Australia: Our resolution seeks to look at capability-building in the area of supply-reduction, particularly forensics. Primarily on health and safety, community protection and disposal. Hence references to information sharing. We have had good engagement in two informal sessions (Wednesday morning, and earlier today). Some text included now. All but two occasions agreed.
Chair: Let’s consider the title, followed PP and the OP. Let’s consider the title.
Title
Germany: We’d like to change the title as follows: “synthetic drugs for nonmedical use”.
Chair: Can we agree on that? Ok, thank you. We move to the preambular paragraphs.
PP1
Germany: Again, “synthetic drugs for nonmedical use”. And we propose deleting “and use of…”.
Title
United States: On the title, there’s a very small change. Instead of identification capacity for synthetic drugs for nonmedical use. It should be “of synthetic drugs for nonmedical use”.
PP2
Germany: Again, second line of PP2 “synthetic drugs for nonmedical use”.
PP3
United States: This looks like new text; we’d ask to bracket this. I don’t recall seeing this language so I’d ask where this came from.
Australia: The original statement started as “recalling”. We didn’t “recall” the language of 54/6 accurately; so now we’ve introduced the accurate language in 54/6 for it to actually be “recalled.
United States: Then let’s keep it bracketed. We would ask for a date about this report to be provided as the INCB has more than one report about access to controlled medicines (2011, 2018).
Australia: We’re very happy for it to be bracketed and welcome an insertion of reference for the new text.
INCB: I’m not able to provide comments on this at the moment.
PP4
Russia: In this paragraph, we quote the resolution. We can be flexible but as far as we know, the number of identified new substances has decreased now. So, we could remove the “large number” and keep “reporting on new psychoactive substances”.
Australia: We would have to make sure we are not changing existing text. If we are “recalling”, we cannot change existing text.
PP5
Chair: Agreed. We move to the next.
PP6
Chair: is there any further comments on PP6
Kenya: we support the amendment – however, the 3rd line from the bottom please take out “in”
Chair: Thank you, we move onto PP7
PP7
Pakistan: A small point of clarification, what do we mean by the phrase “and other personnel”
Australia: in the context of being on the frontline it includes first responders as well as law enforcement
Chair: PP7 approved, move to the next preamble paragraph
PP8
Mexico: we would wish to include a new element – we would like to reference controlled substances in terms of medicinal use – include from (a) the recommendations on ensuring and the availability of controlled substances exclusively for scientific and medical purposes, while preventing their diversion, then from (b) the recommendations on supply reduction.
Australia: given that this is all recalling language from the general assembly document we are unable to change the language can Mexico confirm is it ok with the language used in the general assembly
Pakistan: in the title we have inserted for non-medical purposes – I would like to flag whether it would be acceptable to include Mexico’s amendments because of this
Mexico: Yes, this is my mistake, we do not want to change the title. Our intention is to address the demand, not only the supply reduction but we are happy for the language to come from the UNGASS statement.
PP9, 10, 11, 12
Chair: PP9: No comments on paragraph. PP10: No comments. PP11: No comments. PP12:
Pakistan: One element missing – issue of technical assistance – Insert line 2: states, ‘in particular in developing countries.’
Germany: Last line: insert ‘inter alia’ – synth opioids are just a part of the preview.
Chair: Can we agree.
Iran: First line: add in precursor ‘diversion and’ trafficking.
USA: ‘reaffirming’ outcomes and benefits? This is more of an observation, think we should use ‘acknowledging’
Finland: use ‘counter’ instead of ‘combat’
Germany: we agree with Finland.
PP13
Chair: 3 amendments – can we move on? Yes. PP13:
Germany: ‘combatting’ should be changed to ‘countering’
PP14, 15
Chair: agree on PP14? Yes. PP15:
Germany: insert second line: synthetic drugs ‘for non-medical use’. Insert ‘in some regions’ in last night – overdose deaths not a global situation.
PP16, 17
Chair: Do we agree? Yes. PP16. Yes. PP17:
Pakistan: We do not see relevance of stigma here, preference to use original language.
Germany: last line insert opioids ‘for non-medical use’
Russia: We agree with Pakistan – stigma awareness is not directly relevant here. Australia, where did you get the language on gender perspective on training staff.
Singapore: Support Pakistan and Russia.
Canada: Happy for Australia to comment, can propose alternative language on stigma.
Japan: Word stigma is unclear for us, word is not established internationally.
USA: Stigma resolution last year – stigma poses barriers to treatment. To move forward – use new Canadian language and use ‘as relevant and appropriate’
Japan: Of course, we agreed that last year we adopted this resolution on non-stigmatising attitudes to ensure the availability of Access and delivery of healthcare. In this resolution, stigmatisation is described in detail. In this one, the world “stigma” is unclear. So we request the deletion of this word.
