Pakistan: Informals are from 11:30 to 1:30. We were told that Belarus has co-signed the list of co-sponsors. We will start from OP3. we can clean this paragraph while keeping “drug user/ abuser”.

 

US: Just a question about regarding national stakeholders, I would think we’d want international stakeholder to be available if they needed UNODC help, for example. Can we put ‘international after national’?

 

Canada: We would like to add “evidence-based”, in front of “prevention programs”

 

Australia: We’ve had strong debate in the past so, can we add “scientific-based evidence practice”

 

Pakistan: We have no difficulty with the wording proposed by Australia. And we fully recognise that some states would need UNODC help and for that we have a standalone paragraph.

 

Chair: So as the paragraph stands, can we adopt this paragraph? We can adopt that, and go to the next paragraph.

 

Pakistan: There were no concerns on OP4.

 

Char: I see no objections. On to OP5

 

Pakistan: No concern on this paragraph.

 

Chair: Any comments? And we can move on to paragraph 6

 

Pakistan: As discussed just now, there is now no problem with this paragraph.

 

Chair: We now move on to the next paragraph.

 

Pakistan: These are new paragraphs, and the language is clear, so we can agree this one hopefully.

 

Chair:I see no requests, so we can endorse that. Now on to new OP7

 

Pakistan: I request we skip this as it is new language, so let’s move onto 8. Turkey suggested replacing “interventions” for “initiatives”.

 

Chair: that is endorsed. Now onto 9

 

Pakistan: One language issue: delete “tailor made” as we have reflected it in “evidence based”

 

Chair: So 9?

 

Pakistan: Member states supported the idea in this, only disagreement in the details. If we go along and keep it general, delete phrase “reconvence” and discuss later.

 

Mexico: We would like to change “thematic discussion…” and the rest of the para would remain.

 

US: We have a comment on OP8 with your permission – thank you. Add “including the use of the universal prevention curriculum” at the end.

 

Chair: Any comments on that?

 

Spain: No position on that, as we don’t know what the curriculum is?

 

US: It is an evidence based training curriculum that is supported by several delegations in many regions of the world.

 

Ecuador: I’d like to include: “academic and scientific community” after “civil society organisations”.

 

Spain: We would propose adding “including the use of” before the US’ suggestion.

 

Iran: I’m not sure about the US’ curriculum, so can we add “as appropriate” after this phrase?

 

Brazil: We were not aware of this curriculum, so we’d like to see it if the US can provide details. So for the moment can we put this phrase in brackets.

 

Chair: Let’s move on to 9

 

Uruguay: We’d like to support the proposal to continue to discuss these during the 62nd session as suggested by Mexico.

 

Iran: Add “drug use and abuse” in line 5, paragraph 9.

 

Pakistan: We can go along with Mexico’s suggestions.and finalise the rest of the paragraph.

 

Chair: It is endorsed. On to paragraph 10. No comments so we can endorse it. On to 11.

 

Uruguay: We have an amendment: 3rd line to change “63rd” to “62nd”.

 

Canada: We agree with Uruguay since the 63rd would take us beyond 2019.

 

Pakistan: We proposed this to give member states time, as one year is not enough. But we can accept this if it’s critical.

 

Chair: That is agreed as amended.

 

Pakistan: Can we consider OP7 bis?

 

Canada: We’d like to add “scientific evidence based” before “curriculum”

 

Germany: Treatment should not take place in educational settings, so delete treatment.

 

US: We’d recommend changing “requires” to “requests”

 

Australia: You don’t have curriculum for treatment, and we agree that it doesn’t belong in an educational setting.

 

Chair: Comments? Can we endorse? It is agreed as bracketed. Is that alright Pakistan? New OP 7 ter

 

Iraq: I would to add an OP. “Urges Member states to increase the availability, coverage and quality of scientific evidence based prevention measures and tools in multiple settings reaching children and youth in school through drug abuse prevention programs and public awareness raising campaigns including if possible the use of internet, social media, and other online platforms to develop and implement prevention curricula and early intervention programmes for us in the education system at all levels.” We are open to any amendments to the paragraph.

 

Chair: Before I invite comments, I go back to OP7ter. Ecuador.

 

Ecuador: There is this rationale – anything to do with faith is already covered in education. We have a secular state and religious matters are relegated to the private sphere, so it is not appropriate to include faith in this manner.

 

Spain: We agree with Ecuador. Private issues should be set aside.

 

Australia: We have a similar view to those expressed.

 

Canada: We have serious reservations about this paragraph also.

 

US: We also think faith based organisation have a role to play, but hold a similar view. Could we take the new OP and in the 3 line delete “in schools” and replace with “in multiple settings”

 

France: I agree with Canada, Australia and Ecuador.

 

Brazil: The issue of faith is reflected in OP3 when we talk about all stakeholders so I think that’s enough to include religious authorities in drug prevention.

 

Iraq: Some religious scholars play a key part, they have influence and could contribute.

 

Iran: Regarding the new OP we have no problem. We propose “cause” instead of “urges”

 

Australia: We too recognise faith has a role, but I thought the US suggestion was a good way of resolving this issue.

 

Vietnam: we have a little issue with the spiritual based programmes. We would like to discuss with Malaysia, should be in a bracket until they are here in the room.

 

Ecuador: After including ‘as appropriate’

 

Canada: with regards to second line we would like to ‘add gender-based.’

 

Australia: thank you Iraq, but the second half seems to be outside of school educational settings, so it broadens the intent of the resolution. For low prevalence drug use running mass media campaigns can make drug use worse. We need to look at it in the context suggested by Canada that indicates mass media campaigns may not be appropriate for low level drug use.

 

Malaysia: Thank you. My intervention is for OP7, we would like the paragraph to be bracketed until we can justify later.

 

UK: to concur with my Australian colleague in regards to the new OP. We believe it will open up restriction of the entire resolution. We encourage this paragraph not to be included in the text so we invite it to be in square brackets.

 

Pakistan: My colleagues have made valid observations. We have tried to be flexible to all concerns. This resolution has a specific focus, not about children and youth in general, of which there are many resolutions. The original draft made that clear. I urge colleagues to stick to the focus in order to finalise the text.

 

Chair: suggest we move to L5

 

Iraq: A brief comment. If using the internet is too sensitive, we are flexible.