Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development Holds Two Panel Discussions on the Role of Business in Realising the Right to Development, and on Access to Food and the Right to Development
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development this morning held two panel discussions on the role of business in realising the right to development in the age of mandatory human rights due diligence; and on access to food, food security, inequalities and the right to development.
Introducing the panel on the role of business, Xiaohui Liang, Vice-Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, said the Expert Mechanism hoped to use this thematic discussion to further examine the extent to which mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks currently reflected the right to development as part of the human rights scope and to explore their impacts on business compliance strategies and practices, especially along supply chains which affected less developed countries, and how they might impact the right to development, both positively and negatively.
The panellists were Li Miao, Fieldfisher Europe ESG & Sustainability Practice Group; Walter Schuldt, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Issaka Garba Abdou, Head of Governance and Human Rights Division, African Union Commission; Calvin Queant, Jingshi International Consulting Services Co., Ltd (GGI); Fernanda Hopenhaym, Vice-Chairperson, United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights; and Karin Buhmann, Copenhagen Business School.
In the discussion, speakers said businesses were a vital force, driving economic and social development, and must respect and foster human rights. The adoption of measures to avoid and mitigate risks and the strengthening of mechanisms of care and reparation were key tools to ensure that all rights were respected. There should be a legally binding instrument to cover transnational business activities in the context of human rights. One of the problems in the realisation of the right to development remained the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of businesses, which became a threat to democracy and human rights, seeking to impose their rules in all areas of life and dismantling sovereignty. Due diligence could not replace the obligation to respect human rights.
Speaking in the discussion were China, Mexico, State of Palestine and Pakistan.
Also speaking were Centre Europe-Tiers Monde and APG23.
The Expert Mechanism then held a panel discussion on access to food, food security, inequalities and the right to development. Introducing the panel, Ramona Biholar, Expert Mechanism Expert, said despite some improvements, the goal to end hunger and achieve security remained quite ambitious, as millions still went to bed hungry every night. In 2024, 2.3 billion people experienced moderate to severe food insecurity, increasing from 1.5 billion people in 2015. Behind these numbers were people whose lives, health and opportunities were compromised, showing the scale of the task ahead. This was compounded by the ongoing crises, armed conflict and occupation, and climate-related shocks that were disrupting food supply chains, increasing food prices, with the most severe consequences falling on those already suffering from poverty and marginalisation.
The panellists in this panel were João António Mira Gomes, Permanent Representative of Portugal to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Ana Maria Suarez-Franco, Secretary General, Foodfirst Information and Action Network International; Pradeep Wagle, Officer-in-Charge, Development, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and Usha Natarajan, University of the West Indies.
Speakers in the discussion said guaranteeing appropriate and adequate food was vital for human dignity and the exercise of human rights, and the issue could not be tackled merely from the perspective of availability, as profound asymmetries restricted the ability of developing countries to develop robust food systems. Overcoming hunger required overcoming the inequalities that perpetuated it. Access to affordable, adequate and healthy food was an essential element of human dignity, and States owed it to their people to design policies to this end, with a direct voice from those groups affected. Ending hunger required confronting its structural causes, combining sound science, targeted investment, democratic participation and genuine multilateral solidarity.
Speaking were Venezuela, Brazil, Eritrea, Egypt, Lesotho, Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nepal and Pakistan.
Also speaking was the National Human Rights Institution of Qatar, as well as the following non-governmental organizations: Arab Council for Supporting Trials and Human Rights, Company of the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul, Alliance internationale des objectifs du développement durable, APG23, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, and Humanity First.
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development is a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council established in 2019 under resolution 42/23. It provides the Council with thematic expertise on the right to development in searching for, identifying and sharing best practices with Member States and promotes the implementation of the right to development worldwide.
Summaries of the public meetings of the fourteenth session of the Expert Mechanism can be found here, while webcasts can be found here. The programme of work of the Expert Mechanism’s fourteenth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The next meeting of the Expert Mechanism will be at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 October, when it will discuss a draft thematic study on illicit financial flows and the right to development.
