HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSES RIGHT TO FOOD
AND HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Human Rights Council Advisory Committee this morning took up the issues of the right to food and human rights education and training, both of which come under item three of its agenda, namely requests to the Advisory Committee by the Human Rights Council.

Jean Ziegler, Committee Expert, Chairperson of the Drafting Group on the right to food, presenting the preliminary study on the right to food, said that it gave rise to questions at two levels, with two key issues, which were at the core of the report. The first issue was on the right of peasants and farmers, and the theft and grabbing of land in the Southern hemisphere, which was reaching extraordinary proportions. The second issue was that peasant rights could contravene international obligations under the World Trade Organization.

José Antonio Bengoa Cabello, a Committee Expert and member of the Drafting Group, said that accusations had been made that certain ideologies had tainted the preliminary report. To say that food sovereignty was an ideological issue was absurd and there was no need for delegations like Canada to be so aggressive in their tone. In terms of the language in the study, it was suggested that the word peasant was not appropriate. Although Mr. Bengoa Cabello was surprised at this comment, the wording had been changed to people working in rural areas.

Mona Zulficar, also a Committee Expert and member of the Drafting Group, was pleased to receive resolution 13/4 from the Human Rights Council, as it now had a mandate that had two specific sections: to continue to work on discrimination in the context of the right to food; and a new mandate that was related to the first, namely to prepare a preliminary study on ways and means to further advance the rights of people living in rural areas. A near final draft of this study would be available soon and should be more comprehensive and would take into account the recommendations and responses received.

Chinsung Chung, also a Committee Expert and member of the Drafting Group, said she believed that the study was very balanced and dealt not only with peasants from rural areas but also the urban poor. She reminded the Advisory Committee that the issue of the right to food also affected rich countries and not just the world’s poorest nations. Because the study was limited in length, the Drafting Group was not able to fully address the issue of hunger refugees, which remained a very important concept. Persons who needed to flee their homes for lack of food should be treated as refugees.

In the context of the discussion on the right to food, speakers said, among other things, that the issue of the right to food also affected rich countries and not just the world’s poorest nations. There was also a need to focus on vulnerable groups like the elderly or disabled. The Human Rights Council had insisted on the need for contribution by all stakeholders and, as such, there was a need for more of that. Another important point that was raised concerned the situation of indigenous peoples, in cases where land was sold or grabbed. On this issue there was a fragmentation of international law, as well as a problem of consistency.

Speakers noted that both the preliminary study and annexed declaration made an effort to address some of the structural obstacles to food sovereignty or towards ensuring the human right to food. However, it was suggested that further elaboration be given to the obstacles to food sovereignty, which could guide the Human Rights Council in addressing this problem. It was also stated that the full realization to the right to food depended also on the economic and social conditions within countries.

Toward the end of the meeting, Committee Expert Emmanuel Decaux gave a general update on the draft declaration on human rights education and training. The request for a draft came about from resolution 13/15 of the Human Rights Council, which had been adopted by consensus. It gave the provisions to set up an intergovernmental Working Group to further explore this important issue and to draft a declaration. What was particularly commendable was the involvement of both States and civil society organizations in the drafting of this declaration.

Speaking this morning were Jean Ziegler, José Antonia Bengoa Cabello, Mona Zulficar, Chung Chinsung, Emmanuel Decaux, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, Shiqiu Chen and Purificacion V. Quisumbing.

Also speaking were Belgium, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Argentina and Morocco. The Food and Agricultural Organization and North-South XXI also addressed the Committee.


The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be this afternoon at 3 p.m., when the Committee will resume discussions on the issue of the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members as well as the issue of human rights education and training.


Document

The preliminary study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on discrimination in the context of the right to food (A/HRC/13/32) says the right to food is a human right that protects the right of all human beings to live in dignity, free from hunger. Under international law, Governments are bound to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food. The study on discrimination in the context of the right to food has three main parts. The first part presents examples of discrimination in the context of the right to food, including discrimination in terms of legislation, inequalities between regions and discrimination against the most marginalized and vulnerable groups. The second part focuses on anti-discriminatory policies and strategies, which are or could be pursued in order to address discrimination. The last part addresses good practices that are currently being implemented by States and other actors to address discrimination and inequalities. The report concludes that existing inequalities between the world’s regions and the vulnerability of the poorest members of developing countries are deepening as a result of three concomitant crises: the food crisis, the economic crisis and the environmental crisis, and identifies a number of good practices, as well as anti-discriminatory policies and strategies in the context of the right to food.

