Brazil: We had informal consultations last afternoon and we seem to have agreement on the substance of the test. We haven’t agreed to the language “women who use drugs”. IT’s pending agreement and that’s throughout the text.
Chair: Starting from the title. Comments? No? Approved…
China: We thank Brazil for her guidance through these difficult consultations. We have a problem with “women who use drugs”. This is a resolution for women and girls. In the spirit of compromise, we can agree to use the language in the text, not on the title. Drug users is more commonly used; in many important documents. Women who use drugs is not the only agreed language.
Brazil: We appreciate the flexibility. We had extensive talks yesterday. The sponsors understand the concerns and to accommodate this concern, we could work on the text of the title in agreement that further on we will be able to use “women who use drugs”, which is in the WDR and other resolutions. I can try to propose text, as long as throughout the text, as said by China, we will use this expression “women who use drugs”. The proposal follows: “…attributable to drug use among women or for women who are exposed to risk factors associated with drug use”.
Australia: We would thank all of those participating in reaching consensus. We thank the Brazilian Chair, who has been amazing in ensuring everyone has a view in the informals. We would support the title as is to ensure this is able to go forward. Where it says “among women”, we’d change the “or” for “and”.
United States: We are disappointed that we are taking away vernacular that’s commonly used but we note China’s mention to this not setting a precedent.
Norway: We thank Brazil for the resolution. We’re disappointed and surprised that we cannot agree to a title that says “women who use drugs”. We did last year. But in the spirit of compromise, we accept the amendment by Australia. We would like to see “women who use drugs” in the future.
United Kingdom: Also thank Brazil for their work and patient. I’ll echo the remarks of disappointment because of the changes in the title. But we note the remarks by China about this not setting a precedent.
Portugal: We thank the Chair and Brazil for this timely resolution we cosponsored from the start. We would prefer “women who use drugs”. It’s a consolidated concept, used last year. For the sake of compromise, we agree.
Mexico: I join others in preferring “women who use drugs”. In the spirit of flexibility, we’re fine with the amendment.
Guatemala: Regrettable we cannot find consensus on language that has been used before here and in other bodies such as the General Assembly. We support, for the title, Brazil’s flexibility and suggestion. We state that we don’t want to see this setting a precedent for future negotiations. It’d give rise to dismantling consensus we’ve established before. In Vienna, we act in the spirit of consensus. IN the spirit of that consensus, we’ll go along; but we ask this doesn’t set a precedent.
Chair: We have many people asking for the floor but we have a lot of work to do. Can we approve?
Canada: Not to delay the discussion on the title, but we underscore the importance of agreeing to this title as a compromise to keep “women who use drugs” in other parts of the text.
China: I should say, we’re in favour of the words “drug users”. In the spirit of consensus, we can accept this title. This doesn’t set a precedent for the title and the text. We accept to use “women who use drugs” for this resolution and this text. It would not set a precedent.
Chair: Can we approve?
Argentina: Briefly thank the work undertaken by Brazil and their flexibility in these difficult negotiations. We didn’t have a problem with the original title, but in the spirit of consensus, we can support the recent proposal.
Chair: Further comments or objections?
Russia: We were active in consultations. We thank Brazil for the flexibility demonstrated, the understanding showed in taking on board everyone’s positions. When we referred to the terminology, we were working under the assumption that the terminology agreed on this issue doesn’t exist. There are equivalent terms used, so it’s necessary to strike a balance in taking on board the interests of states. In this instance, the balance is reflected. Some countries wanted one term, others other term. This discussion can develop further. Russia can agree with the words “for women to use drugs” but this is not the only one consecrated CND term for other documents as well even though we’ve agreed on this.
Pakistan: Like other delegations, we’re willing to go along with this possible compromise and look forward to continue discussing this in the future.
Brazil: We thank delegations for the flexibility shown with this text, which we feel is very important. On this one, to introduce it, we changed a few things in informals and reflect exactly the title of 61/11. We’re recalling and stating its title, so it would be easy to goa long with it.