Presentation of the Panel on the Role of Businesses in Realising the Right to Development in the Age of Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence
XIAOHUI LIANG, Vice-Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, introducing the concept and background of the thematic discussion, said the right to development, reaffirmed by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action as an integral part of human rights, fell at the minimum reference for business responsibility. Business played a role in both advancing and potentially hindering human rights, including the right to development. Fifteen years ago, the Human Rights Council endorsed the voluntary guiding principles on business and human rights to streamline business’ responsibility to respect human rights, adopting and mainstreaming the methodology of human rights due diligence. Over the past 15 years, the international community had witnessed a smart mix transition, a paradigm shift in the business and human rights agenda, marked by the thriving monetary human rights due diligence legislation, both at the international level and domestic level, providing a clearer and more accountable pathway for regulating business conduct.
Laws in countries across the world were meant to enforce respect for human rights in both domestic and foreign business by regulating the operation and supply chain relationships. Still, there had been scepticism about the effectiveness of certain legislation. There were three concerns: compliance was uneven, as small- and medium-sized enterprises faced disproportionate costs and legal uncertainty, while better resourced firms were more able to integrate due diligence into established systems. Second, duties may weaken beyond direct suppliers and encourage non-compliance, rather than measurable improvement in labour and human rights. Third, companies might respond to regulatory risks by passing costs upstream, potentially shifting responsibility rather than resolving human rights and labour rights risks. Thus, many argued that stronger legal obligations did not automatically produce better human rights outcomes.
The topic was especially relevant in the context of escalating effects, particularly in the Global South, where most suppliers were domiciled. Businesses should move beyond a “do no harm” approach to embed human rights in their operations and express support for the legally binding instruments on business and human rights. Today, the Expert Mechanism hoped to use this thematic discussion to further examine the extent to which mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks currently reflected the right to development as part of the human rights scope and to explore their impacts on business compliance strategies and practices, especially along supply chains which affected less developed countries, and how they might impact the right to development, both positively and negatively.
Statements by Panellists
LI MIAO, Fieldfisher Europe ESG & Sustainability Practice Group, said current human rights due diligence frameworks did not require companies to
assess the right to development as a standalone right. Instead, elements of the right to development were considered indirectly through assessments of other human rights impacts. These measures were not presented as development obligations, but as requirements to identify, prevent, mitigate and remediate adverse human rights impacts. However, when implemented effectively, they could generate outcomes that were closely aligned with the objectives of the right to development. The current due diligence frameworks should operationalise some important elements of the right to development.
In recent years, two issues had attracted increasing attention. The first concerned the allocation of compliance responsibilities and costs throughout
supply chains, and the question was therefore not only whether due
diligence reduced human rights risks, but also how its costs and responsibilities were shared across supply chains. The second issue related to risk-based screening and gradual supplier disengagement, where the goal was not only to reduce human rights risks, but also to preserve jobs and economic opportunities while enabling smaller, more vulnerable suppliers to pursue continuous improvement. Current human rights due diligence frameworks already thus contributed to the right to development, though largely indirectly.
WALTER SCHULDT, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva, responding to a question on how, given Ecuador’s role in the United Nations process to establish a legally binding instrument on the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, he saw the relationship between the proposed and mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, and how the proposed treaty might contribute to the realisation of the right to development, particularly regarding the role of business in its implementation, said whilst the treaty process emerged from a resolution, dealing with the issue of business and human rights dated back to discussions in the 1970s and 1980s in civil society, and then moved to the international system, with the elaboration and adoption of the guiding principles on business and human rights. Since then, the process of drafting a treaty had been on the two-track system, with the development of a smart matrix of voluntary and binding measures. A level playing field, where all States adopted due diligence measures, was what was sought. Legislative initiatives adopted by governments in this regard were not homogenous and there was a lack of coordination and coherence between States.
Where there was full consensus, it was that due diligence must be accompanied by access to justice and reparations in cases of violence and abuse in the context of business. Measures to promote better preventive measures must go hand in hand with better legal processes ensuring the right to reparation. The human subject must be an active beneficiary of the right to development. Companies must contribute to implementation means to make the right to development effective, avoid acts and omissions that could lead to human rights violations, and stem such situations where this could occur. This was a topic of major importance, and it was hoped that it would help feed into future positions and discussions in the treaty process.
ISSAKA GARBA ABDOU, Head of Governance and Human Rights Division, African Union Commission, in response to a question on how, from an African Union perspective, did due diligence requirements affect supplier countries and communities, and how could regional frameworks help ensure that they advanced the right to development, said from the perspective of the African Union, due diligence requirements should strengthen both the protection of people and the capacity of African economies to generate inclusive and sustainable prosperity. Africa approached this issue from a strong legal and normative foundation. At its core, the message was clear: communities should have a meaningful voice in decisions that affected their future. Human rights due diligence should help give effect to that principle throughout the lifecycle of business operations.
