[Draft] Convention on Food Security

[Imperium Anglorum]

From the Britannica:

Much of the financial burden of providing for the starving Irish peasantry was thrown upon the Irish landowners themselves (through local poor relief) and British absentee landowners. Because the peasantry was unable to pay its rents, however, the landlords soon ran out of funds with which to support them, and the result was that hundreds of thousands of Irish tenant farmers and labourers were evicted during the years of the crisis. Under the terms of the harsh 1834 British Poor Law, enacted in 1838 in Ireland, the “able-bodied” indigent were sent to workhouses rather than being given famine relief per se.

OOC: So, they were treated in the same way that famine victims anywhere else in the UK -- in southern England, for example, if a famine had struck there -- would, under the terms of the Poor Law, have been treated. How is treating the Irish peasantry in the same way that they'd have treated the English peasantry evidence for your claim of "not caring about the colonies"? The upper classes not caring much about the peasantry [on either side of the Irish Sea, yes, but that's a different problem...

OOC: Looking at Sen's democracy thesis, the more locus of power in Southern England would have been framed differently and would have led to popular outrage which then solves the problem by directing resources to solve those issues and, in his terminology, create a more efficient manner to exchange entitlements for necessary resources. The question of 'not caring about the colonies', I think, is a different question for what I'm supporting. If you believe that Britain was not entirely to blame, I agree. There is never one sole cause. But what I'm supporting is that the famine caused by human mismanagement? Yes.

Again from the Britannica:

A good example of an entitlement-based famine without a commensurate shortfall in food production is the Bengal famine of 1943, which happens to be one of the most intensively studied famines. Although food production did fall slightly in 1943 compared with previous years, it was still 13 percent higher than in 1941, when there was no famine. One phenomenon that did distinguish the year 1943 was inflation, a common consequence of war. Yet, amid rising commodity prices, the wages paid to agricultural labourers stagnated. Between 1939 and 1943, food grain prices rose by more than 300 percent, slightly outstripping the rate of inflation, whereas the wages of agricultural labourers rose by only 30 percent. Agricultural labourers, as a class, were badly hit, which resulted in many deaths. Yet, even as rural Bengal was being ravaged by famine, the West Bengal capital city, Calcutta (now Kolkata), was hardly affected. Research has shown that famine-related deaths in Calcutta occurred primarily among migrants who had come from the villages in search of food and alms.

OOC: So the harvest was slightly larger in 1943 than it had been in non-faminous 1943? Okay, but in 1941 -- unlike 1943 -- it was possible to import additional rice from Burma, because the Japanese invasion of the latter country didn't start until December of year... and the rest of the article that you quote seems to suggest that local landowners deserve a share of the blame for the deaths, because they held labourers' wage increases down to a much lower rate than inflation, instead of the British getting blamed for everything.

OOC: Again, this supports a thesis of human mismanagement of resources causing famine. I wouldn't say that Britain was entirely to blame — the New York Times wrote, "Sen found that food production in Bengal had not declined. Rather, food prices had soared while farm wages had sagged, making it hard for rural workers to buy food". But the cause of that price increase can be traced not to a decline in food production, but rather, a human decision: war, continuing exports, etc. The solution to the problem that Sciongrad is talking about is not 'make more food' in general, it is specifically 'stop destroying the food production and distribution network'. The solution to famines is management, not 'wouldn't it be nice if we had more food'?¹

1: It isn't necessarily good either. More food production harms farmer revenues because nearly all raw agricultural products are inelastic goods. During the Great Depression, a food surplus led to farmer incomes declining so dramatically that tens of thousands of farmers were evicted from their homes.

---

OOC: That's not the point. Direct RL quotes like that are for NSG, not GA debates.

OOC: I disagree. The GA is a mixed OOC/IC forum because it would be impossible to determine the effectiveness of certain policies without pointing to real world examples. As long as the RL source is supplementary and not an argument in its own right, I think citing authors, real world events, and even encyclopedias is fine.

OOC: This. I entirely agree with this meta-WA-debate point. Otherwise, it always collapses to 'but my RP says [x] therefore, that clearly that isn't true'

[Sciongrad]

P: We will oppose this proposal if its primary impetus is to avert famine. We will support this proposal if its primary impetus is to increase sustainability and reduce the impact of farming on the environment.

"Frankly, I don't think those two goals are mutually exclusive (and, indeed, I've argued sustainable agriculture methods can help to avert famine), but in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to modify the preambulatory language such that it suggests the latter."

[Imperium Anglorum]

P: We will oppose this proposal if its primary impetus is to avert famine. We will support this proposal if its primary impetus is to increase sustainability and reduce the impact of farming on the environment.

"Frankly, I don't think those two goals are mutually exclusive (and, indeed, I've argued sustainable agriculture methods can help to avert famine), but in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to modify the preambulatory language such that it suggests the latter."

OOC: From a category viewpoint, this reads like a human rights proposal. But, it's an environment proposal.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

*snip*

OOC: And this is why I hoped you didn't use NSG type argumentation, IA. It turns the discussion into an NSG one.

