Resolution L3 – Ensuring access to drug treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation, and social reintegration services, for people within marginalized populations (cont.)

Chair: Welcome back to the Committee of the Whole. I hope you all had a good night and everybody is ready, in good spirits, and in constructive spirits. Last night, solutions in six by Nigeria was agreed in the committee and submitted to the Plenary. As soon as the English versions available, it will be posted on the secure website for members. This morning, we will consider the proposal contained in documents submitted by Canada.

Canada: I’m going to propose a cleaner title, which reflects some of the emerging consensus within the informals and within the COW on which services to offer which verb to to use for the direct object or beneficiary of those services. I realize that some informal informal consultations are going on as we were speaking. So some delegations might need some time to align, or to consider how to propose title works with emerging consensus, but I will propose it for all delegations to see already, facilitating access to effective comprehensive scientific evidence based drug demand related drug demand reduction and related measures, common, particularly for people impacted by social marginalization. Thank you Mr Chair.

Russia: We’re grateful to the delegation of Canada for this proposed compromise-solution for the title of the resolution. Russian Federation believes that this proposal can be supported. The only thing that we would ask is that in the first line of this heading remove the word effective – we don’t really understand what criteria should guide states in defining whether or not something services for prevention and treatment of drug use are effective or not on an international level, such criteria are not established. So we believe that in this heading, the use of such a, an insufficiently understood term is not possible. So, we agree with the rest of the title. Thank you very much.

Iran: I think we have a long discussion regarding the social marginalization. We are thinking and will come back with new proposals. Thank you.

Egypt: We, I will also try to get an answer for this title as soon as possible. And also because of the second part I need to also talk to Capitor – we will try, of course, will be constructive.

Mexico: Thank you Mr Chairman was wanting to determine where to place ourselves in an emerging consensus, particularly if the main sponsor of the resolution could live with the proposed amendment by Russia. Nevertheless, we would be interested to know if our Russian colleagues are aware of the International Standards Organization, determined in Geneva. […] So again, we could live with amendment if the sponsor is comfortable with it, but we’re worried that the, for the reason for reaching that final version. And then we would be of course waiting like everyone else. For the response by digit, we would be interested to, to hear in the meantime, what a problem in the second part of the title that’s the, that’s the purpose he was instruction, a wedding party destruction. Thank you very much.

Canada: Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to Mexico for their questions. They’re very much appreciated. I think, if science is leading us there, it will be effective, so we’re not going to mess with the title, because it’s close to consensus.

Iran: lso these OP not acceptabble for us.

Canada:

pp20

Canada: This is the famous list issue, which leave a long list – we would propose radical surgery on pp 20: essentially the first line and a half emphasizes that people impacted by social marginalization will differ according to national context.

Chair: Can we agree? Agreed.

op1alt

Canada: can be struck out

Turkey:

op1bis

Australia: It’s important to Australia that we’re able to maintain some of this list. We consider it to be important and as well consistent with previously agreed language in other resolutions that have been passed by the CND in the past. We do note that as part of this resolution we do have a list in relation to the services that are available to people who are experiencing social marginalization and so for that reason, we also consider it’s appropriate that it should be balanced with a bit more detail in terms of a list of who those services are available to. So I think that after a very long day yesterday in some consideration over the night, about how Australia might be a bit more flexible and trying to achieve consensus with some of the language that we have there on the screen. We would be happy to propose an edit to shorten the list that you can see there on your screen to a more limited subset which has previously been agreed in resolution 61/7 (?) to rmember states as appropriate within their national and regional contexts to consider the impact of social marginalization and this is the new text „on women, elderly, and indigenous populations in accessing treatment services”.

Canada: Thank you, Australia.

Russia:  The Russian Federation believes that putting together a list with regards to groups of citizens who might be impacted by the process of social marginalization in this resolution will lead to a situation where in different national contexts, the list of groups will be different. And even in such a shortlist for example for the Russian Federation, it would be important to note, children and young people, and perhaps other groups too. The Committee of the Whole just agreed on pp20 with an indication that in different national contexts… when it comes to the necessity of this paragraph in this resolution…Well, it’s questionable so the Russian Federation will propose deleting it. Thank you.

Aotearoa / New Zealand: We’re reviewing the proposed question caveats, so that each member states can interpret it in accordance with their own national context. The wording is flexible enough to recognize that all of these groups may be applicable, or none of them may be applicable – depending on any national context. For instance, in New Zealand, the reference to indigenous populations is a particular importance given that the burden of drug related harm is disproportionately felt by our moldy communities, but we recognize that this might not be the case for all member states; Just as some of the groups listed here, in the original list and it’s shortened version may not be relevant to some, but the wording is flexible enough to recognize that. And at this late hour, I would really would appeal to colleagues to consider this flexibility and how it might be workable to them, we just agreed in the commission statement on the impact of COVID-19 that in order to address the world drug problem, effectively, we need to ensure that no one is left behind. Recognizing that certain population subgroups have a higher risk of experiencing disproportionate harm as a part of that. So we would support the retention of this paragraph as put forward by Australia.

Turkey: We have technical difficulties, we can not follow this paragraph. Our position will be the same.

Iran: We support Turkey and Russia.

Mexico: Thank you Mr Chairman, and my distinguished colleague and friend from Russia in general knows very well that before starting to drop amendments or awarding options we always try to understand the reason. And that’s why I’m putting to you Mr Chairman, her question. She said that she cannot support this because she doesn’t see the point. Notwithstanding paragraph number 20 is just a general recognition of theorems, acceptable to all in general terms, because it’s only encouraging member states to do something. Why the need of having these specific mentioning specific categories: because you have been witness yourself to it, we do here, are not related or are not positively impacting a certain category of people; We heard yesterday a very pernicious interpretation of the convention of 1988 that is we’re not addressing a special category because they were not explicitly mentioned. There are reasons why we need this op: because it’s a call for action it’s an action where the members are just stating the obvious. Because for the benefit of those, we need to have every now and then, explicit mention. Otherwise, they will start to believe that because they’re not expressing mentioned that permission or any other person can deliberately leap out of the benefits or initiative. I believe that the only conductive way to proceed, as it has happened in the past, would be through explanations of both sides. Thank you very much.

France:

Belgium: Thank you Mr Chair. Good morning everyone. Belgium is very much in favor of retaining this error would like to propose a compromise, trying to take into account the concerns of the Russian delegation. And our compromise goes as follows, to pad, After social marginalization on interest alien young people come, women, and resistance, this, we believe, strikes a balance between having a list of not a list too long, while at the same time focusing on certain groups, which are important to the Russian delegation such as young people. Thank you, Chair.

Colombia:  Thanks to the delegation of Australia for this proposal. We support the remarks made by a colleague from Mexico since we’ve already agreed on preambular Paragraph 20 which refers to this topic. There’s a requirement for an operative paragraph and equivalent to it, which reflects and puts into action, what’s covered in the preambular Paragraph. However, this OP is not a reflection of paragraph 20 because it covers the issue of regional context which is not included in the previous paragraph. So what we would suggest is deleting […] and regional. And regarding the topics of interest: we also believe that underscoring some groups in particular which might be affected by marginalization, might not be right. Thank you very much, Chairman.

Indonesia: You are in agreement with distinguished delegates from Russian Federation, you’re of the few that mentioning some groups when leaving behind another. It’s just the same with leaving all behind. For example, as I said my concern being country we would like to have my friends in Indonesia proposed after social marginal marginalization, we change the lives into vulnerable members of society without having to have different types of.

USA: Thank you chair, as we read this paragraph it occurs to us that this is not actually attempting to define who is covered by the term “people impacted by social marginalization”, but rather simply asking member states to consider the impact of social marginalization on various groups of people. With this in mind, we support the paragraph as amended by Belgium to include, inter alia, and we suggest that as countries are moving to implement this resolution, merely considering the impact of social marginalization on members of society is not is not too much of an ask. This is heavily caveated, and we would support the retention of the list here in this instance because we’re not attempting to define who, in, who is covered by people impacted by social marginalization, but merely to consider the impact. We would also be very interested in retaining people living with HIV in this list. Thank you.

France: We pay particular attention to the comments made by the Russian Federation. We’d like to propose that we retain the idea proposed by Belgium on marginalization, inter alia, and then we could perhaps rule on the wording, which was agreed on yesterday, and I will read it out now, “ inter alia, women, and vulnerable members of society, including children, adolescence, youth and elderly people.” Some were inflexible here and understand that it does not take into account all of the elements in the list including indigenous populations. Our proposal enables us to find a compromise. We hope so that we can agree on this paragraph. And I’d like to repeat that we are flexible. Thank you.

