Chair: Good Afternoon, we are tackling an L3 and L5 for an hour and half. Would like to start on a positive note, I was happy to see a consensus on scheduling in Plenary and hopefully we can keep this going here in the CoW. I pass the floor to Chile.
Chile: Thank you, we also share your support of consensus and hope for the same thing. We have a preliminary agreement on terminology and if possible we’d like to start with paragraphs that were agreed in informals this morning.
Chair: We’ll start with pp5 on the screen.
Chile: Yes, chair, there is a reservation on the title. The text has been agreed, but not title.
Chair: As soon as we get text we will move to pp5. Now we have the text. Is this the correct title?
Chile: This is the correct title. Just
Chair: We go to 55 bis. Can we agree on this in the CoW? I don’t see any comments. Can we agree? It is so decided.
Chair: Let’s go to pp6. It has been agreed in informals. If there is no objection can we agree in the CoW? I don’t see any objections. It is so decided.
Chair. Moving to PP8. It also agreed in informals. Can we agree on the CoW? I don’t see any objections in the CoW. It is so decided.
Chair: I am now moving to OP1. Chile, can you please clarify on OP1?
OP1.
Chile: It was agreed it will be replaced by those two paragraphs but we are still waiting on confirmation.
Chile: This was a proposal from the Chair to replace OP3 alt.
OP3 alt.
Chair: Can we look at OP3 alt. And possibility of agreeing in the CoW?
Egypt: Can you please give us some time to focus.
Chair: Yes, of course.
Egypt: We can support the proposed language.
Chair. Since I don’t have any other requests, can we look at OP3 alt as it seems agreed? It is so decided.
OP6
Chair: Can we agree on this also? Agreed. I think we went through all the paragraphs that were agreed in informals. Chile, what do you propose where to continue?
Chile: Let’s do paragraph by paragraph. We still need time on pp1. We could start with pp2.
PP2.
Chair: I have information that it has been agreed.
Chile: Right. If you don´t mind, we could go back to pp1 as we reached agreement.
Chair: Yes. Music to my ears!
PP1.
Russia: We had an interesting and detailed discussion on this paragraph. Following that, we can support this paragraph if we put back the proposal from earlier by the USA. It would begin “reaffirming the commitment of state parties to achieving the goals and objectives of and implementing the obligations contained in the single convention …”
Chair: Thank you. Can we agree to this? Agreed.
PP3.
Chair: We have a reservation here from Russia.
Russia: In this paragraph, we would like to have more positive language. We have problems with “restriction of rights” (limitation of rights) as this is not a frequently used language in CND. I propose “…noting that respect for these rights is a prerequisite for effective support to people with drug use disorders”
Mexico: Perhaps instead of prerequisite, we could say indispensable.
Chair: Any other views on this wording? Or pp3 as is proposed now?
USA: This new proposal changes the meaning quite a bit. The original is discussing how limitations of rights is affecting drug use disorders so we are hesitant to accept. Could I propose an additional alt?
Chair: Sure.
USA: “Noting with concern that drug use disorders may result in or lead to limitation on those rights.”
Chair: Now we have two options PP3 and PP3alt.
Germany: I share the view of the USA. We support the original or the alternative proposed by the USA.
Chair: I am proposing to send this back to informals.
Mexico: I agree with the USA, that it changes the sense, but also agree with the change proposed by Russia as it is more positive. I believe the Russian proposal makes it more humane.
Chair: Any comments on Russian proposal as amended by Mexico
Chile: Our intention with this paragraph is that drug use disorders have implications for rights, I think Mexico..
USA: We are not opposed to PPalt but want to suggest “and noting that respect for these rights is indispensable to people with drug use disorders”. We remain both ideas that we are trying to get to here.
Chair: Can we look at this combined proposal? Do we put it to informals or can we agree on it now. If there is no opposition… Australia?
Australia: we will have to reserve at this point until we consult with our capital.
Russia: We see this as an accusation, a value judgement, that some countries are not upholding their human rights obligations.
