A Background Paper for an Expert Seminar on the Right to Food held by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and for the General Discussion on the Normative Content of the Right to Food of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
This background paper is prepared for a seminar hosted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is one of the first steps in implementing the mandate given to her by the World Food Summit and the Commission on Human Rights to better define the rights related to food in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to propose ways to implement and realize these rights as a means of achieving the commitments and objectives of the WFS, taking into account the possibility of formulating voluntary guidelines for food security for all.
It is also submitted to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for its day of general discussion on the normative content of the right to food (Article 11 of the Covenant), on 1 December 1997.
The purpose of the paper is to give an insight in the work of FAO
as it relates to food security and questions relevant to the right to
adequate food, with the hope that the practical elements of that work
may enrich the debate.
I. Introduction - Relevance of the Right to Food for FAO
II. Towards the Realization of the Right to Food
2. Safety Nets for Food Security: Food Assistance
3. Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS)
4. Implementation in National Legislation
III. Committee on World Food Security (CFS)
I. Introduction - Relevance of the Right to Food for FAO
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was founded in October 1945. Since its inception, FAO has worked to alleviate poverty and hunger by promoting agricultural development, improved nutrition and the pursuit of food security - the access of all people at all times to the food they need for an active and healthy life. The Organization offers direct development assistance, collects, analyses and disseminates information, provides policy and planning advice to Governments and acts as an international forum for debate on food and agriculture issues.
FAO is active in land and water development, plant and animal production, forestry, fisheries, economic and social policy, investment, sustainable development, nutrition, food standards and commodities and trade. It also plays a major role in dealing with food and agricultural emergencies.
The Preamble of the Constitution of FAO sets out the Organization’s purpose as:
"raising levels of nutrition and standards of living...; securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products;
bettering the condition of rural populations;
and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy and ensuring humanity’s freedom from hunger."
The last sentence was added in 1965, influenced by the drafting of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In turn the language of Article 11 on the right to adequate food and the fundamental right to be free from hunger was influenced largely by the intervention of FAO in the General Assembly.
Considering it intolerable that more than 800 million people throughout the world, and particularly in developing countries, do not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs, Heads of State and Government from 185 countries gathered in Rome in November 1996 for the World Food Summit (WFS) at the invitation of FAO. In the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and Plan of Action adopted by the WFS, they pledged their political will and their common and national commitment to achieving food security for all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger in all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people to half their present level no later than 2015. These documents contain numerous references to human rights in general, and the right to adequate food and to be free from hunger in particular.
In the Rome Declaration on World Food Security, Governments reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger.
Commitments were made and objectives spelled out relating to general human rights issues, such as the formulation of strategies, policies, programmes, and development priorities, in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development. Equal rights and equal participation of men and women; democracy, a transparent and effective legal framework, transparent and accountable governance; indigenous people’s and minority rights are included in other commitments and objectives.
The stress on human rights other than the right to food, as such, demonstrates the established opinion that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are indeed interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Thus it is recognized that in order to achieve food security for everyone, all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected. Respect for civil and political rights is an integral component of respect for economic, social and cultural rights.
The Governments at the WFS pledged themselves to the objective of clarifying the content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, as stated in the Covenant and other relevant international and regional instruments, and to give particular attention to implementation and full and progressive realization of this right as a means of achieving food security for all. They decided, inter alia:
While the lead in the better definition and implementation of the rights related to food has been given to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, FAO is committed to cooperating with other intergovernmental agencies and bodies towards the goals of the WFS, including Objective 7.4 of the Plan of Action.
The present paper, being FAO’s input to the debate on rights related to food, does not purport to summarize the work already undertaken in the human rights fora, which will be the subject of a separate background paper prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Rather, the discussion of the different dimensions of FAO’s work related to food security will, it is hoped, provide components for discussion on both the better definition and the better implementation of the rights related to food, as set out in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In the following, issues relating to the creation of an enabling environment, direct and indirect food assistance and the importance of national legislation relating to the right to food, will be addressed. Finally, the role of the Committee on World Food Security is discussed before turning to the Organization’s input to the discussions on a matrix on the right to food.
The present paper touches upon various subjects of relevance to the better definition and implementation of the right to food, but does not seek to provide such a definition nor an exhausting enumeration of ways of implementation. There are also important aspects of present day concerns which should be addressed at a later stage, namely the role of transnational corporations, civil society, and other intergovernmental organizations.
II. Towards the Realization of the Right to Food
Different situations can be identified under which people do not fully enjoy a right to food. A distinction can for instance be made between:
While direct or deliberate violations of rights related to food are not the subject of the present paper, although they should, of course, be prohibited under national legislation, approaches to ensure access to food in emergency situations are discussed in the following as well as efforts to ensure sustainable development and experiments with targeted measures to enhance food security.
The challenge facing agriculture is to satisfy people’s rights to food security and, at the same time, ensure that the natural resource base remains productive for the future. As populations grow, and land and water resources dwindle, the world must make a rapid shift to sustainable agriculture and rural development. This approach seeks to ensure that present and future generations have equal access to the total capital of natural and human resources.
Recognizing the need to take a more holistic and strategic approach to development support and poverty alleviation, FAO established a Sustainable Development Department in January 1995. It serves as a global reference centre for knowledge and advice on biophysical, biological, socio-economic and social dimensions of sustainable development. It aims at promoting, coordinating and leading in the formulation of concepts, policies and strategies for greater involvement of rural people, especially the poor and women, in their own development; generation and transfer of knowledge and technologies for sustainable development; and management of natural resources and protection of the environment.
In the following, the four key dimensions of sustainable development, as seen by FAO, are explained.
Eight hundred million of the developing world’s 1,100 million poor live in rural areas. The vast majority are directly dependent on agriculture for employment and income. Boosting the rural economy, particularly through increased food and agriculture production, as well as through improved distribution, is therefore one of the chief means of alleviating poverty. To be able to achieve this goal, there is a need to develop policies that ensure peace, as well as social, political and economic stability and equity, and gender equity.
Bringing these people into the economic mainstream is a complex task. Among the major causes of their low productivity is their very limited access to resources, such as land, education, credit, energy and farm services. In many countries, this reflects the low priority given by governments to agriculture. It is important among other things to invest in human resources development, recognizing the role that educational institutions can play in rural development and strengthening them through improved curricula, teaching methods and institutional management. Another factor is the poor’s lack of organization: delivering services to isolated, individual producers is simply too costly. Low market prices are also a major cause of low productivity.
The cycle of food insecurity and poverty will be broken only when all rural people have the means to generate income to buy food or the resources to produce for their needs. Macro-economic policies to stimulate the rural sector are essential. But equally important is strengthening the capacity of the poor to participate in socio-economic development. A key strategy is building grassroots organizations that represent the poor’s interests and provide economies of scale in accessing resources, markets and technology. As important, there is a need to create equitable, democratic and gender sensitive ways for participating in or influencing decision-making on agricultural and environmental matters at the regional, national and international levels.
Gender, food and nutrition
Rural women produce between 60% and 80% of staple food in developing countries. Yet studies indicate they have title to only a fraction of farm land, and access to just 10% of credit and 5% of extension advice. In sum, lack of access and control of productive resources and services; over- and underemployment; inequalities in employment opportunities and remuneration; exclusion from decision- and policy-making; and an unfavourable legal environment are among the root causes of persistent poverty and food insecurity among rural women and the families they support. Migration of men and women in search of jobs often causes changes in the household structure and may also cause a deterioration in the household food security.
Throughout the world, women are the principal guarantors of nutrition, food safety and quality at household and community levels. Women play a pivotal role in securing and preparing food for the family. They have the primary responsibility for the care of children and for the nutrition information in the household. The different rights, responsibilities and decision-making abilities of women and men need to be understood in efforts to improve food security and nutrition. Data on the differences between males and females, in terms of access to food and other resources, must be improved in order to facilitate the assessment and monitoring of progress in the achievement of food security and nutritional goals. Women need better access to technical information and assistance on improving the quality and safety of products and on strategies to improve the nutritional status at the household level through, for example, home gardens and livestock rearing.
Women, as providers of food, have a fundamental role in assuring improved nutritional status. But development interventions aiming to improve access to food, however, often bypass them. National, regional and international agencies operating in the food sector give little attention to designing programmes that suit women’s needs, education, and cultural backgrounds, or their aspirations for improving their economic and social conditions.
Women in their reproductive years, especially during pregnancy and lactation, have specific nutrient requirements which determine both their own nutritional status and that of their children. In many societies these specific needs are not recognized and both women and children suffer the consequences. In some societies, priority is given to feeding other members of the family first, a discriminatory practice often extended to girls. This compromises their nutritional and health status from an early age.
It is essential to enhance national capacity to design, implement, monitor and evaluate gender-responsive, community-level interventions to improve household food security and nutrition. Of particular importance is to collect, analyze and disseminate gender-disaggregated data on food and nutrition to be used in the design of policies, programmes and interventions that improve the nutritional level of all household members.
The past decade has witnessed the collapse worldwide of political systems that centralized decision making and weakened the fabric of rural society. The subsequent withdrawal of government from rural development has often created an institutional vacuum and led to agricultural stagnation, food insecurity and conflict over resources.
Reconstruction of rural institutions - society’s framework of rules, laws, associations and consensus - is vital to economic recovery and social stability. The challenge is to seize opportunities created by economic liberalization and democratization to forge a new compact between state, market and civil society.
Recognition of producers’ organizations and groupings - such as cooperatives, community associations, informal self-help groups etc. - as entities of public interest with rights and responsibilities in rural policy, is a cornerstone of these new arrangements. Their political and social empowerment has an economic pay-off: a more efficient marketplace and a broader social consensus for structural economic reforms.
