NationStates Jolt Archive

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
V
Since my friends over at the Quodite offices tell me that the World Assembly needs to consider serious legislation that takes aim to 'solve' world hunger, I have written an initial draft of a food welfare program. As usual, input is welcome and encouraged; I am sure other nations have far different ideas of what should be done to put a dent in the starvation issue. I do not consider this particularly noteworthy at the moment.

World Assembly Food Welfare Act

Regretfully noting that starvation and malnutrition are prevalent within a multitudinous number of nations in distress, and further noting that such hunger oftentimes leads to unnecessary conflict,

Recognizing the need for assistance in the production and distribution of food in such nations, as well as the bountiful supplies and surpluses in various prosperous nations,

The World Assembly therefore

ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;

ESTABLISHES the International Food Welfare Organization (IFWO) as the administrator of the processes of this act; authorizes the dispatching of IFWO scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices;

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops where regular food crops are inefficient, to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetic use restriction technology, such as seeds that produce plants with sterile seeds and seeds that require additional chemicals to be activated, is banned; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWO to ensure that no harm is done to their recipients;

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWO, while requiring nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses so to neither promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWO shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to the people of nations undergoing severe economic depression, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

RECOGNIZING that under such circumstances a compelling governmental interest exists to protect the health and welfare of the people, the right of governments to seize food to supply to victims of such crises is granted, so long as such seizure is not detrimental to the larger population;

INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist and other practices, in regards to farming and food-related industries, that have the potential to severely harm international food trade; to determine when such practices have the potential to harm international food trade, as well as to manage other international trade issues at the behest of the World Assembly, the International Trade Administration (ITA) is formed;

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected as volunteered by nations; the IFWO shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

The People of Aundotutunagir are tentatively prepared to support this. I do have one question though:

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWC to ensure that no harm is done to its recipients;
The types of genetic modifications you have mentioned are acceptable to us. However, would you consider adding language discouraging the development of "terminator seeds" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_seeds)?

World Assembly Food Welfare Act

Regrettably noting that starvation and malnutrition are prevalent within a multitudinous number of third-world nations, and further noting that such hunger oftentimes leads to unnecessary conflict,

"This is looking like one we'll just rubber-stamp," Thundra said.

"Probably," Terrim agreed.

ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

"I would include a bit of regulation about poisoned crops with this," Thundra said. "No need to risk it."

ENCOURAGES nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques; as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;

"Mmm... any objections?" Thundra asked.

"People might use this as an excuse to plow under a forest, but they'd just do it anyway," Terrim replied. "Not worthy as an objection to this clause."

ESTABLISHES the International Food Welfare Committee (IFWC) as the administrator of the processes of this act; authorizes the dispatching of IFWC scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices;

"Hey! They're taking the jobs of druids!" Terrim protested.

The other Eluneyasan delegates just laughed.

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWC to ensure that no harm is done to its recipients;

"We might have a slight problem with this, due to the disruption of nature..." Thundra began.

"How many magical giant trees did your people grow?" Silara asked.

"... nevermind," Thundra replied, facepalming.

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWC, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses, as to not promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWC shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to nations undergoing severe economic distress, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected from voluntary nations; the IFWC shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.

"I would add a bit about limiting planting of invasive species. No need to ship out corn seeds, only to find the corn driving the land to further famine by killing other foodstuffs," Terrim said.

Now this is something worded in a way I'd fully embrace and support.

A minor tweak, if I may, "third-world" is a little too RLly and demeaning, I'd prefer "developing" or any of the terms NS uses in its own "Economy" classifications.

Congrats to Dr. Castro, and my pledge of full support.

Yours,

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWC, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses, as to not promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWC shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to nations undergoing severe economic distress, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;

What about nations that cause political problems internally to subsequently rip the benefits of this food welfare plan?

Such as a dictator taking all the production in his country and giving it only to his family, friends and of course...trading partners? - then expecting the WA to feed his nation for him.

I ask only because the leaders of Unibot in all of its capitalistic ideals, screams "exploitation" everytime it hears the word "welfare" in parliament.

Regrettably noting that starvation and malnutrition are prevalent within a multitudinous number of third-world nations,
What do you mean by the term "third-world"? Ah, of course, the Earth is the third planet outwards from the Sun...
But then what about the needs of any poor nations that happen to be located on other worlds instead? Isn't this too selective to be legal?


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

______________________________________________________

OOC: Sorry, couldn't resist... :p

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWC, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses, as to not promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWC shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to nations undergoing severe economic distress, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;

His Hon. Foreign Ambassador thinks it is best that nations are allowed to donate food at their own free will. The Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi is convinced that though there might be surpluses at times, however the Commonwealth live by the ideology where if a nation is constantly fed, it fails to learn how to live independently. Therefore, the Commonwealth government is NOT PREPARED to accept this particular clause in this legislation.

However, the Commonwealth is prepared to accept the other terms set out in this legislation.

Sincerely,
His Hon. Foreign Ambassador
The Commonwealth of Okinawakenshi

Wow thats good. First time I've read something and NOT had some sort of critique to say.

We must say we are pleasantly surprised by the efficacy and non-prescriptiveness of this proposal, given our previous criticisms of proposals eminating from Dr Casto's office, and offer our congratulations on his laying sound foundations here. There are one or two small points of wording that have unfortunate consequences, but all in all this is most promising.

.
World Assembly Food Welfare Act

Regrettably noting that starvation and malnutrition are prevalent within a multitudinous number of third-world nations, and further noting that such hunger oftentimes leads to unnecessary conflict,
"Regretfully", we suggest. "Regrettably" implies that all would be well had the WA not noted the problem.

Recognizing the need for assistance in the production and distribution of food in such nations, as well as the bountiful supplies and surpluses in various prosperous nations,

The World Assembly thereupon
"Therefore." "Thereupon" feels awkward without a position or a more focused subject in the preamble. Since we think the preamble's wide coverage is entirely appropriate, we suggest this small change in wording.

ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

ENCOURAGES nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques; as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;
We worry a little about the second of these being a mere encouragement, but cannot see how more emphatic language will help. We will ponder this, and return should anything useful spring to mind.

ESTABLISHES the International Food Welfare Committee (IFWC) as the administrator of the processes of this act; authorizes the dispatching of IFWC scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices;
An excellent idea.

