital level. We all know that what’s on the display is a compromise and so they have taken a giant step ahead to satisfy us. We will proceed with PP8.
Chair: It has been agreed in informals pending Iran.
Iran: May we undergo the textual content earlier than coming again to this paragraph so I can ask the capital for his or her last resolution.
Chair: We’ll proceed now with OP6.
Belgium: We’ve had intensive dialogue on this paragraph, the one level maintaining this nonetheless open is how we mirror gender and age on this paragraph. Gender and age was additionally talked about in OP4. We had proposed we take it away from OP4 however depart it in OP6 as a compromise package deal.
Chair: We’ve lots of flexibility from the sponsor. Can we have a look at the language of OP6? Do I’ve any feedback?
Russian Federation: We had prolonged discussions concerning whether or not gender features play a task within the prescription and use of managed substances for medical and scientific substances when coping with kids. We’re of the view that scientific knowledge is inadequate and this isn’t a essential issue. There are different essential issues associated to social and cultural context and associated to completely different determinants of well being that we want to embody on this paragraph. We suggest deleting the a part of the paragraph beginning with “considering” up till “age perspective”. We’re talking how particular consideration must be given to the wants and circumstances of youngsters and that may cowl all elements of relevance.
Canada: I gained’t ask our colleagues to repeat their arguments about this wording. We left dialogue with the caveat “the place acceptable” which was consultant of our dialogue in informals.
Chair: We’ve a shortened proposal, together with “the place acceptable”.
Austria: We want to echo what has simply been stated and we thank Canada for making this proposal bringing us near compromise.
Australia: Within the curiosity of additional resisting, a little bit of context first. After we have a look at the title it talks about together with the remedy of youngsters, however it’s broader than that. Listening to Russia and their reservations concerning kids, regardless of what we offered, I suggest we take away “their” after we say the place acceptable so we aren’t making use of this to kids, however extra broadly to coaching and so on. This makes the precise touch upon gender and age not solely about kids.
El Salvador: We want to maintain the phrases gender and age within the paragraph and need to take the chance to state we’re a cosponsor of this decision.
Portugal: I want to be part of the voices of these asking for this to stay.
Belgium: We’ve heard lots of voices to assist retaining, as it’s now on the display we expect this will fulfill the wants on this room. We need to refer once more that gender and age that have been beforehand in OP4 to maintain it in OP6. We need to return to the room and see extra compromise.
Malta: We need to specific our assist for retaining age and gender.
Spain: For us the arguments have all been stated however we need to assist maintaining this.
Poland: We want to assist this reference on this paragraph.
Finland: We want to assist this reference in each paragraphs however we assist the compromise from Belgium.
Russian Federation: We’re grateful to the delegations who’ve paid consideration to our place to discover a means out. We stand prepared to think about retaining reference on this paragraph on the idea of the proposal from Australia. We want to change its placement, so the phrase “that focus particular consideration on the wants and circumstances of youngsters”, we’d have that after the point out made on all of the elements. Our delegation has one other proposal to make within the second a part of this paragraph to reword as follows:
Mexico: Contemplating it is a round dialogue we have been able to assist however at this level must ask the Russian Federation, why to take out reference to ache and stigmatizing attitudes which even have a bearing on situations we’ve established.
EU: The scenario has modified so if you wish to give the Russian Federation the ground first that’s effective.
UK: I’m a bit shocked, I assumed we have been speaking in regards to the fundamentals of drugs. Now we’re bringing in massively new contexts, if we have been going to coach our medical professionals about cultural contexts we must practice our medical professionals as sociologists. That is very primary on age and gender, but it surely has change into linked in a roundabout way to a different subject which we don’t actually perceive and attempt to ask the room if we are able to stay with such elements as gender and age. To us, it looks like a center floor with out contexts from the UK and the fundamentals of medical coaching. This might be higher for us and I imagine simpler ultimately. To say “the place acceptable” I don’t know the place it wouldn’t be acceptable to ask an individual their age when prescribing medication. We want to cut back this again to fundamentals to keep away from these round discussions.