When effectively implemented, due diligence could help prevent exploitation, unsafe working conditions, displacement and environmental harm, as well as strengthen responsible business conduct, improve market access, and support more sustainable investment relationships. At the same time, the challenges must be recognised: for the African Union, due diligence should not become a barrier to participation in regional and global value chains. Due diligence must be an instrument of partnership rather than exclusion, and of capacity building rather than disengagement. When implemented in this spirit, due diligence could become a practical instrument for advancing the right to development.
CALVIN QUEANT, Jingshi International Consulting Services Co., Ltd (GGI), in response to a question on human rights legislation and who benefited therefrom and who paid the cost, and how did business ensure the right to development, said as the influence of transnational enterprises grew, so did the scope of the effect of their decisions. The right to development spoke to this, holding that nations, not external arbiters, defined their development pathways, and all bore the responsibility for this. In purpose, the existing mechanisms ensured that States should not impede the right to development, but it was clear that this was not the case, with development foreclosed upon in specific cases. The guiding principles on business and human rights called for a smart mixture of voluntary and mandatory measures, national and international, but their implementation was fragmented, with gaps and places where it stopped. However, the map was changing.
When looking at the unintended consequences of due diligence frameworks, where it was read as risk avoidance, companies left risky environments, rather than making efforts on the ground. Consequently, at the end of the supply chain, the communities most in need of reliable investment were the first to lose it. The temptation to lighten safeguards in the name of gain was also strong. Due diligence could not become conditionality disguised as responsibility: responsibility should follow, control and benefit home States, not the owner at the end of the chain. Responsible supply chains avoided the reputational cost of labour litigation. Businesses must go beyond “do no harm”, and that began at the beginning of a project, requiring cooperation, sharing the cost of compliance, repairing harm and including local communities. It was necessary to move from principle to practice.
FERNANDA HOPENHAYM, Vice-Chairperson, United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, answering a question on how, given that the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights did not explicitly mention the right to development, did their implementation contribute to its realisation, and how could mandatory human rights due diligence legislation better align with the guiding principles to strengthen business respect for the right to development, said when speaking about the right to development, it was much more than economic growth, but a process through which people and communities could access the right in ways that expanded their opportunities and situations. As a result, business could be a powerful driver of development and powerful ally, but it could also cause human rights violations and harms.
Sustainable development and respect for human rights were not competing objectives, but were mutually reinforcing. Development that undermined human rights could not be sustainable. This was why discussions about the right to development must include a serious conversation about due diligence as a key tool to ensure that businesses felt their responsibility to respect and ensure human rights. Due diligence was thus an ongoing process, with the focus not on the risks to the business but to the risks and impacts on rights holders. Companies should engage with companies, individuals, human rights defenders and others to consider the full value chain and business relationships, and take action when risks to human rights were identified. Businesses could contribute to development that was inclusive and grounded in human rights.
KARIN BUHMANN, Copenhagen Business School, responding to a question on whether human rights legislation acted as a driver for business growth, what were the main challenges, and how the right to development improved due diligence, said law could be a very good tool, but law must be used intelligently, and this was one of the challenges when they encountered mandatory due diligence. The first question to think about was considering that mandatory due diligence was created and proposed in the United Nations framework, and then elaborated in the guiding principles as a management approach for companies to identify and address the harmful impact. It was not easy to translate the idea, the objective of getting companies to understand and think about and reflect on their sustainability impact through the mandatory laws into something that also made them understand what were their impacts, their responsibilities, and their rules, in terms of making intelligent decisions that honoured their responsibility to respect human rights throughout their value chains, and did it in such a way that they did not cause harm in terms of the decisions they took to protect themselves.
Many people tended to understand the minimum baseline set out in the guiding principles on business and human rights with the International Bill of Rights and the International Labour Office Core Labour Rights as the only thing they needed to consider; but it was a minimum baseline. There was a very clear message in the United Nations guiding principles that companies also needed to consider if there were other human rights instruments that were relevant in the context in which they operated. What was needed was to connect the policy objectives and the legal objectives which in reality were very often not very well connected in terms of the legal obligations of companies that did not necessarily connect back to the objectives.