China: We can go along with it because it’s the title of last year’s. I want to mention a paragraph related to this one. OP2. We use “non-stigmatising attitudes”. We hope to use the same language of resolution title of last year that is, after “non-stigmatising attitudes”, “to ensure the availability of access and delivery of health care and social services for drug users…”
Canada: Canada had been ready to go along with PP10, even if removing the term “including women who use drugs” really doesn’t make sense in the context of a resolution about women who use drugs. However, in the spirit of consensus, we agreed to revert to agreed language to 61/11. That included OP2. The direct quote does not include the insertion suggested by my colleague from China. If this agreement is linked, then
Chair: we’re not discussing OP2, but PP10.
Canada: Canada would prefer: “including women who use drugs”.
China: We can go along with the language without “including women who use drugs”. If some insist to insert this, it would be hard to accept this paragraph.
Norway: We suggest after “drug users”, include “particularly women”.
Chair: All women, or some specific part?
Norway: It says drug users, so we’re focusing on women…as a subset.
Russia: We’re rewriting a CND resolution now. This is a PP. It shouldn’t rewrite the content of the resolution. In OP, there’s no reference to women at all. No reference to women.
Pakistan: It’s unusual to amend the title of a resolution while recalling a resolution. So we should stick to the title.
Canada: I thought we were close to consensus and I’m dismayed by the length of this discussion. Our understanding was that Brazil had brokered an understanding with all interested delegation. PP10 and OP2 would be a package. With your indulgence, we could give the floor to Brazil to recall for everyone’s information what the agreed consensus was on that sense.
Brazil: We thank everyone for their flexibility. In informals, we did agree on OP2 pending agreement on mentioning women who use drugs. Our understanding was that on OP2 when we talk about “stigmatising attitudes” was “promoting nonstigmatising attitudes, within regional context, as appropriate”. In informals, this was agreed pending the expression “women who use drugs”. Here, we could recall the resolution and I agree with Russia that, if we recall the resolution, we should recall the title. We have a mention of “stigmatising attitudes” on PP14. We would be willing to remove “stigmatising attitudes” on PP14, as requested by the Chinese delegation. But in OP2, we would like to keep the agreed formulation from last year. It includes all caveats: as appropriate, within national legislation, etc. If Chinese delegation is flexible on OP2, we can be flexible on PP2 and PP14. That was my perspective of the consultations.
Chair: Approving PP10. Comments on PP12?
Pakistan: Brazil could shed some light on PP12 alt?
Brazil: PP12 alt was an alternative we tried to present to delegations. During the informal consultations, many have expressed preference for the original text for it read the link better between sexual violence and other factors that have implications for women in acquiring HIV. We are willing to go with that text but I understand PP12 alt was a suggestion from the sponsor to capture a more streamlined way.
Egypt: We prefer PP12 alt. It works in line with what we proposed yesterday. We have no problem with the points made in the original one but reading it as it stands now, we tend to get lost and it doesn’t convey the message in the context of women who use drugs. One in 3 women experience various violence – it is an important information but it doesn’t fit here. What is important for us is that gender-based violence is more prevalent among women who use drugs in comparison to those who don’t.
Russia: We also prefer the streamlined version and believe for more information; our specialist shall read the World Drug Report. PP12 is quite long and consist of two sentences which is very atypical to resolutions. For the main purpose, we prefer PP12 alt.
Iran: we also support the alternative version.
China: We also prefer PP12 alt, it convey the message and is more concise.
Brazil: Today is the day of showing flexibility, we are willing to go along with PP12 alt. The most important message is contained in there so if delegations agree, we can adapt the alternative version.
UK: We preferred the language in the original paragraph that expresses the specific needs and concepts regarding women. However, we are happy to accept PP12 alt as long as non-stigmatizing attitudes are contained in PP14.
Chair: the text in the brackets is actually contained in the World Drug Report. Can we approve PP12 alt? No objections. Approved. Moving on to PP14.
China: We ask for the deletion of ‘stigmatizing attitudes’, we don’t understand the phrase ‘gender-based stigmatizing attitude’.
Canada: I appreciate China’s flexibility and taking their point, but seeing how important that was for UK, I propose we delete ‘gender-based’ but keep ‘stigmatizing attitudes’.
China: We believe the word discrimination covered what we mean by stigmatizing attitude so we don’t see why we need to add one more phrase. It is redundant and controversial.