Australia: The compromise that we had suggested earlier, was just about trimming so while Australia was happy with a longer list that was originally part of this text. We were relying specifically on language that was agreed in resolution 61/7. So as it stands on the screen at the moment, we can live with most of it but we would ask that after where it says vulnerable members of society, including children, adolescents youth, elderly people, we would seek the reintroduction of the indigenous populations at that point. Do note that it was specifically agreed in op nine of 61/7 and Australia does support the retention of people living with HIV, as suggested by a distinguished colleagues from the USA. It’s important, I think that this text is retained, particularly as mentioned by one of the delegations earlier, because of its call to action.

Russia: We thank the delegations of Colombia Belgium and France for factoring in our position regarding this paragraph. That said, we would like to propose a few amendments which we hope will be acceptable for other colleagues the focus of this resolution is not describing the populations which might be vulnerable, as was rightfully noted by Australia a few years ago, adopted a resolution 61 slash seven, which considered this issue in great detail. The this resolution that we have here is focusing rather on availability to drug treatment services for particular groups of people. Therefore, the Russian Federation believe that we might have missed the focus here, in particular when it comes to the impact of social marginalization. Here we could propose “access to”, and then use the wording, which is used in all other paragraphs in this resolution. “Social marginalization on access to comprehensive ….” And in the spirit of compromise and flexibility, the Russian Federation is prepared to agree with the wording that was agreed yesterday by cow in resolution five, but unfortunately, we cannot display any flexibility in terms of including any particular groups in this paragraph, therefore, we do not agree with Australia’s proposal to include indigenous populations, and we can also not agree with the US proposal to include the people living with HIV.

Turkey: This proposal was not considered yesterday, or many days ago … we cannot accept paragraphs to be pushed on delegations like that, without giving any time to consider and making amendments. Therefore, we will not be able to agree with none of the coming paragraphs.

Finland: Finland would like to join those colleagues who are supporting this para, although we don’t have a specific preference about what is mentioned on the list, but we support the Australian comments on indigenous people, and we’re willing to support that. We also would like to echo what was so eloquently put with our US colleague about the contents and the meaning of this power. Thank you very much.

Argentina: Thank you very much, Chairman, and good morning colleagues in the interest of time I’m going to be very brief. I’d like to add Argentina’s voice to the opinion expressed by Mexico, it’s of crucial importance to keep this op, and we stand ready to work constructively in order to achieve consensus and to be able to keep it. Of course, we would have liked to include the longer list, including perhaps mentioning some other groups. But we understand that, often, we have to stand down on some possessions in order to be able to achieve consensus and be able to achieve something that satisfies everybody in particular here. We would also like to reintroduce people living with HIV and try to make it as broad as possible but as, As I said, we also intend to work constructively in order to come up with a consensus solution and given the importance of keeping

Indonesia: Regarding the reference on indigenous population in resolution 61 slash seven: there was a caveat, for the spirit of accessibility […] Indonesia can go along with Australia’s proposal. Thank you.

Australia: Some of the language that was inserted by the Distinguished Delegates from the Russian Federation has, I think, helps to clarify this paragraph, particularly in relation to the access to the comprehensive scientific base drug demand reduction related services. And I think that’s really helpful because this paired graph, at its core is about access and the people who are at high risk. And those people who are severely often severely on represented in relation to treatment services. So I think the delegate from Indonesia for the flexibility shown in relation to putting the language. Back in relation to indigenous populations, and I think the additional reading, where appropriate, really helps, or should help to contextualize that for other member states.

Spain: And we support what was previously said by colleagues from Finland Mexico, Argentina, and the United States and Australia, France and Belgium.

