Home » Resolution L8 – Mainstreaming a gender perspective in drug-related policies and programmes

Resolution L8 – Mainstreaming a gender perspective in drug-related policies and programmes

Initial draft of the resolution can be found here.

Mexico: Take into account general concerns regarding the need to ensure specific negotiations on the operative resolutions, we will not make reference to the outcome document. Prepared to take out references. Start our discussion with the OPs. Then revert to the PPs.

OP 1:

Mexico: Replace bracketed text with “Including access to health services developed specifically for their needs.” Comes from agreed language, so hope it will be acceptable. Add “and those” and take out “in particular.”

UK: Specific reference to sexual and reproductive health. Flexible to take out list of contraceptives, but it would be meaningful to leave the reference in.

Guatemala: Proposal from Mexico seemed to get greater support in informals. Problem with keeping language currently in red, i.e., UK suggestion. Prefer to keep Mexican proposal open for discussion and adoption.

Egypt: Support Mexico.

Russia: Support Mexico.

Chair: Putting my Norway hat on, I would have liked to keep UK proposal, but reality is that this is the minimum platform for some and the maximum platform for others.

UK: Prepared to be flexible and accept proposed text.


Mexico: To facilitate our work, leave out those paragraphs that have already been approved. No amendment for OP2 or OP2 bis. Turning to OP3. Minor amendment to submit to the room. Yesterday a discussion was held regarding the word “execution,” and agreed to take out that term. Then were told this would change the meaning. So in the third line, change “the execution” to “implementation.”

Chair: Approved. OP3 bis and OP4 also approved.


Mexico: “For women” instead of “in which women feel safe.” Context is our discussion yesterday about whether women feel or are safe. Delegation that had proposed “or additional measures” happy to take it out. Would like to leave “in accordance with national legislation.”

Finland: Add “social services.”

Germany: Put “health and social services” together and before “law enforcement.”


Mexico: Replace with “Encourages member states to provide scientific evidence-based substance use disorder treatment and care services that take into account a public health perspective, are sensitive to the needs of women and girls, to increase the coverage of existing programmes, to ensure that programs are accessible, free of discrimination and, whenever possible and in accordance with national legislation, to offer programs for women in prison, during their transition back into society, on probation or in residential care facilities, and to ensure training and supervision for all relevant health and social care professionals working with women.”

Egypt: Would like the second line to say a “public health and safety perspective” to have balance. Three last lines, please explain where this language is coming from?

Mexico: Based on resolution last year concerning access to treatment for youth, but does single out gender aspect.

Russia: Forth line, “to increase the coverage of existing programmes, and to ensure access to them” and delete from there until “training” and adding “while providing” before that.

Mexico: For the sake of flexibility, we will go along with it. However, we are losing the prison element. Perhaps we can retain the four words on prison, or add them to the end. “Including in prison settings” added to the end.

Russia: Add “in accordance with national legislation” to the end.


Mexico: Delete this paragraph and move contents to preambular.


Mexico: To avoid linking discussion with outcome document, would delete “including UN women.” Have more general references to entities and their mandates.


Mexico: Main concern is about the last bit. Replace “including these that address gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls” with “realizing that gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls will make a crucial contribution to progress across all the goals and targets.”

Chair: OP10 and OP11 already approved. Now to PP.


Mexico: Revert to original language. Take out last addition.

Egypt: Can we start it with “Reaffirming” instead of “Welcoming the efforts…the provisions of”?

Colombia: Prefer original language, but not a strong preference.

Chair: Start with “Welcoming the efforts…” and then have “reaffirming”?

Egypt: Start with “Reaffirming” and then “welcoming the efforts.”

Russia: There are no “aims” of international treaties. Say “goals and objectives of the conventions” instead.

Colombia: No difficulties with the order, but it does seem that we are repetitive when it says “comply with their provisions.” Perhaps we could end after reference to the conventions, but not a strong preference.

USA: Prefer “aims” rather than “goals.” That is in the English translation of the treaties.

Egypt: Like to retain the last part, “comply with their provisions,” if not a strong objection from Colombia.

Russia: Support Egypt.


Egypt: Stop after “Sustainable Development Goals.”

Chair: However, it is not referring to any specific goals. It is just an introduction.

Mexico: To provide context, original text from co-sponsors in black. Asked to be more comprehensive in informals, which is why we added the blue and red text. Appeal to Egypt flexibility.

Australia: Support Mexico. Would like to keep it, as it outlines the whole purpose of the resolution. Losing it would be a shame.

Germany: Support Mexico. Add “inter alia” so it is clear that it is not an exhaustive list.

Egypt: Yes, accept this.