Discussion on the Right to Food

JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, said with regard to the right to food, when the Committee was put together, the two first Chairs were very concerned about the relative isolation of the meetings, and they had struggled to ensure that the outside audience increased, and they were successful. The amount of support from non-governmental organizations and non-State actors had been tremendous. The report took place at three levels, and gave rise to questions at two levels, with two key issues, which were at the core of the report. The first issue was on the right of peasants and farmers, and the theft and grabbing of land in the Southern hemisphere, which was reaching extraordinary proportions, and millions of farmers, particularly in Africa, were victims of this phenomenon, which was a clear violation of their fundamental rights, and one of the reasons why their rights must be formalised through a convention. What was particularly outrageous in this context was the attitude of the World Bank, which was supporting these grabs. There was, for example, a transnational company that had bought 28,000 hectares of land in Sierra Leone to grow sugar cane, then to be transformed into bioethanol. Nine thousand peasant families used to live on these lands, namely several thousand people who were now being chased from their lands, and would swell the ranks of the slums in the capital. There were similar situations in Mali, Madagascar, and other countries, with the financing of the World Bank. This daily crime had to be brought to an end, Mr. Ziegler said. The Committee must fight against this attitude, and say what could be done to increase the profitability of land held by African peasants.

The second issue was that peasants’ rights could contravene international obligations under the World Trade Organization. The European Union and the United States worked in the Human Rights Council, and participated in the development of international humanitarian and human rights law within the Council, and these self-same States took decisions at the World Trade Organization which were contradictory to the human rights which they defended in other fora. There was a need for cohesion and consistency in the policies of the major players in the international community. Through its goods dumping, the European Union was destroying African economies and farmers.
Last year, countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development had paid $ 349 billion to their peasant farmers to subsidise production and export. This agricultural dumping destroyed African agriculture, as African farmers could not possibly compete with European products. The decision to abolish subventions to export during the WTO Doha meeting of 2005 had been sabotaged, and this was regrettable

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Expert, said that the Drafting Group was invited to participate in the World Human Rights Forum in Nantes. One of the most common issues addressed during this Forum was the right to food and the rights of the rural peasants. Accusations had been made that certain ideologies had tainted the Drafting Group’s report. Canada, for example, said that they were disappointed and dissatisfied with the study, as it was too “ideological”. To say that food sovereignty was an ideological issue was absurd and there was no need for delegations like Canada to be so aggressive in their tone. In terms of the language in the study, it was suggested that the word peasant was not appropriate. Although Mr. Bengoa Cabello was surprised at this comment, the wording had been changed to people working in rural areas. However, he did not agree with this particular terminology and said that it was too vague. He himself lived in a rural area, about 60km from Santiago de Chile, and worked from home. He concluded by saying that if the study was to be carried out, the right language needed to be used.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Drafting Group on the right to food had been working hard on this subject, and was pleased to receive the resolution 13/4 from the Human Rights Council, as it now actually had a mandate that had two specific sections: to continue to work on discrimination in the context of the right; and a new mandate that was related to the first, namely to prepare a preliminary study on ways and means to further advance the rights of people living in rural areas, particularly women and small-holders engaged in producing food products, those living and working on the land, and traditional small-herders - basically, the rural population. The Advisory Committee had always recognized that there was a gap which it could attempt to fill in by making suggestions which could help improve the human rights of the rural population, particularly in the context of the right to food. The Drafting Group was thus now working in two directions, including finalising and reviewing the preliminary study on discrimination with respect to the right to food. A near final draft would be available soon, which should be more comprehensive and take into account the recommendations and responses received.

CHINSUNG CHUNG, Advisory Committee Expert, said that as a member of the Drafting Group, she wanted to add a few small points. She believed that the study was very balanced and dealt not only with peasants from rural areas but also the urban poor. She reminded the Advisory Committee that the issue of the right to food also affected rich countries and not just the world’s poorest nations. Because the study was limited in length, the Drafting Group was not able to fully address the issue of hunger refugees, which remained a very important concept. Persons who needed to flee their homes for lack of food should be treated as refugees. They should not be sent back to their countries where they could face starvation or political reprimand. Finally, there was also a need to focus on vulnerable groups like the elderly or disabled.

