PHA-Exch> Time for a Human Right to Food Framework of Action.

[Claudio Schuftan]

*Time for a Human Right to Food Framework of Action.*

*FIAN Position on the Comprehensive Framework of Action of*

*the High Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis.*

September 2008



*Introduction*

As a consequence of soaring food prices and widespread protests in more than
40 countries this year, hunger has finally attracted the public attention it
deserves.

Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations (IGO) have at last
recognized that we are facing a "Global Food Crisis". The crisis has not
come overnight. Already before the drastic increase of food commodity
prices, more than 850 million people had been affected by chronic
undernourishment, and about 25,000 people died from hunger every day. The
food crisis is a permanent one. According to estimates, the number of hungry
people might have increased by 100 million in the last few months as an
immediate result of increased food prices.

A range of international conferences – like the High Level Conference on
World Food Security of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and
the G8 Summit – make it clear that hunger has reached the top of the
international agenda. Since April 2008, the reaction of the international
community to the food crisis has been coordinated by  the *High Level Task
Force on the Global Food Crisis *(HLTF), which was initiated by UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon and which is composed of all UN organisations dealing with
food and agriculture issues, as well as the World Bank, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In July 2008,
the HLTF released a *Comprehensive Framework of Action *(CFA) which is meant
to set out the joint position of HLTF members on proposed action to overcome
the food crisis.

*FoodFirst Information and Action Network *(FIAN), the international human
rights organisation for the right to food, has decided to publish this
position paper on the CFA for the following reasons: a) As it apparently
reflects the consensus of the UN and Bretton Woods institutions, the CFA may
have a major impact on food and agriculture policies internationally. b)
Although the CFA contains various positive recommendations, others are
highly ambiguous and problematic from the perspective of the human
right to food.
c) The CFA was developed and decided almost without consultation of Civil

Society Organisations (CSO). FIAN is convinced that a broad debate on the
policies and recommendations of the HLTF is necessary to ensure that these
policies really serve their declared goal.



*Executive Summary*

FIAN International welcomes the high priority given to resolving the food
crisis. We share the declared objective to give greater attention to
agriculture in public policies and to increase support especially to
smallholder farmers. The call of the CFA on developing countries to increase
public spending in agricultural and rural development to at least 10 percent,
and to increase the percentage of Overseas Development Aid (ODA) to be invested
in food and agricultural development from currently 3 percent to at least 10
within the next five years, points in the right direction. We also share the
view that social protection systems must be strengthened, particularly in
times of soaring food prices.

However, FIAN has considerable doubts as to whether the analysis and
the recommended
actions provided in the CFA are sufficient and adequate to address the huge
immediate problems we are facing. Lessons learned through many years
of struggle
for the human right to food, have led to the conclusion that the majority of
actions suggested in the CFA will not contribute to the realisation of the
human right to food for all, required by international law. They will rather
contribute to cementing existing power structures which are the source of
violations of the human right to food worldwide. In our analysis of the CFA,
we identify severe errors and shortcomings

mainly in four areas:

1. Although the CFA repeatedly mentions that *adequate food is an
internationally **recognized human right*, it fails to draw the necessary
conclusions. It lacks any reference to legal remedies for the victims to
claim the realization of this right. It fails to recognize that not only
states but also IGOs and therefore the members of the HLTF, have obligations
under the right to food. It neglects basic human rights

principles, such as accountability, non-discrimination, participation
and empowerment.
And instead of recognizing demonstrations by hungry people as a legitimate
means to claim the right to food, the CFA conflates social movements with
criminal groups "ready to harness popular frustrations into a challenge against
the state and its authority". The disregard of basic democratic principles is
underlined by the fact that the decision on the CFA has not been taken by

governments, let alone parliaments, and relevant CSOs have never been consulted
in a meaningful way. And finally, the CFA fails to apply a human
rights approach
in its recommendations for the proposed fields of action, such as
social protection,
the promotion of agriculture and international trade.

2. Although the CFA recommends strengthening *social protection systems*,
the concrete proposals have a very narrow and exclusive focus, which implies
a high risk that many of those most in need will be excluded. By
recommending a narrow targeting and regular screening "to filter out those
who have graduated beyond the eligibility threshold", it fails to recognise
that the ultimate goal of any

social protection system is to guarantee the human right to food for all.
The approach taken by the CFA sacrifices effectiveness to the altar of
efficiency.

