National Conference on the Right To Adequate Food

National Conference on RTAF 1

ay One

The National Conference on the Right to Adequate Food: A Collective Action for Policy Reform

was formally opened with inter-faith prayers and offerings from leaders representing Islam,

Christian and Indigenous Peoples. This was followed by the welcome remarks of Ms. Aurea G.

Miclat-Teves, President of FoodFirst Information and Action Network-Philippines (FIAN-

Philippines). The first day of the conference was facilitated by Dean Rosalinda Ofreneo of the

University of the Philippines - College of Social Work and Community Development (UP-

CSWCD) during the morning session and Atty. Ricardo Sunga of Free Legal Assistance Group

(FLAG) in the afternoon.

Welcome Remarks:

In behalf of the National Food Coalition composed of more than 50 organizations and

federations with more than 10,000 members, and the NFC Steering Committee represented by

FIAN-Philippines, PDI, Philrights and AFRIM, I would like to welcome you in this historic

opportunity for us to learn how to recast government policies to address our right to adequate

food (RTAF). We would also like to invite you to become active participants and members of the

NFC in our struggle to fight for our right to adequate food.

I would like to welcome Dr. Flavio Valente and Ms. Yifang Tang of FIAN-IS and our friend

from BFW-ED, Martin Remppis, whose commitment and dedication to RTAF cannot be

measured.

The National Food Coalition was born out of the need of all the sectors in Philippine society to

respond to the growing hunger and impoverishment in the country.

There have been scant discussions on policy reform on RTAF and the role of politics and power

in explaining the vulnerability of the poor rural communities to hunger and malnutrition.

Discussions are left wanting because they fail to engage the strategic issue on RTAF and the

D

“PAGKAIN SAPAT DAPAT”

National Conference on the Right to Adequate Food:

A Collective Action for Policy Reform

Organized by the

National Food Coalition

Sulo Riviera Hotel, Diliman, Quezon City

February 27-28, 2013

2 National Conference on RTAF

reform agenda to define who holds the power and how the balance of political forces in rural

areas can advance or retard significant change.

The conference aims to address this serious deficit by restoring the emphasis on the power

relations that increase the economic and political uncertainties and the multiple risks associated

with unclear policies and unresolved property rights in rural areas, and how these in turn

heightens the vulnerability of the rural poor to hunger and malnutrition, directly affected by

environmental and climate change.

The principal objective is to create a forum for assessing and learning from the collective actions

of the peasants and IPs at the ground level and the urban poor and other civil society groups at

the urban centers, learn from the Brazil experience with regard to our struggle for the right to

adequate food.

Specifically, the conference would like to define the next step process for the national platform

on RTAF; formulate an RTAF Campaign; learn from the experiences of other countries and

present a summary report of what has been done by the coalition.

The broader goal is to understand how the various Philippine policies on RTAF can be integrated

into a national policy framework and develop change strategies that will impact on the larger

issues of economic growth for rural and urban development

To show the glaring reality on the RTAF situation in the Philippines, please watch this video

presentation.

Video Presentation: Chicken ala Carte

Input:

SUFFICIENT FOOD FOR All

By Aurea G. Miclat-Teves

Convenor, National Food Coalition

President, FIAN Philippines

President, Peoples Development Institute (PDI)

Our conference comes at a very opportune time.

In three months, we will be electing our local executives and the members of Congress – our

representatives and senators.

Many issues are being raised by candidates competing for our votes. Some say they deserve our

support for championing reproductive health, some for freedom of information, others for wage

increases and agrarian reform, and there are those who say they will end political dynasties, etc.

etc.


These are all well and good. But as our groups are concerned with the right to adequate food, we

would like to know what these candidates have to say about food security and how they, as our

leaders and legislators, once elected, can make this a reality in the Philippines in our lifetime.

The Aquino administration is in the final half of its term and it is seeking our votes in the local

and congressional elections to support its candidates that will back its programs until the

president steps down in 2016. As it winds up its reform program, we need to make the

administration aware and see the urgency of crafting a national food policy before it bows out of

office. The crucial element in any platform to improve the lives of Filipinos is assuring food

security for the nation - or providing adequate food that is accessible to all, especially to the poor

in the rural and urban areas.

This challenge is especially directed at the candidates for congressmen and senators. They are

the ones who will legislate a national food policy at the direction of the administration whose

leadership in this regard must be clearly seen and felt. We must, therefore, determine which

candidates have made themselves informed of the issues involved in regard to food security and

are going to take the correct steps to address this problem and approach it from the right

perspective.

Hunger Haunts

So what is the food situation? This is graphically described by the hunger incidence.

The latest survey by the Social Weather Stations on hunger shows that the hunger rate has come

down from 21 % in the third quarter of 2012 to 16.3 % in the fourth quarter. That means the

number of families who have experienced involuntary hunger, or having had nothing to eat at

least once in the past three months, went down from 4.3 million in the third quarter to 3.3 million

in the fourth quarter. That translates roughly to 16.5 million individuals, based on an average

family size of five. That is roughly the size of Holland and about three times the population of

Singapore.

Looking further into the SWS reports from 1998 to 2012, however, shows that hunger has

steadily risen nationwide. In 1998, the average incidence of hunger in the National Capital

Region was 8.1 %; it more than doubled to 22.9 % in 2012. In the rest of Luzon, it increased

from 9.9 % to 17.8 %; in the Visayas, it rose from 11.3 % to14.6 %; in Mindanao it was 14.5 %,

increasing to 26.3 %. Over this period, moderate to severe hunger almost doubled to 19.9 % in

2012 from 11 % in 1998.

During these years, the official Philippine population figure rose from 60.7 million in 1990 to

76.51 million in 2000 and 92.34 million in 2010. So as our population steadily expanded, so did

the number of hungry Filipinos rise while undernourishment declined only slowly. Hunger has

been haunting the nation under the various administrations since the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos

- from Ramos' six years, Estrada's aborted term, Arroyo's nearly 10 years in office, and half of

Aquino's term. Is there hope that the 16th Congress will improve the situation?


Food is Life

Food, like air and water, is a basic human entitlement that no one can live without. It is a

personal and a human right. To regard food more as a need than a right will subject it to the usual

resource constraints that will make it compete with bureaucratic priorities, which, in the end, will

make it undeliverable in timely and sufficient amounts. The right to adequate food is no less than

the right to life.

There are three important elements of the right to food. Food should be adequate, available and

accessible.

The state is primarily responsible for ensuring that its people have access to enough, nutritious,

and safe food so that they can enjoy healthy and productive lives. Access entails providing

physical facilities and the economic means to obtain food. In the human rights framework in

which food is a basic right, the state's duties and obligations make it a duty bearer, which implies

accountability.

The right to food implies three types of state obligations - the obligation to respect, protect and to

fulfill. These were defined in General Comment 12 by the Committee on ESCR and endorsed by

states when the FAO Council adopted the Right to Food Guidelines (Voluntary Guidelines) in

November 2004.

As a national policy, the Philippines should aim at ensuring food security, self-sufficiency and

freedom from hunger of all Filipinos.

The Legal Framework

The assessment of the Philippine legal framework, or PLF, and the available recourse

mechanisms, national human rights institutions, law-making processes, and awareness of the

right to adequate food indicates that it falls short of the imperatives for realizing the right to food.

It does not sufficiently incorporate human rights obligations arising from the right to food,

including the state's obligations of international cooperation.

Various existing laws on food, food safety, availability, and accessibility are incoherent and not

complementary and sometimes conflict with each other. Their analysis of the different policies

related to food focused mainly on the three parameters - availability, accessibility and safety.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to adequate food but

there is recognition inferred from several provisions and constitutional intent. Article II seeks

improvement of the quality of life and social justice while Article III covers agrarian reform and

rights of subsistence fishermen.


National Food Policy

Before any policy is crafted, the government must first recognize its own shortcomings. The Asia

Pacific Policy Center study on the legal framework on the right to food of vulnerable sectors

found the following:

Government agencies are still largely unaware of their obligations in relation to the right

to food. A national survey also found that awareness and perception among the public

regarding their right to food varies by income class and educational attainment -- the

higher the educational attainment, the higher the awareness of the right to food.

The right to food is among the country's lowest priority areas for national spending, while

debt service payments account for one of the largest shares of the national budget.

The existing food legal framework does not enhance physical access to food, especially

by those most vulnerable to hunger, and the laws on availability need to be harmonized.

The food legal framework does not sufficiently address human rights obligations arising

from the right to food and falls short of the "Voluntary Guidelines to Support the

Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of Food Security."

Special laws and regulations for those most vulnerable to hunger or in special situations

(i.e., children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and persons with HIV/AIDS)

influence the hunger situation of these special groups.

The laws governing food prices do not significantly mitigate hunger, while laws

governing wages and employment are generally unfavorable to workers, and other laws

relating to income generating opportunities are generally flawed.

The laws governing access to credit influence the hunger situation in limited ways since

they do not actually enlarge access to credit.

The food safety laws recognize the notion of safe food that meets dietary needs although

they may not directly contribute to alleviating hunger.

In view of the findings, the National Food Coalition last year recommended taking three crucial

steps to respond to these shortcomings:

1. Adopt a national food policy, with the full and active participation of all actors

concerned, including those most vulnerable to hunger.

2. Use the national food policy to rationalize the legal framework governing food by

synchronizing laws, addressing contradiction in policy objectives correcting flaws and

ambiguities, repealing laws that obstruct the realization of the RTAF, aligning the budget

to the national food policy, enhancing the mandates of the national human rights

institutions and improving the process of law making.


3. Develop capacity with regard to the RTAF, and promote the rights-based approach to

establish and implement the national policy governing the RTAF for all and to monitor

the state's HR accountability.

Addressing hunger and extreme poverty is the most important policy challenge for our leaders.

The members of the 16th Congress has their work cut out for them and the first order of business

may be to formulate a coherent legal framework for the right to adequate food and craft the

national food policy.

Input:

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: THE GLOBAL DEBATES ON RTAF

AND SOCIAL PROTECTION AND ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

By: Mr. Martin Remppis

Bread for the World

1. Mr. Martin Remppis opened the discussion on his topic with the worldwide dimensions of

hunger. Based on FAO-statistics there are 868 million people suffering from chronic hunger

in the world. Approximately, 25,000 die of hunger every day. With this approximated death

figure are 16,000 children. Thus, there is a child dying of hunger every five seconds in the

world.



2. Based on various researches on the phenomenon of hunger in the world, it was found out

that:

A) More rural poor suffer from hunger that urban poor.

Source: Background Paper of the UN Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger

B) Women and girls are much more affected by hunger than men and boys.

C) Social exclusion and discrimination of people is the main reason for hunger (Indigenous

peoples, minorities, etc), and

D) Those who have limited self-help capacities (elderly, people with disability, etc.) suffer

hunger first.

3. Based on international laws, the States have the obligation to progressively realize all

economic, social and cultural rights. This progressive realization contains the different types

or levels of state obligations to respect, protect and fulfill. Respect-bound obligation means

that the State must not hinder one‘s access to food. Protect-bound obligation requires the

State to act and prevent third party entities from hindering one‘s access to food, while its

fulfill-bound obligation mandates the State to realize the right to food for everyone.

4. The obligation to fulfil can be disaggregated into three different obligations: a) The

obligation to facilitate requires the state to take positive measures to assist individuals and

communities to enjoy the right; b)The obligation to promote obliges the state to take steps to

ensure that there is appropriate education and information concerning the right (this is

however not mentioned in the General Comment No. 12 of the Right to Adequate Food); the

obligation to provide requires the state to ensure the enjoyment of the right by the

availability of food supply or the financial possibility to purchase food.

5. On the recent debate on the Access to Resources in which right to food is primary, the

Committee on Food Security (CFS) approved the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible

Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food

Security in May 2012. This is a new tool for governments and civil society organizations to

address land issues. A download is available under: www.fao.org

In the same period, the International Labour Conference adopted ILO Recommendation

Concerning National Floors of Social Protection. This is a new tool for governments and

civil society organizations to address basic social security. The document can be

downloaded under: www.ilo.org. NGOs that were involved in the drafting of the ILO-

Recommendations formed the platform Coalition for Social Protection Floor (SPF

Coalition).

http://www.fao.org/

http://www.ilo.org/


In October last year, the Committee on Food Security (CFS) endorsed the Policy

Recommendations regarding Social Protection for Food Security and Nutrition (download

under www.fao.org)

At the same time, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier de Schutter and

the UN Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona

called for the creation of a Global Fund for Social Protection (GFSP). This call gained the

support of the European Parliament.

Open Forum:

Dr. Ofreneo: Hunger is a rural phenomenon yet the trend in the Philippines is urban

development. Thus, the Philippines is dealing more with the urban hunger

phenomenon. What is your comment on this?

Martin Remppis: The problems in the rural and urban areas are linked. Most of our perception, even

with those in the international community is urban-biased. The studies leading to

conclusion that hunger phenomenon is rural does not mean to neglect urban

hunger. It is just to show that the percentage is higher in the rural than that in the

urban areas.

Victoria Navida

(DSWD):

The Department of Social Welfare and Development in the Philippines is using the

―National Household Targeting System‖ in identifying people to serve especially

those experiencing hunger. We are also using this tool to reduce hunger in the

country. Our department will hold consultations on the result of the recent

vulnerability survey using this system and I am inviting members of the civil

society organizations to participate in these events.

Conchita Masin: Destruction of the environment leads to severe hunger in the country. This is

aggravated by mismanagement of our officials. Good governance and

environmental effects must be factored in the discussion.

Martin Remppis: Respect, Protect and Fulfill are the most important aspects of the Right to

Adequate Food and should be the underlying principles of our targeting and

monitoring systems. People should be involved in the development of our

targeting and monitoring systems for them to own these systems and make them

work.

It is the socially excluded people that are often directly affected by destruction of

the environment and climate change. I agree that governance is the crucial factor

when we discuss the Right to Adequate Food.

Patrick Torres: Can we cite government‘s international human rights obligations when we

advocate for the Right to Adequate Food? What are some international

mechanisms we can resort to?


Monina Geaga: The Right to Adequate Food is not only an issue of sufficiency but also of quality

of food. Where in the global debate can we see discussions on the production of

genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) since our government supports both

organic and GMO productions?

Loida Rivera: We are facing an immediate problem today regarding the Government‘s Land

Tenure Improvement Program under CARPER since there are still about 900,000-

hectare balance and the program is due for termination. In our experience with

land distribution, these 900,000 balance needs a 5-year period to implement. Is

there a policy in your government that directly relates to our issue of land

ownership.

Martin Remppis: Yes, you can quote the government‘s international human rights obligations when

you advocate for the Right to Adequate Food! The international human rights

mechanism is regularly reporting to the Committee on Economic and Cultural

Rights and also the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which includes the review

of ESCR-Rights of which the Right to Adequate Food is part of. NGOs have the

opportunity to hand in parallel reports to the government‘s report.

The mentioned Voluntary Guidelines on Land rights can be used as a framework in

our advocacy. Of course, their nature is ―voluntary‖. However, they refer to

legally-binding documents that force governments to fulfill their obligations. It

can be of great help in the struggle of the landless.

There is a big global debate on how we can feed the world in the future. BftW

(Bread for the World) is convinced that GMO production, which means that

farmers lose control over what and how they produce food, is not the right

response to the question of feeding the world in the future. There is proof that

GMOs contribute to a monopolized food production and to the loss of bio-diversity

apart from the unknown health risks. We are convinced that we have to support a

sustainable family agriculture with a diversified farmer-owned seed breeding to

cope with the increasing demand for food. Our policy received important support

by IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology for Development) which is an expertise of 400 scientists. You can get

internet-information about IAASTD under www.agassessment.org.


