The Governance of Hunger (AM JLV) Book Huygens 2011

8/3/2019 The Governance of Hunger (AM JLV) Book Huygens 2011

1/23

Chapter of the bookNew Challenges to the Right to Food, edited by Miguel Angel Martin and Jose Luis Vivero (2011).CEHAP, Cordoba andHuygens Editorial, Barcelona

1

The Governance of HungerInnovative proposals to make the right to be free from hunger a reality1

Andrew MacMillan2 & Jose Luis Vivero3

Summary

This paper argues that the starting point for a renewed and functional architecture of the global food system should be

a definition of the goals to be achieved and of the main instruments of international law required to attain those goals.

We propose concentration on a single goal: the eradication of hunger throughout the world no later than 2025 while

retaining the intermediate target of halving hunger by 2015.. It is now feasible for the first time in history to eradicate

hunger and malnutrition but the persistent failure of most nations to take action on the scale required is needlessly

killing millions of our fellow humans, including 5 million young children, every year. The achievement of this goal

requires well orchestrated actions on an unprecedented scale by many actors, governmental and non-governmental, in

the context of an unambiguous commitment, sustained over a long period. To achieve this, we propose two possible

instruments, namely a legally binding Convention on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition and, if the world is

not ready for this, a morally binding Public Register of Commitments. By subscribing to either of these instruments,

those countries that are genuinely determined to end hunger can commit themselves to mutually agreed but bindingtime-bound goals, strategies and actions that would be sustained until their aims are achieved. In addition, the paper

presents the idea of a global campaign, involving a high level of civil society participation, to build a strong

constituency of public support for hunger eradication that would embolden governments to make the necessary

commitments. It suggests how this global campaign could lead to the incubation, approval, ratification and

implementation of an international Convention. Finally, it notes that the arrangements for its management could

respond to the call for a Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security, grounded in the UN system but

avoiding the creation of any new international body.

1. Hunger needlessly kills thousands each day

With millions of people needlessly dying each year because of hunger in a world of ample food supplies4,nobody can dispute the need for institutional mechanisms that raise the level of attention given to foodsecurity and nutrition-related issues and lead to better coordinated action amongst the many actors that areconcerned with the multiple dimensions of the problem. Indeed, in spite of remarkable success in expandingfood production to keep pace with a very rapid growth in demand 5 and of successive commitments atSummits to reduce the incidence of hunger, a vast number of people still suffer from food shortages andmalnutrition on a daily basis and the number is continuing to rise. Hunger is now arguably the gravest

1 This paper summarizes several documents prepared by the authors during 2009 so as to stimulate an international debate on theneed of new ideas to increase food security accountability of donor and recipient governments, traceability of anti-hunger promisesand commitments and transparency in the implementation of national plans. The original papers benefited from suggestions andcomments from Gerald Moore, Hartwig de Haen, Chris Leather, Aksel Naerstad, Ricardo Rapallo, Frederic Mousseau, FlavioValente, George Kent, Bo Bengtsson and Malek Khalili. We thank them all for their encouragement and practical suggestions, manyof which are reflected in this paper.2 Former Director of Field Operations, FAO Rome. Now a self-appointed campaigner for the eradication of hunger and malnutrition.

E-mail [email protected] Accin contra el Hambre Regional Coordinator for Central America and Fellow of the Chair on Hunger and Poverty Studies,University of Cordoba, Spain. E-mail:[email protected] Today, 25,000 people (out of those, 18,000 children under five) have died of malnutrition and associated diseases. The same

number died yesterday and will die tomorrow. FAO (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO Rome.5Much criticism is addressed at the UN agencies responsible for food and agriculture in spite of the fact that, since their creation,global food output has expanded faster than the unprecedented rate of population growth, average food consumption per person hasrisen, and food prices on world markets have declined overall by 55% to 65% in real terms. However, while increases in productionaveraged 2.8% a year until the mid-1980s, comfortably ahead of population growth (1.4% in the 1980s); subsequent growth rateshave fallen to around 1% a year on average, behind growth of both population (1.2% since 2000) and consumption. See Wiggins, S.(2008). Is the global food system broken? ODI opinion 113. Overseas Development Institute, London.http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/odi-publications/opinions/113-global-food-system.pdf


2/23


2

single threat to the worlds public health, as hunger and malnutrition have far greater impacts upon childhealth and growth than was previously thought6.

With 1.02 billion people undernourished and as many as two billion suffering from micronutrient andvitamin deficiencies, the state of the worlds nutrition is woeful. At least 40% of humanity suffers from someform of malnutrition that has the potential to damage their health7. Obesity is a rapidly growingmanifestation of malnutrition in both developed and developing countries, and also affects poor peopledisproportionately: for many sufferers, however, it is a matter of life-style choice and lack of nutritionknowledge8.

While there has been progress since 1990 in reducing the percentage of children under the age of five yearswho are underweight, an estimated 148 million children in the developing world remain undernourished 9.Paradoxically, despite years of international anti-hunger efforts and rising per caput food availability, thenumber of hungry people has continued to rise. This trend has been boosted by the recent 2007-2008 food price crisis, yielding a gloomy figure of 115 million of additional undernourished people10. And recentWorld Bank estimates suggest the spreading global economic crisis will push 200 million more people intopoverty. Moreover, preliminary estimates for 2009 to 2015 forecast that an average of between 200,000 and400,000 more children a year, a total of 1.4 to 2.8 million, may die if the crisis persists 11.

Although there is no clear agreement about the absolute figures 12, up to 5.5 million children die every year ofcauses attributable to maternal and child under-nutrition, which represents over half of the 9.2 million under-five deaths worldwide. In round numbers, this means that 1,000,000 pneumonia deaths, 800,000 diarrheadeaths, 500,000 malaria deaths, and 250,000 measles deaths could be prevented by eradication of childundernutrition. On top of that, nearly two million children die each year because they lack clean water andtoilet facilities. These numbers place prevention of undernutrition among children as one of the top prioritiesfor action in efforts to reduce child mortality13.

