NationStates Jolt Archive

[editor's note: this proposal will theoretically be put up for a vote next Monday]

Title: Establishment of World Food Bank

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

MAINTAINING that hunger is one of the most serious problems facing our world today;

OBSERVING that citizens of many nations, regardless of size and wealth, struggle to obtain the amount of food necessary to survive, and

BELIEVING that events such as wars, and natural disasters can lead do a sudden and dangerous food shortage anywhere in the world,

The United Nations

1. ESTABLISHES the World Food Bank

2. CHARGES the World Food Bank (WFB) to collect donations of food and provide it to people who cannot obtain necessary sustenance on their own due to poverty, the after effects of war, natural disaster, or similar circumstances.

3. AUTHORIZES UN representatives already involved with humanitarian aid to distribute the collected food to those who need it.

4. STRONGLY URGES all UN member nations to provide a percentage of their yearly food surplus (if any) to the WFB to ensure that it will be able to carry out its mission.

The Representatives of the People's Republic of Euphromen would like to thank Quintessence of Dust, Ausserland, Karamicia (sp?) and the Reclamation project for their assistance in drafting this proposal

The Representatives of the People's Republic of Euphromen would like to thank Quintessence of Dust, Ausserland, Karamicia (sp?) and the Reclamation project for their assistance in drafting this proposalI assume this is not in the proposal text.

You assume correctly, most august representative of Hirota. The representatives of Euphromen wished to acknowledge the aid they have received from their brothers and sisters in the UN in drafting this proposal. The proposal itself ends after point four. We apologize for any confusion.

The branding rules don't apply to forum posts. It's fine.

If you do that, then you will be violating the branding rule.

OOC: Um...he just said it's not actually in the text of the proposal... :p

OOC: Oops....misread the post. Sorry about that. Need more coffee....

It is my will alone that sets my mind in motion
It is the use of caffene, where thoughts acquire speed
The coffee stains my cup, the stain becomes a warning
I really need to clean my coffee cup.

Positive, constructive, clear, concise, do-able, and clearly an international matter. Ausserland will support this.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We will support it too, but we will repeat our suggestion that the WFB make recommendations to nations on how to avoid food shortages and promote sustainable food production policies.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

BELIEVING that events such as wars, and natural disasters can lead do a sudden and dangerous food shortage anywhere in the world,
I don't think you need that comma before "and". Otherwise, it looks good and we will support it.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We will support it too, but we will repeat our suggestion that the WFB make recommendations to nations on how to avoid food shortages and promote sustainable food production policies.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs
These suggestions have merit and we would encourage the delegation from Euphromen to incorporate them into the text.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Also, you'll need a title that's under 30 characters.

just world food bank would do?

Or "Establishment of WFB" for those of you who simply can't part with "establishment."

We will support it too, but we will repeat our suggestion that the WFB make recommendations to nations on how to avoid food shortages and promote sustainable food production policies.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

On the one hand, this suggestion is worthwhile. On the other hand, we like proposals that stick to doing one thing and doing it well. The simplicity of this one seems to us to be a major strength. Less detail for the nattering nabobs of negativism to misunderstand, pick apart, and whine about.

The suggestion should be carefully considered, but we wouldn't be in favor of adopting it. We'll support the proposal either way.

And yeah. Ditch that comma.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Or "Establishment of WFB" for those of you who simply can't part with "establishment."

Getting rid of "Establishment of" would work.

OOC: Ariddia will support, of course. In the meantime, it's... nitpicking time!


MAINTAINING that hunger is one of the most serious problems facing our world today;

Change that semi-colon to a comma for consistency.


BELIEVING that events such as wars, and natural disasters can lead do a sudden and dangerous food shortage anywhere in the world,


Typo to be fixed.

[OOC: I'm REALLY sorry about the tycos...er I mean typos. I accidentally put down the first draft of the proposal, not the one that Reclamation fixed. Oops]

In response to Quintessence of Dust's proposal, we (as in I) believe, as you, that helping build infrastructure and develop sustainable agriculture. However, we will not be placing in the original charter of the WFB for the following reasons.

1) Currently, the World Food Bank does not require the hiring, training, and deploying of UN representatives solely affiliated with the WFB, as the distribution of food can be handled by already existing primary responders. Adding this provision would probably require employing first responders solely affiliated with the World Food Bank, a step we are not certain we want to take.

2) While we believe in the "give a man a fish...teach a man to fish" proverb, we do not feel comfortable diverting resources away from the collection and distribution of food to starving populations until the WFB is firmly established.