Chair: PP3 goes back to informals.
PP4bis
Chile: This paragraph balances out the previous paragraph that references UNGASS. There have been developments since then, such as 2019, and we need to acknowledge these include.
Russia: Need more time to submit our proposal.
PP5
Chair: Reservation from Iran.
Iran: We don’t have anything on the table yet.
PP5ter
USA: We have raised an issue for PP5. Can we return there? We have a text proposal “recalling also the resolution 57/4 from March 2014 entitled, “Supporting recovery from Substance Use Disorders”.
UK: We suggest capitalization for the titles.
Chile: It is about the titles so maybe we could agree about this now?
Chair: So this is the correct name of the title?
Chile: Yes.
Chair: So can I ask Iran to share their reservations so we can move forward?
Iran: Previous speakers mentioned the name of the resolution in this paragraph… I need to consult with the experts in my capital.
Venezuela: Referring to the three resolutions with their titles… sure… bit there is a reference to their contents. So can the proposing delegation refer to their names? Or the other two too? Otherwise it is not balanced and we have to say “interalia” “called upon MS” and etc. We are flexible, it is just a suggestion.
Chile: As we make progress and things get added, only the reference to the contents to res.64/3 is there. We have no issue having only the titles there. As long as they are there, it makes sense to refer to them.
UK: My understanding is that Iran needs to check if they can agree to a title that we have already agreed to, so at this point the UK would like to reserve on this section. Of course we can have the title, we don’t need the content.
Chair: Okay so we are going back to informals with this pp.
PP5ter
Chile: This paragraphs is still before the informals because it will be an OP and some of this will be deleted.
Egypt: Just to agree with the UK – if there is an issue with the title, we are okay with putting in the content.We can agree on this proposal in the CoW.
Chair: Okay this goes back to informals. Chile, you were talking about pp5ter that it still needs to be discussed?
Chile: Yes. It is still under discussion and should be considered as an OP somewhere.
PP6bis
Chair: I see Iran pending. Chile do you want to say something?
Chile: This was presented as an alternative para, originally, but we solved the issue. Iran wanted an additional paragraph, and we are waiting for that. Maybe Iran has it now?
Iran: Not on this but I do have a proposal on the next para.
Chair: So is this to be deleted?
Iran: Actually, I need additional time to decide. I am asking for no deletion at this time.
PP7.
Chair: We have some proposals here.
Chile: This one became very complicated. There is opposition from some delegations and some too alternative suggestions. I would suggest to move on to Iran´s proposal with language from UNGASS.
PP7alt.
USA: We recognize this as agreed language but not as an alt. I think we need to work on PP7 and we are not quite ready to give up. This could be a bis perhaps, but not an alt.
Chile: Yes, that is a good option, since PP7 is not ready yet.
Chair: So we can agree on 7bis and leave PP7 for informals.
Iran: I have some problems with the standards mentioned in and I think it should be an alt, under PP7.
Chair: Keep your proposal as 7bis, and still keep PP7? Can we agree on your proposal of 7bis,
UK: Was a little confused by Iran, we can agree on the PP7 and will take into account into informals
Chair: Can we agree on 7bis in the CoW?
Iran: I need additional time to discuss with my colleague and suggest we come back to it later.
PP9.
Chile: Yes, this paragraph was looked at informals yesterday, but not this morning, so a few issues and inserts that not yet discussed, so it should go back to informals
Chair: It should go back to informals.
UK: In principal of good faith we should be able to go
Iran: Thank you, as you are aware, it is 7alt, then it was changed to 7bis. As there is a reservation, I ask for time.
Russia: This was submitted as an alternative to the previous one and not sure what the explanation is.
Chile: This was proposed as an addition, but then became an alt, but probably best to return these to the formals.
Iran: PP7 is meant to be an alt, from the previous paragraph. This should be a bis, not an alt as based on WHO guidelines for member states.
PP10.