Chair: COW suspended for 15 minutes.

pp4

Canada: I think at this point perhaps we should try to [delete] a couple of other paragraphs that are getting in the way of consensus. There are two paragraphs in the sustainable development agenda. And while this agenda has continued relevance, and nobody denies safe terminology and the relationship between sustainable development are hotly contested, those areas where I thought we could probably settle quickly because we’ve been through this debate a number of times, but we have not been able to. So with that, I think we should take a look at PP four and OP eight, and take that same, same approach we did last night which was objections remain or consensus is as far away as I think it is the best option may well be to delete these paragraphs. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Iran: technical issues

USA: Thank you chair, we believe that this paragraph was in the close to consensus but with all of the edits that are currently reflected on the screen, it’s hard to understand what we’re considering at the moment. I wonder if we could clean the text, maybe with a new paragraph. And I’m happy to read it off. At least our understanding of where the discussion ended during in formals if that’s okay. I believe that Russia had proposed deleting „including its pledge” and replacing it with „as well as the commitment”. Sweden and others have proposed this „increase equity and health” but I don’t think we ever reached an understanding on that but we should leave it in the text I imagine, then „ leave no one behind” And then there was a discussion on problem and situation, which I believe that the agreed language is problem but I’m happy to be corrected there. And I believe we should say are complementary and mutually reinforcing and reaffirming the need. And with this paragraph, as reflected on the screen now I believe that this is almost entirely agreed language so I believe we would support this paragraph. Thank you.

Sweden: …this concerns the request for reference on equity and health in relation to this paragraph, and the word that we propose should be included increase equity in health is not from the agenda resolution on the agenda 2030 So this was a correct statement from our colleague in Russia. However, the mentioning of the importance of equity and health, since it’s seen as a strong determinant of health and assess means to reach both the goals in SDG three and Sgt. 10 is especially important, given the scope of this resolution on marginalized populations, but at this late hour, we won’t make any suggestions on how to change the text and are willing to drop the mentioning of equity and health in pee before. Thank you.

Russia: We are very grateful for his delegation of United States, and the delegation of Sweden for the proposals on this paragraph; we believe that this is quite an important reference to the sustainable development agenda. We are grateful to the delegation and Sweden for showing flexibility in removing the reference to health equity.

Chair: Pp4 agreed by COW

op8

pp8

Canada: Okay, Mr. Chairman, this looks rather marked up like perhaps this is masking text is almost ready for for adoption. Perhaps we could see what we get for the PDP and have a clean version so that people can get a good idea.

Sustainable Development Goals are different. There is a great discussion about whether we would include targets. I’ve mentioned content and 3.5, but I believe the disagreements on the other parts of the text are relatively minor…

I think, where it says marginalized populations we would put four people impacted by social marginalization. The third line.

I’m sorry, I’m inserting where social marginalization is the agreed term that’s been used throughout the text.

So, there’s two sets of brackets here at least one is taken integrated and balanced approach, while protecting and promoting all human rights. One is just to take an integrated and balanced approach. And one is to take a human rights based approach. That is … as you see … a number of pending issues, perhaps, irreconcilable.

USA: According to my notes there is a clause that might have been dropped here which I believe is important, and that is following „related measures, comma” and „when facilitating access to these measures, in particular for”. And I would continue from there. I believe that that reflects the discussion that we have in informals, but I’m, again, happy to be corrected. And in terms of the rest of the paragraph, we would support „to take an integrated and balanced approach while protecting and promoting all human rights” and then go along with the Russian proposals to delete comprehensive and development oriented.

Colombia: technical issues

Russia: In keeping with the comments made by my delegation in the past, we would like to remove the word „effective, which we think, takes away from this science based approach to drug treatment and prevention services. We also believe that the integrated and balanced approach. Well, that implies protecting human rights, and therefore, there’s no need to include wedding regarding human rights in this paragraph.

We are grateful to the delegation of the US for that proposal regarding solutions in this paragraph. Russian Federation supports the paragraph, we’d like to propose a number of amendments for consideration by the delegations Firstly, in the first line: in keeping with the comments made by my delegation in the past, we would like to remove the word „effective”, which we think, takes away from this science based approach to drug treatment and prevention services. We also believe that „the integrated and balanced approach” implies protecting human rights, and therefore, there’s no need to include wording regarding human rights in this paragraph. Furthermore, I would like to point out to the Committee of the Whole that in the paragraph that we adopted or agreed upon before this already specified, the fact that efforts to resolve the world drug problem and Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals are complementary and mutually reinforcing. Therefore, we think that the reference to this, in this paragraph is redundant. We would like to propose slightly different wording, which we believe might express the same idea that would allow us to avoid redundancy: after the words, integrated in a balanced approach, we would like to propose the following wording: „noting that these efforts, constitute a step forward in achieving achieving all relevant Sustainable Development Goals.”  Russian Federation proposes that we delete everything that comes after that.

