NationStates Jolt Archive

Now submitted and ready for approval!!!

Thank you very much for the comments: I have updated a couple of sections.
Would 0.5% GDP donation be more acceptable? The original 4% was a shot in the dark figure for me. Should I completely remove the GDP definition?

I have coloured my changes in Dark Red. Any more help would be appreciated!


UN Aid Fund

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING that natural disasters can happen to any nation in any region at any time

DEFINING natural disasters as calamity caused by nature resulting in loss of life or destruction of property, such as earthquakes and floods;

OBSERVING that some nations do not have the financial stability to effectively deal with natural disasters and the destructive power of their aftermath.

UNDERSTANDING that many nations will depend on international humanitarian aid to save lives and rebuild after a natural disaster.

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that the UN member states can see the need for an International UN aid fund that can be accessed in times of catastrophes and natural disasters.

AWARE that the UN Aid Fund will be closely monitored and carefully scrutinized by the UN Aid Committee as detailed below

CREATES the UN Aid fund and the UN Aid Fund Committee, which will oversee mandatory donations of money from member states to help nations that have been hit with natural disasters. Financial Aid will not be passed through the Governments of the nation in need. The committee will assign a Disaster Response Team to work along side the efforts of the Government.

MANDATING that payments into the UN Aid Fund will be made based on the annual Gross Domestic Product for each state. Payments will be correlated to each nations own financial standing and will have a minimum payment of 0.5% of GDP

DEFINING Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the total value of goods and services produced within a territory during a specified period, regardless of ownership and is measured and understand by the following:
GDP = consumption + investment + exports - imports.

Thanks for taking the time to read this!

Minxos

I was hoping people could have a quick look my proposal and help me out a bit. This is my first attempt so any help will be greatly appreciated
Well, hopefully it's a good idea to bring it to the forum. Some people never bother, and it's hard to help them improve. The following criticisms are intended to be constructive. :)

1. 4%?????????? No no no. Sorry, that is far too high. I'm not sure any state, IRL, contributes more than 0.1% (I could be wrong on this) of their GDP in total aid disbursements. To a single fund? Out of the question. You would need to lower this figure substantially.
2. According to the proposal rules, your committee would probably be illegal. You can't have nations sit on it: it has to be left vague. I think using a committee is a good idea, but you just need to be less specific. Simply say "there will be a committee to oversee and apportion spending", and that's about it.
3. You explain how the money is accumulated, but not really how it is distributed. For example, cooperation with NGOs might be a good way.

These are some thoughts to get some started. I'm generally in favour of international aid proposals, and I think this is a good start.

DEFINING natural disasters as events including (but not limited to) earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, drought, volcanic eruption, floods, mud slides, unintended forest fires etc
Use a definition rather than or in addition to a list. For example:

DEFINING natural disasters as unpreventable or unforseeable acts, such as earthquakes and floods, not originating from any sapient being or beings;

Which is really clunky, but you get the idea.

OBSERVING that some nations do not have the financial stability to effectively deal with natural disasters and the destructive power of their aftermath.
Good.

UNDERSTANDING that many nations will depend on international humanitarian aid to save lives and rebuild after a natural disaster.

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that the UN member states can see the need for an International UN aid fund that can be accessed in times of catastrophes and natural disasters.
Good.

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGING that every nation is at risk of natural disasters and that every nation will potentially need Humanitarian Aid
Not true. Some nations have very few or no natural disasters to worry about.

AWARE that the UN Aid Fund will be closely monitored and carefully scrutinized by the UN Aid Committee as detailed below
Wait, you haven't created the UN Aid Fund yet, except indirectly or with a HOPES clause. Add this:

CREATES the UN Aid fund, which will oversee mandatory donations of money from nations to help nations that have been hit with natural disasters

Which is also really clunky, but it's OK for now.

DECLARES that the UN Aid Fund will have a committee of 30 member states at any given time and that the rest of the UN community on a yearly basis will elect these committee members. Also 5 external banking and accountancy experts will be present for all meetings and will need to approve all withdrawals from the UN Aid Fund.
As Gruenberg said, this is metagaming and illegal. Just say "a committee will be set up..."

