HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES THE RIGHT TO FOOD

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning discussed the right to food.

Introducing the work of the Working Group on the right to food and background papers on the Noma disease and peasants, within the framework of anti-discrimination, Advisory Committee Expert Jean Zeigler said the Working Group was unified in its work, and discussions were ongoing. The rights of peasants were violated seriously and on a permanent basis in many areas of the world. It was ironic that those who were involved in producing food were those who suffered the most from hunger. The price in the world market for food staples had increased by 52 per cent. The absence of agrarian reform was a violation of the right to food per se, but the issue required a considerable amount of work.

In the discussion on the right to food, speakers raised concerns over how closely the working papers adhered to the mandate entrusted to them by resolution 10/12 of the Human Rights Council to conduct a study on discrimination in the context of the right to food; and if the Advisory Committee had failed to respond to this request. It was recalled that under resolution 10/12, the Committee should focus on three elements: discrimination in the context of the right to food; best practice in terms of policy; and strategies to combat discrimination. Speakers commended the Working Group on the reports - they gave a broad social and economic analysis on the right to food, and covered a broad range of issues related to the right to food. Speakers suggested some elements of discrimination to be looked at also included regions around the world that were discriminated against in terms of food consumption and production; discrimination between single crops and farmers associations; the question of discrimination and refugees; and the relationship between food cooperation on the one hand, and the breakdown of food production on the other. The consequences were also an important field to examine, the consequences on health, on the right to employment and livelihood, to proper housing, were all important dimensions that could be covered under the broad mandate that the Committee had received. However, the legal dimension had not been addressed. A speaker underscored that a number of studies had been prepared on the right to food, but no progress had been achieved. This was because the right to food was discriminated against in the realm of human rights.

Advisory Committee Experts speaking in the discussion on the right to food included Halima Embarek Warzazi, José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, Mona Zulficar, Vladimir Kartashkin, Emmanuel Decaux, Shiqiu Chen, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Baba Kura Kaigama, Purificacion V. Quisumbing and Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho.

Representatives of the non-governmental organizations of Centre Europe–Tiers Monde and Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru took the floor during the discussion on the right to food. Also speaking during the discussion was a representative of Brazil.

The Committee is scheduled to meet next at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will begin its discussion on missing persons and time permitting will resume its discussion on draft rules of procedure and methods of work.

Right to Food

JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, introducing the work of the Working Group on the right to food and the working paper on discrimination in the context of the right to food, said the Working Group was unified in its work. Discussions were ongoing. The basis of the work since January was the new resolution 10/12 of the Human Rights Council, which was fortunately very broad, allowing the Working Group to work. The main ideas were a study of discrimination in the context of the right to food, identification of good practices and anti-discrimination policies and practices. The Working Group had prepared recommendations. The numbers: the right to food was one of the human rights that was most violated, and it was Millennium Development Goal number One, the international community having decided that it was urgent to reduce famine. The pyramid of those who died of hunger was growing rapidly - in April 2009, the number of those without adequate access to food was over one billion people, one person in six on the planet. The numbers of those suffering from hunger were growing, and yet the world could feed twelve billion people, twice the actual number on the planet. Every child who died from hunger was a child who had been murdered.

Two papers had been written in preparation for the discussion in the Committee. These covered the rights of peasant farmers, and children affected by Noma disease. The rights of peasants were violated seriously and on a permanent basis in many areas of the world. The idea had been launched of an International Convention on the Rights of Peasants. It was ironic that those who were involved in producing food were those who suffered the most from hunger. The rural population was very high in the poorest countries - the 49 least developed countries were almost entirely agricultural countries, and were over-indebted. In 2008 there was an explosion in the prices of commodities such as rice, corn and wheat, and 63 per cent of the food eaten on the planet was based on these three. The price in the world market for these staples had increased by 52 per cent. There was a problem with production that meant that farmers suffered massively from these prices. The absence of agrarian reform was a violation of the right to food per se, but the issue required a considerable amount of work. If the World Health Organization and the NGO Coalition could be mobilised on Noma disease, then the lives of thousands of children could be saved every year.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Chairperson, said the problem was that they had before them now two studies, one on the Noma disease and the other on the violation of the rights of farmers. However, these two studies did not respond to the request and concerns of the Human Rights Council. What would the Council say when they saw this; that these reports did not respond to their request? What was the Committee doing through these two studies? Did the Committee fail to respond to the Council’s request? If the Committee sent these studies to the Council they would not find any recommendations, programmes of action and strategies as requested.