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWC to ensure that no harm is done to its recipients;
While we have no personal objection to this clause, we do regretfully note that genetic modification of crops is a very touchy subject. Including it in any way will cause some number of potential supporters of the proposal to turn into rabid opponents. Should Dr Castro consider that he wishes to retain the clause despite this, could he amend the final words to "their recipients" to match number?

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWC, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses, as to not promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices;
While we understand what the final clause here intends, it is not quite correct English. We think the simplest fixes are to delete the comma after "surpluses" and insert the word "so", and to either replace "not" with "neither" or "nor" with "or".

the IFWC shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to nations undergoing severe economic distress, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;
This is the only clause that causes us philosophical unease. Given the intention to list cases where the IFWC may intervene rather than giving it flexibility to determine where food shortages are occuring, "severe economic distress" is not necessarily an appropriate category. Particularly when the IFWC is instructed to distribute to the nation, rather than the people, this could result in the WA supporting the starvation of citizenry by unscrupulous governments.

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected from voluntary nations; the IFWC shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.
The concept of "voluntary nations" caused a certain amount of amusement, as did its obverse, the "compulsory nation". Perhaps that would be better phrased as "such seeds shall be collected as permitted by nations" or similar?

food problems is another reason why we have an international economy.
You need potatoes, buy some either in your country or from another exporter. I'm for this economy.
If your country gives free food to it's people, cool, all power to you.My country, however, does not.
We agree hunger is a bad thing, we agree that seeing poor and starving children is hard on the human heart, but we alas don't feel it necessary to make other nations pay for it.

food problems is another reason why we have an international economy.
You need potatoes, buy some either in your country or from another exporter. I'm for this economy.
If your country gives free food to it's people, cool, all power to you.My country, however, does not.
We agree hunger is a bad thing, we agree that seeing poor and starving children is hard on the human heart, but we alas don't feel it necessary to make other nations pay for it.

Perhaps we should remember your stance, in the unfortunate event that your nation suffers a famine someday. "Oh, we feel sorry for you, and we agree your people starving to death is a bad thing, but we just don't think it's necessary to help you even though we have plenty of food."

See how much that would suck if the shoe was on the other foot?

You also ignore the fact that this proposal would do a great deal to improve crops and safeguard against biodiversity loss in staple crops. This isn't just about opening up a soup kitchen.

We also don't know why people are objecting to the surplus donation clause. It's not mandatory, as far as I can tell:

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWC, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses, as to not promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices;

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

... would you consider adding language discouraging the development of "terminator seeds" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_seeds)?
A clause banning the use of 'genetic use restriction technology' has been added to the proposal, General. Thank you for this valuable input.
What about nations that cause political problems internally to subsequently rip the benefits of this food welfare plan? Such as a dictator taking all the production in his country and giving it only to his family, friends and of course...trading partners? - then expecting the WA to feed his nation for him.
We can ban the hoarding and unfair distribution of food crops, yes. But, for other events, the people would still be in distress and need food, wouldn't they?
This is the only clause that causes us philosophical unease. Given the intention to list cases where the IFWC may intervene rather than giving it flexibility to determine where food shortages are occuring, "severe economic distress" is not necessarily an appropriate category. Particularly when the IFWC is instructed to distribute to the nation, rather than the people, this could result in the WA supporting the starvation of citizenry by unscrupulous governments.First, thank you for the compliment; it's a rather welcome change of scenery. I have taken your grammar-related suggestions and implemented them where appropriate. I wanted to put out an idea on changing "severe economic distress" to "severe economic depression". I can see why using 'distress' could be problematic, as not all times of economic distress cause food shortages. The history of Glen-Rhodes shows that economic depressions can and do commonly lead to food shortages, and ultimately starvation.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

We can ban the hoarding and unfair distribution of food crops, yes. But, for other events, the people would still be in distress and need food, wouldn't they?

Yes, but I'd prefer to see the products of the welfare program go to governments that cannot provide for their nation not governments that export all of their food for an international profit beyond what they would have originally obtained on the international market and then expect WA welfare to feed their nation - thats just exploitation of the system by a bunch of greedy welfare bums, and a waste of the overproduction from well off nations that could go to more deserving causes - nations that could not help to be in the position that they are in.

In others words (coming from a die hard capitalist ambassador), if they're going to get my food, they better be able to make some compromises too.

Its a great proposal, and I love your cause
But it needs work in the sector I've explained to please nations that aren't so socialistic and/or naive to exploitation.

Yours
Eduard Heir

Yes, but I'd prefer to see the products of the welfare program go to governments that cannot provide for their nation not governments that export all of their food for an international profit beyond what they would have originally obtained on the international market and then expect WA welfare to feed their nation - thats just exploitation of the system by a bunch of greedy welfare bums, and a waste of the overproduction from well off nations that could go to more deserving causes - nations that could not help to be in the position that they are in. I understand your point, but I wholly disagree with it. 'Food welfare', as I've dubbed it, is not intended for governments, but for people. Why let people die because of their governments' corrupt actions? I'm not eager to turn this purely humanitarian resolution in to one with an overly-brave political agenda.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

And might I suggest,

"Food Security Act" or "Prevention of Global Hunger" ?

Welfare is practically a swear word in capitalistic countries like Unibot - and "Food Security" is a more popularly used term than "Food Welfare", just saying.

Yours

I understand your point, but I wholly disagree with it. 'Food welfare', as I've dubbed it, is not intended for governments, but for people. Why let people die because of their governments' corrupt actions? I'm not eager to turn this purely humanitarian resolution in to one with an overly-brave political agenda.

Ah, but the governments will use this resolution to become even more corrupt - otherwise their people would be strangling their leaders from famine. Corrupt governments will be exploiting this proposal till the food banks run dry.

Ah, but the governments will use this resolution to become even more corrupt - otherwise their people would be strangling their leaders from famine. Corrupt governments will be exploiting this proposal till the food banks run dry.

I will not politicize this issue. Never were my intentions to base humanitarian aid on whether or not Glen-Rhodes would ally with a government, but rather whether or not people are facing starvation. The more politicized humanitarian aid becomes, the less it can actually be defined as humanitarian in nature and the less efficient its actions are. Decreasing the level of corruption in developing or in-crisis nations is a topic for a separate resolution.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Ah, but the governments will use this resolution to become even more corrupt - otherwise their people would be strangling their leaders from famine. Corrupt governments will be exploiting this proposal till the food banks run dry.

