Portugal: Pending discussions with the capitol. Hopefully will be agreed on tomorrow.
Chair: Agreed pending language check?
Australia: We suggest that training on its own is insufficient to change work performance. Training has been shown to have a weak effect. Instead of “training,” use the term “workforce development.” The scientific evidence demonstrates that you need training, supervision, and broad workforce development.
Portugal: This conversation was also had in OP6. We are using the term “evidence-based training” in OP 7 because some delegates are opposed to using the term “workforce development.” If we have time, we should listen to the opposition. We can also discuss in informals.
Chair: Who is opposed?
Russia: It is true that we had a long discussion regarding “training” vocabulary. The word “training” is a more comprehensible term. We already have resolutions using this word. “Workforce development” does not make sense in a global context.
Turkey: “Workforce development” is not a concept we are used to see in these resolutions. “Workforce development” is also specific to healthcare workers. “Training” is more broad and applicable to this resolution.
Australia: We recognize that the word might not perfectly translate. However, the scientific evidence is that training itself is not sufficient. Can we add a term that is more familiar and that reflects the scientific evidence? Perhaps, “evidence-based training and quality improvement.”
Portugal: Fine with this middle ground.
Russia: We will check the language used in the past. We think it makes sense to keep language consistent and use already approved language. We can’t agree to the term “quality improvement.” It is too general a term. We would be happy to provide our proposal on this paragraph at a later time.
Portugal: This should go to informals.
Turkey: We are having a hard time understanding the new terms. What about the term “capacity building” instead of “quality improvement”?
Australia: We would like longer to consider this. We want to reiterate that this is based on scientific studies from many countries. We do not want to get stuck on agreed language, but we also should not get stuck on outdated terminology. It is clear that we need training, supervision, certifications, and so on. If we only take one of these element, the evidence tells us that we will not achieve the desired outcomes.
Chair: Portugal, what do you want to discuss with the extra time?
Portugal: We should discuss PP17 and OP3 on the issue of the term “torture.”
USA: The USA, as the sponsor, believes that the term torture would not apply. We would prefer to use the UNDA definition.
Chair: Who opposes the deletion the word “torture”?
Argentina: We would have preferred the original language of the draft. However, we support this resolution and in order to progress, we will show some flexibly. Therefore, we agree with the new wording by the USA as a compromise. For clarification, if this is accepted, would the sentence end at “punishment” and we would delete reference to international law as expressed in the standards the USA delegate mentioned? This is also applicable to PP17.
USA: The proposal for new language is to replace old terms. We have to defer to delegations that added caveats to the paragraph.
Portugal: Argentina said they would agree to new language without caveats.
Mexico: The USA delegate mentioned that they cited their source. Can we confirm this? Would it be possible to reference these standards?
USA: I can confirm that this language came from the “International Treatment Standards” of 2020 on page 19 under Section 3.3.
Portugal: We are OK with the suggestions, but we think we should keep “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” instead of “torture.”
Egypt: The definition does not mention “cruel.” Therefore, it referencing the standards, we would leave out “cruel.”
Chair: To be continued in informals.