From 28th to 30th January 2019 in Venice the second edition of Italian Model United Nations took place, and there were three committees to deal with: IOM, CSTD and WFP (World Food Programme).
WFP covered a crucial role, since it coped with issues like food waste and starvation and the delegates showed and proved the seriousness of this committee. But before explaining how the delegates “behaved”, it is adequate and necessary to make a little step back and give an introduction about WFP as a whole and its main Goals.
WFP is the leading humanitarian organization and agency of the United Nations which deals with the following complications: starvation, climate change, disaster risks, gender inequality, vulnerability of smallholder market and lack of social protection.
The first phase of the assembly had a promising start since a plethora of delegates took part in the speakers list and explicated their many controversies. The most delightful detail is the variety of delegates that participated, you go from low income countries such as Ethiopia and Chile to high income countries such as the United States of America and Finland. The most alluring point about their expositions is that each country encounters the same matter: excessive food waste. Each delegation, however, in dependence of their income ranking, show different kind of causes, for instance high income governments comes across glitches from a productive and industrial point of view. Another example comes from low income governments where the causes seem sadly pretty normal since their related to civil/religion conflicts and lack of primary resources.
Even though the delegates stressed out the fundamental issue of food waste and loss and lack of access to primary resources, other leading point was not mentioned: gender inequality, at least not as much as deserved.
It was interesting to see the solutions proposed by each official delegation and the potential suitability to each country’s characteristics and it was even more exciting to see a common agreement about the relevant impact of food waste.
The first and primitive solutions were really various, they went mostly for general suggestions, such as global cooperation, more sustainable ecosystem, specific measures against climate change, lack of proper infrastructures and scarce access to primary resources, many production insecurities and even some recalls to moral principles.
You can see that the delegates were really concerned about the issue since they were already taking advantage of the mid-break to establish some alliances by taking into consideration the features in common. In fact, at first there were two factions: the first one composed mostly of American-European countries and the second one made of African-Middle east countries. This is when the delegates encountered the first controversy: they coalitions were trying solve the general problem in different ways, since the High income Alliance was keen on first solving the issue from a national point of view (so to highlight the problems encountered first from their national citizens, then the global concerns), instead of the Low income Alliance which proposed more concern about countries in need.
Curious the fact that, even though the two factions were focusing more on specific matters related to their interests and needs, they were taking action with same tools: the establishment of an international fund organization, the empowerment of educational aids in order to raise awareness among children and youngsters, additional social campaigns to spread the purposes of WFP through social medias and innovative technologies (in particular, anaerobic digestion seemed to be the smartest and practical process to apply).
It was encouraging and inspiring to see each delegate keen on their work to find a solution to a common controversy.
By means of moderated and unmoderated caucuses the various delegations achieved in focusing on three main three complications: how to turn wasted food into renewable energy in order to mitigate the impact of climate change, how to collect the wasted food and eventually distribute it and define the terms of the institutionalization of an International monetary fund.
Both coalitions were working really great, both of them were following the same key points, but it was tough to underline the differences between the two alliances since the tools adopted were equivalent. According to the statements of some delegates, the differences concern mainly the purposes: The American-European Coalition apparently looked for more benefits about costumers and to enhance industries’ supply chain, instead of the African-Middle East Coalition which sought for social benefits.
The Committee had to deal with another controversy, this time with emergency stated by a BBC reporter about a natural disaster: due to climate change, many countries were encountering environmental problems, in particular sea level rises and increases in temperatures, which led to general rotten crops. The delegations cooperated to find a common solution and their proposals were really compelling, since they exposed both short and long term results, such as quick cooperation between neighbouring governments and infrastructural shifts.
Both draft resolutions were compelling and auspicious, since they focused on the main and leading points of the committee and the general issue presented. Both coalitions operated in order to improve and enhance the efficiency of renewable energy and spread the concept throughout as many countries as possible, to cooperate as to mitigate food insecurity in low-income countries, to implement new innovative technologies, to cope with the prompt crisis and facilities to reduce the impact of climate change and to deal also with social injustices in local communities where patriarchal families and authoritarian governments influence gender equality.
When it came to the voting procedure of both draft resolutions, the delegates decided to focus their effort on the first draft resolution, hence passing only the first of the two. However everyone cooperated accordingly to the spirit of the United Nations.
At the ceremony, the final resolution was so compelling and well-built that received almost the whole unanimity of the other committees, CSTD and IOM. You can say that the resolution had an unusual and conspicuous success.