Human rights: Food for a dignifying thought ‘The right to food’
HRR 776
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about the various constraints the fulfillment of the RTF faces from the prevailing food system and from the institutions (governments and corporations) that dominate the UN summits on the matter. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
The right to food is above all a right to feed oneself with dignity and not a right to be fed (Michael Fakhri)
—We are doing so pitifully little. (Note that the RTF is not even mentioned once! in the SDGs –and FAO only has voluntary guidelines on the RTF).
Industrial Food systems
1. Industrial food systems are premised on the exploitation of both land and workers (particularly food workers, who are among the most exploited categories of worker) and on the promotion of poor nutritional habits, i.e., the consumption of edible commodities and not foods. (Jennifer Clapp)
2. These systems produce as much violence as food; they affect and erode communal and social relations, especially when they ought to be as diverse as the communities for which they produce. In sum, food production needs to be understood, not as a commodity sector, but be inserted in a dynamic set of social, cultural, ecological and economic relations.
3. The unsustainability and inequality of contemporary food systems are also importantly contributing to foreign debt. Broadly speaking, this is due to four factors characterizing food systems in their interplay with public finance:
- developing countries having designed food systems specialized in cash crops for the purpose of export in order to draw in foreign currency, especially dollars, often at the expense of the diverse food crops traditionally consumed by local populations. (IPES FOOD)
- For decades, Governments have disinvested from agriculture and social spending, leaving food system investment to corporations and financial institutions. These flows are driven by unsustainable development financing models, such as structural adjustment programs, public-private partnerships and foreign direct investment, all of which prioritize export-driven growth and corporate interests over local needs. Tax evasion, capital flight and debt servicing exacerbate these fiscal strains.
- Price volatility and crises, i.e., so-called boom-bust cycles. When food prices rise, multinational corporations use their purchasing power and dominance of supply chains to capture all the gains, leaving very little for small and medium-sized enterprises or farmers. In times of low prices, many farms and small businesses fail, which large corporations treat as an opportunity to acquire more land and businesses. and
- The fourth factor is climate change and the resulting financial burden for the countries most affected by it. Climate change increases borrowing costs for low-income countries, as financial institutions and private lenders penalize climate-vulnerable nations with higher interest rates, leading to higher debt and reduced capacity for resilience investments.
…and then there is the WTO and international trade.
International trade is, not just an economic or supply management issue, but also a matter of food sovereignty and labor rights
4. A trade policy informed by food sovereignty and labor rights means that food markets are not simply about buying and selling commodities. Markets need to be fair and stable. Trade policy should strengthen local, regional and intercommunal self-reliance.*
*: It is well recognized that the Agreement on Agriculture of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become obsolete. Considering that WTO agricultural negotiations have been at an impasse for decades, combined with recent acute disagreements at the Organization over food security, a right-to-food approach to trade is more important than ever.
…and then there is the World Bank
The World Bank’s theory of change focuses on creating new incentives
5. The focus on incentives is limited though, because it reduces people to individual decision-makers who decide only on an economic basis. The theoretical limit of focusing on incentives is that people make decisions based on social, cultural and political values in individual but also communal contexts. The political limit of incentives thus is that they will reward actors who already have economic power.
…and then there is the Food Systems Summit
6. As part of the United Nations Food Systems Summit, States designated (non-elected) Member State as dialogue convenors who organized national food systems dialogues. In turn, those dialogues informed the creation of national food pathways whose purpose was/is to outline a way towards developing a sustainable food system. The dialogues were/are not informed by any human rights principles. Participants were selected by Governments and the process was not transparent or necessarily inclusive.
7. Moreover, the Summit’s actual events left human rights at the margins. It is, therefore, not surprising that of all the means of implementation identified in all the national food pathways, the least cited was human rights (human rights were mentioned in 0.61% of the different priorities and governance for sustainable food systems was the third least cited and mentioned in 2.06% of the different priorities).
Bottom line: The legal status of the right to food should not determine whether action is taken
8. Instead, a political process to exert social power is what is necessary to demand the right to food from all levels of government, from individual duty bearers and from organizations that can contribute to take up the RTF as a human right and to join plans of action along those lines. (all from M. Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com