Chair: I thanks very a lot. I’ll give the ground to Russia.
Russian Federation: Thanks chair. We stand prepared to satisfy the sponsors of the decision midway contemplating their arduous work to discover a center level. We conform to take away the opposite elements although we imagine they need to even be considered however we want to embody “the place acceptable” as a result of we expect age ought to at all times be taken under consideration in relation to treating folks with substances for medical functions. Within the second a part of the paragraph we’d additionally wish to maintain “misconceptions associated to ache, prescription” in relation to non-stigmatizing attitudes. We predict that is lined in OP7 if I’m not mistaken and subsequently we expect that it suffices and we are able to cowl it in only one paragraph.
Chair: Thanks Russian Federation on your flexibility. I’ll now take the subsequent three audio system.
United States: Thanks Chair and we’ll attempt to be fast. We’ve some issues about including the phrase “the place acceptable” in the event you think about what we’re speaking about right here as coaching and academic applications. “As acceptable” would apply to a scenario the place a physician is with a affected person however by way of coaching it simply doesn’t make sense and I’ve to say, each single time I am going to the physician I’m requested how outdated I’m and my gender. In actual fact within the CND numerous years in the past we promoted a standardised method that many medical amenities now use so that you simply don’t must individually discuss to your physician about that you simply simply fill out a type and I’ve by no means seen among the issues that have been beforehand proposed. So far as deleting the language on on-stigmatising attitudes that’s really one thing that we actually do want to incorporate in our coaching as a result of luddites like myself are typically not conscious of thes sensitivity and will use language that’s offensive and makes them look out of contact as a Gen X individual so we actually want to incorporate that form of sensitivity in our coaching so we’d ask the forbearance of the delegations which are hesitant to rethink right here.
Chair: Thanks. I’ve Australia.
Australia: Thanks Madam Chair. I believe america lined my level as a result of because it learn earlier than it learn as if it was misconceptions about prescriptions and use of managed substances which didn’t make sense and misplaced the purpose but it surely’s okay now.
Chair: I’ve Sudan.
Sudan: thanks Madam chair. This isn’t about a physician treating a baby, it’s about coaching so if he isn’t going to take action in follow, why do you need to practice him about one thing that he’s not going to do? I want to have extra clarification about that. Thanks Madam Chair.
Chair: Thanks very a lot Sudan.
Canada: Thanks Chair. I don’t suppose america stated that gender doesn’t matter on this sense. On the subject of the arguments that we addressed non-stigmatizing attitudes in OP8, that could be a completely different circumstance and it’s important that we embody this in coaching applications so we need to retain it right here.
Chair: I’ve Australia
Australia: Thanks Chair. Simply to make clear what we requested for earlier is that age on this paragraph is not only meant to be for kids however after we do coaching for healthcare professionals then throughout the board consideration must be given to age.
Chair: and that is what you additionally identified it is usually within the title that kids are included. I’ve Belgium.
Belgium: I need to add my assist to maintaining age and gender on this para. Colleagues already defined that there are particular ailments and medical situations which are seen with younger women that weren’t believed because it was younger women and these weren’t seen or believed as a result of medical as traditionally been seen by the person. This stuff nonetheless play in medication. Medical doctors should be made conscious of that so we absolutely assist this age and gender perspective when you’ll practice your well being professionals.
Chair: We stated we’d come again to the title and PP8 to see if we are able to clear up these. Can we return to the title? I’d ask Belgium to suggest once more the title and if we are able to agree on it.
Belgium: Our desire could be to cease after “rational use”, the identical or comparable title was acceptable three years in the past. Then we didn’t check with diversion and we hope that by strengthening the language China can associate with this proposal within the spirit of compromise.
China: Thanks for changing bettering with making certain. On the one hand we’d like rational use however we additionally hope we are able to emphasize the prevention and diversion so we nonetheless suppose we must always maintain the final half. In our dialogue on PP12 we confirmed flexibility so we hope colleagues can present flexibility right here with regards our aspirations.