That said, the addendum to the WFB bill would probably look something like this

be put up for a vote next Monday]

Title: World Food Bank

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

MAINTAINING that hunger is one of the most serious problems facing our world today,

OBSERVING that citizens of many nations, regardless of size and wealth, struggle to obtain the amount of food necessary to survive, and

BELIEVING that events such as wars and natural disasters can lead to a sudden and dangerous food shortage anywhere in the world,

The United Nations

1. ESTABLISHES the World Food Bank

2. CHARGES the World Food Bank (WFB) to collect donations of food and provide it to people who cannot obtain necessary sustenance on their own due to poverty, the after effects of war, natural disaster, or similar circumstances.

3. ENJOINS the WFB to assist developing countries solve their food crises by helping them develop infrastructure and educating them about sustainable production techniques.

4. AUTHORIZES UN representatives already involved with humanitarian aid to distribute the collected food to those who need it.

5. STRONGLY URGES all UN member nations to provide a percentage of their yearly food surplus (if any) to the WFB to ensure that it will be able to carry out its mission.

I ask for some advice about this (OOC: theoretically edited) new version of the proposal adresses the concerns of my august brothers and sisters without diluting the initial purpose of the legislation.

How will the WFB determine which nations get the aid?

Article 4 (three in the original proposal) authorizes UN representatives already providing humanitarian aid to distribute WFB resources. This allows the people closest to the potential crisis situations to make the decision about whether or not people need aid, not a far away bureaucracy (it also ensures that people whose governments can't/won't ask for help are not left to starve) The criteria set forth in Article 2 for who is eligable to receive food is intentionally broad in scope in the hopes that no one will be denied sustenance due to oversight. While we recognize that this means that some people that do not necessarily need aid will get it, we prefer to err in that direction. Incidentally, it is for this reason that it is so important for member nations to donate generously the WFB, with the knowledge that the greatest percentage possible of the Food Bank's resources will go towards aiding humanity, with a minimum of waste and red tape.

I believe this would make an excellent addition to the UN's previous work on food, the Global Food Distribution Act. I am entirely in favor of this solid international legislation.

Hellar Gray

Thanks for answering my question Euphromen. I like this proposal and will support it if it comes to a vote.

Thank you very much. It was a very good question. Are there any opinions about the addition of Article 3 (on infrastructure)?

Article 3 seems to cover the essentials, and a more prescriptive approach would likely be counterproductive in our opinion. That, of course, won't prevent other delegates from demanding details.

As long as both the funding of and the donations to this food bank are absolutely voluntary, I could support this. If the funding or donations are compulsory, we'll be voting no.

Dear friends

As the representative of a newly formed Federation of Developing Nations, we are gladnend to see that there is a willingness to help those in need.

But we do have certain reservations about this proposal.

First. This proposal does not take into account the current situation in the world, that exists due to the absence of Free Trade. You will find that most countries that do produce excess food, are indeed the poorer nations. But because of the subisdies in existance in the richer nations, these foodstuffs, can not be sold. This causes poverty, which causes farmers to leave the land, which causes hunger.

The richer nations tend to be importers of food, and will not have foodstocks left to donate. This will thus cause already poor nations to fonate their food to this program, which will then give it back to themselves, or other nations. This, in our opinion, will not solve the current problems of hunger in the world.

Second. If the requierd changes are made, and a system can be found to indeed disturbute food to countries in need, we agree that it should be clearly stated who decides which nations receive what. We believe that this can be used by the powerfull states once more to buy support from the poorer nations. Therefor it should be made clear that any nation in need, even if that nation is currently under sanctions from this great body, should still be able to receive food aid.

In conclusion, dear friends, we repeat that we are overjoyed to see plans to help nations in need, but we are sure this plan only docters the wymptoms, and noteven that with enough success. Only a clear decision on Free Trade, in our humblest of opinions, will solve these problems.

Chief Dr. A.L. Bertus
Ambasador to the UN
The Federation of Developing Nations

Thank you Gobbanium. In the original version of this draft, that provision did not exist, but several nations recommended adding it. The representatives of Euphromen have been debated the merits of proposing that particular provision since then.

To Ritico: Providing funding for the WFB is currently voluntary, although large scale support will be necessary for the program to function properly

We support the intention of this resolution, but share some of the concerns of the Federation of Developing Nations, as it seems to us that it would poke great logs in the spokes of the international food trade. The risk of a diminishing 'food production surplus' would therefore be great. To us the obvious solution to this conundrum would be to make the donations of either food production surplus or a designed tax to cover the cost of the equivalent 'fps', compulsory.
But assuming this being neither a popular nor feasible solution according to Ritico or the FoDN we will instead propose changes in the articles of the proposal to limit the possibly overwhelming task for the WFB in it's initial period of activity.
By changing article 2 and 4 thus:
2. CHARGES the World Food Bank (WFB) to collect donations of food and provide it to people who cannot obtain necessary sustenance on their own due to the after effects of war, natural disaster, or similar circumstances.
4. AUTHORIZES UN representatives already involved with humanitarian aid to distribute the collected food to those who need it, reassigning every calendar year where the limited resources are to be deployed.

