G20
PACMUN 2015
Pacific Model United Nations
Group of 20
Director: Maya Lefelman
Chair: Elizabeth Gleyzer
Assistant Director: David Hwang
1
G20
PACMUN 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Personal Messages/Committee Introductions ....................................................................................................... 3
G20 Committee Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
Topic 1: Sustainable Energy Funding ................................................................................................................... 4
Topic Intro ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
History .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Past International Action ................................................................................................................................... 7
Current Situation ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Bloc Positions .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Central and South America ......................................................................................................................... 11
Asia.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Europe ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Africa ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
Middle East .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Oceania ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Germany: Renewable Energy Sources Act ................................................................................................. 13
California: LADWP - Solar Incentive Program ............................................................................................. 14
Guided Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 15
Sustainable Energy Funding Resources ......................................................................................................... 15
Topic 2: Food Security ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Topic Intro ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
History ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
Past International Action ................................................................................................................................. 19
Current Situation ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Bloc Positions .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Europe ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Africa ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Asia.............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Middle East .................................................................................................................................................. 23
South America ............................................................................................................................................. 23
North America .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Kenya .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Canada ........................................................................................................................................................ 25
Guided Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 25
Food Security Resources ............................................................................................................................. 26
2
G20
PACMUN 2015
PERSONAL MESSAGES/CO MMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS
Hi, my name is Elizabeth Gleyzer, and I'm a senior at Bellarmine Prep. I'm absolutely
honored to be Chairing the G20, but there are a couple things I need to clarify. First, this is the
best committee. Not because our topics are cooler than any other committees (which they are), or
because the dais for this committee is phenomenal (which it is), but because all of YOU are in it.
Put yourself out there, speak even if you're scared to, form a coalition, and LEARN from every
person around you. Remember that the countries you will be taking the role of are the most
economically powerful in the world, so it makes sense that the issues we present you with are
currently on the world’s forefront. And because I should probably tell you a little bit about
myself, I like to debate and I love politics, violin, singing, poetry, and philosophy. This is my
second year with PACMUN after serving as USG of Finance and Director of the UNHRC in its
inaugural year. Please come talk to me because I would absolutely love to meet you! So with
that, please promise us a productive, interesting, and most importantly, FUN session. Here's to
Pacific Model United Nations 2015.
Hello, my name is David Hwang, and I’m a junior at Interlake High School. I’m so
overjoyed to be afforded the privilege to serve as your Assistant Director in G20 this year. Much
like how PACMUN is unrivaled by any other student-run Model United Nations in the Pacific
Region, G20 is unrivaled in brownie-points in comparison to all the committees in this
reasonably large partitioned hotel floor. We are the Floyd Mayweather of International
Commerce, we are The Money Team! I’d greatly encourage all delegates to actively represent
his/her own member state’s position as vocally as possible. I know maybe overwhelming for
some (I myself was a shy pigeon in my first MUNxperience), but if you can overcome the initial
fear of speaking in the first few sessions, you’ll find your throat chugging like a choo-choo train
by Sunday! As always feel free to address me with any questions or concerns with correct
parliamentary procedure. I’m truly really psyched to have you on board this year and I really do
hope you have as much fun as I will in being part of this wonderful committee.
Hello, my name is Maya Lefelman and I am a senior at the International Community
School. I am beyond excited to be your G20 director! Some boring information about me
includes that I play violin, love sleeping, and have a small army of cactus plants. More
importantly, I would like to say a few things about this committee. I am incredibly honored to be
working with two amazing fellow dais members, David and Elizabeth, and we are so excited to
meet and work with all of you. I want to emphasize that even if you are terrified coming in to
this conference, even if you tremble at the thought of public speaking, we are going to support
you and not bring you down. Don’t avoid speaking out of fear of sounding stupid. Don’t think
you will embarrass yourself. You are going to be more than fine; you are going to be amazing. I
encourage everyone to venture out of their comfort zone during PACMUN, and I promise, at the
end of the weekend, you will look back and see you accomplished things you never imagined
yourself doing. Here is to an amazing committee with each and every one of you
3
G20
PACMUN 2015
G20 COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION
The Group of 20 (G20) is a committee that was founded in 1999 whose goal is to “bring
together systemically important industrialized and developing economies to discuss key issues in
the global economy” while seeking to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any
one organization. This group’s member states consist of 19 countries and the European Union.
The G20 economies account for 90% of global output, 80% of world trade, and two thirds of the
world’s population.
TOPIC 1: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUNDING
TOPIC INTRO
Living in a world that runs on
energy consumption, human populations
must make the transition to relying
primarily on sustainable energy in order
to ensure a more energy abundant and
reliable future. As the United Nations
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said,
“Sustainable energy can revitalize our
economies, strengthen social equity, and
catalyze a clean energy revolution that
benefits all humanity. Acting together,
we can open new horizons today and
help power a brighter tomorrow.”
Taking action on these progressive
words, the Secretary-General launched
a clean energy campaign, ‘Sustainable
Energy for All,’ which aims to show the
world how to make sustainable energy a
reality in 2015 so that by the year 2030
sustainable energy will be achieved
worldwide. This plan includes a 3-Year
Target plan which will, by 2016, have
large private investment in at least 10
partner member states, establish at least 30 High-Impact Opportunities (HIOs), and aim for the
accumulation of an additional tens of billions of dollars in voluntary commitments by the private
4
G20
PACMUN 2015
sector. This plan outlined by the Secretary-General’s clean energy campaign was put into place
to combat the harsh reality of modern energy standings today.
In 2014 alone, carbon dioxide emissions (in million metric tons) were 2,279 from
petroleum and other liquid fuels, 1,414 from natural gas, 1,753 from coal, totaling up to over
5,446 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. Today, fossil fuels still account for over 80% of the
world energy supply. Taking into consideration recent emission trends, with respect to different
types of fuel and energy spending as well as the distribution of energy usage across the globe, do
you think the Sustainable Energy for All will successfully address all of the issues that are
incorporated into the usage of unclean energy or is the best way to respond to this widespread
problem?
HISTORY
Since its inception in 1999, the Group of Twenty (G20) has been actively involved in the
allocation of funds for various proposed Sustainable Infrastructural improvements in both
member and non-member states. G20 was mainly responsible for the approval and
recommendation of financial allocations to the UN Secretariat and General Assembly. However,
in response to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, it was declared by the George W. Bush
(Preceding as Chair over the 2008 G20 Summit) that G20 was to be allowed “direct
communication with heads of states representing both member and invitee states both in and out
of Summit session.” Ever since this declaration, G20 has been able to circumvent General
Assembly oversight and forward its recommendations directly to heads of state.
G20 was founded in 1999, with the primary purpose of drawing upon the resources and
experience of advanced economies in order to “study, review, and promote” high-level
discussion concerning international financial stability. Initially G20 was considered an extension
of G7’s discussion agenda, with a larger member-state pool to facilitate discussion. Discussion
was originally sparse and primarily concerned with maintaining the inflation of critical
currencies, developing numerous counter-initiatives towards a potential financial Doomsday
Scenario, and recommending intervention by the Security Council to protect several key
economic interests. Originally G20 found no precedence in environmental reformation within its
jurisdiction; G7 was originally accustomed to promoting environmental legislation and
proposing environmental legislation in a larger member pool was deemed inefficient. The
introduction of the Millennial Development Goals in 2000, specifically MDG 7, had little
relevance to the regular proceedings of the committee. It was only until late 2005 when several
G20 economies experienced the detrimental effects of natural disaster that began seeing its first
proposals of environmental reform.
5
G20
PACMUN 2015
As large-scale natural disasters continued to pose threats towards the economic stability
of several member-nations and critical assets, G20 eventually took up the task of dealing with
significant natural disasters individually. In the period of 2005-2007 alone, 60% of G20’s
primary agenda was inundated with subjects regarding economic strategy aimed at mitigating
losses and maintaining the financial stability of international commerce. The inundation of G20’s
financial agenda with economic recovery initiatives, G7’s relative inactivity, along with the
culmination of several factors is said to have led to an oversight in the vulnerability of the USD.
It was recognized by many head-of-states that the economic countermeasures against
international financial collapse were ineffective and significantly outdated due in part to the
overwhelming agenda of several key economic forums and a lack of direct communication with
head-of-states and their respective administrators.
Although George W. Bush organized and chaired the 1 G20 Head-of-State Summit in
2008 primarily in an attempt to elevate awareness of the Global Financial Crisis towards an
st
6
G20
PACMUN 2015
international audience, the move was also an initiative to rectify and resolve the issues prevalent
in standard G20 procedure. The international attention the first G20 Summit had received was
successful in mitigating many of these inefficiencies within. G20 was relieved of its
responsibility in providing economic recovery initiatives in response towards significant natural
disasters. Many of these responsibilities have been delegated among committees around the
United Nations, most prominently the Security Council and United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
From 2010-Present, G20’s current agenda has been evenly balanced about between aims
at preserving economic stability and developing and testing countermeasures as recommended
by external third party consultants and G20 member state Finance Ministers. The relative
serenity of the current G20 forum has prompted to the United Nations to take up environmental
reform once again, but in significantly more specific approach. Drawing away from the
intricacies of blanket reform towards broad climate conservation, G20 has specifically targeted
its own member-states’ infrastructures and energy production methods in an attempt to slow the
progression of climate change.
PAST INTERNATIONAL A CTION
As previously stated G20 was primarily concerned with maintaining the financial
stability of nations following significant natural disasters from its inception to late-2007. Due to
only recently up-taking of responsibility in implementing Sustainable Energy/Infrastructural
Reform, the forum’s renewed premature focus drawing more towards economic recovery
initiatives, and new method of environmental reform in maintaining a healthy economic fabric;
G20 has rather had a limited track record on dealing with these specific issues.
7
G20
PACMUN 2015
During the period of 2009-2012, most forum and Summit activity was centered in
developing and promoting awareness of financial recovery initiatives internationally. Following
the acknowledgement of recovery in Mexico’s Head-of-State Summit (G2012), G20 was allowed
the time and resources to take on funding recommendation for miscellaneous activities, including
regulation in currency exchanges, development of funding packages for Agricultural Security
Projects, and the development of funding recommendations for Sustainable Energy
Proposal/Reform for singular or multi-national solutions. It was only until 2013 when G20
released its first publication, titled “The Group of Twenty Feasibility Analytics concerning
Alternative Energy Production Methods Worldwide.”
Developed in a period of over a year in collaboration with NATO and voluntary
contributions from credible government fact books, the publication presented numerous case
studies on several member states represented G20, the most prominent being the United States,
India, and China. Each case study analyzed and traced the most common water, air, and
radioactive contaminants along with their specific sources, along with statistical reports on
Alternative Energy Production and performance reviews of each sovereign state’s alternative
energy equipment/techniques. The study also analyzed individual sources of energy (both
conventional and sustainable) and evaluated their contribution to each nation’s respective GDP, a
classification of the developmental stage of the source industry, and the energy source’s impact
on the prices and logistical considerations of other energy production methods. Taking all of this
corroborated data into consideration, the report then develops unique assessments and
sustainable energy conversion timelines for each studied sovereign state on the basis of
conventional energy’s economic integration, available Sustainable Energy technologies, and a
budget accompanied with financing and loan propositions.