Discussion
Speakers said the right to development was an inalienable human right and a cornerstone for the achievement of all human rights. The international community should place it higher on its agenda. At this important moment, discussing the role of businesses was a vital topic. Businesses were a vital force, driving economic and social development, and they must respect and foster human rights. Economic growth and production must move forward in respect of human rights. It was vital to promote a culture of prevention and business responsibility in harmony and respect. The adoption of measures to avoid and mitigate risks and the strengthening of mechanisms of care and reparation were key tools to ensure that all rights were respected. There should be a legally binding instrument to cover transnational business activities in the context of human rights.
A State must set an example within its own business sector. The link of businesses and human rights could be coordinated in various ways, including collective bargaining, tax incentives, and bridging the digital divide. The eradication of child labour in supply chains and the ability of communities to access redress were also vital. The right to development belonged to people as well as individuals, and included access to resources. Due diligence must cover the right to development and must be enhanced in conflict areas and lands under occupation. Voluntary guidance was not enough: there must be direct obligations on companies, and access to redress for victims. A strong and legally binding treaty putting people before profit was vital.
One of the problems in the realisation of the right to development remained the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of businesses, which became a threat to democracy and human rights, seeking to impose their rules in all areas of life and dismantling sovereignty. Due diligence could not replace the obligation to respect human rights. Businesses must respect human rights values and standards in their value chain. The consequences were starkest where corporate actors provided the tools of oppression. States must reject development projects that sought to suppress the right to development.
Development could not be called a success when communities were still waiting for their rights. Community participation was vital, and due diligence must protect communities from harm done by businesses. The right to development could not be imposed from above, and required a respect for the rights of communities. There was a need for robust normative frameworks ensuring corporate responsibility but also to ensure that due diligence was mandatory and that it ensured the full integration of human rights throughout corporate processes. National legislation would help to avoid violations committed by businesses and ensure redress.
Closing Remarks
LI MIAO, Fieldfisher Europe ESG & Sustainability Practice Group, said due diligence frameworks were more focused on preventing adverse human rights impacts, but broader questions were being asked.
WALTER SCHULDT, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ecuador to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said he agreed with some of the conclusions drawn from the dialogue: due diligence could not be a checklist; all must go above and beyond the principle of non-harm and ensure that due diligence included a focus on persons; and that in risk situations in conflict areas, a strengthened diligence was required.
ISSAKA GARBA ABDOU, Head of Governance and Human Rights Division, African Union Commission, said the African continent provided an important illustration of how it was incorporating human rights into corporate governance, including responsibility, respect for human rights, environmental sustainability, and sound corporate governance.
CALVIN QUEANT, Jingshi International Consulting Services Co., Ltd (GGI), said the right to development and mandatory due diligence were not opposites: the question was not how, but on whose terms. Digital governance showed the path towards making due diligence a mandatory element. Regulation and development were not contradictory.
XIAOHUI LIANG, Vice-Chairperson of the Expert Mechanism, said the legislation on mandatory human rights due diligence was very important, and a necessary complement; however, it should go along with the right to development and the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights so that all could promote the responsibility of enterprises in the area of human rights and also promote development in the world.
Presentation of the Panel on Access to Food, Food Security, Inequalities and the Right to Development
RAMONA BIHOLAR, Expert Mechanism Expert, introducing the panel, said in 1996 at the World Food Summit, it was established that food security, at the individual, national, global and household levels existed when all people at all times had physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs. In 2012, the Rio Plus 20 Conference on Sustainable Development, reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. However, despite some improvements, the goal to end hunger and achieve security remained quite ambitious, as millions still went to bed hungry every night. In 2024, 2.3 billion people experienced moderate to severe food insecurity, increasing from 1.5 billion people in 2015. Behind these numbers were people whose lives, health and opportunities were compromised, showing the scale of the task ahead. This was compounded by the ongoing crises, armed conflict and occupation, and climate-related shocks that were disrupting food supply chains, increasing food prices, with the most severe consequences falling on those already suffering from poverty and marginalisation.
Breaking the cycles of disadvantage required effective measures at the State level. Food resources and the benefits of distribution must be examined further, understanding that this was not a marginal welfare concern but a core concern on the eradication of poverty. Ensuring equal access to food was crucial to people’s ability to contribute, access and participate in the right to development. Realising the right to food required that States parties respect, develop and fulfil the right, ensuring the necessary minimum levels of food, and the right to development deepened this framework. How could the right to development deepen the understanding of the right to food, with deepening inequality, was an important issue, and the session should clarify the normative relationship between the right to food and the right to development.