Guatemala: On the outset we didn’t have an issue with this paragraph to be honest, but responding to what China said, stigmatization comes after discrimination of a person, so a person is stigmatized and then discriminated against. We are addressing this serious reality, so we believe including gender-based could be replaced with stigma. Firstly, stigmatization occurs – there is a stereotype of a person and then a reaction, a segregation happens against a person. To my understanding, these two are different concepts.
Colombia: We have a footnote referencing the World Drug Problem that includes stigmatization among women, therefore we believe it is necessary to retain this expression in this paragraph.
Uruguay: We don’t have a problem referencing the very real problems faced by women that stems only from being a certain gender. We have references to women having specific needs. We fully support the paragraph as originally submitted, including gender-based.
USA: We don’t support China’s suggestion. You can have stigma without it resulting in a discriminating act so we encourage the room to consider the text as it was originally on the screen.
Australia: We support the original text.
China: We think this resolution is mainly about women and girls but we are confused why we use stigmatizing attitude everywhere from PP10 to 14 and OP2. We already have a resolution on stigmatizing attitude from last year. All resolutions need a focus and here it is women, so we don’t understand so much attention paid to stigmatizing attitudes.
Brazil: We find ourselves in a difficult situation. I understand the mention of last year’s resolution and I also believe OP2 is very important. My delegation agrees that gender-based stigmatizing attitudes are important barriers for women to access services. We need to move on and we have many important issues to cover, we are willing to remove stigmatizing attitudes in this paragraph, but keep gender-based discrimination. We think this restricts the scope of this paragraph but if this is the message we can convey right now, then it is still very important. I ask for your flexibility going forward.
Norway: We have heard different arguments and I hope all colleagues have read the World Drug Report, specifically about women who use drugs and their limitations to access services being trapped in their network. I hope we all want to help women and can keep this concept in the operative part. We follow the lead of the co-sponsors.
Pakistan: We support Brazil’s proposal.
Mexico: This debate shows why it is so important to address stigmatization and how it’s not the same as discrimination, but I will follow the sponsor’s lead.
Argentina: Keeping stigmatization makes the paragraph more nuanced and broader in scope. We support Norway’s proposal that is for the moment to follow Brazil’s proposal and return to it once we made more progress with the text.
Netherlands: I want to echo USA and Guatemala’s statement. I understand China’s appeal to focus on women, we would prefer stigmatizing attitudes in this PP as it is very much part of the reality of women’s life.
USA: We appreciate the thought given to gender in health services for women. We follow Norway’s suggestion to come back to consider this after we progress with the text.
Colombia: For us, it’s important to include a reference to stigmatization. For the moment, we agree with Norway. I wish to emphasize that if we delete the reference here, than it is not clear how ‘gender-based’ works in the context.
Chair: We’ll come back to this.
Kenya: We feel strongly that stigmatization should be kept but will follow your lead, Chair.
Norway: brackets please
Colombia: We would like to have a footnote referencing the year when the practical guide was developed.
Chair: Approving PP15. Moving on to PP18.
Pakistan: We are fine with the language but there is a sentence my delegation introduced yesterday that we haven’t heard opposition against – I propose we keep that sentence.
Kenya: We prefer ‘drug-related’ instead of ‘drug-facilitated’ crime.
USA: We requested the text to be kept as it was originally introduced that is inclusive of all of our context. The caveat that Pakistan is trying to call out […]. I have the same view as Kenya and would like this to stay as originally drafted.
Chair: May I ask the room to discuss the point raised by Kenya about ‘drug-facilitated’ crimes?
Kenya: Sorry we were not at the informals and not understand ‘facilitated’ but we would like the language to be changed.
Brazil: I am trying to look into it and I concur with the USA that it was agreed at 61/4 and we imported it from a previous resolution. If any other delegations would like to help me in looking it this, that would be great but we have no problem with Kenya’s suggestion.
Pakistan: We thought this was important to bring in because when you read the first part of the paragraph, you will need to understand that even when states would like to allocate more resources, they have obstacles. So I don’t see what is difficult of this factual statement, it was agreed to in the past. I don’t want to drag the discussion if it’s difficult for the room to understand so we can accept the previous text.
Brazil: We would like to ask the UNODC to provide clarification on ‘drug-facilitated’ crime.