In the 2014 G20 Head-of-State Brisbane Summit chaired by the Prime Minister of
Australia, the forum announced among the various issues requiring G20’s particular attention,
that G20 would “promote the discussion of affordable alternative energy sources to slow the
accelerating implications of climate change.” The rapid fluctuation of energy prices in the past
two years have made finding sustainable energy practices, sources, and infrastructure a newfounded priority within the future G20 agenda.
CURRENT SITUATION
As of late 2015, international economic activity has spiked once again, shuttling G20 into
a slightly familiar, yet much more effectively managed sense of urgency. The sudden collapse of
investor confidence in the Chinese Economy, the continual rise of the dollar bubble, and the
uncertainty of congress’s decision on the Iranian Nuclear Agreement has put international
currencies in a gravely unpredictable state, and have made the development of effective
sustainable energy practices more important than ever.
8
G20
PACMUN 2015
The significant loss and pullout of millions of investors from state-owned assets and
privately owned companies has proved detrimental to the Chinese economy, even more so to the
Chinese Yuan. Furthermore, the massive devaluation of the Chinese Yuan has instigated a
massive housing slump, and the government’s currency corrections have done nothing but
depress Chinese Consumer Confidence. The massive deterioration of domestic consumer
confidence has produced a sharp decline sales in both consumer and commercial goods,
prompting the exodus of companies ranging from Louis Vuitton to Hyundai Heavy Industries.
With environmentally friend vehicle manufacturers such as BMW and Tesla, along with large
alternative energy corporations such as Suntech and Trina dissolving their joint venture contracts
and reducing their Chinese prevalence, the development of Chinese Alternative energy sources
and sustainable infrastructure has taken a massive and possibly irreversible hit in progression.
In an economic perspective the massive devaluation of Chinese currency may prove
advantageous for various new companies seeking an opportunity to open in the Chinese Market,
and a timely method of subverting the costs of heavy tariffs and custom regulations. But
internationally, the devaluation of Chinese Yuan has taken a complex hit on many currencies
worldwide, and likewise has taken a similar hit in their sustainable energy developments and
projected timelines.
The Chinese Yuan in recent years was initially perceived as a “blue-chip” investable
currency or a cheaper but relatively safe alternative to the United States Dollar with the promise
9
G20
PACMUN 2015
of bigger increase in valuation. For nations unable to afford to tolerate the expense in conducting
international transactions with the US Dollar, Chinese Yuan was seen as the perfect solution. As
a result, it is a commonality for mid to lower-tier nations, particularly Latin American to conduct
international trade with Chinese Yuan as a preferred currency. In exchange for an increased
reliance on Chinese Yuan over the United States Dollar, China provided several Latin sovereign
states with numerous incentives including the construction of sustainable energy sources and
infrastructure for these nations to meet projected pollution and energy production goals
established by the General Assembly of the United Nations. But with the freefall of the Chinese
Yuan’s valuation in the late-July of 2015, confidence in Chinese Yuan fell in a similar fashion.
Soon almost 78% of Latin American sovereign states found themselves almost entirely
committed to the United States Dollars. Having breached their contract with Chinese authorities,
almost all construction or development of sustainable energy sources and infrastructure has
slowed to a utter standstill in Latin America.
With the massive devaluation of a competitor currency, the turmoil embroiling in the
Euro-Zone, and the United States sudden nuclear agreement with the Iranian Government, the
United States Dollar has skyrocketed tremendously, at one point almost matching the Euro at a
1:1 ratio and the British Pound at 8.4:10. Conceivably a skyrocket in valuation is good for the
United States economy, alleviating the concern over the burst of a dollar bubble and allowing for
foreign goods to be imported at much cheaper rates. But in the scope of Sustainable Energy, this
has yet another detrimental effect upon the development of Sustainable Energy Sources and
infrastructure inside the United States.
Although some domestic alternative energy companies are self-sufficient on domestic
demand and investment alone, a large majority of domestic alternative energy companies depend
on foreign investment and demand. Although the rise in valuation of the USD allows for much
greater profit margins in exported orders outside NAFTA borders, the increase in profit is highly
unlikely to break-even with lower demand. Once again, many of these companies have a
majority of their stakes, demand, and factories rooted in or indirectly to China. The lack of
demand from Chinese Energy Companies, the increased expense in producing goods in China,
and the massive sell-off of stakes in these companies by Chinese investors to recuperate their
losses back at home places a significant amount of these Sustainable Energy Companies in a
downhill tumble towards bankruptcy.
Although at first glance, the currency devaluation of the Chinese Yuan seems irrelevant
in the context of Sustainable Energy Promotion, it in fact has a detrimental effect towards
Sustainable Energy Conversion timetable. Considering that the existence of both future and preexisting Sustainable Energy Projects in the nations of China and the United States, the two
largest contributors in both Greenhouse Gases and Toxic Pollutants, have taken a direct and
possibly fatal hit of progression and funding; the continuation of the Chinese financial crisis will
be a detrimental setback in the pursuit of reversing the implications climate change. The
10
G20
PACMUN 2015
elimination of key Sustainable Energy Developers in the United States, their suppliers in China,
and the inability of European Companies to meet the demands of Sustainable Energy
technologies in outlying sovereign states could spell disaster for the Alternative Energy
Movement as a whole.
BLOC POSITIONS
CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA
Latin and Central American economies are expected to grow 3% annually and therefore are
expected to double their installed power capacity to roughly 600 gigawatts by 2030 at the price
of $430 billion. As of right now, Latin America generates around 7% of the world’s total
electricity production, but as population levels rise, demand is expected to triple as
simultaneously the carbon emissions from the power sector are expected to double. In 2012,
carbon dioxide emission in Central and South America was set at 1400 million metric tons, a
slower but still drastic increase from the previous 2002 statistic at 1140 million metric tons.
