Drafted and Proposed: Humanitarian Aid Coordination

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Now open for Peer Review:

---

Humanitarian Aid 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 3;

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.

---

History:
12-06-09: Appended Article 6 and new article 7: old 7 is now 8, but it is now over 3500 characters.
09-06-09: Preamble improved and category sort of settled.
08-06-09: Improvements to the flow of some sections.
05-06-09: Further format improvements.
03-06-09: Definition and revisions with format improvements.
02-06-09: Highlighted the operating clauses.
22-05-09: Initial version
23-05-09: ICRC replaced by the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee (IHACC) which is further unique to the WA.
25-05-09: References to funding removed and gave member states something they must do.
27-05-09: Definitions retuned, responsibilities reallocated and a bit about the recovery plan although this may require fine-tuning later.

[Absolvability]

Genius. The Rogue Nation of Absolvability will support this.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Thanks. I have taken on the advice of the ambassador to Urgench to make civilians the No.1 priority, but it is certain that member states should play a part in this revival, such as contributions or helping each other.

Take note that before this can be submitted it needs to go through copy-editing and grammar checking.

[Absolvability]

5. PROHIBITS the IHACC from:
- Promoting conflict or war in any way

Well, this is very well written. More to the point, it seems fair... not very intrusive at all... and certainly addresses a problem that needs handling.

The only thing I can say (though I don't really think it will effect my support either way,) is that perhaps, considering what I've quoted above, you should strike 'war' from the list of major disasters. This is a rather abstract thought, I'm sure, but in my opinion war should be its own deterrent. The more gruesome it is, the less people will want to do it.

Furthermore (and borderline OOC here,) war only occurs by mutual consent, and I do not believe such irresponsibility deserves aid. Now we may say that, with consideration to citizens rather than governments, compassion should be practiced. On the other hand, it was you, Ms. Ryberg, who wrote the Right to Emigration.

[Purtovich]

Ambassador from Purtovich speaks:

"An excellent proposal and one we would support. Although, to quibble a point with the ambassador from Absolvability, those who find war gruesome and hence are likely to be deterred are usually not those who would normally instigate such conflicts. It would be misguided to withhold aid from innocents for the purpose of deterring those who would not be deterred anyway, for they care nothing for the suffering that they have caused."

[Absolvability]

Although, to quibble a point with the ambassador from Absolvability, those who find war gruesome and hence are likely to be deterred are usually not those who would normally instigate such conflicts. It would be misguided to withhold aid from innocents for the purpose of deterring those who would not be deterred anyway, for they care nothing for the suffering that they have caused.

My point is that wars are mutually agreed upon. Therefore each party is at fault. Therefore aid shouldn't be granted. My reference to the Right of Emigration was pointing out the fact that people may choose to simply leave the nation if they don't like it. (OOC: This is game-coding versus role-play.)

Now (OOC: in the interest of RP,) taking into consideration your point of innocents, perhaps some clarity could be brought to the proposal for our mutual satisfaction. Pending comments from Ms. Harper, obviously.

"In case of a war not involving mutual consent of parties involved, aid should be granted to the defender not the aggressor."

Or something like that. What do you think, Ambassador?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Jotting down on her notepad...

Basically the proposed IHACC does not condone war in any way, and since this is a humanitarian aid resolution we should be talking in terms of majors disasters in general.

As for the terming of of "innocent victims of major disasters" I am considering to reword to "civilians affected by a major disaster" or perhaps simply "those affected by a major disaster".

Not all the resolution about disasters have to be about war, though. But there are nations that are committed to promoting humanitarian aid and therefore the resolution should help them. How do we call them? Or perhaps merge the terms NGOs and willing nations to the term "Humanitarian Aid Agencies"? Alternative to the word humanitarian could be disaster relief or simply relief, but trimming the term too much would lose its true meaning.

Perhaps "Disaster Relief Agencies"?

-- Sarah.

[Salbatanu]

The 'observing' clause does not make a great deal of sense. This is an otherwise sound piece of would-be legislation.

