The Right to FoodAchievements, barriers & policy proposals by a non-legal

activist with field experience

The Hague DialogueRight to Food and the CitiesThursday 24 September 2015 – Milan

JOSE LUIS VIVERO POL PhD Research Fellow in Food Governance

Achievements

Challenges

BarriersProposals

Legal Common SenseAssociated to right to life, right to be, right to thrive, freedom from want

Immediate dimension: free of hunger

Progressive: Access to adequate food

Understood as commons sense in most cultures & groups (Hossain et al., 2015)

• Pasamos de la “Seguridad Alimentaria existe cuando…” a “la realización de un derecho…”,

Leyes de SAN de Guatemala y Brasil (2005 y 2006)

• De “situación” a “derecho”, que se ha de garantizar (por el Estado) y se puede exigir (por los ciudadanos)

• El DA está desarrollándose desde hace 20 años (PIDESC), luego su reconocimiento en los países y ahora con la justiciabilidad.

Same LEGAL CONSIDERATION &

LEVEL OF PROTECTION than Right not to be tortured or freedom of

speechFoto

: San

deep

Th

ukal

Latin America is leading

• Awareness, protection and justiciability (Vivero, 2010)

• 15 Parliamentary Fronts Against Hunger

• Regional Framework Law (Parlatino,2012)

Legal FrameworksFNS Framework Laws (12) Armenia (2002), Argentina (2003), Guatemala (2005), Brazil (2006), Venezuela (2008), Ecuador (2009), Mexico DF (2009), Nicaragua (2009), Honduras (2011), Zanzibar (2011), Indonesia (2012), India (2013)

FNS draft laws in Parliaments (13)Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Uganda

7

LAC (13% of world´s countries)

• 65% (15 out of 23 countries) explicit RtF in Constitution (Knuth & Vidar, 2011)

• 66% (8 out of 12) FNS Laws including RtF

• 70% FNS law drafts in Parliaments

• 28% signatories of OP ICESCR (2015)

Food Security Laws (Vivero, 2010; 2011)

• Although not main driving forces, anchor institutional set up and keep momentum in transitions between governments

• Create national FNS systems• Process as important as results: Enable

civil society to participate, implement & monitor (accountability)

• Necessary but not sufficient

Justiciability• Jurisprudence is mounting: More 60

RTF cases (IDLO, 2015)

• LAC leading: Honduras (2007), Guatemala (2006), Argentina (2007), Paraguay (2002, 2006) (Vivero, 2011)

• Judges/lawyers become more aware of possibilities (Vidar et al., 2014)

Main actors supporting the Right to

Food

Countries supporting RtF

Few countries investing in the Right to Food

Lessons learned for RTF achievements to date

• Useful Policy Guide to question balance of power in food systems (De Schutter, 2013)

• Subversive analysis of root causes (Lambek, 2015)

(avoiding the “we have a situation”)• Glue of diverse constituencies (Claeys, 2015; Callenius et al.,

2014)

• Aspirational driver, becoming object of social struggles (Hossain et al., 2015)

• Mutually reinforcing food sovereignty (De Schutter, 2014; Lambek, 2014)

• Process as important as output (Vivero, 2010)

• Opening up spaces for civil society participation and monitoring (Lambek, 2015; Vivero, 2011)

Political challenges• Excessive emphasis on State obligations

(Claeys, 2015)

• Clash of roles: State as violator and guarantor at same time (Lambek, 2015)

• Neglecting responsibility of consumers, TNCs, non-state actors (Foundations, NGOs) (Narula, 2015)

• Lack of constituency & representativeness because failed to capture imagination of hungry communities (Claeys, 2015).

Paradigm Barriers• Food as a human right (moral) collides

with food as a commodity (amoral)

• Food not considered a public good (Vivero, 2015)

• Other ESCR (health, education, water) are considered public goods & they have progressed as enforceable rights

Normative Barriers

• RtF not justiciable as Civil & Political Rights (Chilton, 2009) because is feared (Vivero, 2011)

• Not in America (San Salvador Protocol) or in Africa (CHPR), yes in OP ICESCR

• RtF actively rejected by US (Messer & Cohen, 2009) & Canada (Margulis, 2015) + Int. Org. (G8, G20, WEF, WTO, WB, IMF) & Corporations (Lambek, 2014)

• Rationale: RtF is imprecise, subject to available resources and progressive realization (Vidar et al., 2014)

Operational Barriers• A law that citizens and judges are

unaware of is not applied (Vivero, 2011)

• How the hungry are reaching the judge? • Lack of pro-bono lawyers (who

contracts the defenders?)• No financial support by development

agencies, UN or private foundations• Meagre budgetary obligations to

progressively fulfill it

Legal technicalities that hamper justiciability

• Diffuse responsibility: what ministry is responsible of anyone’s hunger?