USA: First, thank you to the distinguished delegate from Russia for this proposal. I think we could go along with deleting „effective” in the first line which is consistent with the discussions we had in the title. With regard to the deletion of „the commitment to protect and promote all human rights”, we recognize that it might not be necessary but we we wonder if there’s actually any harm, including it here other than a slightly longer paragraph, we would prefer to retain „balanced approach, while protecting and promoting all human rights” recognizing that that may be contained in the integrated and balanced approach it is, in our view, always worth highlighting. And of course it is a great language from UNGASS. And then on this last proposal, we’ll need a moment to consider it, but it would be helpful if we could ask the Russian delegate through you chair on the source for this particular language

Russia: Committee of the Whole adopted resolution 5 yesterday: In some paragraphs in that resolution, we think that there is a crossover with the paragraphs in the current resolution that we are considering. And therefore, we think that some of the wording from five could also be useful in the context of the current resolution.

Chair: Thank you. Perhaps, I read the text of yesterday …

USA: Thank you Chair, and thank you to the delegate from Russia for pointing out the source of this language. We indeed were able to find it, and we would be okay with this paragraph as, as it is.

Netherlands: We can support the text as is on the screen now and happy to see the promotion and protection of human rights.

Belgium: We believe that after „promoting” the word „all” is missing.

Canada: We’re pleased and surprised that consensus was possible on this paragraph. There’s been an edit, which is just one word or two that I’d like to reserve on while we consider the title and other aspects of renovation, and that’s the suggestion made from Iran. So if you could just put brackets around and move on from there.

Russia: We would like to make a small grammatical amendment we hope that it will be acceptable for all other delegations in this line from the bottom, instead of the word of „while” we suggest that we use the word „to promote” – the Russian Federation would be able to go along with this paragraph. Thank you.

Chair: Canada put a bracket in this pp, so at the moment, I cannot close this paragraph. And for that reason, I go now to the title. I think delegations have enough time now to consider the new text proposed this morning by Canada, and ask delegation for the feedbacks. Also after consultation is over.

Iran: inaudible

Malta: Yesterday reminded colleagues that we have come a really really long way with crafting what is assumed to be acceptable title, and we had agreed on, particularly for most of the delegations because it was carefully crafted this way, and have a balanced approach so I would really appeal for all delegations to be flexible here. And to show some goodwill and some constructive approaches.

UK: I think we’ve shown great flexibility in the negotiations so far we have some quite forward leaning and progressive language throughout the document which we have dropped for the sake of compromise. But I would like to remind delegations to become hit together to, To come up with resolutions that have meaningful impact upon the people that suffer from these afflictions and the misuse of drugs and throughout the document we’ve removed some of the key demographics that actually are affected by this problem, whether it’s homeless people from other sexual orientations, and our evidence is that these are the people most affected and yet we’ve, we’ve removed them from this text in order to be to be flexible. I understand that what I’ve distinguished colleague from Iran is saying that he can’t show any more flexibility, but given how much flexibility other people in the room have demonstrated I will call upon you to once again have a look. But I’m in your hands.

Canada: Thank you, Chair. And thank you to all delegations, this morning for demonstrating superb flexibility on several of the paragraphs. I’m asking again for some additional flexibility in the title, and a way we can move forward to close off the remainder of this resolution. One proposal that I’d like to bring forward, specific to the title only, is to keep language of including for the title only, in order to address the concerns by our distinguished delegates from Iran. And then for the operative paragraphs as well as other paragraphs where we have reference to people impacted by social marginalization, we can induce a particularly, or some other other other term that that’s appropriate for that to paragraph.

Chair: Thank you very much. I have to close the cow, very soon, and ask my distinguished colleague Paul from Canada, when you would like to continue?

Canada: Informals from 11:15. COW will resume at 2pm.

UNODC: Good morning. I would like to inform member states that, in accordance with the rules of procedures of the functional commission of ECOSOC – see activities related to the request contained in the opening paragraph autograph, resolutions under consideration would be provided […] The adoption of the draft resolutions under consideration would not entail any additional budgetary implication with regard to the program budget. Thank you Mr Chair.

Chair: Thank you. See you soon.

 

 

Leave a Reply

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