[Absolvability]

OBSERVING that in absence of a single point of responsibility, there may be duplications of some humanitarian efforts or, which may then cause inefficiencies.

In other words... when a single NGO has not claimed sole responsibility for handling a particular matter, and there is not (until this passes?) an international coordination of efforts between NGOs, food may be dropped in the same spot twice resulting in a shortage before the entire process was completed. Food is only one example. But I think it demonstrates both duplication and inefficiency. The author, really, is just stressing the importance of communication and organization here.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The 'observing' clause does not make a great deal of sense. This is an otherwise sound piece of would-be legislation.

In other words... when a single NGO has not claimed sole responsibility for handling a particular matter, and there is not (until this passes?) an international coordination of efforts between NGOs, food may be dropped in the same spot twice resulting in a shortage before the entire process was completed. Food is only one example. But I think it demonstrates both duplication and inefficiency. The author, really, is just stressing the importance of communication and organization here.

If I changed the word OBSERVING to CONCERNED then would it be a bit "stronger"?

[Uiri]

IC:

The Republic of Deveras Fresco Uiri, while not a part of the World Assembly, do heartedly believe it should not interfere in any of Uiri's wars as Uiri has no regard for any form of 'international law' and thus its armed forces shall do as it pleases in war zones. I do believe that a committee is also supposed to be in addition to what a proposal does. While Uiri is not a member, it does understand the workings of this bureaucratic mess.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

IC:

The Republic of Deveras Fresco Uiri, while not a part of the World Assembly, do heartedly believe it should not interfere in any of Uiri's wars as Uiri has no regard for any form of 'international law' and thus its armed forces shall do as it pleases in war zones. I do believe that a committee is also supposed to be in addition to what a proposal does. While Uiri is not a member, it does understand the workings of this bureaucratic mess.

No problem, the definition has been revised and now there is some mandates added to force member states to prepare for major disasters.

[Studly Penguins]

OOC: Some of these provisions for the DRA's/IHACC sound alot like the USA's Homeland Security office/FEMA.

IC: We really like this version better than the old "Coordinating Relief Aid" bill. We do have some concerns though:

In the event of a "major disaster" who has juristiction? The Gov't agencies of the Nation in which disaster occured or does the DRA and IHACC automatically assume command upon arrival on scene.

Next, what is the difference between a "major" disaster and a "minor" disaster. In our humble opinion, a disaster is a disaster.

Also does the reach of the DRA and IHACC authoritative reach to Fire, Police, EMS services, military, etc? Are they just overseeing the distribution of humanitarian goods and housing; or are they going to coordinate all aspects of the "recovery" process?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Note that I am in the process of fine-tuning this proposal and at this point comments are welcome.

In the event of a "major disaster" who has juristiction? The Gov't agencies of the Nation in which disaster occured or does the DRA and IHACC automatically assume command upon arrival on scene.

I think the best idea would be if the resolution expected that the helpful member states and DRAs and the IHACC worked with each other to reach out to victims of disasters. It doesn't matter who and where, to expect them to work together would promote unity.

To achieve this, the old version of part 3 and part 5c would have to be shifted down and merged to form the new part 5, which would read "EXPECTS the IHACC, member states and DRAs to fairly manage and prioritise the coordination of first aid, food, shelter and other humanitarian aid efforts to victims of major disasters."

The old part 5c seemed to imitate 5a once that new clause was created so now the new part 4a now directs the IHACC to provide accurate and truthful reports on the situation of major 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 major disaster.

Next, what is the difference between a "major" disaster and a "minor" disaster. In our humble opinion, a disaster is a disaster.

In this case we are talking about disasters at a large scale but I see what you mean. I have simply defined the term explicitly for this resolution.

Also does the reach of the DRA and IHACC authoritative reach to Fire, Police, EMS services, military, etc? Are they just overseeing the distribution of humanitarian goods and housing; or are they going to coordinate all aspects of the "recovery" process?

Good point honoured ambassador, that is something I have overlooked a bit. Provisionally I have started to mention recovery efforts in this draft although this may require fine-tuning later.