These limitations can then be lifted or reworked after a period of WFB activity, based on the amount of 'fps' that is allocated to the WFB.
By limiting the WFB scope of activity like this it will be possible to counter the possible effects addressed by the FoDN and making certain that 'any nation in need, even if that nation is currently under sanctions from this great body, should still be able to receive food aid.

Deputy Trade and Aid assistant
of the Underbrush

We read the comments of the representative of Developing Nations, and we're forced to admit that we don't understand most of what he said. That's not knocking him. It's probably our fault. Our delegation has admitted before that we're pretty clueless about economics. But we had a couple of thoughts.

First, since the representative raises the issue of free trade, we wanted to make sure he'd looked over UNR #130, "Global Food Distribution Act". If not, we'd suggest it. Might make a difference.

Second... If we understand this correctly, the representative is concerned about donor nations using their donations for a sort of "soft extortion" towards receiver nations. One of the benefits of the "bank" system is that it prevents this sort of thing. Once the food is contributed to the bank, control of distribution lies with the bank's management, not the donors.

Finally, a bit of philosophizing. The representative comments that "this, in our opinion, will not solve the current problems of hunger in the world." We agree. But we've seen many, many draft proposals that turned into complicated garbage because their authors tried to solve a complex problem in a single resolution, rather than doing something positive and worthwhile to work toward a solution. We think this proposal does what it should do: takes a positive step towards alleviating a symptom of a very complicated problem.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We thank the honourable member from Ausserland for his comments. I have handed it to our Trade and Industry Department, our Department of Agriculture, and of course my boss at Forgeign affairs.

I will give a reply as soon as possible.

Let me just stress this point - We are, again, overjoyed that some nations do want to take a step, how ever small, towards solving this problem

Again, thank you


I.M. Wright

Ambasador - Federation of Developing NAtions

To the FoDN

Representing a fellow small nation, albeit one whose natural resources keep us from having a food crisis. I appreciate your concern over some of the issues that you have with this bill, and hope that I can address them.

"This proposal does not take into account the current situation in the world, that exists due to the absence of Free Trade. You will find that most countries that do produce excess food, are indeed the poorer nations."

While this may be the case, our research suggest otherwise. While rich countries, as you mention, do import a great deal of food, many of them have large numbers of farms, or more commonly large agribusinesses, that produce a great deal of domestic surplus. In fact, many of these farms/businesses have to destroy/ intentionally not grow a large percentage of food products simply to protect the price of their product (OOC: The inspiration for this bill is the US' policy of paying farms and agribusinesses to do just that). The very non-market foodstuffs that you worry will hinder this process is therefore the very surplus that we expect larger nations to provide to us. Since subsidizing agribusiness is currently outlawed by the UN, I believe that you need not worry about such practices unfairly favoring rich countries.


"We believe that this can be used by the powerfull states once more to buy support from the poorer nations. Therefor it should be made clear that any nation in need, even if that nation is currently under sanctions from this great body, should still be able to receive food aid."

We fully understand your concerns here, and in fact designed our proposal to address them. By authorizing primary responders in the UN (rather than a panel of delagates potentially tied to national/regional concerns) to distribute WFB resources, this proposal ensures that the decisions on who receives food will be made by people who truly understand the situation on the ground, and whose decisions are less likely to be colored by politics. Also, as Ausserland said, since donors will not have control over WFB resources there will be a minimal chance of "soft extortion." Admittedly, goods from the World Food Bank may not be able to reach areas where UN officials are not allowed. Such a provision is beyond the scope and power of the proposal.

We readily admit that the World Food Bank will not solve world hunger on its own. Hunger is one of the greatest challenges facing our world, and defeating requires many strategems. That said, I believe the WFB is a small step in the right direction.

To the Underbrush

While we appreciate your concerns about the WFB's impact on the international food trade, we feel that it is unfounded. As stated above, a good deal of the donations we expect to receive will come from food products already removed from the market. Also, the people who will receive WFB resources are ones who cannot participate in the international market as is, so the exchange will have minimal connection to the market.

As for your suggested amendments, we feel that their potential to protect the resources of the WFB's resources is outweighed by the restrictions it places on who can receive food.