Norway: We have three reasons for this. A lot of good things have happened with HIV epidemic but it is not over. We need to work in prisons and with drug users. Finances for HIV have been produced. UNODC have a unique position with expertise on drug problems and their access to users. In global financing problems, UNODC has been struck. Since we met last year, we had UNGASS and high level meeting on AIDS. We think we should have a lean discussion that will remind us that HIV is not over and that we need to step up financing.
Brazil: We will co-sponsor this with Norway.
Guatamala: We will also co-sponsor this resolution as is.
Comments on title
Belgium: We would like wording more in line with UNGASS outcome document, ‘infections’ with ‘diseases’, ‘efforts’ with ‘measures’ and ‘other’ before ‘drug demand’.
Norway: This is less technically accurate as they are infections but if it matters to you, we’ll go with that.
Pakistan: I want to place on record that we suggested changes before the conference and they were not dealt with. We will go along with this because we were not able to get to informals, we have only a small delegation, but just to say we are not happy with title.
Comments on OP.1
Brazil: After ‘efforts’ say, ‘,including through public health systems and their governance’.
Russia: Our delegation made a suggestion in formal consultations and to be consistent with that we’d like to add ‘effectively’ before ‘addressing and countering’ and ‘the world drug problem, including’ after.
France: We support Brazil’s suggestion and we support Russia’s too, but we’d like to keep paragraph more specific and we feel Russia’s addition dilutes focus.
Norway: We are OK with Brazil but we support France on Russia’s addition. We want to keep it lean and focused on HIV.
Cuba: This is a resolution to the CND, it seems to us appropriate to keep Russia’s input.
Iran: We need to have a bigger picture, so should keep Russia’s additions.
Portugal: This resolution is centered on HIV and other blood-borne diseases. We would prefer original language.
Malaysia: I share similar concerns of Russia and Iran. We need to reference world drug problem, our first priority should be addressing this problem and we can say we including HIV.
Pakistan: We are fine to say we are trying to combat HIV, but we feel this resolution needs a proper context. We echo our support to Russia’s proposal.
Costa Rica: We would like to co-sponsor resolution. It seems to be an inclusive text and we support it without Russia’s amendment.
Finland: We’d like to echo and support Norway. In our opinion, of course this is part of the bigger picture but in the OPs this should be sleek and concentrated.
USA: We urge body to focus on HIV lens of text, we are not able to support Russia addition.
Brazil: We cannot accept Russia’s proposal. Taking into account comments on context, we do not think it would be bad to say ‘in the context of world drug problem’ and then keep paragraph as it is.
Holy See: We would voice support to Russia as well as most recent proposal from Brazil.
Belgium: We echo thoughts from Norway, France, etc. We need a focus in OPs and the focus is HIV.
Sweden: We believe we should stay focused, so would prefer not to have Russian proposal. The context will be provided in PP section. We urge others to stay focused on HIV in this part of resolution.
Australia: I suggest that rather than ‘communicable’ disease, we stay consistent with title and keep it as ‘blood-bourne’ disease. I do not think we need any other additions, so not Russia’s.
Netherlands: We would like to thank Norway. This is an OP so we want the reference to be specific and cannot accept Russian inclusion.
France: This is a resolution on HIV, but Brazil’s suggestion is very good, it is an elegant way out.
Pakistan: We are flexible in national capacity. Brazil’s suggestion is good and we’d go along with that.
Ecuador: We should focus on HIV in this paragraph.
El Salvador: My delegation supports Russia’s proposal but we can live with Brazil’s compromise.
China: We share opinion with Pakistan and would like to keep ‘world drug problem’ in this text so support Brazil’s proposal.
USA: Two things: we support Brazil’s compromise. In the last line, we would like to move mention of year 2030 to go after ‘of diseases’ in line above. Alcohol is not a narcotic drug so the CND don’t have a mandate covering it so can we put the mention of it and that whole line in quotes.
Norway: We are happy to keep Brazil’s compromise, and then the rest of the OPs can be focused on HIV.
Russia: In the spirit of compromise, we think Brazil’s proposal is acceptable. However, when a number of delegations say this has been addressed in PPs – we have not yet looked at PPs and it seems logical to us that these things are addressed in OPs.
Costa Rica: We’re pleased to see a solution. ‘Blood-borne diseases’ – we are referring to a number of diseases that are communicable so let’s change it back to ‘communicable’.
Cuba: My delegation agrees with compromise. We should cut paragraph off at 2030.
India: It is my opinion that we should not refer to HIV/AIDS as a disease because it is an infection, not a disease. If we refer to this as a disease, we are eliminating those carrying HIV without infection. We should say ‘infection/disease’ because this properly refers to different statuses of HIV/AIDS.
Cuba: We would like to again suggest cutting off paragraph at ‘2030’.
USA: For vulnerable populations, it is important to keep eye on both people who have the disease and those who are vulnerable to getting it (i.e., drug users).
Norway: We are flexible on this issue. When you prevent substance use or treat it, you are preventing HIV. We think technically infection is best word but it doesn’t matter too much.
