Home » Resolution L3 – Ensuring access to drug treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration services for marginalized populations(cont.)

Resolution L3 – Ensuring access to drug treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration services for marginalized populations(cont.)

Chair: I would like to start with a personal remark. I had some requests of delegations, and distinguished colleagues from Australia, France, and Turkey… I would like to explain that here, it’s not too easy to work through mutual rule, as it is for you. Regarding time zones – it’s the life is for everybody: very difficult. So I asked also delegations who asked me know during informals to reopen some paragraphs that we adoptad. I will not reopen previoiusly agreed on paragraphs, that is my personal policy. I would like to make an apology again to the delegations that were squeezed in.

Canada: Thank you. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a number of paragraphs still open. They’ll have to be resolved now, though we made tremendous progress this morning. I think between today and Wednesday we’ve approved some 85% of the paragraphs. And so I think the best way to proceed is just to go to those in green, including the title, and put it in the basket and see if that’s enough.

Chair: Yes, that’s okay for me. Should we start with a title. Do you agree with the title, as it is here on the screen? Agreed by COW. Next.

Canada: The access to data on either end is simply shorthand for the Secretary and so we can delete that list, and then delete the old two was just good.

Mr Chair, I’m sorry I do not have a list of all the paragraphs agreed in formals today. So I propose we scroll through the text and locate those paragraphs that are agreed and informal PP zero is not not agreed because and editorial background.


Turkey: We can’t agree to the title until we see the entirety of the text.

Colombia: Impacted in the context… „peple impacted by social marginalization” this is not applicable in spanish so we ask that you take into consideration that the translators will use „affected”.

Russia: Thank you Mr Chairman. My Intervention relates to the resolution as a whole. I was not able to take the floor when we started discussing the title of the resolution but that was due to technical difficulties. We still mustering this digital technologists and not react as quickly as we might have done if we were present in the room. The Russian delegation has actively participated in all kinds of informal consultations on this draft resolution from the very beginning, even before the session is started and we propose concrete suggestions how to improve the text and the concept that was proposed by the co-sponsors. Now we’re understanding that any resolution that is adopted by our commission is adopted by consensus, and it should be translated and implemented by our competent authorities at the national level. So, that is why it should include the interests of all member states. Unfortunately, Mr. chair and we understand that, probably this is this virtual format is to blame for that, but during our consultations on this draft resolution we noticed that the process was a little chaotic, and the paragraphs were not agreed upon in the order that they were presented. We raised this issue today arm with their co sponsors, but the response was that we have to follow the order that it currently stands on the screen, which in our assessment is rather coated and is not in compliance with the usual practice how the preamble of parts of the resolution look. Another issue for us is that yesterday, late at night, we deleted reference to one of the important documents from this resolution and that is the political declaration of 2009, which Russian delegation attaches great importance to as it is part of our political commitments in this commission, and we were trying to amend this error by proposing, another language from the political declaration to be reinserted in the text during the informals today but unfortunately, our proposal was met with resistance from the co-sponsors and from several other delegations. We fully understand, Mr Chair, that we are short of time and we have to close the open paragraphs in this resolution. However, we I want to underline that lack of time, couldn’t be their argument for Russia to give up its principal position. Therefore, Mr Chair, we kindly seek your indulgence to reconsider the procedural approach that you announced at the very beginning, and see how the interests of all delegations could be incorporated in in this resolution so that it can be adopted by consensus at the plenary tomorrow. I thank you Mr Chair.

Chair: The plenary is today and I will not open the agreed paragraphs, so what I would like to do is, at the request of Turkey, send out a text and at 4:15 we go pp by pp through the whole resolution.

Singapore: removed references to the 2009 we had little notice and wasnt aíble to be there in person. We do not intend to hamper the consensus here, but we would like to employ the generosity of the chair on our request to mention the 2009 policy document.

Given that these references to these documents are core to the Commission in interest of several delegations, including mine.

Chair: We reconvene at 4:15.

