[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are it behooves you.This Reader critiques the ongoing baby steps being taken to establish an International Panel on Inequality. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
1. Many years ago (actually end of 2019) I wrote about why, at its midpoint, the UN Decade of Nutrition 2015-2025 would not achieve its objectives –which it did not. Excuses galore were given, major among them was the COVID pandemic, but there were other.*
*: Because of its non-achievement the Decade was extended for five more years, to 2030…. (What will the next excuse be? The war on Iran…?).
2. Here is a summary of what I wrote at the time:
The experience from past UN-sponsored ‘decades’ has not been too good. We simply have not lived up to the challenge at midpoint. So, mind you, we need to do better –and needed changes will NOT come from above… A significant difference will only come from public interest CSOs (PICSOs) and social movements pushing Member States to commit to action plans and then hold them accountable for progress on, at least, a year-to-year basis. This has not happened.
Among other shortcomings, we have failed to get UN agencies to adopt the already widely accepted concept of Food Sovereignty (see HRR569 at www.claudioschuftan.com) which they have shunned away-from so far. Moreover, UN agencies have stayed away from using the concept-of and tackling the social determination of nutrition. (see HRR272 in same website)
Critical, and as soon as possible, is to refocus the Decade on the human rights (HR) framework clearly identifying claim holders and duty bearers and doing a capacity analysis of what the expected roles of these two groups are. This, to be followed by a gap analysis showing where these actors are not living up to what they ought to be doing.Needed will be a massive HR learning process as the only thing that will lead to getting closer to the Decade’s objectives.
A process of empowerment of claim holders to organize, mobilize and demand needed changes is key. Without this, we can anticipate little will be happening or just token steps ‘to-keep-up-with-the-Joneses’ and save face in front of the international community.
And… most importantly, it is not for us to top-down decide priorities for the Decade! It is the claim holders suffering violations of their right to nutrition to lead in deciding priority actions.
The core issue of the Decade is a push and pull question. Only actively ‘pulling’ by claim holders will move the Decade ahead. UN and other international agencies can do little to push Member States to commit. History is clear about this.
We must further be highly skeptical about private sector actors becoming involved in allegedly ’empowering’ claim holders: this is counterintuitive… [Studies have revealed that this sector’s intervention brings with it conflicts of interest that compromise public policy].**
**: If commercial and financial incentives are the engine, then conflicts of interest are the lubricant. (C. Van Tulleken,)
3. As I said at the time, PICSOs have the crucial role of monitoring progress made in the progressive realization of ten-year plans to fulfill, in this case, the right to food and nutrition. Annual benchmarks of processes-set-in-motion have to be set so that these CSOs can assess progress, stagnation or retrogression on an annual basis with something akin to presenting shadow reports.
4. I quote this 2019 piece, because of something that is happening right now, in another domain though. I refer to the ongoing baby steps being taken to establish an International Panel on Inequality (IPI).***
***: The IPI “marks an important step toward building a global, science-based platform to tackle inequality. Inspired by the IPCC model and spearheaded by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the IPI aims to respond to growing evidence that extreme inequality is undermining democracy and economic progress”. “Since inequality is not destiny, but a result of policy choices, policy-oriented research can support governments in monitoring trends and impacts of inequality, and design effective policies at local, national and global levels. (UNRISD) …can it really?
5. I want you to look at the Decade’s critique above and substitute Decade for IPI. …Am I biased to say that very similar risks loom in the future?
I am not trying to be a spoiler, but a realist; so, let me, again, be a devil’s advocate —this time about the IPI
–If anything, inequality is a chronic emergency and nothing much has been done for decades. Are not things actually going the other way on inequality?
6. The IPI is supposedly modeled on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has undoubtedly and scientifically dramatized the risks we will all face in this planet. But policy-wise, the IPCC has not much to show for. Yes, the IPCC has dramatically helped to expand a consensus, but has not been able to spearhead commensurate action. Are not things actually going the other way on climate?
7. I ask, will the nascent IPI do any better when primarily “collecting/synthesizing/ presenting evidence” (their words) without frontally addressing the underlying power factor hampering inequality-redressing actions?**** Do not get me wrong: there is nothing wrong with the IPI –and the founding document does mention power imbalances. But… What excuses will be adduced five years down the line when equality has advanced but an inch?
****: How do we face and fight power? With counter-power, stupid! Think suffragettes, think unionization, think 40 hour working week, think maternity leave, think India’s farmers strike(s), think Fridays school strikes for climate, think anti-ICE and ‘No Kings’ rallies as an awakening in the US (will they fizzle like the 99/1 Movement did a decade or more ago?) … Oh God, so many! No, no, don’t think God. Think Marx or, more non-partisanly, just think unbiased common sense. Think: what will change for those rendered unequal by next Monday morning or next January, or in five years along the line? (Also think: What will change when the Bear of the North, with its threats of tariffs (among other) interferes with impunity in Cuba, Argentina, Honduras (did you read about Hondurasgate this week?), Venezuela, Iran…? Does this not have inequality implications? Wither IPI?
8. Cannot we do more than throwing policy research, webinars,***** declarations, petitions and other such at the problem while inequality-as-a-chronic-emergency still gallops and worsens? (Think Oxfam’s yearly Davos reports…).
*****: Millions of hours of brain power are spent on these, yet webinars too often do not go beyond intellectual exercises –on top of often talking to the already converted. In the same vein, I could add here: Look at the hundreds of learned articles on these topics in the literature –do they represent exercises in futility? What percentage focuses on calls to action other than recommending a bunch of SHOULDS (the government, the UN, civil society should…) rather than straightforwardly saying MUST and calling for claim holders to proactively move to demand action?
9. All these issues are clearly a challenge for IPI since linking research to policy has, so far mostly, miserably failed. Why? Because so many duty bearers do not listen to research or science; they listen to their cronies, to climate change denialists, to anti-vaxxers… and, in general, follow their own ideological and political interests –that are far far from social equality, HR and the rights of nature.
10. The challenge for IPI, as in the case of the Decade presented above, is to move the people (and claim holders) from their state of apathy. For this, we literally need to shock claim holders into action (since what they see happening before their eyes on their TV screens is clearly not enough). Then will come the need to coalesce these movements. ******
******: Hello! IPI, what will it be then?
11. But IPI is not the only issue that worries me in 2026. I could add so many other constraints to a genuine progress in tackling inequality. I can think of so much more, but I would need a 2nd edition of this manifesto.
12. This much, then, for my 2026 incensed and disconcerting state of mind: calling a spade a spade (my spade, true). Anybody for a counterpoint using their own spade?
Bottom line
13. This time, as my bottom line, I can only say: I wish I were wrong.
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
#HumanRightsReaders
#HumanRights
#ClaudioSchuftan