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, said he commended his colleagues for their work, and noted that the Human Rights Council's resolution gave them a totally clear roadmap, insisting on the need for coordination, and welcoming the relationship between the Committee, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. The Council also insisted on the need for contribution by all stakeholders, and there was a need for more of that - only one national human rights institution had responded, that of New Zealand, and their answer was a little short. The specific mandate that had been given stressed discriminations, the various forms thereof, and it was very important that the Committee respect this, in particular the gender-specific aspect, and could, perhaps, in this regard coordinate with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Another important point was the situation of indigenous peoples - in most cases where land was sold or grabbed, these were incidents of ancestral land being taken, and these peoples had a deep spiritual link with their land. There was a fragmentation of international law, as well as a problem of consistency.

LIESBETH GOOSSENS (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Advisory Committee was tasked to consider further measures to enhance the realization of the right to food, bearing in mind the priority importance of promoting the implementation of existing standards. The European Union was of the view that the current version did not reflect this mandate and was in need of significant revision. Without entering into too much detail, the Belgian delegation flagged a few issues that needed to be resolved, including the use of the concept of hunger refugees, which was not universally recognized, and should therefore not be used. The European Union looked forward to receiving the revised draft of this study, which would hopefully include contributions from the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

MIGUEL D'ESCOTO BROCKMANN, Advisory Committee Rapporteur, said the study was absolutely magnificent, both in the way it handled its subject and in its contribution to the protection of the right to food for the most vulnerable people in the world. The study indicated at several points that the problem of the right to food or food sovereignty of people was one that implicated the structures of the international community - discrimination in the context of the right to food could not be separated from the economic systems and financial channels by which it was carried out. Perhaps further elaboration of these obstacles to food sovereignty could guide the Human Rights Council in addressing this problem. Significant attention was also devoted to smaller peasants, the plight of which was intimately linked to the structural obstacles to food sovereignty, and it was good that the study included an annex of a Declaration of the Rights of Peasants, and the study's final recommendations included a proposal for a preliminary study on the significance and importance of a possible new instrument on the rights of peasants and other people living in rural areas. Both the preliminary study and annexed declaration made an effort to address some of the structural obstacles to food sovereignty or towards ensuring the human right to food.

SAMIRA SAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) thanked the Drafting Group for their hard work. Azerbaijan said that the study successfully focused on the discrimination against rural peasants concerning the right to food and also provided best practices and anti-discriminatory policies that could be implemented. That said, the full realization of the right to food depended also on the economic and social conditions within countries. Finally, the delegation of Azerbaijan asked the Advisory Committee to elaborate on a point it had made regarding the need for an international instrument that would protect the rights of rural peasants.

SANDRA AVILES, of Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), said the FAO had firmly embedded the implementation of the right to food in its strategic framework, which had as an objective to strengthen global governance on food security. Hence, the FAO was accountable to its membership in the implementation of the right to food. The FAO had the Right to Food Guidelines, which provided very practical guidance on how to operationalise 19 of the policy areas addressed by the Advisory Committee. The FAO could provide support on how to implement these Guidelines.

CURTIZ DOEBBLER, of North-South XXI, said that focusing on rural agrarian workers was vital to considering the issues surrounding the right to food. North-South XXI suggested that more energy be spent to look at the manmade consequences of climate change on the right to food. No action was being taken to stem the effects of climate change and, unfortunately, it was the most vulnerable that would be at risk. Already, malnutrition was on the increase in sub-Saharan Africa and much of this was due to the effects of climate change.

JOAO ERNESTO CHRISTOFOLO (Brazil) said Brazil fully supported the discussions regarding the right to food in the Human Rights Council, and also in the Advisory Committee, and thought it was a very timely discussion. The number of people suffering from lack of access to food had greatly increased in past years, and this was also affecting their human dignity as well as their right to food. There was clearly a need for a discussion on how to halt this phenomenon from a human rights perspective. Brazil looked forward to the next version of the study, and hoped the text would examine further the issues raised in the second part.