Belgium: Since China wished so as to add it in PP12 we’ve a compromise. We must always depart it out of the title however add a particular PP as PP12bis and we hope that having one PP particularly associated to this concern we are able to transfer on. PP12bis is as follows:
Chair: Please look into this PP12bis to deal with the issues from China. We’ll give China a bit extra time to seek the advice of. I’ll now return to PP8 which was pending by Iran.
Iran: For the sake of consensus we’re able to take away this. Thanks Iran
Chair: Can we conform to PP8 within the CoW? It’s so determined. We at the moment are wanting into PP12 which might substitute the addition by China within the title. I nonetheless see work on OP6 so I want to give the ground to Norway.
Norway: Can we ask Belgium if it might be okay with out total availability.
China: Our concern is whereas controlling entry to medication, the textual content can’t absolutely mirror our concern subsequently it’s unacceptable and I recommend extra modification to the textual content although we’d like extra time.
Belgium: Thanks for the query Norway – on this PP we tackle two issues, that we’re involved by non medical use and diversion and we have to tackle this subject, in addition to the half within the center which ensures the provision of and entry to managed medicines. We all know from analysis there’s a hyperlink between each of them. The worry of governments will increase so they’re linked. We really feel having this center half is topic of the decision and we really feel the entire para is addressing the issues of the delegates within the room who want to see this subject addressed and extra distinguished. Perhaps we are able to have a brief break to examine this and with China how greatest to deal with their concern.
Chair: I suggest we take 15 minutes working break to work on PP12bis, the title, and OP6.
Chair: I’m again! We want 2-3 minutes extra on the title. We’ve obtained info that informals on L.3. have led to settlement on the paragraphs left within the morning session. So I’ll name Chile to introduce developments from informals.
Chile: We will begin with PP10 ter.
Chair: Any feedback? Can we agree in CoW PP10 ter? It’s determined!
Chair: OP1 bis? Requests for the ground? I suggest we agree it additionally right here in CoW? It’s so determined!
Chair: OP2 bis? I don’t see any feedback. It’s so determined!
Chair: I’ll now undergo the entire decision from starting to finish to see if there’s any excellent paragraphs —simply to examine collectively. Can this decision be transmitted to the Plenary for adoption? I don’t see any feedback. It’s so determined.
Secretariat: Signal your cosponsorship on e-delegate to be mirrored on the proposal for adoption. E-delegate. Alternatively, increase your nation signal on the time of adoption on the Plenary.
United Kingdom: Want a observe verbale?
Chair: No. e-Delegate is sufficient. We’re going New York now.
Belgium: Congratulations to Chile. I believe it’s their first one and a female-led crew. I congratulate them.
Chair: Let’s begin with PP12 bis alt.
Belgium: We’ve modified it a bit to depart it out from the title in order that the title is concentrated. That was our intention from the start onwards: Taking into consideration the need to reinforce the provision of and entry to managed substances for these with medical situations whereas stopping their diversion into illicit channels and non-medical use. It’s quick and addresses the problem of stopping diversion. We will strike out the primary proposal. And in addition the reference within the title.
Russia: There may be beforehand agreed language on medical and scientific functions so this might be included right here.
Chair: Would that be OK with China and Belgium? Are sponsors OK? China?
China: We’re OK with this.
Chair: Can we agree on PP12 bis alt in CoW? We’re agreeing on PP12 bis alt in CoW. It’s determined. Let’s return to the title. Can we conform to this title in CoW? It’s so determined. OP6?
Belgium: Very briefly as a result of the Russian Federation has a proposal so I’d wish to revert to then to dictate it on the display.
Chair: That is about together with references to age and gender.
Russia: Are you able to show the start of the paragraph? We will conform to the reference to age and gender. ‘Such elements as age and gender’ after which ‘as acceptable’. In terms of the aprt regarding the wants of youngsters, making certain that it hyperlinks to the programme, we’d reword with ‘with particular consideration’ and in addition on this decision we point out the rational use of managed substances. We’d delete ‘prescription’. So ‘in the direction of the rational use of…’.