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Vice Chairperson, said he agreed with what the Chairperson Ms. Warzazi said, the Committee had to look at how to deal with this topic. Mr. Zeigler said important things in his presentation. Disease caused by hunger should be dealt with as a specific campaign. He recalled that last year the Committee wanted to ask the Council to deal with this topic in a much more specific way. That was why last year they flagged a few points, such as the food crisis, subsidies, farmers rights, hunger refugees, etc. They wanted to look more specifically at those topics as they related to the right to food. The Committee did not receive a positive response from the Council for each of those topics, but it was not negative either. They were not told that they should not speak about these topics, nor was it stipulated in resolution 10/12. Resolution 10/12 stipulated that three elements should be dealt with: discrimination in the context of the right to food; a new one – best practice in terms of policy; and strategies to combat discrimination. Mr. Cabello said that the Committee should analyse these elements in the report to identify the direction the work of the Committee should take. One element of discrimination to be looked at included regions around the world that were discriminated against in terms of food consumption and production. Another element had to do with discrimination between single crops and farmers associations, which had become a topic of international debate, because it addressed the strategy being carried out by the market; and asked if this would improve the right to food or would it lead to a complete breakdown in this route? The other element which continued to be of importance was the question of discrimination and refugees, which had two elements related to food in refugee camps – a matter of great importance and which was sensitive now; and, the relationship between food corporations on the one hand, and the breakdown of food production on the other. Another area the Committee needed to come up with a strategy on, in the context of combating discrimination, was the right to land; this was of fundamental importance here.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Working Group had been assigned since the first meeting to the right to food, and the Advisory Committee had finally received a mandate to do a study. This mandate was welcome and a very positive message from the Human Rights Council with regards to the Committee's attempts to give this important subject the precedence it deserved. The mandate had the overall context of discrimination in mind - the broad mandate was in itself positive, giving the Experts the opportunity to assign the priorities that they thought deserved attention by the Human Rights Council and the world at large, in the context of discrimination. This issue could be looked at in various ways; from a regional perspective, showing that some regions were discriminated against in the context of the right to food due to underlying causes and/or problems. With respect to freedom from hunger, some parts of Africa were suffering greatly, and had greater discriminatory practices when compared to other regions. There could also be a sectoral perspective, looking at discrimination against rural populations. There were also a lot of issues to tackle with regards to rural women, who suffered from several forms of discrimination, as did minorities and indigenous peoples. The consequences were also an important field to examine, the consequences on health, on the right to employment and livelihood, to proper housing, these were all important dimensions that could be covered under the broad mandate that the Committee had received.

VLADIMIR KARTASHKIN, Advisory Committee Expert, said he looked at the two working documents with great pleasure. They gave a broad social and economic analysis on the right to food, and covered a broad range of issues related to the right to food. The papers covered the right to food, the food crisis, agricultural subsidies, and the rights of farmers, among other things. The papers referred to the definition of the right to food and provided a sweeping picture of the right to food. The problems and difficult situations in which people found themselves had also been highlighted in the reports. The recommendations of the Human Rights Council should always be kept in mind and followed closely. The Council requested the Committee to come up with anti-discrimination strategies as related to the right to food. Mr. Zeigler prepared a very good document, giving background information on the topic. The legal issues, however, had not been addressed. Mr. Kartashkin asked what were the legal implications, best practices and legislation of countries in this context? He believed that the Committee could beef-up this study and perhaps reduce the size of the documents by deleting the general comments relating to the food crisis; nobody denied that these were important issues, but the Committee should follow the requests given to it and closely look at the legal aspects of the right to food. Furthermore, he stressed that there was time to come up with a legal document, focusing on discrimination, discriminatory legislation, and positive examples of countries that did not have discriminatory practices, which was the only way to respond to the requests of the Council.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said this was a crucial and very basic problem - the food crisis had only increased and doubled in force and strength following the financial crisis, with an impact on millions. The Advisory Committee should distribute resolution 10/12 to all members. The Committee was at the beginning of its work, and these were the first steps. When the Committee had made urgent suggestions to the Human Rights Council, then it had not wished to debate them, and this had paralysed the Committee's work. It should be careful to not pre-empt the Council, and consider the value added of its work. The Human Rights Council had its own priorities - there was a new Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and it had decided in its sovereignty on the methods it wished to follow. The Committee had an excellent Working Group. For the next session in January, the Working Group should meet, holding an informal seminar or an interactive exchange session to identify priorities. The Committee was not starting from scratch - it had all the work on discrimination and non-discrimination done by the Sub-Commission. There was a rigorous set of documents dealing with the various legal aspects of discrimination, including two-fold or double discrimination and discrimination against women, including rural women. There was also cultural discrimination, with all aspects of culturally-acceptable food. There was also the overlap between the right to food and the right to health.