The new role of the state should be to facilitate, rather than direct, rural development. Decentralization of public resources and agricultural support services to geographical regions - and to municipalities and civil society organizations - is an essential part of this strategy.
Agrarian reform should seek to remove obstacles that discourage farmers from investing in their land. For example, enhancing poor and landless rural populations’ ability to negotiate better land tenure arrangements, or to enter into existing land markets allows them to respond effectively to changing economic opportunities and constraints. This is referred to as the "third generation" of land reform; a reform process that includes the poor as participants in market institutions through affordable land registration systems, institutionally recognized leases and share-cropping arrangements and negotiated land arrangements by farmer’s associations.
Sharing knowledge is the basis of human progress. In the decades ahead, the challenge of ensuring food security for the world’s rapidly expanding population calls for profound improvements in the agricultural knowledge systems and the way in which this knowledge is accessible, disseminated and shared among rural populations.
The starting point is a new agenda for research. Green Revolution technologies will remain the driving force of food production gains in high potential areas. But improved farm management and information systems are needed to minimize the environmental impact of external inputs.
In marginal areas, high-input farming systems are frequently inadequate - technologies may not be appropriate on marginal lands, cash resources for inputs may be scarce and environment costs may be high. Farm systems on marginal lands are often based on traditional practices of risk management and innovations must be adapted taking this into account. The needs of low-income farmers should be assessed by a participatory approach in the adaptation of agricultural practices for example, concerning crop varieties, biological pest and disease control methods. This is also true for improving overall farm output. For example, in marginal, low potential agricultural areas, livestock often plays a pivotal role in rural production systems. Therefore, livestock-related knowledge might be as important as crop-related knowledge.
New strategies for technology transfer and dissemination are urgently required. This concerns extension services as well as new channels of transfer and dissemination such as NGOs, the private sector and the potential of mass media communication.
For example, extension services in many countries often have neglected small-scale farmers - especially women - and thus deprived them of knowledge needed to boost productivity and incomes. Modern communication technology may likely have an increasing role in disseminating knowledge and even the sharing of knowledge, from radio programmes to access to internet.
Solutions will include more participatory extension systems, private and collective networks that involve rural households, farmer organizations as well as local social groups in setting research priorities and in transferring and testing the results in the field as well as in creating communication strategies.
The environmental costs of agriculture have included massive soil erosion, deforestation, pollution and loss of plant and animal genetic diversity, as well as wastage and pollution of water resources. With the present world population of 5,800 million, could expanding food production push an increasingly fragile natural resource base beyond its limits?
Supplies of land, water and firewood are shrinking in many regions. By 2020, Southeast Asia will have less than a hectare of arable land per person. Within just five years, 300 million people, mainly in North Africa, will face critical water scarcities. More than 130 million Africans already live in areas where firewood consumption outpaces the regenerative capacity of their forests.
Increasing food production while protecting the environment - particularly in marginal areas - requires production systems that increase productivity while reducing pollution and resource degradation. Many ecologically sound technologies - such as biological control of pests, agroforestry, biogas digesters and improved irrigation management - are already in use or being developed.
But sustainable use of natural resources must also be socially and economically viable. Governments must foster active dialogue with farmers about the uses of their land, address constraints in land tenure and access to productive assets, increase budgets for agricultural research, extension and education, and provide for continuous environmental monitoring.
The availability of energy is a key factor in achieving food security with environmental protection - it increases labour efficiency and helps diversify the range of economic activities in rural areas.
2. Safety Nets for Food Security: Food Assistance
Food security is about a life free of the risks of malnutrition or starvation. It is now widely recognized that broad-based economic growth is generally necessary to reduce poverty, the root cause of food insecurity. It is also recognized, however, that even if correct policies and programmes were in place, some segments of the population would not benefit from any poverty-reduction programmes, and would not be able to provide for their own food security. There will, therefore, always be persons who absolutely can not function for themselves within the social and economic environment in which they exist.
While the goals of raising agricultural productivity and food supplies to address long-term food security problems must be pursued in order to reduce the risks of future hunger, there is an equal need to address the short-term problem of hundreds of millions of people who are undernourished today and those who will surely be undernourished tomorrow, through programmes aimed at eliminating current undernutrition directly.
Food security safety nets or food assistance programmes enhance the well-being of the chronically hungry and often provide the only hope for survival for individuals who have been affected by emergencies - natural disasters and man-made crises. Food assistance here includes all actions that national governments, often in collaboration with non-governmental organizations and other members of civil society, and with external aid when necessary, undertake to improve the nutritional well-being of their citizens who otherwise would not have access to adequate food for a healthy and active life.
