Journal 27

Sustainable Mountain Development -- The role of governments, organizations, and communities at every level; Global, regional, national, and community. Their functions, results (before/after), resolutions and treaties.

·       Watershed agricultural council.

·       United States Agency for International Development.

·       Mountain Partnership.

·       Mountain Focus Group.

·       Mountain Institute.

·       FAO.

·       UNEP.

·       UNDP.

·       World Energy Forum.

·       Almaty Plan of Implementation.

·       Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

·       Rio +20

·       Agenda 21

This is a relative breakdown of the political side of Sustainable Mountain Development. Included are examples of organizations at every level. In the case of the Almaty Plan of Implementation and others, plans such as these are the results of the above mentioned organizations and are great examples of the transition from data to action. Breaking down this information down into a simple structure on the political side of SMD is the easy part. That can even be said about the opposite side of the coin and the business side. But mingling the two parts together to bring in an unbiased attempt at providing development is where there is significant contention and self-interest.

Journal 26

I have come to see the United Nations and the Mountain Partnership (MP) and how they cooperate with each other as a good stepping stone for corroboration between the global and regional level.  From there and because of cooperation between the two, a unifying structure begins to emerge. This structure is the skeleton upon which global change, all the way to the community, can be applied. That is, global, regional and sub-regional, national, and community. By creating a network at every level, every aspect for sustainable development can be affected. This then is affected or sustained by the addition of programs that facilitate information between the levels. From the United Nations and its Environment Program (UNEP) and Development Program (UNDP), to the MP, to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and finally to the Watershed Agricultural Council.

All these programs serve a purpose at their individual levels, and when working together, create cleaner water, cheaper costs of living, and a healthier living condition in general.

This is then compounded by the efforts of such companies Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) as NuSkin, which have their own foundations; feeding the poor and educating the uneducated.

Creating a significant connection between the two for a meaningful change is where the buck stops.

Journal 25

There is a lot involved, scientifically, when discussing the matter of Sustainable Mountain Development. One could talk endlessly about the scientific facts regarding global warming, watershed degradation, deforestation, and biodiversity. But in order to establish change, there are two primary formats or functions required. One might think that one of these functions is the community residing in the mountains. That is not a bad or entirely wrong assumption. However, the change that would be required to alter these issues would have to be at a global level. This means that the requirements, in order to be met, must be followed through by the two most important functions. Those being, politics and business.

Currently, in political theory, there are two primary beliefs. One is that, in order to establish power and change, one must prioritize the political sphere first. Meaning that, if there is to be any change, there must be laws that are required to be passed. This is a very valid point. The other line of reasoning, is that Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) are where the money is, and money is what gets things done, before and after a law is passed. Both are very convincing.

What really matters, in my opinion, is how these two can be met, together. This, in part, will be my focus for this week’s journal.

Jouranl 24

Much like the roles that I have mentioned before, the roles at the regional, global, and community levels, one of the primary goals and roles that the Government has is to provide opportunities for agencies and concerned citizens and entities to gather and promote dialogs on the issues of SMD. This is done by bringing together individuals at the international and community levels together, to see how they might better implement changes and introduce new guides or strategies that will benefit the mountain communities.

Undoubtedly, this is one of the most important steps in implementing new ideas and promoting new laws and resolutions. Without the support of the local government, such entities as the Mountain Partnership and the Mountain Institute and the Mountain Focus Group would have little to no effect.

It is inevitably up to the local government to make those changes that are in the best interest of its people. And it is up to such interest groups as those mentioned above to provide a reason for change.

I personally, find that to be a most poignant thought. If we all speak of the power of the individual and the power of the group, then it is paramount that change be made, because in the end, the source is always the same.

Journal 23

Being able to go into a meeting at the UN hosted by the World Energy Forum, has helped me to get a better look into the subject I have given myself this week for study.

In this meeting, many of the attending countries spoke about their current predicaments and achievements concerning energy. While it was not always in a positive light in which they spoke, many simply did not mention the positive aspects of their countries endeavors. For example, Costa Rica spent most of its allotted 7 minutes talking about the serious role that deforestation has taken on its country. Yet, what the Ambassador of Costa Rica did not mention, was that the country is now 93% reliant on Hydro-powered electricity. That is an incredible amount of “green” energy.

In an endeavor to keep energy a serious issue, the positive aspects are sometimes overlooked. This was pointed out by the Chairman of the meeting and in fact, has been mentioned in several of the meetings I have attended in the last 2 months. I feel it is important to stress this fact and mention just how much positive change is being made. The collective efforts of thousands on the behalf of billions is a staggering reality that is often times over-looked.

Journal 22

When one thinks about an LDC or least developed country, basically, all the blame is placed upon the Government. While here at the United Nations I have had the pleasure of working with many countries on behalf of socio-economic development. While here, I have seen the positive side of humanity. The government officials here are as dedicated as any, to promote an acceptable means of change, for the betterment of its citizens and Humanity.