SHIQIU CHEN, Advisory Committee Expert, asked what was the task before the Committee, what was their mandate? Resolution 10/12 of the Human Rights Council requested the Advisory Committee to study discrimination and not a general study of the right to food. The Committee’s recommendations submitted to the Human Rights Council at its last session had not been entirely accepted; the Council made changes and amendments to those recommendations. According the Council’s instructions a new report should be submitted at the thirteenth session of the Human Rights Council. Given that, he said the Committee could not conduct a substantive study by then. The Advisory Committee had to clarify what it was to do, how to proceed and when their task could be completed. His suggestion was to establish a Working Group immediately to study the question before them. They already had a Working Group which was composed of professors appointed at the last meeting of the Committee, and suggested that they continue with their task, so that they could submit a preliminary report to the Committee’s next meeting. The time constraints could be brought to the attention of the Council. There were a lot of topics to be covered in accordance with discrimination in the context of the right to food. The right to food was not on par with other human rights; when talking about human rights, the right to food had rarely been addressed. A number of studies had been prepared on the right to food, but no progress had been achieved. This was because the right to food was discriminated against in the realm of human rights, underscored Mr. Chen.

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Expert, said the paper was a good paper, and could be divided into three parts, including a very good study on discrimination. On agrarian reform, suggestions were being made about strategies and good practices. Perhaps the Working Group was a little bit pessimistic, to the extent where they noted that the mentioned types of agrarian reform did not work out. The right to property should also be examined, as different laws defending this right could be an obstacle to agrarian reform. Most laws and constitutions said there could not be compulsory acquisition of land without fair and adequate compensation - and the issue of where to get the funding for this was a serious problem. If smaller peasants were encouraged to group themselves, they would be in a better position to defend their interests. The paper did contain several interesting aspects which could be expanded on in a further paper. Many countries already had food practices in place, trying to ensure food security and encouraging farmers with subsidies. Climatic conditions did not allow the cultivation of all types of primary crops in countries, but where it could be done then the Governments and international organizations could provide incentives and scientific know-how for small farmers to produce such goods. The policies of the World Trade Organization could be seen as discouraging food security and production of food, and the Working Group could look at the issue of patents and copyrights in the production of food and the ownership of scientific agricultural data developed by developing countries and then appropriated by richer countries.

BABA KURA KAIGAMA, Advisory Committee Expert, said he wanted to know more about the recommendations being transmitted to the Human Rights Council. He said that Lake Chad was shrinking which was of great concern, especially for the livelihoods of the farmers in the region, which included farmers in Cameroon, Congo, Chad and Nigeria. This was the result of mainly climate change factors. He requested the Working Group to look at this problem and give a further analysis of how this impacted farmers in the region in the context of discrimination and the right to food.

PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, said a number of very good comments had been heard, and the problem was the mandate that lay before the Advisory Committee and how best to address and comply with it. As a Professor, she saw the problem as having a clear concept of what the Committee wanted to do. Ms. Zulficar had noted that the mandate was broad, but the Committee could and should narrow it down, hence the necessity of clarifying what the Committee thought it saw as important within the time-frame and within the parameters of the mandate as it understood them. Given these two excellent background papers, the Committee could look at the usual questions in preparing a research paper which was to clarify what was a researchable question. If the Committee was just to take a decision on parameters, obviously discrimination was the key, the operational word in the mandate. Discrimination here was both legal and actual, or de jure versus de facto, and there were legal elements under international humanitarian law and national law. The Working Group needed lawyers, and it had them in Mr. Ziegler and Ms. Zulficar. Discrimination should be looked at from legal and actual parameters. Was Mr. Ziegler saying that there was enough food supply and the problem was distribution or accessibility of supply, Ms. Quisumbing asked. Some economists said there was enough food but there was discrimination in distribution, and this was exacerbated by the fact that the means of production were also unequally distributed. The Committee had to move forward, and had enough materials to give to the Working Group.