Chair: Settlement? Agreed on CoW? I suggest we conform to OP6 in CoW. It’s so determined! I believe these are all of the paragraphs so I suggest a top-to-bottom examine to see if we’ve tackled all paragraphs. L4 is agreed in CoW and despatched to plenary.
Chair: Bear in mind you possibly can flag cosponsorship on e-Delegate —straight to New York. I’ll now discuss to the sponsor and we’ll tackle L5 in 5 minutes.
Chair: Good afternoon everybody we’re again. I want to proceed as earlier than with decision L.5.
US: we tabled a decision to L5 and we labored on this revised model. Given the complexity within the quantity of debate we had within the context we thought it might be good to kickstart discussions primarily based on what our understanding is of the closest textual content that would attain consensus as we labored on the OPs this morning from 9-1 and made respectable progress. Good convo and good compromises. I believe we discovered this morning and so given the progress we’ve made this morning we may proceed with the oPs and with OP7.
Chair: We’ll put OP7 on the display.
US: this was already mentioned in informals and we took the suggestions that we obtained and tried to provide you with OP7 and we might welcome delegations to deal with this as new textual content however please think about the dialogue we’ve already had. It is likely to be helpful proper now to simply put brackets ranging from the phrase “each time” till the tip of “measures” as that is nonetheless an excellent subject. We’re working to resolve this however I imagine we are able to caveat this model of the textual content and work productively on the decision
Chair: I thanks for this introduction. I ask for potential feedback if there are any. I’ve Sudan.
Sudan: Thanks chair. I’d wish to thank the US for his or her work on this. I want to begin by enhancing the primary language so as to add “their” earlier than home.
Chair: I thanks very a lot. Every other feedback?
Venezuela: thanks chair and because of the sponsors of this decision for his or her proposal. In negotiations after we noticed this we made sure feedback as a result of often member states are supported by worldwide organisations together with UN officers and vice versa and members states have repeatedly referred to as for supporting the mandate of civil society so we suggest the inverse drafting so the place it says “encourages member states” as an alternative to say “with the assist of”. It’s about the concept that member states are engaged on these improvement duties with the assist of the organisation.
Chair: Thanks on your feedback. I don’t see some other feedback. United States.
United States: thanks chair. We keep in mind this edit from Venezuela within the earlier negotiations and it basically modifications the paragraph to maneuver member states to supporting the organisations listed within the paragraph to the organisations to assist member states and that was not the intention of the sponsor in drafting this paragraph. It was taken under consideration and it didn’t take pleasure in great assist within the negotiations which is why we reverted to the unique formulation.
Chair: I give the ground to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia: thanks madam chair. I often communicate in Arabic however I believe English is clearer. We want to take away “each time permitted” and write “if” as a result of it implies that both the legislation permits it or not. That’s simply my understanding and I’m not a local speaker and search for any suggestions.
Chair: Thanks. Egypt.
Egypt: Thanks chair. I agree with my colleague from Saudi Arabia and we may put at first “hurt discount measures” If permitted by home legislation.
Chair: Venezuela you’ve gotten the ground,
Venezuela: I perceive however truthfully I don’t perceive what the position is that we’re asking from right here, states growing or states growing the UN organisation so that they develop their work. So earlier than we do away from the proposal that i made as a result of I’m not pleased with that but. THat’s simply one thing that I need to perceive. And my delegation nonetheless can’t settle for hurt discount. Thanks.
Chair: Czechia, Russia, then United States.
Czechia: We want to oppose the proposal of Venezuela as we expect this actually modifications the paragraph and the primary half is moderately technical and we’ve nearly reached consensus on it so would a lot moderately maintain the unique wording.
Russian Federation: We don’t have main points with this paragraph besides the half now in brackets. We want to observe that in accordance with political commitments, measures listed within the second a part of this paragraph relate to demand discount, this isn’t simply one of many measures included in prevention, remedy, restoration and so on. We’d suggest altering the textual content considerably to say “scientific proof primarily based demand discount measures, together with” then mentioning prevention. I want to point out that one modification deleted a phrase needed for intervention measures and we must always convey again the phrase “measures” within the second line from the underside.
