From the 28th to the 30th of January, during IMUN Venezia there was a debate on the World Food Programme (WFP), which is the food-assistance branch of the United Nations and the world’s largest humanitarian organization addressing hunger and promoting food security. It was immediately moved and most of the delegations (such as United States, Iraq, Peru and Jordan) immediately presented their issues at the very beginning. The main theme was the waste of food in the world, which is therefore a common problem. Countries like Belgium and Denmark are the biggest wasters of food in Europe and it is unfair that for example in Syria, because of the war, food is not enough.

Delegates began to suggest solutions for example: storing food in supermarkets instead of throwing it away immediately and perhaps, seeing that in addition to waste there is also the problem of the starving, according to Indonesia, we could lower prices throughout the world. India, however, immediately disagreed because there would be economic problems for the factories and agriculture that in many countries, just like in Syria, are not invested for better technologies to be used for it.

The morning of the second day, the director of commission, Angelo De Lauro, showed the delegates a guide to write the solutions, suggesting points on which to focus on such as:

  • education
  • social campaign
  • biodiversity
  • sustainability
  • apps to share information
  • sustainability
  • involvement of local governments

From these points countries like Jordan and Indonesia have proposed the help of technological tools to reduce waste and to use campaigns in schools. Saudi Arabia, however, did not think so: not all countries can afford technology and therefore also use applications such. So we could simply spread this reality through the newspapers. But they started thinking about another solution: recycling food and using it as renewable energy as well. In fact, Belgium explains that with the uneaten bread the beer could be created. But there is more: to give this food to those who need it because actually there are people who are starving.

After other various resolutions, they started to do unmoderated debates, creating two alliances : an alliance between the most developed countries (USA…) and an alliance between less developed countries (India, Ethiopia…). The first cooperation focuses more on the consumer, on awareness campaigns, on the other hand, instead, it involves nutrition, as a humanitarian good.

The topic on the crisis concerning climate change, which afflicts agriculture, and the rise in sea level, is then dealt with. The proposed solutions are therefore the use of greenhouse gases and then canalization works on the coasts.

On the last day of IMUN, the alliances showed their working papers as resolutions (1.1 and 1.2) to vote and the initiatives were to:

– create international fund to fight food waste, with renewable energy.

– improve technologies to maintain food longer (of course investing on them).

– use social media for sensitization.

– create an international food bank.

– give food to countries who can’t afford  it

– improve transports

– the creation do school projects

The principal question was of course : “Why should we vote for these resolutions?” So delegates explained good reasons to do so.

Later, during the amendments, a few changes were made and most countries focused on improving only one resolution, the one that passed.

The atmosphere was therefore positive most of the time and almost all the delegates were enthusiastic about their experience, and asking them how the experience was, everyone was very happy to be part of it.

So now what? Is this passed resolution useful for every country? We will see!

Sara Castellano