United Nations Environmental Assembly:

Poverty is something that has always negatively impacted people all over the world. As a response to this, many States choose to prioritize their own economic development in the hopes of reducing their number of impoverished people. Unfortunately, development does not come without cost and unintended consequences. Often, the faster and more affordable route to development sacrifices environmental protection and exploits natural resources. While these choices may lead to short term growth, the environmental ramifications have been serious. Among the consequences of unsustainable development are air and water pollution, desertification and depletion of resources. Since poorer people tend to rely more on environmental resources, they are affected most by these consequences. While environmental issues can have a drastic effect on people experiencing poverty, this is compounded when there are other large issues at hand; particularly pandemics such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

In some cases, governments’ efforts to reduce poverty directly harms the environment and contributes to the poverty they were meant to alleviate. One such example is the drying of the Aral Sea, which has been largely attributed to actions by the Russian Federation. The water sources of the Aral Sea were diverted in order to be used for cotton cultivation; and while this was supposed to grow the economy and reduce poverty by introducing a new market, it actually made things worse. The lack of water and the use of pesticides combined to create pesticide-laden dust storms. Economic conditions also worsened, which of course hit poorer people the hardest. Events such as this are capable of creating mass migration, extreme poverty and potentially instability. The United Nations is of the opinion that all States would benefit from the elimination of these types of incidents.

Countries such as Afghanistan have suggested alternative solutions for these types of issues. They take the position that supplying financial support to the agricultural industry would be more beneficial to states than simply sending food packages. This would be done in  the hopes that food production would be renewed and the system would be essentially self-sustaining. Additionally, they emphasize that people in poverty tend to put more strain on the environment because they do not have the resources to upgrade their practices and technologies, a thought that was also clearly considered by the delegations of Norway and Tunisia. Afghanistan supports the education of agricultural workers on newer, more environmentally friendly methods of farming that are important in trying to implement sustainable farming on a broader scale. Not only could this method of re-education be beneficial for small countries, but also larger and further developed Member States such as the United States. Afghanistan is not the only country to offer suggestions though; Cambodia, as a developing country which experiences high rates of deforestation, suggests a circular economic model as a more sustainable option for development. Additionally, Guatemala has its own national development goals that align with SDGs and brings more suggestions to the table.

While the whole world has something to gain from a healthy environment, some States (such as Chile) have more to lose from a degraded one. Due to its geographical location, Chile is quite vulnerable to disturbances in the environment; not only does this physically affect their land, but it might have serious consequences for their economic stability. Nations such as Ghana, which depend heavily on agriculture, are also in danger of further damage if environmental degradation is not managed.