Switzerland: We will actually stay with unique wording, taking into consideration that on this proposal we must be together with the reference to threat discount. We aren’t in favour of changing hurt discount with demand discount as proposed by sure delegations.
Netherlands: We will come again to the remark from Venezuela on who helps who, I don’t perceive why that’s not clear or could be troublesome. We see right here the UNODC, WHO and so on make efforts on this respect as a result of we mandated them to take action, after which civil society out of their very own initiative make this effort. We as member states ought to encourage these efforts. This looks like a logical technique to specific this idea. We’d be versatile for readability of language however the unique proposal has our assist as do the opposite amendments associated to hurt discount and demand discount.
Sudan: Share sentiment from Venezuela however discover it unusual for member states to assist organisations. We’ve an instance from UNGASS that we’ve seen urging member states and we are able to use the identical language right here if the sponsors want to take action.
EU: We too would have been pleased with the unique paragraph however the suggestion made by Saudi Arabia in all probability makes it even clearer so we are able to associate with that. We aren’t towards itemizing demand discount however it’s completely different to hurt discount so can’t substitute it. We don’t oppose together with demand discount however have to maintain hurt discount.
Spain: Taking into consideration the primary a part of the paragraph we’d be against deleting demand discount measures as the primary half is sufficient for us all to be represented, with out hurt discount we are able to’t assist this.
USA: We’ve simply seen what occurs after we mess with these brackets a bit bit, the design of the brackets was rigorously positioned to not have the notion that the needle is being moved on this dialogue. This needle could now have been moved with the present proposal. We want to revert the brackets to the unique. We should first resolve the dialog round hurt discount. Responding to Venezuela, when the sponsor drafted this it was meant to be MS supporting the UNODC, it is a US perspective as we assist UNODC. In informals Venezuela identified there’s a completely different perspective right here encouraging MS to supply assist so the orgs can in flip provide assist to MS.
Egypt: If we began the OP with “invitations” would this be appropriate for different colleagues to think about. Our understanding is that these measures of demand discount embody all the following measures that are acknowledged, prevention and so on. I believe our standpoint is that demand discount encapsulates all the different points. Concerning the subject of hurt discount, we are able to depart this till the tip and assist the sponsors of this decision however we wish it to be saved like this to have the choices on the desk.
China: With respect to content material in brackets, I need to make a proposal to attain a faster consensus. If we alter hurt discount measures into measures related to lowering hurt or aimed on the discount of hurt, this might be acceptable.
Venezuela: I want to thank the US delegate and I believe I perceive now. States can assist organisations so organisations can assist us. I’d ask for assist from native English audio system to translate that because it was not clear to me and perhaps place it in brackets so we are able to give it some thought. For civil society will they not be serving to states, will they be serving to organisations. It’s not clear to me who helps who and I want to ask for readability on what position we predict civil society to play right here. We don’t have something towards this joint work even wanting in the direction of coverage of hurt discount and public well being measures. It’s not a difficulty with hurt discount, extra a difficulty with drafting, if we’ve assist with wording we are able to perhaps assist.
EU: That is one thing we’ve already mentioned in informals and we’ve this time period of hurt discount in literature and by professionals with a sure which means and if we alter the reference to it that which means is misplaced. A crass instance of aimed toward lowering hurt, if we place drug customers in jail this might hypothetically cut back hurt to society however is clearly not what we’ve meant.
United Kingdom: We admire the dialog about hurt discount however we’ve this formulation in brackets and we expect it’s higher to strive to not contact it now. I believe by way of the remainder of the paragraph it would make sense to maneuver this again to informals and work on OP8.
Norway: We had a protracted dialogue within the CoW yesterday on this subject of discovering completely different phrases to explain this phenomenon and we expressed a robust desire for maintaining it. We’ve moved a lot nearer to consensus and I concur with the opposite audio system that it’s to be learn a few occasions to know and maybe we’d profit from taking a look at this once more in casual.