Undernutrition (wasting or acute malnutrition) is a phenomenon that at any given moment impacts 55 millionchildren, with about 19 million of them suffering from the most deadly form, Contrary to common

6 PLoS Medicine Editors (2008) Scaling up international food aid: Food delivery alone cannot solve the malnutrition crisis. PLoSMed 5(11): e235.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/5/11/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0050235-L.pdf

The Economist (2008). The starvelings. January 24.http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10566634 7 Figures on the incidence of malnutrition are hard to come by, partly because it has so many manifestations. But it is also significantthat malnutrition is not identified by WHO as a specific cause of death in the Organizations statistics, nor is it included by the UN inthe compilation of the Human Development Index. Moreover, in most countries, the forensic services do not consider severe acutemalnutrition as a cause of death, which represents a problem when a right to food case is to be presented before any judicialauthority. Medically speaking, hunger does not kill. Interesting proposals for addressing these gaps and creating a Food Security and Nutrition Index are set out in Afonso, Ana, Incidencia de la Seguridad Alimentaria en el Desarrollo. Analisis y Sintesis deIndicadores, PhDThesis, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid8 Yet now, it seems more is being spent on obesity prevention than ending hunger. Obesity is classified as an epidemic, yet hungeris not even formally recognized internationally as a specific cause of mortality.9 Reena Borwankar et al., What Is the Extent of Vitamin and Mineral Deficiencies? Magnitude of the Problem, Food and Nutrition

Bulletin 28, no. 1 supplement (2007): S174-81. UNICEF Press Release (2008). Releasing Declining Numbers for Child Mortality,UNICEF Calls for Increased Efforts to Save Childrens Lives, UNICEF, 12 Septemberwww.unicef.org/media/media_45607.html10 FAO Newsroom (15/12/2008): http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/8836/icode/ 11 World Bank (2009). The Global Economic Crisis: Assessing Vulnerability with a Poverty Lens. Policy note prepared for the G-7

Group meeting. 12 February 2009.12 There are various estimates of levels of mortality attributable to hunger. Probably the most authoritative summary can be found atwww.wfp.org/hunger/stats. Detailed country-specific figures on food consumption and the incidence of hunger are published by FAOin The State of Food Insecurity in the World www.fao.org/SOF/sofi/13 The data presented in this paragraph are based on the following documents: Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, deOM, Ezzati M, Mathers C, Rivera J & Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study Group (2008). Maternal and child undernutrition:global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet 371, 243-260. Caulfield, L.E., M. de Onis, M. Blssner and R.E.Black (2004). Undernutrition as an underlying cause of child deaths associated with diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria. and measles. Am.

J. Clin. Nutr. 80: 193-198. Pelletier DL, Frongilio EA Jr, Schroeder DG, Habicht J-P. (1995). The effects of malnutrition on childmortality in developing countries. Bull WHO 73; 443-8. UNICEF (2007). Progress for Children: A world fit for children, statisticalreview. UNICEF, New York. WHO (2005). The World Health Report 2005: make every mother and children count. World HealthOrganization, Geneva


3/23


3

perceptions, wasting is by no means a simple by-product of conflict or famine: its cause is usually the failureof long-term development processes, and not simply their sudden and dramatic collapse. Most deaths do nothappen in acute emergencies, but occur on a daily basis in relatively stable countries

14. What we are facing is

a new-style famine, causing death on a vast scale throughout the world - a famine that goes largely unheeded because it is so widely dispersed and is played out, hidden from camera lenses behind millions of closeddoors.

However, today less than 10% of the 19 million severely malnourished children get the treatment they need.Nine out of ten children remain untreated15. Ironically, the international community has become much moreadept at saving the lives of wasted children in the context of catastrophes than in a development context. It isin the governments own interests to act, because the persistence of wasting is not only a moral scandal, italso represents a drag on economic and political progress. The cost of undernutrition to national economicdevelopment is estimated at US$20-30 billion per annum16. Reducing malnutrition is central to reducingpoverty. As long as malnutrition persists, development goals for the coming decade will not be reached.

It would cost about $US8 billion a year to assist 100 million families to protect their children from hungerand malnutrition17, and $US30 billion a year to attain food security for all. Eliminating moderate and severeacute malnutrition has been estimated to cost only 2.76 billion Euros18. Yet current donor spending onprogrammes to reduce undernutrition is only about $US250 $US300 million annually19. Currently, rates ofundernutrition among children are declining in most countries at 1% per year or less, a very low figure that istotally unacceptable20.

The fact that millions of people are still dying each year prematurely because of a lack of adequate foodwhen the world is able to produce enough for all to eat is a true scandal21. It demands urgent, sustained andmassive attention, within global and national institutional frameworks that are properly equipped to addressthe issues on the scale required and in ways that respect national sovereignty and the dignity of individuals.

2. The Role of Inter-Governmental Institutions in world food governance

The food crisis that has sparked interest in new institutional arrangements has illustrated the extraordinarydegree of interconnectedness that now exists within the worlds food management systems. Thus, forexample, the policies adopted by one country (e.g. to subsidise grain-based biofuel production for vehicles,

using farm products that might otherwise have been available to feed people or farm animals) can drive upthe cost of staple cereals all around the world. This, in turn, inadvertently forces millions more of our fellowhumans into a situation of chronic undernourishment and the most abject poverty. Similarly, competition ininternational markets may lead countries to perpetuate labour policies that deliberately restrict wages formanual or unskilled workers, creating situations in which their earnings are too low to permit their adequatenutrition. The implication of these and many other possible examples is that, if only on ethical grounds,issues to do with production technologies22, food supply, trade, distribution and environmental policy that

14 Gross, R. and P. Webb (2006). Wasting time for wasted children: severe child undernutrition must be resolved in non-emergencysettings.Lancet2006; 367: 12091211.15 ACF-MSF (2009). One crisis may hide another: food price crisis masked deadly child malnutrition. Time to refocus at MadridFood Summit. Briefing paper. Action Contre la Faim International Network and Mdecins Sans Frontieres.16 UNICEF (2006). Progress for children. A report card on nutrition. UNICEF, New York. 17 UNICEF (2006) Ending Child Hunger and Undernutrition Initiative: Oral report.

http://www.unicef.org/about/execboard/files/Ending_Child_Hunger_background_note.pdf18 ACF-MSF (2009). op.cit.19 Macdonald B (2008) Why have donors committed so few direct investments to eliminate child undernutrition? Id21 insights.http://www.id21.org/insights/insights73/art07.html .20 De Onis M, Frongilo E A, Blssner M. (2000). Is malnutrition declining? An analysis of changes in levels of child malnutritionsince 1980. Bull WHO 78:122-33.Jones G, Steketee RW, Black RE, Bhutta ZA, Morris SS. (2003).Bellagio Child Survival Study Group. How many child deaths canwe prevent this year? Lancet 362:65-71.21 Trueba I. (2009) El Escndalo del Hambre: La verguenza de nuestra era. Diario El Mundo, Madrid22 There is clearly a shared responsibility between nations for ensuring the adequacy of global food supplies for future generations.One important dimension of this is the generation of technologies for intensive food production systems that do not damage thenatural resources especially soils, surface and underground water supplies, and plant and animal genetic resources that are needed


4/23


4

can significantly affect the number of people who are either well fed or hungry, have to be considered in aglobal context rather than simply from the perspective of a single country or group of countries.