While that last statement might come off as grandiose and a little over-bearing, the truth of it is no less real. Every morning, I get off the 15 bus and feel a little bit better about myself and the day. So many of the people here walk around with smiles on their faces. They walk around as if they know a secret that others do not. The truth is, they do. They know that their government, regardless of the turmoil that might reside in the country, is at least trying to make their homes a better place.

To me, that’s pretty special and for the rest of the week, my journal will be focused on the role of developing mountainous governments in SMD advocacy.

Journal 21

The following is a summary of the Mountain Focus Group meeting that I attended yesterday.  It was one of the things I worked on today and I feel that it, although brief and not a full accounting of the meeting, helps any who care to read it to understand the level of devotion that those who attended represent.

The Mountain Focus Group (MFG), hosted at the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations, and a large group of constituents met on October 17, 2013, and addressed a wide range of issues pertaining to Sustainable Mountain Development (SMD). Such members of the constituency include, Peru, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Switzerland, the Mountain Partnership, etc. The meeting was opened by the Ambassador from Italy, His Excellency Ambassador Sebastiano Cadri. Ambassador Cardi addressed to the importance of the meeting and what specific foci he hoped the meeting considered. Of particular importance to the Ambassador was the cooperation of those who were present in coming up with actionable goals as opposed to the seemingly ubiquitous amounts of data that is constantly shared.

His comments sprang forth an abundance of optimism and enthusiasm among the attendees. One of which was Slovakia and its promise to support, even in a non-member capacity, the workings of the Mountain Focus Group and its constituents. Another was the country of Afghanistan; who claimed that, whether a member or not, as a mountainous country, it is important to emphasis the support that a country has to institute policy briefs; for the sake of Sustainable Mountain Development.

Peru, another attendee and actual member of the Mountain Focus Group, called upon members to remain focused. Asking that the Mountain Focus Group not be confused, and determinedly “focus on the targets or the goals” of the Group. To show their determination in following such advice they promised to present a resolution on mountains and asked for its support (as has often been given).

Of most significance though was the unified efforts of the Ambassador of the Kyrgyz Republic, His Excellency Ambassador Talaibek Kydyrov and Former Ambassador now professor at Utah Valley University Prof. Baktybek D. Abdrisaev. Together, they stressed the importance of the time. Meaning, that now is the time for a concentrated effort in the UN concerning the progression of SMD-advocacy. Their comments were used as a springboard for further discussion and even more need for active participation.

Respectively—Ambassador Kydyrov mentioned the importance of December 11^th and the International Day of Mountains. Calling for a celebration and a collaborative effort of the Mountain Focus Group in promoting a SMD- agenda that could be presented and focused on in the United Nations.

Prof. Abdrisaev stressed the importance of proper documentation of the efforts made by the members of the Mountain Focus Group. He called to reference the recent, if brief and not entirely informative, efforts of Utah Valley University and their mention in a recent General Assembly Resolution (A/68/307). Additionally, he stressed the importance of utilizing the youth in the efforts of SMD. He pointed to the $150 thousand dollars that Utah Valley University had raised to date.

Their comments combined though were a unified front on improving SMD relations and bringing an otherwise not-well-known issue to the fore.

Journal 20

Today has been one of the busiest and most productive days in New York. The experiences I have had have been one of a kind opportunities and particularly thought provoking. The day started with me getting to attend a high-level meeting of the Security Council and the selection and ratification of several new members. These members, when introduced and welcomed, would clap and stand up in almost unrestrained cheering. Surrounding members would also get up and congratulate. It was clear that these admittances were life altering experiences for themselves and the countries they represented. I was given a unique and first-hand glimpse into the reward of the hard effort these delegates put forth on behalf of their respect countries. That was a convoluted statement.

My Prof. from Utah Valley University came today as well. He and Ambassador Kydyrov and myself then went to a meeting of the Mountain Focus Group and were able to participate. The importance of the meeting was not lost on me. The cooperation of these groups have funded millions of dollars and thousands of ideas on the behalf of mountainous regions. Although, they were not being rewarded as the above parties were, they were focused and completely in tune with the efforts of mountainous peoples. Working together these individuals and the countries they represent work tirelessly for the chance that they might feel the sense of completion that the above mentioned countries were able to feel.

Journal 19

From my research to date, I have come to ask myself a couple of questions over and over again. The one question that I will be focusing on for this week is, what role does the government of developed mountainous nations in SMD-advocacy play? This week I will be fortunate enough to play a larger part in finding out the answer to just that question. In a couple of days, the Mountain Focus Group will be co-hosting a conference of members of the Mountain Partnership in North America. I place emphasis on the co-host part. This meeting will take place at the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations. Developing countries from around the globe will be participating. Beyond a simple allocation of funds, such countries as Switzerland and Italy spear-head efforts and events that promote the important work of developing countries.

The meeting that I will be participating in in a couple of days is such an event. I have spent every day since I found out studying and preparing a speech that will presented to the attending members. It should be quite interesting and I am looking forward to the next few days.

