OP1

Chair: We will commence with this, agreed in informals.

Australia: We should include ‘scientific “and” evidence-based’.

Chair: I imagine we can accept this? Indeed that’s the case, that’s agreed by the CoW.

 

OP2

Chair: Also agreed in informals. Any comments? Then I take it’s acceptable for the Member States. And thus agreed in CoW.

 

OP3

Chair: Also agreed in informals. And thus agreed in CoW.

 

OP4

Chair: Also agreed in informals. And thus agreed in CoW.

 

OP5

Chair: Also agreed in informals. Agreed in CoW.

 

OP6

Chair: Also agreed in informals. Comments?

Russia: A technical amendment in the second to last line: ‘programmes’ rather than ‘programming’.

Australia: I think the same terminology should be used in terms of evidence based. ‘scientific and evidence based’.

Italy: We prefer the previous formulation – ‘scientific evidence-based’, as per the UNGASS Outcome Document. We realise there will be consistency issues with other paragraphs but this comes from UNGASS.

Chair: Can we agree with that explanation?

Australia: Can we check with Russia if this comes from UNGASS exactly?

Russia: When it comes to the comment from Italy with regards to scientific evidence based, mentioning ‘and’. We discussed this yesterday and agreed ‘scientific “and” evidence based’. When a State is developing its own programme, this should be based on science and data. So maybe here it would be good to have scientific evidence-based. IN other paragraphs we agree with the wording agreed upon yesterday.

Australia: Without trying to be difficult, I’m trying to understand whether this was agreed in other document. If this is not a direct quote from a previous document, we can say ‘scientific “and” evidence-based’ programmes and policies.

Italy: We’re not exclusively mentioning the Handbook and the Universal Prevention Curriculum. We’re talking about programmes and policies. The standard formulation should be retained as it appears 20 times in the UNGASS outcome document.

Czech Republic: We support the position of Italy.

Australia: I will accept this wording this time, but it was agreed during discussions yesterday that everything that wasn’t direct quotes, we would enter the comma and the word AND, so that we could cover all aspects available to achieve an outcome.

Russia: Handbook talks about scientific evidence. “Change to development and implementation”

Chair: No change in the meaning so could be changed. We will accept it in the CoW.

OP6bis

Canada: We introduced this para on basis on the guidelines on prevention and treatment for substance use disorders for girls and women that was made by UNODC in 2016. These guideline indicate a gender approach is necessary and the research base is limited but it points in direction that a gender lens is necessary. Wanted to reflect that. Would like to propose an improvement- “when seeking the involvement of youth in the design, implementation and evaluation of drug prevention and health promotion efforts”. When we evaluation the policy, should be looking at the impact of the policies on boy vs girls. As we design new policies, should be bringing a gender-sensitive lens and seeking the involvement of youth.

Austria: Support a gender-sensitive approach and agree on the addition by Canada.

Nigeria: Reference in guidelines that deals with prevention and treatment and would like this resolution to remain focused. The elements that introduced could be accommodate in other paras. Could be added in preceding paras.

United Kingdom: This para is relevant and a good addition to the resolution.

Palestine: This is a good para, but the preventive measures and approach. The gender issue is very appreciated, but I will agree with Nigeria. This is not the right location, and we can work more on the language.

Secretariat: Planning to relaunch the initiative to appeal to all member states to join the initiative. There are factsheets available on UNODC website.

Nigeria: UNODC initiative supported by 40 countries. Was it open ended when it was first launched. It is important to use initiative that have universal acceptance. Was it just that these were the ones that were interested at the time of the launch?

Secretariat: Nominated experts helped us look into and create documents that would be relevant. We would like to have even more states. This was UNODC initiative with WHO. MS that connected took the materials and ran their own campaign.

Nigeria: We are satisfied.

China: Because of other arrangement, not able to attend previous informals. Listen to clarification of UNODC and don’t have problem. Would like to ask whether to add sentence. “launched by UNODC”. Whether WHO is a participator? If not clear enough, you can amend it.

Secretariat: We were initiator when we launched, we worked together with WHO. In the context would be “launched by UNODC and WHO”.

Chair: Agreed in CoW.

OP9

Italy: We would need to discuss other paras. Would prefer to discuss in informals.

OP10

Chair: Agreed in CoW

OP11

Chair: Agreed in CoW

Chair: Invite donors when to have informals conducted.

Russia: 16:30 in M7.