Chinese investment in sustainable and profitable energy has been working to cap the statistic, but
the Chinese economic collapse rendered these efforts inactive. Latin American governments
have vowed to increase energy production shares of natural gas in Latin America to 40% by
2050, along with some investments into nuclear and geothermal resources. But with the
abandonment of Chinese support, along with flailing local economies, Environmental reform has
taken a backseat in the agendas of many of these Latin American sovereign states.
ASIA
Inaugurated in 1992, ASTAE (Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy Program) has been
working towards establishing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and access to energy in the
East Asia and Pacific (EAP) and South Asia (SAR) regions as they transition to sustainable
energy programs. Southeast Asia’s energy demand will be increasing by over 80% between 2013
and 2035, and while the region faces sharply increasing reliance on imports, high costs will be
imposed and the market will be left more vulnerable than before. Fossil-fuel subsidy reform
remains a challenge throughout Asia as subsidies amounted to $51 billion in 2012 thus deterring
investment in needed energy infrastructure and hampering improvements in energy efficiency
and the deployment of renewable energy. In an overall perspective, the support and active focus
towards environmental reform is mixed among members in the Asian bloc. Member-states such
as South Korea and Japan are actively committed towards sustainable energy initiatives and are
actively involved in promoting clean energy awareness in foreign nations via the private sector.
11
G20
PACMUN 2015
China has notably expressed a lack environmental reform in its current international agenda, and
makes obvious attempts at avoiding environmental legislation when concerned with their own
environmental track record.
EUROPE
The European Union (EU) set in place the National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) in
order to reach its target of generating 20% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by
2020. Six different greenhouse gases have been reported to have been emitted from the EU:
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur
hexafluoride. As of 2012, greenhouse gas emissions in the EU stood at 4,678.8 million tons. The
European Union has been on the more active promoters of environmental reform in all of its
member states as well as on an international scale. The European Union’s combined GDP draws
about 2% from Sustainable Energy development, and currently has the most number of state-ofthe art nuclear facilities and alternative energy generation plants in the world. European
frontrunners such as Germany, the UK, and France has expressed their commitment in
alleviating the smog issues plaguing most of their major cities, and sharing successful emission
curtailing methodology of foreign nations supportive of environmental reform. All member
states in the European Union have made significant investment into their own sustainable energy
infrastructure to align with Euro-Zone pollutant regulations.
AFRICA
Africa is home to several sustainable energy development programs, name African Sustainable
Energy Association (AFSEA), Sustainable Energy Society of Southern Africa (SESSA), and
African Renewable Energy Alliance (AREA). Africa’s energy sector can be divided into 3
regions: North Africa, which is mostly dependent on oil and gas; South Africa, which is largely
dependent on coal, and; Sub-Saharan Africa, which relies heavily on biomass. Most of Africa’s
energy resources have gone unexploited. For example, only 7% of Africa’s hydro potential has
been harnessed and geothermal energy has been only lightly used. In 2012, carbon dioxide
emissions in Africa stood at 1169 million metric tons. In a perspective overall, Africa remains
mixed in its prospects for both its own and international energy reformation. Sovereign states of
Africa still remained divided on whether sustainable energy should be top priority for funding in
a continent that contributes relatively little to international pollution, with nations mostly divided
in terms of economic stability and development.
12
G20
PACMUN 2015
MIDDLE EAST
The Middle Eastern and North African region (MENA) is home to more than half of the world’s
crude oil and more than a third of its natural gas reserves, and the Middle East alone possesses
roughly 41% of natural gas reserves. The absence of cost-reflective energy and electricity tariffs
in the MENA region currently cast a shadow over the potential cost advantages of this area that
lie largely in potential geothermal and solar energy harnessing. In 2012, carbon dioxide
emissions in the Middle East stood at 2036 million metric tons where gas flaring is a major
regional emissions source and in previous decades accounted for nearly half of the region’s total
fossil fuel emissions. Overall, a majority of Middle Eastern Sovereign states are in popular
support for environmental reformation in the international scale. But many of these nations
remain apprehensive in supporting legislation that will contribute to the downfall of international
oil usage.
OCEANIA
The Pacific Island Countries are currently heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as current estimates
suggest that petroleum products account for around 80% of their primary commercial energy
consumption. Renewable energy, primarily hydro, is estimated to contribute merely less than
10% of each Pacific Island Country’s commercial energy use. The main source of renewable
energy from New Zealand would be hydro, and Australia’s Australian Renewable Energy
Agency is currently developing technologies to harness wave, tidal, and ocean thermal energy, in
order to take advantage of the renewable energy supplied by their environment. In 2012,
Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions were at 138 million metric tons, and those of New Zealand
and Fiji were 22 mmt and 1.5 mmt, respectively. Much like Africa, many of these Oceanic
nations question the precedence Environmental Reform over other basic humanitarian issues that
are currently plaguing the it’s sovereign states. Oceanic nations attempt to avoid environmental
legislation in favor of legislation that is relevant in the agendas of their respective states.
CASE STUDIES
GERMANY: RENEW ABLE ENERGY SOURCES ACT
The Renewable Energy Sources Act was created in 2000 in order to replace the
Electricity Feed-in Law (1991-2000) which made the purchase of electricity from renewable
sources mandatory and set at a fixed price. The Electricity Feed-in Law included grid operators
not having to comply with these obligations after they met a limit of 5% renewable electricity.
