PASSED: Food Welfare Act

[Valipac]

It should be left to the individual nations to decide on who they will aid or provide food supplies to nations who are in desperately in need. The resolution should be re-drafted as to encourage nations to aid those who are unfortunate to do so themselves and those that are in isolation, came out of isolation or those in a economic crisis or in a war crisis. The proposal should encourage, promote and recommend, not force. Because then even the poor nations who cannot supply the rest of their nation with food will be forced to divide the food themselves and be forced to send food to other nations to aid when they cannot aid themselves in such crisis explained in my post.

ENACTS a surplus donation system in which national crop surpluses may be donated to the IFWO

It doesn't say must, and it specifies surplus, which means poor nations would not have to participate anyways.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I have made a few changes to the proposal. Most notably, I have established a growing program, similar to what Ambassador Redwood suggested. The wording is iffy, so feel free to suggest changes.

Also, since the text is getting quite long, I may have to strike out the GM clauses, and save them for another proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Allied Governments]

As long as said resolution does not force a nation to give aid to neighboring countries (something we will do as long as we get something out of it, namely resources or land,) Allied Governments supports this resolution.

[New Rockport]

The fourth section would be a problem for New Rockport, which has no government-managed agriculture.

If I may, I'd like to suggest the following change:

"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;"

If the recommended change is made, the Republic of New Rockport will vote in favor of this legislation and do all it can to persuade other nations to do so.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Glen-Rhodes]

The fourth section would be a problem for New Rockport, which has no government-managed agriculture.

If New Rockport's government has no control over agriculture, how are surpluses from New Rockport going to be donated to the IFWO, anyways? The proposal creates a system where nations can donate, implying that national governments are the donors. I prefer going that route because the donations would presumably be large and easier to handle in the long run. Imagine if the IFWO had to manage individual donations from farmers across the world.

However, the managing clause was initially an encouragement, rather than a requirement. The problem with that is when nations decide to ignore the encouragement, and go full-speed in surplus growth, without paying close attention to the economic impacts. That doesn't do any good for anybody.

With all of that being said, I've thought up a much better arrangement that works in your favor. As you might see, the surplus donation system is meant to be composed of national crop surpluses, implying some sort of governmental control over such surpluses. By amending the clause like so, I believe your concerns are addressed.

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 such 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;

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Al-Aqar]

The people of Al-Aqar support this proposal, finding it especially appealing after the striking of the GM clause. We are prepared to support it in committee.

[Absolvability]

The reasoning behind the GM clause had been explained to my satisfaction... but I did have some original concerns about it, and am not all that disappointed to see it go.

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;

While not touching DIRECTLY on GM, I think the above clause in the proposal does an adequate job of promoting beneficial practices. I'm in full support, along with my Delegate.

OOC: When do you plan on submitting this? I haven't checked the proposal list yet today, so I might be talking ignorantly here if you've already submitted it for approval. If not, I think you should do so soon. With all the C&Cs in queu I think this, as an entirely reasonable approach to an issue that requires attention, will gain approval fairly quickly, if only because of the oppurtune timing. I'm sure many of us would like to see SOMETHING from the GA get into quorom.

[Glen-Rhodes]

While not touching DIRECTLY on GM, I think the above clause in the proposal does an adequate job of promoting beneficial practices. I'm in full support, along with my Delegate.

I hinted at this earlier, but I am not ruling out separate resolutions on farm security (i.e. requiring rather than encouraging the second active clause) and genetic modification of food in general.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

OOC: When do you plan on submitting this? I haven't checked the proposal list yet today, so I might be talking ignorantly here if you've already submitted it for approval. If not, I think you should do so soon. With all the C&Cs in queu I think this, as an entirely reasonable approach to an issue that requires attention, will gain approval fairly quickly, if only because of the oppurtune timing. I'm sure many of us would like to see SOMETHING from the GA get into quorom.

(OOC: I had planned on submitting this weeks ago. The repeal took its place, though. Once I prepare a campaign strategy, I'll submit this.)