Well, it is my opinion that well-nourished oppressed persons are more prone to success in beheading their corrupt leaders with their bare hands, than starving ones.

- Collection-of-bones-and-skin: "I'll kill you, you monster, depriver of food! Aaaaaargh!!" (Too weak. Last breath. Collapses to the floor. Dies. Is cannibalized by the starving bystanders.)

Not gonna happen.

Not gonna happen

Sure. But this seems plausible as well....

The Dictator's people had been overworked in the fields producing pound after pound of grains, as well as packaging vegetarian and cannibals goods. The entire production of the dictatorship sold to well off rich, technology industry based countries lacking agriculture. Dictator X laughs and smells the sweet scent of a rising GDP after the recent vote for a "Food Welfare" package.. hahaha, now he can let his people beg to international institutions for food instead. If only there was a "Shelter Welfare" and a "Safe Drinking Water Welfare", "Education Welfare", "Keep-the-streets clean welfare", and even a "Money-so-we-can-host-a-good-Olympics welfare package" - that would basically make the country sustainable on its own while Dictator X sold all the produce of the nation for his own profit - oh what a wonderful dream, he would just, simply HAVE to talk to the humanitarian delegates about such an glorious idea."

In that case, in what regards this specific draft, maybe a prohibition on food exportation by WA food-receiving Nations is in order.

In that case, in what regards this specific draft, maybe a prohibition on food exportation by WA food-receiving Nations is in order.

That would make sense. I'd support that. :)

Or, to be more broad, a resolution that prohibits actions done for the purpose of being qualified for any type of World Assembly aid. I am not saying that I do not agree that governments can and might do those things, just that I'd rather separate political and humanitarian issues.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I am not saying that I do not agree that governments can and might do those things, just that I'd rather separate political and humanitarian issues.

Yes but when your humanitarian plan instigates a political issue - I believe that warrants a small clause pertaining to it. - Sionis has offered an excellent compromise which would fit in perfectly with the rest of the bill, is entirely logical, and ties up any loose ends with the proposal at least as far as exploitation goes.

I would whole heartily suggest that you take up the idea, or you may find your resolution attacked with the wrath of a repeal (with repeals becoming all too common these days)
and I would hate to see that happen to such a well thought-out and important doctrine.

Yours in the WA
Eduard Heir
Observer Ambassador

Yes but when your humanitarian plan instigates a political issue - I believe that warrants a small clause pertaining to it.- Sionis has offered an excellent compromise which would fit in perfectly with the rest of the bill, is entirely logical, and ties up any loose ends with the proposal at least as far as exploitation goes. I have already included a 'small clause' which prohibits actions, Ambassador. Anything further is an attempt to correct corrupt governments, which would make this a political issue. Furthermore, His Majesty simply reiterated my point.

I would whole heartily suggest that you take up the idea, or you may find your resolution attacked with the wrath of a repeal (with repeals becoming all too common these days)
and I would hate to see that happen to such a well thought-out and important doctrine.To be quite honest, the only repeal I see would come from you. In such a case, you are speaking from both ends of the spectrum, which is rather in bad taste. Your capitalistic ideals are overshadowing the peoples' needs.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

OUTLAWS actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, such as food hoarding and unequal food distribution practices;


This shall do - how I hope you understand this was more than we were actually asking for, we never suggested ending political corruption - merely we wished to see some of the loopholes of the proposal to be closed to end the chance of exploitation.

I'll talk to the advisers of our region's delegacy, however I have a strong, sneaking suspicion that they would support this act, as would Unibot.

Yours
Eduard Heir

With that, could it be possible that this proposal is already due to be submitted?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

With that, could it be possible that this proposal is already due to be submitted?

It couldn't hurt to try it out on the submission page - good luck campaigning!

What category should this be in? Social Justice seems the most obvious, but I'm unsure of what to list the strength as.


Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Significant. - Anything that will save this many lives, and require the necessary food bank for this proposal to become a reality would be a significant undertaking by an international organization.

Yours
Eduard Heir

Significant. - Anything that will save this many lives, and require the necessary food bank for this proposal to become a reality would be a significant undertaking by an international organization.

Assuming the options list is in ascending order, "Strong" would have the highest affect, whereas "Significant" is in the middle. Should I choose "Strong", instead?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

oops. I thought "Significant" was the top. Ha.
Then, yes, Strong would be my choice.

Well there goes whatever credibility I had left :)

Yours
Eduard Heir

The proposal has been submitted for approval: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=food welfare act

Telegrams will be dispatched shortly.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Assuming the options list is in ascending order, "Strong" would have the highest affect, whereas "Significant" is in the middle. Should I choose "Strong", instead?

We are inclined to agree with "Strong", though to an extent it depends upon how prevalent you believe famine to be. "Social Justice" is the best available category, certainly.

For those interested in helping with the campaign, please note that I have already dispatched telegrams to the following 113 delegates:
Jacobish, The Weste Isle, Ascendas, Citizen Soldier, Ille de Utopie, Connollyism, Elfdust, Trektopolis, NewTexas, Krankor, Callisia, Serval Cat, Greater Americania, Kappa Sigma chi, Naughty Slave Girls, Harakazu, ForeSarin, United Ohio and NKY, 1-502nd Airborne Inf, Conservative-Values, Kharkistania, Deutsches Preussen, Grays Harbor, Greater Oxford, Todd McCloud, North Aurelia, Vartican, Groda i Gojava, Kingsley Bedford, Titania Roma, G3N13, Bears Armed Mission, Quintessence of Dust, Plugster, Ventei, The Artic Republics, Lutessia, Kent Students, The Altan Steppes, Superdemocracy, Jorvik gods, Absolvability, The Jacksons of Mize, Conzainia, Cobdenia, Wencee, Derkomia, Eleben, Chazzistan, Puchi, New Derrikia, Nobitta, Bozargania, Consaria, Elliestan, Rythlorien, Sognib, Reverency, Demoynistan, Lysteriosis, Captain Silvermoon, Sceropa, Global Rule, Valerii, As Baile, FunkyEli, Disfigured Union, Albundania, Isokratia, Mighty Edumen, Alligator to water, Adeiatic, Jambe, Meganacholand, Aux in, Garden State Island, Estroban, Hellas Nike, Chocan Isle, Karistina, Wanjunia, Caninope, Deadly People, The rising turd, Helvicstan, Alsted, Yarac, Varchavianka, The Dragoon States, China-East Asia, Azerbajerkistan, Zombiedolphins, SARCI, Ryuzzaki, Rangerville, Amarek, Memorak, Livican States, Port William, Canadadopolis, The High Holy Covenant, Moonsingers, Wolfhawk, Crna Rijeka, Sonnveld, Buffett and Colbert, Wambaka-jojo-remia, Gaiah, Weskers Children, Mittsville, Libdonia, Jennaqu, Matting

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I'm sure, as of late, my name has been popping up in a few areas of concern. Just the same though, I'm always humbled into cooperation whenever someone seeks me out personally and invites me to consider their proposal.