Canada: Thank you Mr Chair, I was just actually gonna ask the same thing, it’s very important to some delegations that they get a full look at the text. There’s been a few technical issues here. But of course, nothing is agreed totally agreed.


Canada: Thank you Mr Chair, I was just actually gonna ask the same thing, it’s very important to some delegations that they get a full look at the text. There’s been a few technical issues here. But of course, nothing is agreed totally agreed.

Chair: before we begin with the title and then other paragraphs through one of the one I we’d like to give the floor to Malta who would like to react on Russia, and Singapore, and he remarks at the beginning of this session, while you have the floor.

Malta: Thank you Mr Chair. With your indulgence and to hear the concerns of these delegations which have expressed the need to include wording from the 2009 political declaration. Can I just introduce some practice, recalling this political declaration. I believe it would be pp 10. „ recalling the political declaration and plan of action on international cooperation towards an integrated and balanced strategy to counter the world drug problem of 2009, coma, in which member states re D rated their commitment to promote develop review or strengthen effective comprehensive, integrated drug demand reduction programs based on scientific evidence and covering a range of measures”

Chair: Now we go pp by pp, starting with the title. Agreed in COW.

Malta: grammatical correction.


Agreed in COW


Canada: The right way to look at pp0 as a pp00alt. We would retain pp00 and remove pp0.

Russia: We support this language but propose it to become pp11tier.

Chair: Are we agreeing on the proposal?

Canada: pp00 or pp0? pp0 did not enjoy consensus.

Chair: Are we agreeing to delete pp0?

France: I just wanted to react to the proposal by the Russian Federation. When I asked yesterday to change the order of the paragraphs on to nine, where I had put a reservation Mr Chair, I remember that you did not want to discuss it. So, I’m afraid I will not be able to go along with this proposal, because we have not the opportunity to discuss the placement of pp nine, neither.

Russia: Apologies for the confusion created by my previous intervention, I think the co-sponsors for pointing out that the proposal was to delete PP zero, Russia can support this proposal.

Chair: Okay, we delete pp0.

Canada: I’m sorry, not only our virtual informals difficult for people online. Sometimes editorial mistakes occur. There were two paragraphs labeled pp 01, which was just deleted which is correct, and one of which was a greeting cow which is also correct. So the next paragraph of the discussion, which is agreement informals, in my understanding would be PP four.



Chair: Is it correct that there was no consensus on this? Can we delete this?

Canada: We did not have time to work on this. It is about the COVID pandemic and is drawing language from L2 that was agreed on this week. We agreed on „social marginalization” and have reservation on „disproportionally affected”. If I am correct, we are using language from L5 so we take „noting that in these circumstances people, including those impacted by social marginalization, may face additional obstacles…” and „may have been disproportionally affected” by the pandemic…


Canada: Thank you very much Mr Chair, I think we’re moving in the right direction. But as I look at it now, there has been other texts agreed, and different claws were which would be as well as measures aimed at all the way up until prerogatives, we haven’t used this formulation, in other paragraphs and I believe the distinguished delegation of the Netherlands, may be able to remind the precise language used elsewhere.

Netherlands: […]

Russia: I just want to withdraw our proposal at the beginning of the sentence. Starting with „recalling” and ending with „acknowledges”, we can just simply quote this paragraph starting with „acknowledging”. Thank you very much.

Chair. Agreed by COW.


Russia: We want to flag we can agree, provided pp5tier is adopted. We invite the COW to consider these two in conjunction.

France: If the Russian Federation would ike to keep „drug abuse” in pp6 then we need to reaffirm our commitment to respecting human rights.

USA: Thank you Chair I had raised my hand to first comment on the beginning of each of these paragraphs, which, as the distinguished delegate from France just pointed out, visit is actually a direct quote. But, in order to conform with standard resolution formatting should be changed to „reiterating” and „reaffirming”. We would support the inclusion of both as they are drawn directly from the ministerial declaration.

Russia: I do confirm that that was the agreement with the delegation of France so we support them to be retained, both paragraphs in this resolution. Thank you.

Chair: pp5bis and pp5ter are to be adopted and pp6 to be deleted then?