UNDERSTANDING that payments into the UN Aid Fund will be made based on the annual Gross Domestic Product for each state. Payments will be correlated to each nations own financial standing and will have a minimum payment of 4% of GDP
Use "MANDATING" instead of "UNDERSTANDING", because this is actually doing something.

DEFINING Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the total value of goods and services produced within a territory during a specified period, regardless of ownership and is measured and understand by the following:
GDP = consumption + investment + exports - imports.
This ought to go at the top.
[QUOTE]

Two suggestions: Drop the definition of GDP, and lower the % contribution.

And make it clear that the aid doesn't have to be channeled through the governments of the affected nations, so that the UN can try to keep corrupt regimes from diverting it for other purposes...

Thank you very much for the comments: I have updated a couple of sections.
Would 0.5% GDP donation be more acceptable? The original 4% was a shot in the dark figure for me. Should I completely remove the GDP definition?

I have coloured my changes in Dark Red. Any more help would be appreciated!

Thank you very much for the comments: I have updated a couple of sections.
Would 0.5% GDP donation be more acceptable? The original 4% was a shot in the dark figure for me. Should I completely remove the GDP definition?
I would completely remove the definition.

As to the figure, you need to consider:
1. This only covers natural disasters. Thus, states may want to contribute to other aid, such as structural development or famine relief.
2. Not all UN states have developed economies. You would be forcing the poorest ones to contribute too.

In real life, the UN has set its goal at 0.7%, so 0.5% is not too bad. But in this context, I don't think it's workable as a flat rate for all nations.

Here is the finished proposal:
It has been submitted and is awaiting approval!! (currectly on page 8) Thanks for all your help! It was greatly appreciated!

Description: The United Nations,

ACKNOWLEDGING that natural disasters can happen to any nation in any region at any time.

DEFINING natural disasters as calamity caused by nature resulting in loss of life or destruction of property, such as earthquakes and floods.

OBSERVING that some nations do not have the financial stability to effectively deal with natural disasters and the destructive power of their aftermath.

UNDERSTANDING that many nations will depend on international humanitarian aid to save lives and rebuild after a natural disaster.

EXPRESSING ITS HOPE that the UN member states can see the need for an International UN Aid Fund that can be accessed in times of catastrophes and natural disasters.

AWARE that the UN Aid Fund will be closely monitored and carefully scrutinized by the UN Aid Committee as detailed below

CREATES the UN Aid fund and the UN Aid Fund Committee, which will oversee mandatory donations of money from member states to help nations that have been hit with natural disasters. Financial Aid will not be passed through the Governments of the nation in need. The committee will assign a Disaster Response Team to work along side the efforts of the Government.

MANDATING that payments into the UN Aid Fund will be made based on the annual Gross Domestic Product for each state. Payments will be correlated to each nations own financial standing and will have a minimum payment of 0.3% of GDP

But...what is the point of forcing economically developing, who would benefit from aid disbursements, to pay 0.3% of their GDP into the fund?

As it's currently written there is no upper limit on the proportions of national GPD that the UN could seize for this purpose. The government of St Edmund will vote AGAINST this proposal if it reaches the General Assembly.

We are joining St.Edmund on this. We interpret it as another chance for LEDC's, if I may, to leech off us, as some of our less 'desirable' citizens do off the welfare state. If some 'act of god/g-d' destroys them, why should we pay for god's/g-d's doing? It was his will, so why should we judge what is right and wrong? Opticher dosn't believe in gods, and if it is mother natures way of replacing the old like she did with the dinosaurs, then maybe it's for the best.
I don't care if this semms heartless, as I probably am. I wouldn't expect anyone to voluntarily aid my country, since we're strong enough to sort out most disasters. And if we get wiped off the face of this earth, so be it. Let whoever there is do whatever they want, and let the hard working ex-proletariat bourgousie lounge in the mony we have earned.

Optischer,

If you truly feel this way, why do you even have a welfare state? If you do not care for your fellow humans in other countries, why do you care about the people in your own?

I think we have a duty as human beings to help others in aid. Also, we may never know when we also, are hit by a disaster and need foreign aid.

I will support this bill.

Nicodemus Larynger
-Protectorate of Kiften-

We have no concern what happens in other countries as long as it does not affect us in a negative way. We would supply aid to countries but only if it helped us in the long run, and we can think of better uses for the money. Like making sure our own people have enough food, and aren't in poverty.