Input:

THE RIGHTS BASED APPROACH

TO FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION:

THE CASE OF BRAZIL

Flavio Luiz Schieck Valente MD, MPH

FIAN International Secretary General

Mr. Valente stated his presentation with a brief historical overview and comparison between

Brazil and the Philippines.

1. During Brazil‘s Colonial period (1500 – 1822) situation was characterized by:

◦ Concentration of land and wealth of a small elite

◦ Extensive monoculture agriculture for export

◦ African slave labor and Social exclusion

◦ Industrialization not allowed

2. Between 1888 to 1898, Brazil abolished slavery. During this period, 75% of it‘s population

were African slaves or of slave descent; the concentration of wealth and resources remained

with the landlords; and exclusion of now ―freemen/women‖ worsened.

3. 1900-1964 marked the period of Brazil‘s Industrialization and import replacement while the

country was still characterized by:

◦ Concentration of land and wealth

◦ Extensive monoculture agriculture for export

◦ Social exclusion

4. The country was under military dictatorship in 1964 – 1985 which the elite dubbed as the

―Brazilian Miracle― because of massive construction of infrastructure alongside development

of agro-industrial model particularly on soybeans production. Land grabbing for agro-

industrial purposes led to the eviction of 7 million small scale peasant families.

5. Redemocratization process began in late 70´s and 80´s. Reorganization of the union

movement, the establishment of the Landless movement and broad mass mobilizations

marked the period. There was a struggle for direct elections in 1984; Constitutional

assembly in 1988; and the first direct elections for president took place in1989. This period

marked also the glaring dispute between two models of development in Brazil -- the Rights-

based framed development (constitution) and the Neo liberal development model – which

highlighted the issues of poverty, hunger, food and nutrition security. These have been

actively responded to by citizens‘ actions, social mobilization and the ascendancy of Lula to

the presidency by popular votes, in 2002. Below is the graph showing the evolution of

poverty in Brazil.


6. The government formally responded to hunger and poverty issues with the setting up of

Consea in 1993-1994 through a national conference directing for a national food and

nutritional security strategy. The neo liberal government, which governed from 1995 to

2002, extinguished CONSEA and a worsening of social conditions was observed, with

continued inequalitites. At the time of Lula‘s presidency (2003-2010), the Consea guided the

country‘s food and nutritional security policy in an attempt to implement the administration‘s

target of ―Zero Hunger‖. A clear reduction of extreme poverty and inequality has been

observed since then.

7. One third of Consea‘s members are government ministries and two-thirds coming from the

civil society organizations. It is a CSO-led mechanism, as its president must be coming from

civil society and the secretary from government ministry. The council is a rights-based

mechanism with strong civil society participation.


8. The ―Zero Hunger‖ strategy focused on three main components: a) the Access to Food, and

b) strengthening of Family Agriculture, c) Income generation, and d)Social mobilizations,

control and participation. Under ―Access to Food‖ were components of access to income

(Bolsa Familia), access to water (Cisterns), school meals (PNAE), distribution of vitamin A

and iron, food for specific population groups, food and nutrition education, food and nutrition

surveillance system (SISVAN), workers food program (PAT), local and regional food and

nutrition security networks composed of community kitchens, fairs, urban agriculture and

food banks. Under ―Strengthening of Family Agriculture‖ component were: financing of

family agriculture (PRONAF), agriculture insurance and harvest insurance, and food

acquisition program (PAA). Under income generation component, were professional

qualification, solidarity economy, social inclusion and microcredit. Under social mobilization

and control, were the establishment of CONSEAs at state and municipal level, citizenship

education and social mobilization.

9. Below is the regulatory Framework of the right to adequate food in Brazil. LOSAN in 2006

was a Rights based National Food and Nutritional Security Law. It has facilitated the

convening of the CONSEA and set up a national system or the SISAN. LOSAN is ruled by

the following principles (Article 8):

a) Universal and equal access to adequate food without any form of discrimination;

b) Preservation of the autonomy of and respect for the dignity of all;

c) Social participation in the formulation, implementation, follow-up, monitoring and

control of food and nutrition security policies and plans at all government levels; and

d) Transparency in all programs, actions and public and private resources and in the

criteria for allocation thereof.


10. SISAN on the other hand is based on the following guidelines:

1. Promoting intersectoral governmental and non-govermental policies, programs and

actions;

2. Ensuring the decentralization and collaborative coordination of actions within

government;

3. Monitoring the food and nutrition situation, with the aim of contributing to the

management cycle of policies for the area with different government bodies;

4. Combining the direct and immediate measures to ensure the right to adequate food

through actions that improve the autonomous subsistence capacity of the population;

5. Coordinating budget and management; and,

6. Encouraging the development of research and the training of human resources.

11. On the governance of the right to adequate food system of Brazil: The National Food and

Nutrition Security Conference approves the guidelines and priorities for the Food and

Nutrition Security Policy and Plan. Two-thirds of its composition is from the civil society

and one-third from the government. In this conference, all 27 federative units or States are

represented. The CONSEA is charge of proposing guidelines and priorities for the

deliberation of the conference and establishes the budget necessary for the Food and

Nutrition Security Policy and Plan. Two-thirds of CONSEA‘s membership (counselors)

comes from civil society and one-third from the government. Based on the guidelines issued

by CONSEA, CAISAN (inter-ministerial body) prepares the Food and Nutrition Security

Policy and Plan. It is in-charge of establishing guidelines, targets, funding sources, follow

ups, monitoring and evaluation tools. Below is the structure of the CONSEA.


12. Legal instruments to ensure the right to food in Brazil: LOSAN or the framework law on

food and nutrition security establishes the charter of principles for the right to adequate food.

It issues guidelines for State actions. It establishes the National Food and Nutrition Security

System or SISAN. The PNSAN or the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy

systematizes the guidelines issued by LOSAN for implementation. It details out

management plan, funding and monitoring/evaluation procedures. It establishes the duties of

the Union, States, Federal District and municipalities. The PLANSAN or the National Food

and Nutrition Security Plan is the planning instrument of the right to adequate food. It

defines objectives, challenges, guidelines and targets. It allocates public budget plan

13. Brazil‘s national mechanism for the right to adequate food has resulted to reduction of

hunger and malnutrition, reduction of poverty and inequalities, visible participation of

formerly excluded populations, inclusion and promotion of small scale farmers through

agrarian reform, credit facility and linkages to social programs´ procurement. It has also

upgraded the nominal value of minimum wage, increased the number of formal employment,

created the universal rural retirement pension system, facilitated dialogue on sustainable

agriculture model with agribusiness model. It has guaranteed space for social movements to

be heard, increased policy coherence with human rights and has provided a holistic approach

to food and nutritional security.

14. What remains as challenges for the system are the following:

Recourse mechanisms still largely insufficient

National Human Rights System still weak, reform of National Human Rights Council

needed

Lack of effective regulation of the power of agribusiness and food industry, including

marketing, ETO

Correlation of power in society and Congress, political reform is needed

Need for further dissemination of rights culture and of accountability mechanisms

Conflicts between development goals and HR.

Open Forum:

Patricia Gonzales: What is the role of Official Development Assistance (ODA) in your food

program in Brazil?

Flavio Valente: We used donations from the international community in the amount of $1 million

rather than against ODA support of $41 billion US dollars with conditionalities

from international financing institutions such as the World Bank.

Elsa Novo: The current Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program of the government has not

improved the condition of the poor particularly of women. It has led to lowering

of self esteem of mothers instead because of the conditionalities attached to the

program.


Flavio Valente: One program of the government should not be isolated from its other projects in

order not to create another problem. Cash transfer should be used as buffers

alone while focusing on developing capacities for the people. CCTs are actually

dangerous. They could be used for political, personal and mindset change

purposes. The Right To Adequate Food should not be reduced to CCT.

Martin Remppis: It‘s important not to play off CCTs against empowerment and vise versa. The

struggle is to deepen social protection, in particular for those with limited self-

help capacity, and in addition, to struggle for resources or the access to them,

which allow people to help themselves with self-esteem. For the realization of

the Right to Adequate Food we need this intersectoral and overarching policy

approach, which is directly linked to the government‘s respect, protect, fulfill-

obligations.

Elsa Novo: Brazil‘s experience and challenges on the Right to Adequate Food has provided

us good examples particularly for us belonging to the Indigenous Peoples in the

Philippines. Until today, we do not own our land and the CARPER is ending.

We have not yet accorded our ancestral domain claims even as the law provides

for it and agencies are set up by the government to facilitate immediate resolution

of these cases. What suggestions can you provide with our current situation?

Flavio Valente: There is always danger in copying programs though we do have the same

problems regarding the Indigenous Peoples where 5% were not recognized by the

government. Unity is needed. The Right to Adequate Food is a good issue to

begin with unity discussions we (our sectors) are the ones producing food for the

whole population.

Wilson Fortaleza: How did Brazil manage the food prices being the most speculative product in the

market? Can you share something on your strategy for food sufficiency?

Danilo Salonga: Government programs in the Philippines are marred with corruption. How did

your government avoid this?

Flavio Valente: Brazil has many mechanisms for food control but not in the market level. Food

shocks happen without buffer fund, thus the Government of Brazil provides big

buffers to farmers to produce food and to unify all to the struggle of ―Zero

hunger‖.

Raquel Obedoza

(NAPC):

What were the mechanisms Brazil used in tracking poverty and assessing the

impact of hunger mitigation programs?

Flavio Valente: We are using the real mapping of hungry people by identifying them, the areas

they are situated, disaggregating them, including grouping them by sector. We

also conduct more detailed studies and come up with periodic baseline

researches. The tools we use follow the ―self recognition of hunger‖ which


includes nutritional surveys, putting up of a surveillance system to houses on

hunger, food and nutrition. The whole mechanisms will not succeed without

monitoring including the monitoring of budget spending.

Dr. Jenny

Madamba:

Can we sue local governments for not fulfilling the obligation to progressively

realize the Right to Adequate Food?

Flavio Valente Based on our experience, we established a tripartite committees at the local level

with moral and legal capabilities. We ensure that people are informed of their

rights and government is informed of its obligations.

Input:

LEARNING FROM PRACTICE: DETERMINING NEEDS

RTAF SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

Ms. Aurea M. Teves

President, FIAN-Philippines

1. Food is life. Food sustains life. It is needed upon birth and no one can live without it. More

than a need, food is a personal right if humanity is to survive. Food is life‘s right.

2. Food is a basic human entitlement like water and air. It is indispensable for human survival.

Thus, the Right to Adequate Food is no less than the Right to Life.

3. As a basic human right, the state is primary obligated and responsible to ensure that its

people have physical and economic access at all times to enough, nutritious, safe food to lead

healthy and active lives. Articles 2 and 11 of the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights provide for the need for government to progressively realize all

rights by all necessary means. According to this document, the right to adequate food is

realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical

and economic access at all times to adequate food or the means for its procurement.

4. The Human Rights Based Approach to Development has the fundamental belief that human

beings have basic entitlement to a certain standard of living. It focuses on the human person

as the principal actor. It establishes the relationship between the person and the state and

shifts emphasis to rights and responsibilities focusing on development by the people and not

just for the people.

5. The Right to Adequate Food also includes the issues of security and self-sufficiency. Food

Security is achieved (at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels) 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. Food

Self-Sufficiency means countries and even smaller economic units (province, municipality,

community) should have the domestic capacity to produce and store their needed food supply

– at least for staple food. Governments are advised to develop local food production to

progressively reduce their dependence on imports of food crops.


6. Human rights laws mandate government to maximize available resources towards achieving

progressively the full realization of HR by all appropriate means. Available resources mean

physical factors, natural resources, human power, existing productive capacities, financial

resources, foreign exchange, receipts from borrowing, grants, assistance, programs targeting

vulnerable groups.

7. There are three types of State obligations to realize the Right to Adequate Food. The

Obligation to Respect – government should not take any measures that arbitrarily deprive

people of their right to food, e.g. regulation preventing people access to food. The Obligation

to Protect - state should enforce appropriate laws and take other relevant measures to prevent

3rd

parties, including individuals and corporations, from violating the RTAF of others. The

Obligation to Fulfil (facilitate and provide) -- entails governments being pro-actively

engaged in activities intended to strengthen people‘s access to and utilization of resources so

as to facilitate their ability to feed themselves.

8. The Right to Adequate Food is composed of core elements for its realization. Availability of

food, requires that food should be available from natural resources through agricultural

production, fishing, hunting, gathering or food should be available in markets and shops.

Accessibility of food requires that economic and physical access to food should be

guaranteed. Food should be affordable. Food adequacy means that food must satisfy dietary

needs. Food must be safe for human consumption and free of adverse contaminants from

industrial and agricultural processes, including residues from pesticides, hormones or

veterinary drugs.

9. The following graphs below present the hunger situation in the Philippines.


Incidence of Malnutrition, Philippines, 1990-2008

Year % of underweight children, 0-5

years old

1990 34.50%

1993 29.90%

1996 30.80%

1998 32.00%

2001 30.60%

2003 26.90%

2005 24.60%

2998 26.20%

10. In 2011, out of the targeted 243,000 hectares nationwide the government had reportedly distributed

only 111,000 hectares of land. DAR Secretary Gil de los Reyes already admitted that DAR will not be

able to finish land distribution, leaving around 500,000 hectares — almost half of DAR‘s target land

distribution — undistributed by 2014. The non-implementation of CARPER will affect 1.1 million

farmers.

11. IP ancestral domain/ancestral land (AD/AL) has an estimated area of around 7.7 million hectares (that

comprises 26% of the total 30 million hectares of the country's land coverage). Out of total 286 CADT

applications, 158 were approved by 2012 covering a total area of 4,304,464.93 hectares with an IP

population of 918,495.

12. By 2010, a total of 257 CALTs were approved covering an area of 17,293.14 hectares and with an IP

population of 8,608.


Summary of Approved CADTs

Summary of Approved CALTs

13. Based on the PLF Assessment on the Right to Adequate Food:

There is no explicit recognition of the right to adequate food in the Philippine Constitution,

thus resulting in a weak Philippine legal framework on RTAF;

The lack of a national food policy to serve as overarching framework to address hunger results

in an incoherent, non-complementary and even conflicting Philippine legal framework;

The national budget does not reflect the obligation to eradicate hunger, thus causing issues of

poor performance in implementation of laws;

Complaint and recourse mechanisms to vindicate violations of the right to adequate food are

formally in place but in practice insufficient; mechanisms to enforce fulfillment of state

obligations are non-existent;


The national human rights institutions contribute little to redress breaches of the right to

adequate food due to tremendous imposition with regard to civil and political human rights

violations and to limitations in their mandates;

The law-making processes leave much to be desired;

Government and public awareness of the right to adequate food is lacking;

There is weak implementation of laws and policies and there is a lack of government support

to agriculture, fisheries and agrarian reform;

Conflicting policies cause crises in program planning and implementation;

There are no safeguards to cushion the negative effects of food price volatilities.

14. Based on the assessment, the following are forwarded as recommendations:

Adoption of a national food policy, with the full and active participation of all actors

concerned, including those most vulnerable to hunger.

Using the national food policy to rationalize the legal framework governing food by

synchronizing laws, addressing contradiction in policy objectives, correcting flaws and

ambiguities, repealing laws that obstruct the realization of the RTAF, aligning the budget to

the national food policy, enhancing the mandates of the national human rights institutions and

improving the process of law making.