Iran: Supporting the proposal.

Chair: Thank you. Accepted by COW.

Chair: pp7alt, pp8, pp9 accepted by COW

Chair: So we have pp10 deleted and Malta suggested a pp10alt.

Singapore: Thank you to Malta for taking on our concerns. We support.

Russia: Thank you to Malta also. We support.

Chair: Do all delegations agree? Accepted by COW.

Chair: pp11bis, pp12 agreed by COW and pp13 was approved, can delegations agree with pp13? Agreed in COW.


Chair: I propose to delete this at this hour.

USA: Thank you chair, as we discussed earlier, there are some paragraphs in this preambular section, which some countries would prefer to delete because they do not see the relevance of them to the scope of this resolution however, for other countries, it would be important to retain them. And we would appeal to the sense of flexibility to those countries who would prefer to delete this, acknowledging that this is in the preambular section and therefore does not create any additional obligations on member states, and also that this is simply recalling language that the CND has previously agreed to, and we would ask that for the sake of those delegations who do find this relevant to their national context that we’d be permitted to retain this paragraph. Thank you.

Canada: I’d like to add my voice to that of the United States, there’s been a lot of given take some delegation have given more than they’ve taken, we’re trying to have a careful balance here, and this this paragraph is extremely important to some delegations in many countries and national contexts in line with much vital national legislation, people living with HIV AIDS would count as a marginalized population. So, in the absence of further mention of this group in the resolution, the co sponsors of this co sponsor, we add voice to the appeal for flexibility on the part of other delegations, who see less relevance, their own national context for this paragraph.

Russia: Initially, the Russian Federation, expressed its concern that this paragraph might not relate to the scope of this resolution. But in the spirit of compromise and having heard how important this paragraph is for many delegations, including the sponsors of this resolution, Russia is ready to take to withdraw, if a reservation. Thank you.

Netherlands: Support.

pp14 Agreed (?)


Canada: Originally, believe we had a paragraph standing alone in 14 recalling further all the way up until full stop, and then some delegations perhaps felt the other section and recognized all the way down to „recovery” would be better served here, but if we go back up to pp 13, we’ll see that the language is already reflected. So we’ve agreed to have the second half of the paragraph, now all that’s left to do is erase that highlighted text which would be redundant and concentrate on.

USA: I had requested the floor to make a similar explanation that now that we have adopted parrot preambular Paragraph 13 The second half of this paragraph is duplicative and we will propose its deletion.

Russia: We would like to withdraw our reservation initially, we propose to delete the one of the paragraphs that we agreed above because it looked to us repetitive to this one, but we can happily accept their proposed elegant solution from Canada.

Chair: Agreed by COW.


Australia: Australia had previously asked for pp 15 to be retained, pending the negotiation. Some of the retention of language which we’re looking for here from pp 15 no longer applies. So Australia would propose that pp 15 is deleted, and that we proceed with pp 15 bis, with the exception that we would seek the deletion in the last sentence from „in the framework” onwards so to put a full stop after „for vulnerable members of society”. The reason we seek the deletion of just that final part of the sentence is that in relation to the resolution 61/7, which is recalling from, it would make it appear to be more narrow in scope than the resolution, actually is and so this represents it slightly when put here in this context.

Turkey: Okay.

Canada: We know how important this language is to Australia and we know how hard it was to reach consensus on 67, and we’d like to congratulate them retroactively for that resolution, and we thank them for their pp 15 This which is an elegant way of recalling it while respecting recently emerged sensitivities.

Russia: We would also like to thank the delegation of Australia for surely showing flexibility on this issue, there have been long discussions and inference on that, we highly appreciate this agreement to refer to resolution 61 slash seven. However, Mr. Chair. Russia’s position is that we prefer to have exact quotation from the paragraph, when we quote resolutions. So, if this is not a strong point for Australia, we would prefer to retain the last part of it, and we would like to hear their views on that, because the paragraph was carefully drafted in that resolution and there was a reason why this last part was included.

