Uruguay:
We would like the CND to pay active attention to the participation of civil society organisations, such as NGO’s, trade unions and so on…

In the previous paragraph we think “religious organisations” should be added to the list of civil society organisations. The following should also be addedas well as “access to internationally controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes”. These are the amendments proposed for pp5 and pp6.
In op3, we propose the first line should read… “encourages member states to support innovative approaches” and we will remove “ongoing Ethical innovations” and will be replaced by simply “innovative approaches”.

Argentina:
We believe the additions and amendment suggested by Uruguay enrich the text and we fully support the amendments.

Chile:
We endorse Argentinian amendments and would like to be co-sponsor of this resolution

Japan:
We think its very important to talk about the civil society participation, though we suggest mentioning other illnesses as well as the mentions of HIV/AIDS, and we should mention other organisations like the world health organisation…

Peru:
We fully endorse this resolution, and we also want to be co-sponsor.

Philippines:
We would also like to co-sponsor and have some amendments on minor language which we will make at another time

Australia:
While most amendments we endorse, we have issues with replacing “evidence based” with “evaluation” in the second last preamble paragraph.

Guatemala:
We fully support the involvement of civil society and we fully endorse this resolution and we want to be a co-sponsor

United States:
We would like to review paragraph by paragraph. In the title, the treaty determines who is in the CND, so i think we could change the title to something that more reflects that civil society is supporting the CND.

China:
The main spirit of this resolution is ok with us. The state should have the participation of civil society and NGO’s.
We would like to make some 3 constructive improvements on the text.
The title can be modified to say “…the positive role played the civil society in the fight against the worlds drug problems”. We would like to go through the preliminary paragraphs (pp) e.g. in the 4th pp, this is the first time I have seen such an expression and would like consultations on its content.
We also think there a too many operational paragraphs and we would like to modify the various Operational paragraphs through consultations.

Argentina:
We suggest reading through the texts in the committee of the whole rather than in informal meetings as not everyone will be able to participate.

Chair:
Proposes advancing quickly through the text and having informal sessions this evening as well to settle the discussions.

Russia:
We have no objection to the chairs proposal. We know this work is the practice of the CND and in 5 minutes an executive decision can be made. We don’t approve the concept of this resolution and have some issues, eg…we agree with the comments made on title but we don’t understand what exactly “efficient measures” in title of the resolution. We already have efficient measures, what further measures does this mean.

Pakistan:
We agree with the chairs proposal and we also agree on the participation of civil society, but the title is too conceptual
We suggest…”improving the participation of civil society in the fight against drug problems”… we think its more comprehensive.

Argentina:
I suggest an alternative title… “Improving the participatory role of civil society in addressing the world drug problem, including in support of the commission of narcotic drugs”

Egypt:
I would like to state that the title is vague and not precise and i would like to change Chinas proposed title
I propose “the positive role played by civil society in the fight against world drug demand reduction”

Venezuela:
We are in favour of exchanging views but i think its clear that these different suggestions need great discussion but i believe in the informal consultation, Uruguay introduced this as they’ve had successful civil society involvement.

UK:
We could live with either the US title or Argentinean title. We also suggest we come back to the title after we have reviewed the text of the resolution

Hungary:
We agree with the UK’s comment but also support the Argentinean title proposal.

Mexico:
We think the best title is the Argentinean title.

China:
We suggest leaving the title as well.

Pakistan:
We support the Argentinean proposal.

Zimbabwe:
We would like to endorse we defer the consideration of the title to we review the text.

Chair begins process of reviewing the paragraphs.
Chinas paragraph proposal – pp1: either delete this paragraph or add some related content to the paragraph. We think pp2 and pp3 repeat themselves and can be merged or some sections deleted.

UK and China have disagreement on the linkages of the draft resolution text to the political declaration.

Discussion is moved on to the next resolution and the resolution will be continued to be discussed in informal consultations meaning that no outside observers will be able to follow the dicussions