Since the Act has been established, however, this 5% cap has been abolished, the volume of
13
G20
PACMUN 2015
electricity generated from renewable energies supported by this Act increased over threefold, and
the share of wind and biomass more than doubled and photovoltaic systems saw a nine-fold
increase. The three main principles of this act are 1) investment protection through guaranteed
feed-in tariffs and connection requirement, 2) no charge to Germany’s public purse, and 3)
innovation by decreasing feed-in tariffs.
Not only has establishing the Renewable Energy Sources Act reduced a significant
energy cap, it has created a surplus of new jobs in the field. In this way, the Act is benefiting
both the energy companies and general citizens of Germany and is therefore further developing
and benefiting the socio-economic status of the area by increasing renewable energy production
while simultaneously helping lower unemployment rates.
As Germany has the highest GDP in the European Union, funding the Renewable Energy
Source Act has not placed a major strain on their economy. In fact, the net benefit for Germany’s
economy has been over 3.2 billion euros. However, while the Act has been and continues to
prove its success, many countries may not be able to afford it. How else might a country try to
increase its renewable energy output, but at a lower price? What kind of assistance can the
international community and G20 provide to aid the transition to renewable energy worldwide?
CALIFORNIA: LADW P - SOLAR INCENTIVE PROG RAM
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) approved a solar buy-down
program that is designed to promote the use of renewable energy through the installation of
photovoltaic systems both by residents and businesses in the Los Angeles area. The program
aims to encourage PV manufacturers to locate manufacturing in Los Angeles by offering a
higher per watt rebate and access to economic development programs with a goal to have 100
MW of solar power developed in the City of Los Angeles by the year 2020 through the buydown program and through LADWP-constructed solar power plants.
The LADWP has made the Solar Incentive Program as accessible as possible for all
residents by creating a 6-step plan as follows: find an installer, investigate solar financing, apply
for an incentive program, complete permitting process, interconnect to utility, submit incentive
claim. This program calls for LA residents to become more educated in the field of solar energy
by giving the incentive of providing them with financial compensation if their solar panels are up
to standards and prove to be effectively generating renewable energy, as they will if the owners
take proper care of the panels.
While the incentive program does involve giving money back to the consumer, the fact
remains that purchasing solar panels in the first place is incredibly expensive. This Program may
not be relevant to the middle-class resident of the Los Angeles area, and thus, on a large scale,
14
G20
PACMUN 2015
may not be able to amount to significant renewable energy harnessing relative to the population
of LA. How might a program such as this one be improved?
GUIDED QUESTIONS
•
Is your member state in favor of international or internal regulation of economic matters?
•
What are your country’s energy policies?
•
What does the energy distribution look like in your country?
•
Financially, how does your country support its energy spending?
•
Is your country in support of shifting towards sustainable energy completely?
•
How does using renewable and likewise nonrenewable energy affect your country’s
markets, economy, and other factors?
•
How would the shift towards complete sustainable energy affect your country?
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY F UNDING RESOURCES
United Nations Official Website:
•
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sustainableenergyforall/
•
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sustainableenergyforall/home/Initiative
•
http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/campaigns-and-initiatives/sustainable-energyfor-all/
•
http://www.un-energy.org/activities/192-asia-sustainable-and-alternative-energyprogramme-astae
Sustainable Energy for All Program:
•
http://www.se4all.org
•
http://www.se4all.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/SE4ALL_2014_annual_report_final.pdf
•
http://www.se4all.org/energyefficiencyplatform/
15
G20
PACMUN 2015
Governmental Websites
•
http://www.eia.gov
Miscellaneous Organizations:
•
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCo
mbustionHighlights2014.pdf
•
https://www.astae.net
•
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/SoutheastAsiaEnergyOutlo
ok_WEO2013SpecialReport.pdf
•
https://www.ecn.nl/projects/nreap/2010/home/
•
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/national-renewable-energy-action-plan
16
G20
PACMUN 2015
TOPIC 2: FOOD SECURITY
TOPIC INTRO
Economic growth, job creation, investment, and trade are all linked to boosting
agricultural productivity. Strengthening the global food system has proved time and time again to
be an increasingly important issue. The G20 created a Food Security and Nutrition framework
(FSN) that it relies on to guide the promotion of food security while also integrating smallholders
into markets and creating a stronghold against food price volatility. Not only does the FSN create
jobs in agriculture, but it promotes the rural sector, leading to more widespread food
development as a whole. The FAO calculates 805 million people to live in food insecurity.
Production would have to increase by 60 percent by 2050 to feed the rapidly increasing
population of our planet.
We must attack the problem by recognizing what its root is. Poverty, rural
underdevelopment, unemployment, and low household income are really where the problem lies.
Only by improving productivity, enhancing incomes, and diversifying sources of revenue, as
well as by implementing the rural, non-farm food system economy, can we truly make a
difference. The three priority objectives of the G20 in this respect are to:
1. Increase responsible investment in food systems, which entails partnerships with the
private sector, efficient food and agriculture trade, as well as access to inclusive financial
services;
2. Increase incomes and quality employment in food systems, which cover labor market
policies, human resource development programs, and effective humanitarian
interventions;
3. Increase productivity sustainably to expand the food supply, which means to enhance
both processing and distribution as well as research and conservation.
The issue of food insecurity is both relevant and pressing because malnutrition (and in cases,
obesity) plague our world and its people. With strong guidelines to make sure the FSN is
implemented, along with its underlying policies, the G20 will be successful in combating food
insecurity, one step at a time.
17
G20
PACMUN 2015
HISTORY
Since its inception in 1999, the Group of Twenty (G20) has been the center of financing
provisional for Agricultural Security Projects (ASPs) all across the international community.
G20 is mainly responsible for the allocation of funding for Agricultural Projects; however, due to
recent developments in
the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), G20
has been given much
more authority on matters
concerning ongoing
projects. Over its sixteen
years of operation, G20
has allocated funds for
various ASPs located in
member states such as
Mexico and Argentina, as
well as several nonmember/guest states.
Before the establishment of G20, the FAO was originally responsible for the financial
management and negotiations with the World Bank and International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD). Initially conceived as a one-stop neutral forum for the debate and
implementation of
hunger fighting
programs, the Food and
Agriculture
Organization was
simultaneously
responsible for the
budgeting, fundraising,
and implementation of
numerous Agricultural
Security Projects since
its inception in 1976.
Although responsible
for several successful
hunger campaigns in Vietnam, the former Soviet Union, and Afghanistan, the organization in
1999 fell into a period of turmoil and mismanagement, eventually seeing criticism for its illresponse towards Tutsi refugees and former captives of the Rwandan Genocide and its efforts in
the multilateral UN African Hunger effort. The Governing Council of the IFAD’s testimony of
18
G20
PACMUN 2015
financial mismanagement to the General Assembly prompted the UN to seek an alternative
method of finance. By early year 2000, while establishing the Millennium Development Goals,
the FAO’s budgeting and fundraising responsibilities have been distributed to several
committees around the United Nations. Starting in the mid-fiscal year of 2000, G20 was
delegated the responsibilities concerning the funding of several Agricultural Security Projects
within the jurisdiction of all its member nations.
One year after G20’s inception, the UN officially acknowledged the committee’s ability
to delegate critical funding allocations concerning numerous global ASPs that fall under the
FAO’s jurisdiction. G20’s first ASP allocation, for the immediate food aid response for the mass
crop failure in the Mexican Province of Durango was successful enough to attract an official
revision in G20’s provisional statement, delegating the committee with the official duties of
“providing a international forum for the discussion of financial strategies concerning the UN’s
War on Hunger.”
Overall, since its delegation in early 2000, a major goal of this commission is to provide
recommendation for how funding resources are to be allocated amongst each ASP’s critical
assets and infrastructure. As of 2014 G20 Brisbane Summit, G20 economies account for 35% of
legislation geared towards FAO and non-FAO related ASPs, with G20 interacting directly with
the IFAD agency.
PAST INTERNATIONAL A CTION
Initially G20’s involvement in Agricultural Security Projects was limited to developing
supplemental consultation material for the General Assembly. Within the bounds of General
Assemblies proceedings, G20 was no more than a consultant for legislation surrounding ASP
funding activities. In 2003, the General Assembly, Security Council, and a host of various subcommittees were producing numerous amounts of resolutions in response to growing activity on
The War on Terror, withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
and Civil War Crises in the Middle East and Central Africa. In response to this spike of
international activity, the UN Secretariat introduced several subcommittees and delegated several
General Assembly responsibilities to numerous forums and pre-existing subcommittees. Starting
in 2005, G20 began taking independent precedence over ASP funding on the international
stage. In late 2005, G20 released its first publication (with international precedence) titled The
Group of Twenty Observations of The Midday Meal Scheme. The publication, which instigated
discussion in and out of G20, discussed the effectiveness of past UN Resolutions specifically in
Mumbai, Hyderabad, and surrounding rural areas; gave an overview of each region’s unique
characteristics inhibiting the progression of hunger campaigns; and provided recommendations
for internal and external improvements within the committee. G20 continued to release
subsequent case studies on a yearly basis, but most lacked the attention that was received by the
19
G20
PACMUN 2015
2005 case study. Most of these publications have fallen out of circulation since. Following the
start of the 2008 Financial Crisis, G20 began to recognize its own lack of authority and visibility
within the international community. Feeling the need to emphasize the importance of global
economic reform, the recognition of emerging countries in international economic discourse, and
the several other pressing issues (including Food Insecurity); G20 hosted its first Head of State
Summit in Washington D.C. in 2008.
CURRENT SITUATION
More recently G20 has been expanding its breadth of its Food Security efforts from
concerning individual member state situations to developing economies lying out of G20’s
membership. Currently G20 employs a self-imposed policy stating that the committee is to focus
on one Food Security Effort at a time alternating between two criterion; one project within its
member economies and one project concerning an economy residing outside of G20’s
membership. Following the conclusion of the committee’s efforts in budgeting ASPs in
Afghanistan; since 2012, G20 has been concerned with member state Mexico’s flailing
agricultural situation. G20 also continues to produce blanket resolutions for particular issues that
are prevalent in many hunger case studies around the world.
Although G20 officially focused on the Mexican hunger situation in 2012, G20’s
involvement in the situation extends back to 2007. But due to a rise of cartel activity and
international intervention, any recommendation made by G20 has been absorbed by the Security
Council, which was mostly concerned with outbreak of violent cartel activities. It was only until
2011 when the Mexican Drug War began to subside that G20 was once again able to restart
hunger intervention activities in certain territories.
20
G20
PACMUN 2015
Adding to continuous crop failure in the mid-2000s, Cartel activity has gravely weakened
Mexico’s agriculture sector, to the point of complete collapse. The presence of the Sinaloa Cartel
in the Durango Province, where almost 47% of all Mexican crops are grown, has gravely
ravaged familial agricultural operations across the region. Cartel members have recruited a
majority of farmers in the region for deployment as drug runners along the Mexican Border with
the United States. Farming vehicles have been confiscated and converted into armored vehicles
used against the Mexican police and military. A majority of farming plots have been confiscated
to grow Marijuana, Coco Plants, and Opium Poppies to fuel ongoing drug trade. The small
remaining amount of cropland that is devoted food production is meagerly distributed amongst
hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families fighting against Mexican authorities.
During the G2012 in Mexico, G20 in cooperation with numerous organizations and
subcommittees, released the Interagency Report to the Mexican G20 presidency, in an attempt to
substantiate its recommendations at providing the infrastructure to restart agricultural production.
Despite almost universal international support from both member and non-member states,
Mexico’s Government has refused to take any action claiming two specific reasons. One of
which is that they “lack the human, technological, and financial resources needed to embark on
such a nationwide effort.” Secondly it is claimed by the Mexican Government that re-enabling
the region's agricultural production would once again make provinces such as Durango lucrative
to the business prospects of rival cartels in neighboring regions. It is claimed that any expansion
into Durango would “expend Mexico’s resources in combatting this War on Drug Empires.”
Since 2012, the condition in Mexico continues to deteriorate as Mexico continues to reject
international intervention in the nation’s agricultural activities. As of year 2014, 29.6% of
Mexico’s population face food insecurity, an increase from 24% in 2012. Mexico’s agricultural
production and exports have both notably decreased by 23%.
BLOC POSITIONS
EUROPE
The European Bloc itself possesses a relatively high amount of food security. The sovereign
states The United Kingdom, Germany, and France have maintained a high level of food security
since the early nineteenth century, which include some of the longest periods of food security in
the world. Although these Sovereign States really have no precedence with dealing food
insecurity on a regional scale, economically prosperous nations of the Europe bloc have recently
21
G20
PACMUN 2015
taken up International Food Security at the top of their respective international development
agenda. Innovation in genetically modified durable crops, situational analysis of trade and
model-based scenarios, and emergency disaster financials and aide-personnel allocations have
been major contributions from the European Bloc, along with the support of hundreds of NonGovernmental Organizations. A majority of Europe’s Sovereign States feel that maintaining
Food Security in all countries is a critical component in maintaining international economic
stability, and likewise continues to maintain the matter of food security at the top of both their
domestic and international responsibilities.
AFRICA
Food Insecurity in Africa is a highly relevant and prevalent problem for the sovereign states of
Africa. Despite the detrimental impacts of unpredictable crop yields and inadequate
transportation solutions, the sovereign states of Africa have a volatile mix of opinions and
priorities in their respective domestic and international agendas. South Africa and Angola
prioritize free market trade with European and American markets. The states of Egypt and Libya
prioritize the peaceful dissolution or permanent destruction of the growing ISIL threat. Less than
half of the officially recognized member states in Africa currently prioritize the stabilization of
food availability within their countries within their international agendas, most these member
states prioritizing in an attempt to win more international aide. It has been particularly been
observed by the United Nations that the amount of aid African member states receive only
accounts for 62% of what is officially offered by international partners, which is a considerable
testament to mixed priorities of African member states. As the population continues to grow, the
impact of various solutions weakens. Currently farming and domestic food production, as well as
food imports, attempt to fix the issue. Modern agricultural methods that are utilized currently are
also insufficient. Although the situation is considerably dire in a majority of Africa’s officially
recognized Sovereign States, Africa has a considerably volatile opinion over whether Food
Security should preside as a priority issues over each of their respective domestic and even
international agendas.
ASIA
The sovereign nations of East Asia have made considerable strides in combatting Food
Insecurity within their own nations in recent decades. Member states such as Singapore, South
Korea, and Japan have virtually eliminated food insecurity with their spikes in economic
development and likewise the larger allocations of funding for state social programs, while
economically developing member states of Thailand and Vietnam are making considerable
progress in alleviating hunger with social programs modeled off Europe and fully-developed
East Asian cities. Although considerably decreased in prevalence throughout the Asian Bloc, the
22
G20
PACMUN 2015
priority of alleviating Food Instability remains a moderate priority within the regional agendas of
many member states of the region. China remains as a point of regional contention over its
considerable economic disparity between its higher and lower classes, and its proportional
amount of food availability. Regional initiatives concern with developing states of Bangladesh
and several Mid-Asian sovereigns. Member states of the Asian Bloc place the issue of food
insecurity within the higher bounds of their international agendas, but primarily contribute only
in a consultative manner with little financial or physical contributions. It has been observed that
these member states consistently support food security initiatives, but particularly refrain from
those that require ratification or that request of financial or personnel aid from these member
states.
MIDDLE EAST
Current insurrections and the overall instability of the region has unfortunately placed the matter
of food security in the lower annexes of member states or revolutionary bodies. The
economically developed member states of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE maintain a high
level of food security and are strong advocates of international food security initiatives and are
considerably generous in their contributions to official UN fundraisers or International Charities.
But deviating from the economically developed, the member states of Jordan, Syria,
Afghanistan, have been plagued with terrorism, rebellion, refugees, and in some cases full on
war with dwindling factions. Many of these unstable nations are unable to maintain stable or at
least official representation at UN committee session due to frequent power shifts or government
overthrows. The fact that these nations are currently expending most of their resources on
attempting to maintain governmental stability provides precedence to the fact that many of these
nations lack any form of international or even domestic agenda in the first place. Overall, the
relevance of the matter of Food Security within the agendas of sovereign states merely depends
on economic development and regional/governmental stability.
SOUTH AMERICA
The United Nations currently prides itself in the progress Latin America has made with
combatting hunger and solidifying food stability over the course of the past two decades.
Members states of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, among all others have greatly pulled through
the Latin American economic crises of the 1990s and now are in a state of exporting domestic
crops to foreign markets. The member states of Brazil and Chile in particular are strong
advocates for food security and are referenced as “model transformations” by various economic
committees within the United Nations. These member states have publicly provided written
reports and timelines of how these nations returned to profitability and their current success with
various social programs including hunger fighting initiatives. Despite this significant progress,
23
G20
PACMUN 2015
food insecurity still remains a significant issue in parts of Latin America which has not
necessarily reaped or taken advantage of foreign investment or lowering of tariffs. These nations
lacking in the economic development of nations such as Brazil or Peru prioritize economic
regeneration over numerous humanity initiatives including fighting hunger. But in an overall
context, the region has been at the epicenter of food security initiatives over the past two
decades, and in return is investing a considerable amount of its time and resources to contribute
to the international push towards solidifying food security internationally.