• Lack of classification of crimes, offenses & punishment on RtF violations

• Hunger is not legally a cause of death in most countries (forensic certificates)

EUROPA leaving many behind

because food is not a right

• 123 M poor EU people (1/4) (Oxfam, 2015)

• 50 M severe material deprivation: food, water…(EUROSTAT, 2015)

• 2009-15, + 7.5 M poor

• 30-40% children (6 EU members) below poverty line (UNICEF, 2014)

• Increasing children at school with no breakfast (UK, Netherlands, Spain)

No RtF in EU: How is that possible?• NOT in European Social Charter• NOT in any EU constitution• NOT in MDGs & SDGs narrative

• Proposal in Belgium: National Food Policy Council including whole food chain (Eggen, 2014)

• Proposal in Spain: RtF in Constitution• European Citizen´s Initiative + EP:

water as human right + commons • Universal Food Coverage (non-existing)

Proposals for International Actors

Pro-Bono Public Interest Litigation for Jurisprudence (collective & individual cases)

23

Time for binding treaties

Global Convention on Health (Goslin, 2011)

Food Treaty (Macmillan & Vivero, 2011; Vivero,

2014)

Human rights & transnational corporations

http://www.treatymovement.com/

Tackle poor diets and fight obesity

http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/news/2014/11/open-letter-global-convention/

Proposals for urban areas

24

To guarantee school meals for all

students in public schools

25

To support local purchase (small farming, agro-ecology & cooperatives) to satisfy food needs of municipal premises 26

Stricter & innovative rules to avoid food waste

To recycle all expired food (i.e. France)

Supporting citizens´ collective

actions to reduced waste, promote food sharing

and co-producing27

Shifting from charitable food (Food Banks) to food as right (Universal Food Coverage)

A food bank network that is universal, accountable, compulsory and not voluntary, random, targeted

28

Compulsory rooftop greening for every new building (with edibles, non-edibles)

29

Establishing bakeries where every citizen can get access to a bread loaf every day (if needed or willing to)

30

Encourage Food Policy Councils (open

membership to citizens) through participatory

democracies, financial seed capital and enabling

laws31

Set target for food provisioning in 2030 (Food Council)

• 60% private sector• 25% self-production (collective

actions) • 15% state-provisioning (public

buildings, destitute people, unemployed families) through Universal Food Coverage 

32

33

I am eager to exchange on right to food, hunger

eradication & food as a commons

@joselviveropol

joseluisviveropol

http://hambreyderechoshumanos.blogspot.com

http://hungerpolitics.wordpress.com

Jose Luis Vivero Poljoseluisvivero@gmail.com

Bibliography• Callenius, C., Oenema, S., & Valente, F. (2014). Preface. In Right to food and nutrition watch: The years of

the right to food guidelines: Gains, concerns and struggles. http://www.rtfn-watch.org/fileadmin/media/rtfn-watch.org/ENGLISH/pdf/Watch_2014/Watch_2014_PDFs/R_t_F_a_N_Watch_2014_eng.pdf

• Claeys, P. (2015). The right to food: Many developments, more challenges. Canadian Food Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 60–67. https://www.academia.edu/15471376/The_right_to_food_Many_developments_more_challenges_in_Canadian_Food_Studies_

• Claeys, P. and Lambek, N. (2014) Creating an Environment for a Fully Realized Right to Food: Progress, Challenges and Emerging Alternative Policy Models. A Ten-Year Retrospective on Voluntary Guidelines, FIAN International.

• Chilton, M. (2009). A rights-based approach to food insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (7): 1203–1211.

• De Schutter, O. (2012). From charity to entitlement: Implementing the right to food in Southern and Eastern Africa. Briefing Note No. 5. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/otherdocuments/20120620_briefing_note_05_en.pdf

• De Schutter, O. (2013). Assessing a decade of right to food progress. Report presented to the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, A/68/288. United Nations

• De Schutter, S. (2014). Final report: The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food, UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

• Eggen, M (2014). The law on the right to adequate food: a necessary step in the fight against food insecurity and malnutrition in Belgium. In: Right to food and nutrition watch: The years of the right to food guidelines: Gains, concerns and struggles. Pp. 74-75 http://www.rtfn-watch.org/fileadmin/media/rtfn-watch.org/ENGLISH/pdf/Watch_2014/Watch_2014_PDFs/R_t_F_a_N_Watch_2014_eng.pdf

• EUROSTAT (2015). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Severe_material_deprivation_rate

• UNICEF (2014). Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries’, Innocenti Report Card 12, UNICEF, www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc12-eng-web.pdf

• Gostin LO. (2012). A Framework Convention on Global Health: health for all, justice for all. JAMA;307:2087–92. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.4395PMID:22665108

• Golay, C. (2011). The Right to Food and Access to Justice: Examples at the National, Regional and International Levels. FAO, Rome.