There is often a distinction made between direct and indirect forms of food assistance. Direct forms include: food stamps, ration shops, fair price shops, soup kitchens, health centre food packets, food coupons, school lunches, special canteens, and food-for-work programmes. Indirect forms include nutrition education, policies related to food-reserve stocks, and a supportive policy environment (comprising, inter alia, price policy, marketing policy, exchange rate policy, and trade policy). All direct forms aim at providing food free or at a subsidy to a targeted section or sections of the population. While international food aid finances some direct forms of food assistance, such programmes are mainly the responsibility of national governments.
The right to adequate food obligates governments to facilitate individual efforts to meet food needs by creating an environment that will allow all its people to achieve food security. Ultimately, then, it is policies that support income generation for the poor through, say, employment creation and maintenance that will ensure - in the medium and long term - reduction of poverty and sustainable food security. Broad-based development creates a transportation, marketing and storage infrastructure which facilitates a more rapid response to transitory food shortages, and regular provisioning of consumer outlets throughout a country. It also brings about rising per capita incomes which alleviate chronic undernutrition.
The right to adequate food may also imply that in cases where individuals do not have the capacity to meet their food needs for reasons beyond their control (such as age, handicap, economic downturn, famine, disaster, or discrimination), the state and its decentralized structures, and assisted by voluntary organizations and other civil society members, must physically provide food or resources to obtain it.
In line with their obligations, most governments have indeed provided, or have attempted to provide, food assistance to those unable to provide for their own food. Resources provided through international food aid have complemented the domestic resources where the latter have proved insufficient. The fact that so many persons remain chronically undernourished, however, suggests, inter alia, that not enough assistance may have been provided and/or the assistance has not been sufficiently effective.
b) Food assistance for development
Undernutrition is integrally linked to other conditions which restrict human potential - poor sanitation and hygiene, illiteracy, lack of education facilities, and a lack of access to health care. Targeted food assistance, such as nutritious food provided at appropriate centres, not only responds to immediate hunger but also draws vulnerable mothers and children to clinics, encourages and enables poor women to attend literacy and reproductive health training, induces parents to allow their daughters to attend school, supports communities wishing to develop improved water supply and sanitary facilities, or improves the quality and reach of nutrition education. Used in such ways, food assistance represents a pre-investment in human potential, a way of letting the poor take advantage of national and external assistance while avoiding the risks of long-run dependency.
Undernutrition results in substantial productivity losses due to reduced work performance and inefficient or ineffective income-earning decisions, designed to hedge against limitations on food availability and access. Food assistance can be a catalyst for increasing agricultural productivity in both the food and export sub-sectors.
Food assistance used within the framework of public works programmes (including food for work) can foster development of infrastructure (such as water conservation and irrigation networks, rural roads, and market structures) which is often a necessary condition for enhancing agricultural production. Also, through public works programmes, rural people may learn and adopt skills that would be useful for generating income to supplement or replace farm income.
While agriculture provides employment and incomes for the majority of the hungry in the rural areas and (increasingly) a sizable proportion of those in urban areas, there are large groups of hungry people (in urban areas of both poor and rich countries, as well as in rural areas of some countries) for whom agriculture does not represent an important source of income, if at all. For such people, efforts to create non-agriculture based employment (through public sector works programmes as one way) are crucial in allowing the current poor to generate income and improve their food security.
Direct forms of food assistance
Direct food assistance comprises income transfer programmes and direct feeding. Most countries use a combination of direct and indirect forms of food assistance, the latter comprising nutrition education and macro-economic policies that influence prices and, therefore, consumption of food.
Income transfer programmes aim at reducing the cost of food to the recipients (food-linked transfers) and providing for increased food consumption among the low-income people (cash income as well as food-linked transfers). Income transfer programmes are easier and faster to implement than income-generating programmes such as public works employment programmes. Cash income transfers are based on the premise that food insecurity is a problem of lack of access due to lack of income. They are useful in alleviating chronic hunger, and less effective in emergency situations where food supplies are a problem. Where cash income transfers are properly targeted, they are easy to implement, provide flexibility to the recipients as to how much to allocate to what foods, and may have incentive effects on food production. Food-linked income transfer programmes are attempts to transfer incomes to families or individuals in target groups in the form of food-purchasing power, in order to assure that dietary intakes increase. Such programmes take many forms, of which food stamps and ration shops are the most common.
Direct feeding programmes transfer food directly to the target population. They include school lunches, health centre food packets as well as residential feeding programmes, soup kitchens, and special canteens. Direct feeding schemes are an effective means of protecting people from current hunger and immediate risk of hunger. They are particularly effective during emergencies and where hunger is seasonal and vulnerability is related to age or sex. Direct feeding treats the symptoms, not the causes. Therefore, unless the causes are removed - principally through income generation programmes - individuals vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition will remain dependent on direct feeding to maintain their nutritional status.