NORTH AMERICA
North America is a unique in possessing two of the most food secure nations as well as one of
the most struggling member states in maintaining food security. The United States and Canada
have not faced any significant instance of national food insecurity since their respective colonial
eras, and remain as the two largest forefronts in the initiative of solidifying food availability
worldwide. In stark contrast, the member state of Mexico is currently struggling to grasp even a
military stronghold within their capital city, Mexico City. The ongoing War on Drugs, wide scale
government corruption, and dominance of cartel influence in the daily lives of a majority of
citizens has made Mexico’s international representation extremely volatile. Notably after the
G20 2012 Summit in Mexico, several ambassadors to the United Nations were accused of ties
numerous high profile cartels across the country. Over the last decade the priority of food
security has bounced back and forth from being a first priority, to a back seat issue; sometimes in
a matter of days. Fortunately cartel activity has significantly stagnated in the third-quarter of
2015, as both the Mexican Government and the DEA have made significant strides in the
apprehension of numerous high-profile figureheads within several significant cartels. In this
period of temporary tranquility, the Mexican Government currently advocates for the alleviation
of world hunger and the solidification of food security internationally; however, this is subject to
change.
CASE STUDIES
KENYA
Increase in general food security has led to many health and social benefits in Kenyan
communities. A study by a farming intervention program shows that by alleviating poverty and
reducing food insecurity, patients are more able to take anti-HIV therapies, as well as make
clinic visits to fight the problem. People who are infected with HIV, a major problem in many
rural African communities, are then no longer able to contribute back to the economy and
medical costs for those individuals are astronomical. When agricultural support increased, food
intake increased, and with it, immunity. Increased immunity led to decreased risk of contracting
HIV, and if contracted, increased ability to seek care and support. By increasing food security,
24
G20
PACMUN 2015
countries aren’t just helping feed those who have less access to food—this issue is linked to so
many others.
This issue is very prevalent in much of Sub-Saharan Africa. Issues such as poverty lead
to food insecurity, which in turn, leads to HIV contraction as well as that of other diseases.
Programs like AMPATH are working in Western Kenya to create Health facilities that not only
deal with treatment throughout rural Africa, but also with addressing hunger needs. It is a
nutrition program, and it entitles those who are qualified to a “food prescription” program that
tries to help meet food demand. Of course, that is not the only thing the program does. It is
helping build a society that is more independent and that can build itself up, in turn. This
program was created with a framework that has guidelines set in place for a transition to relative
food security in the region. The success of this program thus far speaks to the need to expand
programs such as this one throughout even more areas of food insecurity.
CANADA
Food security has been threatened by governmental restrictions on water, especially for
watering crops. Gardeners in the Sunshine Coast Regional District will be turning to more
environmentally friendly alternatives, such as grey water, in order to combat the issue. The
restrictions put in place by the district have disheartened many people along the coast who rely
on gardening to feed themselves and their families. In this case, the government played a role in
minimizing food security, but there are many other scenarios in which climate change plays a
hauntingly similar role.
Because the Canadian government has moved to implement Stage 4 water restrictions, or
those intended for only the most severe droughts, the repercussions will be huge. Communities
are teaming up to conserve water for gardening and planting. Backlash from commercial food
growers has been so significant that some of the restrictions will not apply to large-scale farmers,
but will definitely hit the small, local farmer populations hard. Because it will be so much harder
for local farmers to produce food, prices of what is produced will significantly increase, and
many people living in the region will not be able to afford food anymore, or even to grow their
own through sustainable farming practices.
The district’s top priority is not food security, but rather “human health and drinking
water, firefighting capabilities and environmental habitat”. In short, the district denies that the
impact on food security will be as destructive as it is.
GUIDED QUESTIONS
•
What is the most pressing issue when facing a problem such as food insecurity?
25
G20
PACMUN 2015
•
What kind of funding should be implemented in order to diminish the impact of this issue,
and how?
•
How do we balance each country’s individual needs and the global community’s needs as
a whole when facing food insecurity?
•
Why are food prices rising so quickly?
•
What underlying issues may be the root of food insecurity?
•
What other problems can we attack in order to solve both them and food insecurity at
once?
•
In what regions of the world is this most a problem? The least?
•
Could we eventually see an end to this problem as a global community?
•
How do economy and the agricultural sector relate?
•
Should food be financialized? Become a tool in the economy?
•
How can we most effectively solve this issue/what approaches should we take?
FOOD SECURITY RESOURCES
Official G20 and UN Websites:
•
https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/g20_food_security_nutrition_framework.pdf
•
https://g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/G20-Agriculture-Ministers-FinalCommunique.pdf
•
http://un-foodsecurity.org/node/1114
•
http://unfoodsecurity.org/sites/default/files/G20%20agricultural%20productivity%20report_Publi
cation.pdf
Other Miscellaneous Sources
•
http://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/agriculture-food-security/
•
http://oceana.org/press-center/press-releases/co2-emissions-threaten-ocean-based-foodsecurity
•
http://www.adb.org/documents/food-security-challenges-asia
26
G20
PACMUN 2015
•
http://zeenews.india.com/news/science/food-security-improves-hivoutcomes_1649589.html
•
http://web.worldbank.org/
•
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunshine-coast-watering- restrictionsmay-threaten-food-security-says-farmer-1.3187537
•
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-09-26/africa-s-challenge-in-the-21st-century-food-security
27