UNODC: Drug-related are related to the drug use and facilitated is about inhibitions and potentially violent act. Which one to choose, I can’t say… facilitated might indicate misbehavior.
Russia: To follow-up on Pakistan’s proposal, we think a slight amendment in the first line could be helpful: talking about social-economic factors.
Guatemala: When we speak about facilitation, that happened to a great degree in the 80’s when drugs were put into foods and drinks that led to crimes being committed. There is a clear difference here.
Netherlands: We prefer the para as it was but maybe bringing back ‘lack of sufficient resources’ and remove ‘allocated’.
Chair: My understanding this is that the text has been agreed on in informals yesterday. We have been discussing this for 15 minutes.
Iran: The issue about the caveat regarding social barriers, we think talking about poverty is a bit far from the main idea so we prefer ‘socio-economic’ issues.
Egypt: I try to provide some language to address concerns in the room. Instead of ‘lack of sufficient resources’ what if we say ‘challenge that faces member states in mobilizing’?
Brazil: Can we ask delegations if they would oppose Egypt’s proposal? This is paragraph we feel strongly about and we would like to move along so just please consult about the progress, there is no point for further informals.
France: We are flexible, nonetheless there seems to be a grammatical error in Egypt’s proposal ‘challenge faced by member states’ or ‘challenge that member states face’.
Canada: We support the text as it stands now.
USA: We support the text but would like to keep the broader term of ‘social barriers’.
Chair: Approved. Moving on to first operative paragraph. Any comments? Is the room ready to agree? OP1 approved.
Brazil: (…) ‘promote non-stigmatizing attitudes’ – some delegations have difficulties in changing that but when we talk about promoting non-stigmatizing attitudes, it seems fairer to the original language and we could see if MS have the flexibility. Combining this with PP14, we could remove the langue from there as a fair compromise.
Originally, the text said ‘drug users’ which we proposed to be changed to ‘women and girls who use drugs’. If delegations feel very strongly about ‘drug users’ than we can say ‘including women and girls who use drugs’.
Canada: Just a technical question, are proposing to reinsert the strike-out text?
Brazil: Yes, from 61/11 and we are willing to be flexible to accept the language from last year.
China: I don’t understand because to ‘ensure the availability of access’ is a very general language and for the development of any policies, it’s up to states to decide how to do it so I don’t see why it has to be explicitly here. We insist the use of ‘ensure’.
Belgium: We support Brazil’s proposal but would like to include a comma to make it clearer. We don’t support China’s proposal.
Canada: Just to shortly explain the inclusion… We are cognizant of the excellent efforts of the sponsors in bringing the room to a balanced approach and an important component of that is retaining the agreed language about the development and implementation of scientific evidence-based policies. This also relates to PP10 and part of the reason we agreed to previous amendments.
China: Yes I understand this paragraph similarities to resolution 61/7 from last year, but I believe this is a new resolution and we don’t need to borrow word by word from last year. I think if we read this resolution and know there is a linkage to that resolution, but for a new resolution I think we must only have the main ideas that are important to this new resolution, we do not need to copy the word from another resolution and I’m not sure how long this may go on for.
Brazil: In development in related, it’s very difficult to say we don’t want to adopt scientific evidence based policies, it is our goal here to implement scientific based evidence, but my question and I know delegate of China had request ‘to ensure’ to create that link but to keep development, so to ensure scientific development based research. Would this cover the Chinese concern? We have made great flexibility to cover concerns of other delegates, so I would really encourage China to go along with this paragraph and in context which is important to allow women to access treatment
Russia: Is it worth referencing here and is it appropriate amongst all agencies, non-stigmatizing attitudes to ensure in the development and scientific based policies, the available and access to health and social services. I believe this idea is clear and we need to provide accessibility and deliverability of services. This is in mind when we develop the policies, the word ensure should also be there. With regard to drug users, our preference would be to stick with language and include women and girls, and when we say who sue drugs its already clear we’re talking about women and girls
Canada: I just wanted to come back to the matter of drugs users, the balance and potential consensus that was strike last night had to deal with women and girls who use drugs. So what I would propose healthcare and social service for women and girls who use drugs for consistency throughout the resolution
Mexico: We request the floor because we felt we were close to an agreement and recognising starting the paragraph with encourages, and simply by saying eliminating scientific based evidence, at this point we’re quite lost in terms of the proposals, so what is the apparent consensus on the issue?
