Belarus: We had two rounds of consultations and have now covered entire text and have reached agreement.
Chair: I’d like us to look at title. I don’t see any comments so title is approved. No comments on PP.1. No comments on PP.3 starting with ‘Stressing the importance’. No comments on PP.4. No comments on PP.5 beginning ‘Recalling the outcome document’. No comments on PP.6.
Comments on PP beginning ‘Emphasizing the importance’.
India: We agree with emphasizing the important of implementing national standards, we believe we need to keep in mind the country specific context. Please add this.
France: This matter came up in the informals. We find this concept difficult to accept. It has transpired that this reference must be as general as possible to avoid confusion, therefore we are not in favour of this language right now. If India agrees, maybe we can come to an understanding regarding language on prevention already approved.
USA: We’d like to add, ‘with culturally appropriate evidence based practices’. I hope my colleagues can accept this.
Belarus: I want to propose something else but US proposal is good.
Belgium: We had problems with this proposal from India. I would like to ask US where this language comes from?
USA: This text has been present in other prevention resolutions.
Mexico: We are not comfortable with either option. We are not comfortable with ‘culturally appropriate’. Maybe we should make this paragraph simpler or more generic.
India: We are OK with US proposal if it suits everyone.
Spain: The standards are voluntary, not obligatory. Once we have the documents, each country can decide which measure to apply. To have an exception to cultural questions takes away from text.
Canada: The language for this paragraph as it stands is from a resolution last year 59/6.
Sweden: We echo concern from others, we do not want to mention culturally appropriate.
Canada: India, can we come back to original language and then reconsider it.
India: Can we consider encouraging in place of emphasizing?
Australia: If I can take us back to resolution 59/4, we have helpful language. The language around treatment language might work with the prevention language we’re looking for. Consistent with India, lets use ‘encouraging member states to consider systematic processes of national adaptation of the International Standards on Drug Use Prevention, in accordance with national legislation’ – that was wording previously agreed on. Or how about, ‘Recognises the importance of the International Standards on Drug Use Prevention as a relevant tool summarising the currently available scientific evidence’. The rest is up there describing policies and characteristics. I don’t know whether that’s good English…
Brazil: We see merit in improving this, but this would be a good OP referencing the PP we have. Maybe we can keep PP as is and add this as OP?
India: We are comfortable with this.
El Salvador: In the same vein as Brazil.
Turkey: I’d like to thank India for underlining an important matter. We would propose adding after ‘Drug Use Prevention’, ‘consistent with national legal systems’.
Belarus: We’d like to thank India for flexibility. We suggest keeping this as it is and that we address this in OPs.
Chair: Paragraph is left as is, we will return to it later.
Comments on OP.1
El Salvador: We’d like to add ‘scientific’ before ‘evidence based’.
Australia: A tiny editorial comment, sometimes ‘evidence based’ is hyphenated and sometimes not…
Chair: OK let’s hyphenate everywhere, thank you.
Comments on OP.2
India: I think OP.1 and 2 have addressed our previous issue, they have solved the problem for us.
Comments on OP.8
Kenya: We’d like to add ‘upon request’ after ‘technical assistance’.
Comments on OP.9
USA: Generally the budget is mentioned at the end. Can this one go last please?
Comments on new OP.9 (was OP.10)
USA: Should we request a report Executive Director of UNODC or the secretariat? We need to be consistent in who we are asking to report to us.
UNODC Secretary: It is up to member states to decide which to ask. It is a linguistic difference really.
Chair: Can we approve paragraph we previously had issue with? No comments so it is approved. We can now finalise this for the plenary, first we will hear from the chair to the Chief of Budget of UNODC.
Chief of Budget UNODC: It is thought that we have money to provide one consultant, one national professional officer to work from UNODC for 10 months, local translation of programme, data collection. It is estimated we would need $34,000 to report back on the implementation of this resolution, for the report from the UNODC. We would need extra-budgetary resources to do this.
Chair: I see no comments from the floor so this resolution is adopted.