I find the majority of it to be in good taste and exceedingly hard to refute, therefore I have granted it my approval and hope to see it reach resolution status. SO THAT IT MAY BE CONSIDERED.

My vote in favor of a resolution along these lines is not guaranteed, however, as I have the following concern:

"OUTLAWS actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, such as food hoarding and unequal food distribution practices;"

I would like to see more detail submitted along with this clause that I may get a better understanding of it. As it seems presently, this encompasses both national and international affairs, which is not disclosed in the rest of the legislation. Surely this can not mean to say that nationally sanctioned business's in the private/public food sectors will be required to provide for public need regardless of payment or moral objection?

Do not misunderstand-- as a socialist, I am mainly opposed to this clause as it will NO DOUBT hinder its approval. As even I have some misgivings about granting such authority inside an otherwise peaceable and good hearted proposal.

Surely this can not mean to say that nationally sanctioned business's in the private/public food sectors will be required to provide for public need regardless of payment or moral objection?

No, it does not mean that. Unless, of course, these sectors were created or manipulated to deliberately cause famine or starvation. If actions are taken in good faith, but unfortunately end up causing famine or starvation, then no law has been broken.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

My vote in favor of a resolution along these lines is not guaranteed, however, as I have the following concern:

"OUTLAWS actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, such as food hoarding and unequal food distribution practices;"

I would like to see more detail submitted along with this clause that I may get a better understanding of it. As it seems presently, this encompasses both national and international affairs, which is not disclosed in the rest of the legislation. Surely this can not mean to say that nationally sanctioned business's in the private/public food sectors will be required to provide for public need regardless of payment or moral objection?

Again, I would support the proposal in its current form. However if it does fail to make quorum or vote, I would be looking forward to seeing Sionis's idea adopted which was something along the lines of...

PROHIBITING the exportation of food from nations currently being supplied with WA Food Welfare

As the current clause does appear a little out of place, and possible too political. I understand that the clause was created to appease the capitalists like myself, but all I asked was the realms of exploitation be closed with some clever wording instead of tackling the entirety of suppression due to food distribution in the one proposal.

But the cause is worthy.

Yours
Eduard Heir

PROHIBITING the exportation of food from nations currently being supplied with WA Food Welfare
Such a clause would be unnecessary. Since exporting food received as aid would deliberately perpetrate famine or starvation, this action is forbidden under the current restriction clause.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Such a clause would be unnecessary. Since exporting food received as aid would deliberately perpetrate famine or starvation, this action is forbidden under the current restriction clause.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I understand that. - But I fear the clause that is currently used may put off socialists who fear that this has more political ramifications than humanitarian aspects as Absolvability and even yourself have suggested.

I don't think at the moment the clause is a concern, however if the proposal fails to reach quorum, that would be where I would start when at the drawing board again.

Yours,
Eduard Heir

Some leap of faith!

[...] NewTexas, [...] 1-502nd Airborne Inf - Crazy-ass NatSov's:
[...] Deutsches Preussen - Nazis.
[...] Hellas Nike - Sorry to lump him here, he operates in good faith, but he's a hardcore Capitalizt.

Surely there are others, but I can't recall now.
Am I the only one who does targeted TG-ing?

All in all, I have already given my Delegate approval.

Best of luck!

I understand that. - But I fear the clause that is currently used may put off socialists who fear that this has more political ramifications than humanitarian aspects as Absolvability and even yourself have suggested.

Coming from a government run by democratic socialists for the past 3 or 4 decades, depending on whether or not one considers Chancellor Mark Dellahey a democratic socialist or a social democrat, I would hope that proposals coming from my office wouldn't scare aware socialist delegations. I do believe that ensuring that governments do not engineer famine is perfectly in line with dealing with this issue without drifting in to purely political waters.

Am I the only one who does targeted TG-ing?
It's become protocol to compile a list of delegates from the resolution voting station and the proposal approval station, without considering political leanings. If you wish to extend your help, however, I would certainly be greatful.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I see that many share my concern. And even the notion that this clause may jeopardize an otherwise worthy proposal. I'm surprised to hear that the author is a Democratic Socialist like myself for that single reason.

It has been expressed to me that "the law does what the law says," and I'm slowly coming to terms with that fact, though it may be a frustrating one. I think the clause in question MUST be changed, regardless of intent, so that it reflects the authors Socialist views.

Otherwise we face two futures: A passed resolution with a questionable clause taken advantage of to the author's chagrin; A failed resolution.

Otherwise we face two futures: A passed resolution with a questionable clause taken advantage of to the author's chagrin; A failed resolution.

Could you elaborate on a possible situation of the resolution being taken advantage of? One that isn't already covered in the broad restricting clause?

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Broad restricting clause? You enact a surplus 'donation' system, and then basically outlaw anybody from not donating. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but that is what you did. You snuck the whole package right into that one clause. And you don't even specify whether, in the clause in question, you describe a national or international scale. Or both, as is.

As far as specifics, I don't care to imagine. I'm sure we all are.

Broad restricting clause? You enact a surplus 'donation' system, and then basically outlaw anybody from not donating. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but that is what you did. You snuck the whole package right into that one clause. And you don't even specify whether, in the clause in question, you describe a national or international scale. Or both, as is.

Categorically false. Not donating does not deliberately produce nor prolong famine and starvation. Simply because one nation does not donate does not mean another will not fill its place. Not all nations have surpluses, either.

Furthermore, common sense makes clear that the restricting clause is on a national level. Just as it makes clear that the research clauses are on a national level.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I'm with you Dr. Castro. But we would need a couple of free trade resolutions later to make up for our economic ratings.

Just a reminder that this is STILL UP FOR DELEGATE APPROVAL, since the author seems to think that "taking this to the heart" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14731398&postcount=33) means repealing the WATC and doing research. It is a noble objective being pursued in a most weak-assed way.

