Committee of the Whole (Thursday morning). L4. Promoting measures to prevent and treat viral hepatitis C among people who use drugs

Chair: Happy new year to those who celebrate

Norway: Thank you everyone for time yesterday – 3 outstanding PPs and title left. Let’s first agree to paragraphs agreed in informals.

PPs on 2019 Ministerial Declaration

USA: Thank you Norway – combine PPs on Min Dec statements.

Belgium: Amendment for last line – add ‘continue to fall short of meeting needs’

Chair: Paragraph approved. Skip PP3 and come back to it as it hasn’t been agreed on yet.


Russia: In informals, we could agree with proposal to include non-applicable language on harm reduction

Chair: Wrong paragraph – we’re on the World Drug Report paragraph, we are coming back to that one as it wasn’t agreed in informals.

China: CND is not the appropriate place to commend anti-AIDS interventions like harm reduction.

Chair: Wrong paragraph – we’re on the WDR paragraph. Can we agree on this paragraph – yes.


Chair: Can we agree on this one? Yes


Chair: No objections – approved


Chair: This one’s already approved.


Chair: Approved


Chair: Approved


Norway: One technical thing: delete ‘antiretroviral’ replace with ‘antiviral’

Chair: See no objections – approved


Chair: OP3 agreed yesterday


Egypt: We are fine with it – would like to recommend, after infection ‘and welcomes efforts made by MS in this regard’

Czech Republic: Technical comment – screening tests, screening programs? Screening programs should be mentioned here

Colombia: Taking into account will of each person – suggest to add ‘in accordance with national legislation’ thank you

Australia: We prefer the original text, removing ‘programs’ – voluntary screening involves more than just a program

Chair: Any more suggestions for improving the paragraph, I think it’s approved enough.

Japan: Delete ‘welcome efforts’

Kenya: We weren’t in informals but treasure this resolution – we are co-sponsoring. Move ‘in accordance …’ to immediately after MS. Delete ‘efforts of MS’

Egypt: We don’t want to delete our suggestion.

Norway: WHO recognizes the efforts made by MS such as Egypt, please add ‘and acknowledge the efforts’

Colombia: Issue of encouraging should be in line with national legislation.

Chair: I also think it’s logical.

Kenya: We are flexible as it’s important to acknowledge, but would be helpful for budgetary reasons to funding so our national agencies can see that Kenya is not there.

Japan: We are flexible. Also support Kenya.

Chair: No objections? Approve


Kenya: No problem, just want to understand what ‘in specific context’ means but we support paragraph

Norway: Can’t recall who inserted this?

Chair: Can someone tell us? No.

Norway: Think it is related to national context, if nobody objects could we say ‘adapted to national priorities and legislation

Kenya: Thank you – now it’s clear for us.

Chair: Can we approve? Yes.


Norway: Pending bilateral with China – we had a good meeting – agreement to use word encourages and take out China delete, then add ‘taking into account’

USA: Question to Norway – WHO guidelines are technical – we prefer original language

Norway: We also want original language, but one delegation wanted it deleted, this is our consensus

Guatemala: In Spanish, ‘in accordance with’ it implies certain mandate, has more binding implications

Kenya: Add ‘menstruation’ to pregnancy

Australia: Could we have clarification of what inclusion of ‘menstruation’ means in this paragraph

Kenya: We have problem that women don’t have access to products for menstruation – this will let us ensure that women are provided with products to use during this period

Norway: We can’t accept this, it’s not in our current legislation

Belgium: Hepatitis is very infectious by blood. We are happy with either

Australia: Thank you, I do understand now. We would like to have it included.

Russia: Different countries face different problems, we don’t think this related to CND. Please focus on directly related topics. We’d like to add reference to ‘the Standards on the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders developed by the UNODC and the WHO.

Guatemala: We don’t have any problem with menstruation reference – I’m not an expert here, but I hear we should add products as well as services for menstruation

Egypt: We are not comfortable with this discussion, this matter does not belong to CND. We understand concern but maybe we can find other language, perhaps ‘during pregnancy and other conditions’

USA: This is turning into a very interesting health conversation – it needs to be more relevant to CND. We felt like it was adequately covered before, don’t agree to inclusions, or the suggestion from Russia.

Czech Republic: If we include Russian suggestion we’d like to include a footnote. My solution for other conditions thing: ‘adequate hygiene’

Kenya: We are talking about the stigma and shaming of our own gender in this period of our life. In prison in Kenya, no products results in blood everywhere. Suggest ‘hygiene and reproductive health services. I truly respect flexibility here.

Canada: We are supportive of all these references except for the one on menstruation as a ‘condition’, could we have ‘products particularly needed for women’ and drop ‘and reproductive’

Chair: 3 more speakers then close paragraph

Guatemala: I understand there are problems with access to services. Some say not part of CND mandate, we’re talking about other medications though, and people might not have access. If we can help women here, why wouldn’t we?

Colombia: We accept Canada’s suggestion

USA: We need more time. Can’t approve right now.

Germany: Editorial amendment on Russian suggestion

Chair: One delegation requested to put this paragraph onto brackets. This paragraph will be put into brackets.

Op 7  

Chair: I recommend that the concerned delegation convene bilateral meetings. 

Russia: We would propose to put it as OP 10 as technical assistance should relate to the whole resolution and not just one operative paragraph.

Chair: This paragraph is approved.

OP 8

Each member states have different ways of providing technical assistance. We could add in accordance with national legislation.

Chair: Further comments?

Germany: We encourage member states to consider providing. I don’t see it necessary to put in the recommendation.

Norway: We are in line with the German delegation. We recommend we keep this paragraph short and stay with the agreed language from other resolutions.

Colombia: We can remove our proposal.

Chair: No objection. It is approved.

OP 9

Colombia: we are talking about the involvement of civil society. however, the member states always take into consideration the legislation and policies. We would add in the framework of integrated and coordinated national drug policies.

Chair: Can the room agree?

Czech Republic: the last proposal is too limited in the framework of just drug policies. If we would like to add according to national legislation and policies.

Chair: Approved

OP 10

Chair: Any comments on this paragraph?  IT is approved.

OP 10 (bis)

Pakistan: In the last line the last phrase is not very clear. To insert after the words evidence-based ‘drug demand reduction’.

 Canada: For our country it is important for the context of the initiative addressing drug use to be broader. The previous language was balanced. The only way we could agree would be to add ‘and harm reduction’

Czech Republic: We support Canada

Egypt: We support we proposal by Pakistan but request to strike out the proposal by Canada.

Russia: We also support the proposal by Pakistan.

Czech Republic: We have discussed in informals and said using the original language means that we should also include the consequences of drug use. We support Canada’s proposal to come back to the original text.

France: We support the initial proposal of Norway. We do not want to go further with the discussion of demand reduction and harm reduction in this paragraph.

Pakistan: The language presented to us earlier was not balanced. There is a need to make it more balanced we need a holistic and balanced approach. There is not a more inclusive term of drug demand reduction initiative. I request colleagues to have a second look.

Leave a Reply

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