BERNARDS ANDREWS NYAMWAYA MUDHO, Advisory Committee Expert, said best practices and strategies should be addressed. It was important to have a concept paper, and there was no need for a new Working Group. Given the time element, they could do no more than encourage the Working Group to deliver with speed, so that at their next meeting they had a document that could be moved forward. He commended the Working Group for completing very good work thus far.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said they were proposing to the Advisory Committee a draft resolution for the Committee’s approval, because it was an organizational matter which concluded what they had been assigned under resolution 10/12 of the Human Rights Council to prepare a programme of work and time plan to achieve that work and recommendations. The Working Group would present this to the Committee at its next meeting in January.

MALIK OZDEN, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, said the right to food was a fundamental right. Several documents had been discussed. With regards to farmers and their fundamental rights, as clearly demonstrated in the working paper, farmers had always been and continued to be the primary victims of the violation of the right to food, chased away from their lands and their claims ignored. Thousands were killed each year defending their right to land, water, seeds, and means of production. For decades, these crimes had been committed in the name of neo-liberal policies for the benefit of international organizations. Via Campesina had been created to defend the rights and liberties of millions of farmers, with and without land, and to defend them from criminal liberalisation of the food market as promoted by the World Trade Organization. Via Camepesina thought the current system of defence of human rights was insufficient to defend farmers, who were expelled from their lands, killed, and deprived of seeds through patents. Via Campesina had adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Farmers, using as a model the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Advisory Committee should endorse the Declaration, and recommend it to the Human Rights Council for adoption. The mandate of the Council included the rights of farmers, and their situation was grave.

ERNESTO JOAO (Brazil) said Brazil had participated in all discussions on the right to food in international fora as this was a core issue for the Government of Brazil. He reserved his comments on the mandate to be taken in the regular session of the Human Rights Council. With regard to the papers presented, from the perspective of direct references to Brazil, he said, the data provided did not properly reflect the reality in Brazil today. If the issue was based on accessing data on the agrarian reality in the country, he was happy to assist in that regard. Concerning agrarian reform, Brazil was striving towards this and it was a core issue for Brazil. Between 1994 and 2008 agrarian reforms jumped from 16,000,000 to 81,000,000 hectares. This corresponded to half of Bolivia, and was 16 times the size of the Swiss territories. There were still challenges in this regard, but they were striving to address those challenges. Thirty-five per cent of Brazil’s food production came from small farmers. They were addressing the right to food and the right of peasants in a realistic and pragmatic way. It was possible to have legal ways of supporting farmers and agriculture, without having to support them with illegal agricultural subsidies. Brazil wanted fair trade and to do away with illegal subsidies. This should be reflected by the Committee in its work.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru, said the Indian Movement Tupaj Amaru fully and firmly supported the report of Mr. Ziegler, which presented a full and substantive discussion of the right to food. The right to food was not a racial matter, nor a question of racism as Mr. Bengoa had said, nor was it a question of creating more legislation as Mr. Kartashkin had said - there were already a great number of laws, resolutions and instruments on this right, and no solution could be found in the laws. With respect to what Professor Decaux had said, that the Committee should carry out its analysis according to the instructions of the Council, then where was the independence and impartiality of the Experts? At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the right to food and neighbouring rights were subject to the whims of the market economy. The Advisory Committee should focus on the right to food in the context of the current financial crisis and food crisis that were striking harshly and violently at those living in conditions of vulnerability in a way that violated human dignity. The Advisory Committee should pay attention to thematic studies - the need to develop a code of conduct for transnational companies and a basic reform of the international financial institutions was required, putting an end to crime in the financial markets.

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, said there was no doubt that this was a complex debate. The topic was very broad and complex, and for that very reason there were not many speakers. He suggested that the Committee meet this afternoon or tomorrow and try and draw up a more specific agenda – create a general framework to organize the work. The work was complex because of the broad mandate given to them by the Human Rights Council.


MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Working Group agreed with this strategy, and was going to meet this afternoon and work on the structure of the study. The Group had to know which were the elements and sections of discrimination which they had to focus on in a logical conceptual framework. The Group would work on that basis. Having a broad mandate could be something very positive, as the Group therefore had the choice of what to consider first.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, said there were interesting and useful statements that came from Experts, Governments, and non-governmental organizations. He said they had to think about the August to January period, because in January they would have to submit the paper. The Working Group would meet today and tomorrow to complete their work. With regard to the Working Group strategies and framework in this regard, they had to have the support of the Committee now. The Committee had to give the Working Group a green light with respect to the strategic work plan. Further, he stressed that Mr. Cabello’s working paper had to be distributed to Experts as immediately as possible in order to do this.


For use of the information media; not an official record


AC09016E