• Hossain, N., D. te Lintelo, A. Wanjiku-Kelbert (2015). A commons sense approach to the right to food. IDS working paper 458. Institute of Development Studies. http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/a-common-sense-approach-to-the-right-to-food

• IDLO (in press). Realizing the Right to Food: Legal Strategies and Approaches. International Development Law Organization

• Knuth, L. & M. Vidar (2011). Constitutional and legal protection of the right to food around the world. Right to Food Studies, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap554e/ap554e.pdf

• Lambek, N. (2015). The right to food: Reflecting on the past and future possibilities—Synthesis Paper. Canadian Food Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 68–74.

• Lambek, N. (2014). 10 years of the right to adequate food guidelines: Progress, obstacles and the way head. Civil Society Synthesis Paper for the 41st Session of the UN Committee on World Food Security. FIAN International. Retrieved from http://www.fian.org/fileadmin/media/publications/10yearGuidelines_CivilSociety_SynthesisPaper_en_01.pdf

• MacMillan, A. & J.L. Vivero (2011). The governance of hunger. Innovative proposals to make the right to be free from hunger a reality. In: Martín-López, M.A. & J.L. Vivero, eds. New challenges to the Right to Food. CEHAP, Cordoba and Editorial Huygens, Barcelona. https://www.academia.edu/1860979/The_Governance_of_Hunger_legal_innovations_to_improve_accountability_on_food_security

• Margulis, M.E. (2015). Forum-Shopping for Global Food Security Governance? Canada’s Approach at the G8 and UN Committee on World Food Security. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 21(2), 164-178.

• Optional Protocol (5 Mayo 2013). 21 countries (6 LAC, 11 Europe). https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-a&chapter=4&lang=en

• OXFAM (2015). Europe for the many, not the few. Working Paper. https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/bp206-europe-for-many-not-few-090915-en.pdf

• Vidar, M., Y.J. Kim & L. Cruz (2014). Legal developments in the progressive realization of the right to adequate food. Thematic study, FAO Legal Office. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3892e.pdf

• Vivero Pol, J.L. (2010). El enfoque legal contra el hambre: el derecho a la alimentación y las leyes de seguridad alimentaria. En X. Erazo, L. Pautassi & A. Santos, eds. Exigibilidad y realización de derechos sociales. Impacto en la política pública. Pp 163-188. Editorial LOM, Santiago, Chile. https://www.academia.edu/15343980/El_enfoque_legal_contra_el_hambre_el_derecho_a_la_alimentaci%C3%B3n_y_las_leyes_de_seguridad_alimentaria

• Vivero Pol, J.L. (2011). Hunger for justice in Latin America. The justiciability of the right to food, In Martin, M. A. & Vivero Pol, J.L. (eds). New Challenges to the Right to Food, CEHAP, Cordoba and Huygens Editorial, Barcelona. https://www.academia.edu/1860935/Hunger_for_Justice_in_Latin_America._The_justiciability_of_the_right_to_food

• Vivero Pol, J.L. (2014). The commons-based international Food Treaty: A legal architecture to sustain a fair and sustainable food transition. In: Collart-Dutilleul, F. & T. Breger, eds. Penser une démocratie alimentaire Volume II. Lascaux European Research Programme. Nantes. Pp. 177-206. https://www.academia.edu/5899060/The_commons-based_international_Food_Treaty_a_legal_architecture_to_sustain_the_transition

• Vivero Pol, J.L. (2015). Food is a public good. World Nutrition 6 (4): 306-309. • Zepeda, R. (2014). The struggle for right to Food Justiciability in Guatemala: A Follow up on the

Child Malnutrition litigation Case in Camotán Municipality. In: Right to food and nutrition watch: The years of the right to food guidelines: Gains, concerns and struggles. Pp. 60-62 Retrieved from http://www.rtfn-watch.org/fileadmin/media/rtfn-watch.org/ENGLISH/pdf/Watch_2014/Watch_2014_PDFs/R_t_F_a_N_Watch_2014_eng.pdf