Australia: despite my earlier comment in relation to the removal of that final part of the paragraph, because I do think that it doesn’t ultimately reflect the broad range of issues that were within resolution 61 Seven. I do acknowledge that this, pp 15, days is recalling the paragraph essentially recalling op three from the resolution and happy to support the text in full.

Chair: pp15bis is then agreed by COW. Now, pp16 was already agrred on, pp17alt – do we agree? Agreed by COW. Next, pp17bis and pp18 were also agreed in COW. Next, pp18bis is agreed in COW. pp19?

Canada: we simply ran out of time and I think for many delegations it’s important content that talks about social barriers for individuals that are impeding access, but also challenges state state’s case in mobilizing resources for the kind of services that we’re facilitating. So I think there’s broad agreement on the text, all the way up until people are impacted by social marginalization and then essentially we had a very difficult time matching the grammar and the order of words to what we wanted to say. So, if there’s some creative solutions on the perhaps someone who’s not as tired as I am, who could make grammatical sense of the last two lines.

USA: it occurs to us that this language. Grammatically is very similar to what we were using in PP five all Twitch has now been agreed by the cow. And it’s possible that we could use as the similar construction here… „being fully aware that people, including those impacted by social marginalization, may be particularly affected”

Egypt: Can we delete „particularly”?

Chair: pp19 and pp20 agreed in COW.

Chair: It was agreed that OP1alt comes first. Next op1bis.

Australia: This has been subject of really quite extensive conversations throughout the informal process, and Australia has, I think it’s fair to say, given up much language here in this to achieve consensus. Throughout these negotiations it was apparent that it was particularly important to some countries in their domestic context. But unfortunately, we’ve not been able to achieve that here from an Australian perspective. Of particular importance to us was retaining some language, in relation to the indigenous populations, and we’ve subsequently agreed to that removal because we didn’t want to hold up consensus here. But don’t think overall, our disappointment comes from the fact that this has been previously agreed language. And, you know, the conversations that we’ve had acknowledges the principal leaving no one behind … this means ensuring that those most at risk are the ones who receive our attention. We remove any and all objections to the text in front of us, so we dont stand in the way of achieving consensus. We will leave the formal negotiations in your hands.

Turkey: We also support the approach leaving no one behind. But on the other hand, there are some terms which are actually not very concise in international discussions. That’s why we need to be more cautious. In our understanding, rationing some group as more marginalized is a kind of discrimination.

Guatemala: We have over 24 different indigenous communities, peoples or ethnic groups, each one of them is officially recognized with official languages by the constitution of Guatemala, and they definitely come way before the time of democracy… So for us not having this language here is very sad.  I really don’t know why here in Vienna, we’re trying to say that such groups do not exist? Such groups have to have a specific mention in accordance with national legislation or in accordance with constitutional when even the United Nations has a Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues. We won’t stand in the middle of consensus but we have to add our voice to the discussion – it’s really a pity it’s it’s sad, and it’s somehow bad for the system. And for all of us and for the international community not to reflect the existence of this indigenous peoples. Again, Chair, thank you for to Canada, thank you for all of those countries that have participated in this time we won’t stand in the middle of consensus Thank you.

Egypt: … Problem is that we do not agree, we have different perspectives on this issue. And we tried negotiations to have a particular definition, it was very hard. I think there’s a lot of confusions, a lot of disagreements. So we propose to move on.

Chair: I would like to put forward a Chair’s proposal – removal of the list.

USA: were sad to see that we are not able to specifically speak about the people who do experience marginalization or in this context, to encourage member states to merely consider the impact of social marginalization, on some people when indeed when we think about what marginalization refers to. It is the act of treating a person, group, or concept as something that is insignificant or not worth mentioning. And from our perspective, what we’ve just done is decide that these people are not worth mentioning, so we really regret this, but we understand the need to move forward, we would simply propose that since the ask here since what this operative paragraph is asking for countries to do, it’s so minimal at this point, really to consider the impact of social marginalization on these services that we at the very least remove the caveat, as appropriate. We think that that’s a simple request that it was originally there when the list was, and it’s no longer relevant