Capacity development on the RTAF, and the promotion of RBA for the establishment and

implementation of the national policy governing the RTAF for all and to monitor the state‘s

HR accountability.

15. The Right to Adequate Food Strategic Intervention:



Panel Discussion 1:

Speaker 1:

AGRARIAN REFORM

AND THE RIGHT TO FOOD

By Mr. Ricardo Reyes

President, FDC

1. Links between agrarian reform and the right to food is first and foremost, the main PRODUCER of

FOOD -- the FARMER, should be assured of adequate food, has developed capacity to produce, and

leads a decent life – yet this is not the reality in the Philippines. The data below show these

discrepancies.

Population Families

Poverty Threshold (per month, in

pesos)

1,043 7,017

Food Threshold (per month, in pesos) 974 4,869

Poor % 26.50% 20.90%

Poor Magnitude 23.1M 3.86M

Food Poor % 10.80% 7.90%

Food Poor Magnitude 9.44M 1.45M

Source: NSCB 2009

Self-rated Poor Self-rated

Hunger

National 51% 40%

Metro Manila 40% 28%

Luzon 49% 43%

Visayas 60% 46%

Mindanao 54% 37%

Source: SWS, Oct 2009


2. Fishermen, farmers and children comprised the poorest three sectors in 2009 with poverty incidences

of 41.4%, 36.7% and 35.1% respectively. The graphs below present these poverty statistics by sector

and by major islands in the country.





3. The data presented above were due to failure of major government programs related to food and land.

For one, CARP and CARPER are limited laws and are impaired in implementation. CARP/er

beneficiaries don‘t enjoy food sovereignty. Second, the right to food and food security were neglected

major components of the CARP/er. Its LTI-BPD integration was not genuinely programmed based on

its concept, budget allocation and mechanisms. It cutdown subsidies on the products. It failed to

provide social wage through additional food and emergency food assistance, educational benefits to

children and universal health care.

4. The impact on the RTF of the whole population can be summed up in the following: a) insufficient

food production, thus the need for imports; b) agricultural processing and trading has long been an

oligopoly, thus monopolistic pricing and super profits; and, c) liberalization, market regime worsened

oligopoly.

5. The struggle for the Right to Adequate Food is also confronted with another big challenge. The issue

of climate change placed the Philippines 3rd

most vulnerable country in the world to climate disasters.

Annually, 5% of GDP and 2% of GNP are lost to typhoons, floods, drought and landslides -- very

limited and conservative estimates.

6. As an alternative to resolve current conditions there should be a new agrarian reform program which

highlights: a) Consolidation of covered lands; b) Compulsory Acquisition of Uncovered lands (2

million hectares more of prime agricultural lands); c) A programmed LTI-PBD integration; d) Not

CLOA, but ET; e) Breaking the monopoly/cartels in agricultural processing and trading: Nationalize

or at the minimum, bring the State back as major player, f) Social Wage: Food, education and health.

The right to food must be integrated into the agrarian reform program. The adaptation and mitigation

for climate change must lead to shifting to sustainable agriculture and renewable energy.

7. Mr. Reyes concluded his sharing with a call for a dialogue between two big communities struggling

for agrarian reform, the CARPER movement and the GARB movement with the help of

CBCP/NASSA as facilitator.

Speaker 2:

RIGHT TO FOOD,

FOOD SECURITY AND RICE SUFFICIENCY

By Romeo C. Royandoyan

Centro Saka, Inc. (CSI)

1. Mr. Omi Royandoyan opened his topic with the Presidential pronouncements that rice self-

sufficiency is possible in 2012. Quoting from the Business Mirror on November 3, 2011, the

President said ―Every time I see the secretary of Agriculture, I say, ‗When you submit your numbers

to me, it looks like your target of 2013 is old news in terms of self-sufficiency in rice. It looks like

2012 is when you‘re going to be self-sufficient‖. He bragged about Philippine food security by

saying, ―I am very pleased to note that our agriculture minister is a giving us a guarantee that there‘s

no need for further importation of rice with the next harvest due in January‖. ―We will have an

excess over that which is mandated as the strategic reserve in terms of rice. And what was done was

not radical changes but rather just doing what was necessary.‖ (President Pnoy, November 12, 2011,


Inquirer HONOLULU, Hawaii). President Benigno Aquino bragged to a group of corporate chief

executive officers‘ attending the APEC CEO summit about his administration‘s achievements in

ensuring food security for the Philippines without having to employ radical change but simply by

―just doing what was necessary.‖

2. Dissecting State Policies on Small Farm Development (AFMA Modernizing Agriculture,

AGRICOMM 1998), one may conclude that: a) with the agrarian reform program making much

headway in breaking large estates into small farms, future Philippine agriculture will inevitably be

dominated by small owner-cultivated farms; b) the predominance of small farms will predetermine

the nature of technologies invented, products produced and institutions formed; c) the way we teach

agriculture and formulate our priorities in research and development, the manner by which we

produce commodities, and the institutions we create for agricultural modernization will be governed

after the imperatives of small farms; d) poverty alleviation is the ultimate justification for the efforts

to modernize the countryside. Agriculture and poverty are linked; most of the poor are in the rural

areas. Thus, making agriculture more productive will help win the battle against poverty in general;

e) on the whole, government spending for agriculture was very low compared with its contribution

to the economy; f) there are three major areas where government spending must be focused in order

to improve agricultural productivity. These are investments in infrastructure, education and training,

and agricultural research; g) in sum, the five guiding principles: growth, efficiency, equity,

efficiency, and sustainability (or GEEES); h) growth in agriculture is critical because of the

relatively large size of the sector in the economy; i) that agricultural production be efficient in order

that local products may compete with imported goods; j) equity means that benefits of growth are

shared by the majority of the people. Sustainability requires that production maintain ecological

balance so that the resource base will still be of use to our children and their children. In general,

Philippine agriculture is being shaped by agrarian reform to become a family-based agricultural

system.

3. The government‘s Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones Policy mandates the

Department shall, within six (6) months after the approval of this Act, and in consultation with the

local government units, Appropriate government agencies, concerned non-government organizations

(NGOs) and organized farmers and fisherfolk's groups, identify the Strategic Agriculture and

Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZ) within the network of protected areas for agricultural and

agro-industrial development to ensure that lands are efficiently and sustainably utilized for food and

non-food production and agro-industrialization.

4. Under PNOY‘s 2011-2016 Food (Rice) Staples Sufficient Program, its Food Staples Self

Sufficiency Program (FSSP) aims to produce at least 21.11 and 22.49 million tons of palay by the

end of 2013 and 2016; maintain per capita rice consumption at 120 kg/year; and increase production

of non-rice staples by 3.5 annually. The graphs and tables below present the administration‘s

projection on this issue.


Production Target (DA)

Target in Local Palay Production

Yield, Historical Performance

Particulars 2010 2011 2012 2013

Rice/Palay Requirement, M mt 13.16/

20.25

13.44/

20.68

13.58/

20.90

13.72/

21.11

Palay Production, M mt 16.24 17.46 19.20 21.11

Rice Self-Sufficiency Level 80.2 84.4 92.0 100.0

Increase in Palay Production,

M mt

1.22 1.74 1.92

Harvested Palay Area, M ha 4.39 4.53 4.67 4.81

Increase in Harvested Palay

Area, T ha

145 136 140

Target Palay Yield, mt/ha 3.70 3.85 4.11 4.39

Increase in Palay Yield, kg/ha :

cav/ha

150:

3.00

262:

5.24

279:

5.58


Trend of Rice (Palay) Production, area harvested % yield, (including imports)

2000-2006

Year Production Area Yield %

Gro

wth

Imports

(M/T)*

2000 12,389,412 4,038,085 3.07 5.11 616,519.00

2001 12,954,870 4,065,441 3.19 4.56 739,428.00

2002 13,270,653 4,046,318 3.28 2.44 1,238,366.20

2003 13,499,884 4,006,421 3.37 1.73 697,836.20

2004 14,496,784 4,126,645 3.51 7.38 904,074,65

2005 14,603,005 4,072,000 3.59 0.73 1,804,783.93

2006 15,324,706 4,159,930 3.68 4.96 1,622,090.40

Trend of Rice (Palay) Production, area harvested % yield, (including imports)

2007-20011

Year Production Area Yield %

Gro

wth

Imports

(M/T)*

2007 16,240,194 4,272,799 3.80 5.96 1,790,269.35

2008 16,815,548 4,459,977 3.77 3.54 2,341,326.41

2009 16,266,417 4,532,310 3.59 -3.26 1,575,000.00

2010 15,772,319 4,354,161 3.62 -3.03 2,128,416.28

2011 16,684,062 4,536,642 3.68 5.78

Rice Program Performance: 2007-2011

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Production (MT) 16,240,194 16,815,548 16,266,417 15,772,319 16,684,062

Area Harvested (HA) 4,272,799 4,459,977 4,532,310 4,354,161 4,536,642

Yield (MT/HA) 3.80 3.77 3.59 3.62 3.68

Budget Php B 2,631,400 10,038,862 3,531,602 4,317,216 6,181,165

Palay: Crops Forecasts & Estimates January-December 2012 Source: Bureau of Agriculture Statistics (BAS)


5. Analyzing PNOY‘s Rice Sufficiency Program 2011-2012 will lead us to opine that it is ―irrigation

dependent‖. This is demonstrated by the pie charts below as compared to GMAs Rice Sufficiency

Plan.

6. The issue of rice production is also compounded by the problem of rice smuggling to the

Philippines. On July 26, 2012, the Bureau of Customs (BoC) seized an estimated half a billion

worth of smuggled imported rice from India, some 430,000 sacks in Subic Bay Freeport. This

recent development accounts for the slow sales of locally produced rice due to price disparities. A

50 kilogram/cavan of local milled rice costs Php 1,400 @ Php 17.50/kg while smuggled rice are

priced at Php 950 per sack/cavan but sold at for Php 1,200. Traders receive a net profit of Php 250

per sack without bothering with the production costs.

7. If smuggling persists, palay price will go down Php 14/kg. Its effect, according to the Philippine

Confederation of Grains Association (Confed), will be: ―Nobody wants to buy. Millers do not have

the capital to buy palay because they have yet to move their old stocks.‖ Private traders and rice

millers buy/absorb/procure 97%/98% of total rice harvest (TRH). NFA buys only 3% of the TRH.

To solve this issue, government needs to buy or procure 38% of rice production for Php 105 B from

the farmers-growers since private traders/rice millers can longer procure palay from them. If

government is remiss of its obligation to farmers, they will be forced to sell palay at the lower cost

of Php 14/kg, almost the cost to produce a kilo of palay. Impact wise, rice farmers will stop planting

rice or will continue planting but laden with heavy loans/debts.

8. The claim of the Secretary of Agriculture that rice self-sufficiency is achievable in 2013 is without

basis. There is nothing wrong for the government to aim for food (rice) self-sufficiency. In fact,

farmers and organic rice farming practitioners and advocates strongly support this national goal.

However, it is important to make a realistic assessment of the situation. Even the Task on Rice &

Other Staples of Agriculture and Fisheries 2025 has raised doubts about the target of achieving rice

self-sufficiency by 2013 or 2014. To attain rice self-sufficiency, palay production growth should

average at least ―7.10% per annum as against the historical growth rate of 3.4% per annum.‖


9. There are other critical factors to consider in the rice self-sufficiency program. Among experts in

Philippine agriculture and fisheries the critical factors towards achieving food sufficiency are

infrastructure measures, namely irrigation, post harvest facilities, and other so-called productivity

enhancing programs. Research and development is also considered an important element. No doubt,

these are important intervention elements. But this is only one side of the story. The other side is the

role of the producers, the rice farmers and farm workers. Are their rights, property rights and means

of production secured to fully participate in production activities?

10. Secured property rights with direct support service (e.g. cost of production input support) will

encourage farmers to produce more because these induce incentives. The absence of property rights

erodes the capacity and incentives of farmers to be productive. Production will remain static (i.e.

insufficient production) if the farmers in the country will always be in debt since farmers cannot

invest on things that can improve production.‖ Philippine Agriculture (PA) 2020 emphasized the

importance of the link. ―The problem of poverty cannot be adequately addressed without resolving

the challenges of productivity and equitable access to productive assets by farmers and fisher folk.‖

The infrastructure and property rights (or the equity and growth issue) nexus property rights not

included in the rice self-sufficiency program.

11. Philippine agriculture is basically oil-based. The current food production input regime relies heavily

on chemical fertilizers. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer (a major production input in rice production) requires

1.80 liters of diesel oil equivalent (LDOE) (source: ted Mendoza). To ―produce a ton of palay

(unmilled rice) requires 18-20 kg N, which translates to 215 LDOE. ―N fertilizer accounts for 50-60

percent of crop yield. A 50% cut in fertilizer use will significantly slash production yield by 25%-

30% or about ―4.0 million to 4.8 million tons of unmilled rice if prorated in 4 million hectares (16

million tons of paddy rice). Thus, an oil price hike will reduce the application of fertilizer. Reduced

fertilizer utilization will lower rice yields per hectare.

12. However the data on dealers‘ prices by fertilizer grade from 2007-2011 do not reflect or manifest

the inverse relationship between the price of fertilizer and production output. In 2008 when the price

of fertilizer was high, the production yield was also high. This is compared with production output

in 2009, 2010 and 2011 when the prices of fertilizers were slipping. (See tables below). One

possible explanation for this is that fertilizer prices affect not the rice yield but farm incomes and

savings of rice farmers. Any increase in price of fertilizers raises cost of rice production. Farmers

usually resort to borrowing and land pawning (or harvest pawning). The few who are lucky enough

have some savings to pay for more expensive fertilizers. Bankruptcy among farmers is becoming

more common.

Fertilizers: Dealers' Prices by Fertilizer Grade and Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ammophos (16-20-0) 748.61 728.51 773.12 1,564.58 1,111.08 951.47 1,059.88

Ammosul (21-0-0) 534.41 482.48 533.64 901.49 604.43 544.49 668.86

Complete (14-14-14) 771.44 754.71 801.46 1,612.89 1,216.54 1,083.41 1,183.23

Urea (45-0-0) 905.38 899.64 954.61 1,524.75 1,022.69 981.11 1,196.29


Trend in Rice Production, 2007-2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Production (Total) 16,240,194 16,815,548 16,266,417 15,772,319 16,684,062

Area Harvested 4,272,799 4,459,977 4,532,310 4,354,161 4,536,642

Yield (MT/HA) 3.80 3.77 3.59 3.62 3.68

Table Poverty by Sector of Employment, 1985-2000 (%)

1985 1988 191 1994 1997 2000 Contribution total poverty, 2000

Incidence

Agriculture 57.7 51.2 51.9 49.9 42.3 45.9 61.3

Mining 46.4 34.4 44.7 37.1 30.0 58.4 2.4

Manufacturing 31.4 21.9 20.9 16.5 13.5 16.1 4.2

Utilities 17.5 10.8 12.5 9.5 9.5 6.7 0.1

Construction 39.6 33.8 33.8 34.5 23.1 29.8 7.7

Trade 27.3 18.6 21.3 17.8 13.5 15.4 5.8

Transportation 27.8 24.1 22.5 21.2 13.7 18.2 6.1

Finance 13.2 8.5 6.9 7.1 3.0 9.1 0.7

Services 20.0 15.4 15.2 12.7 9.9 10.5 4.3

Unemployed 21.5 18.3 16.8 17.1 12.1 14.0 7.3

Source: Arsenio Balisacan, Poverty and Inequality, The Philippine Economy:

Development, Policies and Challenges, Ateneo de Manila University Press

13. Another factor for consideration is the impact of climate change. 2.32 million hectares of

potentially irrigable areas or 74.52% are at risk: 1.23 million hectares are being serviced by the

irrigation system, 610,468 hectares or 79.80% of the national irrigation system and 469,339 hectares

or 84.17% of communal irrigation system are at risk. Luzon-irrigated lands face the highest risk

from climate change.