It is the recognition of this growing global interdependence and the complexity of food security issues thatjustifies the call for institutions that can facilitate better coordination between countries as well as betweenthe many other actors, including those from within civil society, now increasingly involved in the variousdimensions of food system management. Improving food security and nutrition is not simply a matter ofincreasing food supplies but also of addressing the other important factors that determine whether or notpeople are able to exercise their right to adequate food. Important considerations relate to where and howfood is produced, equitable trade arrangements and prices, income distribution and social protection, accessto land, population, knowledge of nutrition, public health and hygiene, and environmental management23 thatcan only be addressed by stronger partnerships between institutions that have until now tended to worklargely independently from each other.

Box 1: 2009 - food security year?

Spurred by the recent food price crisis, action is being taken to strengthen the international institutions responsible for

food security and nutrition, and some governments are showing that fast progress in reducing hunger and malnutrition

can be achieved through well designed multi-component food and nutrition security programmes, especially when these

include targeted social protection components. These efforts deserve the fullest support but, unless backed by a

stronger, sustained and unambiguous commitment by more countries to address the underlying problems, will makelittle difference for most of those now suffering from hunger and malnutrition, or even for their children. In less than

one year, we have seen three high-level international meetings end without significant commitments for which any

country or institution is accountable. In June 2008, the G-8 Leaders proposed the creation of a Global Partnership for

Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS)24

and it has been developed by G-8 and then G-20 member states in the

course of 2008 and 2009. In 2009, the revamping of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) and creation of aMultilateral Trust Fund, administered by the World Bank and supported by the G-20, have been two major steps

towards the materialization of the GPAFS into concrete actions. This same year has also witnessed the High-level

Meeting on Food Security for All in Madrid in January, the G-8 L

Aquila Summit, with food security at the centre stage,

and the World Summit on Food Security in November in Rome, hosted by FAO. The underlying goal of all these events

was to find a suitable and sustainable financial and institutional arrangement to combat and prevent future food crises

and better address hunger at global level. However, after this flurry of international action, the level of attention being

given by governments to addressing food insecurity and malnutrition is in danger of diminishing as food prices fall and

countries re-focus their attention on the consequences of the global recession, the current recovery process and the

challenges posed by the processes of climate change. There is a real danger that 2009 will be seen as the year of talkand no action on the food security front.

Recent history suggests that, even if the level of government representation is more elevated than atpresent25, existing inter-governmental bodies are unlikely to be successful in ensuring the level ofcommitment required to trigger action on the scale needed to bring about a massive reduction in hunger andmalnutrition. There are three main reasons for this:

y First, in spite of the commitments that they have repeatedly made, only a few governments arestrongly motivated to address food security and nutrition issues directly: most prefer to assumethat the problems will disappear as a consequence of economic growth a view that has been

to support expanded output. But there is also the need for production systems that are resilient to expected changes in climate. As

emphasised in the recent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)www.agassessment.org , it is essential to reverse the gross under-investment in a new generation of sustainable environmentallyfriendly food production methods that has been occurring in recent years, and to focus on directions of technology change that aredetermined more by the interests of farmers and consumers rather than those of input manufacturers. 23 See the IAASTD, and Nelleman, C., M. MacDevette, T. Manders, B. Eickhout, B. Svihus, A.G. Prins, B.P. Kaltenborn, eds.(2009). The Environmental Food Crisis: the environments role in averting future food crises. E UNEP rapid response assessment.UNEP, Nairobi GRID Arendal, Norway. www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis/ebook.aspx 24 Available at www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/summit/200825 Proposals have been developed by FAO, and recently approved, for raising the level of government representation on theCommittee on World Food Security (CFS) in the expectation that this could heighten its effectiveness; and by the ETC Group to re-arrange the existing UN agencies dealing with food and agriculture. ETC Group (2009). All road maps lead to Rome. Message forMadrid High-level Conference. ETC Communique no. 101, Ottawa. www.etcgroup.org


5/23


5

fashionable until recently also in international financing agencies26 and amongst the managers of bilateral aid programmes27. Clearly, national governments and the international communitytogether are not doing enough to address the largest single cause of premature death in theworld.28.

y Secondly, many governments, though they would not admit it, have a vested interest in keeping people poor and, by implication, hungry. For example, maintaining low wages for unskilledworkers and turning a blind eye to employment malpractices, may increase the competiveness ofa country in international markets for goods produced using labour-intensive manufacturingmethods.

y Thirdly, unfortunately, the general pattern in existing multilateral institutions responsible fordealing with issues of global concern is for national delegates to assume positions that respondto the short-term interests of their domestic constituencies rather than ones which ensure thegreatest good to mankind as a whole one of the unfortunate downsides of democratic systemsof government! The need within these institutions, even when meeting at Summit level, to arriveat consensual agreements and declarations acceptable to all or almost all nations makes itvirtually impossible for them to reach a point at which members engage themselves in bindingcommitments.

One consequence has been a general under-investment in the provision of global public goods. In the case offood management, it is significant that the declarations of successive World Food Summits, including the2009 meeting, and high-level meetings, while establishing or reiterating global targets, do not commitindividual countries to any specific goals or actions for reducing hunger at a national level or for providingfunds towards the costs of hunger eradication29. Nobody can, therefore, be held accountable for success orfailure towards reducing hunger.

To a certain extent the same is true of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR). This has been ratified by 159 countries that recognise the fundamental right of everyone to befree from hunger amongst many other rights, but the time-scale within which these rights are to be assuredis not defined. In the last few years, however, there has been encouraging progress towards the widerrecognition of the right to food, as countries adopt the Voluntary Guidelines 30, including through

incorporating the principles in constitutional changes. The untiring work of successive UN SpecialRapporteurs on the Right to Food has also served to highlight gross violations31 and to awaken publicopinion to the injustice of hunger. Finally an Optional Protocol to the ICESCR was approved by the UN in2008 and adopted by 29 countries in 200932, opening the way for citizens of signatory nations to submit

26 In April 2008, World Bank President Robert Zoellick, however, made the point the Hunger and malnutrition are a cause, not justan effect of poverty. This echoed the position set out in FAOs technical papers for the World Food Summit- five years later in

2002. FAO Director-General stated: ...hunger is as much a cause as an effect of poverty and getting rid of hunger is, therefore, anessential first step in the quest for poverty alleviation and sustainable economic growth. www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1780E27 See paper by Sumner, A., J. Lindstrom and L. Haddad (2007). Greater DFID and EC Leadership on Chronic Malnutrition:Opportunities and Constraints. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. It concludes that whilst DFID and ECrecognize chronic undernutrition to be important they do not see investments in reducing it as fundamental to development. See alsoa related note by Barbara Macdonald of the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Macdonald B (2008) Why have donorscommitted so few direct investments to eliminate child undernutrition? Id21 insights.

http://www.id21.org/insights/insights73/art07.html 28 Gross, R. and P. Webb (2006). Wasting time for wasted children: severe child undernutrition must be resolved in non-emergencysettings.Lancet2006; 367: 1209121129 The Food Aid Convention, managed until very recently by the International Grains Council, however sets binding annual targetsfor provision of food aid by its few signatory member countries. www.igc.org.uk30The Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food

security, approved by all countries that are FAO member states in 2004 www.fao.org/righttofood/31 See the websites www.righttofood.org of the former Rapporteur Dr. Jean Ziegler and www.srfood.org of the the current one, Dr.Olivier de Schutter.32 Subject to its ratification by more than 10 countries, starting in March 2009, the Optional Protocol of the ICESR will allowcomplaints to be received and considered by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on grave or systematicviolations of the Covenant by countries ratifying the Protocol (www.opicescr-coalition.org).


6/23


6

complaints on violations of their rights to the ICESCR Committee. In spite of this progress, however, theICESCR remains a blunt instrument that is unlikely, alone, to bring about a rapid drop in deaths caused byhunger and malnutrition, though it provides an extremely important element in the arsenal of weapons withwhich to address the problem.

This implies a need to look for a set of instruments and institutions that are empowered with greatereffectiveness than is inherent in those that currently manage global food systems. Above all, these have to beset up in such a way that they act in the long-term global interest even when this may have negative short-term side-effects on some of the individual countries that champion them. They must also involve the self-imposition by all those governments that are motivated to participate of binding and monitorable long-termcommitments. And, while respecting the decision-making responsibilities of governments and the conveningresponsibilities of the UN system, they must provide for the full engagement of civil society33, including therepresentatives of all those engaged in food production, distribution and consumption34. Recent experience inother fields of global endeavour suggests that it is through treaties and conventions, involving coalitions ofthe willing that it is possible to raise the level, reliability and sustainability of commitments for achievingimportant global goals and correcting injustices.

A convention or treaty to end deaths related to hunger and malnutrition would strengthen the hand of existingintergovernmental institutions to fulfil their mandates in addressing the various dimensions of food security,defining their obligations with greater clarity and encouraging a fuller integration of their programmes,especially at national levels within developing countries. We propose, therefore, that in parallel toadjustments to the existing institutions35, priority should also be given to creating a new binding frameworkwithin which they can operate with greater effectiveness36, as a result of sharpened time-bound goals, anagreed plan of action and more predictable funding The latter would be conditional, of course, on an end totheir rivalrous behaviour which is, in the authors opinion, a main cause of their diminished effectiveness intackling hunger37. We, therefore, propose three linked sets of action:

1. Retain the WFS halving target for 2015, but, in addition, set a clear goal to eradicate hunger andmalnutritionas rapidly as is humanly possible but no later than 2025.

2. Develop innovative International Instruments (i.e. preferably a legally binding InternationalConvention to Eradicate Hunger and Malnutrition or, failing this, an International Public Registerof Commitments, that would be morally binding for participating countries) to enable those

governments and institutions that subscribe to the goal of eradicating hunger to register theirfinancial, technical and institutional commitments to time-bound actions and to be held accountablefor delivery and results.

3. Mount anInternational Campaign to embolden people throughout the world to demand action bytheir governments to ensure that every man, woman and child can have physical and economicaccess at all times to sufficient and adequate food, and that the underlying causes of hunger andmalnutrition are effectively addressed, through getting their governments to formally committhemselves to eradicating hunger and malnutrition through one or other of the above instruments.

33 This is not to imply that some CSOs, although proclaiming themselves as altruistic, might appear to devote more energy to usinginternational fora to gather resources for their own programmes than to pressing for action in the interests of the hungry. 34 Vivero, J.L. (2009). 18,000 children died today from hunger: Long live the Madrid Process! Comment prepared for FRIDE

(Fundacin para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dilogo Exterior), Madrid. http://www.fride.org/publicacion/564/larga-vida-al-proceso-de-madrid35 Most of the international institutions concerned with food and agriculture issues are currently engaged in processes of institutionalrenewal and policy reform. Some observers suggest that still more radical reforms need to be considered if they are to become aseffective as they need to be: for instance, see ETC Group (2009). All road maps lead to Rome. Message for Madrid High-levelConference. ETC Communique no. 101, Ottawa. www.etcgroup.org36 There would seem to be obvious advantages in focusing the combined expertise of FAO (expansion of small-scale farmproduction), WFP (social protection), WHO (nutrition/health), UNICEF (children), UNFPA (population), UNEP (environment) andIFAD (finance) on assisting countries in developing and implementing national programmes to eradicate hunger and malnutrition,but there are very few examples of such collaboration.37 As was made evident during the High-level meeting in Madrid. Sanchez-Montero, M. (2009). The political dimension of hunger.FRIDE comment. http://www.fride.org/publication/562/the-political-dimension-of-hunger


7/23


7

3. Setting a Goal: halving hunger is not fair, ending hunger is possible by 2025

The starting point for any consideration of the shape of a new framework for the global food system must beagreement on the goal that it is intended to achieve38. We propose one immediate, unambiguous and readilymonitorable goal: To ensure that all people now living on earth and their children can enjoy the food thatthey need to be free from hunger within the shortest time that is humanly possible, but no later than 2025

39.

The currently accepted intermediate target of halving the proportion (or number) of people who are hungryby 2015, retained in the MDG and World Food Summit follow-up processes, and reaffirmed by governmentsat the 2009 Summit, has distracted attention from the already agreed ultimate goal of eradicatinghunger, tothe extent that this tends to be forgotten. It is vital to do everything possible to achieve the 2015 target on theroad to eradication. The 2015 target, alone, however, has all the weaknesses of any half-measure it fails toinspire a sense of urgency and unity and, even if achieved, it effectively condemns the other half tocontinued hunger and premature death. It also fails to address forms of malnutrition other thanundernourishment that are also hugely debilitating and life-threatening for millions of people and requiresimilar interventions but are not yet covered by any explicit international goal40. Nothing short of an absolutegoal of permanently eradicating hunger and malnutrition throughout the world (and reflecting this in nationalgoals) within a relatively short period will galvanize the necessary public support, political commitment,creativity and action41. There are enormously powerful moral, human rights, economic and security

justifications to turn the focus towards that ultimate goal, but the strongest argument is that is nowtechnically possible and affordable42, and that not to adopt it implies the needless condemnation of millionsof humans to premature death and to exposure to ill health and suffering throughout their shortened span oflife on our shared earth. Malnourished children suffer from impaired immunity, which increases thelikelihood of infection, disease, and death. Disease, in turn, can cause poor nutrient absorption, alteredmetabolism, and lack of appetite, leading to inadequate nutritional intake. As noted earlier, undernutrition isa major contributing factor to more than half of all child deaths43; and eliminating malnutrition wouldremove one-third of the global burden of disease and increase child survival44.

Thus, the rationale for the proposed framework that could be tentatively called a Convention on theEradication of Hunger and Malnutrition

45 is based on the following principles:

38 De Schutter, O. (2009). The Global Partnership on Agriculture and Food: a response grounded in the human right to food. Noteprepared by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. www.srfood.org39 Several commentators have questioned the feasibility of this goal, but there is no obvious reason why it cannot be achieved if thereis a real determination to do so and if the world remains largely at peace. 40 Significantly in most countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, national food security programmes address both chronic andsevere malnutrition simultaneously and embrace both emergency and structural dimensions of the problems. At their regionalmeeting in Salvador, Brazil, in December 2008, leaders confirmed their commitment to work towards the eradication of hunger andtheir full support to the Hunger-free Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative ( www.rlc.fao.org/iniciativa). An English version can

be downloaded in this site: http://www.mre.gov.br/portugues/imprensa/nota_detalhe3.asp?ID_RELEASE=6136 41 In this connection it is relevant that President Lula mobilized Brazil by adopting a zero hunger goal for his national food security programme, and thereby imbued it with a sense of urgency that caught popular imagination and led to the rapid creation ofinstitutions and laws for its implementation.42 About 40 developing countries are on course to meet the World Food Summit goal of halving the number of hungry by 2015,demonstrating that this is possible. For details see table 1 in FAO (2008). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO Rome.43 Pelletier, D.L. and E.A. Frongillo (2003). Changes in Child Survival Are Strongly Associated With Changes in Malnutrition in

Developing Countries,Journal of Nutrition 133, no. 1 (2003): 107-19; Caulfield, L.E et al. (2004). Undernutrition as an UnderlyingCause of Child Deaths Associated With Diarrhea, Pneumonia, Malaria, and Measles.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 80, no.1: 193-98;44 Mason. J.B. et al., At Least One-Third of Poor Countries Disease Burden Is Due to Malnutrition, Disease Control Priorities

Project Working Paper(2003).45 In earlier versions of this paper, it was suggested that the Convention should also cover actions required to safeguard food suppliesto meet the needs of future generations. It was observed that There is also a growing recognition that many of the technologies onwhich intensive agriculture is now based are unsustainable from an environmental perspective in many parts of the world and cannotbe relied upon to produce the food needs of future generations or provide an adequate living for the 450 million small-scale farmerswho supply the majority of the worlds food. Recognizing that focusing on this issue at this stage could distract attention from theimmediate aim of ending hunger-related deaths, the proposed second goal was dropped, but this could eventually be picked up againat a later date and brought into the Convention.


8/23


8

The public conscience that, in furthering the principles of humanity, the nations of the worldmust jointly and individually do everything possible to bring to a rapid end the vast but needlesssuffering and premature death now being caused by acute and chronic hunger and other forms ofmalnutrition.

Eating enough and adequate food and being free from hunger are fundamental human rights,directly linked to the right to life.

The recognition that the global food system is deeply interconnected in that the actions of onecountry or group of countries can impact on the capacity of people living in other countries toaccess adequate food and also affect the planets future ability to meet humanitys food needs.

The recognised need to motivate and engage governments and institutions responsible for all thevarious dimensions of food security and nutrition in the joint development and implementationof common strategies.

4. Elements of a Convention on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition

In fields other than food security, especially in relation to the conduct of war and the protection of theenvironment46, international conventions and protocols have been used as instruments within whichgenuinely interested nations can come together to commit themselves in an explicit and binding manner towork jointly towards the attainment of agreed global goals. These agreements are normally reflected in

national legislation designed to enable each signatory nation to fulfil its commitment on a sustainable andpredictable basis until the goal is achieved.

The Geneva Convention that sets out the rules on the conduct of war is the best known. However, morerecently in the weapons area, there has been successful experience towards the banning of anti-personnelmines. In the environmental area, amongst the most outstanding conventions and protocols are those thatrelate to maintaining biological diversity, the banning of ozone-depleting substances, and reduction in therelease of green-house gases.

The only specific agreement in the food security area is the already expired Food Aid Convention (FAC), a post-WWII agreement between food aid supplying countries to guarantee an agreed minimum amount offood assistance each year47. Recipient countries were not included in this convention.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - that includes recognitionof the right to food - has many of the characteristics of an international convention. It does not, however,include time-bound goals or any provision for funding commitments that can be monitored. As alreadynoted, the approval of an Operational Protocol, creating a mechanism for handling complaints of violations,will, however, greatly strengthen the effectiveness of the ICESCR.

The history of the processes leading to the approval of recent conventions and protocols shows that: The process itself raises the level of public knowledge of the issues being addressed; Related campaigning, especially when led by NGOs and faith-based groups, can be successful in

increasing the extent to which citizens demand action by their governments, especially to endobvious injustices;

This, in turn, induces governments to participate in the negotiation process and to raise the level oftheir commitments, often before the convention is formally approved;

Citizen engagement also contributes to effective monitoring and helps ensure that governments areheld accountable for fulfilment of their commitments and goals;

46 Amongst the best known are the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the Ottawa Convention on theprohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction, the Rio Convention onBiological Diversity, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFramework Convention on Climate Change.47 Currently a number of international NGOs are pressing for a revision of the FAC, including the transfer of its secretariat from theLondon-based International Grains Council to a UN agency. The FAC could easily be covered by a Protocol to the proposedConvention.


9/23


9

Initially only a relatively small number of governments may sign up to a convention, but once it hasbeen ratified by the required number, progressively more nations become signatories until eventuallyalmost all governments become parties;

The fact that the governance of each convention is provided only by signatories (i.e. by governmentsthat are seriously committed to its goals, or a coalition of the willing) means that the types ofactions for which commitments are made are on a higher plane than if they were defined throughnegotiations involving all governments in a decision-making role;

Successive revisions of conventions and the addition of protocols usually lead to a progressivebroadening of their reach and effectiveness48.

Box 2: Main Differences between a Summit Declaration and a Convention

A Summit Declaration is a statement of good intent approved by general consensus amongst all countries representedat a Summit: the prior process of negotiating a draft text is open to all governments and inevitably results in

conclusions that are painless even for the most recalcitrant government (i.e it is a least common denominator

agreement). In the case of the 1996, 2002 and 2009 World Food Summit declarations, goals are set at global level, and

no country commits itself to a nation-specific goal or to undertake or engage in any specific action.

A Convention is a legal instrument, recognised under international law, which establishes binding obligations for all

signatory states parties, including the obligation to reflect the terms of the agreement in national legislation.

In the case of a Convention, signatory countries internalize the goal within their own country and make a bindingcommitment to take the measures necessary to achieve it. The dominant players in the negotiating process are those

countries that have the strongest level of commitment to the goal, and they will tend to avoid diluting the goal and

related obligations even if this means that, initially, the Convention is ratified by only a relatively small number ofcountries. As an enlightening example, the Rio Summit, was successful in having a lasting impact not so much because

of its general declaration but because it spawned two major Conventions the Framework Convention on Climate

Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, placing very specific obligations on signatory countries: these

obligations were subsequently made more specific by the subsequent protocols (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).

We believe that:

y The application of a convention-based approach to the issue of hunger and malnutrition could besuccessful not only in translating soft into hard (i.e. accountable) commitments by individualgovernments, but also in raising the level and predictability of commitments, and hence lead to amarked acceleration in relevant actions and achievement of results.

y A convention should cover both hunger (including both acute and chronic incidence of under-nutrition) as well as other manifestations of malnutrition that are contributing to premature death,illness and misery on a vast scale because they frequently affect the same people and many of thecures are similar.49 This would also exploit the huge efficiency gains that can be achieved bycreating a framework that brings together around a single unambiguous goal, institutions concernedwith humanitarian and development assistance, and with food security, nutrition and socialprotection, that have tended to operate on separate paths.

y The focus of any convention should be on eradication rather than halving hunger50, because theadoption of an absolute goal is more ethical and now entirely feasible, and it induces a much greatersense of urgency. The goal of halving hunger also implicitly raises the issue of what happens to theexcluded half of the target population.

y The goal should be achieved no later than 2025 simply because, with the right commitment, thereis no reason not to achieve it by then.

48 For instance, in the case of the proposed Convention, additional protocols could address food aid,, inter-governmentalcooperation, and interactions with other legally-binding international agreements such as the ICESCR.49 One issue is whether, in addressing malnutrition, the Convention should cover both under-nutrition and the food consumption andlife-style habits that are leading to a rapidly growing incidence of obesity and related life-threatening diseases in both developed anddeveloping countries.50 It must be recalled that the both the World Food Summit goal and the Millennium Development Goal are for the eradication ofhunger. The focus to date, however, has been on the immediate target of halving hunger by 2015, with little attention being given tothe ultimate goal.


10/23


10

It is in this setting that we are proposing to governments of both developing and developed countries that arecommitted to eradicating hunger and malnutrition that they consider coming together to design and ratify aninternational Convention that would provide a legally binding framework for inter-country cooperation andfor real mutual accountability for agreed actions at national and international levels, involving defined rolesand responsibilities for governments, UN agencies and civil society.

TheInternational Convention on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition would: Enable seriously committed governments to translate their existing soft global commitments into

hard time-bound national commitments (for which they would be held accountable), that would bereflected in their national legislation, policies, plans and budget;

Link the commitments of developing country parties to embark on defined comprehensive long-termprogrammes to end hunger and malnutrition no later than 2025 with commitments by donor countryparties to assist in funding their programmes and in providing technical cooperation services in apredictable manner over a long term;

Provide a framework for South-South cooperation between developing countries for sharingexperience, providing reciprocal assistance and assessing each others plans and programmes;

Oblige signatory countries to avoid actions which could damage the efforts of other participatingcountries towards the eradication of hunger and malnutrition, and put in place procedures forhandling disputes;

Offer a forum within which ratifying countries could agree on mutually acceptable strategies to beadopted in international negotiations that have a potentially significant effect on the incidence ofhunger and malnutrition, especially those related to food trading, regulation of extreme instances ofmarket speculation and monopolistic behaviour, non-conversion of prime farm land to non-agricultural use, safe global food stock levels, population, small-scale farming oriented agriculturalresearch and the sustainability of natural resource use;

Support the creation and implementation at national and global levels of real-time systems formonitoring delivery on commitments51 and progress towards the goal adopted by the Convention;

Recognize and reward institutions for outstanding contributions towards achieving the goal, andbring the failure by any state party to honour its commitments to the attention of the Conference ofthe Parties, and put in place procedures requiring them to remedy the situation.