VOTE:http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=food

Without wishing to drag this discussion off-topic, if, as seems increasingly certain, the WAEU is repealed, I feel strongly that the second draft of this proposal should reinstate the provisions of the Union with regards to food. (Which is how free trade in the NSUN system began, with the Global Food Distribution Act - though that proposal may just have been a marketing ploy by Yeldan Fine Cheeses.) All the other provisions are rather secondary compared to that.Just a reminder that this is STILL UP FOR DELEGATE APPROVAL, since the author seems to think that "taking this to the heart" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14731398&postcount=33) means repealing the WATC and doing research. It is a noble objective being pursued in a most weak-assed way.Is there any need to be quite so pissy?

Is there any need to be quite so pissy?

Say who? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14744227)

Say who? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14744227)

I'd rather not have another situation involving trout juices and the implementing of certain defense protocols. Let's try to be diplomatic.

If the 16 approvals are not given by this time tomorrow, then I will consider additions and revisions and resubmit it. I have terrible luck when it comes to reaching quorum; each time, it's comes within 9 or 10 votes of reaching it... no matter if I send telegrams to 116 delegates.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Say who? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14744227)Exactly: I took things up in a civil manner and it led to mod intervention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14744727&postcount=116), rather than sniping at someone who's making a genuine effort. I don't know if you're just in a bad mood because people drove over your latest proposal and the waaambulance never arrived to fix it or what, but picking on Glen-Rhodes for being able to hold more than one opinion at the same time seems rather petty.If the 16 approvals are not given by this time tomorrow, then I will consider additions and revisions and resubmit it.Isn't there some question, though, about how effective the changed legislative horizon of the WA will render this proposal in its present state? In particular, the surplus system seems like it will be badly derailed by the resumption of first world agriculture subsidies benefitting monopolistic agrochemical conglomerates.

I don't know if you're just in a bad mood because people drove over your latest proposal and the waaambulance never arrived to fix it or what,

What kind of controlled substances has Urgench been supplying you? I had great fun at the thread!

Oh, by the way, although you may find such a worldview about oneself shocking, I do not think I'm the center of the Galaxy.

I have revised the resolution to include access to clean water. Minor revisions include grammar and mechanics corrections and changes to committee names.

I am awaiting specific proposals for further changes, such as Dr. Merrywether's request that certain provisions of the WAEU be added.

World Assembly Food Welfare Act

Regretfully noting that starvation and malnutrition are prevalent within a multitudinous number of nations in distress, and further noting that such hunger oftentimes leads to unnecessary conflict,

Recognizing the need for assistance in the production and distribution of food in such nations, as well as the bountiful supplies and surpluses in various prosperous nations,

The World Assembly therefore

ENCOURAGES prosperous nations to support ailing nations when and however possible, to supplant the need of World Assembly intervention;

ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control; to research water purification technology; to research more efficient water distribution strategies.

ESTABLISHES the International Food Welfare Organization (IFWO) as the administrator of the processes of this act; authorizes the dispatching of IFWO scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices;

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetic use restriction technology, such as seeds that produce plants with sterile seeds and seeds that require additional chemicals to be activated, is banned; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWO to ensure that no harm is done to their recipients;

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWO, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses so to neither promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWO shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to the people of nations undergoing severe economic depression, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;

ESTABLISHES the Water Security Commission (WSC) to help poor and developing nations create strategic water distribution techniques; to dispatch well construction workers to locales that have little to no access to clean water; to provide water purification technology to locales which have no current water purification practices or inefficient water purification practices.

OUTLAWS actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, such as food hoarding and unequal food distribution practices; further outlaws actions which deliberately prevent the distribution of and access to clean water;

CONSTRUCTS the World Assembly Seedbank to store seeds as a source of planting where seeds are generally unavailable, due to natural disaster, disease outbreak, and war, as well as to protect the biodiversity of food crops; such seeds shall be collected as volunteered by nations; the IFWO shall manage the distribution of seeds when needed.

I am aware that the current wording surpasses the allowed character count.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Really? I did a WC on it and it came up at 2,940 characters - plenty of room.

That being said - I can't say I'm thrilled by the prospect of adding in clean water. That's such a large policy area. Rubina's UN Resolution on Water Quality and Conservation was an extensive document in its own right. Clean water is certainly an important issue and we would definitely not want to discourage action towards improving access to it, but is this necessarily the appropriate proposal in which to address it?I am awaiting specific proposals for further changes, such as Dr. Merrywether's request that certain provisions of the WAEU be added.The old UN's Global Food Distribution Act promoted free trade in food, which seemed a good model. I am also dubious about this clause:ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWO, while encouraging nations to carefully manage the production of surpluses so to neither promote nor condone wasteful agricultural practices; the IFWO shall be given the authority to distribute food rations to the people of nations undergoing severe economic depression, famine, or conflict which causes a shortage of food;Firstly, only 'encouraging' these practices? Is there really any justification for the creation of wasteful surplus in the food market using trade intervention? After all, this delivers a two-for-one on famine: it removes food from the supply chain, AND it prevents foreign farmers selling their wares. I'm still convinced the WAEU was the best model by far, but if nothing else can't we at least prohibit trade interventions that would promote waste except in a few specific cases (e.g. "agroterrorism" security)?

I think your focus on 'poor and developing nations' is a little off. It doesn't matter how rich your country is if you can't feed yourself. I would prefer to see the WSC be empowered to work with all nations, regardless of their economic standing.OUTLAWS actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, such as food hoarding and unequal food distribution practices; further outlaws actions which deliberately prevent the distribution of and access to clean water;Hmm. This is a bold action, but how workable is it? I mean, the definition of 'hoarding' is going to prove awfully contentious. Sometimes I stock up on special offers and end up with a cupboard full of tins it'll take me weeks to get through, yet the amount of food I personally eat is probably below average. And the plain fact of it is we don't have equal food distribution practices in our country: we distribute food according to what you pay for. Now, we don't have a famine problem either - which makes me wonder whether there is some more specific practice you're trying to target here.

Finally, I'm a little wary of a blanket 'promoti[on] of genetic modication...'. I mean, it's not an absolute good: it's simply something that should be invested in where needed.