Russia: This resolution looks a bit strange when we start with the text of SDGs and not the conventions. Prefer the first PP to have conventions. Move PP2 to PP1.

Germany: Flexible to that, but remind that we discussed this in informals and Russia agreed to the list as it is now.


Mexico: Take up the PP1 and then PP2. Then begin with PP3, where amendments in purple did not prove problematic. First refer to gender issues, and then population and development. Move “as well as the programme…” to the end. Add “adopted at the International Conference on Population and Development held in 1994.”  Strike out “as well as.”

PP4: No comments. Agreed.

PP5: No comments. Agreed.


Russia: Taking into account the position of some delegations regarding taking out the mention of religious organizations, we can compromise but want to retain “the family.”

Mexico: This was one of the compromise proposals. Bracket the reference to families and family, and revisit after the end of the proposal.

Germany: In the sense of compromise we could accept this, but remove the word “the.”

Mexico: Delete paragraph that begins with “Emphasizing.” Replace with “Recognizing the important role played by civil society in tackling the world drug problem, in particular its gender-related aspects.”

Colombia: Would prefer “addressing” rather than “tackling.”

Guatemala: Agree with Colombia.

Mexico: The compromise was specifically to use the term “tackling.” I appeal for flexibility in the room.

Colombia: This is a most important point for Colombia, and I would have to consult on it, and revert on this issue in a few minutes time.

Chair: This pp remains open.

Russia: This paragraph should be moved below the next paragraph, which is about the CND.

Mexico: Change is acceptable. Submit paragraph to CND for consideration.

Chair: We can proceed.

Mexico: Come back to this PP and move on to the last PP. Make a more general reference, and I think the room will be able to go along with it. In bilateral consultations, we agreed that this broad language was acceptable. What about, “Reaffirming the commitment to end all discrimination against women expressed in the Convention on the elimination of all forms of violence against women, and in specific the commitment to achieve equal treatment for women in access to health services”? This is agreed language.

Chair: Three outstanding paragraphs. Would like to close this resolution as soon as possible.

Mexico: Take out the remaining paragraphs. Discussion on family remains.

Chair: “Including the welfare of parents and children in the family” ?

Sweden: “Including to the welfare of their family”, delete text in square brackets.

Russia: Australia had mentioned another compromise, “to the welfare of their family”?

Australia: That was not my understanding.

Germany: I can fully support what Australia just said. Can Russia please show flexibility.

Russia: My flexibility will show when we delete religious organisations [and other suggestions]

Chair: “Including family welfare”. Can we try that? I would really like to close here now.

Australia: Yes, we agree.

Russia: “including family matters”, instead of “welfare”.

Chair: “Including family matters and welfare”? Can we settle it with that?

Holy Sea: Thank you Madame chair. As we have said repeatedly, we prefer the original text. This latest change moves us far from the meaning of the preamble.


Holy Sea: Could we make another proposal here. “Bearing in mind the huge contribution of woman to the development of society and the family”.

Chair: I think we have solved it. PP.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 have all been agreed. Resolution passed. I really thank you all.

USA: Grammatical correction. “Between” to “among” in PP.5

Guatemala: We would like to thank the delegations of Mexico and Costa Rica, for preparing this important resolution. We would like Guatemala to be a co-sponsor.

Colombia: Thank you. This is an important resolution, it is well prepared. I would like to come back to the paragraph we have left open. I was consulting with my delegation. In the cooperative spirit, we would like to suggest that we strengthen the reference made to by Civil society.

Russia: I am not a native speaker, but I suppose addressing and tackling have a very similar meaning. Addressing is however weaker than tackling.

Mexico: The idea was to avoid a pending discussion. If the compromise proposal does not allay the concerns, we would suggest having “addressing” & “countering”.

Colombia: We would prefer what was originally proposed, however the proposal of “addressing” and “countering” would be acceptable to our delegation.

Chair: We close.

Norway: Thanks for your great efforts. We would like to be co-sponsor this resolution.

Australia: we would also like to ensure our name is stated as a co-sponsor.

Argentina: We would also like to co-sponsor.

Colombia: What a shame we have had to take the floor so much on this matter. We would also like to be a co-sponsor.

Chair: With this we have finalized the consideration of L8.

Turkey: We are grateful for your great leadership. Can we kindly ask the Mexican delegation to share via email?

Mexico: Thank you for support and flexibility.

UNODC: Thank you madame chair. I would like to draw your attention to OP8. it is envisaged that a budget of $680,000 would  be required to train, deliver interventions, fund advocacy, and harm reduction services  (…) in addition we would require $218,000 to mainstream ideas found in the resolution, including several events with relevant delegations.

Chair: Thank you. Let’s have a five minute break.

Find the next resolution that was considered during this session here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *