Home » Resolution L5. Development and dissemination of the International Standards of Treatment of Drug Use Disorders

Resolution L5. Development and dissemination of the International Standards of Treatment of Drug Use Disorders

Mexico: L8. Working actively to finalise this resolution.

Germany: L.10. There will be another informal from 1pm – 3pm. So we will present it to the CoW this afternoon.

Australia: L.13. We’re making excellent progress, and it should be ready this afternoon.

Chair: Let’s go through L.5. now, picking up where we left off yesterday.


L.5. Development and dissemination of the International Standards of Treatment of Drug Use Disorders


US: Include term “effective practices” rather than “evidence-based or scientific” to help with compromise.

Egypt: That’s fine by us.

Chair: PP11 agreed.


Egypt: Change to “a compendium of recommendations” rather than “evidence-based or scientific” again.

US: We can accept this language. Thank you.

Russia: Propose “which is a compendium of scientific evidence-based recommendations”.

US: We prefer this if the group is amenable.


Egypt: The same in the third line: we can take out the part on “scientific, evidence-based”.

Chair: I see no objections.


Egypt: We do not like the language on budgetary availability and resources. We’d rather just use the standard line in OP8.

US: Excluding this text from OP2 is fine by us, given the text in OP8.

Russia: Take out “other” in second line.

Chair: Good, thank you.


Egypt: Remove the line about budgetary resources again. And the term to “provide guidance” – we usually say “provide technical assistance”.


Egypt: Insert “to consider to” before “initiate”.

Chair: I see no comments. That change is fine.

OP4 bis

Egypt: Stop after “effective responses to drug use disorders”.

Australia: Maybe just say “as part of a comprehensive approach” – so remove “public health”.

US: We’d prefer to keep “comprehensive public health approach”, since this OP does concern specifically the role of the WHO, which is limited to health.

Egypt: How about “WHO, within its mandate, to…”.

Chair: Then we can leave it as “comprehensive approach”.

Russia: The concept of disorder includes dependence, so we’re happy with that.

OP5: No comments

OP5 bis

Egypt: Add “in close collaboration with member states” at end of OP.

Chair: Fine, I see no objection.


Egypt: I see in the second line the part about improving the skills of policymakers. I don’t think we can really do this, so let’s remove that and include text on improving their capacity.

Chair: Fine, I see nodding.

OP7: No comments.

OP8: No comments.

Egypt: There was a question over one part of an earlier PP. May I just consult with my US colleague? 

Chair: Yes, that is fine. Let’s take 5 minutes.


US: My distinguished colleague from Egypt has brought it to our attention that PP8 that mentions WHO is redundant, as WHO is mentioned throughout the text. We think it’s fine to strike the text of PP8 entirely.

Colombia: It’s a problem for Colombia to delete this paragraph. I think we should strengthen the reference to human beings – they are at the centre of this resolution, and they should be emphasised.

Egypt: Let’s stop after “obligations” in that case, so it retains a mention of human beings.

Norway: We would like to co-sponsor this resolution.

Chair: Very pleased to hear that. This is the first resolution that we are passing in the COW. So well done.


UNODC: There are financial implications to this resolution. An estimated $1.3 million would be required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *