Noway: Still working on the paragraph. lets move forward and come back to it.
Russia: We discussed with Portugal and we would like a few more words added: after demand reduction initiatives’ add ‘in accordance with national legislation and the three international drug conventions’.
Chair: any comments?
Spain: I would propose that this be not included as it assumes certain things.
Czech Republic: We don’t see the linkage, and agree with Spain
France: We have no difficulty with including the mention of 3 conventions. WE support them, however after that mention we would like to have mention of human rights – that would be our considition
Cuba: We can support the amandment. It is about supporting UNODC’s work.
Italy: Member states don’t usually do anything that goes against their national legislation.
Guatemala: No problems with France’s proposal. We should focus on the issues of providing more funding.
Norway: No issue. We want this as a lean focus on HIV. The shorter the sweeter in our view.
Chair: any proposal to make it shorter? Can we go back to original language?
Canada: This is more or less the language we normally use. can i propose we use this at the end.
Russia: In it’s current form, the paragraph repeats OP4 and fails to reflect funding meeting demand, so we cannot agree this. We would like to see Pakistan’s and our desire reflected.
UK: We support adding this paragraph to the end. Can we make it in line with the normal language which would start with ‘invites member states and other donors to provide extra budgetary resources for these purposes’
Chair: can we approve this paragraph?
South Africa: What will be the different between OP5 and OP4?
Norway: While we said something similar in OP4, we want to have broader work than only HIV. So we can add ‘for the relevant purposes contained in this reslution’
Guatemala: I agree with Norway that this resolution talks about HIV, but this paragraph has to be clear that it is focussing on a lack of money.
Australia: the different seems to be that 4 deals with the symptom of HIV, and 5 deals with the causal problem of HIV.
Chair: I think we can get a compromise on this, and would like to move forward. Any comments?
Russia: Thanks to all delegations for their efforts. For us its important to reflect the purposes, we would suggest to revert to the previous language from Pakistan, and withdraw mentions to the conventions.
Pakistan: Delete ‘to strengthen’ to ‘including’ in para 5.
Norway: We can now delete what I proposed earlier ‘ relevant purposes’ and keep ‘to the work’ and etc.
Chair: Let’s look at it clean and we’ll be almost done.
Belgium: We can live with this, but change ‘drug use’ to ‘drug abuse’
Chair: this para is approved.
Argentina: There is a grammatical mistake, it should be ‘as well as initiatives’ and ‘in the areas’
Chair: It is approved.
Guatemala: delete ‘within existing resources’ as current resources are not adequate.
Chair: Can we approve? Approved by CoW
Australia: Remove ‘and about the about the bglobal funding shortage’
Russia: We would like to insert ‘ and about necessary and available funding to relevant UNODC programmes and projects’ and everything after deleted.
Pakistan: I support Russia.
USA: Back to para 5, I’d like to add ‘ these purposes, including the’
Chair: no comments, back to 7
France: No problems with this paragraph
Finland: We need reference to the technocal guide
Ecuador: the guide is a useful manual, so add ‘such as the interventions’
Russia: add ‘as well as implementation as appropriate’.
Chair: can this be approved?
Germany: I agree with this, but we should stick to the previous suggestion made by others.
Norway: Good to go along with the Russia suggestion.
Chair: Can we approve it?
Norway: We’re getting there, the point is that they will inform us on a yearly basis on the measures they take, so this should be OK now.
Russia: We would prefer to add ‘as appropriate’ after ‘injecting drug users’
Norway: I don’t see how this comes in here, but I also can’t see how it will limit it either.
Russia: The current language gives the impression that projects are filly outlined in the technical guide, and we would prefer to keep ‘as appropriate’.
Finland: I would just prefer what Norway said.
Chair: can we approve as it is? OP7 Approved
Norway: We would like to go back to OP1. Add ‘global and domestic efforts, including through their health systems’ and delete ‘disease’ .
Chair: we look at it now?
S. Africa: Change ‘domestic’ and ‘global’
Chair: Preambular part.
Australia: We did not accept the bracketed, I would like to see the removal after ‘humankind’
Chair: taking out the last 3 lines, so can we approve it?
CoW approves PP1
Russia: We proposed an additional paragraph to be inserted before PP2, and I’d like to comment on PP2 – first on PP2. As we stated in informal this paragraph takes language from eh UNGASS document and we see the language is not a complete quote, so we would like to add ‘to consider, in accordance with their national legislations and the 3 international drug control conventions including national prevention, treatment, care, recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration measures and programmes, in the context of comprehensive and balanced drug demand reduction efforts.
Czech Republic: Change ‘abuse’ to ‘use’.
China: Change ‘use’ to ‘abuse’
Japan: We support China
Chair: national is used twice, can we clarify?
Russia: national is used twice in the Outcome document.
Pakistan: We have anew para to introduce after PP1 ‘Reiterating also it;s commitments to the 2009 political declaration and plan of action on international cooperation towards an integrated and balanced strategy to counter the world drug problem.’ We have used the agreed languid to speed things up.
Norway: This did not get support in informals. and you took old agreed language, so we must take the language from UNGASS, so disagree.
Ecuador: we should take this back to informals so that we may move on.
Norway: We can accept PP2.
Pakistan: We would like to bracket our proposal for the extra paragraph.