Irrigated Lands at Risk to Climate Change

Area Served by Irrigation System (ha) Nature &

Types of

Climate

Change

Risks

Potentially

Irrigable

Areas (Has)

National

Irrigation

System

Communal

Irrigation

System

Private

Irrigation on

System

Total

Service

Area

Irrigation

Development (%)

Luzon 1,594,290 (51.02%)

478,176 (63.51%)

304,921 (54.68%)

111,853 (51.13%)

894,950 (58.12%)

56.10

Bicol 239,660 (7.67%)

20,530 (2.68%)

70,050 (12.56%)

29,484 (13.57%)

120,064 (7.80%)

50.10

Visayas 332,370 (10.63%)

82,335 (10.76%)

72,649 (13.03%)

12,504 (5.65%)

167,488 (10.88%)

50.30

Mindanao

(Caraga)

162,300 (5.19%)

29,427 (3.85%)

21,719 (3.90%)

3,316 (1.53%)

54,462 (3.53%)

Total

Irrigated

Areas at

Risk

2,329,620 (25.28%)

610,468 (79.80%)

469,339 (84.17%)

153,841 (70.79%)

1,236,964 (80.33%)

53.10


14. On the use of water dams for irrigation: of the five water dams (Angat, Pantabangan, Binga,

Ambuklao, Magat and San Roque), the NIA only directly manages the Pantabangan and Magat

dams. During dry months when water (dam) level is low, the need for power generation and

domestic water are prioritized over irrigation. Most of our dams are now privatized.

15. The right to food can be achieved only if food, and in the case of the Philippines, rice, is readily

available and accessible always, is safe and affordable for both producers and consumers especially

for the rural and urban poor. Attaining the goal of rice self-sufficiency will not necessarily mean the

poor have access to affordable food (rice). Right to food through a food security and rice trade

liberalization point of view may not necessarily promote rice self-sufficiency. It encourages rice

importation not only as a stopgap measure during times of shortfalls and as a regular and permanent

mechanism to promote food security. Rice affordability and availability are the central consideration

of this point of view, not rice self-sufficiency.

16. The right to food rice self-sufficiency is both practicable and affordable for the urban and rural poor

consumers too. This is only possible by shifting the farming approach to organic rice cultivation

system, i.e. organic fertilizers and seeds will be sourced locally through seed banking. This approach

believes that the cost of paddy rice production may be cut considerably by as much as 25% because

fertilizer costs-utilization accounts 18% and seeds cost around 7% of the total paddy cost. Labor

cost makes up 45% of the total paddy costs and shifting to organic fertilizers and seed can halve

total expenses because cultivation can be done through community collaboration (community best

practices). Field study (2x year/5 years) shows that organic rice farming yields between 4 to 5 mt/ha.

The highest recorded rice yield so far was between 9 to 10 mt/ha using the SRI method. This

matches inbred high-quality seeds rice yield of 4 to 6 mt/ha, with 10 mt/ha as the highest yield.

17. Based on the current figures of rice production, the government is banking on its twin proposals: 1)

to reduce palay procurement within the buying capacity of the NFA and 2) to phase out palay

support price starting 2011/2012. These proposals are the opposite of what rice farmers and rural

based-NGOs have been advocating for the past ten years. The NGOs advocate that rice farmers need

support and protection in a context where rice trading is controlled by big rice traders. The proposal

to reduce [if not eliminate] the capacity of the NFA to procure palay and allow the so-called

―market‖ to determine the course of rice trading and pricing will further strengthen the rice traders‘

stranglehold on the rice industry. It would simply allow the traders to continue dictating the present

arrangement of buying palay from farmers at a low price or below production cost and selling high

to consumers. Obviously, this arrangement is disastrous to both rice farmers and the consuming

public. Nobody wins except the big rice traders. Thus, to counter government proposals, rice

farmers recommend instead to strengthen buying capacity (domestic procurement) of NFA. Palay

support price is the only government support that offers direct benefits to rice farmers. The current

price support is fixed at Php17.00/kilo. Since production cost per kilo is PhP11.50, the current

support price is sufficient for the rice farmer to secure profits.

18. If the proposed reforms simply focus on procurement and price support without considering the

whole paradigm of sustainable agriculture and the imperatives of small farm development, then the

government‘s effort would be reduced to a one-shot palliative measure for a complex food security

problem.


19. They propose a Special Small Farmers Fund, with a subsidized interest rate. The Task Force on Rice

urges the government to contract a 40-year soft yen loan with 0.2% interest rate a year with a 5-year

grace period. Because this loan has an almost zero cost of money, agricultural cooperatives, rural

banks, and MFIs can lend to small farmers and small scale fishers at 6%-7% interest rate a year. The

Japanese Yen loan of US$250 million can serve as a credit facility for small agricultural producers

and small-scale fishers. The Agricultural Credit Policy Council of 15% interest rate per annum

inadequately provides for the credit needs of farmers and fishers. The provision/allocation of

Php400 million is quite small as against the huge credit requirement.

Speaker 3:

GENDER AND THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD By Ms. Patricia Gonzales, SARILAYA

1. Gender equality and gender equity is a matter of human rights. This principle applies to the right to

adequate food. Gender equality is the concept that both men and women are free to develop their

personal abilities and make choices without limitations set by stereotypes, rigid gender roles or

prejudices. This means that different behaviors, aspirations and needs of women and men are

considered, valued and favored equally; that women and men‘s rights, responsibilities and

opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equity on the other

hand, means fairness of treatment for men and women according to their respective needs. This

may include equal treatment for women, but often women and men need to receive different

treatment in order to receive the same benefits and to experience their rights. It requires built-in

measures to compensate for the historical and social disadvantages of women.

2. In Philippine households, care giving and household work is mostly done by women, where work is

unpaid and undervalued. In times of food crises, women give way to other members of the family,

especially their children in prioritizing food intake. These are some gender issues on the right to

adequate food.

3. The data below present the experience of the children. About 18% of children skipped/missed meals

because there was no food or money to buy food, 8.2% experienced not eating for a whole day

because there was no food or money to buy food, and 15.1% went hungry and did not eat because

there was no food or money to buy food.


4. According to the 6th National Nutrition Surveys, Household Food Insecurity 2003, Food and

Nutrition Research Institute, Dept. of Science and Technology, ―More mothers than children had

experiences of food insecurity, which reflects the innate childcaring quality of Filipino

mothers/women in general.‖

5. One of the MDG targets is the reduction of the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by

2015. One of the official indicators, from the NNS, is the proportion of households with per capita

energy intake of less than 100% adequacy. From the data of the 2003 Household Food

Consumption Survey – NNS, 57% of households had per capita energy intake that was less than

100% adequate. Looking at the trends of the proportion of households who are not eating enough

and poverty – the association is clear. Hunger is poverty-driven. Decreasing poverty and decreasing

proportion of households with per capita energy intake less than 100% adequacy.

6. Quite a number of modern day diseases come as a result of consuming unsafe food or food that can

cause chronic ailments like diabetes, cancer, heart ailments and the like. Food production methods

like chemical farming render food unsafe and destroy the environment. Unsafe food consumption

has possible impact to our genetic make up and that of future generations (e.g. GMOs).


7. Other gender-related issues to the right to adequate food include unequal pay for equal work and

gender gap in access to work. Gender disparity in wages persists. Gender stereotyping in the labor

force is also an issue that affects the income divide between male and female. Women are invisible

in the productive labor especially in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, where household

labor are mobilized. It is only the fathers as heads of the family that are recognized and given a

formal wage. This results in lower per capita income because of the invisibility of women labor in

the value chain.

8. The invisibility of women‘s reproductive labor means invisibility of small-scale farming, their roles

in fishing, etc. It also impacts on their reproductive health and rights as it relates to poverty

particularly, the lack of specific social protection programs for people who do reproductive labor,

most specially women. It limits access and control of resources, e.g. land rights, evictions from

homes and from sources of livelihood. The non-recognition of women‘s productive work as farmers

leads to their losing legal rights to own or co-own land and other resources.

9. Women are also excluded or have limited participation (particularly the marginalized women) in

policy-making bodies making them lose their right to decide on matters affecting them. Their

perspective is not integrated in mainstream policies.

10. As a way forward, there is an urgent need to strengthen legal framework for the right to adequate

food and gender equality by declaring them as legitimate rights. The government must ensure the

implementation of the Magna Carta of Women and other laws that promote gender equality;

breastfeeding; sustainable agriculture, and diversified farming systems. Social protection policies

must ensure recognition of women‘s productive and reproductive role. There must be an active

promotion of consumers‘ welfare by advocating for food safety and more nature based food; and,

women‘s perspectives must be integrated in socio economic development.

Plenary Session:

Conchita Masin: Our unity to push for the fulfillment of CARPER must not be fixed on the size of

land or hectarage for distribution; it should also be on how to achieve adequate

food. But how is it to achieve the right to adequate food when support and

information has not reached the majority?

Ric Reyes: I agree with the idea of Conchita but not totally regarding the size of land for

distribution under CARPER. We also need to consider the size of the land since it

is provided by law as targets. Productivity of the land is another thing which need

immediate support from the government.

In the Philippines, women know more about production and cost of production.

The reality in the rural areas -- it is the women farmers who keep the managerial

functions of farming. They have the innate capacity to stock the nitty gritty and

budgeting of farm production compared to their male counterparts. The sorry state

though, they remain invisible in the production environment.


Omi Royandoyan: Only 10% of the Philippine rice producers have 3 or more hectares of productive

land, the remaining percentage has below 3 hectares ownership and they live below

poverty line. Thus, there is a need to diversify production but we need a substantial

amount of support from the government. This would be impossible with the latest

development within the agrarian support agencies of the government. The

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is planning to be dismantled by 2014 and

transfer its important services to the Department of Agriculture (DA) which in turn

has a substantial budget for rice production that has not trickled down to the small

farmers. Currently the government is not planning any subsidy except for the

Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT).

Our advocacy towards property rights is not sufficient to address the problems

small farmers are facing; we need to devise a holistic approach to the issue of land

and production.

Martin Remppis: Since women and girls are more affected by hunger than men and boys, it is

imperative for the realization of the Right to Adequate Food that gender justice is

considered and reflected in the policy strategies. Gender justice goes beyond

women‘s empowerment because it can only be achieved if also men change their

habits. Therefore we need more men getting involved in gender justice initiatives

and strategies have to be developed that include the change of attitude and behavior

of men. In Latin America, BftW funds ―masculinity workshops‖ for men who

discuss their role and contributions in the struggle for more gender justice.

Ed Mora: Right to food is always referred to the poor whatever food products we produce.

Meaning, it has not affected the rich. If the rich says ―there‘s poverty‖, the world

would listen to them and thereby the statement has impact. Maybe let‘s consider

this strategy when campaigning for the right to adequate food in the future.

Mike Udtohan: The expectation of this conference is to come up with policy recommendations.

The Right to Adequate Food is situated as central to our struggle but there are also

many policies related to food that need also to be addressed like gender,

production, technology, etc. The issue on the right to food becomes too big and we

may run out of focus in terms of policy recommendations.

Sandra Salidatan: I have not heard of any data regarding Moro or IP and on the Voluntary Offer to

Sell. Most of us need more education on this particularly on how these issues are

interpreted from the Islam point of view.

Roxanne Veridiano: Local Government Units particularly in the rural areas do not really know about

gender and women issues and concerns. How can we force local governments to

implement existing laws?

Pat Gonzales: We have so many breakthrough laws on women yet the common experience is the

lack of implementation. These laws provide us the environment though and there

is a lack of internalization on the part of the LGUs on women and gender.


With respect to differences in faith and culture, we have to recognize these existing

cultures to forward our advocacy on women. These cultures are not actually anti-

women. Knowing and recognizing the different approaches based on specific

culture and tradition must be enhanced to determine effectiveness of our advocacy.

Omi Royandoyan: All the questions raised in the plenary are all very good but they are best responded

to by government representatives. The panel today is all critical of the government.

One thing I think is that we do not have critical mass to influence policies and push

for their implementation. There is no strong social movement and we have not

covered most ground.

Government position is to shift to hybrid production to achieve rice sufficiency.

We cannot venture on organic production on our own, we need strong support from

the government but this is not heeded. One of the reasons why the government

says NO to organic production is because it is too expensive. This is further

worsened by the goernment‘s desire to follow all the dictates of GATT-WTO.

There is no critical mass to help us assert our points which is needed towards the

reversal of economic policies to experience the effectiveness of reforms.

Panel Discussion 2:

Speaker 1:

SOCIAL PROTECTION

AND THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD By Dr. Nymia Pimentel Simbulan

Executive Director, PhilRights

Professor, University of the Philippines Manila

1. The right to adequate food is essential for a life in dignity. No human being will grow and develop

his/her physical attributes, intellectual and psychological potentials, and even spiritual make-up,

without the right to adequate food being realized and promoted. Every human being possesses this

inalienable right which is interrelated and interconnected with other human rights like the rights to

life, education, health, work, housing, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association,

and freedom of religion.

2. The right to adequate food is indispensable for the enjoyment of all human rights. Likewise, the

non-fulfilment of the right is a consequence of the violations of other rights like the right to work,

education and health.

3. The Philippines recognizes the right to adequate food of every Filipino citizen being a State Party to

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), CRC, CRPWD &

CEDAW. But it has not been effectively realized as evidenced in the factors and conditions leading

to the violation of the right to food particularly on how government designs its National


Development Paradigm. Historically, the government has pursued a neo-liberal development

framework and model anchored on such policies as liberalization, privatization and deregulation.

a. Land conversion policy, e.g. aquaculture, biofuels, cash crops;

b. Liberalization as reflected in the extractive industry particularly mining, displacement of local

enterprises and local producers due to uncontrolled entry of imported tariff-free goods, e.g.

agricultural products, livestock and poultry products, fish, dairy products, etc.;

c. Destruction of the environment and sources of livelihood due to activities and/or projects like

mining, logging, dam and hydroelectric power construction, aerial spraying, overfishing, intensive

use of chemical inputs, etc.;

d. Commodification of the ―commons‖, e.g. water, nature;

e. Export-oriented economy, e.g. high-value crops;

4. Another factor is the snail-paced and problematic implementation of the CARPER:

a. Landlord resistance resulting in violence;

b. Lack of adequate support services to agricultural sector like infrastructure, subsidies, inputs,

irrigation, storage facilities, etc.

5. Employment problems are also considered as a factor in the violation of the right to adequate food.

There is the rising rates of unemployment and underemployment, low and/or irregular wages; labor

contractualization/casualization; and, the expansion of the informal economy. Prices of basic

commodities have continuously gone up. The price of rice increased 68% between 2000 and 2008

(DA). Regular milled rice increased to P29.38 per kilo (from P17.59); well-milled rice to P32.71

per kilo (from P19.45). There is lack of access to information that will address issues of food

quality, food safety and preparation. We are developing a fast-food or junk food culture which

bombards us of with all forms of mass media ads/commercials and the questionable safety of our

street foods.

6. Natural and human-made disasters and calamities also affect the enjoyment of the right to adequate

food. These results in physical and economic displacements of families and communities; loss of

property, sources of livelihood; overcrowding in evacuation centers; poor disaster relief,

rehabilitation and support mechanisms and structures of LGUs. Compounded by the reality of food

monopolies and dynasties in the country (rice cartels, food traders and middle-persons), the situation

of the right to food is worsened.

7. The situation of the RTAF of the Filipino people reflects the numerous risks, vulnerabilities and

deprivations, brought about by the interplay of factors and conditions at the local, national and

global levels, making it difficult, if not obstructing, peoples‘ enjoyment of the RTAF and living a

life in dignity. With the worsening state of the peoples‘ RTAF brought about by weaknesses, if not

failures, in economic and socio-political environments, lack or shrinking resources, and capacities,

the State is obligated to take immediate and effective measures in observing the right to social

protection of the people.

8. Social protection is defined as encompassing a wide range of policies designed to address the risks

and vulnerabilities of individuals and groups, both those who can and those who cannot work, in

order to help them cope and overcome situations of poverty, especially when it results from

incidents outside their control. It includes a broad range of instruments ranging from safety nets,

social assistance and social insurance to mutual and informal risk management.


9. Social protection systems are generally structured around three main objectives or functions: a)

Contributory or insurance-based schemes, e.g. Social Insurance – to manage risks that provide

insurance against unemployment, illness, retirement, and other disruptions to formal employment; b)

Non-contributory schemes or Social Assistance (like food rations, CCT) - contributing to the ability

of chronically poor people to emerge from poverty and to challenge oppressive socio-economic

relationships; safety nets to help the poor cope with shocks, emergencies; c) Social justice – for

inclusion, supporting the less active poor (such as the elderly, persons with disabilities and children)

so that poverty will not be inherited by the next generation.

10. Social protection policies and programs should adopt a rights-based approach (RBA) to effectively

address risks, vulnerabilities, discrimination and deprivations of individuals, peoples and

communities. Social protection system that is rights-based is anchored on the PANTHER

Principles: P- articipation: active, free, meaningful participation of rights holders in all decision

making process, especially those affecting their rights; A- ccountability: making rights holders

exercise their rights responsibly and duty bearers fulfill their obligations; States and other duty

bearers to be answerable for the observance of human rights; N-on-discrimination and Equality:

no one is left out, marginalized, unaccounted for in the development process, i.e. programs, services,

information, participation, etc.; T- ransparency: ensuring access to information; being open and

above board in running government affairs; no secrets or under the table dealings; H- uman

Dignity: overcoming claimholders‘ vulnerabilities; treated with respect and as a human person;

putting up safeguards to prevent discrimination; E- mpowerment: Meaningful participation in

government affairs, i.e. decision making, formulation of policies, programs, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation; exercising power; R- ule of Law: fighting impunity, access to justice,

claiming the right of reparation; effective mechanisms of redress.

11. Essential elements of social protection programs include: a) Assistance for health care, sickness, old

age, unemployment, employment injury, family and child support, maternity, disability and

survivors and orphans; b) Level of benefits must be adequate, and the qualifying conditions for the

benefits must be reasonable, proportionate, transparent and accessible to those who are entitled to

them; c) Targeting system should be based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination; d)

Access to accurate, complete, up-to-date information is important; e) Peoples‘ meaningful

participation is paramount; f) Availability and accessibility of mechanisms for redress.

12. In the FAO study conducted by Rosemarie Edillon on social protection and RTAF, the following

forms of social protection have been identified to be present in the Philippines:

Labor market programs (labor exchange services, training, employment generation,

unemployment insurance, labor standards)

Social assistance (Micro and area-based scheme, Micro-insurance, Disaster management,

Social funds)

Social insurance (old age, disability, death, sickness, maternity, medical care, work injury)

Child Protection (Family allowance)

Production-based entitlement: (Seed subsidy program, agricultural insurance - Philippine

Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC))

Labor-based entitlement: (Unemployment benefit for public employees (GSIS),

Unemployment Loan Fund (Pag-ibig), Unemployed workers can seek assistance of Public


Employment Service Office (PESO) – DOLE, LGUs and TESDA for job facilitation and

training, Promotion of Rural Employment (PRESEED), Kalinga sa Manggagawa (Workers

Microfinance Program), Kasanayan at Hanapbuhay (KasH), Tulong Alalay sa Taong May

Kapansanan, Social Amelioration Program (SAP) for sugar workers, Self– Employment

Assistance – Kaunlaran (SEA–K) project - technical assistance and seed capital to poor

families, entrepreneurial skills development, Cash/Food for Work Program, Work-at-Home

Program – run by the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons, Coconut

Farmers Safety Net Program -- aims to provide employment and livelihood as well as social

protection and security among the rural poor)

Trade-based entitlement: (Food subsidies/aid, Rice Price Subsidy Program -- ―Tindahan

Natin‖ (Our Store) -- provides low-priced but good quality rice and noodles

identified/endorsed by DSWD, LGU, Barangay Council, NFA Rice Procurement Program)

Transfer-based entitlement: (Conditional cash transfers [4Ps] of the DSWD, Senior Citizens

Medicine and Food Discounts, Food for School Program -- food subsidy for pupils in Grade

I, pre-school and day care centers, and who belong to poor families in identified vulnerable

municipalities or priority areas within regions of the Philippines.)

13. Looking at the situations of social protections in the Philippines in relation to the right to food, the

following are seen as gaps to the effective implementation of programs: a) Problematic targeting

system; b) Limited/low coverage, e.g. IPs, PWDs, elderly, out-of-school youth (exclusion), c)

Limited information dissemination of SP programs, d) Disjointed/fragmented programs, lack of

coordination among implementing government agencies; e) Insufficient budget; f) Lack of

meaningful peoples‘ participation in program development, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation; g) Lack of transparency in program implementation.

14. Based on the perceived gaps, rights-holders are challenged to conduct deeper and broader-reaching

human rights education; develop further its capacities in claiming rights through monitoring and

documentation of HRVs, accessing and utilizing redress and grievance mechanisms and structures –

local, national and international levels, participation in program and policy development, organizing

and organizational strengthening, international solidarity work and networking. Duty-holders

likewise must be educated on human rights and the rights based-approach to development;

capability-building in fulfilling HR obligations, e.g. passage of laws, effective implementation of

laws and policies, training of judiciary on the justiciability of the RTAF and other ESC rights, etc.;

strengthening linkages and collaboration with NGOs, Pos.


Speaker 2:

CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY

Dr. Laura David

Deputy Director, UP MSI

1. Based on the study on protein consumption, the global average of intake is 16kg a year. In the

Philippines the figure is doubled to 30kg a year per person. Marine resources contribute a

significant portion to the food supply of the Philippines. 56% of Filipinos‘ protein requirement is

source from seafood while 44% is taken from inland sources.

2. The images below show a comparative presentation between the available supplies of our marine

resources as against the demands for food of the population.

Supply (based on images) vs. Demand (based on Regional population)

3. The burgeoning population poses a grave threat to food security of the country. The images below

capture the interplay of supply and demand based on the present situation (base-line data) as

projected in the year 2040.


4. It is considered by marine sciences that a small rise of sea level temperature affects the diversity of

marine culture. The image below highlights this impact of climate change in the country by cluster.

David, Borja, Villanoy, Hilario, Alino.

2013 for submission Climatic Change


5. Temperature, increased variability of precipitation, sea level rise, therefore have implications to

coastal health and food security in the Philippines. Coral reefs have repeatedly been adversely

affected by extreme temperature resulting in what is known as mass coral bleaching; sea grass get

buried when extreme rain events bring in high loads of sediments from the watersheds into the

coastal seas; and mangrove seedlings are extremely sensitive to the height of sea level. Overall,

fisheries are expected to decline with adverse impacts on food security.

6. Mariculture offers a pragmatic solution. Republic Act 8550 (The Philippine Fisheries Code of

1998) is a legal instrument that encourages and supports the establishment of mariculture facilities

in waters of all coastal municipalities. There is however, no established protocol on how these parks

will be established. This is highlighted with the example of how Mariculture Park of Bolinao

suffers some fish-kills due to obstruction of the flow of water oxygen in fish cages.

1970

’s

1980

’s

1990

’s

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

1999: Bolinao

Municipal

Fisheries

Ordinanc

e

Water Quality

Monitoring

Teams

training

MERSys

Php 500M loss >1600 structures

P. minimum bloom

èOxygen depletion

Php 100M loss Increase in SST Boom of

mariculture

Clear Caquiputan Advocacy

Php 50M loss Low D.O. ,

Neap tide

THE BOLINAO MARICULTURE TIMELINE

7. Based on the experience of the fisherfolks in Bolinao they are forced to understand the science of

mariculture, appreciate the timely education, implement drastic changes to arrest losses in their

business and comply with the law. These responses are reactions to the impact of fishkills in their

areas.

8. Potential for fish kills is exacerbated by too many structures in the water. Their response to this

external stress (ushered by too many structures in the water) is to clear Caquiputan channel.

Meaning, transfer some cages that obstruct the channel‘s flow of oxygen. Excessive fish feed also

compromise nearby habitats and associated productivity, thus clear education on the mode of

feeding is the immediate solution to lessen the impact of fish kills.

9. Contributing factors to fish kills include warming waters, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia,

eutrophication, reduced flushing rates [EXTERNAL STRESS]. Moreover, each action leading to a

fish kill not only affects the mariculture industry but also compromises the ability of the surrounding

benthic and pelagic habitat to be resilient to any additional pressures [POTENTIAL IMPACT].

10. Potential sites for mariculture must consider the following: a) fish kills happen in areas more prone

to sudden rise of sea temperature (SST); b) mariculture must be away from reefs and seagrasses; not

in mangrove forests and not in areas of high entrainment. If the country is to make a concerted


effort to secure our source of food, its planning and management of its mariculture needs to be

science-based. It should take action towards reduction of demand, protection of catch supply, and

smart mariculture site selection. Finally, there is an urgent need to implement HB 5202 or The

Environmental Assessment for Aquaculture in Lakes and Inland Water Act of 2011.

There was no open forum on the panel discussion #2 due to time constraints. Day one of the Conference

was concluded with some reminders from the organizers.

Day Two

Day Two of the National Conference on the Right to Adequate Food (RTAF) was opened with some

cultural presentations. The second day was facilitated by Ms. Aurea M. Teves in the morning and Mr.

Martin Remppis in the afternoon.

Panel Discussion III:

Speaker 1:

TOWARDS A NATIONAL FOOD FRAMEWORK LAW

FOR THE PHILIPPINES

Ms. Maria Socorro Diokno,

Secretary-General, FLAG

1. Ms. Diokno opened her presentation on the topic on what should be the minimum content of a

Philippine Food Framework Law. A framework law should have a clear: a) Declaration of Policy;

b) Targets or Goals; c) Strategies or Methods to Achieve Targets or Goals; d) Institutional

Responsibility and Mechanisms; e) Avenues for Recourse; f) Resources; and, g) National

Mechanism for Monitoring.

2. In its declaration of policy, the Philippines should explicitly recognize the right to adequate food as

a fundamental human right. right to adequate food is defined as freedom and entitlement (beyond a

minimum set of calories, proteins and other nutrients); and, the purpose of the law is to realize the

right to adequate food of every Filipino. Its targets or goals should clearly be time bound or with

concrete time-frames on issues of eradication of hunger, improvements in nutrition, elimination of

gender disparity in access to food/resources for food, and sustainable use and management of natural

and other resources for food. While, its strategies or methods should be based on the normative

content and corresponding obligations of the Right to Adequate Food, food accessibility (prevent

discrimination in access), food availability, and food safety. Examples of food accessibility include

enlarging women‘s access to, and control over, benefits from productive resources, including credit,

land, water and appropriate technologies; recognition and explicitly reference to gender-based

decision making and gender division of labor in food production, preparation, distribution and

consumption.


3. Food accessibility would mean: a) Protecting all persons living with HIV from losing their access to

resources, food and assets; b) Developing small-scale local and regional markets; c) Preventing

uncompetitive practices in markets; d) Developing corporate social responsibility and stressing

human rights responsibilities of business; e) Addressing unjustified barriers to international trade in

food and agriculture; f) Establishing well functioning internal marketing, storage, transportation,

communication and distribution systems; g) Improving access to land, water, appropriate and

affordable technologies, productive and financial resources; h) Investing in rural infrastructure,

education, health and social security; and, i) Improving access to the labor market.

4. Food availability would mean: a) Improving domestic production, trade, storage and distribution

facilities; b) Investing in productive activities, mobilizing public and private domestic savings,

developing appropriate credit policies, providing credits in concessional terms and increasing human

capacity; c) Adopting and implementing effective legal and regulatory framework; d) Adopting

sound economic, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, land use, and, land reform policies; e) Rationalizing

Philippine food laws and policies; f) Enforcing conservation and sustainable management of natural

resources; g) Undertaking agricultural research and development, extension, marketing, rural

finance and microcredit towards basic food production; h) Promoting and protecting security of land

tenure, and conservation and sustainable use of land; i) Promoting conservation and sustainable use

of genetic resources for food and agriculture; j) Maintaining ecological sustainability and carrying

capacity of ecosystems to ensure increased, sustainable food production, prevent water pollut ion,

protect fertility of the soil, and promoting sustainable management of fisheries and forestry.

5. Food safety examples include: a) Establishing comprehensive and rational food-control systems in

the entire food chain, including animal feed; b) Streamlining institutional procedures for food

control and food safety, eliminating gaps and overlaps in inspection systems and in legislative and

regulatory framework; c) Adopting scientifically based food safety standards, including standards

for additives, contaminants, residues of veterinary drugs and pesticides, and microbiological

hazards; d) Establishing standards for packaging, labeling and advertising of food; e) Preventing

contamination from industrial and other pollutants in the production, processing, storage, transport,

distribution, handling and sale of food; f) Providing adequate protection of consumers against

fraudulent market practices, misinformation, unsafe food, deception and misrepresentation in

packaging, labeling, advertising and sale of food; g) Establishing food safety systems and

supervisory mechanisms to ensure the provision of safe food to consumers, including provision of

assistance to farmers and other primary producers to follow good agricultural practices, food

processors to follow good manufacturing practices, and food handlers to follow good hygiene

practices; h) Providing education on safe practices for food business operators, safe storage,

handling and use within the household for consumers, and on food-borne diseases and food safety

matters for general public; i) Adopting and implementing measures to maintain, adapt or strengthen

dietary diversity and healthy eating habits and food preparation, as well as feeding patterns,

including breastfeeding; j) Preventing overconsumption and unbalanced diets; k) Promoting healthy

eating though food programs, home and school gardens, food fortification policies and programs; l)

Adopting and implementing special measures to address specific food and nutritional needs of

persons living with HIV; m) Promoting and encouraging breastfeeding; n) Disseminating

information on the feeding of infants and young children; o) Adopting parallel actions in health,

education and sanitary infrastructure; p) Paying special attention to practices, customs and traditions

on matters related to food.


6. A national framework law on food needs to establish clear institutional responsibility and

mechanisms. In this manner, the lead agency is identified and clearly mandated. Mechanisms for

inter-agency collaboration must also be set up, as well as mechanisms for effective collaboration of

all actors in the food sector. The mechanisms under the framework law can be avenues for recourse

for those discriminated through access, for those without security of land tenure, recourse for unfair

trade competition and for harm caused by unsafe food.

7. To make the framework law work on its mandate, allocation of appropriate funds must be made

together with identification of sources of funds. Specific rules or guidelines on fund use,

management and liquidation must be ensured.

8. A National Mechanism for Monitoring or maybe a ―National Coordinating Committee for Food‖ or

similar body must be set up.

9. There are two approaches in undergoing the process of coming up with a national framework law.

First, build national consensus and support for a framework law; and, second, adopt the framework

law. Both approaches require conscious and conscientious application of PANTHER principles.

Both approaches should be based on thorough human rights based analysis of the hunger situation

and food context. In building a national consensus around the framework law one must build a

campaign around the right to adequate food, adopt multiple strategies and participatory activities,

engage those with adverse opinions without resorting to unproductive confrontation and to

remember that the people‘s voice matters.

10. In adopting a law, first draft a national food framework law with clear orientation of what are the

non-negotiable provisions. The draft shall be subjected to multiple public validations; identify then

engage with legislative champions; provide technical expertise to legislators through position

papers, research materials, legislative briefings, etc; and, attend congressional hearings and meetings

and participate in technical working groups; learn lobby skills and undertake lobby activities; and,

track legislators‘ positions on the draft. Everybody must remember that this approach requires

flexibility. Lawmaking is largely a negotiation, so be prepared to give in when necessary while

standing firm on your bottom lines.

Speaker 2:

ENGAGING GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT RTAF:

THE ROLE OF HRBA IN CAPACITY BUILDING

Mr. Max de Mesa

Chairperson, PAHRA

1. As a prelude to the talk of Mr. Max de Mesa, he presented the case of Tampakan mining in

Mindanao to highlight the need for capacitating individuals and communities to engage government

in the implementation of the Right to Adequate Food.

2. The Tampakan Project is a 2.4 billion metric ton deposit, containing 13.5 million metric tons of

copper and 15.8 million ounces of gold at a 0.3 % cut-off grade. The Project is operated by


Philippine-based affiliate Sagittarius Mines, Inc. (SMI) -- a joint venture between Xstrata Copper

and Indophil Resources. It is located in Mindanao, approximately 40 kms. north of General Santos

City. Situated at the boundaries of four provinces: South Cotabato, Sarangani, Sultan Kudarat and

Davao del Sur. It is one of the world‘s largest undeveloped copper-gold deposits in the Southeast

Asia-Western Pacific Region.

3. SMI will clear 3,935 hectares of forest and arable lands when it starts mining operations. It will

build its mine tailings facilities near one of the tributaries of Mal River, the biggest river system in

the Tampakan-Columbio area. The mine‘s life is expected to reach 70 years with more than US$

5.4B in needed investments. SMI has allegedly spent more than P10 billion already for exploration

and other activities of the company since 2000.

4. More than 1,000 families, majority of them belonging to the B‘laan tribe, will be displaced and

relocated once the company begins commercial operations. SMI promised to provide scholarships,

livelihood programs and whatever it is that they need or would help in their development. The

common perception of the B'laan community is that they would not be affected by the operations.

―As long as their ancestral lands would not be affected, they were willing to support the mining

company as it provides incentives that the communities need.‖

5. Damage to critical watersheds would leave thousands of farmers and fishermen with no means to

earn a living. The mine development would draw down the capacity of catchments that supply

drinking water and irrigation water to NIA irrigation systems that sustain 200,000 hectares of

agricultural land for 80,000 farmers in South Cotabato alone. The Tampakan project estimates a

water requirement rate of 908 liters per second.

6. The mining project proposes to store 1.65 billion tons of waste rock and 1.1 billion tons of tailings

in areas of high seismic activity. The open pit will not be back filled and the billions of tons of acid

generating waste rocks and wet tailings will require management in perpetuity. ―The Tampakan

mine has a high potential for loss of life and high environmental damage if a failure of dams or rock

storage facilities occurs‖. (Goodland and Wick 2010)

7. If SMI is allowed to operate, it would destroy the environment and contaminate the river systems. It

would dry up the irrigation system in the lowlands and the aquifers in General Santos and nearby

Koronadal City (according to the Catholic Church in South Cotabato). The mine areas are found

atop the headwaters of all the big rivers that drain into five provinces namely South Cotabato,

Sarangani, Davao del Sur, Sultan Kudarat, and Maguindanao, and the cities of General Santos and

Koronadal. Any degradation in this region will potentially result in the increased siltation of the

rivers, a decrease in the water level and a high risk of being contaminated by toxic materials coming

from the mine operation upstream (according to Catherine Abon, Geologist, UP NIGS).

8. In engaging government on the right to adequate food, we must first know our rights; know the State

obligations; and, build our capabilities. The following international documents may help us inform

our rights: UDHR, General Comments, ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, CEDAW, ON MIGRANTS,

CERD, CAT, PWD, etc.


9. There are three-fold obligations of the State on human rights. The obligation to respect requires

the state to refrain from doing anything to violate the integrity of individuals. It is a prohibition

against state action and interference depriving an individual from enjoying human rights. The

obligation to protect refers to state actions to prohibit third parties (including business) or others

from violating a person‘s rights. This is usually through policy and legislative measures that regulate

actions of third parties to ensure protection of the human rights of individuals. The obligation to

fulfill (facilitate or promote) requires states to take the necessary steps to adopt laws and other

measures aimed at achieving full realization of human rights. This obligation to provide exists

during natural disasters, wars and crisis situations where the individuals, peoples and communities

live in circumstances where they cannot secure these rights.

The Rights-Based Approach


10. Engaging the State on its obligations means knowing the relevant laws, policies and programs

related to the implementation and/or violation of the right to food. It means engaging the Philippine

Government in its three Branches: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary; the National

Government and its Executive Departments and Agencies; the Local Government Units and the

local agencies and courts.


11. The legislative process of the Philippine Congress follows the filing and first reading of a proposed

bill. After it is accepted, it goes to the committee in charge for hearing and reporting for the second

reading and third reading. After the bill passes the third reading, a bicameral committee shall take

charge of making versions of both houses on the bill coherent.

12. Human rights based capacity building points to skills development on data gathering, documentation

and analysis, training people to do their own data gathering, documentation and analysis, HR

Education Trainors‘ Training for people and communities.

13. There are existing studies on people‘s participation in the Local Development Councils which we

can access to for information regarding engagement with LGUs. In 2001 November - Study on

People‘s Participation in the LDCs by the DILG in collaboration with the Urban Resources and the

EBJF, supported by AusAid and the Phil-Australian Governance Facility (PAGF). In 2010

November – A Look at Participatory Governance in the Philippines, a rapid survey was conducted

by Code-NGO and PhilDHRRA and was presented during the Social Development Week

celebration of Code-NGO.

14. There are enabling policy framework for participation in the Philippines. First, the 1987

Constitution institutionalized the role of NGOs and POs in Philippine development. Article II, Sec.

23 provides that ―the state shall encourage non-governmental, community-based or sectoral

organizations that promote the welfare of the nation‖. Article XIII, Sec. 15 provides that ―the State

shall respect the role of independent people‘s organizations.‖ Article XIII, Sec. 16 provides that ―the

right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of

social, political and economic decision making shall not be abridged. The state shall, by law


facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.‖ Secondly, in the 1991 Local

Government Code, Chapter 4., Sec. 35 – ―LGUs should establish strong relations with the peoples‘

and non-government organizations on the delivery of certain basic services, capacity building and

livelihood projects and local enterprises. CSOs shall also be represented in the Local Special Bodies

(LSBs) to assist LGUs in planning and decision making. Sections 106-115, LGC – defines the local

planning bodies to consist of the Local Development Council and Barangay Development Councils

as the mandated local planning bodies, the Executive Committee to represent the LDC when it is not

in session, the Secretariat to provide technical and administrative support, and the Sectoral or

functional committees that will provide substantial inputs to the LDC and is more continually

engaged in all stages of the planning and development processes.

LDC

In Plenary

Executive

Committee

Secretariat

Sectoral or Functional

Committees

· Social

· Economic · Infrastructure

· Environment and Natural Resources

· Institutional

LOCAL PLANNING STRUCTURE as defined under Sec. 106-115, LGC

Local Development Council and Barangay Development Councils as the mandated local planning bodies

Executive Committee to represent the LDC when it is not in session and ensure that the LDC decisions are faithfully carried out and act on matters needing immediate attention by the LDC;

Secretariat to provide technical and administrative support, document proceedings, preparing reports and providing such other assistance as maybe required by the LDC

Sectoral or functional committees that will

provide substantial inputs to the LDC and is more continually engaged in all stages of the planning and development processes

15. There are also DILG Policy Issuances in support of the 1991 LGC provisions for peoples‘

participation namely: DILG MC-89, s. 2001; JMC # 1, s. 2007; DILG MC 114, s. 2007; DILG

Rationalized Planning System – 2008; DILG MC – 73 s. 2010.

16. Using available information and existing framework, we may venture into organizing and some

converging points. Particularly, we may venture into HRD formations, enhancing and maximizing

Barangay Human Rights Action Centers (BHRACs), Federations of BHRACs. We may come into

convergence at the territorial levels especially on the issue of the right to food using a multi-

disciplinary approach and this is of crucial importance.

17. The impact of climate change may lead us to consider some new approaches and ideas in pushing

for the realization of the right to food. One innovation is the Watershed Approach. This is about

―protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources; application of integrated approaches to

the development, management and use of water resources‖ (Chapter 18 of the Agenda 21). We all

live in a watershed and we believe that a watershed planning approach is the most effective

framework to address the complex issues of the mining industry and above all food and water

security in the context of looming climate change impacts. With Climate Change as the ―new

normal‖ a watershed approach to adaptation, mitigation, anticipation and disaster management

where the forests and minerals are mostly located. A concerted and integrated effort using the

watershed as the planning domain is necessary. Landslide and flooding do not respect administrative

boundaries or local jurisdictions.


18. Ecosystems are especially important for developing countries, where the livelihoods of many

people depend directly on healthy ecosystems. It may be good to consider adopting Total Economic

Valuation (TEV) and Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) which is

an integration of TEV and natural capital accounting. WAVES is an initiative of the World Bank

which is supportive of ―responsible mining‖. WAVES is a comprehensive wealth management

approach to long-term sustainable development that includes all assets – manufactured capital,

natural capital, human and social capital. The methodological framework is the UN‘s System of

Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) developed over the past 20 years. WAVES can

contribute to poverty reduction. Valuation of ecosystem services will enable better management of

ecosystems. Natural resources are an important asset for the poor. Improving the productivity of

natural assets can lead to poverty reduction by allowing the poor to accumulate assets of their own if

economic activities based on natural resources are not ―employment of the last resort‖. Ecosystem

accounting will also enable the measurement of who benefits and who bears the costs of ecosystem

changes. Essential for careful policy design so that the poor (who lack complementary private

assets) also benefit from improved productivity.

19. In engaging government on the right to food, we may maximize the upcoming elections to better

know how candidates would help us realize this. That, candidates integrate human rights as

preferred values in governance and development planning will make human rights the basis of their

governance and of their development plans; will develop their own local human rights plan in

coordination with the national HR plan of action; they will educate and train the security forces

under their jurisdiction from a human rights perspective; they will establish and/or strengthen the

formation of human rights defenders; esp. in difficult areas and situations, including the Barangay

Human Rights Action Centers; they will sponsor resolutions and plans relating the 9 international hr

instruments, which the State ratified, and implementing these instruments in their own areas of

responsibilities; they will appoint a human rights officer or set up a human rights desk or committee

that will oversee the implementation of human rights, among others, in governance, security

activities, public school curricula and in development plans, during the candidates‘ terms of office

and will serve as liaison to civil society‘s human rights defenders‘ formations. We can also make

use of the existing international and regional human rights mechanisms.

Open Forum:

Mike Udtohan: The objective of this conference is to come up with policy recommendations on

RTAF. Is there any way of consolidating all related laws on food so as to have a

holistic approach? Secondly, are there other countries‘ food framework laws?

Cookie Diokno: I don‘t know of other country‘s food framework law yet there is already a study

on all food related laws in the Philippines. The study found out that our laws on

food are not harmonized; while, others need to be repealed. The study

recommendations were already there since 2008. Among our existing laws, food

safety is very strong but food security and accessibility is questionable. Even as

there is study or research on this, we still do not have a framework law. All we

have are a million and one laws.


Flavio Valente: Brazil has a national framework law on the Right to Adequate Food. RTAF is

part of the constitution, thus a national framework law is a must. FAO has a study

on existing laws and jurisprudence of various countries on RTAF which we can

access.

Monitoring and governance are important in the aspect of coming up with a

national framework law. Also, a broad popular support of people and

stakeholders makes the law work. In our struggle for the right to adequate food,

we must all carry the whole gamut of rights. RTAF can be an opening for the

realization of all rights for all; and nutrition must be present throughout the

discussion on food to make it a complete package.

Cookie Diokno: In the Philippines, we have the whole cluster on poverty. For our purposes we

have to point out the lead agencies to determine clearly the state responsibilities.

Max de Mesa: There is no ―Right to Food‖ program despite the glaring situation of hunger in the

Philippines. It is not even in the National Human Rights Action Plan or NHRAP.

Flavio Valente: The leading agency must be beyond poverty or food.

Martin Remppis:

There is a successful RTF-campaign in India in the form of litigation or legal

court battle. India‘s government is in the process of getting a National Food

Security Bill approved and presently there is a strong debate on the content of the

bill. The original idea of the bill is exactly to have a right to adequate food legal

framework. However the considered bill drafts are rather disappointing and

unfortunately the RTF-Campaign has only some general demands but is not

prepared to tell the government how a legal framework bill should look like. What

can we learn from the Indian friends: If we demand a RTAF-legal framework law,

we should also formulate its content details and advise the government

accordingly. For this we‘ll need legal advice.

Cookie Diokno: But, here in the Philippines, our court is not exactly an activist court.

Mike Udtohan: Are we sure and convinced that the framework law on food we are drafting is the

right one?

Cookie Diokno: It is good that we start this discussion, which needs deeper sharing, come up with

more recommendations from people who are hungry. For who are we to speak for

the people? We are just here to facilitate.

Ka Elvie Baladad: The National Land Use Act may be one of the laws we could use as framework to

harmonize all laws on food in the Philippines. If we do not protect our land, we

cannot talk about food sufficiency. We cannot talk of market without product.

Mining has even encroached into our irrigated lands. This is the experience in

McArthur municipality.


Cookie Diokno: Just a caution. Our framework must not fall into a market-oriented framework.

We have to ensure that the orientation of our framework law is protection of the

rights and not economics and market primarily.

I cannot comment on your draft bill on land use since I have not seen it and have

not read it.

Patricia Gonzales: I really believe we need a framework law for implementation of state obligations.

What a framework law must have is a moral persuasion just like in Brazil.

Sophia Schmitz: What was the relationship of mining and food from the Presentation of Max de

Mesa?

Max de Mesa: It was used to usher in the need and struggle for a rights-based approach in

development.

Wilson Fortaleza: The reason we have disjointed, unharmonized laws especially on food is due to

the fact that we have no framework law on food which could be also under a

broader issue of social protection of which, we are all entitled to enjoy.

Conchita Masin: Unsafe food must be totally defined in the framework law particularly to protect

and educate mothers of is harm. Mothers are usually those that experience hunger

in the Philippines because they would rather give their food share to their young,

especially during food scarcity. There is hunger due to the nutritional content of

what they eat. Safe and sustainable supply of food must be ensured in the

framework law.

Cookie Diokno: We also need to review our food fortification programs in line with food safety

standards. It is unthinkable for a valueless junk food to be promoted because it is

fortified with vitamin.

Max de Mesa: The Local Government Units may also make ordinances to encourage local

production of safe and healthy food and provide local market for them.

Starj Villanueva: Our organization is leading a campaign on land rights and food sovereignty. We

conducted research on it to back up our advocacy. We observe though that during

dialogues with government agencies through the ―National Convergence

Initiatives‖ that they just talk about the issue and do nothing about it if not forget

it. Thus, there is a need for us to build a strong local resistance and strengthen

solidarity as a strategy.

Dennis Revagorda: Most of the targeted beneficiaries of the anti-poverty programs in the local levels

are not reached. How would we incorporate the question of governance to the

right to adequate food when duty bearers are remiss of their obligations?


Aloy Borja: If we ask today government officials about framework law, they would

immediately claim they have. But for us, what framework law are we talking

about?

Elsa Novo: We would like to request the panel to be with us in a forum on the Right to

Adequate Food and the Indigenous Peoples which we are organizing at the local

Indigenous Peoples‘ communities. (request granted on the spot.)

Cookie Diokno: The National Convergence Initiative or even the attempt to converge remains a

plan. When it comes to unity, the situation says not so because we still lack

appreciation of differing positions. At the local level, clearly power corrupts.

Thus we need to have a clear framework to advance our demands. But, how much

can we do, is a challenge for us all.

Max de Mesa: The framework we are using is human rights and the obligations of governments

to it. In our efforts for change we need to hone our capacities to be more

effective. As CSOs we need to converge not as an organization but in one clear

framework of unity, the right to adequate food.

Regional Reporting:

Luzon/Visayas/Mindanao Integrated Report

REPORT ON THE REGIONAL WORKSHOPS ON RTAF

Ms. Elvira Quintela, AFRIM

1. The Regional Workshops on the Right to Adequate Food (RTAF) were born out of the need for a

national policy on RTAF and the need for broader stakeholders‘ participation in the substantiation

and pressure mobilization for a national policy on RTAF. The objectives by which the activities

were conducted aims to understand the sectoral and community situation in relation to RTAF; to

identify RTAF issues/challenges, gaps in interventions and possible solutions; and, to formulate

action plans.

2. There were four (4) workshops conducted for RTAF purposes. Two sectoral workshops for IP

women (Luzon) and Urban poor women (Luzon); two multi-sectoral workshops conducted in Luzon

and Mindanao. Total participants numbered 52 females and 16 males.

3. The process by which the workshops were undertaken follows the presentation of the rationale and

objectives of the right to adequate food. This is substantiated by inputs and discussions on: poverty

and hunger situation; sectoral situation; RTAF and related international instruments; and, Ms.

Diokno‘s research document. Following inputs were group workshops on 1) issues/problems;

possible solutions; aspirations and expectations from the government; 2) formulation of action plan.

This is to extract ideas and sentiments of participants on the validity of the issues as being

concretely experienced. Video presentations on poverty and hunger documentaries capped each

workshop activity.


4. The random summary of the four workshop activities conducted, identified issues and problems in

each household and community point to: food insufficiency and where to source food;

unemployment, underemployment, insufficient income and contractualization of labor; malnutrition

and other health problems; lack of unity among community/family members; and the problem of the

non-consultative nature of LGUs on peoples‘ needs for livelihoods or in the implementation of

government projects; conflicts/violence in the community and household; theft/robbery for food;

wrong beneficiaries of CCT program; slow CARPER and IPRA implementation, including the

reversal of gains due to exemption claims; land conversions; encroachment of big businesses on

land, forest, and marine resources; lack of government services (social and agricultural); no/limited

access to credit; farmers are tied to traders due to high production cost; corrupt government officials;

marketing problems of farm products (buying stations and price support), competition (influx of

cheaper agri-products from other countries); mining and other extractive investments resulted in

environmental destruction and dislocation of IPs and small farmers; conflicting policies of the

government; export oriented economic policies; demolition and shelter/housing insecurity; armed

conflicts (resource or ideology-based); calamities due to improper waste management; calamity

funds have not reached the intended beneficiaries.

5. As to the questions on possible solutions to the issues and problems they identified, responses point

to the following: a) Employment/livelihood/extra income opportunities thru enhancement of local

economy; b) Enhancement of community-based poverty and hunger alleviation strategies (like

sustainable agriculture); c) Employment security; increased salaries/wages; d) Alternative livelihood

for IPs; e) More support for the education of children especially IPs; f) Engage LGUs on project

implementation transparency; g) Free medical services from the government; h) Fast track

implementation of IPRA and CARPER; i) Lobby for more government social and agricultural

support services delivery (maximizing participation in various local bodies); j) Enhancing capacities

of peoples organizations for claim making and active participation in local economy development.

6. Participants in the workshop have one general aspiration -- to be released from their current

situation. They long for an improved living condition. Such condition is characterized by:

Healthy and happy family/community, living together peacefully and in harmony with nature

Food always on the table

Sufficient income to meet family needs

Secured and conducive house for the family

Sufficient knowledge and skills on food production and income generation

Children are able to go to school

Empowered women/organizations

Able to access necessary social and agri-support services from the government

Sustained farm production and income

Access and control over common resources

State has fulfilled its 7obligations to the people

7. Among the actions participant intended to have for immediate purposes are: 1) training and

education. This includes particularly topics for women on vegetable production, household-based

income generating projects, sustainable agriculture and improved farm productivity, campaign skills

against extractive industries like mining and continuing education on RTAF, HR, VAWC and other

HR instruments. With these, there are needs to access funds from LGUs for IGPs, dialogues with


LGU on appropriate relocation sites and livelihood while continuing protest action on labor

contractualization, pushing for inclusive government scholarship program, campaigning to fast track

implementation of IPRA and CARPER, including follow-up of ongoing related cases, forest and

mangrove rehabilitation and monitoring of government‘s agri and aqua projects.

Workshop:

The Conference participants were divided into five workshop groups to tackle specific issues. Below are

the workshop issues and the facilitators for each group:

a) Assessment of Vulnerable Groups

Facilitator: Ms. Yifang Tang

b) Advocacy / Litigation

Facilitator: Mr. Ricardo A. Sunga

c) Monitoring of State Performance on Different Levels

Facilitator: Ms. Roxanne Veridiano

d) Recourse Instruments / Complaint Redressal Mechanisms

Facilitator: Mr. Bernie Larin

e) Naming & Shaming through Actions + Media

Facilitator: Mr. Bobby Diciembre

Workshop Results:

Workshop I: Assessment of Vulnerable Groups

Who are the vulnerable groups with regard to RTAF?

IPs/Moro Women Fisherfolks

Farmers Children/youth Elderly/PWD

Urban Poor Rural (interior communities) HIV/Aids victims

1. In what way are they affected / vulnerable in terms of RTAF?

a. IPs/Moro – distance, high prices of commodities, cheap prices of farmer‘s produce,

encroachment of mining in IP/Moro areas, existence of big plantations, militarization,

climate change.

b. Farmers -- displacement, LUC, peoples‘ reliance on imported goods over locally produced,

high inputs of farm tools, and usury.

c. Fisherfolks -- climate change, alternative livelihood

d. Children – garbage as source for food among children in the urban poor communities.

e. PWD – mendicancy, medicine and services from DOH and DSWD

f. HIV – demoralized, discriminated – need clear and accessible services from DOH and

DSWD

g. Women – Less accessibility, less adequacy, less availability

h. Youth – vices and addiction


i. Street families – informal economy, scavenger

j. Elderly – no social security, unable to access government social services.

2. How are we responding to the RTAF problems of the vulnerable groups?

The government through the Department of Social Welfare and Development‘s (DSWD)

responses are through food for work program, CCT and short term livelihood. The civil

society‘s initiatives on this problem are organizing outside of the government framework.

The vulnerable groups in the Philippines are the least prioritized group as the bigger portion of

the government budget (44%) is intended for debt payment rather than support programs for

the vulnerable groups.

3. What are the gaps in our work / obstacles encountered?

Lack peoples‘ mobilization to push government to perform its obligations.

Local patronage policy

There is no budget for the realization of the Right to Adequate Food.

Unemployment

There is a need for strong unity and solidarity.

Plenary Question/Discussion on Workshop 1 Report:

Max de Mesa: Was there a discussion in the group on the situation and gravity of hunger?

Workshop 1: We have not tackled issue deeply as we presupposed that other workshop groups

were given such question to discuss. We were guided by the workshop questions

prepared by the organizers of this conference. Though we have not tackled the

gravity of hunger, we discussed the availability and safety issues of food.

Juliet Bernales

(NCIP):

I observed that PWD group was not included among the vulnerable sectors. I am

particularly concerned with PWDs in the rural areas than those situated in the

urban centers as services are accessible here than in the countryside.

Addendum from the

Workshop Group 1:

Construction of Dams aside from the encroachment of mining projects is included

in the land use conversion.

Workshop 2: Advocacy / Litigation

1. Stocktaking. Are there litigations on RTAF in the Philippines?

• Not directly as RTAF, but with implications to RTAF

• Limited to issue identification and calls e.g.

o vs mining (CARAGA) thru Writ of Kalikasanland rights/ IP claims on ancestral

domain

o vs aerial spraying (Mindanao)agrarian related cases

o vs seaweed farming (to be filed vs LGU in Mindanao)


2. What type of litigation are we using?

• Civil cases

• Political cases

• Administrative cases

3. What are the gaps/ problems/ obstacles in relation to the litigations/ legal recourse of RTAF

violations?

RTAF is not popular; people lack information about their rights and available recourse

Who are we against: big corporations, landlords, politicians

Practical terms: costly to pursue a case, technical requirements, resources (e.g. time, lawyers,

etc.)

Existing laws used against people who exercise their claim-making rights (e.g. cases filed

against farmers)

4. What are the initiatives being undertaken?

Advocacies: AR, IPs, sustainable agriculture, community-based farming, urban gardening,

safe foods, etc.

Food Blockade (Compostella Valley)

5. Workshop Group Proposal:

Framework law on RTAF

Awareness raising/ education campaign – building movements from below

Special Court on RTAF

Look into existing programs of government where RTAF can be mainstreamed, e.g., Food

Terminals


Addendum from

Workshop Group 2:

It must be noted that the Philippines has some good laws related to the Right to

Adequate Food but the implementation is problematic.

There is a problem in litigation, especially for the groups and individuals being

counter-sued by landlords or big businesses through made-up criminal

accusations and offenses. The costs of bail are so high; and, fees for legal

battles are so exorbitant. These are particularly the experiences of our agrarian

reform cases.


Workshop 3: Monitoring of State Performance on Different Levels

1. Monitoring Mechanisms in Place.

• Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS)

• Barangay Nutrition Council

• Mandatory Representation for vulnerable sectors (IP, Women, Peasants, etc.)

• Provincial Agrarian Reform Committee (PARCOM)

• Go Organic

• Representation of CSOs in Regional Development Councils

• Parent-Leaders in 4Ps

2. Experiences in Monitoring

Feeding Programs Nutrition Scholars Gulayan ng Bayan

4Ps Relief Distribution FAITH

CBMS (13 core

indicators of poverty)

Dams, Coal-fired Power

Plant, Mining

Relief and Rehabilitation

Positive:

– Census of Community-Gender/Sex desegregated

– Environment and Resources at stake

– Valuation of Agricultural Production affected by Dev‘t Projects

– Independent initiatives of NGOs and POs which make use of Gov‘t data, highlighting

weaknesses of Gov‘t programs on RTAF

– Sharing with multi-stakeholders

– Holistic Approach e.g. disaster relief and rehab monitoring

– Continuing Research

Areas for Improvement:

– Participation of larger population in formulating indicators to create sense of ownership

from the people; not center-based

– Expert opinion

– Monitoring mechanism not framed on RTAF

3. Steps to Ensure Progressive Realization of RTAF among Claimholders:

Should know their rights

Awareness on right to food as integration of other rights that is not just access or availability of

food but also as nutrition

Access to information

Should assert their rights

Part of development planning process

Independent CSO monitoring with participation of claimholders/beneficiaries (Shadow

reports, Counter-SONA) with focus on RTAF guided by normative content

Database of what CSOs are doing

Use UN international standards in monitoring rights (water, hunger, nutrition, housing)


Promotion of indigenous knowledge and socio-political systems

Manufacturing nutritious food using indigenous resources vs importation of junk food

Use PANTHER principles

4. Challenges

Alliance work

Engagement in governance (inside, alongside, outside)

Assertion of grassroots-based CSOs to counter GONGOs and BONGOs


Monina Geaga: I fail to notice any discussion or experiences in relation to data collection from the

government or its agencies. What is the general consensus of the group, are

agencies cooperative or not in terms of access to their data and information?

Workshop Group3: The experiences point to varied levels of cooperation from the government.

Sometimes it is very challenging especially when results of monitoring are

integrated into the Barangay Development Council planning.

Workshop 4: Recourse Instruments / Complaint Redressal Mechanisms

1. What are the existing redress mechanisms, if any? Or what are the recourse mechanisms available?

Available remedies could be divided into two – administrative (agencies and President) and

judicial (courts) e.g. Writ of Kalikasan

BFAD – redress mechanism for consumers

Mining – DENR

Land use conversion – DAR/DARAB; decides on land issue and on the application for land

conversion even as there is pending moratorium on land conversion. Factors to consider depends

on the jurisdiction, the nature of complaint whether administrative or judicial, identification of

concerned agency and what court. It must be considered that some services are devolved (LGUs

and national agencies).

Crop conversion – This is under the mandate of DA but there is no existing mechanism.

NFA Procurement – Decides on prices of rice products yet farmers are at the mercy of traders

We can also send our policy recommendations through letters/communication to agencies and

Office of the President

We can also request for Congressional inquiries

On the issue of corruption – Ombudsman mechanism

Meta-legal tactics and strategies are also forms of redress mechanisms, e.g. land occupation,

pickets etc

4Ps program – problematic in terms of implementation. Its redress mechanism may be the

DSWD.

There should also be redress mechanisms for ODA projects.


2. What are the problems encountered in accessing available redress mechanisms?

Ignorance on the process of filing complaints.

Lack of knowledge about the redress mechanisms available on the part of marginalized groups

Criminalization – slapping of cases against those who are complaining

Lack of resources – availability of lawyers and exorbitant fees of courts

Harassment and threats prevent victims from pursuing cases

The mandate of Public Attorney‘s Office is not clear; it made PAO ineffective in providing

services to victims; PAO services are also costly

Courts have overloads of cases; backlogs

Access to existing remedies is tedious and expensive

There is also a problem of attitude and incompetence of people in the government

Negligence and bias on the part of people in the agencies

Bias on the part of LGUs

Corruption and connivance

Slow processes in government agencies

Bureaucratic red tape

National policies – bias of the national government (neo-liberal policies)

Existing mechanisms are manipulated and mostly are not effective and not implemented

3. What steps can be taken to address the problems identified?

Participation

– Take an active role in crafting and implementation of policies / redress mechanisms

– Citizen‘s participation in the existing redress mechanisms

– Vigilance on the part of the citizens

– Monitoring

Education

– Legal literacy or paralegal trainings / human rights input

– Integrate peoples‘ issues, human rights, etc. in school curriculum

– Training programs on good governance

Organize

– Organize the victims and then formulate tactics on how to defend themselves

(negotiate, peaceful resolution of problems)

– Respect and support people‘s initiative

– Critical mass / mass movement

Advocacy

– Partnership with LGUs

– Diplomacy and networking/lobbying with government agencies and LGUs


– Conscientization of people in the government

– Tap the academe, church and the media

Push reforms within the government Streamline and simplify processes of mechanisms of

available remedies

– Strengthen DA for it to have redress mechanisms

– Sustain DOJ projects to make justice accessible, e.g. ―justice on wheels,‖ LGU

mediation,

– Strengthen the local government academy

– Clarify the mandate of PAO


Conchita Masin: I have some doubts about the proposal of strengthening the government agencies

to enable them to push for redress mechanism. I would rather suggest that we

strengthen the communities to push government to implement mechanisms.

Particularly, let us strengthen the POs in the communities to push the

Department of Agriculture or the Department of Agrarian Reform to institute

reforms; secondly, lobby CHR to include RTAF in its mandate.

Workshop Group 4: Yes, the idea of the group discussion is the same with your suggestion. Maybe

we will have just to reformulate the proposal. We believe that it is crucial to

have a critical mass.

Max de Mesa: CHR is the watchdog of the government but it has no prosecutorial functions or

power. It, however, can recommend prosecutory actions.

Ricardo Sunga: We should also include international UN mechanisms and the ASEAN AICHR

as available venues for redress.

Max de Mesa: The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police have

Human Rights Officers in every camp; maybe we can push for them to work by

forcing them to blotter cases of HR violations committed by the ranks.

Flavio Valente: Civil Society Organizations should struggle to make all available mechanisms

effective. We can also make use of available quasi-judicial recourse by using

institutions to put pressure on government agencies to implement their

mandates. CSOs can also push for the possibility of creating National

Rapporteurship like the UN system that could link issues and concerns of the

people to CHR and the Houses of Congress.


Workshop 5: Naming & Shaming through Actions + Media

Overview: Cover conducted research, campaigns and implemented social actions and how it was covered

by the media (local, national, or international)

Questions answered:

1. What has been done? (Assessment of effectiveness? What are the experiences?)

2. What are the risks and how can we minimize them?

3. What are the gaps or problems encountered?

4. How-To: Future planning?

1. Assessment of Effectiveness via experience

CASE STUDY #1: ―People‘s Action‖ Protest and Rally, MLY activities

Regions covered: Northern Luzon (delegations – Ilocos, Cagayan, Bagio, etc.)

Action taken:

– Mass action (annual event takes place in November). Anti-mining campaign in Northern

Luzon, Mass action against MGB: petitions containing commands of the community,

followed by a march-rally (protesters carry placards). More than 1,000 participated in the

reaction against MGB‘s ―Mines & Safety Week‖ (celebration of ―[un]safe‖ mining

practices)

– Interaction-meeting of different mining communities for sharing experiences (face-to-face

interaction with other groups against mining activities). Levels: Community, LGUs, etc.

Effectiveness?

– Event covered by local media. i.e. newspaper front page presents event side-by-side

(comparison) with the (local) government‘s MGB ―Mines & Safety Week.‖

– Giving awards to MGB and DENR: ―Most irresponsible mining company!‖ ―Best Human

Rights Violator!‖

– Social action to gather media

– Create a ―Hall of Fame‖

– ommunicate

message

CASE STUDY #2: Land Use

Problems encountered: Weather

Effectiveness?

– Target = consolidate forces that are pro-extension of the CARPER Law

(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension)

Response:

– Office of the President extends CARPER


CASE STUDY #3: Peace Covenant Ceremony

Regions covered: Misamis Oriental

Addressing: Muslims (Moro) and Christians

Peace covenant enables tribes to be more productive (no more fear of conflicts between

warring tribes; result: farm animals are no longer kidnapped for use by warning tribes;

peaceful and productive.)

CASE STUDY #4: ―Right to Food‖

Rice crisis; KGNP (Filipinos against the GNP)

Involves large mobilizations and good media coverage. Protest in Ayala area ends in

office workers throwing confetti on protesters.

In Ayala, there was a demand to lower the price of rice. Employees in Ayala provided

support to the protesters by giving them rice.

They were able to get fax numbers and contact info (communication!) so that you have

community support from the workers when you go through the area.

Government reacted by ordering a price control on rice. Didn‘t really assess the

reaction to this situation; rice importation was massive under Ramos (in 1996-97 or

between 1994-1996)

Contrast government claim and action on the ground.

It took a one-month campaign to prepare for this. Relied on one council member in

Makati to provide numbers for campaign.

Risks: Dispersals (won‘t be allowed to group or regroup). Somehow, no threat of jail.

CASE STUDY #5: 2008 Rice raid on NFA warehouse in Cavite.

Forced the town mayor to negotiate; distribution of NFA was being done by NFA

organization and national government, bypassing the people (rice was being used for

political patronage in the distribution system).

Initial plan was a mobilization; there was no plan to ransack and raid the warehouse.

The objection was made; the local government created a mechanism to involve local

people in the distribution of NFA rice.

2. What are the risks and how can we minimize them?

CASE STUDY #1:

For the standoff, some community leaders didn‘t want to end the standoff and were wary

of a Peace Covenant. They drew their guns and were threatening to attack with arrows and

swords. No one was hurt, but there was a 3-hour standoff.

CASE STUDY #2 (Northern Luzon, Baguio mines)

There was the risk of cases filed vs. PO leaders which created a counter-group of anti-

miners (a ―Divide and conquer‖ tactic). To counter this, ensure network of lawyers or

volunteer lawyers.

Advice: First get a permit, if not, get a very good negotiator. Inform protestors and confirm

commitment.


TAMPANKAN CASE: Risks – Extrajudicial killings (EJKs). The military should not be

deputized to provide protection for mining companies. The armed forces function is to defend

national sovereignty. To counter this, directly take the AFP responsible for violation and for

taking the side of mining companies. Additional investigations from other committees: Council of

Human Rights, the (international) UN, etc.

Military guards and protest: How could they say they‘re protecting the people when

they‘re the ones dispersing the people?

Advice: During the time of Gloria, there was no negotiation. There was only calibrated,

pre-emptive response.

3. What are the gaps/ problems encountered?

Finance logistics

Solutions:

Networking

Community

Logistics – for example, transport (i.e. four-wheel drive, habal-habal, motorbike, etc.),

distance, etc.

(Cultural) Sensitivity (Interpretations vs. miscommunication)

For instance: extending courtesies to only a few community leaders so that when the

acknowledgements come around, several community leaders feel left out.

Readiness of Community

Keep in mind that NGOs can campaign for communities in need, but they cannot cover

everything! They must be willing to do the work (logistics, infrastructure, etc.)

Schedule of press to converge

What the media projects sometimes does not capture what the group wants to project or may

be a different interpretation of events (i.e. selective interpretation)

Press release/ statement:

When you are misquoted, you immediately respond, asking for clarification, a rapporteur, etc.

Problems of advocacy:

Mining companies have stakes in mass media

PDI

Adverts for TE

Fully-independent editorial: ABS-AB5

―They protect their own‖ (―There‘s no such thing as ‘free media‗ in the Philippines – or, for

that matter, in the world.‖)

Advocacy will always be affected by what causes you represent and what you hope to achieve

Advert is a psychological approach

Hard to ―Name ‗n Shame‖ companies that feed the media (Ayala, the Lopezes, etc.) because

they own the media!

Involves media relations, etc.


4. Future planning?

Method(s): Social actions & Media

Framework bill: Sustain campaign on Right to Adequate Food, there must be a very concrete

step to be taken for filing a legislative proposal or decision as a necessary part of campaigning.

The legislative process creates its own life as it involves a Public Hearing, a debate, etc.

Needs a solid framework – i.e. right to food and right to adequate food – so the bill is a

campaign itself.

Create a scenario or a venue that, by itself, creates the life of your campaign. Break a large

piece into its key components.

Communication on media, mass-media, social media, etc. campaigning

Capacity-building via lobbying, networking, etc.

Identify early-adopters

―Champion‖-building (Legislative branch, Senate, and Congress)

The Next Step Process:

1. Results of the workshop sessions of the conference will serve as framework and basis for the

concrete steps to be taken that will give the direction and specify the concept note

incorporating the General Comments 12 of UNESCR.

2. The Concept Note is meant to help consolidate the existing NFC and reach broader

constituents (Specifically the vulnerable sectors) and serve as basis for the consolidation of the

coalition.

3. Translate the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Adequate Food into Filipino and other

major dialects.

4. Alongside this effort will be the implementation of capacity-building measures to strengthen

the basis of unity and deepen understanding of RTAF.

5. Local consultations all over the country (L/V/M) will be conducted to organize and unify all

efforts to facilitate progressive realization of RTAF.

6. IEC- Information Education materials will be developed on RTAF and published in major

dialects.

Addendum: (Martin Remppis) – “To formulate the Right To Adequate Food legal framework details with

the broadest participation possible.”

Closing Activity, Call to Action and Approval of the Conference Manifesto

(Facilitated by Mr. Ricardo Reyes)


DEKLARASYON NG UNANG PAMBANSANG KUMPERENSYA

SA KARAPATAN SA SAPAT NA PAGKAIN

27-28 Pebrero 2013

Quezon City, Metro Manila

Declaration of the First National Conference

on the Right to Adequate Food

27-28 February 2013

Quezon City, Metro Manila

Malaya kaming nagtipon ngayon – kaming galing sa hanay ng mga magbubukid, manggagawa, katutubo,

komunidad sa lunsod, kababaihan at kabataan, kaming mula sa Bangsa Moro at Cordillera, kaming

nabibilang sa iba‘t ibang propesyon at NGO – upang itanghal ang BATAYAN AT UNIBERSAL NA

KARAPATANG PANTAO SA SAPAT NA PAGKAIN, at pagtibayin ang aming determinasyong

makamtam ang karapatang ito sa buhay ng bawat mamamayan at bata sa Pilipinas, gayundin sa buong

mundo.

We gather here today – peasants, workers, urban community residents, women and youth, from Bangsa

Moro and Cordillera, from the professions and NGOs – to proclaim our commitment to the BASIC AND

UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD, and express our determination to claim this right for every

citizen and child in our country, the Philippines, as well as in the whole world.

Higit kailanman sa buhay ng ating bayan at bansa, ang karapatang ito sa sapat na pagkain at karapatang

mabuhay ay dapat itaguyod at ipaglaban hanggang ganap na makamtan. Mga dambuhalang

kapangyarihang global at pambansa , at mga galamay nila sa lokalidad, ang walang habas na

kumakamkam ng ating lupain, katubigan, at puhunan – mga pinagmumulan ng ating pagkain at

ikabubuhay – upang magkamal ng limpak-limpak na tubo at pribilehiyo, kahit na kumitil pa ng maraming

buhay o alisan ng dignidad ang buhay ng nakararami, at kahit na masira pang lalo ang ating kapaligiran, at

magpabilis sa paggunaw pa ang ating planeta.

At no other time in the history of our country has it become more imperative to fight for the right to

adequate food and the right to life. Powerful global and national forces and their local minions have been

relentlessly dispossessing us of our lands, rivers and lakes, capital and livelihood – means to secure our

food and sustain our lives – to amass monstrous superprofits and privileges, no matter if lives are lost or

deprived of dignity, or if the environment is further laid to waste, and our planet pushed further toward

extinction.

Sa ilalim ng globalisasyong may tatlong sungay – liberalisasyon, deregulasyon at pagsasapribado ng mga

kabuhayan at larangang publiko – ang bawat tagumpay na nakakamit ng pakikibaka ng mamamayan sa

karapatan sa lupa at pangisdaan, sa pagtatanggol ng lupang ninuno, sa pagsusulong ng karapatan at

benepisyo sa paggawa, sa pabahay, kalusugan at edukasyon, ang bawat abanse para sa pantay na

karapatan ng kababaihan at pangangalaga sa mga bata – mga karapatang kaugnay ng karapatan sa sapat na

pagkain – ay pwersahang binabawi hanggang mabalewa.

Under globalization with its triad of liberalization, deregulation and privatization, every gain our

struggles achieved in promoting land and fishery rights, defending ancestral domain, advancing the rights

to work, housing, health and education, every step forward for equal rights to women and the care of our

children – rights that are directly connected to the right to adequate food – are being cancelled out.


Sa kabila nito, ang gubyerno ng Pilipinas ay nananatiling lampa at mahina sa pagtataguyod ng karapatan

sa sapat na pagkain at sa iba pang karapatang tao ng kanyang mamamayan. Sa halip na maninindigan,

bumibigay siya sa presyur at dikta ng mga global na korporasyon at bangko at mga gubyernong

nagpoprotekta ng mga interes na ito.

And yet, the Philippine government has proved to be a weakling in promoting the right to adequate food

and other human rights of its citizens. Instead of standing up to the pressures and dictates of global

corporations and banks at their protector governments, the Philippine government always buckles down.

Hindi tayo patatalo. Mula sa maliliit na tagumpay, susulong tayo sa mas malalaking tagumpay. Paulit-

ulit nating idedeklara at igigiit, sa iba‘t ibang larangan, sa iba‘t ibang paraan na:

We shall overcome. From small victories, we shall move to bigger ones. Without fail, we will declare and

assert in every field of struggle, in every way that:

Ang karapatan sa sapat na pagkain ay isang batayang karapatang tao, na nasa pusod ng karapatang

mabuhay ng bawat tao

The right to adequate food is a basic human right, which is at the core of the right of the human

being to life

Ang karapatan sa sapat na pagkain ay dugtungan ng karapatan sa lupa, tubig, trabaho, edukasyon,

kalusugan at pabahay-- mga karapatan sa sapat at maayos na pamumuhay

The right to adequate food is closely intertwined with the right to land, water, work, education,

health and housing – the right to adequate standard of living

Na para maisakatuparan ito, ang Estado ang may pangunahing obligasyon na irespeto,

protektahan at isakatuparan ang mga karapatang pantaong ito

To realize this right, the State has the principal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill these

human rights

Na sa paggampan ng Estado sa tungkulin nitong progresibo o hakbang-hakbang na isakatuparan

ang mga ito, dapat nitong sundin ang PANTHER principles – partisipasyon ( participation ),

pananagutan (accountability), walang diskriminasyon ( non-discrimination ), pagiging bukas

(transparency), pagsasakapangyarihan ( empowerment )at Pagpapairal sa Batas (Rule of Law).

For the State to perform these obligations in a progressive and step-by-step manner, it should

follow the PANTHER principles – participation, accountability, non- discrimination,

transparency, empowerment and rule of law.

Kaalinsabay, ilalaban din namin ang mga pagbabago sa istruktura ng lipunan, ekonomya at pulitika ng

bansa. Ito ay magbabago ng relasyon ng kapangyarihan at magbibigay ng institusyunal na balangkas para

sa progresibong realisasyon ng karapatan sa sapat na pagkain at kadugtong na karapatang tao.

Meanwhile, we shall fight for structural changes in society, the economy and politics of the nation. This

will change the power relations and will provide the institutional framework for the progressive

realization of the right to adequate food and other human rights.


Tungo rito, ikakampanya natin para iratipika ng gubyerno ng Pilipinas ang Optional Protocol to the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Sasabayan natin ito ng pagsisikap na

mabuo at mapagtibay ng gubyerno ang isang National Framework Law on the Right to Food.

To this end, we shall urge the government of the Philippines to ratify the Optional Protocol to the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This will be accompanied by efforts to

push the government to craft and approve a National Framework Law on the Right to Food.

Mula sa kumperensyang ito, babalik tayo sa ating mga komunidad, sektor, organisasyon at institusyon

para magpalaganap ng ating paninindigan at magparami. Mas marami, mas malakas, mas malapit sa

tagumpay!

From this conference, we shall return to our communities, sectors, organizations and institutions to make

known our position and to gather supporters. The more we are, the stronger we shall be, and the close we

will be to victory!

(The Manifesto was approved unanimously by the Conference participants. The Conference on the Right

to Adequate Food (RTAF) was formally closed with a community singing of Ang Bayan Ko.)

Documents

National Conference on the Right To Adequate Food