Uruguay: Uruguay wishes to support the proposal made by Brazil, I think that the delegate of Brazil has been sufficiently flexible taking account all positions and in this paragraph which is a sign where appropriate and in line with regional/national context, I believe that the sponsor to whom we’ve very grateful shows such flexibility and we should also show flexibility
Pakistan: We seek out proposals made by Russia, the national and regional context can solve the problem, as the phrase appropriate is already relevant.
UK: we already conceded on this text, and find it slightly dishonest that countries have continued to change the language, despite conceding language to the title.
USA: Our intervention is aimed at discussing to ensure addition, essential the addition changes the context in this paragraph, as we have the idea of promoting non stigmatizing attitudes to scientific purposes. To add ensure it modifies something different which is just scientific based policies. We would like to maintain the initial language so that non-stigmatising is linked to scientific based policies.
Kenya: I have seen that the delegation for Brazil has consulted China, I am happy to hear their discussion before I speak
Norway: I want to wait, we can go along with the text as it is.
Brazil: Include women who use drugs or are exposed to risk factors so I would like to retain that, given that we do have different understandings of the concept that we have, we retain drugs users, but also retain the other mention throughout the text, we believe it conveys the message. Regarding the text I would like to ask the main concern here is from the Chinese delegation regarding the text, I’d like to consult them if they’d be willing to go along with the agreed text for the resolution, otherwise were going to have some problems trying to change, so first I would like to change that and change with the Chinese delegation keeping national/regional context, so we should go along with this text and therefore we would be willing to go along with removing stigmatising’ and therefore I would like to see if we could agree.
China: I understand this is not our best choice but I can sense the feeling of the room and if no one else has objection to this, we can go along with this.
Chair: OP2 and PP14 approved. Moving on to OP2. Adopting OP2. Moving on to OP3. Brazil the floor is yours to clarify the phrases in brackets.
Brazil: Now that we have an agreement and a title that accommodates everyone’s concerns, we can go along with the text as proposed.
Chair: OP3 approved. OP5 – there is also a bracket here, Brazil.
Brazil: Similar case, we can unbracket it as agreed in informals.
Chair: OP5 approved. Moving on to OP6 bis.
Brazil: Just to give context, this was inserted during informals. It has an important component and came from 61/4 but we were not able to agree so I am asking delegations if they go along with it?
Russia: My delegation has difficulties including it here because we believe this is not so much related to the topic of post-exposure prophylaxis.
Brazil: As I said in informals, we are supportive of this paragraph but we don’t see it as essential to this resolution. We propose this to be deleted and I request the delegations who proposed and supported to understand that we think that in the context of this resolution, with lack of consensus, this is not essential to be included.
Canada: In the spirit of compromise, we are able to go along with the suggestion but it would help us if we could consider OP8 before we make the final decision here.
Chair: If we link paragraphs together, we will not move forward. Is the room ready to delete this paragraph?
Norway: With all respect, we don’t fully agree with Russia, we would like to keep this. In the spirit of compromise, we are willing to work on OP8 and follow the suggestion of Canada.
Chair: The sponsor of this resolution also proposed, not just Russia.
Guatemala: We don’t have a position in favor or against, however, out of respect for the sponsors, the drafters, those who proposed the resolution, we need to show flexibility. We heard from delegations how this would be helpful for their work so if Brazil, the main penholder here, is requesting us to delete this para and decide that enough changes have been made, then out of respect… I don’t want to see any stubbornness, this I am putting forward not necessarily as Guatemala but in the spirit of CND. We could be going down a dangerous route that we shouldn’t get into today. We would like to support the proposal of Brazil.
Holy See: As we stated in the informal statements in this paragraph we would support Russia to delete it.
Argentina: I don’t think I can match the elegance of Guatemala’s language, bt we support Guatemala and we support the main drafter Brazil for this resolution.
Chair: My understanding is that this paragraph to delegates it is not essential, if it is we should continue to fight for it. Saving another paragraph does not work, we have linked others and I think this is enough for this draft resolution. Is the room okay to agree on the deletion of this paragraph. No objection, this is approved and I thank the flexibility of the delegation.