Iran: We would also like to remove the reference to stigmatisation. The word is not in line with the entirety of the resolution, which is about forensic detection capabilities and treatment.
Australia: In respect to the use of language “human rights” perspective and “gender” perspective. This is language that is prominent in the Outcome Document and resolution 59/5. So it should remain.
Canada: Stigma awareness is a concept that has been elaborated on. So perhaps we can make it explicit here. We have talked about border guard and control; so it’s in the frame of this. The 2009 Political Declaration, in para X, member states call upon appropriate training…based on scientific evidence and that are ethical and that attitudes are, inter alia, “non-stigmatising”. So, we can recall the 2009 Political Declaration. I’d be happy to work with delegations to achieve agreement on this.
Chair: Given the differences, should we put this in brackets and move on?
OP1
Germany: “for nonmedical use”
Pakistan: Insert, after the words “to take” a comma and introduce “as appropriate”.
OP2
Brazil: I suggest, at the end, “harmful effects” instead of “adverse effects”.
Pakistan: We see that the text is “agreed in informals” but some text is not agreed. So what are we considering?
Australia: The brackets refer to the title of the document. It was guideline instead of guide.
United States: Instead of “in accordance with”, to “as described in”.
Colombia: Taking into consideration the explanation by Australia about naloxone, perhaps let’s consider this as “by considering the provision of naloxone in order to prevent overdoses”.
Australia: To address the query on disposal; we linked it deliberately. The publication in italics deals with the different contexts so it would address that query made by the delegate of Kenya. Just a point, naloxone does not prevent overdose, it reverses. We would change to “in order to respond to overdose”.
Russia: I would like to propose an editorial. Instead of “affected”, use “provision of naloxone to frontline officers exposed to such drugs in order to response to overdose”.
Kenya: Our concern still requires addressing.
Australia: The publication referred to about safe handling contains a mechanism by which we can apply measures depending on the national context.
Iran: In the 3rd line, we would propose “border control officers and other relevant personnel”.
United States: This is getting a bit complex so perhaps we should bracket the whole text and let us think best how to address this. Naloxone does not work on all synthetic drugs, just opioids. So, rather than saying “exposed to such drugs”, we should say “exposed to synthetic opioids” in order to respond.
Singapore: A proposed amendment. We don’t have a strong feeling but it feels it doesn’t make sense logically. On the 6th line, “exposed to synthetic opioids in order to respond to overdose. It should be “accidental exposure” as it sounds like the officers are taking drugs. And to delete the word “overdose”.
Australia: My understanding is that we seem to be very close to getting agreement, so unless there’s a specific identified reason to bracket this, my understanding is that through negotiations now we seem to be getting to a point where this language could be accepted.
Chair: Thank you Australia, is there any comment on the paragraph that has been amended?
Canada: Can we simplify the language in the 5th line – delete “in order to respond to accidental exposure”
USA: our intent to bracket was not an attempt to slow things down but we feel it cobbles together a number of ideas such as access and exposure, but we do not want to stand in the way of the room.
Chair: what do the delegates think?
Finland: I am having trouble understanding the naloxone part (…)
Iran: we propose “to ensure frontline officers are trained, equipped and protected against synthetic opioids”
Australia: Thank you Iran, the problem is there are a number of synthetic drugs, where this is on the specific issue of synthetic opioids – unfortunately I don’t think this helps – I ask we go back to the language we just had as we should say we are training officers for dealing with synthetic drugs and then go on specifically to speak about synthetic opioids in relation to naloxone
USA: Perhaps a way forward would be to say such measures may include the provision of naloxone to frontline officers who are accidentally exposed to synthetic opioids and measures addressing the disposal of those drugs
Chair: Can we agree on this?
Australia: In the last line can we rephrase and put, “harmful effects to those substances”.
Germany: (Missed)
Guatemala: (Missed) (Removed two “and’s” in relation to Germanys amendment)
OP3
Chair: Is there any comment on this paragraph?
Colombia: Is the English expression “enhancing” appropriate? Maybe it would be better to use the term increasing?
USA: Please add to line 3 – limit the exposure to frontline officers “AND other relevant personnel”
UK: (Missed)
Chair: OP3 approved. Do we have any comments on OP4?
OP4
Canada: If we include “synthetic” in the last line, before “drugs”.
USA: Please add “for non-medical use” and take out “illicit”
Chair: Is there any more amendments to this paragraph? Can we agree? OP4 agreed.
OP5
Chair: Any comments?
USA: For consistencies sake – drop ‘illicit’ add ‘synthetic’ … ‘for non-medical use’
Chair: Other comments?
OP6
Pakistan: 6th line suggestion, insert: strengthen, ‘upon request,’
Chair: Other suggestions?
OP7
Chair: Last paragraph – any suggestions? Approved. 3 paragraphs are pending to be finalised. I recommend conversations to continue between delegations.