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Expert, responded to a question posed by the delegation of Azerbaijan on the necessity of an international instrument that would protect rural peasants and help in their development. A number of groups, such as Via Campesina (International Peasant Movement), a non-governmental organization that fought for the rights of the rural poor, had requested such an instrument. The relationship between the rights of peasants and migration was an important one to consider. Such an instrument would also be useful in considering a more rational use of energy and cleaner agricultural practices for rural farmers and agricultural producers.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said Argentina had made a written contribution to the Advisory Committee, and made substantive comments on paragraphs 12-45, especially on trade-distorting policies. As had been pointed out here and elsewhere, the term food security was an important one, as was the use of that term or the term food sovereignty. Argentina's contributions had been said to undermine the situation, whilst others had been called helpful. What were the contributions that were being evaluated positively, and would be included in the study, Argentina asked.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Drafting Group had benefited from all the contributions from stakeholders, including Argentina. There was no time to address each one of the comments received and say which had been used and which would not be used. The Drafting Group would give an explanation when it did not take a comment on board, and express why it had adopted the concept or chosen another one or a strategy which it believed was a better solution. The Drafting Group would not ignore any comment received. On food security and sovereignty, wherever they used either term, they would explain why. With regard to the World Trade Organization, various comments had been received therefrom, and they would be taken into account and the Drafting Group would express their views thereon in a clear manner. On vulnerable groups, for example, the comment that only minorities and indigenous peoples had been addressed would be taken into account, and the study would be expanded. Specific comments had been received to make specific references to, or to suggest a second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights pertaining to and emphasising the right to food. This was a positive recommendation. There were a lot of comments that the Group appreciated and thought highly of, including from the community of non-governmental organizations, and they would be taken on in the next version of the study. The Drafting Group had no ideology, other than that of human rights if that could be called an ideology. The Drafting Group was working on how to better serve those who were deprived of human rights, doing their best to provide a balanced view on how to push this human rights agenda forward.

DHEERUJLALL SEETULSINGH, Advisory Committee Vice-Chairperson, said that he had several small concerns with the study. He wanted to make sure that the Drafting Group stuck to the mandate given to them by the Human Rights Council. Moreover, he felt that the conclusion of the study was a little too open-ended. He reminded the Committee that the resolution of the Human Rights Council also required the Advisory Committee to look at the work being done by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and to liaise with him. Lastly, he felt that certain concepts, such as economic diversification, were important issues that the Drafting Group should consider in their study.

JOSE ANTONIO BENGOA CABELLO, Advisory Committee Expert, said Mr. Seetulsingh had put an important issue on the table, and it would be good to be able to discuss it publicly in the Advisory Committee. He understood the mandate to be the following, and could be mistaken: first, there was a need for a preliminary study. As for the means to promote the rights of people etc., by that component of the mandate he meant that the Drafting Group needed to discuss what were the most appropriate means to promote the rights of people living in rural areas. The options were whether this instrument was going to be the most appropriate means or mechanism to promote the rights of persons in rural areas - this was going to be the primary issue which the Committee would have to report on in January. Secondly, what would be the principles and the definitions that an instrument of this kind should have if the result was that there was to be an instrument. It was not the Committee's mandate to draft the instrument on peasant's rights, and it was important that the public, the non-governmental organizations involved in the campaign for this instrument, be generally aware that the Committee did not have the mandate to present in January a draft convention on the rights of peasants. This was how Mr. Bengoa saw the mandate, and believed that it was important to examine this interpretation, to see if it was appropriate.