Yours,

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is pleased with this Draft, and is inclined to support the passage of said, should it become a Proposal. However, She has concerns regarding Article Two of the Draft.

2. PROTECTS the independence of the DRAs by preventing member states from interfering with their humanitarian aid operations.

Consider the theoretical disaster relief agency Delivering Euthanasia As Total Humanity (DEATH) who, do to philosophical/religious/cultural grounds, consider it humane to end unnecessary suffering. And consider that the disaster relief provided by DEATH is, well..., death by euthanizing (some) people.

How does Article Two allow a nation to decide not to receive the services provided by DEATH? Or to restrict the aid provided by DEATH to only non-euthanizing activities?

Or (less dramatically) consider cultures where blood transfusions are taboo and outlawed; would not Article Two essentially force a nation receiving humanitarian aid to allow the DRA to give blood transfusions, as any attempts to prevent them would be "interfering with their humanitarian aid operations"?

Also,

The Holy Empire is concerned that, in conjunction with Article Two and the lack of any hard criteria, or independent agency, to declare that a disaster does, indeed, exist, there is reason to believe that the phrase "large scale" is readily open to abuse. Coupled with the lack of any way at all to determine which organizations (should) qualify for the official label of Disaster Relief Agency, and thus fall under this Draft, and there is a real risk for extra-legal activities taking place.

Consider the case where an economic activity plays an important role in a nation, and a future World Assembly Resolution bans that activity. Such an event certainly would qualify as being "an event caused by man ... that causes large scale destruction to livelihoods." This Draft can arguably be used to allow a nation to claim it cannot act against any organization that seeks to assist in the disaster by (illegally) creating that economic activity once again - especially if that DRA arrives from a non-World Assembly nation where Resolutions do not apply.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would enjoy seeing the following taken up for discussion and possible inclusion:

1. That DRAs must operate within the legal system of the nation receiving aid - to at least a certain extent that should be discussed.
2. That a nation has the right to decide which DRAs can and cannot provide aid, and under what conditions.
3. That a nation has the ability to declare a disaster officially over.
4. That the IHAAC be charged with determining objective, scientifically sound, and verifiable criteria for designating organizations to fall under this Draft, and for declaring when a disaster has started and ended.

Submitted for your consideration,
Ms. Aldis Gunnlæif
Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is pleased with this Draft, and is inclined to support the passage of said, should it become a Proposal. However, She has concerns regarding Article Two of the Draft.

2. PROTECTS the independence of the DRAs by preventing member states from interfering with their humanitarian aid operations.

Consider the theoretical disaster relief agency Delivering Euthanasia As Total Humanity (DEATH) who, do to philosophical/religious/cultural grounds, consider it humane to end unnecessary suffering. And consider that the disaster relief provided by DEATH is, well..., death by euthanizing (some) people.

How does Article Two allow a nation to decide not to receive the services provided by DEATH? Or to restrict the aid provided by DEATH to only non-euthanizing activities?

Or (less dramatically) consider cultures where blood transfusions are taboo and outlawed; would not Article Two essentially force a nation receiving humanitarian aid to allow the DRA to give blood transfusions, as any attempts to prevent them would be "interfering with their humanitarian aid operations"?

Also,

The Holy Empire is concerned that, in conjunction with Article Two and the lack of any hard criteria, or independent agency, to declare that a disaster does, indeed, exist, there is reason to believe that the phrase "large scale" is readily open to abuse. Coupled with the lack of any way at all to determine which organizations (should) qualify for the official label of Disaster Relief Agency, and thus fall under this Draft, and there is a real risk for extra-legal activities taking place.