Chair: Is there any comment on this paragraph, can we approve this paragraph, I see no objection, it is approved
Brazil: I think regarding the first bracket it is the same solution so we can accept the text, this is a text we’ve worked a lot yesterday and reached a solution regarding health clinics and thank the delegates for flexibility. When we discussed the inclusion of emergency contraception in line with national legislation, this intervention is particularly relevant, in other paragraphs we were able to work through it and have flexibility. But in the specific flexibility this a particular mention and I do explain that in cases where women have drugs that the access post exposure and emergency contraception are relevant and recommended and on the UNODC guide, to allow for sufficient flexibility we did include in accordance with national legislation this does allow for sufficient flexibility when applying those measures. Some delegates said they have to consult and I would like to propose we keep this language and I would like to see if the delegates who need to consult are happy to go along, albeit we have a strong emphasis on national legislation flexibility.
Egypt: Unfortunately we still cannot go along with the paragraph as it stands, what we can offer instead of emergency contraception’s and other scientifically based measures in accordance with national legislation. So, I believe this gives room for everyone to see what measures they apply in their country and try to apply that.
Russia: My delegation was among those who resolved the position on this, we consulted ministry of health and they are not comfortable in mentioning specifically contraception. First, sharing of injection and or women who have been sexually assaulted, if women what do they need emergency contraception for? Second, if a woman would like to remain pregnant there are many specificities and we are providing one solution that the Egyptian proposal covers to see delegates to implement additional interventions envisaged in the UNODC guideline we can call it the measures and interventions, my delegation would be happy to go along with the Egyptian proposal.
Guatemala: This time I’ll try to be more brief, my delegation have no problem with this at the beginning and in accordance with national legislation, Egypt’s proposal is not bad for us though could be problematic for others, however not be clear I’m not a doctor I don’t know if there are measures, services, options or medical alternatives, Chair I am not a doctor I’m not sure what the right term might be, but as said by Russia, that could be right I’m not sure, I’m not sure whether its measures, options or alternatives.
China: I want to express our support to the Egyptian proposal we believe it is a better addition to the paragraph
Ecuador:We would prefer the original text submitted by Brazil, however we could accept the proposal of Egypt, if after measures we include emergency contraception.
Belgium: We see merits in the proposal made by Egypt in searching for a compromise, but we want to suggest and other scientific evidence based measures and to add initiatives because we consider for example information towards women who use drugs on the availability of emergency services, it is not just a measure but a broader initiative.
Brazil: The additions by Belgium could work, otherwise I can made a different proposal.
Norway: We would have preferred the original language here, we see there can be a range of measures that could be useful, for example counselling could help other types of support which may not branch under scientific based, so maybe we should say other relevant measures to broaden the caring aspects that should be used here.
Iran: We do support the proposal made by the Egyptian colleague
El Salvador: My delegation can support the proposal made by Egypt, Belgium and Norway but we would prefer if emergency contraception was deleted.
USA: We believe it would best enjoy consensus and could support it if the whole bracketed area as the CND is not the body to get into what is scientific based measures on this topic.
Brazil: We try to consult with a few delegation, and we do think the proposal by the US could work, so we could remove the rest and keep in accordance with national legislation which is the focus of the resolution, avoid the other measures and concepts to which are not familiar.
Canada: Canada feels the reference is most relevant because we’re specifically talking about emergency health services yet very respectful of our Brazilian delegates, Canada could go along with the Brazilian proposal.
Holy See: We would also stand ready for the proposal just put forward by brazil
Germany: We respect the decision made, for one question with national accordance of law, this in my understanding was related to emergency contraception, but now if we still have in the text where possible my question is therefore can delete in accordance with national legislation but this to my understanding was related to emergency contraception.
Brazil: I think this proposal could work, in accordance with national legislation in line with emergency contraception, but we would like to see the feeling of the room and emergency contraception, if we can remove it we believe its better otherwise we could go along.