Chile: Thank you, this paragraph is what is at the heart of our resolution. We now have agreed language, deleted “aftercare”, and with consultations with member states to bring this to the CoW without any additions.
Chair: Okay, so “aftercare” is deleted.
Chile: It was part of the agreed language as decided in informals.
Chair: So do I understand that we can clean the text up until “employment” also “access to housing” and I have the US?
USA: This para has gone through a lot of changes and in the process, we have created some grammatical errors. My suggestion is that we take out “recovery related services…” so we say “recognizing that proactive steps should be taken”.
Chair: Thank you. I see some nodding from Chile.
Italy: Now that we have rephrased this para, we may give some unclear messages – it seems that we say that the barriers include… and then we have a list of things, according to domestic laws, etc. This doesn’t make sense to me. And since I have our voice, I would like to support Australia’s statement regarding social stigma.
Chair: I understand that up until “housing” we have an agreeable text. We still have to decide on discrimination and social stigma. And we are still discussing “taking into account the national priorities”
Russia: Firstly, we are still awaiting a response from our experts as for the terminology of symptoms. The replacement for “relapse” … As for the end of the paragraph, “discrimination” is acceptable to us but we cannot agree to the wording “social stigma”.
Chair: Okay we don’t have agreement on symptoms. Any further comments?
USA: We recognize that we never used “social stigma” but we have used “stigma” so we wonder if it would be acceptable to Russia to say “discrimination and stigma”.
Iran: I also have problem with “stigma” and “social stigma”.
Sudan: We are asking MS to take proactive steps so the end of the para should be “recognizing the need of MS, in accordance with domestic laws …, to take proactive steps”. Can this be helpful? And, again, we still prefer “relapse” to recurrence of symptoms.
Canada: Regarding stigma, Canada supports USA´s proposal to include stigma, as per our previously agreed documents that sets out the elimination of stigma and discrimination.
Chair: Can I ask Russia if they can live with this?
Russia: We have checked the resolutions where this language has been used and these are quite old. In recent resolutions, we say “nonstigmatizing attitude”.Perharps we could use this here too. I unfortunately have no other proposals but the word “stigma” is not acceptable to my delegation.
Chair: Can we in the meantime consider the text on top? “Recognizing the need for MS….”
Italy: We thank the suggestion of Sudan. We can show flexibility here. Regarding stigma, I see it reasonable to use language that has also been used recently. How about we use “stigmatizing attitudes”?
Chair: Thank you.
USA: I think we are getting somewhere. It should say “their domestic laws” and “their national priorities”. We can agree with Italy on the language suggestion. I would like the order of the words to be swapped so “stigmatizing attitudes and discrimination”.
Chair: Can we take up this paragraph by the Russian Federation?
Russia: Still waiting on language from our expert.
Chair: We have more or less cleared this paragraph.
Russia: We have questions about ‘stigmatising attitudes’. In the past we used more positive language. There is a big nuance here and not sure we can agree on.
Iran: Old elements of discrimination we suggest adding “noting the need for member states…”
UK: Given we already have ‘according to national laws’ and ‘domestic priorities. We can live with the weakening of the paragraph and should not go beyond that.
Belgium: The language ‘stigmatizing attitudes is recognized in previous resolutions and I think it works here.
Chile: Recognizing, rather than noting, is the focus point. This is recognizing the services that people need in recovery. The UK notes the caveat, and prefer ‘recognizing’
Mexico: Thank you, the Mexican delegation feels this one of the essential paragraphs of the resolution and we support ‘recognition’. For clarity there are too many comers in the paragraph. Discrimination is stronger than stigma and therefore should go before it.
Iran: The tone of the language hasn’t changed. The proactive steps have been dropped. There are many other ways we could water down the language, but I haven’t! This is obstruction! We have to see the package before we know where to park it. At this stage, I suggest no other idea, but we need to consider how to move forward. Concrete steps as appropriate.
Chile: In brackets, in accordance with national laws, but this is not our original proposal.