SHIQIU CHEN, Advisory Committee Expert, commended the Drafting Group for the comprehensive work on this topic. The issue of whether or not to develop an instrument for the protection of the rights of rural peasants was an important one to consider. He added that it might be worthwhile to expand the concept of the right to food right to something like the right to safe food or the right to healthy food. This would be in line with human rights discourses and should be acceptable by international law. The issue was not simply to have sufficient amounts of food but also to consider the quality and nutritional value of the food that people ingested. Some imported foods were toxic and did not meet international standards, including in China. Last year the World Summit on Food Security in Rome had raised many of these issues.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Advisory Committee Expert, in concluding remarks on the discussion, said Brazil had been in the forefront, since 2002, of the fight for food security, both domestically and internationally, and to combat under-nourishment. Figures were getting worse, year in and year out. Every five seconds, a child under the age of 10 died from hunger, and more than one billion people were permanently, seriously undernourished. The World Food and Security Report from the Food and Agricultural Organization gave these figures, which were getting worse, although the world could feed more than 12 billion people. A child dying of hunger was a child who was murdered. A human rights symposium had been held in Geneva earlier in the year, which had raised a number of issues related to the right to food, including climate change, an issue which would have to be factored into the study.

The term "hunger refugee" had been called too vague- this was a new and terrifying phenomenon, with thousands of men, women and children taking to cockleshell crafts, often off the coast of Mauritania, trying to get to areas where they would have access to food. The Advisory Committee had to create a new norm to obtain the right of non-temporary refoulement of hunger refugees, and it was its job to do so, as the General Assembly had mandated the Human Rights Council, at its creation, to create new norms where there were specific norms affecting certain groups of people and to build standards for their protection. If the murderous tool of export subsidies, which destroyed African farmers, was to be destroyed, then there should be no attack on European farmers.

MONA ZULFICAR, Advisory Committee Expert, mentioned that all members of the Drafting Group were very conscious and sensitive to respecting their mandates from the Human Rights Council. On the issue of timing, the Drafting Group would circulate an updated report to the Advisory Committee to be considered and discussed at its next session.

PURIFICACION V. QUISUMBING, Advisory Committee Chairperson, speaking as an Expert, said she was very impressed with the way the Drafting Group had proceeded. This study was a big challenge for the Committee. It had proceeded carefully, but also in a manner that befitted the intellectual capacity of the Experts, and it was clear that the Human Rights Council had recognized the importance of the subject matter. The Drafting Group was very aware of the clear mandate that was put before the Advisory Committee, and would travel this very stony road in addressing the mandate given by the Council. If there was any question that this study would and could contribute to the advancement of the ideology of human rights, then it would potentially be an advancement of how human rights could actually mean something for people on the ground. The right to food went to the very essence of the right to life. This study would be one of the more important possibilities for the Committee to contribute to the advancement of human rights.


Discussion on Human Rights Education and Training

EMMANUEL DECAUX, Advisory Committee Expert, gave a general update on the draft declaration on human rights education and training. He said that participation at the ministerial level was very useful and important. This draft came about from resolution 13/15 of the Human Rights Council, which had been adopted by consensus. It gave the provisions to set up an intergovernmental Working Group to further explore this important issue and to draft a declaration. What was particularly commendable was the involvement of both States and civil society organizations in the drafting of this declaration. The draft now belonged to the Human Rights Council and it was up to the Council to finalize it. However, he added that the Advisory Committee could be optimistic that it would be well received and approved.

OMAR RABI (Morocco) said that the delegation of Morocco had been planning on making this statement in the afternoon session but would do so now instead. Morocco commended the Working Group for its work on the draft declaration and the spirit of collaboration with which it was produced. The objectives that were initially set out were largely achieved. Resolution 13/15 called for the creation of an intergovernmental Working Group to produce a draft declaration on human rights education and training. There would only be five days to finalize the draft declaration, which was why an open-ended consultation process was set up prior to its submission to the Human Rights Council to help ensure consensus. There were still some issues that needed to be resolved. For instance, one of the concerns regarded the length of the draft declaration and some felt it needed to be shortened and made more concise. It was hoped that by January 2011, consensus would have be reached.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Advisory Committee Expert, said the Committee had finished - it was now up to the Council to finish the job. The Committee had delivered, and it was now up to the Council.

JESUS ENRIQUE G. GARCIA (Philippines) said it was the Working Group, mandated by the resolution, which would be meeting in January or the first quarter of next year, and the first round of consultations would be in September, probably the first week. Ms. Warzazi was right - the Committee had provided a very useful draft, which was the basis for consultations, and this was an example of the cooperation and synergy between the Council and its advisory body. The Philippines was strongly committed to human rights education and training, and would do its best to ensure achieving consensus in the Council on this issue.

For use of the information media; not an official record

AC10/015E