Indirect forms of assistance
Apart from supportive policy environment (pricing policy, exchange rate policy and trade policies all of which influence the prices of food and therefore food consumption in an economy), general food price subsidies (with the aim of reducing consumer food prices below a free-market level), food security reserves (in the form of emergency reserves, working reserves and stabilization reserves), and nutrition education programmes (where insufficient knowledge is a major cause of malnutrition) are common indirect forms of food assistance.
c) Food assistance for saving lives
The right to life is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as is the right to an adequate standard of living, including food. Saving people whose ability to gain access to food has been curtailed is the first principle of humanitarian intervention. People have to survive before they can benefit from, and contribute to, sustainable development.
Food is a fundamental resource for saving lives of individuals affected by natural disasters and man-made crises. Whatever the cost, food assistance is never wasted if it is the only way to save lives. However, there is need for better preparedness against crises, and more attention must be paid to the needs of hungry people during emergencies and once emergencies have passed. The rehabilitation phase should lay a solid foundation for development.
World-wide, the amount of resources for food assistance provided from domestic sources (both public and private) far exceeds the resources provided through international food aid. In developing countries, food assistance programmes rarely account for less than 5 percent of total government expenditure. In many developed countries, larger sums (in absolute terms) are spent on national food assistance programmes. Even in countries where external food aid accounts for a sizable proportion of total food assistance, national resources are usually the first to be amassed to save lives of those caught up in emergency situations.
In both developed and developing countries, national food assistance programmes generally suffered reductions during the 1980s and 1990s. Policies associated with macro-economic stabilization in many developing countries have resulted in higher food prices due to exchange rate realignments and reduction in food subsidies. Cuts in social expenditures and services have affected the poor, who are most dependent on public support; economic adjustments have resulted in increases in sectoral or overall unemployment and a decline in incomes for many. Of late, there has been renewed emphasis at the international level on poverty reduction and safety nets for those unable to take advantage of opportunities provided by economic reform programmes.
Food aid, another instrument for financing food assistance, has also been declining, from almost 17 million tons (cereal equivalents) in 1992/93 to around 9 million tons in 1994/95, and from over 11 million tons to around 6 million tons for the Low Income Food Deficit countries. Also, food aid is becoming less of a means to dispose of industrialized countries’ surpluses; it is increasingly provided through cash purchases of food in developing countries, and it now must compete in tight aid budgets with other forms of development assistance. Meanwhile the increase in the number and complexity of emergencies has resulted in a growing proportion (from 30% to 50% in two decades) of relief food aid in the total food aid basket.
Beyond the general drive for tighter budgets, an important underlying reason for changes in the structure and size of both national food assistance programmes and food aid has been a widespread perception that some past programmes had been wasteful and inefficient. Indeed, unwisely designed and implemented food assistance programmes can have deleterious effects on development and future food security: financial unsustainability, depressed domestic production, missed target beneficiaries, dependency upon assistance and extraneous dietary habits.
e) Food assistance and targeting
Future food assistance programmes will have to become more efficient and effective, in order to do more with few resources.
The Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System (FIVIMS), which FAO is establishing as a follow-up to the World Food Summit, in collaboration with other UN agencies, is expected to be useful not only in generating information as to who are the food insecure and where they live, but also in subsequent targeting of any food assistance.
f) FAO and food security safety nets
As part of the Organization’s mandate in ensuring food for all, FAO has been in the forefront with respect to assistance of direct relevance to the "right to food". It has historically provided technical and financial support to Member Nations that have initiated (or have sought to initiate) food assistance programmes, including on agricultural price policy, food security reserve management, nutrition education and direct feeding schemes. The Organization has also been a major player, along with others in the UN family as well as the donor community, in providing post-emergency food assistance to foster rehabilitation and development of, primarily, the agricultural and livestock sectors. Of late, FAO has emphasized the crucial importance of linking emergency relief food assistance directly to food assistance for development - a "relief to development continuum" framework. Accordingly, FAO has called for better interaction between development and relief professionals as early in an emergency as possible to ensure investments that reduce household vulnerability to disasters.
Through its early warning activities, FAO (with WFP) alerts the donor community to impending food shortages and assessment of the magnitude of assistance required. Also, through support to regional and national food security information systems, FAO assists national governments and their development partners in being alerted, and better prepared for emergency situations requiring food assistance.
FAO believes that the driving principle of food assistance should be to reach the people who need it most, at times when they need it most, and in ways that achieve lasting impact as well as short term help. Thus, the first goal at any moment is to provide timely, appropriate and adequate relief interventions. Emergency interventions must shift progressively, as early as possible, into post-crisis rehabilitation, leading to improved resilience of households and the affected segments of the economy for development to take hold. Where agriculture proves the best, or only, avenue to alleviating post-crisis food insecurity, food assistance for agricultural recovery can foster rehabilitation of the agricultural sector in the aftermath of an emergency.
The second goal is to provide food assistance to those who would not otherwise have access to this essential means of life, giving special attention to those with critical needs at certain times of the year or at certain stages of the life cycle.