Consider the case where an economic activity plays an important role in a nation, and a future World Assembly Resolution bans that activity. Such an event certainly would qualify as being "an event caused by man ... that causes large scale destruction to livelihoods." This Draft can arguably be used to allow a nation to claim it cannot act against any organization that seeks to assist in the disaster by (illegally) creating that economic activity once again - especially if that DRA arrives from a non-World Assembly nation where Resolutions do not apply.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would enjoy seeing the following taken up for discussion and possible inclusion:

1. That DRAs must operate within the legal system of the nation receiving aid - to at least a certain extent that should be discussed.
2. That a nation has the right to decide which DRAs can and cannot provide aid, and under what conditions.
3. That a nation has the ability to declare a disaster officially over.
4. That the IHAAC be charged with determining objective, scientifically sound, and verifiable criteria for designating organizations to fall under this Draft, and for declaring when a disaster has started and ended.

Section two was originally inspired by the fact that governments of some nations (especially of some military juntas) may interfere with humanitarian aid operations for their own gain and there are lots of examples out there. I agree however that some regulation must take place to prevent something like the group DEATH from operating.

Maybe consider the following adjustments, like:

PROTECTS the independence of DRAs by prohibiting the government of member states from interfering with their humanitarian aid operations for their gain, on condition that DRAs abide by the legal system of member states they are operating in.

PERMITS member states to debar a DRA if their operations are believed to do more harm than good to victims of disasters.

MANDATES that there must be a sound consensus to determine the status of the disaster. Member states can declare a disaster to be officially over but the IHACC must be satisfied with scientifically sound, and verifiable evidence that the disaster is certainly past.

The definition of a disaster may be adjusted:

DEFINES a major disaster as an event that may cause death and destruction to lives and livelihoods: examples include natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

That would mean I would have to mention "major disaster" instead of simply "disaster", which consumes character space.

Do other ambassadors agree on officially defining a DRA for this draft?

Yours,

[Super-Chechnya]

Do other ambassadors agree on officially defining a DRA for this draft?
Yours,

DRA... There will be a need to define a DRA to break the confusion. Also, a missing aircraft with the prospect of no survivors could also be interpreted as a disaster if not defined properly. The honoured delegate may wish to refine the DRA definition to include counselling.

(OOC, in response to the recent air disaster)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Could be a good point, honoured ambassador but care needs to be taken not to go too deep otherwise we would have some problems with covering too much stuff.

Anyhow, I am rethinking about the way the draft is currently written. I have a feeling that if I rewrote the draft in clear English would it make the eventual text of the draft more understandable? Example below:

1. Member states are required to:
a) Have an adequate action plan to prepare for, cope with and recover from disasters;
b) Stockpile adequate supplies of humanitarian aid for distribution to civilians affected by disasters;

2. The independence of the DRAs shall be protected on the condition that they abide by the laws and customs of the country they are operating in. Member states will not interfere with the disaster relief operations of a DRA for their gain, unless it is believed that they are do more harm than good to those affected by disasters.

Yours,

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve would humbly suggest the following changes:

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) Stockpile reasonable and adequate supplies for humanitarian aid distribution to civilians to cover immediate and urgent needs in accordance to the developed action plans

and

2. 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).

The reason for the alterations to Article 1a is that there are a variety of disasters and no plan can accommodate all possible variations. Each disaster requires its own plan. An earthquake hitting a sparsely populated, but ecologically vital area, will need to be dealt with differently than the same earthquake hitting a heavily populated city. And the Holy Empire submits that the need to create an action plan for what to do should a mini-black hole hit a nation is so minuscule that it can be ignored, so that plans for flooding or a pandemic can be made.

The reason for the alterations to Article 1b is to simply recognize that stockpiles cost money. While tents and blankets can be purchased and stored for years, medical supplies must be used within a time period in order to be effective, let alone safe. The stockpiles must be sufficient to absorb the immediate and urgent first priorities until the various distribution systems can be brought up-to-speed to provide continuing, or less immediate needs, such as temporary schools.

The reason for the alterations to Article 2 is to recognize national sovereignty. It cannot be the intention of this Draft that the IHACC gains the authority to push aside the national government of the affected nation(s) - thus the clause "in co-operation with the affected nation(s)" - and to place the DRAs operating firmly under the IHACC. This should also remove the need for the original clause "unless it is believed that they are do more harm than good to those affected by disasters."