USA: PP10 is an operative paragraph, not an action paragraph this should help decide what is appropriate language here.
Iran: the whole text should be put in brackets.
Chile: I don’t understand the proposal. The whole text is in brackets until it is decided.
Iran: I have no choice, but to put this in brackets, as you took the language hostage!
Chair: I have two more speakers.
Egypt: At the beginning we had the words ‘recognizing’ and ‘according to national law’. We suggest “proactive steps be taken in accordance with national law, and taking into account domestic legislation”. Hope this helps, madam chair?
UK: I think this a good proposal from Egypt, as per usual. It just needs a subject, such as ‘member states’, but obviously this is going to informals so we can discuss it there. We’re a little confused.
Mexico: We don’t have a proposal, but call on everyone here, as we are getting lost on words. We must not lose sight of the main aim here. We need to remain focused on the victims here, helping those struggling with drug dependency.
Chair: This is why people don’t understand diplomats. We are fighting here in the UN on words and people are dying on the streets!
Sudan: I just want to thank Egypt for making the language more appropriate. This PP is not an OP so we don’t have to point at MS. The more general, the better.
Iran: It is paradoxical. You are saying that action is needed but a notion is given (…) We should be confined to recognizing the issue without asking for actions to be taken. Regarding the Egyptian suggestion, it does not work like this. We are not attacking each other, so saying “people are dying on the streets” is (…) we cannot oblige. This language is very much prescriptive and that is why the mention of national regulation is necessary. We have to make our commitments very seriously.
Chair: With this, I will stop the consideration of this para for today and we move to L5.
L5:
USA: We had some good discussion in informals and we are approaching consensus on one or two paragraphs but I think there is some good progress we can achieve in this room. The issue around the term “harm reduction” has been heavily focused on but the focus is on overdose and overdose prevention so today we would like to focus on those and hopefully give us more time in informals to work on those. Let us start with op9.
OP9
Chair: Iran, can we agree on this today?
Iran: (…)
UK: To indicate our position, we completely disagree with changing this long-standing agreement on language, so we do not support adding new language as Iran proposed. We are open to entertaining new options, but we strongly oppose this suggestion.
Chair: Can we agree to the text as is on the screen now?
Iran: Because of the many parallel meetings, the challenge of CND for all delegations, we might have agreed to this but we are more sensitized to that. We have to check with our colleagues before we agree.
USA: Just to recap, maybe some delegations are not aware of the background – so there were no comments on this paragraph as introduced. Iran suggested reference to technical assitance and we looked throughout the resolution to see if it fits, we invited the delegation to submit preferred text. At the end of the discussion, the delegate declined to offer any edits but they do have a reserve. This is the discussion that happened in informals.
Chair: Okay so we wait for Iran to consult on this.
Iran: I got the whole picture. We said we would consider it in light of the evolving situation. We are acting as the capital is instructing us, Until we dont have a clear understanding, we can not agree. Not because of the substance, but (…) We might be able to put language that covers all concerns.
Chair: I understand that it is not agreed so we move on. Chile informed us that L4 is going to informals in M6 from 16:30 – 18:00.
PP5.
USA: You see a lot of red but it is suggestions by Russia and China to work on consensus and we believe there might be away forward here.
Chair: Could I hear more about the proposal from the Russian Federation?
Russia: With respect to PP5, we suggest taking language from the GA and on the synthetic chapter from the World Drug Report. The GA agreed on this, as did UNODC. This language is word-for-word from the GA and would like to see it reflected in this resolution.
Sudan: We hope to avoid overlapping as I am the only one representing my delegation. Cleaning the paragraph as is should be ‘noting’ not ‘recognition’
Iran: Sorry there is overlap, we are not discussing that, we still have time and should address this issue of overlap.
Chair: Apologies for compressed time available for negotiations. Our colleagues are suffering due to the budget crisis and it is worse because of the High Level last week.
Egypt: Regarding PP5 the Russian Federation and the sponsors, maybe we can ‘take note’ of the publication, but put a comma before “potential development” and it needs some grammatical work and we propose the original PP and the Russian delegations suggestion.