[Grand Europic States]

I'm sure many of us would like to see SOMETHING from the GA get into quorom.

Very much agreed!

[New Rockport]

The fourth section would be a problem for New Rockport, which has no government-managed agriculture.With all of that being said, I've thought up a much better arrangement that works in your favor. As you might see, the surplus donation system is meant to be composed of national crop surpluses, implying some sort of governmental control over such surpluses. By amending the clause like so, I believe your concerns are addressed.

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 such 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;

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your clarification. If there is a surplus of a crop, it is not a national crop surplus unless it results from national management of agriculture, is that correct?

If New Rockport's government has no control over agriculture, how are surpluses from New Rockport going to be donated to the IFWO, anyways? The proposal creates a system where nations can donate, implying that national governments are the donors. I prefer going that route because the donations would presumably be large and easier to handle in the long run. Imagine if the IFWO had to manage individual donations from farmers across the world.

The federal government could collect private donations of surplus crops on behalf of the IWFO.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq,
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Glen-Rhodes]

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for your clarification. If there is a surplus of a crop, it is not a national crop surplus unless it results from national management of agriculture, is that correct?

That is correct, but I'm weary of just leaving it at that. National management covers things ranging from regulations to actual government-owned farms. In the event that New Rockport's federal government collects private donations of surplus crops, then they would have to ensure that the surplus was produced safely. This is because once the surplus enters the hands of the federal government, it would be considered a national crop surplus.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Allied Governments]

Does said Food Welfare Act enable one to give aid in return for certain benefits, namely resources and land?

[New Rockport]

National management covers things ranging from regulations to actual government-owned farms. In the event that New Rockport's federal government collects private donations of surplus crops, then they would have to ensure that the surplus was produced safely. This is because once the surplus enters the hands of the federal government, it would be considered a [i]national crop surplus

If the donations were accompanied by a statement from the donor that the donated crops were grown in full compliance with state and federal environmental and occupational safety laws, would that be sufficient?

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq,
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Glen-Rhodes]

If the donations were accompanied by a statement from the donor that the donated crops were grown in full compliance with state and federal environmental and occupational safety laws, would that be sufficient?

If the note was true, then yes. The World Assembly, for now, will not be dictating safe farming and food production practices. So, in the absence of a resolution, it is up to the nations to ensure that the production of surpluses isn't detrimental. Remember, though, that the Compliance Commission might have their own rules regarding what would be sufficient proof.

Does said Food Welfare Act enable one to give aid in return for certain benefits, namely resources and land?

No, it does not.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Allied Governments]

Does said Food Welfare Act enable one to give aid in return for certain benefits, namely resources and land?

No, it does not.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes[/quote]

Then I must respectfully ask, what does my nation get out of said Act?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Then I must respectfully ask, what does my nation get out of said Act?

If you need a reward for doing the ultimate good deed, then I'm not terribly interested in hearing your criticisms or suggestions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Allied Governments]

Then I must respectfully ask, what does my nation get out of said Act?

If you need a reward for doing the ultimate good deed, then I'm not terribly interested in hearing your criticisms or suggestions.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The world is a violent and dangerous place, one cannot needlessly give away food which, if storaged and preserved, can help feed my nation in the event of drought. We are refusing out of practicality, we've learned in the past it is better to save the surplus to remain self-sufficient, rather then become too involved in Inter-national affairs.You must realize how hard it is to feed billions of people, especially considering the land we inhabit is relatively tough and inhospitable.

[Grand Europic States]

one cannot needlessly give away food which, if storaged and preserved, can help feed my nation in the event of drought.

Surely the idea behind this proposal is in return for you using any surplus you may have to help other nations in need, if you ever did have a drought then they and many other WA nations would help you. What goes around comes around as they say. Conversely, if you had a drought without this proposal being in place that lasted longer than expected and exhausted any stored supplies you had, there would be no one to help you.

The Grand Europic States is very interested in this proposal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The world is a violent and dangerous place, one cannot needlessly give away food which, if storaged and preserved, can help feed my nation in the event of drought. We are refusing out of practicality, we've learned in the past it is better to save the surplus to remain self-sufficient, rather then become too involved in Inter-national affairs.You must realize how hard it is to feed billions of people, especially considering the land we inhabit is relatively tough and inhospitable.

While Ambassador Wintour has explained it quite well, I'll take this time to expand just a little on that. Using the phrase 'needless give away food' is worrying to me, because it shows that either you don't understand the text, or the text isn't written clearly enough. So, let me reiterate: the donation of surpluses is completely voluntary. If a nation does not have food to give away, then they do not have to donate. This does not mean, however, that they could not be eligible for emergency food supplies, should they need it. Donation is not a prerequisite for receiving aid.

If I might offer you and your nation a little advice, handing surpluses to the World Assembly might actually cut costs. The World Assembly would be footing the bill for managing these surpluses, while Allied Governments would not only be securing their future, but helping other nations secure theirs.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[New Rockport]

... once the surplus enters the hands of the federal government, it would be considered a national crop surplus

.

There appears to be nothing in the proposal that limits donations to the IWFO to those that come from WA-member nations, correct? So, if our overseas territory, the Commonwealth of San Petulina, collects the private donations on behalf of the IWFO, the surplus crops would become the national crop surplus of San Petulina, rather than the national crop surplus of New Rockport. As San Petulina is not a WA member, its government would not be bound by the agricultural management requirement.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq,
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Glen-Rhodes]

There appears to be nothing in the proposal that limits donations to the IWFO to those that come from WA-member nations, correct? So, if our overseas territory, the Commonwealth of San Petulina, collects the private donations on behalf of the IWFO, the surplus crops would become the national crop surplus of San Petulina, rather than the national crop surplus of New Rockport. As San Petulina is not a WA member, its government would not be bound by the agricultural management requirement.

I suppose that would be true, but only if the IFWO could legally accept donations from non-World Assembly states. I'm unsure if that would the case, so I'll have to get a second opinion.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Absolvability]

While the WA can, obviously, not impose any restrictions or laws upon a non-WA nation I would think that a donation, being voluntarily given, could be accepted from anyone. The main difference, it seems to me, is the flow of the exchange. The WA can't necessarily give out to non-WA nations, but it can recieve, provided that the non-WA nations initiate.

[Qumkent]

There appears to be nothing in the proposal that limits donations to the IWFO to those that come from WA-member nations, correct? So, if our overseas territory, the Commonwealth of San Petulina, collects the private donations on behalf of the IWFO, the surplus crops would become the national crop surplus of San Petulina, rather than the national crop surplus of New Rockport. As San Petulina is not a WA member, its government would not be bound by the agricultural management requirement.

I suppose that would be true, but only if the IFWO could legally accept donations from non-World Assembly states. I'm unsure if that would the case, so I'll have to get a second opinion.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The problem exists in the wording, the use of the term "nations" instead of "member states" or "member states of the WA" or other more clear distinctions causes the confusion.

WA legislation cannot and does not apply to non-member states so the postulated San Petulina government could not undertake any collection of food donations on behalf of the WA committee created in this statute, and non-member states could not donate to it through the committee in question either, though they could do so unilaterally outside of the context of this statute's provisions.

But a clarification of terms would alleviate the confusion.

Yours,

[New Rockport]

I suppose that would be true, but only if the IFWO could legally accept donations from non-World Assembly states. I'm unsure if that would the case, so I'll have to get a second opinion.

At any rate, New Rockport will support this resolution. We will lobby our regional delegate to approve it when it is introduced and will vote for it if it comes to a vote. If we can find a way for Novopetrian* farmers to be able to donate to the IFWO without binding New Rockport to the agricultural management requirements, so much the better.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq,
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

*(OOC: Novopetrian is the official demonym of the Republic of New Rockport. The overwhelming majority of Novopetrians call themselves New Rockporters, but Novopetrian is used in all government communications.)

[The Rotan]

I have been following this bill with interest for some time now. I am well pleased with the way it is currently written and am prepared to support it all the way.

Yours,
Judicator Aldaris.