Guatemala: I’ve been thinking about this paragraph a great deal and I might be overthinking it. For us, the problem revolves around emergency contraception. We see merit in the amendments but we are saying ‘taking into account national legislation’ is very important as we are calling upon MS and also taking into account all UN documents. I am not in a position to state our view on this, I would need to refer back to our capital. Brazil doesn’t have a problem with the caveat but for some its important to apply these UN documents with our national legislation. I know these are not binding or need to be applied immediately but we note them in CND documents that give them a certain legality, so we could possibly add that. This is one of the few resolutions where we have been in the room really trying to ensure this is in line with our national policies.
Ecuador: In light of the change just made, we wound not like to prolong the discussion, but it would be beneficial to include ‘other emergency measures’ so not to only speak about contraception but include a broader scope.
Belgium: In the spirit of compromise we support Brazil but it is the 2nd time in this resolutin1sidscussiont hat we question scientific evidence-base which really concerns us.
Norway: We would like to see on the screen ‘other emergency measures’.
USA: We would really like to revert to where Brazil last left it with ‘post-exposure …’ and leaving ‘with accordance to national legislation’. It is really late in the final day so we support Brazil in the initiative.
Germany: As we said and clearly described earlier today by Guatemala, we recommend to follow the suggestions of the sponsor and not open a shopping list as we are approaching the end of the conference. In order to accommodate Guatemala, a small change could be helpful [grammar].
Mexico: At the beginning of this discussion, the main sponsor gave a thorough recollection of all discussions and bilateral encounters. It was accurate and demonstrated this discussions has been exhausted. These discussions now show the same. We’re ready to go along the sponsor on this issue reflecting the way she’s conducted this process herself, approaching everyone and including everyone.
Chair: Agreement? Approved.
Chair: Comments? Can we approve? Approved.
Brazil: We’re on the last one now! Just to provide context. It was included a couple of days ago and we worked on this. During informals we managed to reach an agreement on the text. Some delegations asked to bracket it to consult and see if it was acceptable for them. So, I would ask the room if they can accept this now.
Chair: Ready to agree? Agreed.
Mexico: Simply to congratulate Brazil and join the list of cosponsors of the resolution.
Brazil: Thank you to Mexico and the Chair for your efforts. I thank all delegations for their flexibility and support.
Norway: Norway brought resolutions before on HIV and drug use and are extremely happy that Brazil did too this year. We would support this resolution as cosponsors.
Kenya: This is a topic we hold dearly and we would like to cosponsor.
Argentina: Also wish to cosponsor.
Ecuador: Also wish to cosponsor.
Switzerland: Also wish to cosponsor.
Dominican Republic: Also wish to cosponsor.
Chair: We have other draft resolutions, so please express co-sponsorship in the Plenary.
Financial resources committee: We draw your attention to OP10. Extra-budgetary resources in the amount XXXXX dollars to increase capacity for the provision of capacity-building. No implications to the regular budget.
Chair: Transmitted to the Plenary.
Chair: Now we consider draft 1 of this resolution.
Russia: We tried to bring our text closer to consensus and organised more informal debates, so I suggest to move quicker through our resolution we start with operative paragraph two, all the other which have been agreed in the Informal’s, the to the final paragraph and close then.
Chair: No we consider operative paragraph two, can we approve this paragraph I see no objection it is approved.
Russia: This paragraph was proposed by a number of delegations which is now OP2, and we agreed on the language in the informal’, so that is the explanation.
Russia: As my colleague stated, this text was proposed by other delegations and not Russia, and I believe this can be made better. At the end of the first line there sis a suggestion to improve coordination, it looks the current level of coordination is not satisfactory, which I do not think corresponds to reality. My proposal would be to change improve for facilitate coordination, it is more polite and much better. The paragraph will read… This may exercise some difficulty with language and therefore can accept this paragraph.
Netherlands: Thank you to the Russian ambassador for his suggestion, reading the suggestion we understand what Russia are saying and we would perhaps replace facilitate by further strengthen to be polite to the INCB.
Chair: Can we approve this paragraph, I see no objection it is approved.
USA: Just a small edit comment, I believe in our conventions we have parties not states parties, so instead ‘urge parties’ to consider further.
Russia: I would like to ask a qualification from the UN colleagues I do not understand what is wrong with state parties, and parties should start with a capital letter. All delegates are state parties.
USA: In these conventions the text refers to the parties, the parties shell I do not believe we do not have any non-states that are parties. So in this one it’s only parties and that is to remain faithful to the text in our three documents