Kenya: We are of the view that we need to keep reference to target 3.5 because we make reference to target 3.3. Treatment and prevention around people who use drugs is very relevant to preventing HIV.
Brazil: We would like to keep this target as it’s obviously related to combating HIV.
Cuba: We would suggest general words which includes these SDGs and any other relevant ones.
Switzerland: We’d like to see reference to SDG 3.5 retained as it mentions narcotic drugs and that’s our area.
Italy: Simply to support keeping target 3.5 in.
Peru: We’d like to briefly support inclusion of 3.5.
Mexico: We are close but we need more time to consider this. Perhaps we could leave this pending. I feel like we should be able to solve infection v. disease reference, even though I’m not a doctor.
USA: Having the specific target mentioned in resolution will be useful for researchers looking back to see what we’ve done in support of SDGs. We support retention.
Comments on OP.2
Russia: Since our main mandate for UNODC is countering world drug problem, can we add after UNODC, ‘leading entity in the UN system for addressing and countering the world drug problem and’. After ‘people who use drugs’, can we add ‘as appropriate’?
Norway: We think we have well-established the context in previous paragraph so we do not need these additions. Perhaps we need to go back to informals.
France: We can understand amendment of ‘as appropriate’ though we prefer previous version. Although Russia’s addition is accurate, we think that to describe the UNODC like this means we should also mention WHO who also deal with these things, or we could keep it the same.
Ecuador: I don’t understand why UNODC role is constantly being repeated. We are looking at how to better tackle HIV/AIDS here. If we have UNODC as leading entity, then we agree we’d need to mention WHO too, as leading entities. After ‘civil society’, can we get rid of word ‘groups’ and also add ‘and scientific community’. UNAIDS are significant too, so we’d have to add that too if we keep Russia’s proposal – and we can do that.
Brazil: We do see point of Russia wanting to keep resolution in context and feel we have to mention this in every paragraph. In this paragraph though we do not need this context, since here we are referring just to it’s role as convening agency looking at prisons and drug use in spreading HIV/AIDS in conjunction with other agencies.
Spain: We’d like to keep this paragraph specific and keep Russia’s addition. Just because we might have it in the PPs, we don’t need to not mention it in the OPs.
Australia: I would support Norway’s original intention with this. I do not think we should add ‘upon their request’ as it suggests we can only support if support is requested. I do not want to add ‘as appropriate’ either as this is too broad and ambiguous. I would support Norway in keeping this paragraph succinct.
UNODC spokesperson: For clarification, we do work with UNAIDS in a convening role.
Australia: After ‘governments partners’ we’d like to say, ‘with support of’ and delete ‘including’. And change ‘use drugs’ to ‘inject drugs’.
Netherlands: We cannot agree with Russia’s addition. We do not like ‘as appropriate’ or ‘upon the request’.
USA: We want to keep focus on UNODC as a cosponsor for these programmes. We agree with Australia on networks of people who use drugs. We would like to comment on users of injectors issue, users are crucial in this fight in the US so we would like to keep word ‘use drugs’.
Italy: We would also underline convening role of UNODC.
Norway: We have previously agreed language and we do not add ‘as appropriate’. ‘Upon their request’ is redundant as we say ‘continue to support’. We are flexible with use or injection mentioned. We are happy with it as is, without reference to UNAIDS, WHO and mention of leading role of UNODC.
Cuba: We support Russia’s proposal for first line.
Chair: Let’s bracket this, or let’s agree with it. Can we agree with this current language?
Australia: Can I suggest that we stay consistent with title and include after ‘people’, we put ‘associated with the use of drugs’ so as to not limit us to process of use or injection of drugs and includes families.
Norway: We are happy with it as it stands though we do not need to include these people affected as we are talking about networks of users, not everyone affected – but if it’s important to Australia we’ll keep it.
Kenya: Two small points. Issue of listing. We’d like to add after ‘government partners’, ‘and other relevant stakeholders’. We would like to say that although support does not come only through request from a country, it does need to come with the consent of the country.
Chair: OP.2 bracketed for now.
Comments on OP.3
Iran: We were unable to participate in the informal here. We have comments on OP.3 and OP.6. We think there’s no need to single out UNAIDS in 2nd and 3rd line, there are other avenues to provide support to member states. Singling out other agencies is not constructive.
Norway: We discussed that UNAIDS is used as a channel for global coordination. We would like to lift importance of going through the global mechanism we currently have. We are trying to avoid duplication and unnecessary use of funding.
Iran: We are talking about bilateral funding, so it is inappropriate to bring in UNAIDS.
France: We are fully satisfied as paragraph was before, we do not support deletion in red on the screen. ‘Urges’ instead of ‘encourages’.
USA: We support Norway. It is fairly important to mention them here because they may fund some of UNODC’s work on this.
Czech Republic: I support France in ‘urges’.
Australia: I support Norway, ‘urges’ is good from France and I think Norway have comprehensively explained the situation as it stands now.
Iran: We have no difficulty keeping ‘bilateral’.