I have some other comments but, assuming you're in no great hurry, it might be best to work through the ones I've already made (if you want to). I am very glad someone has taken up this issue, though, and I think the draft contains many valuable ideas.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador

I can't say I'm thrilled by the prospect of adding in clean water. That's such a large policy area. Rubina's UN Resolution on Water Quality and Conservation was an extensive document in its own right. Clean water is certainly an important issue and we would definitely not want to discourage action towards improving access to it, but is this necessarily the appropriate proposal in which to address it?Water quality was a last-minute thought I had when revising the resolution. Perhaps a completely separate resolution would be the proper way to go.

The old UN's Global Food Distribution Act promoted free trade in food, which seemed a good model. I am also dubious about this clause: ...

Firstly, only 'encouraging' these practices? Is there really any justification for the creation of wasteful surplus in the food market using trade intervention? After all, this delivers a two-for-one on famine: it removes food from the supply chain, AND it prevents foreign farmers selling their wares. I'm still convinced the WAEU was the best model by far, but if nothing else can't we at least prohibit trade interventions that would promote waste except in a few specific cases (e.g. "agroterrorism" security)?I am unsure of what you're proposing here. Do you simply want to change 'encouraging' to 'requiring', or you do wish to completely remove the surplus donation system? If it's the latter, I can assure you that my answer will be a resounding no. However, I have changed 'encouraging' to 'requiring'.

Hmm. This is a bold action, but how workable is it? I mean, the definition of 'hoarding' is going to prove awfully contentious. Sometimes I stock up on special offers and end up with a cupboard full of tins it'll take me weeks to get through, yet the amount of food I personally eat is probably below average. And the plain fact of it is we don't have equal food distribution practices in our country: we distribute food according to what you pay for. Now, we don't have a famine problem either - which makes me wonder whether there is some more specific practice you're trying to target here.I did not intend for the article to impose restrictions of civilians. I've corrected the article to ensure that it only imposes restrictions of governmental actions. I've also changed 'unequal' to 'unfair'.

Finally, I'm a little wary of a blanket 'promoti[on] of genetic modication...'. I mean, it's not an absolute good: it's simply something that should be invested in where needed.I tend to not accept the arguments against GM foods. Most arguments I hear claim that GM crops could be invasive, disturb the food chain, etc. It's all very speculative. Aside from that, I have not seen many compelling arguments against GM foods.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

INITIATES the gradual reduction of protectionist devices, in regards to farming and food-related industries, that have the potential to harm international food trade; authorizes the IFWO to determine when a protectionist device has the potential to harm international food trade...

I have a problem with this particular section. However, the Republic of Progressive Federalism would be willing to vote in favor of this resolution if it manages to get so far.

Might we inquire as to the category and strength?

Might we inquire as to the category and strength?

For its first submission, I submitted it as Social Justice–Strong. Unless otherwise suggested, I will keep the category and strength, considering that the proposal is even stronger than before.

I'm hoping Dr. Merrywether responds soon, so that this resolution can be submitted again.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. My entire staff spent the day watching the World Cup draw on the Internet and Sam's been shopping for Ug-Ug boots all day, so I was left to do my own preparation. OK:I am unsure of what you're proposing here. Do you simply want to change 'encouraging' to 'requiring', or you do wish to completely remove the surplus donation system? If it's the latter, I can assure you that my answer will be a resounding no. However, I have changed 'encouraging' to 'requiring'.My fault for not communicating my objection fully. However, if I may say, that clause covers a lot of ground, and it might be helpful - if only to aid debate - to split it into two or three separate clauses, one or two dealing with the surplus system and the IFWO's role, one dealing with the issue of wasteful practices.

And it's not necessarily that I think wasteful practices should be outright banned. But the simple problem with governmental support for agriculture is that it provides no incentive to stop producing when demands have been met. If no one will buy extra corn, you don't grow it. If you know you get a subsidy for growing corn no matter whether it's bought or not, you have no problem racking up shedloads of rotting unused produce. This is why I feel a free trade regime would be so useful: in fact, the transcripts indicate concern over wasteful subventions was a key motivation in the drafting of the old UN's Global Food Distribution Act.I did not intend for the article to impose restrictions of civilians. I've corrected the article to ensure that it only imposes restrictions of governmental actions. I've also changed 'unequal' to 'unfair'.With respect, this is not a simple fix. Firstly, 'unfair' is no more apparent in its meaning than 'unequal'. Secondly, any civilian action can be seen as the result of some prior government action: most obviously, in terms of reflecting tax policy. Thirdly, I am not clear why food hoarding should be banned. Food hoarding under certain circumstances - during a famine, during a state of emergency, during a refugee crisis, and of course these are simply examples - can be very bad. But at the moment, Quintessence of Dust weathers none of these conditions. I notice Jerzy, the plant-watering intern, has filled O-Q in the WA Office filing cupboards with pot noodle meals. This is hoarding, but it doesn't strike me as having any particular detrimental impact. Fourthly, isn't there an issue of due process of law? That is, wouldn't it be better to make it clear that - perhaps only under certain conditions (for which see above) - national governments have a compelling interest in seizing property (i.e. food) for the purposes of distribution. But I'm not sure we should be setting up the IFWO as some sort of experiment in Maoism.I tend to not accept the arguments against GM foods. Most arguments I hear claim that GM crops could be invasive, disturb the food chain, etc. It's all very speculative. Aside from that, I have not seen many compelling arguments against GM foods.I agree entirely. But the absence of an argument against does not equate to an argument in favour. Example:

When I was young I wanted to dye my hair. My mother did not. She warned me if I died it it would fall out. I dyed it anyway, and it didn't fall out. My mother's argument against hair dying was wrong. But this doesn't everyone should, as a matter of course, dye their hair.

All I am suggesting is a tweaking of the wording, not a wholescale revision: perhaps something along the lines of 'Supports, as proves advantageous, the modification of...'

Finally, the Seedbank will need to deal with the issue of plant breeders' rights.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

And it's not necessarily that I think wasteful practices should be outright banned. But the simple problem with governmental support for agriculture is that it provides no incentive to stop producing when demands have been met. If no one will buy extra corn, you don't grow it. If you know you get a subsidy for growing corn no matter whether it's bought or not, you have no problem racking up shedloads of rotting unused produce. This is why I feel a free trade regime would be so useful: in fact, the transcripts indicate concern over wasteful subventions was a key motivation in the drafting of the old UN's Global Food Distribution Act.I have included a modified version of the UN Global Food Distribution's free trade clause. I agree that the World Assembly shouldn't promote, support, or condone the overproduction of crops. But, even if protectionist devices are abolished, what's to stop a government from overproducing, anyways? The injection of free trade in to the international trading system doesn't mean that all nations will suddenly adopt a capitalist market, letting supply-and-demand dictate how much of what crop to produce. Perhaps the resolution should restrict overproduction for the purpose of donating or selling surpluses?