[Malikov]

This draft is well thought out, well written, and designed to be unobtrusive to the inner workings of idividual society. I fully support this draft, and if it goes to the WA as a resolution at vote, I will gurantee my vote for it!

Malikov, Jordia

[Studly Penguins]

MANDATES that there must be a sound consensus to determine the status of the disaster. Member states can declare a disaster to be officially over but the IHACC must be satisfied with scientifically sound, and verifiable evidence that the disaster is certainly past.

We like this proposal as written but would like to have this clarified a bit.

Why does a Member nation(s) have to have the IHACC's approval to say a disaster is over? For some countries just letting the DRA/IHACC in for a short time is upsetting to some people/or gov'ts.

We should just be glad that we are able to enter their Nation in the first place, which I agree with but still think its a little intrusive for a Proposal only being "Mild". Theres a lot of thinkgs being mandated or required to be let happen especially access to countries that may not want us there, so shouldnt the strength be Strong or Significant?

I think it should read that member nations have the right to declare when a disaster is over, not a third party. When its declared over then the IHACC/DRA packs up and heads home. No need to stay longer than required.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We see the suggestions from the ambassadors to the Holy Empire to be very sound. This however means that articles 2 and 3 swap places because it appears unwise to mention committee before the declarative clause which established it. What do you think?

While I was at it I have pre-defined a DRA for clarification although this would be subject to fine-tuning as it progresses. Back at the new article 2, I think that letting the IHACC deal with recovery plans may be intrusive, so that is being questioned at the moment (marked in red).

The suggestions proposed by the ambassadors to the Studly Penguins have been understood but it is worth noting that the true category may not be clear until the draft nears completion. If it is social justice still it could possibly be quite strong so you are in this part correct there.

Over to the disaster determination clause: the worry I have is that if the member nations have the right to declare when a disaster is over and not a third party, the IHACC/DRA packs up and heads home does not always imply a resolved ending. You are correct that the IHACC should pack up and go home when the disaster is over but the DRAs may want to stay if the member state is happy for them to.

My suggested alteration to article 6 is:

6. PROVIDES for Member States to declare a disaster officially over.

7. The DRAs may continue their recovery operations in the affected member state under the conditions laid out in section 3.

To say "PROVIDES for Member States to declare a disaster officially over and then the IHACC/DRA packs up and heads home might be a bit harsh because some DRAs like to achieve a good recovery.

Yours,

[Studly Penguins]

We approve whole-heartedly with the changes you made to Article 6 Ms. Harper

[New Illuve]

With regards to the inclusion of recovery efforts, the Holy Empire of New Illuve humbly proposes the following formulation:

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

Recovery efforts will, in most cases, be of such complexity and scope, and will in many cases involve years of activity, that this must needs be done on a national level. Think of repairing or replacing infrastructure, factories, whole neighborhoods, and so on. As this will also touch deeply on the nation in such decisions as to return a harbor to nature, to make decisions that change the economic activities in a location, or to forbid building altogether for safety reasons - to name but a few possible examples - each nation should decide for itself the level of involvement the IHACC may have. And, of course, the IHACC must be able to provide such assistance. It also places the responsibility of the recovery efforts squarely on the shoulders of the affected nation (where it should be), rather than on the World Assembly.

[New Illuve]

The Holy Empire of New Illuve hereby humbly requests clarity as to the meaning of Article Six.

6. PROVIDES for Member States to declare a disaster officially over.

As written, it is not clear as to which "Member States" are being referred to, nor to which disasters the Member States may declare to be officially over (the one within a nation's own borders, or one outside its borders). Furthermore, this Article suggests only World Assembly member nations may declare a disaster officially over, which would mean a non-WA member nation receiving IHACC aid would not be allowed to exercise this option.

Assuming it is the intention of this Article to allow a nation affected to declare the disaster within its borders to be officially over, the Holy Empire would suggest the following:

6. PROVIDES for a nation to declare the disaster within its borders to be officially over.