This post has been backdated to reflect the date of the event.
First published: 4 February 2008 9.15pm
Post completion: 7 February 2008 6.15pm

Back to Day 2

Some pictures obtained with permission from Pico Ruiz's (delegate of China) photo-sharing account. (Denoted by *)

Start of the final day in MUN. Despite today's sessions being the shorter than that of yesterday, it was the most fruitful and productive day of all. We discussed a total of 8 working papers and the final resolution to wrap things up. So the day starts here...


1. Propose to share the benefits of the ethanol refining technology with countries who have the resources to utilise it efficiently.

2. Will allow the technology to be opened to the UN after the Brazilian has stabilised and all relevant parties involved in its research have recouped their investment.

Other clarifications:

Brazil does not seek to monopolise the ethanol market in the long term. Rather, it wishes to to protect its interests for the short period of time before sharing its technology.

As to the rise in food prices as food crops and land have to be diverted to ethanol production, she clarified that need not be the case. The primary raw material of ethanol is sugar cane, and that is not really a "staple food". Land use will be managed efficiently to minimise wastage. A policy of preventing deforestation is currently in the works to cater to this industry.

I questioned later in the moderated caucus. Since Brazil would only share its technology to those who have the resources, what about countries like mine (Somalia) which only have 2% of arable land? Won't we be maginalised as a result? Furthermore, wouldn't this action result in a future ethanol cartel (Instead of OPEC, we might have the Organisation of Ethanol Exporting Countries? Lol!)? She gave her answer later but I forgot...


1. Strongly urge developed nations to take the initiative to transfer useful technology to developing nations.

2. Discourage contrary reports to the UN

The second point elicited the most number of comments. The US delegate was the first to jump into the debate claiming that infringed onto the fundamental right of freedom of expression. He even quoted article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which had been passed by the UN itself. It says "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Many delegates especially those from the EU supported his view. Surprisingly (or not?), most of the Asian and African nations remained silent. Probably because our slates are not clean in the first place to take a stand on such an issue.

After much deliberations, a suggestion to remove clause 2 was put forward. We moved into voting procedures immediately and this was passed. With this, this paper was approved.

--------------------------------------------------

3. Delegate from South Korea suggesting the use of methane

1. Use more efficient methane extraction and storage techniques.
-Extract from sources like landfills and wells
-Use anaerobic (bacteria) digestion systems to collect methane from manure and other sources for electricity generation.

2. Process LFG (Landfill gas or biogas) and make it available as an alternative fuel for local industries.

3. Create an LFG market and give special discounts to countries which use methane.

The primary goal of his policy was to utilise the methane for useful purposes which otherwise would be wasted if it is released into the air. Methane is also a potent greenhouse gas with its heat capacity exceeding CO2 by a factor of >17!

The debate was largely against this paper as many delegates found it too uneconomical to extract such small amounts of gases to justify its high initial investment outlay. (Landfills only accounted for 7% of global methane emissions.) Methane itself takes a long time to process with current technology. Then there is the issue of safety and transportation of such a volatile gas.

With such concerns, this paper failed.

--------------------------------------------------

We were given a short recess just before we continued with the fourth working paper.*

Some delegates entertaining us with their "dancing skills". The guy in the centre was the chairman of the GA MUN throughout all our discussions. Better known as the "decorum" guy. His most common words were "Can all delegates please maintain decorum?" "Decorum" means order and silence in Latin. Partly it was our fault lah.

Some random pics...*



--------------------------------------------------

4. Adaptation strategies by the delegate of Italy.

1. Developed nations to engage in technology transfer.

2. Encourage all nations to adopt measures to diversify... ( Did not copy down the rest of this point)

3. Emphasis on nations to have adaptation options
-Food security, freshwater supplies, emergency response, early warning systems and risk management.

4. Sustained financing for adaptation solutions in the long term.

The points generated an average response. Below are some pictures of the more "enthu" speakers.


A delegate of Iraq normally should not be too forward in his opinions considering the current state of his country. This guy was totally different. He questioned every presenter like there was no tomorrow. He even had the "guts" to defy the opinions of the US delegate. Of course, this is just a simulation lah.