Charity begins at home

Optischer,

If everyone is contributing to a fund though, you would also receive funds in cases of natural disaster. By doing this, EVERYONE is helping EVERYONE ELSE in the long run. This is the point.

You may choose now not to contribute, but can you honestly say that you will not request aid from others if a disaster occurs in your country and many are dying/starving/in trouble?

As it's currently written there is no upper limit on the proportions of national GPD that the UN could seize for this purpose. The government of St Edmund will vote AGAINST this proposal if it reaches the General Assembly.
As I read it, the UN doesn't seize it; the government of the nation must pay at least 0.3% of GDP, and more if the government (not the UN) wants to.

As I read it, the UN doesn't seize it; the government of the nation must pay at least 0.3% of GDP, and more if the government (not the UN) wants to.


As I read it, that isn't really made clear...

MANDATING that payments into the UN Aid Fund will be made based on the annual Gross Domestic Product for each state. Payments will be correlated to each nations own financial standing and will have a minimum payment of 0.5% of GDP
Call this what you want I consider this a UN Tax and the UN can't collect taxes from members. Thus believe this to be illegal. Call it the UN K9 Feeding Fund it is still a form of Tax on members. The UN has means of getting funds it's needs without another special commettee to collect more.

Also 0.5% GDP may be a nations entire health or education funding for a year so which do they fund?

Even at 0.3% same applies as nations will have to collect this from some place thus local funding will be reduced so.. Charity begins at home applies here as we know best what natural disaster we may face thus can fund aid best to prepare us for them. As funds must be spent on those items needed and it may be too late to buy them after the disaster is over but a nation can with it's own funds put in place what is needed to save lives during a disaster if it has them before one happens.

Call this what you want I consider this a UN Tax and the UN can't collect taxes from members. Thus believe this to be illegal.

We agree completely.

We agree completely.

One of the reasons I wanted to repeal #4... It only states that the UN cannot tax citizens directly, and yet people keep calling government contributions "taxes."

1. Payments between different levels of government are not taxes. Let me repeat: payments from/to local and central, state and federal, national and supranational government are not taxes.

2. Even if they were, the are most surely not imposed directly on citizens.

One of the reasons I wanted to repeal #4... It only states that the UN cannot tax citizens directly, and yet people keep calling government contributions "taxes."

1. Payments between different levels of government are not taxes. Let me repeat: payments from/to local and central, state and federal, national and supranational government are not taxes.

2. Even if they were, the are most surely not imposed directly on citizens.


Imposed directly or indirectly funds from this one come from some place in a nation and that is out of the pockets of it's citizens. This would take funds from citizens of my county an send them some place else. Thus when we need a boat to avoid drowning in a flood we didn't have the funds to buy it so we drown while some place a boat sits in expectation of a flood there. Each nation knows what dangers due to nature it's nation faces and should be using any funds it draws from citizens to protect them from these.

I say take .5% of your own GDP and set up your own Disaster Aid Committee and use it to best protect your own citizens from these. As far as say trading say a boat for a tent that can be worked out between each nation so that if my nation makes boats you need then we get tents we need in exchange for a fair trade price or deal. Thus we don't need the UN taking our money buying boats and tents then storing them some place until we need them. As we will have both here when the flood is coming not after it's dried up.

Also one must consider the management costs of such a Disaster Aid Program in the UN as an intake of .5% may be reduced to .3% by time all the cost are taken out so we lose time and finds in red tape while folks drown waiting for a boat or freeze waiting for a tent with heater to stay warm in.


As far as a repeal of Resolution #4 I would hope it got voted down as would hate to see what comes up if it were not in place. As nations might as well hand over all their funds to the UN so the issue of .5% of GDP is mute as UN would in time get it all, 100%....

My fellow delegates and representatives,

Up until this moment, Hou Mian has stayed out of this particular debate. However, though we do not maintain the elaborate "welfare state" of some of our more advanced and enlightened counterparts, as we are still a humble and poor nation without the resources to set up such a system, we have become enthusiastic supporters of such a proposal.

We believe that forcing nations to aid each other in times of our greatest need will have an additional positive effect in reminding us all that we are all on this earth together, and that our common human--*aid whispers in his ear*--sorry, and that our common sentience is more important than any petty squabbles we may create.