All signatory countries would be expected to commit themselves to implementing programmes and policies

through which to attain the goal of the Convention. Countries wishing to support the process as donors,particularly through partially funding other countries national programmes, would commit themselves tocontributing resources on a predictable basis. Funds could be channelled directly to requesting countries orthrough a multilateral fund operated by an existing multilateral financing institution.

While the signatories of the Convention and decision makers would be the representatives of nations orgroups of nations, the governance arrangements would engage the relevant agencies of the UN system andcivil society organizations (including farmers organizations, NGOs, the private sector, philanthropicfoundations, academia and faith-based groups) in various supportive roles, including planning and strategyformulation, advocacy and performance monitoring

Box 3. Why should Governments support a Convention?

51 Monitoring progress towards the achievement of this goal could be based on the following indicators, eventually using datagathered in real time by using modern technologies and a non-traditional approach (i.e. mobile phones interviews or colouredquestionnaires): Undernourishment (FAO monitors) Stunting, also known as ggrowth retardation or child chronic undernutrition, indicated by low height for age (


11/23


11

1.- The food price crisis has made governments increasingly conscious of the huge perils of inaction about food issues.2.- Growing public consciousness of human rights and especially of the fundamental right to be free from hunger and

of the totally unacceptable scale of premature death and illness attributable to hunger and malnutrition.

3.- Growing realisation of the huge economic and social benefits to be gained from reducing hunger and malnutrition.

4.- The evident failure of business-as-usual approaches to hunger reduction

5.- Increasing evidence that well designed national programmes anchored in appropriate legal and institutional

frameworks can work.6.- Advantages of a consistent framework for action at both international and national levels.

7.- Recognition of benefits of shifting from soft to hard legally binding reciprocal commitments for the

achievement of major global objectives.

The secretariat for the Convention would be hosted by an existing UN agency or, better still, by a consortiumof UN agencies. Meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention would be timed to coincidewith meetings of the apex body that is expected to emerge within the new global institutional architecture forfood and agriculture.

Judging from the experience of recent conventions, the above process could be accomplished within 3 years,but might take as long as 7 to 10 years. The process itself, however, will from the outset generate awareness,commitment and institutional links that will be reflected in the actions of all those involved and that will

grow in momentum as an agreement becomes closer. A preliminary draft of a possible Convention isattached as Annex 1 at the end of this paper. This draft, however, should be considered essentially as anacademic exercise so as to help countries launch the necessary debate.

5.- An International Public Register of Commitments

Because of valid concerns over the many years that might be required to negotiate a legally bindingInternational Convention for the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition and the risk that this could delayurgently needed action, an interim solution could be the creation of an International Public Register ofCommitments in which interested governments could formally deposit unilateral standard Declarations ofCommitment to the goal of eradicating hunger and malnutrition no later than 2025. As part of theircommitments, parties would agree to submit, within a given lapse of time following registration, a Strategyand Action Plan for achieving the agreed goal. Participating governments could also submit updates of their

Plans and progress reports to the Register, which could also receive shadow reports on progress, prepared byCSOs.

Thus, through their Declarations, governments could commit themselves to the Goal and agree to: Submit a comprehensive national food and nutrition security strategy and action plan, developed

through participatory processes, within 18 months of registration, to be annexed to their Declaration;and periodically update this plan.

Help other committed countries through predictable financial and technical cooperation, includingboth south-south and north-south cooperation.

Seek common positions on international issues affecting food security and nutrition. Avoid unilateral actions that could be damaging to other countries progress to achieving the goal Report on progress and accept and contribute to periodic peer-to-peer assessments of performance

and the publication of results Encourage other states to register Declarations of Commitment.

The Register should be ideally created and managed by the secretariat of the revamped CFS that wouldassume responsibility for monitoring compliance with commitments and drawing attention to anyshortfalls.52

52There seems to be some movement in this direction, steered by the G-8 under the L

Aquila Food Security Initiative (AFSI)52. AFSIhas requested the CFS to design a mapping tool

to (a) monitor the delivery of public and private financial investments by donors,in partnership with OECD; (b) monitor the implementation of food security policies, strategies and programmes; and (c) monitortrends in food security and the extent to which funds and actions are contributing to this trend.


12/23


12

Although clearly weaker than the proposed International Convention for the Eradication of Hunger andMalnutrition, this approach has several practical advantages, at least in the short-term:

As a non-legally binding instrument and one that does not impose any reciprocal obligations onother states, it need not be subject to inter-governmental approval, but only approval by theindividual governments that declare commitments: this greatly reduces the time needed fornegotiation.

It allows those states that are genuinely committed to decisive action towards eradication to publicly declare this commitment and, in so doing, set an example that other states will hopefullyemulate.

The public knowledge of where commitment is strongest will serve as a catalyst for expandedfinancial and technical cooperation between committed countries.

In compliance with the right to food and human rights-based approaches to development, theregister will provide for increased accountability, participation and monitoring.

Each countrys Declaration of Commitment will provide a point of reference for the design ofnational legislation aimed at assuring the sustainability of the commitments made.

To the extent that nations deposit commitments, this would strengthen the hand of the CFS inensuring accountability.

The size of the response to the invitation would be an indicator of the extent of genuine commitmentto address hunger seriously.

The creation of an opportunity for governments to publicly declare their commitment provides animmediate goal for popular campaigning for more determined and sustained action in both food-insecure and food-secure countries, as well as in those providing and receiving funds.

By opening a window for civil society also to register their commitments, this raises the level ofassurance of their long-term and consistent engagement.

A draft proposal of this Declaration of Commitment is presented in Annex 2. As for the previous instrument,it is meant to present some elements to trigger international debate on the issue.

6.- A Global Campaign to promote accountability in the eradication of hunger

and malnutrition

The world is now faced with multifaceted crises, including a hunger pandemic of vast proportions. But therealso appears to be an emerging, though sadly still weak, consensus that this is the time to get to grips not justwith the better management of the worlds financial systems, but also with the more fundamental problemsnow facing humanity. Amongst the most serious of these and one that is ripe for solution - is the persistence of hunger and malnutrition on a horrendous scale, in spite of the fact that the means exist toovercome the problem. The need now is to create a broad-based consensus on strategies for improving foodsystem management in the interests of those who face food deprivation and malnutrition and to create astrong constituency of support for determined action.