Chair: Do you thoughts if I transfer this again to informals or do a few audio system? Okay a few audio system.
Switzerland: I didn’t need to take the ground once more on this paragraph as I’ve already expressed my nation’s place however I’d like to return to the proposed measures aimed toward lowering hurt. I’d merely like to elucidate that I would like this as a result of it’s a time period of artwork, which means we’ve a number of flexibility for international locations relying on their nationwide laws on implementing hurt discount measures. There are many international locations who’re implementing these measures who’ve completely different measures about what they need to be however by maintaining this time period we depart that flexibility in there for nationwide conditions and depart the choice open for international locations to implement these hurt discount measures as they perceive them.
Sudan: I’ve a proposal for consideration that would convey us nearer to consensus. There’s not a typical understanding of the relevance of hurt discount in response to completely different views so each time we’ve a protracted checklist we don’t essentially agree on it. So I want to suggest the next: after “drug use” we add “to make sure all the elements related to demand discount are taken under consideration when growing and implementing demand discount measures” so when talking about all related elements it isn’t essential to have the whole checklist. So we give flexibility to all the completely different international locations of their nationwide context.
Austria: I gained’t repeat what has been stated by the EU or Switzerland however for Austria you will need to have the time period “hurt discount measures”. We’ve had hurt discount measures in Austria for many years now together with needle change applications and opioid agonist applications so it might be useful to have this.
Colombia: Only one fast remark. I believe it’s nice that we try to maneuver ahead with this paragraph however we’ve turned this paragraph round as a result of it was about demand discount and now we’ve changed into an entire factor of demand discount. We will ask why we’ve hurt discount there. My delegation want to return. We predict the inclusion of hurt discount is essential. This isn’t the intent of this paragraph thanks.
Spain: Sure and sorry for taking the ground once more however because the Colombian ambassador stated demand discount isn’t hurt discount. Hurt discount isn’t demand discount so the one factor we’re attaining right here is lengthening their resolution making progress so we’re getting a textual content that’s much less and fewer straightforward to understanding so I’d like us to take away or cross out the final proposal about demand discount as a result of demand discount is inside sq. brackets so it must be on the identical degree
United States: Problem making an attempt to include each persüective into one single paragraph with all caveats and issues taken under consideration. This paragraph is troublesome to learn and it’s time for us to take this again over to informals and time for us to maneuver on to OP8.
Chair: I’d suggest that we go to OP8.
United States: This can be a request to the UNODC and the worldwide narcotics management board and the WHO to deal with among the challenges that we tackle on this paragraph or on this decision associated to overdoses and from the US perspective significantly artificial drug overdoses as they represent lots of the overdose deaths in addition to non-fatal overdoses on this planet at the moment.
United Kingdom: I believe we’ve misplaced a bit bit that was essential within the earlier model. We had an excellent rationalization of what this was for the UNODC and we’ve misplaced the sense of inclusion of civil society, affected communities, and different NGOs which were a part of this workshop prior to now. The best way the paragraph was initially drafted prompt that civil society would convene with us which I suppose wasn’t correct however now we’ve them not collaborating in any respect. We’d like to incorporate reference to those different teams someplace within the textual content. The suggestion I can provide is after intergovernmental “and inclusive” however completely happy to work on one thing higher.
Sudan: My remark just isn’t on this paragraph however I wished to justify my proposal within the final paragraph. After I stated “all related elements,” I didn’t imply to insult some other member states. I used to be simply making an attempt to point that we need to provide flexibility to all member states for demand discount. Every time we don’t agree on a protracted checklist we are able to go for one thing shorter which was my intention.
