Russia: Our preference would be to use the original title of the draft resolution. During informals, it was stated that we would use the world ‘use’. We also had discussions on abuse vs use and misuse, but in our view, it would be best and simplest in the heading to keep it as it was. Other contexts can be included in the text itself.
Chair: There are comments put forward by Sweden and Canada.
Sweden: We worked on the title at the outset, then through the preambular and operative paragraphs. But during informs, due to a shortage of time, we did not return to the title to reflect the changes made throughout. There was a solution to ‘scientific evidence-based’, there was a solution to the ‘drug abuse’ quandry. We believe these concepts should be included and we should use agreed language identified in a number of different places throughout the text.
Chair: I understand we will come back to the title once we have a resolution in the COW. We look at the first PP, agreed in informals.
Any more comments? Here we have reference to children and young people. I see no more comments on the PP, so I may take it as agreed by the COW? I see no objections. It is agreed.
Also agreed in informals. Russia?
Russia: We did agree this paragraph during informals. Initially, the proposal came from Sweden. We would also like to have a discussion now on the following paragraph. In our view the CRC has two important provisions – the need to take into account the opinions of children, and the need to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs. For some reason though, the second provision gave rise to doubts in some delegations. Our view is either we keep both or delete both. We would like to have a discussion on PP1 Bis and PP1 Ter.
Sweden: On the reference to the CRC, from our discussions in the informals, one of the things we talked about was the relevance of the reference to the CRC as this resolution is about youth and involving youth in our prevention and health efforts. Sticking with our general recommendations to keep things as concrete as possible, I would like to withdraw Sweden’s original proposition – we would withdraw PP1 Bis and in consequence have no reference to the CRC, as we are speaking about youth in this resolution.
Chair: That perhaps facilitates, or perhaps not? I see no comments on this, so the PPs are withdrawn. And then I understand that in the brackets we have a reference to the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child].
The next PP is agreed in informals. It starts with affirming the importance of involving youth
Any comments on this?
Italy: In the third line, we have ‘work’ and ‘programmes’, I ask what the intention of the word ‘programmes’ was and whether the word work should be retained.
USA: We thought ‘work’ was too broad – we don’t expect children to go to work, we want them to be involved in programmes.
Chair: Work is deleted. I think there are no objections, I take it the COW is ready to accept this PP? PP is accepted.
Another PP, Bearing in mind that the definition of the term “youth”
Any comments? I see no comments, so may I take that this is accepted by the COW. I see that’s the case, so it’s accepted.
PP, ‘Reaffirming the 2009 Political Declaration‘
No comments, so that’s agreed in the COW.
PP, ‘Reaffirming also the 2016 outcome document’
Here we have a reference to children and youth, any comments? No comments, so I would take that this is acceptable to member States and that it’s agreed in the COW. Very good.
PP, ‘Recalling further the 2019 Ministerial Declaration’
PP, ‘Recalling the United Nations Youth Strategy 2030’
USA: It doesn’t relate to youth or youth involvement in awareness raising. We don’t think it’s relevant here.
Portugal: Our objective here is that it’s in drug prevention efforts. If we look at PP2, this clearly relates to that for example – and I guess other delegates don’t have an issue with this. And this is not as general. We would start from the larger picture. We would like to keep it, but consider it’s perfectly in line with other PPs.
Italy: With the explanation provided by Portugal, we’d like to retain this paragraph, we think it helps set in the context in this resolution and in addressing the issue of drug prevention – prevention of drug use – we don’t necessarily need to speak about drugs, there are a number of interventions, e.g. empowering children in youth, which eventually lead to prevention of drug use, but are also broader in scope. We wish to retain the paragraph.
Sweden: We would also like to express our support for this additional paragraph. As explained by Portugal, it’s good to bring in the broader perspective, and this is truly the bigger picture when it’s an issue by the Secretary General. It would be nice to show that the UNODC is responsive to initiatives by the Secretary General. This is something new and modern. It would be good to show that we’re living with the times.
USA: If we could ask the room’s indulgence to bracket this for a moment while we consult with Capital. Because this document doesn’t address drugs at all, the UN strategy has been blind to youth in effective efforts to counter it. If we could just ask the room to bear with us we’ll check back with Capital.
Chair: Next pp has been agreed in informals.
Russia: Canada proposed a new reference to 59/5 but it is a quiet selective and pretty much new language that has little to do with the aims of the resolution. We are open to discuss this but just want to stress that this resolution has nothing to do with our current proposal.
Canada: Just to draw the groups attention to the relevant paragraph in resolution 61/11 – I read out what is included in here and in the preambular paragraph. It is factual that what we have now is not a direct quote. There is an additional word “young” before “women”. Otherwise it is exactly the same.
Chair: The reference here is to 59/5 and not 61/11.
Canada: This is drawn exactly from 61/7 which refers to 59/5.
Nigeria: We had similar concerns. To bring in reference to gender and related terminologies might stir focus away from the main issue.
Chair: So, there is a proposal to have it deleted.
Canada: We would like to see it retained and the particular perspectives raised now have not been mentioned in the informals. We think gender is relevant to the topic at hand – youth participation in prevention and promotion of health.
Chair: The next paragraph has been agreed on in informals. I see no comments. COW is ready to accept this pp. The next one is also agreed in informals. I see no comments. COW accepts this pp as well. Next one – we have a proposal here.
Nigeria: Could we have some explanation on this proposal?
Chair: Switzerland is not present at the moment so we have to come back to it tomorrow. An other pp proposal by Canada to reference the 2016 outcome. Any comments on this?
Russia: We expressed our position during informals that this doesn’t tie in with the topic of resolution since we are talking about treatment and etc but no perevention. This resolution is focused on prevention, we propose to delete this addition.
Canada: The purpose of adding this para was to add balance to this resolution. As Russia just indicated, this resolution is pretty one sided. There you have it.
Nigeria: We object to having this proposal. We don’t want a balance that takes a resolution out of focus. Taking a resolution out of context should not be a motivation to anyone. This language is not appropriate here.
Singapore: We are supporting of the contents of the reference paragraph (treatment) but we agree it is not the place for it. We support the deletion to streamline the resolution.
Palestine: We are supportive of the idea but to look to the purpose of this resolution, we think the para is not going along the resolution’s direction. We ask Canada to accept this and be more flexible on this.
Chair: We have a long list of speakers, but we will delegate this to informals as we should adjourn the session now. I invite the sponsors to continue to find consensus in informals. We will resume tomorrow morning, immediately after item 5a in Plenary.