Journal 18

Recently, I was asked and informed to represent the City of Orem, Utah and the Utah International Mountain Forum at a meeting hosted by the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations. I have been so busy with that that I have neglected my journals. My apologies. I will get serious about updates and journals entries starting on Monday next week.

Journal 17

As I mentioned in an earlier Journal, I had the chance to meet with the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Kyrgyz Republic. It was a great chance to meet him and I even got the opportunity to take a picture with him. Here it is.

 Maybe someday I will actually be able to get a picture with the Ambassador that I work for.

Journal 16

Today was pretty uneventful. I did nothing but sit in the UN library and read/write research for a paper I have due this week. As I have been sitting in the library I am facing a large window. There is a bunch of open space and I have enjoyed the rain and cloudy weather that has been around all day. So far though, I am polishing up some ideas that I have had concerning education in LDCs and the potential impact that education can have. I am hoping to break it into a couple of sections. Those sections would be background, projections, marketing, and location to name a few. Hopefully it turns out well.

Journal 15

Due to lack of time, this journal will be a small one.

When trying to create a plan for revitalizing a failed institution, it is paramount that you find the one thing that is stable in every instance. I believe that that one stability is education. That is why I think that one of the single most important means of revitalizing a country after a revolution is to first establish control of education. Putting education at the forefront of progress is the same as creating a base upon which a country's future can stand. Academies of learning serve many purposes. One of which is setting the country onto a path of knowledge that can shed light on past mistakes. To butcher a saying, if one does not learn from the past they are doomed to repeat its failures. What this does is to, not only educate but, create a pool of individuals with the right information to succeed. Without a body of intellectual citizens working together for the sole purpose of its countries success, it doesn’t really matter how much focus is placed upon alternative energy or transportation or agriculture. The ideas that are generated by such a group of people is non-existent and as such, the existing pool becomes stagnant and will cease to be life producing.

Journal 14

One of the biggest concerns for LDCs is the issue of “brain drain”. This turn of phrase comes from the prevalent issue of citizens of LDCs going to outside (other countries) universities and then getting employed and subsequently staying in that country of higher education. I don’t think I need to explain why that would be a concern of a country already struggling to develop its own economy and social systems.

My question is this, what causes this occurrence? Some would argue that the issue is of a better life. By obtaining a degree from Harvard, you’re going to get the job of your choice in basically any LDC on earth. This then ties into the idea that the better the education the better the pay rate. I agree, partly. I think though that the real issue is transportation. The problem that these LDCs are having is not that they are losing individuals but rather that they are not bringing in individuals for higher education. While a seemingly obvious proposition, it bares to be mentioned that, for most of the people who leave, they often have the intention of going back, after they receive their “proper” education. The United States has never had a problem with this, because the United States has always done what I am suggesting to LDCs.

That is, to stop the outsourcing of education and institute new laws and regulations that provide for a higher standard of education within one’s own homeland. America, as the “land of the free” promotes an idea. This idea is that they can provide an education and better paying job because of said education. The United States has never outsourced its education. Rather, from its conception, the United States has created institutions with the intention of rivaling Oxford and Cambridge. The very foundation of education set forth by the United States was never to educate, it was to compete.

There are several things that I think that a government can do to utilize this idea. The first is to establish a specific university. This university must follow a credo, and that is to be the best damn education in the surrounding countries. This means that the Government of said university will have to promote incentives for students and teachers. To do so, a Government could partner with the surrounding countries or an individual country with much more means. The more advanced country could utilize the option as a means of charity, propaganda, aide, investment, etc. The recipient government would then have a financially backed institution, focused on competition. This would minimize the financial role the host country would have to provide. Additionally, it would provide a cheaper means of access to education for citizens as well as boost the economy of the surrounding community because of the increase supply and demand that a university promotes.

I draw attention to Orem/Provo, UT and College Station, TX to name just a couple. These 3 cities have around 300,000 residents. 67,000 attend Utah Valley University and Brigham Young University and 50,000 attend Texas A&M. That doesn’t include all the smaller institutions like Provo College, or Stevens-Henager College. Just to underscore that amount let’s say 125,000 students or 42% of the population. The major reason? The educational institutions that provide the initial backbone of these cities. Almost 100,000 people living in each one of these educational meccas. That is just 3 cities, which would constitute 5.5% of the population of Kyrgyzstan.

To clarify the point I am trying to make. These educational hubs are self-sustaining. They promote education, have created their own sustainable economy, and have boosted the regional economy through the advances they have made in sciences, law, agriculture, sports, medicine, etc. Doctors stay to work in the local hospitals, Lawyers stay and become government officials, art, dance, and film students, stay because they can’t afford to leave (just kidding). The impact of these institutions not only affects the nearby residents but their individual graduates. In the case of local economics, the surrounding area is filled with the arts, cuisine, and business that you would expect to see. As well as the institution of global enterprises (Nuskin, Adobe, and other technical companies).

This is all done in an area of land, if you combined all 3 cities, that is not even ¼ the size of Long Island.