This paper passed.

--------------------------------------------------

5. Delegates of Brazil and India presenting their paper on the carbon trading system.


The UNEP delegate stood up to clarify the third clause. ( Ben happened to be in the picture.*)

He was quite "suay" in a sense. Everytime we had to move into voting procedures, he, observers and members of the press had to leave the room. Considering the number of working papers we had to vote on, and the other motions which we had to take a stand, you can guess how frustrated he was. When he returned, the first thing he asked was "Point of parliamentary inquiry?". And when accepted by the chair, "Did the paper pass or fail?". This scene never failed to amuse us each time.

Despite the articulate titans in both presentation and QnA sessions, this paper failed.


--------------------------------------------------

6. Delegates from Jamaica and New Zealand advocating the use of phytoplankton.

1. Invest in oceanic carbon sinks
- Oceans absorb half of atmospheric Co2 so this method is very effective if successful.
- Use artificial iron fertilisation to stimulate phytoplankton growth.
- Put money into this research area

2. Recognise dangers of land carbon sinks.

I personally have heard of this method before but its still in the experimental stages. Phytoplankton is a microscopic plant that lives on the water surface. When exposed to sunlight, it conduct photosynthesis helping to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.

The problem now is that with rising sea temperatures, phytoplankton is dying out in an increasing rate. These plankton also serve as a source of food for many marine animals so the underwater ecosystem is now affected.

With the pumping of control amounts of microscopic iron particles into the water, phytoplankton growth can be accelerated to pre-warming levels. This advantages the fishing industry and serves as an oceanic carbon sink. Killing two birds with one stone.

The second clause urges nations to realise that land-based carbon sinks are risky. If a freak accident like a forest fire occurs, the carbon would once again be released back into the atmosphere causing severe consequences. This problem does not exist with oceanic carbon sinks as the converted carbon-store compounds will sink to the ocean depths where it will generally remain inert.

This paper generated a lot of views but were mostly about the efficiency and feasibility of this relatively new technology. The presenters quoted statistics saying that it will cost only 5 euros to remove a ton of CO2, if done effectively, up to 3-5 billion tons of CO2 can be removed. It represents one of the most cost-effective measures to combat climate change to date.

With the assurance of adequate research being done before starting this method, this paper was passed by most delegates.

--------------------------------------------------

7. Determination of responsibility (unknown delegate)

I forgot to note down the details of this section. Sorry for that. This paper passed through.

--------------------------------------------------

8. Last working paper of the event was presented by Benjamin Foo from NYJC, delegate of France.


1. Encourage the use of more thermal-efficient buildings.
- Developed countries should legislate a law that applies to all new buildings and retrofit existing ones.
- Developing countries should set an example to private companies by mandating this law only for new government buildings. Funds to construct such buildings will be sponsored by the EU.

2. Cleaner .... ( I was slightly distracted here.)

3. Vehicles will be made more energy and environmentally efficient.

4. Resolves to stay actively seized of the matter.

The last point was added by the chair as this was the last working paper of the day and he wanted this point included in the resolution.

Given the strain from debating the last few papers, this passed without complaints. In fact, this was the only paper with no opposition, there were only "for" and "abstain" votes.

Only once did China (Pico himself) disagree with the third clause during the moderated caucus. It is rapidly expanding its car manufacturing industry and legislating the clause would add a heavy burden to local car companies. Even so, without removal of the clause, he did not vote against it.


--------------------------------------------------

Resolution finally!



Delegates debating on which points from the passed working papers should be included in the resolution.



There were several minor amendments, addition and removal of clauses but it still passed unanimously. Who wanted to incur the wrath of others by disagreeing?

Finally, during the prize presentation, we found out that Aqulia won the best speaker award in GA. Congratulations! You deserved it considering the amount of effort you put in to get your working paper approved and the numerous constructive comments you offered.

--------------------------------------------------

Concluding pictures.



So this closes the book of the NTU Model United Nations 2008. Hope that you learned a lot from these 3 posts. My experience cannot be simply described in words here. You can only guess the magnitude of the stuff I gained here.

Back to Day 1

Labels: global, milestones, politics