USA: For sake of simplicity, should we revert to the GA resolution. This had consensus in New York, so it should be agreed here.
Iran: It should be clear, so my colleague can follow. A proposal made by the Russian Federation is supported but it needs some basic fixing.
UK: We spent 120 hours on the Outcome Document, so shouldn’t be arguing time now.
Sudan: We express concern
Russia: Thank you, apologies for taking the floor again in the same language. I’m not trying to insert language from the GA into resolution. According to us the preference for us, the sponsors should agree to paragraph 5 of GA resolution 78/131 as agreed language.
Switzerland: I wonder if we could go back to the previous paragraph, simplified by “taking note of report” and also “note of GA resolution”. I’m trying to simplify the text.
Chair: Yes, I support the simplifying of the text.
Russia: I’ll be short. We don’t agree on that proposal (from Switzerland).,
Czechia: We support the proposal of Switzerland.
Chair: Would a footnote be agreeable with the sponsor? Is there a specific part you would like to see in the footnote?
USA: Yes, it is acceptable, we would like clarity on which part though.
Czechia: We need some time to think about that.
Netherlands: We also support the proposal.
Switzerland: The advantage of this proposal is that it avoids discussion about which part of the documents to quote. So now we are discussing which part to be in the footnote… that seems like reopening the original debate?
Chair: We had the other proposal to put GA 78/131, PP15 here – would that replace the entirety of PP5?
USA: Our intention would be for this to replace the whole paragraph to avoid picking out new pieces as we understand that this pp took very long to negotiate.
Venezuela: It is just a question of form. We are seeing that the informals with Chile began, there is no link on the website for small delegations like ours… so it is hard for us to follow the discussion. Could the Secretary provide a link so our colleagues could follow remotely?
Chair: We cannot give the link now…
Secretariat: we are only in the position to organize hybrid events if they are planned in advance.
Russia: We support the insertion of the paragraph from the agreed para from the GA resolution.
Chair: So we can replace PP5 with PP5alt? Can we agree on this paragraph? Agreed.
PP6alt.
USA: Suggestion on screen.
Chair: We are replacing the pp with already agreed language from the GA resolution.
Russia: we welcome the sponsor´s approach. Unlike pp5, referencing World Drug Report, this pp references problems that are directly linked to the resolution. We requested clarification whether this pertains to all drugs or just synthetics. We understood all drugs and overdoses from any kind of drugs, so we tend to have a preference for agreed language, but we do request the deletion of synthetic here.
USA: Understanding we had productive discussions this week, we can change synthetics, to be ‘synthetics, and all other types of drugs’ to acknowledge.
Netherlands: happy to join the latest proposal by the sponsor
UK: We can go along with new proposal
Germany: We can go ahead with it too.
Russia: Happy with paragraph as it stands on the screen
Venezuela: As we expressed in informals, we don;t think it’s the same level of seriousness, but not the same in all parts of the world, but it’s not serious in all countries now, it could be in the future, but for now not. The comments we made deleted the word ‘grave’ the word ‘serious’, given differences across the world.
Mexico: We feel the paragraph fulfils the need to act urgently in regards to the synthetic drugs phenomenon. This is a new problem, and doesn’t affect all countries’ equality, and we are trying to get CND to say something on this phenomenon, that is the heart of the matter. This is a major problem and we need a draft resolution to tackle this issue, independently of how serious this is in our respective countries.
Czechia: We support the language as it stands on screen. Shared commitments are important and just because one country doesn’t have an issue now, it could do in future.
Australia: We support the language on screen that includes ‘grave’ and ‘urgent’
France: Also supports language as it appears on screen. It is important as it addresses all drugs, which are
Venezuela: Would the room be in favour of saying it’s been approved in the room, pending Venezuela?
Chair: It has been agreed in CoW, pending Venezuela. No comments, so we agree, pending Venezuela.
