Chair: I see the title is agreed on informals. I see no objections therefore agreed CoW.
We proceed with PP “Recalling the UN Youth Strategy 2030..”
Russia: We propose deletion of “will guide” and replace with ”informs the efforts of… including UNODC” and add “efforts”.
Chair: I see no objection therefore agreed CoW.
We proceed with Alt. recognising the importance. I see no objection therefore agreed CoW.
Russia: Regarding “Recalling its resolution 57/3..” is proposed on agreed language so “circumstances” should be added.
Chair: I see no objection therefore agreed CoW.
Regarding “Noting also that the initiation..”?
Japan: We would like to delete this para.
Canada: We have strong preference to retain the lang on non stigmatising. We propose: Alt. noting the importance of promoting non discrimination against persons based on they drug behaviours in the design, implementation and evaluation of prevention programmes involving youth.
Peru: Indeed we don’t object on the language that was previously used but how this language fits in this resolution we wonder. With the use of non stigmatising language we maybe going further.
Singapore: We agree with Russia.
Egypt: Support for Russia.
Canada: The issue is, we are not focused on inclusivity – we could go along with the notion of combining the paragraphs but what we’re really getting at is that in the design of prevention programmes, we would like to incorporate non-discrimination values. It is not about including a wide range of individuals in the process, it is about the messages being corporated into the design and their promotion in execution. “Inclusive policies” don’t really capture what we’re getting at. Non-discriminatory attitudes is captured by the Committee. We have been flexible through this process and hope to see some flexibility from others in the room.
Russia: I’d like to seek clarification as to what is meant by “drug use behaviors”?
Chair: that is a language we have used already in resolutions but I turn to Canada or the Secretariat.
Canada: It would be a decision to use drugs, simply put.
Secretariat: I am not disagreeing with that. It is a broad way of saying, any activity related to drugs.
Canada: And also relating to persons who used to use drugs.
China: Peru might have found the way forward. The pp from Canada is a bit farfetched. The main idea here is to highlight the protection from drug use. But maybe we could just remove these paragraphs.
Chair: I think the question was to combine them?
Uruguay: I think the new draft is more comprehensive. We support the promotion of non-discrimination. We see drug use often as something remote, so stigma is a thing and young people should be involved in this.
Spain: Like the US mentioned these two concepts are not compatible so we can have them both. Also we wish an amendment: “and the need importance”
Italy: We support both proposals. Perhaps the language can be further streamlined: “..of promoting non-discrimination against PWUD persons based”
Russia: Youth people need to be warned that drug use leads to stigmatising attitudes. Thats not based on evidence. To what extent is this idea based?
Chair: I understand that you prefer the Canadian proposal.
Russia: In my view the Canadian delegation is proposing now something completely different. We value Canada’s flexibility. Almost all of the proposals have taken on board. We propose: “..of promoting society free of drug abuse and non-discrimination against drug users.
Peru: We think this is an elegant solution. My county supports Russia.
Canada: Rather than using the controversial “society free of drugs” we suggest: “…into consideration the specific needs and perspectives of youth…” and move “Alt quit noting the importance…, including youth with lived or living experience with drug use in the design, implementation and evaluation of prevention programmes involving youth.”
Russia: In our view, youth in vulnerable situations cover different areas so why should we single out a vulnerable group? An other group is youth whose parents use drugs or young people living in orphanages – I don’t think we should single out a specific group. We would like to delete the “lived or living experiences” part.
Canada: Constructive ambiguity – the example brought is a good one, there is a specific mention of them in other paras. It is the youth that will suffer if there is stigma brought on parents. That is why non-stigmatizing attitudes are key in this case. We can take out “living experience” but I stand by “youth with lived experience”.
Russia: We have an other solution: in prevention we need to involve young people and if they have lived experience of drug use and they became healthy again, we are okay with that. People who use drugs need treatment and should not be involved in prevention).We can have “recovered from drug abuse”.
USA: We would be reluctant to impose recovery. Many times people who are suffering stay vulnerable. That in itself is kind of a barrier we would not want to embrace. We could say “taking into consideration the special needs and perspectives of youth in vulnerable situation and involving them” and delete words until “in the design, implementation and evaluation of prevention programmes involving youth”.
Egypt: We are in favor of keeping the text general and use “youth in vulnerable situations”.
UK: We are pleased and thank the Canadian delegation for the inclusion of “lived experience”, we think it is important. The Russian suggestion opens up a rather large policy issue, we think the proposal of the US could be a way out of this.
Chair: If the discussion on this paragraph will be prolonged, it will be difficult to conclude our session before 6.
Peru: We are in favor of the US proposal.
Chair: Can we support this?
Norway: We oppose the sentence “society free of drug abuse”.
Chair: It is not in the text anymore. I see no more comments. There is an agreement on this para. Next pp was also agreed on. Op6 is bracketed so we proceed with alt op6. It was agreed in informals. Op7 also agreed in informals. Adopted. OP8bis….
Russia: “involve youth in prevention initiatives” and “International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking”.
Chair: Agreed in the COW. Now Op9 already agreed. Op9iter agreed in informals. This completes our deliberations. We will wait for the financial deliberations.
Chair: Is the COW ready to send L5 to Plenary for adoption? That is the case, adopted.