The third goal is to use food assistance for development, with a focus on people. Through interventions for enhancing nutrition, hungry people can benefit from health, education, skills and income-earning initiatives. In this sense, food assistance is a creative instrument for promoting development.
In line with these goals, and working within its mandate, FAO will continue to ensure that food assistance remains a most tangible expression of the individual’s right to food.
3. Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS)
In 1994 FAO initiated the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS), which is aimed at improving the food security situation in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). The specific objective of the SPFS is to help LIFDCs to improve their national food security through rapid increases in productivity and food production, as well as through reductions in year-to-year variability in production on an economically and environmentally sustainable basis.
In order to achieve these objectives, the SPSF:
Philosophy
Focus on increasing food production and increasing farm incomes
Priority will be given to increasing the production of staple food crops, both rainfed and irrigated - mainly cereals, roots and tubers - but other foods suited to local conditions and markets will also be included as part of an integrated farming systems approach. These could include pulses, fruits, vegetables, livestock (poultry and other small stock) and fish.
The profitability of an investment in food production is an important criterion for selecting areas and foods for Special Programme attention, to ensure economic sustainability. Essentially, this means that prices received by farmers for the commodities they produce must more than cover their costs, and make a positive contribution to farm incomes. If that can also be achieved by increasing cash crop production, then these may also be promoted under the Special Programme.
Improvements in farm services, such as input supplies and credit, marketing and processing, as well as a favourable agricultural policy environment are also addressed, where necessary, to ensure maximum benefits from the Special Programme.
Participatory philosophy
All those who have a role to play, whether at the local, national, regional or international level, will be involved in the Special Programme in order to ensure success. Primary participants are the beneficiaries, i.e. farmers who are interested and willing to participate in and benefit from the Special Programme, as well as Government officials of both recipient and donor countries; research scientists and extension workers; private traders and entrepreneurs; experts from intergovernmental agencies and NGOs. Care will be taken to avoid the exclusion of any social group or the creation of inequalities.
Regard for the role of women
Particular attention will be paid to involve women, whose important role in food crop production in LIFDCs as farmers and agricultural workers has often been overlooked in the past.
Environmental awareness
Biological diversity, natural resources and the existing ecosystem will be protected by promoting production techniques that do not harm the environment and by reducing pressure on marginal areas with low potential which are often ecologically vulnerable.
The programme draws from Agenda 21, unanimously adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which states that...
"Agriculture has to meet this challenge [of a rapidly increasing population], mainly by increasing production on land already in use and by avoiding further encroachment on land that is only marginally suitable for cultivation" (Chapter 14.1).
National ownership
The programme belongs to, and is the responsibility of, the participating countries. Its success depends on the willingness of governments to establish a political, social and economic climate conducive to agricultural growth. This means adopting appropriate policies and regulations, providing training, extension and information services, and investing in education, research, roads and irrigation.
b) Implementation of the SPFS Programme
Formulation and implementation procedures have been established for the national programmes, to ensure that these are owned by the national governments and that there is meaningful participation in the Programme at all levels within the countries.
Implementation of the Programme normally takes place in two distinct phases, namely a Pilot Phase of two to three years’ duration, followed by an Expansion Phase. The Expansion Phase is implemented after results from the four components of the Pilot Phase have been assessed and the policy and investment plan has been prepared and approved.
The Programme starts with a Pilot Phase of farmer-led demonstrations of promising approaches to sustainable agricultural development and improved food security, designed in the context of a country’s national food security strategies and implemented over a period of around 3 years. In this phase particular emphasis is given to the systematic analysis and resolution of constraints faced by farmers which could limit the replicability of successfully demonstrated actions.
Areas of field activities fall into three main categories, the balance depending on local needs and opportunities, viz.:
(i) Water Control. Small-scale water harvesting, irrigation and drainage systems using rainfall, water runoff, small streams, shallow ground water, and making use of simple lifting devices, such as the treadle pump; and land development and tillage systems which offer greater resilience to the vagaries of the climate.
(ii) Intensification. Sustainable intensification of crop production systems with the introduction of widely accessible technologies, including the effective use of high-yielding varieties, improved cultural practices, integrated pest management and appropriate post-harvest handling, storage and processing technologies, combined with functional marketing and credit schemes and improved support service delivery systems. These activities should inter alia aim at improving rural incomes through increasing value-added within the community..
(iii) Diversification Diversification of production systems including aquaculture, small animals (poultry, sheep, goats, pigs etc.) and tree crops. Here also, special attention should be paid to relevant post-production activities.
(iv) Results and Constraints analysis. Results in terms of production and financial returns and farm incomes are measured during implementation. Constraints in this connection are any problems or obstacles that prevent farmers from increasing their productivity or output and make it impossible or difficult for farmers to adopt new technologies and management practices. Some constraints may be easy to solve and others may be very difficult.
Constraints that occur at the local level and have only a few causes can sometimes be solved easily and rapidly. Other constraints have many underlying causes and may occur at the district or national levels. These are usually more difficult to resolve and require more complex action over a longer period of time.