Mexico: We want to echo the sentiments expressed by the delegation of the United States. I want to express our preoccupation that by having this approach, what basically we’re doing is that we’re sidelining people from a number of discussions, difficult is not impossible, almost impossible to think that we will be addressing taxing drugs for example, whereas yesterday there was a problem in New York, related to issues affecting us, which normally should and could be addressed by, and I could give a number of examples like that. If we pursue this approach of not wanting to address the real victims, or the real persons engaged in issues related to drugs in this case, then the only one solution is not as a negation in a negotiation, but as the epicenter for having the discussions,

Norway: May I suggest that we will try to just dig further in this text to add measures in particular for women and vulnerable members of society […]

Egypt: inaudible

Turkey: from my perspective, mentioning some group or agenda, makes me feel really anxious actually as a woman, I do not want sublimation, which can be more marginalized than men. I cannot accept this approach. This is actually discrimination itself. And why do we say some groups in the society, are more marginalized than the other group?, Why are we labeling people? If you just have a look at the population world population,  men are more marginalized than women. So, we cannot accept the latest proposal.

Belgium: But I wonder if it wouldn’t be more logic to speak within the national and regional context, as it was proposed in the beginning, because my understanding of what was happening, what has happened during the negotiations, is that the reference to national legislation was indeed to accommodate some of the reservations on on the list itself, including on indigenous people. So for this reason, I think it would sound more logical to speak about national and regional contexts, because that’s where the impact happens is the context of national and regional. So that would be my suggestion but I would be very grateful if I could have some explanation there, if, if legislation is needed or not. Thank you.

Argentina: inaudible

Canada: I think we’ve exhausted, debating this topic. There’s no consensus on having a list, no matter how short. And I believe the only workable solution right now is to start with encourages and with related measures. As amended by the USA. There’s still a number of important operative paragraphs to consider tonight. And we don’t want to delay the plenary any further. So, I would ask colleagues to express some of the sentiments on this issue in their closing statements. And I look forward to discussions in the days, weeks had in Vienna on how we can all do a little bit better.

Argentina: I just wanted to add our voice to all those delegations that expressed their concerns about the deletion of the list. And just to say that we really regret that. Just like is the for many people in these groups in society, we are rendering them once again invisible.

Chair: Thank you very much, and I support very much the suggestion from Canada, please raise your voice in the plenary. But now I would like to ask you to agree with op one piece, as it is on the screen. Agreed by COW.


Canada: I noticed the very important issue of healthy lifestyles here, I believe we’re dealing with the text in bold at this point, calls upon member states to facilitate access to treatment, expand capacity, facilitating healthy lifestyles, etc. Mr Chair, there was not time to revisit this text. And so it’s, it still remains a work in progress. Canada is open to deletion but we’re in your hands and in the hands of other delegations who may feel more attached to this text.

Russia: I recollect that we had a paragraph drafted, reflecting on this concepts have been formals, but unfortunately I don’t see that this screen right now. So if I made through your request the co-sponsors to give us some information of what happened to their short version of this paragraph that we discussed the date for most today in the morning, that would be very helpful to us because it seems to us that though, That paragraph was very close to finding consensus.


Russia: Latest draft has been shared. Chair, we discussed this at informals, we almost reached consensus. To promote healthy lifestyles when facilitating access to; then delate treatment until effective. Take out all levels. “Call

Chair: can Canada agree?

Canada: Yes, we believe. Effective has been deleted elsewhere so it’s consistent. We can go ahead with this paragraph.

Chair: Delegations can you agree as it is on the screen?

UK: The UK appreciates this paragraph required for consensus. National legislation calls for promoting healthy lifestyles, we need to insert a caveat “as appropriate”.

U.S.: We preferred as originally drafted. It appears the only thing changed is order. We believe other order made more sense as was in line with purpose. We prefer to go back to other order, prioritize facilitating access, and add expand capacity” in line with UNGASS which is missing. Would be helpful to see text as we had it. If not a strong preference of Russia, we would like to keep and

Canada: In the spirit of consensus I don’t think we can delete this paragraph. Very strong preference to put [..] at end. Canada would prefer the second option.

