Chair: We still have a lot of work to do – I hope you’ve had a decent rest and that we can make some progress.
Slovenia: Para on gender in OP5 & OP9. Alternative para by Egypt – we are close to consensus. Apparently OP9 is too general. We propose delete end of OP5, keep OP9. This stretches flexibility with a lot of delegations, we understand that.
EU: EU member states are co-sponsoring this resolution.
NZ: You don’t have an easy job, Chair. NZ would like to thank the sponsors – it’s important and timely. NZ would like to co-sponsor the resolution.
Japan: Japan would also like to co-sponsor.
Australia: We will also co-sponsor
Norway: We would also like to co-sponsor.
UK: The UK would also like to co-sponsor
Slovenia: We would like to bracket OP9
Chair: OP9 approved by COW.
Russia: Yesterday’s meeting, the ambassador of an EU country said that we’re blocking the wording on gender issues. We have the moral right to insist that this para be deleted. We understand the importance, and we have never blocked working on gender equality – we are merely saying that the wording should be in line with the rest of the resolution. We can agree with Slovenia’s language. Many participants in consultation have said that they’re delegations are flexible. We give a chance to the drafters – who have stopped the Russian resolutions and are insisting it’s withdrawn – they don’t put forward a consensus.
Slovenia: OP10 – many alternatives proposed. We propose a compromise, based on Mexican suggestions. Could the secretariat please paste this into the text. What we propose is the exact wording from the beginning – we request the UNODC develop guidelines and recommendations – this seemed to be agreeable in informals. Social determinants now called risk and protective measures.
Chair: No further comments? OP10 is approved.
Slovenia: Last issue – the question of social marginalisation – PP11bis, OP2 and OP5. We have consulted a bit – this is the only option available at this stage. Let’s go with OP2 first. We would keep the US text “vulnerable members of society, especially socially and economically marginalised environments”. We will delete marginalisation text in OP5. I hope this could be a base for consensus.
Norway: We can support this is OP11bis is deleted.
Russia: Could you please show us the para we are discussing right now.
Slovenia: We propose a compromise derived from 3 weeks of discussion on this issue – keep the text in OP2, delete OP11bis, and keep OP5 – this is a package deal.
Canada: Thanks Slovenia. Canada would have to hugely compromise on this. In the spirit of compromise – this is extreme flexibility – we could be open to these changes, however, recalling our conversation from yesterday – we would have to keep a reservation on, or delete, OP11ter
Slovenia: Yesterday we tried to link PP11bis and PP11ter. It seems that PP11bis cannot be adopted, but we will still keep a reference to marginalisation. Perhaps delete PP11bis and PP11ter.
US, Russian Federation and Australia can’t connect – are their platform issues?
Russian Federation: For us, it’s very important to retain PP11ter (“society free of drug abuse”). We are guided by the fact that this para is not linked to OP2. We would like to suggest language for OP2 from 2009 MD. Can we discuss OP2. Add after capacity: vulnerable members of society, especially children, considering vulnerabilities that undermine human development, such as poverty and social marginalisation (language from OP21 of the 2009 PD). And then keep: and in the context of the coronavirus disease.
Turkey: PP11ter was not included in compromise – therefore we can’t go ahead with solution, we need to delete term marginalised.
Chair: Tech issues, we’ll have a 5 min break, back at 10.40am.
US: We can be flexible with PP11bis and PP11ter – we think we need to keep this language, it was agreed in a res last year. We can either keep both, or get rid of both. We can go along with suggestion for OP5 – delete ref to social marginalisation – but we would need it to be retained in OP2. Our preference – text from “especially children in socially and economically marginalised environments’ – we all agree with science – so would prefer to keep reference to recently updated International Standards, than with text from a Political Declaration.
Australia: In the spirit of compromise, we would like to keep PPs but can be flexible. We support the suggestions from Slovenia for removing refs to social marginalisation in other OPs, but we agree with US – in other docs there are references to social marginalisation – this is particularly important with children – our preference is for scientific language – the language used in the Prevention Standards – if we consistently refer to these standards throughout the res it seems odd they we wouldn’t use their language. In OP2, in the light of significant compromise, we’d be keen to see the language used in the Standards.
Egypt: Concerning 11bis and 11ter, Egypt can go with deleting both, in regard to OP2, we’d like an amendment – stop after children; or, especially children in economically marginalised environment (delete “socially”).
Russia: It’s strange to hear that the 2009 language can’t be used here – we’ve already reaffirmed this document in the text. The Standards are the document written by the WHO – not our agreed language. This is why the delegations should consider the language we involve. Yesterday we asked Slovenia what does capacity of vulnerable members of society mean. We suggest, after expand: “their availability” (not “capacity”). Capacity makes no sense to us.
Iran: We don’t have a definition of social marginalisation in Iran. We can work on Slovenia’s suggestion, if we can keep PP11ter.
Australia: We understand the attempts by our colleagues – but this reads as expanding availability of services. That make sense for clinical services, but we are talking about early prevention. We’re talking about people living in communities, where all the factors combined affect people’s health. So we can’t accept this suggestion – early prevention strategies are not about this – I hope we can find other language. Social marginalisation is only described in the Standards, and it’s better to use language from 2009 PD, but in UNGASS 2016 doc, it actually references, “address…including social marginalisation”. Here is a clear reference in 2016 on social marginalisation, so we don’t accept that we can’t use this language. It is important to Australia to get the language right.
US: We can work off this proposal – we just need to include “to expand their capacity and availability to” – and keep, after measures, “including early prevention”. We are surprised by the desire to disregard the expertise in the scientific language and prefer the political language. We understand that CND is a political body, but also technical.
UK: The UK strongly supports Australia and Canada, in particular the distinguished delegate of Australia. We can drop PP11bis and ter, this is a separate issue to OP2.
Egypt: We want to keep the language PP11bis and ter
Slovenia: We are running in circles. I propose again – to drop PP11bis, to keep PP11ter, to strike out social marginalisation in OP5, and keep reference to social marginalisation in OP2, as proposed by US. Everything together – I appeal to your flexibility here.
Russian Federation: We need 5 mins to think about this compromise. We agree to “expand capacity and availability to”. Delegations talking about technical nature of CND – think about the plenary, which is also technical, other delegations were consistently talking the floor to politicise the situation – now these delegations want to be technical. The 2009 document is very important.
Canada: We’re supportive of Slovenia’s suggestion – to find balance as there are still concerns. Support US and Australia, but in the interest of flexibility we’re open to 2009 language, but can we say social economically marginalised. PP11ter: with extreme flexibility, replace “tackle” with “address”. This is a large compromise from Canada.
Chair: We’ve spent 40 mins on these paras, we’re going around in circles, after Egypt and US, can you please take it to informals.
Egypt: We will examine Slovenia’s suggestion and discuss in informals.
US: TO clarify my previous intervention: We recognise the importance of the political context – our preference is language from the Standards, we therefore can accept language from PD.
Chair: Slovenia, could you please go to informals. Let’s go to L4.