Topic: Promoting Ecologically Sound Development Strategies
Country: India
Delegate Name: Kevin Philips
School: Royal Oak High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All India position papers GLIMUN 2016 committees
It is with great concern for both economic development and the state of the environment that India approaches the pressing issue of ecologically sound development.
The one issue we’re tasked with addressing is really two issues, the first being protection of our valuable biodiversity, ecology, and environment, and the second being economic development. At times these two goals share interests, actions taken at the local, national, or international level which simultaneously work toward two favorable ends. For example, alternate forms of energy can both help reduce ecologically harmful carbon emissions while expanding and thus cheapening the energy supply. Such multi-dimensionally beneficial actions that promote both goals of this committee must be sought out and supported. To be successful, this committee must highlight what these actions are and determine the optimal way to promote them.
Unfortunately, our two goals aren’t always in total agreement. Working in the interest of one goal without concern for the other may prove harmful for either our environment or our economy. Such an outcome should be avoided by this committee. For this reason, it is critical that we avoid singular focus on one issue at a time. They are bound both by our goals and their impact. We must constantly consider a policy in terms of its effects on both the economy and the environment.
This is not the first time this committee has discussed ecologically sound development. In this session, it is responsible to know this history which began with the 1972 Declaration of the Human Environment and all significant subsequent action. But simple knowledge alone will not be enough. In addition, the committee should evaluate the effects of these policies, both intentional and unintentional. The effects should be evaluated in two ways: first, considering how efficacious they were, and second, considering how they align with our current goals. From the first consideration, the committee will discern the extent to which international policy can intentionally shape outcome, which policies do this better than others, and why. From the second consideration, the committee will discern how international policy must change in order to meet the unique challenges we face today. These two conclusions, if properly made, can work together. Knowing how to shift policy to achieve these lofty and important goals requires awareness of both what needs to be done and how that’s best accomplished.
India believes that the chief concern of the international development community should be the eradication of poverty. Any policy that could potentially impede progress on this crucial aim is off the table. Instead, the committee should affirm the sentiment advanced in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, particularly Target 2, which calls for biodiversity values to be incorporated into anti-poverty measures, and Target 14, which relates the healthy ecosystems to those who most rely on them. These represent instances in which two goals of this body were addressed simultaneously. This spirit should be strong in this session, and applied to new thinking and solutions. One specific problem which must be addressed by the committee is how to involve inactive nations in efforts to achieve biodiversity. India itself showed the initiative in this area that other developing nations should see as exemplary by passing the 2002 Biological Diversity Act. To get uncertain nations to embrace such policies, it’s in everyone’s best interest to focus on positive reinforcement and incentivization rather than negative language barked from moral highground.
As we move deeper into the 21st century, we see more clearly what problems define it, and what answers define us. The extraordinary reach of biodiversity, along with the range of factors which affect biological diversity, presents a tension which, despite persistent effort on the international community’s behalf, remains problematic. But as it remains, so must the community tasked with relieving it. Under this precept, this discourse is absolutely necessary. Let it be commensurately productive.