Using RL stuff to base your argument on? Fine. Quoting RL stuff instead of arguing with your own words? NSG tactics.

Could you at least spoiler the quotes from now on? The blocktext thing you use squishes the quotes up on my screen really badly (which lengthens your post unnecessarily). Plus it lets people who only react to IC stuff to ignore the NSG side of the debate.

[Sciongrad]

"Frankly, I don't think those two goals are mutually exclusive (and, indeed, I've argued sustainable agriculture methods can help to avert famine), but in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to modify the preambulatory language such that it suggests the latter."

OOC: From a category viewpoint, this reads like a human rights proposal. But, it's an environment proposal.

OOC: Fair enough. I'll change the preamble.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: From a category viewpoint, this reads like a human rights proposal. But, it's an environment proposal.

OOC: Fair enough. I'll change the preamble.

OOC: And I'll be happy to see such changes.

[Sciongrad]

"The new preamble:"

Reaffirming its commitment to balancing the importance of resource extraction and protecting the environment,

Recognizing that poverty and unsustainable agricultural practices often contribute to environmental degradation like desertification and may lead to regional food scarcity,

Asserting that it is the responsibility of the international community to adopt appropriate measures designed to decrease agriculture input, increase agricultural output, and expand access to safe and nutritious food to all people,

[Imperium Anglorum]

Asserting that it is the responsibility of the international community to adopt appropriate measures designed to decrease agriculture input, increase agricultural output, and expand access to safe and nutritious food to all people,

Should be changed to 'appropriate measures to increase agricultural efficiency and expand...'

[Araraukar]

If you removed all mentions of "food-deficit" from the proposal, it wouldn't suffer and would read less as a humanitarian aid one. Also, out of interest, how can a nation be "low-income"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you removed all mentions of "food-deficit" from the proposal, it wouldn't suffer and would read less as a humanitarian aid one. Also, out of interest, how can a nation be "low-income"?

It's national income is low.

[Araraukar]

It's national income is low.

Compared to what?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's national income is low.

Compared to what?

OOC: I don't know, in the WA. In the UN, I can tell you that it is low compared to liberal Western democracies.

[Sciongrad]

If you removed all mentions of "food-deficit" from the proposal, it wouldn't suffer and would read less as a humanitarian aid one. Also, out of interest, how can a nation be "low-income"?

"Low-income is an important qualifier. And this resolution very much does have a humanitarian dimension, even if its focus is environmental."

[Araraukar]

If you removed all mentions of "food-deficit" from the proposal, it wouldn't suffer and would read less as a humanitarian aid one. Also, out of interest, how can a nation be "low-income"?

"Low-income is an important qualifier. And this resolution very much does have a humanitarian dimension, even if its focus is environmental."

Then drop just food-deficit. Although I still wonder what counts as "low-income nation". (OOC: The wording is used in IC, so I'd like an IC definition. Not necessarily in the proposal text, but as an explanation.)

[Sciongrad]

Asserting that it is the responsibility of the international community to adopt appropriate measures designed to decrease agriculture input, increase agricultural output, and expand access to safe and nutritious food to all people,

Should be changed to 'appropriate measures to increase agricultural efficiency and expand...'

"Good suggestion. I'll make the appropriate changes."

Then drop just food-deficit.

"Why?"

Although I still wonder what counts as "low-income nation".

OOC: I obviously can't give you an actual IC explanation here because there is no basis for comparison in the GA. There's no universally agreed upon standard for basically any economic stats IC, and there's no bloc or group of countries that I can cite like "western liberal democracies" in the real world. "Low-income nation" should be understood intuitively from an IC perspective like it would be if real world ambassadors were using the term.

[Araraukar]

Then drop just food-deficit.

"Why?"

Because your focus is now environmental, not humanitarian. For the environment it's one and same if sapients are starving - actually less sapients tends to be good for the environment in most cases - and if you're serious about your new category, you'll want to be focusing on what's good for the environment, which is the avoidance of erosion etc.

OOC: I obviously can't give you an actual IC explanation here because there is no basis for comparison in the GA.

OOC: So why do you have to use it? "Low-resource" would be more accurate in the IC world.

[Sciongrad]

Because your focus is now environmental, not humanitarian. For the environment it's one and same if sapients are starving - actually less sapients tends to be good for the environment in most cases - and if you're serious about your new category, you'll want to be focusing on what's good for the environment, which is the avoidance of erosion etc.

"I don't buy that argument, sorry. This proposal obviously concerns agriculture in both its rhetoric and its substance, but environmental degradation and food scarcity are interrelated issues. Acknowledging that does not make this proposal a category violation. In the same way a free trade resolution can acknowledge that it affects a particular aspect of human rights, so too can an environmental proposal acknowledge that it affects a particular aspect of social justice. And that particular reference is also not very central to the resolution, either. So I will not be adjusting that section of the resolution."

OOC: So why do you have to use it? "Low-resource" would be more accurate in the IC world.

OOC: Because it is meaningful and would be intuitively understood IC. Low-resource is substantively identical in this particular context to "low income," except it is much more ambiguous.