Statements by the Panellists
JOAO ANTONIO MIRA GOMES, Permanent Representative of Portugal to the United Nations Office at Geneva, responding to a question on Portugal’s experience in guaranteeing the right to food and its impact on the realisation of the right to development, said this was a time to reflect on how the promise of the Declaration on the Right to Development was translated into daily lives. While global hunger may have declined, almost 650 million people still lived in chronic hunger, and the current situation worsened this. The right to food could not be addressed in isolation, but in a framework including building climate resilience and strengthening human dignity. The right to adequate food was an essential part of the right to development. Hunger and poverty reinforced one another, deepening inequalities and limiting abilities to participate in and enjoy the right to development, and the international community must go beyond increasing food production, addressing the structural drivers of food insecurity.
Modern conflicts had global impacts, and the impact of these crises had huge effects. In situations of conflict, protection was essential: the starvation of civilians must never be used as a method of warfare; food systems must be protected and rapid and effective humanitarian access ensured. The international community must ensure resilience. The realisation of economic and social rights and the right to development were mutually reinforcing. Building upon the commitments of the past to realise economic, social and cultural rights, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, and eliminate inequalities aligned with States’ human rights obligations. Considering the root causes of food insecurity, access to food represented a key component of sustainable development. The right to development must be part of all human rights, civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, with States, as duty bearers for individuals, responding to hunger and addressing the conditions perpetuating it.
ANA MARIA SUAREZ-FRANCO, Secretary General, Foodfirst Information and Action Network International, responding to a question on what were the main structural barriers preventing people from claiming and realising their right to adequate food, said it was important to look at the path ahead. The right to food was holistic, going from the seed to the food going to the person, and did not just mean access to food, but also to resources, doing this by ensuring that persons had economic and physical resources, and food was appropriate and safe. The first barrier identified was the lack of equitable access to land, water and territories. Land was no longer a base but an investment for funds, including pension funds, impacting many vulnerable groups, such as women and indigenous groups. The redistribution of land through agrarian, gradual reforms, and food security measures was an option.
The second barrier was the concentration of corporate power, involving impunity for such corporations, in particular those controlling access to seeds, pesticides and fertilisers. These types of inputs had led to indebtedness involving farmers in multiple areas and were a specific example of how the accumulation of business power affected those who were traditionally marginalised. There must be a de-concentration of corporate power, and reforms made on the anti-monopoly level, as well as trade reforms. The third barrier was war, violence and hunger used as a weapon. Today, food was being used as a weapon through blockades and the deliberate constriction of land, causing famines. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food had reminded the international community of how crises caused food insecurity. All of these barriers were structural in nature, and required structural cooperation and international cooperation to overcome them.
PRADEEP WAGLE, Officer-in-Charge, Development, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to a question on what were the obstacles that impeded States' capacity to fulfil their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food, and what were the key lessons on realising the right to food, and where did accountability and international cooperation fall short, said it was important to determine why the crisis continued, why did the problem exist, and why millions had no access to food? The High Commissioner and the Secretary-General had said very clearly that it was not about resources. Inequality and exclusion were not inevitable. These were not developmental challenges.
The systems and policies leaving people behind must be changed. Hunger was not simply about whether food existed - it was about who could afford to buy food, access land, and benefit from public policies, with a voice in decision-making. Continuous inequalities in income left many behind, triggering the question of lack of access to food. It was thus important to tackle discrimination and structural inequalities. Access to food could not be tackled in isolation. Natural disasters and conflicts limited the right to food, and long-term development policies rooted in human rights were vital. The work on a human rights economy called for placing people at the centre, protecting the planet and making choices that were people centred. Too often, commitments to promoting the right to food remained on paper, not being translated into actionable policies. Affected communities had very little say in policies. Accountability required transparent budgets and effective remedies. Food insecurity crossed borders, and responses were frequently pursued through separate, localised initiatives.
USHA NATARAJAN, University of the West Indies, said food security was the reliable availability, access and use of nutritious food. The world produced enough food for everyone, but hunger and malnutrition persisted because food systems were shaped by the insatiable greed and selfishness of the world's richest. The same forces had produced a world of increasing inequalities of power and wealth within States and between States, weakening infrastructure, and growing conflict, all of which exacerbated hunger and malnutrition. Climate change, which intensified each of these pressures, was yet another product of the world's wealthy few, reducing harvests, destabilising food prices and damaging livelihoods. International solidarity was indispensable for stable food systems and for human survival.
When several food producing regions experienced shocks at the same time, global supplies tightened and prices rose, leaving low-income households especially vulnerable. Addressing challenges like these required transforming food systems. Solutions imposed without local participation may deepen inequalities, or may end up replacing diverse food cultures with fragile standardised systems. Wealthy States, consumers and institutions should reduce their food waste and adopt more balanced and less destructive diets. Environmental policies must be designed fairly for a just transition that provided secure livelihoods and affordable choices for the poor. International solidarity gave these efforts the scale and the fairness that they needed. Moreover, multinational companies should be held accountable for the environmental harms that they did and for their abusive labour practices across their food supply chains.
Discussion
Speakers said guaranteeing appropriate and adequate food was vital for human dignity and the exercise of human rights, and the issue could not be tackled merely from the perspective of availability, as profound asymmetries restricted the ability of developing countries to develop robust food systems. It was vital to bolster international cooperation, enabling developing countries to transform their agro-environmental systems and build productive systems in line with national priorities.
The realisation of the right to development did not only require access to food, but also access to the means of production. Overcoming hunger required overcoming the inequalities that perpetuated it. Access to affordable, adequate and healthy food was an essential element of human dignity, and States owed it to their people to design policies to this end, with a direct voice from those groups affected, with consistent and sustainable financing.
Ending hunger required confronting its structural causes. It demanded combining sound science, targeted investment, democratic participation and genuine multilateral solidarity. Hunger was not merely an accident of nature; it was a failure of systems, and the persistence of hunger was an indictment of the profound inequalities that continued to characterise countries and the international system. The emphasis should be on strengthening productive capacity and ending insecurity at the individual and household levels, translating objectives into tangible outcomes. Domestic productive capacities would strengthen agricultural livelihoods and improve the situation exponentially. The right to development could not be meaningfully fulfilled whilst millions failed to access the right to food.
Ensuring the right to food was important for a population to be able to contribute to society, as food security was impacted by various phenomena, including conflicts, climate change, and recurring economic crises. The food crisis the world was currently facing had an impact on development and the capacity to achieve development. Food insecurity must be combatted, and this required international solidarity and real will to tackle it. Implementing and achieving the right to development could not be achieved in the context of food insecurity.
Food security was also linked to poverty, climate vulnerability and the lives of rural communities, who suffered most from these, causing economic hardship and perpetuating the cycle of food insecurity. There must be support for farmers through access to land, technology and climate-resilient agriculture, as well as access to finance. How could countries with limited financial resources apply the right to food in the context of the right to development, a speaker asked?
Poverty and rising inequalities compromised so many rights, including the rights to housing and education, and States must guarantee a consistent access to appropriate and adequate foodstuffs in order to remedy the situation. More inclusive national production, with sovereignty and self-sufficiency over food as key, was one of the ways ahead. The causes of hunger and malnutrition lay in the imposition of artificial barriers to the access of food, and a fairer and more equitable international order was vital. Hunger must not be used as a weapon of war.
Closing Remarks
ANA MARIA SUAREZ-FRANCO, Secretary General, Foodfirst Information and Action Network International, said good practice existed, and the examples presented by many were relevant. The Human Rights Council must connect to the Committee on Food Security, the most important multilateral space to discuss food governance from a holistic approach. Those who were using food as a weapon in conflicts must be made accountable. What the Special Rapporteur on the right to food had said was important: policies must be based on justice.
PRADEEP WAGLE, Officer-in-Charge, Development, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Branch, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the mere recognition of rights in domestic legislation was insufficient; more needed to happen after this. The policy needed to be backed: there needed to be institutional mechanisms and enough funding to realise the right to food. Access to land and land distribution needed to be recognised.
RAMONA BIHOLAR, Expert Mechanism Expert, said it was clear that access to food and food security were situated in the political economy of development: food insecurity was a consequence and driver of insecurity and impacted access to and enjoyment of the right to development. Ensuring access to food must be integral to development and national policies.
__________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
M26.003E