Egypt: We want to have one inclusion to be in keeping with informals. Together with “drug” overdoses. Concerning the inclusion by the UK colleague I’d nonetheless have to look at it however I do not forget that final time I attended certainly one of these further group conferences on artificial medication 1-2 months in the past and there weren’t any civil society teams or there weren’t affected populations so I noticed who attended. It was worldwide organisations and the INCB and the WHO and in addition it was organised by the UNODC artificial medication division so that is my expertise of this type of intergovernmental assembly so perhaps there’s completely different language we are able to use which is intergovernmental. I believe if the UNODC may assist me there’s language we may use like “open ended governmental assembly” I don’t have the language proper now in my thoughts however this might assist us transfer ahead with this paragraph.
Venezuela: Perhaps we don’t have to say it explicitly however my delegation want to make it specific. This governmental professional assembly is essential and it’s essential that it’s in all six UN languages. It wasn’t initially within the paragraph however I’d admire it if it might be put again in there.
Russian Federation: The up to date paragraph on this decision is completely different than what we have been discussing within the informals so we’ve a couple of feedback. We need to be sure that all states can be invited to this assembly. We assist Egypt’s proposal so as to add the phrases open ended. We assist Venezuela’s proposal, for us multilingualism is a precedence and we advocate the interpretation of all conferences into all languages, together with Russian. On this occasion we’re speaking about an professional assembly so to make sure all specialists perceive one another it’s needed that interpretation is offered into all official languages. I’ve a query concerning the monetary implication of this assembly for states and want to method the sponsors to ask why this was included. Does this imply we’re calling on donors to disperse funds or ought to states disperse funds. My final query pertains to the mandate of this assembly and I’ve raised this query concerning informals and because the language has been altered put this ahead once more. Is there a plan to place ahead some type of doc on the conclusion of this assembly. Will this be steerage, a draft decision for the CND?
Pakistan: We’ve slight reservations on inclusion from the UK concerning “and inclusive” as a result of intergovernmental professional teams are very acquainted and this time period has already been coined. The intention behind utilizing “and inclusive” is to incorporate civil society however, by definition, that is between governments (intergovernmental). I’d suggest after drug overdoses associated, delete the subsequent six phrases.
Netherlands: We assist the proposal from the UK. We predict this inclusion has change into unclear now and we aren’t positive it’s clear sufficient what “inclusive” means right here and perhaps we are able to formulate this issue, so to “convene an open ended intergovernmental professional group assembly with participation of related non governmental entities,” to attempt to formulate one thing acceptable. I want to underline that having proof primarily based responses is simpler and essential to incorporate this component on this paragraph and suggest to insert “proof primarily based” earlier than the phrases “core components”.
Iran: We’re of the view that this subject of artificial medication is of nice significance for us. Simply a few months in the past an open ended working group was convened in Board Room D and this open ended professional working group has had participation from completely different representatives of the member states. Having this working group is passable and creating further working teams is pointless. Being proposed right here for further budgetary sources these could be thought of by the foremost donors to allocate new assets for the framework we’ve already been given.
Belgium: We will associate with the wording on the display however we want to add that for the EU we’ve lots of regional experience and want to embody this experience within the assembly. For instance, with participation of regional organisations or related non governmental entities.
USA: We’ve a query for the Secretariat as there appears to be confusion in regards to the terminology. We’ve heard that intergovernmental organisation is interpreted by some to imply that this inter-governmental assembly solely has governments taking part however we’ve additionally heard our congress known as inter inter-governmental assembly however this has the express objective to incorporate civil society, academia and so on. Our intent is extensive participation of governments, non governments similar to civil society, topic to budgetary assets however ideally to be held as soon as and ideally with the provision of the 6 languages. We simply want steerage simply on tips on how to phrase this request. We even have seen requests to incorporate further budgetary assets on this paragraph.
Chair: I’ve consulted the sponsors of each resolutions and I can verify we’ll cease the consideration of L5 at the moment. We’ll proceed concerns of L2 tomorrow morning at 10:00
Chile: We need to announce that we’re sponsoring this decision.
Chair: With this I want to inform you that we meet tomorrow morning at 10am to think about L2, then in a while L5.
USA: The final time we had a casual assembly in C3 there have been no placards there, can we put a request to convention providers to convey placards to C3.
Chair: Secretariat will put the request. The assembly is adjourned.