With respect, this is not a simple fix. Firstly, 'unfair' is no more ... *snipped*
I guess the clause should be clarified. When writing, I had in mind a government hoarding food for itself, rather than allowing the people to eat. I didn't imagine that 'food hoarding' might be too broad a term, that would reach into civilian actions and other harmless actions. Consider this revision:
OUTLAWS governmental actions which deliberately produce famines and starvation, as well as actions during crises -- including, but not limited to, famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises -- that are detrimental to health and welfare of the people, such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices; however, recognizing that under such circumstances, a compelling governmental interest exist to protect the health of welfare of the people, the right of governments to seize food to supply to victims of such crises, so long as such seizure is not detrimental to the larger population.
Though this revision isn't the greatest example of legislation. Maybe you could lend your hand?

As for the meaning of 'unequal' or 'unfair' food distribution practices, take this scenario: a government controls the distribution of food (obviously, this doesn't apply to capitalist markets), however it supplies more food, and more quality food, to the upper-crust of society, while leaving the lower class with little and low quality food. This scenario can be applied to myriad circumstances, such as the crises you mentioned.
Finally, the Seedbank will need to deal with the issue of plant breeders' rights.Plant breeders' rights? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean preventing governments from taking seeds from private breeders? I'm not sure if that is an international issue.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

Ignore that ad ->
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

How about this:

"OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation. Further outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people.

RECOGNIZING however, that under such circumstances a compelling governmental interest exists to protect the health and welfare of the people; the right of governments to seize food to supply to victims of such crises is affirmed, so long as such seizure is not detrimental to the larger population."

I'm not sure about using "outlaws", maybe "forbids", "prohibits" or "proscribes".

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

I have included a modified version of the UN Global Food Distribution's free trade clause. I agree that the World Assembly shouldn't promote, support, or condone the overproduction of crops. But, even if protectionist devices are abolished, what's to stop a government from overproducing, anyways? The injection of free trade in to the international trading system doesn't mean that all nations will suddenly adopt a capitalist market, letting supply-and-demand dictate how much of what crop to produce. Perhaps the resolution should restrict overproduction for the purpose of donating or selling surpluses?Well, ok, but isn't 'selling surpluses' called 'exporting'? As it stands now, though, I have no essential objection to the wording. But there is a potential problem in delegating the IFWO as arbitor of when a protectionist device is to be removed: in the future, if the WA ever returns to the issue of free trade, it might create an internecine conflict. (Which, of course, was the beauty of the WATC system.)As for the meaning of 'unequal' or 'unfair' food distribution practices, take this scenario: a government controls the distribution of food (obviously, this doesn't apply to capitalist markets), however it supplies more food, and more quality food, to the upper-crust of society, while leaving the lower class with little and low quality food. This scenario can be applied to myriad circumstances, such as the crises you mentioned.Well, wouldn't there be a case for this under certain circumstances? I mean, most nations with continuity of government plans. Setting aside enough food for the head of state, some senior military and political officials, and not setting any aside for the civilian populace, might actually be justifiable as a precaution.

That said, I like the suggested wording offered by Ambassador Spøtyiú.Plant breeders' rights? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you mean preventing governments from taking seeds from private breeders? I'm not sure if that is an international issue.A plant breeder's right is an intellectual property protection afforded by some nations to creators of new plant varieties. It works a little like a patent. If a plant variety is novel and stable, then the creator is given (for a certain length of time) exclusive rights over propagation of that plant variety. For the WA to take seeds in this manner would override that, and arguably act as an incentive against breeding. Which is not to say that a seedbank can't work; I'm simply concerned how it will effect the breeders. (The plant people, not the excellent band or the heterosexuals.)

-- Dr Lois Merrywether

PROMOTES the genetic modification of food crops to withstand pesticides and common pests, and to increase the longevity of food products; genetic use restriction technology, such as seeds that produce plants with sterile seeds and seeds that require additional chemicals to be activated, is banned; genetically modified food products shall be tested by the IFWO to ensure that no harm is done to their recipients;

I am a bit leery about this part of the proposal - my reservations would be reduced if the proposal included language along the lines of "subject to ongoing review for environmental impact."

This lays a groundwork for detailed oversight on the GM crops issue.

Respectfully,

But there is a potential problem in delegating the IFWO as arbitor of when a protectionist device is to be removed: in the future, if the WA ever returns to the issue of free trade, it might create an internecine conflict. (Which, of course, was the beauty of the WATC system.)To avoid any future conflicts, a trade commission will now administer the referenced clause.

Well, wouldn't there be a case for this under certain circumstances? I mean, most nations with continuity of government plans. Setting aside enough food for the head of state, some senior military and political officials, and not setting any aside for the civilian populace, might actually be justifiable as a precaution.I don't think you are understanding the events I'm trying to prevent. It's when unequal/unfair food hoarding and distribution practices affect the health of any sector of the public that such practices are forbidden. Creating some kind of contingency plan for the well-being of state officials shouldn't affect the health of the public. If it does, then the plan should be reassessed. Not distributing food to the poor, if such distribution is controlled by the state, would obviously affect the health of that sector of the public. One could argue that the Charter of Civil Rights could also come in to play in that certain scenario.

A plant breeder's right is an intellectual property protection afforded by some nations to creators of new plant varieties. It works a little like a patent. If a plant variety is novel and stable, then the creator is given (for a certain length of time) exclusive rights over propagation of that plant variety. For the WA to take seeds in this manner would override that, and arguably act as an incentive against breeding. Which is not to say that a seedbank can't work; I'm simply concerned how it will effect the breeders. (The plant people, not the excellent band or the heterosexuals.)If it's a privilege granted in only some nations, I don't see any conflicting language in the clause. Seeds are currently volunteered to the IFWO by nations. Where a plant breeder holds intellectual property rights in his nation over a seed, then the nation most likely wouldn't have the authority to volunteer that seed. In nations where this doesn't exist, there is no problem, and I don't see any pressing reason why the World Assembly would provide such a unique property right through international law.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I don't think you are understanding the events I'm trying to prevent. It's when unequal/unfair food hoarding and distribution practices affect the health of any sector of the public that such practices are forbidden. Creating some kind of contingency plan for the well-being of state officials shouldn't affect the health of the public. If it does, then the plan should be reassessed. Not distributing food to the poor, if such distribution is controlled by the state, would obviously affect the health of that sector of the public. One could argue that the Charter of Civil Rights could also come in to play in that certain scenario.