PP7
USA: There is a way through this paragraph. Many reservations are because of language confusions and we spent many hours with UNODC
Chair: Did the explanation by UNODC help explain the issue to you Cuba, Venezuela and Egypt?
Egypt: We weren’t present, but have another suggestion. Maybe we can have “social risks” or “social and economic risks”, Or we could put “economic conditions”
Chair: Do we have comments on this proposal? I see none. So we move on to “poly-substance”. Maybe we can ask UNODC to explain again?
USA: We are comfortable with “poly-substance”.
Chair: I see nodding around the room.
UK: I don’t know why I need to have “risks” and “conditions”. We already have a series of nouns, if there is an issue with social and economic, we could use “socio-economic” that is used across UN documents.
Chair: Okay. Are we agreeable? The room seems to support this. Now we have “medical and psychiatric” in brackets.
Netherlands: We support “socio-economic” but it looks on the screed as if we lost a part.
Venezuela: In the previous meetings where we had this discussion, we asked the Secretariat to help us with some information that would explain these factors and their impact on overdose. I know I was not here, but we would like some more information. We can all consider what is important and what is not, but scientifically, what is the direct link between overdose and these factors?
Italy: My comment is on “medical and psychiatric” so I can hold on.
Mexico: What I was going to say has nothing to do with what the secretariat can tell us. In my opinion, the way this para is evolving, we are losing focus. We are talking about factors that increase the possibility of an overdose, so I would leave the brackets “make people particularly vulnerable to overdose” and then we say “including socio-economic determinants”… actually this really should go on the top. So the end of the para goes to the beginning of the para. “Recognizing that a range of factors” and then copy the brackets here. Then include the factors after that. Then we can have “such as” and here we can discuss the factors and not lose the force of the paragraph.
UNODC: I consulted with colleagues at the WHO because the last reference from them on the guidelines on community-based management of opioid overdose is from 2014. I was referred to their fact-sheet from 2022, and I am reading from that, specifically the risk factors: having a drug use disorder, taking opioids via injection – this is covered in the para by “route of injection”, resumption of opioid use after an extended time of abstinence (…) using without medical supervision, consuming large doses, using opioids in combination with alcohol or other respiratory suppressants – this would be covered by “poly-substance use” in the para, having concurrent medical conditions – this is covered by “medical and psychiatric comorbidities”. Women, people of older age and lower societal status are of a higher risk – this is also covered in the para. There has been a mention of “socio-economic” factors in GA resolutions as well, just to clarify.
Chair: Do we have more questions remaining to the UNODC?
USA: I just want to note that “such as” doesn’t work because the factors are not socio-economic, that would be housing and etc.
Italy: Thank you for the thorough explanation. We can support the different arrangement proposed by Mexico. We also support socio-economic “determinants” or “conditions”. We are not comfortable with “medical and psychiatric comorbidities” as it seems like we are separating these two so maybe we can say “comorbidities, including medical and/or psychiatric”.
Venezuela: Thanks to the UNODC Secretariat for giving such clear answers to my questions. I don’t think I saw maternity stages and pregnancy. I don’t think I saw tolerance there either. Is it “maternity stages”? This doesn’t seem to make sense, but I defer to the UNODC Secretariat.
Netherlands: We thank UNODC for the detailed explanation and support the Australia proposal toward ‘Maternal health”. We ask for demand reduction to be included regarding vulnerability to overdoses. Can UNODC explain?
Belgium: Language around comorbidities, as suggested by WHO, it should be “mental and physical health comorbidities”.
Czechia: I think the Belgian colleague read my mind (laughter). I say we can support it.
Poland: We support stigma, but also resolution on demand reduction measures, but harm reduction measures would be preferred.
Australia: Suggest “individual and environmental, including social environmental risk”. This is agreed language
Belgium: We suggested language on risk.
Switzerland: relapse after abstinence is an issue. This is one of the factors and this is why we suggested “relapse” after “abstinence”.