The purposes of the participatory constraints analysis and resolution are:
- to identify the problems and obstacles which prevent farmers from adopting improved technologies and management practices;
- to search for practical means to overcome these problems and obstacles, and take action for the removal of as many of them as possible during the Pilot Phase itself;
- to formulate action proposals for the removal of more complex constraints, that is, those requiring major policy decisions or investments, so as to stimulate the widespread adoption of technical innovations during the Expansion Phase.
Special attention is given to the analysis and resolution of constraints to the expansion of the pilot phase, by gender and by specific groups. This covers in particular the identification of constraints to farm level profitability and to access to technology, land, farm inputs, storage, marketing, processing and credit facilities and of institutional, socio-economic, and policy constraints. The analysis also includes an environmental impact assessment of the Expansion Phase.
The scope of the Programme’s Expansion Phase is determined by the outcome of the Pilot Phase and by the need for integration with national strategies and programmes for agricultural development, sustainable use of natural resources and improved food security. The aim is to build on the achievements of the Pilot Phase to create the conditions for the large-scale replication of development approaches which have been proven successful.
This implies that the Expansion Phase would normally have two dimensions:
Present Status of Formulation and Implementation
Since 1994, over 60 official government requests to participate in the SPFS have been received. As at 31 August 1997 the SPFS is operational in 19 countries. Formulation is under way or expected soon in a further 32 LIFDCs.
Initial results of the Pilot Phase demonstrations in a number of countries are encouraging and confirm that the underlying assumptions on which the Programme is based are sound. In most cases the adoption of improved technologies and cultural practices is resulting in evident increases in yields and in farmers’ incomes, although it is, of course, still to early to draw definitive conclusions from observations made over, at most, 2 years. The programme is generating relevant information on the constraints being faced by participating farmers and ensuring that critical issues are being addressed.
Support from Donors and International Financial Institutions
A number of bilateral and multilateral donors are supporting Pilot Phase activities in the countries where the SPFS has been initiated as well as in the formulation of the programme in newly participating countries, namely Italy, Japan, Belgium, Spain, France, the Netherlands and UNDP.
Collaborative arrangements have been established to enlist the support of international financial institutions for the SPFS. The Director-General of FAO has signed Memoranda of Understanding with the World Bank, the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the Islamic Development Bank for the promotion of rural development and food security, each Bank agreeing to respond favourably to substantiated requests from governments. Collaboration is also taking place with the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), IFAD and the UN/FAO World Food Programme (WFP) in several countries.
South-South cooperation
The objective of this initiative within the framework of the SPFS is to allow recipient countries to benefit from the experience and expertise of more advanced developing countries. This is done by providing experts for two to three years to work in the implementation of the SPFS in the recipient countries. South-South (SS) cooperation commenced in late 1996 with a signed agreement between Vietnam and Senegal. The formulation of SS cooperation between China and Ethiopia and between Morocco and Niger, and Morocco and Burkina Faso has been completed, and the signing of the agreements is imminent. An agreement between India and Eritrea is under formulation. Moreover, over 17 countries have shown a desire to enter into SS cooperation agreements with other developing countries and provide experts and field technicians under this initiative.
4. Implementation in National Legislation
The primary responsibility for ensuring the full enjoyment of the right to adequate food lies with the national authorities of each State. Governments should be encouraged to take specific measures, including legislative and institutional measures, in order to provide for the implementation of the rights related to food in their country, in accordance with Article 11, cf. Article 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). Such activities could also be seen in the context of the commitments undertaken at the World Food Summit (see Chapter II of the present paper). In the Plan of Action, Governments pledged themselves to take various measures at the national level related to the right to food and to improve food security, which is defined as existing when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.
In taking such measures, States could seek to define their obligations to respect, protect and to fulfill, in areas of food production, processing, distribution and consumption.
This could be achieved in three steps:
In defining the exact scope of such legislative and institutional review, the paramount consideration is to focus them in a way broad enough to be meaningful, but narrow enough to be tangible and practicable.
As a first step in focusing and determining its scope, those who are currently deprived of the right to food/adequate access to food, where they are, and the reasons for the lack of access, should be identified.
Agriculture and rural development on the one hand, health and nutrition on the other, would in most cases constitute two of the major subject areas. On agriculture, access to markets and resources in rural areas would be particularly important. Food safety and nutrition standards, information and consumer protection are important aspects of health and nutrition issues.
It could be useful to regard the right to food as a perspective, or dimension of the broader subjects, for review of legislation and programmes, as opposed to an issue which would pretend to subsume all other legislation.
The extent of government responsibilities should be debated and defined, taking into account the principles of individual responsibility, subsidiarity and complementarity. A government’s primary responsibilities are not to interfere with individuals’ efforts to provide for themselves, and to seek to ensure an enabling environment for this self-realization. However, it is inevitable that there will always be some persons who need direct assistance. In this context, the efficacy of existing social safety nets and social legislation should be reviewed also, taking into account the role of local authorities, bearing in mind that the state obligation is to ensure the right to adequate food, and not necessarily to carry out itself what needs to be done.