I wonder if a clause encouraging the use of ever-normal granaries or similar buffer stock systems might alleviate some of these problems, as well as help mitigate protectionist tendencies and alleviate price-dumping. Price and supply stabilization would reduce the likelihood of a doomsday scenario.

Wens Foroun
Ambassador for Allech-Atreus

Unless Glen-Rhodes gave someone permission to use his Food Welfare Act or whatever, someone has already submitted this in an identical form.

Unless Glen-Rhodes gave someone permission to use his Food Welfare Act or whatever, someone has already submitted this in an identical form.

I have not given anybody the permission to submit my work as their own. I've reported the proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

I have not given anybody the permission to submit my work as their own. I've reported the proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia


You have? Where? Not in Moderation, not in Getting Help, not (as far as I can see) on the Beta forum. Luckily I saw it in the Silly and Illegal thread, for which it qualifies in spades, but if you want fast action that's not a reporting thread.

Che sera. On it now. The nation has left the (WA) building.

Nolza completely agrees with this resolution

About the discussion between Unibot and Glen-Rhodes governments that export all of their food for an international profit beyond what they would have originally obtained on the international market. And this whatever are existing free trade agreements.
the problem isn't just the ones who can feed their population afterwards, there is also the problem of the occidental countries changing their surplus into exportation with subventions, then food coming from their country is so cheap it ruins all farmers in countries that aren't rich enough, then those poor countries became dependant from the rich country pre-cited, so the food coming from the rich countries is no more a surplus but a normal exportation, so the subventions stops, so prices rise, but because farmers have been ruined in the poor countries they have became dependant from the food of the rich countries, even if it's become expensive. And then starvation starts for the ones who can't afford the new prices of food.

This is why I won' vote for the Food Welfare Act if it's not added in it something like :
ALLOWING countries who judge it necessary to preserve their own agricultural system to rise taxes or impose maximal quotas on the food importations.


Other point. about transgenic vegetables and the clause banning the use of 'genetic use restriction technology' I think we shall also add in the law:

FORBIDDEN the whole market of genetically modified organism to be hold by only one huge monopoly.
Because today the whole world market of GMO is hold by Monsato, who in India has started to sell his product cheaper than every else, so almost all indians farmer (and this makes really many people) have bougth only Monsato's plant, so in India it's now really hard to find plants than don't come from Monsato (you might have eard of it : this was regulary quoted as a world example that shall be followed, under the name of "India's Green Revolution"). But meanwhile Monsato has rise his prices, and because for example cotton non produced by Monsato is now impossible to find in India, cotton farmers are forced to by their seed to Monsato whatever the price is.
A firm who isn't in a monopoly can't choose it's prices like this so OK for GMO but only if there is no monopoly. Because in the other case it won't aid at all to stop starvation.

the problem isn't just the ones who can feed their population afterwards, there is also the problem of the occidental countries changing their surplus into exportation with subventions, then food coming from their country is so cheap it ruins all farmers in countries that aren't rich enough, then those poor countries became dependant from the rich country pre-cited, so the food coming from the rich countries is no more a surplus but a normal exportation, so the subventions stops, so prices rise, but because farmers have been ruined in the poor countries they have became dependant from the food of the rich countries, even if it's become expensive. And then starvation starts for the ones who can't afford the new prices of food.Forgive my being rude, but I can't comprehend 99% of what you've said here. Of what I can comprehend -- your last sentence -- and I can assure you that such a scenario is exactly why this resolution was written: to provide food to poor(er) countries that otherwise cannot afford it. By my best guess, you seem to be creating a scenario where a nation is committing price-dumping, which I believe has been discussed but hasn't made its way in to the resolution. I've amended the ITA clause to address all issues that harm international food trade.

Because today the whole world market of GMO is hold by Monsato, who in India has started to sell his product cheaper than every else, so almost all indians farmer (and this makes really many people) have bougth only Monsato's plant, so in India it's now really hard to find plants than don't come from Monsato (you might have eard of it : this was regulary quoted as a world example that shall be followed, under the name of "India's Green Revolution"). But meanwhile Monsato has rise his prices, and because for example cotton non produced by Monsato is now impossible to find in India, cotton farmers are forced to by their seed to Monsato whatever the price is.
A firm who isn't in a monopoly can't choose it's prices like this so OK for GMO but only if there is no monopoly. Because in the other case it won't aid at all to stop starvation.
While I am certainly not a fan of monopolies, antitrust laws are a national issue, and I'm weary of pushing it in to international law. Furthermore, it's rather absurd to think that a single corporation could dominate the global market, considering how large that market is today. Genetic use restriction technology is banned, which is as far as I'm willing to go to prevent monopolies from forming.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, Foreign Affairs Agency
Regional Delegate, Jordia

You have? Where? Not in Moderation, not in Getting Help, not (as far as I can see) on the Beta forum. Luckily I saw it in the Silly and Illegal thread, for which it qualifies in spades, but if you want fast action that's not a reporting thread.

Che sera. On it now. The nation has left the (WA) building.

OOC: I searched around for a way to actually report it. I assumed delegates, at least, would be able to report resolutions from the Proposals page on NS. I didn't realize that you have to report them on the forum, namely because I've never seen proposals reported on the forum (aside from the Silly and/or Illegal thread).

OOC: I searched around for a way to actually report it. I assumed delegates, at least, would be able to report resolutions from the Proposals page on NS. I didn't realize that you have to report them on the forum, namely because I've never seen proposals reported on the forum (aside from the Silly and/or Illegal thread).

Ah, I think I get it. You were thinking of it as a purely WA-related problem?

What I thought you were reporting was the action of copying, not the existence of the copied proposal. Copying is a breach of NS rules that happens in other forums, too, so I was looking for it in Moderation or Getting Help.

If you're not sure what kind of a breach something is, or even whether it's a breach at all, or there seems to be nowhere to report it, use GH. You may not get an answer, but something will happen somewhere.