Hi OAS Delegates!
So I just wanted to make clear my expectations for the deforestation topic. Because we are analyzing the situation in Brazil specifically, our resolution on this topic will be in the form of a comprehensive policy recommendation for the Brazilian government on actions it can take to reduce deforestation in the Amazon. It is therefore important to remember that this resolution will be directed toward the Brazilian government…
Check out this interesting article from the LA Times. Covers some of the market based approaches to dealing with deforestation and climate change…
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cover-amazon21-2010feb21,0,3432052.story
One of the case studies we examined in the topic synopsis for HIV/AIDS in Latin America and Caribbean was on Haiti. Haiti was already experiencing difficulties in combating HIV/AIDS prior to the recent earthquake but now the situation has clearly deteriorated.
Check out this article on the affects of the earthquake on HIV/AIDS and other health issues in Haiti. During committee, you may want to consider responding directly to the new challenges posed by this disaster.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/haiti-earthquake-poses-health-humanitarian-crisis-impoverished-nation/story?id=9549384
Below is a link which will take you to a blog by National Geographic which discusses the recent slowdown in deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon region.
What seems to be working in Brazil’s favor? Is this sort of progress sustainable or merely a one-time occurence?
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/11/amazon-deforestation-slows.html
President Obama spoke at midday today to the assembled world leaders here in Copenhagen as negotiations continued into the final stages. He was one of many leaders to address the plenary session, following on the heels of President Lula of Brazil and the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao.
The mood here is anxious, but there is a strong desire for a meaningful agreement – though as the President’s remarks made clear – not an agreement at any costs. Many of the key heads of state and Secretary Hillary Clinton worked until 2:00 am this morning to attempt to outline a high-level statement that could be released, with some ministers continuing work until 5:00 am. A number of key points are still under discussion.
Now, even as statements are being made in the plenary by the world’s leaders, negotiation is going on behind the scenes, with President Obama and Wen Jiabao meeting for an hour early this afternoon and additional meetings underway to resolve the impasses. The U.S. is seeking “transparency,” which could include monitoring of the actions taken and outcomes achieved by the world’s countries.
As we are waiting for news, it is worth commenting on some of the progress that has been made during the time here at Copenhagen. One of the key areas of progress relates to the finance that will be required to assist developing countries with efforts to reduce their emissions (”mitigation”) and to adapt to a changing climate.
On the U.S. side, there were two big announcements this week that surprised many here, but were strongly welcomed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced yesterday that the U.S. would be willing to “work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.” The funding would come from both public and private sources and would include a significant focus on forests and adaptation for the poorest and most vulnerable. The U.S. would contribute a share of this amount. In other international contexts, this has typically been between 20 and 25 percent of the total. This share would include private funding, meaning that even with this increase, U.S. foreign aid spending would remain in range of one percent of the federal budget.
This news followed a surprise announcement by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on Wednesday evening that the U.S. will commit $1 billion between 2010 and 2012 to build capacity for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, an effort that is known in climate circles as “REDD” (or “REDD+” if reforestation and agricultural land management in developing countries is included). This pledge is consistent with one of the recommendations of the Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, which called for the U.S. to spend $1 billion for this purpose by 2012.
Some in the U.S. may question why it is in the interest of the United States to commit to financing the efforts of other countries while the U.S. has work to do at home. But support from the developed world for efforts by the poorer countries is an essential part of the global effort that is needed to contain the growing and systemic risks to human society and natural systems associated with the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Such funding will go for three purposes, each of which has a strong rationale and broad support among important parts of U.S. society, and is in the U.S. interest:
Funding for reducing emissions through conserving forests will be a critical part of a global deal. Destruction of tropical forests is occurring at a football field per second, an area the size of Pennsylvania each year. This burning and cutting of tropical forests and destruction of forest soils and peat contributes 15% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the world’s transportation sources. Moreover, on a ton-for-ton basis, stopping this threat to biodiversity and local communities is one of the best and most cost-effective investments we can make, not even considering the benefits to indigenous communities and other forest inhabitants, the vast number of threatened and unique species in the rainforests, and to a broader array of U.S. interests as relates to the economic development and security of a wide array of developing countries. U.S. businesses and consumers stand to gain from a policy approach that allows efforts to reduce forest emissions to be credited toward compliance with firm emissions limits under a comprehensive U.S. climate and energy policy. Such a program will mean lower electricity bills and product prices for U.S. consumers, but to make this work, a significant public investment is needed now to put the building blocks in place for success. Countries like Brazil are already showing the way forward with investments in monitoring, land titling, and enforcement, but Brazil is a large country with much work to do, and there are approximately 40 other countries with potential to participate in such a program. The U.S. commitment of $1 billion over three years to build capacity for participating in these programs, is an important first step that will more than pay itself back in the long run. It has already leveraged $2.5 billion in pledges from other countries, and contributions from additional countries are expected.
Support for deployment of technology to reduce emissions in developing countries. To solve climate change, we will need to tackle emission reductions from fossil fuel consumption as well as from forests, requiring many developing countries to shift their power generation or fuel consumption patterns, and increase their energy efficiency, even as we are doing the same thing in the U.S. The U.S. is at a decisive point in our trajectory as an industrial economy. We should not shrink from opportunities to share technologies with countries who need them; such engagement can only benefit the U.S. by creating export markets and revitalizing our industrial sector as it transitions to a new lower-carbon future. Much of the talk these days is about jobs: here is a way to create them.
Support for adaptation to inevitable climate change. Climate change is already evident in many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. The types of impacts predicted – coastal erosion, droughts and water stress, and increasing coastal vulnerability to storm surge are already being experienced. Resources are needed now to begin to manage the implications of these effects. U.S. support for international efforts is consistent with longstanding humanitarian engagement by the United States to improve the quality of life for people around the world. Investing in adaptation funding will be far cheaper than the alternative: it can prevent instability in the developing world that could come as the climate changes, such as increased migration and disputes over increasingly scarce resources. It is in the long-term interests of the United States to protect vulnerable populations against the cascade of natural disasters that occur as a result of climate change – crop failures, famine and disease – that will spark conflict in unstable countries. Successful adaptation of living systems–such as lakes and rivers, coral reefs, forests, and grasslands–can help ensure their ability to support the needs of people and to better withstand future changes. The future of some of this funding will be dependent up on the outcomes here in Copenhagen. We’ll be tracking them closely.
Credit: Eric Haxthausen (National Journal)
http://copenhagen.nationaljournal.com/2009/12/the-real-story-on-climate-fina.php
Check out the content of the Copenhagen Accord which was the result of the Climate Talks in Denmark this month with leaders of major industrial powers.
It seems that clause #6 addresses the creation of an effective REDD regime to combat deforestation, but there is not much in the way of specific program details. Many industrial states have pledged billions to kick start a REDD program, but is this sort of program even feasible in the face an otherwise very weak agreement on climate change?
Here is a link which can add to your knowledge of REDD:
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/12/22/what-came-out-of-copenhagen-on-redd/
Also, here is the link to the Copenhagen Accord:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf