Drafted and Proposed: Humanitarian Aid Coordination

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve humbly wishes to propose to the Draft's authors the following changes:

CONCERNED that:
- Without proper coordinated national and/or international management of humanitarian aid there may be duplications, lacks, or other inefficiencies in disaster relief efforts;

The reason for this change is partly for brevity, and partly for style.

BELIEVES that:
- Proper management of the coordination of humanitarian aid will improve the efficiency of humanitarian aid efforts by the DRAs;
- The independence of the DRAs must be preserved to prevent corruption of the humanitarian aid system;

Two changes are proposed here.

The first makes the first statement stronger (the change from "would" to "will"), and changes the focus of the statement from the efficiency of the coordination of the humanitarian aid to the efficiency of the humanitarian aid effort, of which the coordination is one part. The goal of the humanitarian aid is, of course, aiding those affected by the disaster and how well that is done should be the focus, and not only the method.

The second change broadens the idea of "prevent corruption" to include the reasons behind why humanitarian aid is given: to provide relief to those that need it. With corruption in the system the focus is on bribery, kick-backs, etc. To expand this to of the system one includes using the humanitarian aid system for political, economic, and cultural benefits as well.

1. Member states are REQUIRED to:
a) Have adequate action plans to prepare for, cope with and recover from a variety of foreseeable and realistic disasters;
b) Test and evaluate developed action plans at reasonable and regular intervals, and implement such improvements that the evaluation suggests that can be reasonably accomplished;
c) Stockpile reasonable and adequate supplies for humanitarian aid distribution to civilians to cover immediate and urgent needs in accordance to the developed action plans.

The change here is to mandate the testing of any action plans created, and to bring in any improvements that the resulting evaluation may suggest. Of course, improvements may bring costs with them (such as bringing buildings up to newly written construction codes) and the effort needed to implement improvements should be considered.

Finally, the Holy Empire would like to discuss the definition of a DRA. As written, a DRA is a non-governmental organization. However, governmental organizations that can rightfully be called a DRA are conceivable. Consider where the aid offered is such that only a government can provide it, either due to the costs involved or the knowledge necessary. One example would be recovering from a nuclear accident. Or where those that could provide aid are government employees of one sort or another. For those nations where medical staff are governmental employees. Furthermore: it may be the case where military organizations can provide needed manpower, and the donating nation is willing to allow said personnel to operate during the aid effort as if they were civilians.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The requested improvements to Articles 2, 6 and 1 are also well considered, and is also much refined for the Assembly's style of language especially we have some sound compulsory clauses subject to peer review.

Finally, the Holy Empire would like to discuss the definition of a DRA. As written, a DRA is a non-governmental organization. However, governmental organizations that can rightfully be called a DRA are conceivable. Consider where the aid offered is such that only a government can provide it, either due to the costs involved or the knowledge necessary. One example would be recovering from a nuclear accident. Or where those that could provide aid are government employees of one sort or another. For those nations where medical staff are governmental employees. Furthermore: it may be the case where military organizations can provide needed manpower, and the donating nation is willing to allow said personnel to operate during the aid effort as if they were civilians.

Excellent point, honoured ambassador. I recognise that some member states are willing to help others, especially if there is a catastrophic disaster. Don't forget the counselling too, for I know how traumatised the homeless would be.

My proposed revision to the definition would be:

(Defines)
b) A "Disaster Relief Agency" (DRA) as an organisation that provides at the very least, humanitarian aid to civilians affected by disasters. An organization that also provides counselling and assistance in recovery efforts in addition to the above can also be considered to be a DRA.

Yours,

[Super-Chechnya]

Defines... b) A "Disaster Relief Agency" (DRA) as an organisation that provides at the very least, humanitarian aid to civilians affected by disasters. An organization that also provide counselling and assist in recovery efforts can also be considered to be a DRA.

If it provides humanitarian aid, then certainly the author could pluralise the provision of counselling and assistance, such that:

An organization that also provides counselling and/or assists in recovery efforts can also be considered to be a DRA.

It is not certain that DRAs will provide both alongside humanitarian aid, but as long it's at least humanitarian aid, then it's a DRA.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would like to propose the following as a definition of a Disaster Relief Agency:

DEFINES...

b) A "Disaster Relief Agency (DRA) as an organization that provides humanitarian aid, search-and-rescue services, reconstruction and restoration, or other services to relieve suffering, assist civilians affected, or otherwise bring a disaster situation back to normalcy.

She must admit to not being completely satisfied with the last part of the definition ('... to relieve suffering...') and asks for assistance in finding a better phrase.

In the opinion of the Holy Empire, the phrase "humanitarian aid" encompasses a great deal, including counseling, and should be sufficient in-and-of itself, but the addition of "other services" should cover other categories of aid that have not been named but fall under the clear spirit of the definition.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would like to suggest the following grammatical corrections to this Draft:

- Changing the period ('.') to a semicolon (';') at the end of the CONCERNED clause;
- Changing the period ('.') to a semicolon (';') at the end of the DEFINES clause;
- The removal of the comma(',') after "Hereby";
- Changing the period ('.') to a semicolon (';') at the end of Articles One to Six;
- Condense Articles Six and Seven into one:

6. PROVIDES for a nation to
a) declare a disaster to be officially over within its borders;
b) allow a DRA to continue the recovery operations in the affected member state under the conditions laid out in Article Three;

- Renumber Article Eight to Article Seven.

Furthermore: the Holy Empire would suggest removing the '(DRA)' from the DEFINES clause, as the abbreviation is already used in the RECOGNIZING clause.

And, lastly, the Holy Empire would suggest changing "lives and livelihoods" in the DEFINES clause to "lives and/or livelihoods" to not artificially restrict disasters to needing both conditions to be true.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured ambassador to New Illuve should note I have tried my best to cover as many functions of a DRA as possible but is happy with your suggestions if its deemed to improve it further so apologies to the esteemed ambassador to the nearby Super-Chechnya but I see what you mean because DRAs do a variety of tasks to help victims affected by disasters. I see the point about semi-colons because Maxtopia seems to use semi-colons for his first WA resolution.

Thank you.

[Dont Eat the Kittens]

The Holy Empire has indeed noted the work done by the honored Ambassador. Not only in the definition of the DRA, but throughout this entire Draft. And She would like to express Her honest gratitude for the enjoyable experience of working with Charlotte Ryberg on this Draft.

At this point, the Holy Empire is more than satisfied with the quality of this Draft. She would like to ask the other Ambassadors engaged in this discussion if there are areas that should be looked at?

[Dont Eat the Kittens]

OOC: sorry; I was logged in accidentally as my other nation. Please consider that last post to have come from me!

[New Illuve]

OOC: dang it! I was once again accidentally logged in as my other nation!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

She would like to ask the other Ambassadors engaged in this discussion if there are areas that should be looked at?

Don't worry, I've got the situation under control.

Absolutely, we will need to hear from the major delegations and ambassadors that frequent the WA forum. This way we will not end up in the same situation that may befall previous resolutions on the right to Fair Trial.

Yours,

[Super-Chechnya]

Honoured ambassador,

The phrase "The world assembly" should go at the top. Then there's just the categories left: perhaps Human Rights, Significant or Social Justice, Mild to Significant? More to do with welfare, isn't it?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Honoured ambassador,

The phrase "The world assembly" should go at the top. Then there's just the categories left: perhaps Human Rights, Significant or Social Justice, Mild to Significant? More to do with welfare, isn't it?

Done and done: the category is Social Justice, strength: Significant.

[Super-Chechnya]

Great! All we need is the feedback from the others and adapt to their comments.

[Studly Penguins]

6. PROVIDES for a member state to:
a) Declare a disaster to be officially over within their territory;
b) Allow a DRA to continue the recovery operations in their territory under the conditions laid out in Article Three;

Well first we will thank the Ryberg and other Delegations for hearin our concerns and duly addressing them or clarifying them and making changes to work them in. As all other concerns have been fixed; after reading the "final" draft we do have one small concern that we want some further info on.

Article 6 in our opinion seems to contradict itself. In subsection A it states it allows for declaring a disaster over within their territory; but the wording of subsection B confuses us.

Does it mean that the Member State decides whether or not the DRA gets to stay and operate after they've declared the disaster over; or does it mean that even if the disaster is declared over by the nation the DRA stays until its satisfied?

Also what happens in the event the IHACC and DRA decide a disaster is over but the Gov't for said nation thinks otherwise?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Well first we will thank the Ryberg and other Delegations for hearin our concerns and duly addressing them or clarifying them and making changes to work them in. As all other concerns have been fixed; after reading the "final" draft we do have one small concern that we want some further info on.

Article 6 in our opinion seems to contradict itself. In subsection A it states it allows for declaring a disaster over within their territory; but the wording of subsection B confuses us.

Does it mean that the Member State decides whether or not the DRA gets to stay and operate after they've declared the disaster over; or does it mean that even if the disaster is declared over by the nation the DRA stays until its satisfied?

Also what happens in the event the IHACC and DRA decide a disaster is over but the Gov't for said nation thinks otherwise?

The intention of Article Six is that Member states can choose whether or not to allow DRAs, on a case-by-case basis, to continue their operations. If a member state believes that the disaster has ended, yet there are still areas where help is needed, Article Six gives the member states to determine whether overseas DRAs should stay.

If the DRA thinks the disaster is over then they should be able to go home but I once quoted the possibility of requiring consensus between all three sides before you suggested that member states should have the right to do so independently.

Here's my suggested improvements:

6. PROVIDES for a member state to:
a) Declare a disaster to be officially over, within their territory;
b) Determine whether to permit a foreign DRA to continue the recovery operations in their territory under the conditions laid out in Article Three;

7. PROVIDES for a foreign DRA to discontinue operations if it feels that a disaster situation has returned to normalcy.

[Studly Penguins]

We like the suggested changes for Article 6. With that said, our Delegation rests due to no longer having anymore concerns over the Proposal at hand.

We guarantee our vote FOR when it gets to a vote.

[Noordeinde]

The Office of the President, The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde

I would like to compliment the author for this great proposal. The Noordeinde Congress is verry exited as well and will probably vote for the Bill wich would allow our Ambasador to the WA to vote for this draft proposal as it will come to vote at the General Assembly of the World Assembly.

Sincerelly Yours,
Jonathan Roosevelt
President
The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The honoured delegation has appended the modification to the proposal in the leading page. However it is clear that the text it is in excess of 3500 characters.

We are grateful so far to all the ambassadors who have given valuable feedback.

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Here is the current draft, although some cuts had to be made to be within the character limit. The cuts were to do with the simplification of wording: "support" was changed to "help" and "discontinue" to "cease":

Disaster Relief Coordination
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING and applauding the existence of many specialized Disaster Relief Agencies (DRAs), both at domestic and/or international level, that strive to provide humanitarian aid, recovery efforts and support to civilians affected by disasters, whose livelihoods may have been destroyed;

CONCERNED that without proper coordinated national and/or international management of humanitarian aid, there may be duplications, delays or other inefficiencies in disaster relief efforts;

BELIEVES that:
- Proper management of the coordination of humanitarian aid will improve the efficiency of humanitarian aid efforts by the DRAs;
- The independence of the DRAs must be preserved to prevent corruption of the humanitarian aid system;

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
- A Disaster as an event caused by man or nature, either of which that causes large scale death and/or destruction to lives and/or livelihoods;
- A Disaster Relief Agency as an organization that provides humanitarian aid, search-and-rescue services, reconstruction and restoration, or other services to relieve suffering, help civilians affected, or otherwise bring a disaster situation back to normalcy;

Hereby,

1. REQUIRES Member states to:
a) Have reasonable and adequate action plans to prepare for, cope with and recover from a variety of foreseeable and realistic disasters;
b) Evaluate and test developed action plans at reasonable and regular intervals and implement all improvements in that the evaluation suggests that can be reasonably accomplished;
c) Stockpile reasonable and adequate supplies for humanitarian aid distribution to civilians to cover immediate and urgent needs in accordance to the developed action plans;

2. ESTABLISHES the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC), whose duty is to:
a) Coordinate humanitarian aid to civilians affected by disasters in all member states;
b) Provide assistance in recovery efforts as requested by affected nations, should the IHACC hold the necessary knowledge and resources;

3. PROVIDES for the independence of the DRAs operating under the co-ordination and auspices of the IHACC and in co-operation with the affected nation(s), while respecting the laws and customs of the affected nations(s) while operating within said nation(s);

4. DIRECTS the IHACC to:
a) Provide accurate and truthful reports on the situation of disasters globally and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated based on the ability of member states and DRAs to cope with an ongoing disaster;
b) Provide training and education to the DRAs and civilians of member states in preparedness for a disaster;

5. EXPECTS the IHACC, member states and DRAs to fairly manage and prioritize the coordination of humanitarian aid and recovery efforts to victims of disasters;

6. PROVIDES for a member state to:
a) Declare a disaster to be officially over within their territory;
b) Determine whether to permit a foreign DRA to continue the recovery operations in their territory under the conditions laid out in Article Three;

7. PROVIDES for a foreign DRA to cease operations if it feels that a disaster situation has returned to normalcy;

8. URGES member states and DRAs to:
a) Work with non-member states in the same manner as they would with member states when they are affected by disasters;
b) Share recovery plans and assist other member states through the halls of the IHACC.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire is very satisfied with this Draft. Especially given the length, She asks if the honored Ambassadors here feel that more work can or should be done on it, or is it of sufficient quality to be put forward to achieve quorum?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The first reading is under way, honoured ambassadors.

[Absolvability]

I have one small concern. It takes some reading between the lines to even be found... but, well, lets see if anybody else agrees that this is worth fixing:

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:
- A Disaster as an event caused by man or nature, either of which that causes large scale death and/or destruction to lives and/or livelihoods;

For the purpose of the following example lets say that a disaster was caused by man. More to the point, by the nation itself (however inadvertantly.) They may or may not consider such a thing to be a disaster. They may or may not wish for assistance.

4. DIRECTS the IHACC to:
a) Provide accurate and truthful reports on the situation of disasters globally and identify areas where their assistance would best be allocated based on the ability of member states and DRAs to cope with an ongoing disaster;

I like this. An international body can be a bit more objective, I think, and indeed provide the accurate and truthful reports on the status of a disaster. In order to deal with the aforementioned problem, I think this text should say, "...best be allocated based on the ability and willingness of member states and DRAs..." in order to grant citizens protection from possible abuse.

Furthermore, and continuing on the very same point, due to the IHACC's objectivity and ability to prepare reports, I think it should be they who decide when a disaster is officially over. Which means that the following clauses would need to be altered or deleted appropriately:

"6. PROVIDES for a member state to:
a) Declare a disaster to be officially over within their territory;"


"7. PROVIDES for a foreign DRA to cease operations if it feels that a disaster situation has returned to normalcy;"

[New Illuve]

If the Holy Empire of New Illuve may be so bold as to provide Her opinion to the points raised by the honorable Ambassador from Absolvability:

For the purpose of the following example lets say that a disaster was caused by man. More to the point, by the nation itself (however inadvertantly.) They may or may not consider such a thing to be a disaster. They may or may not wish for assistance.

This Proposal only requires of member nations three things, and those things are explicitly stated in Article One. Any assistance provided to a member nation, from a DRA acting through the IHACC must, as per Article Three, do so "in co-operation with the affected nation(s), while respecting the laws and customs..." The Holy Empire is of the opinion that any nation that does not wish for assistance will, in all likelihood, not provide the necessary co-operation. In fact, said nation would generally also be in a position to pass a law forbidding such assistance thereby activating the second part of the phrase cited.

I think this text should say, "...best be allocated based on the ability and willingness of member states and DRAs..."

As Article Four only provides information to the member states, the willingness of said to actually apply the information is not a necessary element. The reports will only inform what the disasters are (or may be), and how the IHACC and the associated DRAs can provide assistance. Whether or not a state would use any or all of that information or assistance would be a matter in any disaster planning or when an actual disaster takes place.

... due to the IHACC's objectivity and ability to prepare reports, I think it should be they who decide when a disaster is officially over...

In an ideal world, with ideal governments, the position of the honorable Ambassador may indeed be the best way to proceed. However, many nations within the World Assembly hold sovereignty highly - some more than others. Any Proposal that did not allow a nation to say a disaster was over, and thereby ending the legal foundation for IHACC/DRA presence and activity within the said nation's borders - even under the provisions in Article Three - would attract unhelpful attention by those nations who take strong to extreme sovereignty views. Article Six preserves and makes explicit the ability of a nation to make its own decisions as it sees fit, even if that decision is deemed unwise or even wrong in the eyes of the other member nations. Any calls that this Proposal interferes in the internal activities, or extends the power of the World Assembly into areas where it should not go will only reveal that the delegation has not read this Proposal carefully.

Article Seven simply reflects two things: that some member states may seek to exploit the aid and assistance of the IHACC or DRAs in areas that are not properly disasters, and to reflect that some DRAs have specialized tasks that may end before the disaster is over. Think of search dogs used to find victims of buildings that collapsed as a result of an earthquake. A DRA providing those services will not be needed long before the need for medical staff, food assistance, rebuilding, and so forth are over. This Article allows resources to be freed when they are no longer needed, but still allow the designation of "disaster" to continue. Or, sadly, to transfer those resources to another disaster where they are more sorely needed.

Submitted for your consideration,

[Grand Europic States]

Far be it from me to stop delegates sending condemnations of bad color-schemes to quorum, but really:

Approvals: 14 (Rainbow Isles, Tyrrin, Todd McCloud, The Fields of Rye, Saxon Amer cest Helix, Chuck Norris Haters, Varazhdin, Kingsley Bedford, The Derrak Quadrant, Gaiah, Valeneska, Rutianas, Cricket Fans, Nanisivik)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 37 more approvals)

Voting Ends: in 20 hours

?????

Is that it so far for a well written proposal dealing with such an important issue?!

Yours,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sounds bizarre, honoured ambassador. I hope it would reach quorum without a TG campaign, considering how important the issue is, but it seems the whole of the WA is immersed in the Macedon condemnation crisis with all the truths about the empire being exposed.

Besides, this will be among the resolutions required to deal with victims of Macedon's atrocities. The refugee protection draft is being handled by Kelssek.