Chair: I understand these are two different texts.

Russia: Appreciate U.S. proposal. Russia can go ahead with second version and delete proposal.

Chair: Can you agree with proposal of States?

UK: If possible to add as appropriate we can agree.

Chair: Can you agree with this text? Agreed by CoW. Thank you.

Canada: OP1 original paragraph which should be deleted unfortunately. OP2 agreed in informals.

Chair: Delegations can you agree with OP2?

U.S.: Once again, recall something different from informals. We had tried to clean up without so man y striekouts. We did inadvertedly lose the concept of people affected by social marginalization that I want to make sure is included. I see it now it is.

Canada: Distinguished delegate might be having déjà vu. It’s all there Mr Chair.

Chair: Thank you can you agree with OP2? Agreed by CoW. Next,

Canada; OP3 did not meet consensus. Prison settings and criminal justice system, as you can see lots unresolved.  My recommendation to submit for deleation.

Chair: can you agree with rec of sponsor and delete OP3? Agreed by CoW.

Canada: OP4 is there, was agreed in informals I believe. Perhaps waiting for final signup but that’s up for approval.

Chair: This is clean version. Delegations can you agree?

Iran: last sentence, it needs including for.

Chair: Canada can you agree? Thank you, agreed by CoW.

Canada: As part of series of victories this afternoon, OP5 was agreed in informals.

Chair: Delegations can you agree with OP5 as on screen? Agreed by CoW.

Canada: OP6 also agreed in informals.

Chair: OP6, delegates? Agreed by CoW.

Canada: OP7 agreed in informals this afternoons.

Chair: Can you agree? Agreed by CoW.

Canada: We came very close to consensus to OP8, there is a clean version but I do not see agreed in informals.

Chair: We have OP8 and still in the break [?}

Canada: Canada can support this, I think it’s almost there we just ran out of time.

Chair: Can you agree OP8 as is on screen? Agreed by CoW.

Canada: I can hardly believe it, only 3 para left. OP9 I believe agreed in informals.

Chair: Can you agree? Agreed.

Canada: OP12 agreed in informal. Discussion on where UNODC should gain data from still remains. Other delegations observed there might be other sources than member states. This conversation is taking place all over UNODC. This discussion should take place in a different form, we know […]

Chair: OP10, can you support it the way the sponsor proposed? Agreed as you proposed.

Chair: We go to OP11, can you agree?

Russia: I apologize but raised before previous para was closed. There were requests from Iran and Turkey before us. Give them the floor first.

Chair: we are back to op10, turkey.

Turkey: We have a question mark in our heads, if international and regional organisations can’t be in consultation with organizations, how can they collect information? We believe this is important to make sense.

Iran: In line with Turkey. Inclusion of ‘in consultation with member states’

Russia: We do agree with Canada that caveat has not been used before, but don’t understand arguments of those who oppose it. Can you explain implications for your delegations? We might reconsider, right now definitely want.

Chair: Do you have a good argument?

Canada: My arguments are always good, especially as it was told to us by Secretariat this afternoon. The involvement of MS is obviously part of where they get their info. We haven’t discussed this very much. It’s our firm believe that concerns about quality, source of information collected and circulated is a big task and not for this resolution to take up this task. We welcome discussion on this but not here.

US: We also find this extremely limiting that data is only to be shared and collected in consultation eith MS. UNODC collects many types of data, we wouldn’t want to limit this, especially on scientific evidence and best practices.

Mexico: We agree it’s a bigger discussion. They could have access to sensitive information. After those regional and intl received information from MS, then still having to ask for the possibility of sharing that info which is already in public domain, that’s baseless considering own mandates to create knowledge and share knowledge. As Canada said, this is not the place to address it. Call upon Member States is simply out of place.

UK: We support Mexico and U.S. argument. Believe this is unnecessary burden on MS, to enter into conversation whether they should share.

Chair: Colleague from Russia asked for good arguments, I give 5 minutes to consider whether these arguments are good or not.