Egypt: We can clean up and suggest “poly-substance, mental and psychological health” and delete the rest. This is our proposal to end this paragraph.
Switzerland: Do I understand that all we have done beforehand is for nothing? If so, I object.
Egypt: This takes most of what was in the previous paragraph and takes gender etc.. from it. Regarding maternal health we haven’t agreed on this, and we need to discuss this. I propose adding ‘lack of demand reduction” to the text.
Chair. Okay so it is not as easy a para as we thought.
USA: I was planning on intervening just to clean up the text a bit. Addressing Egypt, there was a significant amount of questions during informals about age, gender, route of administration, etc – how these factors affect vulnerabilities to overdose. So I am not sure this suggested language is sufficient for the end user to understand all the relevant factors. I appreciate that individual factors are broadly taken into account, but it does not explain what the entire range can encompass. As for cleaning up, I think we are getting there. I suggest “…that can” at the top. I also think we can take Russia´s suggestion on board. Then after “vulnerable to drug overdoses” we need “include” and then “individual….”
Mexico: I think the US has helped us to bring clarity to this para. When Australia made this suggestion regarding “individual and environmental” I asked myself what should we underscore here… maybe we should mention negative factors or neutral medical factors, but when we talk about environmental or individual, we are diluting the paragraph. The factors whereby states and society must take action are on a different level. Protective factors are positive factors, so how could it increase the number of overdoses? To me, this is unclear. How can we keep both suggestions of USA and Australia?
Pakistan: We propose to add further factors, such as “lack of education and awareness, lack of parental supervision and monitoring of children, lack of adequate resources for education and support programs…” and we can go on and on. I would support Egypt to end the para there but we can also add further factors.
Czechia: We are now discussing the Egyptian proposal, so we can agree on that but not the extra sentence by Pakistan. We would also like to add “harm reduction measures”.
USA: I think we should move on from this para. We welcome additions from Pakistan, and we would like to see research or other evidence to support this section. We will take this back to informals.
MS?: We object to a hierarchy of these factors. We note the Egyptian proposal and we will submit our own.
Venezuela: Thanks to the UNODC Secretariat for giving such clear answers to my questions. I don’t think I saw maternity stages and pregnancy. I don’t think I saw tolerance there either. Is it “maternity stages”? This doesn’t seem to make sense, but I defer to the UNODC Secretariat.
Netherlands: We thank UNODC for the detailed explanation and support the Australia proposal toward ‘Maternal health”. We ask for demand reduction to be included regarding vulnerability to overdoses. Can UNODC explain?
Belgium: Language around comorbidities, as suggested by WHO, it should be “mental and physical health comorbidities”.
Czechia: I think the Belgian colleague read my mind (laughter). I say we can support it.
Poland: We support stigma, but also resolution on demand reduction measures, but harm reduction measures would be preferred.
Australia: Suggest “individual and environmental, including social environmental risk”. This is agreed language
Belgium: We suggested language on risk.
Switzerland: relapse after abstinence is an issue. This is one of the factors and this is why we suggested “relapse” after “abstinence”.
Egypt: We can clean up and suggest “poly-substance, mental and psychological health” and delete the rest. This is our proposal to end this paragraph.
Switzerland: Do I understand that all we have done beforehand is for nothing? If so, I object.
Egypt: This takes most of what was in the previous paragraph and takes gender etc.. from it. Regarding maternal health we haven’t agreed on this, and we need to discuss this. I propose adding ‘lack of demand reduction” to the text.
Chair. Okay so it is not as easy a para as we thought.
USA: I was planning on intervening just to clean up the text a bit. Addressing Egypt, there was a significant amount of questions during informals about age, gender, route of administration, etc – how these factors affect vulnerabilities to overdose. So I am not sure this suggested language is sufficient for the end user to understand all the relevant factors. I appreciate that individual factors are broadly taken into account, but it does not explain what the entire range can encompass. As for cleaning up, I think we are getting there. I suggest “…that can” at the top. I also think we can take Russia´s suggestion on board. Then after “vulnerable to drug overdoses” we need “include” and then “individual….”