Thus, Fu Huangdi and the rest of Hou Mian have realized that this not only helps those nations in their times of greatest need, but will also be a great stride forward for WORLD PEACE. Or at the least, peace between UN members.

Let us all vote yea on this proposal!

as we are still a humble and poor nation without the resources to set up such a system,
We believe that forcing nations to aid each other in times of our greatest need


First on your being a poor nation. As this will take funds from you a give to another nation you will possibly never see a part of these funds. Thus once these funds are gone where will you get the funds to help your own in times of natural disaster.

The word FORCING here is right as it forces one nation such as yours to send funds you could best use in your own nation to who knows where with nothing to say that you will ever get any. Once the pot is empty there will be nothing for you when you need it. Then when you need say boats and tents during and after a disaster who will you get them from and how will you pay for them. As who will have priority on getting the funds. Also if the .3% or .5% is not enough to cover all disaster needs how much more do you get forced to give. How much do you take from your own and leave them drowning and out in the cold, because no boats or tents are on hand... Some other nation has them.

Most nations within their regions have Aid Programs set up that deal with such disasters in their Region. This will drain funds from that and send them out for possible abuse. As one can already see cost coming out for maintaining a committee to keep this up and collect the funds and then pass them back out or buy items to send into a disaster area. Where an individual nation could spend such to support it's own factory that might provide certain disaster needs. Here we'd end up dealing with trade trarriffs and such to get deals because we get the funds from UN and have to use them where they say to use them.

The time to prepare for a disaster is today not after it has happened. Thus each nation knows the threats they face and can best spend funds to put in place a program to save lives during one. Here one would have to wait for aid to arrive that may not be there. As just what can one do with money when they need tents, heaters, blankets, boats, as well as food and clean water.

I say take .5% of your own GDP and set up your own Disaster Aid Committee and use it to best protect your own citizens from these. As far as say trading say a boat for a tent that can be worked out between each nation so that if my nation makes boats you need then we get tents we need in exchange for a fair trade price or deal. Thus we don't need the UN taking our money buying boats and tents then storing them some place until we need them. As we will have both here when the flood is coming not after it's dried up.

Zeldon,

There is no way that this trading would be on equal terms. The ones who hold the boats would be able to charge exorbitant prices (or request exorbitant trade) from the country that needed the boats.

Also Zeldon, what about natural disasters that can not be predicted? Tsunamis that come out of nowhere and devastate countries? Tornados? Tell me, what boat can save one from this? What precautionary measures can be taken to avoid these natural disasters?

I say take .5% of your own GDP and set up your own Disaster Aid Committee and use it to best protect your own citizens from these.Hmm...

GDP: 302,864,764,154,633
0.5% of GDP: 1,514,323,820,773

That's a lot of tents.

If we followed Zeldon 6229 Nodlez plan we would be paying,

GDP=$25,170,804,456.88
/200=$125,854,022.2844

It is quite a lot I must agree Gruenburg. It would be better spent in other areas, like helping your own country out. I'm not sure whether to support this, but I'm probably gonna say no.

Zeldon,

There is no way that this trading would be on equal terms. The ones who hold the boats would be able to charge exorbitant prices (or request exorbitant trade) from the country that needed the boats.

Also Zeldon, what about natural disasters that can not be predicted? Tsunamis that come out of nowhere and devastate countries? Tornados? Tell me, what boat can save one from this? What precautionary measures can be taken to avoid these natural disasters?

If a nation is prepared then it can purchase certain items before hand and have them in place thus avoiding disaster prices and demands on items they many need. Thus each nation should have it's on disaster plan and programs in place to deal with them. Taking funds and holding them until a disaster comes up leaves one with a buck in one hand and their ass drowning. Here they don't even have the buck in one hand as that is controled by some UN committee some place safe and dry. If we as a nation have trade treaties with other nations to provide certain products then there will be no exorbitant prices.
OCC: during Katrina gas prices in GA outside the zone went up to near $4 a gallon. One station told local TV crew he raised his prices to $6+ to keep folks from buying all his gas up. He ended up paying a fine for price gouging to the State. The GA State Governor got all State Taxes on Gas ended for a period just after Katrina which helped keep prices down and helped some. Thus it's up to local governments to be prepared for such and protect citizens from abuse of such nature in disasters. It's also up to them to provided certain help during such times.

IC: As it would be up to each nation to work on a fair price on said items before we need them for a disaster and to insure that the prices are not raised during the disaster. I use boats and such but this is any item one might need during and after a disaster as it's best to have it in place ready for use and the means to deploy it when needed than try to find it then deploy it later. Money in a bank helps nobody... boats, tents, heaters, water, food, and other items in secure sites are more help when you have the programs to deploy them to sites that need them. Sure we might lose some of these sites but cutting funds might mean we didn't build and stock the one site that survived the disaster.

You are talking about earth bound disasters here. What about space bound disasters to nations that might be on Space Stations. This is why it's best to let each nation work out it's own disaster needs and make the programs available to save it citizens from them. Many nations and regions already have working programs with other regions and nations around them for such. We don't need to send money to the UN that we know how to use to protect our citizens and are already doing that with it. As by the time we got funds from this UN committee many of our citizens would be dead due to lack of help. Thus we end up spending any funds gotten from UN on their funerals.

Hmm...

GDP: 302,864,764,154,633
0.5% of GDP: 1,514,323,820,773

That's a lot of tents.


But we are not only dealing with a plan to support our nation alone as there are three other nations in this region we support in such. Also we have trade treaties with many nations that we have disaster support programs with. Thus these tents are not just for our citizens but for those we call family and friend. At present we trade mainly with some 21 nations in two other regions outside our own region who are not now members of UN.

Then with five wives and their family we need large tents.. also we must keep our hounds warm and dry so more tents. Add AC, hot tubs, pool tables, large screen color TV, and it brings up the cost of these tents.

But we are not only dealing with a plan to support our nation alone as there are three other nations in this region we support in such. Also we have trade treaties with many nations that we have disaster support programs with. Thus these tents are not just for our citizens but for those we call family and friend. At present we trade mainly with some 21 nations in two other regions outside our own region who are not now members of UN.

Then with five wives and their family we need large tents.. also we must keep our hounds warm and dry so more tents. Add AC, hot tubs, pool tables, large screen color TV, and it brings up the cost of these tents.


Also -- Imperiux --- the figure .5% came from the first draft of this proposal and it was reduced to .3%. To which I'm opposed as see this as a tax by the UN and thus Illegal as they can't collect taxes from members.

You have the right idea as it best you take these funds and use them were you need to use them. This would only mean that you now have to go to some UN committe to get your own funds back to do what you knew you needed to do in the first place. Thus add red tape and also an extra cost as nothing is free out of the UN without some cost to members. Also one might find restriction on where they can spend funds drawn thus giving certain members a controled market for certain items that could be bought cheaper in non-UN nations.

But we are not only dealing with a plan to support our nation alone as there are three other nations in this region we support in such.That 0.5% is larger than the entire GDPs of many nations.

This is what people who try to include percentages of GDP in UN Proposals, or in counter arguments. When dealing with nations larger than the real world earth, these number quickly become insane. 1.5 trillion earmarked solely for disaster relief? That's insane. Even at 0.3%, you'd still be looking at something between 800 billion and 1 trillion. Far more than is necessary.

That 0.5% is larger than the entire GDPs of many nations.

This is what people who try to include percentages of GDP in UN Proposals, or in counter arguments. When dealing with nations larger than the real world earth, these number quickly become insane. 1.5 trillion earmarked solely for disaster relief? That's insane. Even at 0.3%, you'd still be looking at something between 800 billion and 1 trillion. Far more than is necessary.

Thus this should be directed to the person who proposed this one as I took their first figure of .5% and used it. See they did come down to .3%. I feel that forcing any nation to give funds away would result in something not being done in that nation.

Also would find that some nation would stop any disaster programs they might have on their own as they can pick the pocket of the UN for that. Thus cerain nations might divert funds from disaster to making bombs since they know they can get disaster funds through UN.

Think how many bombs .5% of a nations GDP could buy if it all was spent on that just bombs. I say the first priority is for each nation to establish their own disaster plan and insure it's a working plan. As with my nation we have such plans in place with nations in this region and others around us thus we have no need for the UN to come in and take funds from us that we already spend on the very things the UN would spend them on. All the UN would do is add cost and red tape to the process of getting things we aready have in place. Also I see the UN placing restrictions on use of said funds thus giving way to abuse of this whole thing as the more hands in the pie the more mess is made of the pie.

MANDATING that payments into the UN Aid Fund will be made based on the annual Gross Domestic Product for each state. Payments will be correlated to each nations own financial standing and will have a minimum payment of 0.3% of GDP


As I read it, the UN doesn't seize it; the government of the nation must pay at least 0.3% of GDP, and more if the government (not the UN) wants to.




Ceorana: To me what is in the proposal; as set by Minxos; is that all nations are MANDATED to pay at least .3%. This means the UN gets .3% for this fund from all nations and can take more from others based on their GDP. There is no upper limit but a MANDATED limit of .3% for all.

The governments of member nations have no choice but to pay the .3% and some will end up paying more based on their GDP.

Thus it's like saying the UN is taxing us all .3% and some more than that without saying how much more it can tax any member nation. Do you want to give the UN that power to take any amount of funds from your nation and call it for this disaster fund or any other fund? Beware not to let the fox in the hen house or he will take more than one hen.

I think maybe nations should be allowed to set a flexible lmit between 0% and 5%. It would mean we either pay $1336388939.9765 or nothing. I think, maybe those nations in the UN who want to donate, already do donate. I'd say it's a infringement on NatSov. It IS a UN tax, and is therefore illegal, and so should, and shall remain as long as Resolution No.4, UN axation Ban, UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #4

UN taxation ban
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nassland

Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Votes For: 4,511
Votes Against: 719

Implemented: Mon Jan 13 2003


so righteously states.
Therefore I believe that all posts are merely philosophical, and have no standing within the UN.

I think maybe nations should be allowed to set a flexible lmit between 0% and 5%. It would mean we either pay $1336388939.9765 or nothing. I think, maybe those nations in the UN who want to donate, already do donate. I'd say it's a infringement on NatSov. It IS a UN tax, and is therefore illegal, and so should, and shall remain as long as Resolution No.4, UN axation Ban, so righteously states.
Therefore I believe that all posts are merely philosophical, and have no standing within the UN.

As you quote:

"Description: The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose."

This is a tax on the governments of the UN. NOT on the the individuals. There is a large difference between direct taxation and compelled contributions. A poor nation with a large population would be more hurt by a direct citizen tax than a small-population, rich nation. THAT'S the point of the original resolution, as I see it.

Instead, we have mandated contributions by the GOVERNMENTS of the UN. There are no resolutions against this. (And if I'm not mistaken, that's how the real UN works.)

It is a social good for all nations to have a safety net, in case something so horrible happens that they cannot, on their own, take care of it. It is entirely possible for ANY nation to be hit with a disaster that, no matter how much they had prepared, they wouldn't be able to deal with.

This is the point of socializing risk. This is why a proposal like this is a good idea. So that we don't have to kill ourselves trying to protect ourselves from something that likely won't happen--instead, we can all band together and help each other out.

--Not my character, the player himself--

Regardless I still don't think governments should be forced to pay if mother nature decides to act because:
a) The nation couldn't be bothered to prevent the disaster
b) The nation failed to set up a succesful or partially succeful Emergency Aid Agency
c) The money could be compellingly contributed without a single mention of what it would be used for
d) We have no assurance the money would directly benefit the recievors, and not any other undesirable group
e) Money already willingly donated will not be accounted into the aount compellingly donated
f) If a nation is in aid there are no clauses stopping the UN from compelling it to pay aid
g) the money will be indirectly taxed from the people, as contributions will be stolen from government accounts, which in turn will tax the people
h) There is no security preventing governments from burdening populations by increasing taxes to pay for the contributions
i) We have no knowledge of the money, if it is going to be transported,is going to be transported safely
j) We have no assured Aid Plan in case of n emergency
k) Interpreting a loophole in the system of the following clause
DEFINING natural disasters as calamity caused by nature resulting in loss of life or destruction of property, such as earthquakes and floods;
So that any loss of property no matter how insignificant it is, and no matter if it is or is not insured is still covered by this clause. n which case we prpose a set value be set for damage, so that we may determine whether or not the country is in need of Aid.