represented by Valerie Ross, Konstantin Volkov and Dennis Scherer

The Committee for Development Policy (CDP) is an independent expert group under the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that elaborates medium and long term solutions of various development issues. It gives special advice to ECOSOC, as well as to the Development Policy and Analysis Division (DPAD) and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Although the annually written reports for ECOSOC are only policy advices and not binding, its recommendations are widely accepted and often applied for resolutions of the ECOSOC.

For the NMUN 2010 session the topics for our committee were:

1. The Climate Change – Development Nexus;

2. Assessing the Development of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs);

3. The Role of Microfinance in Promoting Development.

Our topic preferences for the agenda setting were the LDC-issue followed closely by microfinance and lastly by the Climate Change topic. As an expert committee recommending developmental strategies to ECOSOC, we have understood our role as one which is situated more distantly than the regular Spanish national position. This offered us a wide and more scientific scope in analysing the problems set forward and trying to negotiate appropriate strategies. Closely linked to the economic and social problems that the Least Developed Countries face, microfinance can be understood as an important instrument for mitigating the effects of extreme poverty. Regarding the topic of Climate Change, our Delegation has tried to be as truthful to reality as possible. This resulted in a confrontation during research with a huge debate lacking at times enough scientifically backed up data and correct interpretation. Thus, a nexus between Climate Change and Development seemed even more difficult without generally accepted terms and facts. This is the main reason why in the debate, the Spanish Delegation in the CDP preferred to tackle the LDC topic linked with microfinance first and just lastly address the situation of Climate Change and its developmental effects.

During the conference, we noticed a lot of diverging opinions of fellow delegates on the agenda setting and thus the importance of the topics which had to be addressed during the session and on substantial matters. Under these circumstances, the agenda was set as following: 1. The Climate Change –Development Nexus, 2. The Role of Microfinance in Promoting Development, 3. Assessing the Development of the Least Developed Countries.

Due to time constraints the CDP was able to deal just with the first topic and shortly with the second one.

The first day was a preview of the days of negotiations that were to come. Delegations such as India, Morocco, Russia, Médecins sans Frontièrs, Third World Network, Malaysia, Netherlands and Poland were active from the beginning and carried out their respective strategy. It was obvious that these strategies were based on different kind of perceptions on the given topic. While some chose to guard a very protective kind of negotiation strategy being reticent to other proposals than their own (like for example India, Malaysia, Third World Network), most of the delegates were open to discussion and efficient solution finding.

The next day, some delegates met for the purpose of informal caucusing earlier than planned. This was highly work efficient since according to the Spanish proposal the CDP accepted to split up the topic of Climate Change and its developmental nexus into 3 essential parts: Prevention of Climate Change, Mitigation of Climate Change and Adaption to the Effects of Climate Change. All these parts are substantially bridging the gap between the need for development of both developed and developing states and the technology and logistics available to fight Climate Change. Subsequently, a separate working group was formed which tried to find solutions for the funding of these initiatives.

The main goal of these groups was to find sustainable integrative solutions, which would also offer a platform of action for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

The Prevention working group concentrated on education for sustainable development, environmental protection, nature conservation, offering medical assistance and infrastructure in areas where due to Climate Change the disease corridors have changed, eradication of inappropriate housing and land reform. There were no major controversies referring to this working draft paper segment with the exception of a doubt expressed on the fairness of the recommended land reforms and the threat of this term to be coined as a Marxist one.

The Mitigation working group proposed for continuing efficient technology transfer with the help of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and through the integration of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to ease the access of Least Developed Countries to cleaner technologies. The CDP recommends for all states to maintain their cuts in emissions. Besides, it was advised to create an international fund which should be specialised on desalination technology transfer granting areas with long periods of droughts access to potable water and strongly encourages ECOSOC to further support small farming initiatives and multi-crop production. All of these points were either brought forward to the agenda or were strongly supported by the Delegation of Spain.

Concerning the appropriateness of certain proposed trading instruments which would amend the GATT 1949, there were some delegations which perceived those as a disadvantage for the developing countries. A misunderstanding in the complex formulation of the paragraph was the main cause. While spending a considerable amount of time on explaining and negotiating these special regulations, there was no consensus on this matter.

The delegates who worked out the working paper draft segment on the topic of Adaptation successfully put forward their view on this issue. It was argued that multinational corporations are more prone to corruption and fraud because of their profit-striving and should thus be supervised by the United Nations’ organisations. Furthermore, the support of Private-Public-Partnerships (co-operation between governments and private actors) was maintained. Additionally, the CDP urges to continue (re)forestation initiatives and projects to combat Climate Change. Although we noticed disparities between the Adaptation and Mitigation report segments during the negotiations, these were solved later on: the Spanish Delegation addressed the rest of the delegates to find a compromise between limiting Emission Trading systems and encouraging Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) , which by themselves are exchanging technology for carbon credits.

Last, but not least the Financing International Mitigation Adaptation Prevention Strategies working draft report segment presented a range of innovating ideas. These included the convenient usage of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund for technical training, disaster relief efforts, capacity building, and reduction of emission from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD-plus). According to this paper, the CDP recommends the solidifying of the mandate of the High-Level Panel within the United Nations Framework for the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in order to guarantee transparency. Moreover, the CDP agreed on maintaining the ODA requirements OEDC Member States have agreed upon and urges for other financial institutions to continue their work in this domain.

Eventually all of the four working draft paper segments were voted upon, of which just the one regarding Prevention was unanimously adopted. The rest was subject to motions to divide the question. None of these passed. Ultimately, the Spanish Delegation is satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and report writing since the report contains in its most important essence the Spanish position.