Official responses to the world food crisis in light of the
human right to food
Wenche
Barth Eide and Uwe Kracht
(February 11, 2009) Soaring world food prices, the increasing competition of
biofuel production with food production1, and the growing awareness of the
impacts of climate change have put the world food problem
squarely back on the global development agenda. This is
therefore a rare opportunity to mobilize human rights, and
the right to adequate food in particular, as the guiding
framework for policies and action. Nonetheless political
leadership all over the world is still locked in patterns of
action that have led to persistent and growing world hunger,
with too much emphasis on technological fixes, on
“breadbasket” areas to feed the poor, and treating food as a
commodity little different from other traded commodities.
Advancing the right to food
Over the past ten years, progress has been made in
advancing the right to food.
Several governments and elements of civil society
now see the realization of human rights, including the right
to adequate food, as means to economic, social and human
development.
We also have several practical tools with which to
address the right to food, including:
-
General Comment No. 12 on the right to food,
a UN-based expert assessment from 1999 which defines
the content of this right
- The 2004
Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food developed
by governments themselves in support of those that wish
to address food and nutrition security from a human
rights perspective.
- Various initiatives for monitoring the
realization of the right to food, such as those
undertaken by
FIAN 2and the FAO
publication Methods for Monitoring the Right to
Food,
Volume I and
Volume II.
- A significant expansion of information on the
right to food, especially that published by
FIAN
and
FAO
These are
promising beginnings giving rise to the hope that future
work with food and nutrition policies and programs will
increasingly adopt a human rights based approach and
consistently apply human rights principles when designing
analyses and practical activities.
Initiatives to address the global food
crisis considered from the right to food perspective
But the
challenges ahead are many. What are the prospects of a
breakthrough for the right to food movement? Even
though there are both better tools and a broader interest in
the right to food than ten years ago, it is not clear if
there will be greater adoption of the right to food or more
of the same failing policies. Most developments in
2008 do not illustrate a change in direction.
UN High Level Task Force
on the Global Food Crisis
Probably the
most visible manifestation of the global concern triggered
by the soaring food prices was the establishment, by the
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on April 28
2008, of a
UN Task Force on the Global
Security Crisis. The primary aim
of the UN Task Force is “to promote a unified response to
the global food price challenge, including by facilitating
the creation of a prioritized plan of action and
coordinating its implementation”. The Task Force prepared a
Comprehensive
Framework for Action intended for discussion at the subsequent High Level Conference in Rome
in June on “ World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate
Change and Bioenergy” .
Special
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council
The UN Human Rights Council held a
one day
special session in May 2008 to discuss the
food crisis from a human rights perspective and direct
recommendations to the June conference on world food
security. (See
statement by the UN
Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food, Olivier De Schutter). Although this
initiative by the Council turned out to have little impact
on the final results of the June conference, it was
important in its own right in that it placed food centrally
on the Council’s agenda. De Schutter was asked to prepare a
new report for the Council's meeting in September.
The report,
Building Resilience: a Human Rights Framework for Food
and Nutrition Security recommends a range of
national and international measures to redress the
negative effects of the food crisis on the enjoyment of
the right to food. “Solutions to the food crisis will
only be sustainable if our strategies are grounded on
human rights,” De Schutter said, and urged all actors to
take human rights into account in their efforts to
tackle the impact of the increase in food prices. Then
in the end of October he presented his annual report to
the UN General Assembly where the same messages were
brought forward.
The High
Level Conference on World Food Security
It is a fact
that, in spite of the early initiative to get a Special
Session of the Human Rights Council to discuss the issue
and send signals on the importance of using right to
food principles and guidelines, the June
2008 Conference on World Food Security adopted a
Declaration on World Food Security that leaves little
room for enthusiasm concerning the treatment of the
right to food. One hazy sentence was squeezed into its
introductory paragraph
“We
reiterate that food should not be used as an instrument
for political and economic pressure. We also recall the
Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive
Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context
of National Food Security. We reiterate that it is
unacceptable that 862 million people are still
undernourished in the world today”
without any further return to a
rights-based approach.