Mexico: I think the US has helped us to bring clarity to this para. When Australia made this suggestion regarding “individual and environmental” I asked myself what should we underscore here… maybe we should mention negative factors or neutral medical factors, but when we talk about environmental or individual, we are diluting the paragraph. The factors whereby states and society must take action are on a different level. Protective factors are positive factors, so how could it increase the number of overdoses? To me, this is unclear. How can we keep both suggestions of USA and Australia?
Pakistan: We propose to add further factors, such as “lack of education and awareness, lack of parental supervision and monitoring of children, lack of adequate resources for education and support programs…” and we can go on and on. I would support Egypt to end the para there but we can also add further factors.
Czechia: We are now discussing the Egyptian proposal, so we can agree on that but not the extra sentence by Pakistan. We would also like to add “harm reduction measures”.
USA: I think we should move on from this para. We welcome additions from Pakistan, and we would like to see research or other evidence to support this section. We will take this back to informals.
MS?: We object to a hierarchy of these factors. We note the Egyptian proposal and we will submit our own.
PP8.
China: Before we move to PP8. We oppose “harm reduction” and want to “delete harm”. Thank you.
USA: Further discussions on PP8 could resolve issues on this and we welcome discussions.
Chair: We have an option: stressing the need ‘for’ or… sorry, there is a proposal from the Russian Federation.
Russia: This language is from the 2009 Political Declaration. The most straightforward way is to take up the agreed language.
Egypt: We accept the Australian suggestion of “persons in vulnerable situations”.
USA: We’re discussing this issue at the moment, Chair. Please give us a moment.
Pakistan: We’d like to add “women and children”
USA: We could revert back to the 2009 plan, with the change to “recovery support” rather than “rehabilitation”.
Egypt: We could support this, with the amended Australian proposal.
Russia: We need more time to get back to our Ministry of Health. Need more time.
Australia: We could agree to this alt, but we would like “gender and age” to be added.
Netherlands: We would have preferred the original one but we want to be flexible so we can go along with the proposed alt as well as the proposal just made by Australia.
USA: Just to clean the text, following the strikeout of rehabilitation, we should say “recovery and related support” and I ask you, before closing the CoW for today, could we do a quick review of the agreed paragraphs?
Pakistan: Regarding the Egyptian addition, we need to replace “groups” with “persons”.
Belgium: Regarding drug demand reduction services, we would like to add “and programs”.
Venezuela: We can be flexible and would like to approve Egypt and Pakistan´s proposal. I request support from the Secretariat. The US, the sponsor, prefers recovery to rehabilitation – is this a new term acceptable to all or something chosen by a few MS. We prefer rehabilitation. We could use recovery but we use both words. If this is a new development and we all agree, then it is not an issue, but if only MS, then we would prefer to avoid that.
UNODC: In the UNODC and WHO standards, the chapter is called “recovery management” because this is the broader concept that is accepted in scientific discussion. The other specific thing I would like to point out is resolution 74.3 where it was used for the first time “sustained recovery”. So the terminology has been agreed on by this body before.
Venezuela: Thank you. We propose to use the terms as are in the resolution, “sustained recovery”. In Spanish, rehabilitation encompasses something longer term.
Egypt: We need to end this session in 4 minutes. We are fasting.
Chair: I will stop the consideration of this draft proposal for today. We are still considering the language regarding recovery, but before we conclude I would like to answer the USA as for what we have agreed: pp2, pp4 – pending Russia, pp5.alt and pp6alt – pending Venezuela. At this point, we continue discussions in informals (MOE100) and I will meet with the sponsors later. We start tomorrow at 10am but I will inform you later with which resolutions. Thank you for your active consideration today and before we adjourn, Mexico has the floor for 30 seconds.
Mexico: 64.3 OP9 says “rehabilitation and recovery related services”
Chair: Meeting adjourned. Sponsors are invited to my office.