Russia: Thank you for elegant solutions. The text as it stands work for Russian Federation.

Chair: Does it also work for Iran?

Iran: reaching consensus is good but I have another option. Delete international and regional organizations […]

United States: Some of the confusion might be coming from ‘consultations’, I wonder if we could change it to ‘in collaboration with Member States’.

Chair: Iran, I could not understand well your input.

Iran: Okay now for us, this proposal.

Chair: Delegations, can you agree on OP10 as is?

Belgium: My understanding, we can go ahead with ‘as appropriate’ only, and not in consultation or in collaboration. If that’s removed, we can go ahead.

Chair: I propose […]

Russia: Thank you for flexibility. This is really important for my delegation, appreciate colleagues. This is acceptable for my delegation.

Canada: There’s 3 variants on the screen. Original is acceptable if comma after MS removed. Iranian is acceptable but deleting intl and regional is unfortunate – why would MS not talk to them? It doesn’t make sense. And we cannot accept collaboration, has to be consultation. Can I speak for both co-sponsors please?

Chair: You spoke for Canada and Malta. Can you agree OP10 now? Agreed by CoW. Oh, Egypt.

Egypt: We want a comma after Member States, this is important to us.

Chair: You heard the cosponsors.

Belgium: As you indicated, we cannot go along without the comma. We didn’t like consultation or collaboration but in our ultimate flexibility we could accept it for the sponsor to agree.

Turkey: Surprised some delegations have reservations and not want international organizations to consult with them. We find it very difficult to reach consensus or solution. Therefore we want to remove “and invites international and regional organizations… [

UK: Include reference to international and regional orgs. There’s a debate in UNODC on how we collect data, would be shortsighted not to accept other sources. I suggest saying “invite ..” to collect and share.

Chair: We are at late hour and Plenary would like to start. I propose to delete OP10

Canada: One final try. We could live with this one or Turkey’s. we prefer this one on screen.

Chair: Delegations, can you agree as it is on screen?

Iran: Prefer Chair’s proposal.

Russia: We can leave with this, we just need a comma between Member States and ‘as appropriate’.

Turkey: We had consultations with capital. No exact definition of social marginalization people. If we are sharing information, what group does this include? This paragraph is not applicable because of the lack of exact definition. One group might be marginalized in one country, but can’t be accepted as socially marginalized member of society elsewhere.

Chair: I don’t want to delete OP10 but I want to move on. Can you agree? Deleted. Can you agree on OP11? Agreed by CoW. OP12 was agreed by CoW. Colleagues, we went through paragraph by paragraph. Can you agree on Resolution L3 as whole as it is? Agreed. Pleased we have the 4th resolution in the basket. Will submit to plenary. Plenary starts at 8, and I thank you very much. Before closing…

Mexico: Officially joining sponsor of this resolution. The bigger message is more important, to not leave anyone behind, especially marginalized people.

Chair : Please mention in Plenary or send nonverbal you want to cosponsor

Canada: Thanks to all delegates who contributed to successful adoption. Thank you to Maltese colleagues and Mexico. Thank you Chair for able leadership. Never knew how helpful the president of CoW could be. You saved the CND from a less successful result. Deep gratitutde to Peru, Portugal and for able leadership on important topics. And we owe them thanks for courage so we can move forward. Spirit of Vienna entails a great responsibility. It’s a call to all of us to do our very best to find common ground, understand each other and find solutions. Hope this spirit will continue, but after last 5 days, I feel we can do somewhat better. Let’s aim higher. With good will it will be a successful outcome.

Chair: UK will also co-sponsor.

Russia: Commend you able and professional leadership of leading us through difficulties. Thank you cosponsors of this resolution. We believe end result adopted will benefit us all in our national efforts.

Chair: It was a special experience and I’m very touched by your words. I liked very much that we had a team, a team of sponsors and we met every evening. This was teamwork and I feel solidarity. When peru had first resolution in the basket they were still with us, same with Nigaria, still supported colleagues, that’s team spirit. Thanks to all delegations, we had difficult moments but there was a spirit of compromise and respect.

Leave a Reply

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