Indeed the delegates might be accused of
having forgotten their countries’ historical endorsement of
the 2004 Guidelines as an operational tool developed by
themselves in an intergovernmental working group, and
subsequently its final adoption through the FAO Council. An
equally likely reason would be that some few of them were
simply unwilling to accept a more substantive place for the
right to food in the Conference Declaration. One may
therefore initially sense a backlash for the right to food
advocates.
Alliance for a Green Revolution in
Africa
The Rome Conference also endorsed the creation of a new “Alliance
for a Green Revolution in Africa” – AGRA - between the
three Rome-based food agencies FAO, IFAD and WFP. Attention
was focused almost exclusively on boosting food production
in potentially productive areas to increase food supplies, a
disappointment to those who hoped for a stronger emphasis on
access to food. A common feature of the announced
programs for both AGRA and the UN Task Force is the absence
of any reference at all to a rights-based approach to food
and food security. This was unexpected, as AGRA will be chaired by former UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan, a devoted human
rights advocate. It remains to be seen whether Annan will seize the opportunity to help operationalize
his earlier global visions on human rights in the context of
food security and agriculture.
International Assessment of
Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for
Development
Short of an explicit rights-based approach, it is indeed
also possible to work for changes in agricultural and food
policies in the interest of the poor and thus in the spirit
of human rights principles, without necessarily labeling
them as human rights based. This has been the approach of
another UN-based initiative, the
International Assessment of
Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for
Development (IAASTD). Originating with FAO and the World
Bank in 2002 at the “World Summit on Sustainable
Development” (WSSD), a global consultative process was set
in motion for an assessment of the role of agricultural
science and technology in the context of hunger, poverty,
the environment and equity. The initiative was carried
forward by a multi-stakeholder group of UN organizations,
representatives of governments, civil society, private
sector and scientific institutions from around the world.
The final
report by over 400 scientists from all over the world was
considered in Johannesburg in April 2008 by representatives
of 64 governments, all UN agencies including the World Bank
and around 50 NGOs.
The assessment’s main message is that:
-
modern agriculture has brought significant increases in
food production. But the benefits have been spread unevenly
and have come at an increasingly intolerable price, paid by
small-scale farmers, workers, rural communities and the
environment
While the report was strongly welcomed by NGOs for its calls
for immediate radical changes in international agriculture,
not all governments were on the same wavelength, notably the
USA, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. After these
had first watered down several key findings, the US in
particular claimed that the report was ‘unbalanced’.
While
it may seem a paradox that it was the same agencies and
governments who selected the authors of the report and
decided on its preparation in the first place, resistance to
the concluding proposals can be found also elsewhere. A few
months before the launch of the report, major private sector
stakeholders, notably Monsanto and Syngenta, resigned
altogether from the IAASTD project in October 2007 as the
conclusions were clearly going against their interests. It
does not need too much imagination that they also may have
found ways of silencing other stakeholders especially those
of the UN family: all in financial shortages and therefore
continually vulnerable to the interplay between important
member contributors and larger corporations whose continued
profit depends on processes that contribute to make the poor
poorer and the rich richer.
This can perhaps explain why none of the documents emerging
from the subsequent events referred to above--starting with the
UN Task Force communiqué through the Declaration from Rome
and the AGRA program--have the slightest reference to the IAASTD report!
The Task Force communiqué even pledges
various new assessments including “of the diverse impact of
the crisis”. But such impacts were not happening for
the first time. The IAASTD had by that time already documented the continuing
and systemic marginalization of the poor and the reasons for
it, traceable to failed agricultural policies which will not
be reversed by emergency food assistance or by new
assessments. Thus it appears as if the more than 2000 pages
of scientific evidence in the IAASTD report about failures
in global agricultural development had been dismissed before
it had even reached the desks of policymakers!
The July 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido –
a disillusion?
On June 27 Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated, in a speech
in New York in advance of the meeting of the “Group of
Eight” in Hokkaido in Japan in early July, that these have
“a moral obligation to support the UN’s efforts to address
the food crisis, in the short-, medium-, and long-term”,
also because they had “a self-interested motivation in that
high food prices may drive more than 100 million more people
into poverty. If the crisis is not brought under control, it
risks unleashing large population movements, instability and
inflation throughout the world” .