Comments on OP.4
Pakistan: We have a couple of small points, no major concern. We are singling out HIV/AIDS section of UNODC. I am unsure that this is usual practice in negotiating resolutions. I think we should delete mention of section and say funding will go to UNODC and add ‘to secure adequately financed responses related to HIV and drug use and HIV in prison settings’.
Portugal: I am unsure if Secretariat of UNODC can provide more information, but if we are urging more contributions these contributions will be earmarked for where it will be received. It makes sense to keep reference since we want contributions to be earmarked for HIV/AIDS work.
Australia: We do not support removal of mention of section, leaves it too open to be used in other ways.
Norway: We want to keep HIV section because there is a lack of funding coming from UNAIDS because of their own funding crisis. We know this is abnormal but we want it like that for emphasis.
Iran: We object inclusion of ‘vulnerable groups’ here as it loses focus of draft resolution.
Russia: We support Pakistan in terms of having a more general text. If we talk about financing efforts of HIV/AIDS. It will of course be considered by a specific section, it does not need to be mentioned in text. We agree with Iran as well – we think the inclusion of people in prisons is more in remit of criminal justice section of UN.
South Africa: When we talk about budget sustainabilities, perhaps we can talk further as we have not had this clarified. On matter of principle, I disagree with mentioning this specific section. We need to fund office, not section.
Egypt: If we are earmaking something it will be for a programme. We understand that extrabudgetary contributions will go to section and should not specify this in text. We would not like to keep words ‘vulnerable groups’.
Switzerland: We would prefer to have HIV section retained understanding that this paragraph asks for broader funding.
Canada: I’d like to retain sustainability of funding in text. On issue of inclusion of ‘vulnerable groups’, there are groups who are more susceptible for different reasons. Maybe we can talk about targeted responses instead of vulnerable groups, maybe this would be more acceptable.
Germany: We agree with keeping mention of section.
Spain: We support this resolution as it was at the start. With regard to where contributions should go, I would endorse fact that office directs the work. Maybe we should say, contributions to ‘programmes which tackle HIV/AIDS’?
Norway: I don’t know if programmes is the right way to go, maybe we should say ‘contributions to the HIV work’.
Guatemala: I think ‘HIV work’ will work for us. Sustainable resources is important to mention. Can we say ‘sustainable and targeted responses’?
Pakistan: It is not usual to seek funding for specific issue, but we will not stand in the way of consensus. We do not have information regarding which other sections may be facing resource gaps. I would like to say that in the future, if another member state puts forward a request for a specific area of funding, I hope we will be as accommodating.
Norway: The section of the UNODC working on HIV/AIDS lost a huge portion of funding and so this request is addressing a specific funding crisis, not an ongoing situation.
Czech Republic: We should definitely keep ‘sustainable’.
South Africa: We would like to delete ‘extra-budgetary’ and make it ‘funding’.
Norway: I appreciate concerns of South Africa but we are addressing the fact that we need an extra-budgetary contribution in order to make the finances sustainable.
Mexico: There’s been a lot said by delegations, we are almost there. The solution is to take ‘sustainable’ and put it after ‘targeted’.
South Africa: Can you please link sustainable to extra-budgetary contribution?
Canada: We are trying to reach an objective, whether we’re talking about regular or extra-budgetary contributions. The point of this paragraph for us is that when member states are making extra-budgetary contributions, they should factor in the idea of sustainability in order to prevent getting into the situation that we’re in now.
Switzerland: Sustainable for us relates to responses, so perhaps we could say ‘finances, targeted and sustainable’ responses.
South Africa: Please can we return to this paragraph?
Comments on OP.5
Pakistan: We believe we are being too specific and are micromanaging here. We would like to introduce several changes. In the third line, let’s broaden the scope. Our suggestion is add ‘to strengthen comprehensive and scientific evidence based demand reduction including in the area of prevention, early intervention, treatment, care, recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration’ after ‘to’.
Mexico: On previous paragraph, can we change the commas to semi-colons in ‘financed, targeted, and sustainable responses’?
Chair: OP.4 approved by CoW. We’ll return to OP.5
Portugal: Add ‘as well as initiatives and measures aimed at minimising the adverse public health and social consequences of drug abuse’ at the end of paragraph.
France: We do not have a problem with standard guide on prevention. Pakistan proposal is good, broadening subject. It enriches paragraph. And thank you Portugal.
Russia: We believe this addition from Pakistan is fully covered in previous paragraph. Should we delete paragraph 4 or keep this amendment?
Ecuador: We agree that we could go back to previous text, but we do not want to delete paragraph 4.
UK: I wanted to comment that in a previous version of document, we had a general call for member states to add extra-budgetary funding. This might resolve some of the issues in paragraphs 4 and 5.
Czech Republic: After intervention from UK, I have nothing to say. I agree that I would leave it amended with Portugal’s suggestion but delete Pakistan’s. I think we should stop using the word abuse and say either ‘drug use’ or ‘problem drug use’.
Chair: Meeting adjourned until 3 o’clock. We will then look at rest of this resolution and then look at L.6.