Russia: there is no notion of stigma, it’s not scientifically evidence based. Must delete stigma
Chair: this has already been decided by COW
Russia: No. We have nothing in legislation.
UK: It was agreed by COW. This is common UNODC language. Previously Russia had agreed to the language
Canada: support UK and Australia. Very important that stigma stay in the paragraph.
Russia: we cannot aggree with these as they are not scientifically evidenced,
Chair: ask the sponsor to work with parties to find solution
US: can the interest delegations go out and discuss.
PP starting with “taking into account”
PP starting with “Noting that the formal”
China: minor amendment, prefer “privacy” rather than confidentiality
Screen randomly goes up
UK: Explains the difference between privacy and confidentiality.
China: No. We want privacy
Screen comes back down
Egypt: Who is it being protected from? The media?
UK: not sure what the media has to do with it. Data protection is common, we don’t need to qualify it.
Egypt: Does not understand
Cameroon: Protecting data is a concept understood by all. We protect medical files, confidentiality for the doctor, when prviding care for drug addicts, it will often be medical staff, it’s about protecting the privacy of an individual. Nothing to do with the media.
Australia: this is about patient data, not about the media. Keep it simple, about privacy, data protection.
Japan: support Australia
???: From unauthorised people
Germany: Misunderstanding from the Egypt. Please put it the way it was.
Egypt: Okay with that to go ahead, however need to add in some words.
Russia: moving on to the next paragraph which is already agreed. Need to add in language to keep it consistent.
Russia: delete stigma
USA: No. Stigma is a core element of the resolution. We need to keep that word. Open to other additional words
Spain: stigma should stay
Belgium: stigma should stay
UK: stigma should stay
Australia: stigmas should sat
Egypt: new language needed.
Spain: Add in some language
Slovenia: minor changes
Chair: there are similarities, but they are separete paragraphs
Egypt: delete 8
USA: OP7 is asking people to do research. OP8 is asking people to share experience and best practise and we would like to retain both.
Spain: Agree with the USA
Egypt: Add in extra words
Spain: let’s be more creative. This is difficult Why do we need to include that language? It needs to be positive and we want to know what is behind this. There is no purpose of the phrase that egypt added in.
Australia: delete part of the paragraph.
Chair: we’re trying to find a way to make this better. But if there is no other amendment then we will bracket it.
Discussion on this para.
OP 11. Invites MS and other donors to provide extra-budgetary resources for the purposes described above, in accordance with the rules and procedures of the United Nations. (agreed)
UK – what is the need for this budgetary para?
US – formulation needed to respond to other objections.
Spain. Isn’t this rather like 5 ter. Also speaks about providing assistance? So perhaps we could delete this one. To make the text more coherent.
UK – As Secretariat whether there are budgetary implications for this resolution. If change means there are no programme or budget implications. Original proposal was a regular para about budget. With this proposal is it as effective?
UNODC Would recommend it be brought back to original language. Not clear on text of 10 – that UNODC provides a report.
Chair gives the floor to the sponsor.
US – this para was explicitly to avoid requesting for a report but to facilitate sharing of experience. Could be a side event or idea of new agenda item or roundtable. US will propose a roundtable topic but not sure if will stay after we talk about UNGASS.
Reason for para 10. 11 supposed to be a regular budget para.
US has no objection to go back to regular language
Slovenia. Can agree to a regular language but isn’t it usually MS and donors?
Chair. Move back to brackets. “stigma” on two paras.
US. Discussed using “non-stigmatizing” Have to reformulate
“Invites MS in accordance with their national legislation, to consider exploring means, as appropriate to support those in recovery to provide measures to ensure non-stigmatizing attitudes to those seeking recovery, help reduce marginalization, discrimination, and promoting social reintegration, partnering with different levels of governmental authority, and where appropriate, civil society, and communities.
PP2. Recognizing that marginalization, stigmatization, discrimination, and fear of social or legal repercussions….
Russia: “non-stigmatizing attitude to those who seek or are in recovery.”
PP3. Bearing in mind that acknowledging and affirming recovery from substance use disorders may help to ensure non-stigmatizing attitudes to those seeking or in recovery…(agreed)
Pending PP about confidentiality, privacy, etc.
Noting the importance of patients’ privacy rights and the protection of personal data from unauthorized access related to people affected by substance use disorders to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from seeking help. (agreed)