The G8 leaders issued five
statements from their summit, one
of which was on
Global Food Security. Void of any deeper
analysis, it speaks in support of the UN Task Force, the
Declaration from Rome, and AGRA, and makes certain financial
commitments along well-trodden paths. But it also announces,
with total disregard for the work of IAASTD, the formation
of a global partnership on agriculture and food “involving
all relevant actors, including developing country
governments, the private sector, civil society, donors, and
international institutions”. Declaring that the UN should
facilitate and provide coordination, it stipulates that “a
global network of high-level experts on food and agriculture
would provide science-based analysis, and highlight needs
and future risks.” Thus precisely what IAASTD was mandated
to do - and did!
Call for urgent action
It must be
acknowledged that in the current food and hunger crisis,
right to food principles have up till now played a rather
limited role. But three important developments came to
fruition on the Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008,
the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR.
On the
invitation of the Federal Government of Germany, the
VII Conference on Policies Against Hunger, which focused
on the Right to Food, ended in Berlin. Hosted by the Federal
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, the
conference was attended by a large audience of
decision-makers and interested stakeholders in national and
international civil society, members of political
decision-making bodies (parliamentary committees, ministries
in Germany and abroad), scientists and experts from the
fields of human rights, food security, rural
development/natural resources, representatives of national
and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from
the fields of world food affairs and human rights and
representatives of international organizations (FAO, other
UN organizations). They adopted forceful recommendations to
all stakeholders concerned with the global food security
crisis, that they should in the future work under the
overarching principle of the promotion of the realization of
the Right to Adequate Food, as further specified.
Also launched on that day was “The Cordoba Declaration on
the Right to Food and the Governance of the Global Food and
Agricultural Systems”, developed through the so-called
“Cordoba process” which started at an international seminar
on the right to food at CEHAP - Chair of Studies on Hunger
and Poverty (a collaborative initiative between the
University of Cordoba and the Diputacion de Cordoba) in
Cordoba, Spain in October 2007. It was further pursued at
the FAO Right to Food Forum in October 2008, and completed
in its present version following a second meeting convened
in Cordoba in late November 28-29, 2008. It will be subject
of further consultations and possible revisions during 2009,
and may mean a renewed mobilization of civil society and
academics all over the world who will all have a critical
role to play in using the opportunity currently available:
not only to further pursue the right to food, but also to do
so in a climate of some collective despair – where many
people are looking for a new direction as they have begun to
realize that business cannot continue as usual.
Last, but not least, Human Rights Day on 10th December 2008
was the day when economic, social and cultural rights – thus
also the right to adequate food - finally got their official
global stamp as legal entitlements rather than charity. The
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights was officially adopted by the
General Assembly plenary with consensus. In a joint
communiqué all the thirty-six UN Special Rapporteurs and
Independent Experts on various human rights issues
stated: "This marks an essential step towards the
establishment of a long-awaited mechanism that reinforces
the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and
interrelatedness of all human rights, and the guarantee of
dignity and justice for all”, and called on all States to
sign and ratify the instrument swiftly so as to secure a
speedy entry into force and wide application. "Allowing
individuals and groups of individuals to submit complaints
on alleged violations to the UN Committee on Economic Social
and Cultural Rights represents a promising tool for all
victims of violations of these rights to speak out and be
heard," underlined the group.
This implies a new inspiration for civil society to assist
vulnerable groups to do just that--speak out and be heard on
human rights violations including the right to food.
Wenche Barth Eide is an Associate Professor of
the Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo. Uwe
Kracht is an independent development consultant, focusing on
food, nutrition and the elimination of poverty. For the past
two decades, he has played an increasingly active role in
international and national efforts to pursue these issues
within a framework determined by ethical and human rights
principles, in particular contributing to advancing the
conceptual framework and implementation of the right to
food.
References
1. Donald Mitchell. June 2008 "A
note on rising food prices." World Bank
2. See
FIAN, its
document page
and
case
page, and for an up-to-date summary (in 2008) of nine
country situations see
Nutrition Watch 2008, pp 40-75.