Universal programmes or basic income programmes, which would avoid
such pitfalls
and still provide reasonably targeted cash transfers without selection, are not
even mentioned. By proposing food for work programmes and other alternatives
to unconditional assistance, the CFA tries to ensure that even the poorest
have to "pay" in one way or another for transfers which are a matter of life
or death.

3. Although the CFA claims to provide targeted support to*  smallholder
farmers*, it does not recommend any convincing action to remedy existing and
avoid future discrimination of this very group which is especially
vulnerable to hunger. It fails to address gender issues as well as the
question of how disempowered segments of society gain the right to be heard
in the formulation of national

policies. The CFA does not mention the ongoing worldwide process of
land grabbing
and massive violent dispossession of rural communities due to heavy investments
in extractive industries, tourism, large infrastructure projects, industrial
development projects and last but not least agrofuels. The need for
comprehensive
and redistributive agrarian reforms in order to fulfil the right to food of
the poor is completely ignored. Neither does the CFA address the discrimination
against smallholder farmers arising from the domination of the whole food
supply chain by a few transnational companies (TNCs) which have considerably
increased their profits during the last year, often at the expense of their
suppliers.

4. Although the CFA suggests a review of *trade and taxation policies*, it
already foresees the result: more liberalisation at all levels. Past
experience with the impacts of trade liberalisation on small scale farmers
provides ample ground for expecting that the proposed tariff reductions and
financial support, especially for imports, will suffocate any efforts in
developing countries to revive domestic small scale food production. The CFA
condemns export restrictions as one of the main reasons for the food crisis,
without distinction or consideration of circumstances which might justify
the use of such instruments in a given country in order to secure stable
domestic food prices for the poor. The announcement of the HLTF of a general
lobbying for trade liberalisation, under the leadership of the World Bank
and the IMF, raises high concern that the CFA might even lead to
further violations
of the right to food instead of avoiding them.

Based on this analysis and its experience in the struggle for the right to
food, *FIAN **recommends to the HLTF members*:

• To enable a broad consultation process on the CFA at the international and
national level prior to its implementation, involving all sectors of the
society affected by the food crisis, and to ensure a human rights based
monitoring of the implementation of the adapted CFA.

• Not to use the CFA as a reference document for food policies prior to such
broad and truly participatory consultation process at the international
level.

• To assess the impact of their current policies and activities,
particularly those of the World Bank and the IMF, on the human right to food
and report on an annual basis to the UN Human Rights Council.

• To respect the role of social movements in defending the right to food and
in policy formulation and to counter any attempts to criminalise social
movements.

• To make sure that their work on social transfers is from now on based on
human rights and to stop propagating narrow selection mechanisms and
conditionalities for cash transfers.

• To promote the introduction of nation wide food indexed social cash
transfers and pilot projects on universal social cash transfers in all
countries affected by the food crisis.

• To identify, in consultation with the affected groups, immediate measures
to protect rural communities' access to land and natural resources and to
assist governments in implementing these measures.

• Not to support any production of agrofuels on large plantations. A
moratorium on agrofuels production should be considered to allow time for
regulatory structures to be put in place to safeguard economic, social and
environmental rights.

• To support national land planning processes which are truly participatory
in order to facilitate redistribution of land to small-scale food producers.

• To subject all new large-scale development projects to a human rights
assessment following the "Basic principles and guidelines on
development-based evictions and displacement" submitted by the former UN
Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Housing in 2006.

• To support the transition from an agriculture that heavily depends on
fossil energy and chemical inputs, to an agriculture based on agro-ecology
and improved local knowledge.

• To support the work of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and its
special procedures,
particularly the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, in investigating the
role of the private sector in the current food crisis.

• To support the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights UNHCHR) to
commission Human
Rights Impact Assessments on trade policies and agreements and on the role
of speculation.

• Not to make any trade related recommendations without prior Human Rights
Impact Assessment and broad consultation with CSOs in the affected
countries. Under no circumstances shall trade liberalisation be a condition
for international support for developing countries.

• To submit food aid and financial support for imports to human rights
criteria in order to make sure that they do not endanger market access of
local food producers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20081017/a177dcb6/attachment-0001.html>