Methodology
While the right to adequate food is enshrined in the constitutions of a number of countries, there is no established methodology for the implementation of such provisions, or international commitments, in national legislation. There is indeed a need for such a methodology to be established, including a rational and logical way of defining more closely the range of matters to be encompassed within a right to food review and the methodology for carrying it out.
One of the first exercises carried out under such a review could be to:
It can be envisaged that the methodology and approaches established in pioneering countries in carrying out such reviews would be useful for other countries wishing to undertake similar exercises.
Countries should seek to establish some general principles relevant to the right to adequate food in their own legislation. Those would relate first and foremost to obligations of the state to respect and protect the right to food, but also to principles concerning the steps to be taken for the fulfillment of this right.
In this context it is also noted that the full implementation of the right to food would likely entail a review of the functioning of national legislation and institutions across a wide range of sectors relevant to food security. Right to food legislation projects could identify, within the specific context of each country, the objectives, parameters and directions of such wider reviews. They should seek to provide clear guidelines and general principles for the review of relevant legislation, institutions, policy planning and implementation in the short, medium and long term, including a continuing process of monitoring and gradually achieving full realization of the right to adequate food.
The final recommendations of right to food projects could take the form of a draft piece of legislation, a "Right to Food Act", in which general principles relating to the right to food would be enumerated, goals, targets and priorities defined, and, as practicable, legislative revisions made for immediate implementation. Such an act would then also provide for institutional aspects, establishing or identifying an institution which had the continuing role of carrying out legislative and institutional reviews, overseeing relevant programmes and ensuring action rather than necessarily taking it itself. This institution should have a defined policy and philosophy and operate on the basis of clearly established principles. Public participation should be provided for as one of the ground rules.
III. Committee on World Food Security (CFS)
The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is a Committee of the FAO Council, which was established as a result of the World Food Conference of 1974. It is open on a voluntary basis, not only to all FAO Member Nations but also, as full members, to other UN member nations that are not members of FAO itself.
The CFS was entrusted by the FAO Conference in 1995 with the responsibility to ensure the preparations for the World Food Summit (WFS) and especially, the elaboration of the Policy Statement and Plan of Action to be submitted to Heads of State and Government assembled at the Summit. This process of negotiation took place through its normal 21st session in January 1996 and a Special 22nd Session in September/October 1996 with the assistance of an Intersessional Working Group of the CFS that held four sessions in between. The attendance of CFS members during the process was extremely high, reaching 149 members at the autumn special session, and succeeded in attaining final agreement on the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the WFS Plan of Action well in advance of the venue of the WFS, a unique achievement in the history of world UN conferences.
The CFS has been entrusted by the WFS with the responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the WFS Plan of Action, according to principles laid out under Objective 7.3 of the Plan of Action.
At its 24th Session in April 1997, it undertook to determine the process for reporting by Governments, institutions of the UN System and other relevant international organizations and established the reporting process and framework to take place in 1998 when it will also, at its 25th session, set the standard reporting format and periodicity for the future.
Accordingly, Governments have been invited to provide reports covering the period up to end 1997, on their actions to implement the WFS PoA, to be submitted to the CFS Secretariat by 31 January 1998. National reports, which integrate the role of civil society, are to cover the entirety of the WFS Plan of Action, following the structure of the PoA Commitments and Objectives and where appropriate, individual Actions under each Objective.
Reporting on UN agency follow-up and inter-agency coordination will be facilitated by the establishment, upon a joint initiative of the FAO and IFAD, endorsed by the ACC in April 1997, of the ACC Network on Food Security and Rural Development, which has in its functions the coordination of the UN System’s implementation of the WFS Plan of Action at the national and international levels.
The CFS also has a mandate to set out the process for developing targets and verifiable indicators of national and global world food security. This process is technically linked with the development of the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System, (FIVIMS), for which FAO plays a catalytic role among relevant agencies of the UN system. An Expert Consultation inviting inter alia the concerned UN agencies alongside with INGOs and national experts was held in March 97 to initiate the FIVIMS process, review lasting and desirable indicators and propose a programme of work now under implementation.
The WFS established the fundamental target of reducing by half, no later than 2015, the present number of undernourished. The CFS has been designated to conduct by 2006 an in-depth review of progress towards this target, which WFS requested to examine whether it could be reached already in 2010.
The reporting on implementation of the WFS PoA with regard to the Right to Food (Objective 7.4 of the Plan of Action) will form part of the national reports as earlier mentioned, without duplication of similar reports to the UN (7.3.a). Reporting by the UN System itself on follow-up and interagency coordination will be organized under the framework of the ACC network on Food Security and Rural Development, through arrangements that will be developed as the Network starts functioning.