Whether it is decided to aim to create an International Convention or to adopt the concept of the InternationalPublic Register of Commitment, the process should ideally go hand in hand with strengthening of theinstitutions responsible internationally for all aspects of food security. The process leading to the creation ofa Convention or Public Register, however, must also be accompanied by a well-orchestrated national andinternational campaign, led by NGOs/CSOs, aimed at reinforcing citizen support for urgent large-scaleaction against hunger and malnutrition. The immediate objective of the campaign would be to ensure thatgovernments deliver on their World Food Summit commitment, reaffirmed in 2009, to halve the number ofhungry people between 1990 and 2015. But it would also call on governments to sign up to the Conventionor declare their commitment to eradicating hunger and malnutrition. The ultimate goal would be to eradicatehunger and severe malnutrition as soon as is humanly possible, but no later than 2025.


13/23


13

In that sense, a campaign53 has to be designed to rally people across the world around this goal and engagethem in processes that will lead to its achievement. The campaign would raise public awareness andunderstanding of the hunger problem and of solutions, engage policy-makers and bring an increasingly largenumber of institutions into the consensus. It would appeal to peoples sense of justice in order to mobilizewidespread popular support for hunger eradication and thereby induce higher levels of governmentcommitment.

There continue to be a lot of misconceptions and myths about hunger and malnutrition, and the lackof public awareness is a major cause for government inaction. The idea that it is entirely possible toend hunger in the world, and that this will bring huge benefits for mankind, is still off the radarscreen. This can only be addressed through a massive, world-wide education-based campaign,orchestrated by the full range of concerned civil society organizations, working together.

The campaign will build support for strong national and global action towards its goals through:

y Raising public awareness in order to sensitise and engage people from all walks of life,foster leadership at all levels and turn individuals and groups into agents of change;

y Building the campaign on existing movements/campaigns, networks and initiatives,fostering partnerships, based on a common commitment to eradication, while respecting

their autonomy and special interests;y Developing country-specific campaigns and national advocacy plans that feed and

underpin all global campaigning efforts.

The campaign will be implemented by a broad group of CSOs and NGOs, with support from media

and other stakeholders such as parliamentarians and schools, working together towards a sharedgoal. In each country, a programme involving 3 overlapping phases of action will set in motion the

emergence of a well-informed informal social movement:

Phase 1. Raising awareness to generate understanding, engagement, leadership and action The aim will be to enable large numbers of people, in both developed and developing countries, to

become hunger eradication advocates. The first phase will focus on civil society actors and other

groups involved in social issues especially womens groups, youth groups, scout and guidegroups, sporting clubs, trade unions, farmers groups, religious groups etc, as well as schools. Theapproach will be to build advocacy capacity on the issues, to distribute simple informationalmaterials and to facilitate learning through discussions and local visits. The focus will be on lookingat the extent to which there is hunger and malnutrition within their communities and country, whatis being done about it, what more needs to be done and what they themselves can do. In this waymembers of the groups will be able to arrive at their own decisions on what they can do individuallyand collectively to eradicate hunger in their community, country and across the world.

Phase 2. Spreading the word, deepening commitment, building solidarityFacilitators will encourage networking/exchanges between groups, especially in the same

geographical areas, to build a consensus on what has to be done and to feed ideas into a national

campaign headquarters; build up local media coverage of small-scale events, and start to engagelocal leaders. The result would be the emergence of an informal social movement to end hunger.

Phase 3. CampaigningNational and international campaign headquarters will orchestrate popular mobilisation around local

and national events, and selected global occasions, with an immediate focus on getting countries to

53 We use the term campaign to mean a sustained, time-framed and coordinated effort by a group of stakeholders to raise publicawareness of specific goals and to make a change happen.


14/23


14

formally declare their commitment to eradication and to develop plans for achieving this goal.Advocacy work will be targeted on national legislatures and on major international events.

7. Conclusion: We know we can and must end hunger now

There has been an inordinately expensive amount of discussion over the past decade about food security and

various institutions have emerged with the aim of reducing hunger. Practical action, however, has beenmodest, except in a few outstanding countries. The international community that is now calling for a GlobalPartnership has been progressively decreasing its own aid budget allocations for agricultural developmentand food security, and multi-lateral financing for these purposes has also declined. While there have often been substantial governmental and private responses to food emergencies, UN-sponsored programmes toreduce chronic hunger and malnutrition have remained seriously under-funded54.

The world now has the opportunity to move fast towards the eradication of hunger and malnutrition if itreally wants to. Success in this could become one of the greatest and most lasting achievements of ourgeneration. Preventing death from hunger and malnutrition through enabling all human beings to eatadequately would be a huge moral victory for those who believe in a more just and equitable global society.It would add credibility to the processes of globalization. And it would also release a huge amount of latenthuman energy and creativity for the benefit of mankind that has been stifled by hunger and malnutrition,

contributing to faster and fairer economic growth, enhanced social inclusion and a reduction in the tensionsand envy that now fuel insecurity.

The food price crisis of 2008, coming after many years of abundant food production, has been a sharpreminder of the fragile balance between food supplies and demand and of the fact that one in seven humansfaces hunger on a daily basis. There is a growing consensus on the need to improve food system managementand an increasing number of countries are adopting the principles of the human right to food in theirdomestic policies. Now is the time to seize the opportunity to correct the greatest failure in the global foodsystem - its failure, even when food is in ample supply, to ensure that all people can eat well.

The success of the campaigns on banning of anti-personnel mines or on reducing international debt, suggeststhat many of the worlds citizens have an innate sense of justice and that, once they know the facts, are prepared to stand up for those who suffer extreme hardship from flaws in the way the world is managed.

Nothing could be more unjust than to condemn over 1 billion people to the threat of premature death andlife-long exposure to sickness because they are unable to access the most basic of mankinds needs theneed for daily food even when the world has shown that it can produce enough to meet everyones needs.

The proposal for a Convention on the Eradication of Hunger is based on the assumption that, amongst themany governments that have subscribed to the declarations of successive Summits, there are some that arewilling to enter into binding long-term commitments to do all they can to bring a lasting end to the scourgeof hunger and malnutrition. By coming together with shared goals, these governments and partners from theUN system and civil society would form the nucleus of a truly accountable, transparent and participatoryGlobal Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security.

54 Macdonald B (2008) Why have donors committed so few direct investments to eliminate child undernutrition? Id21 insights.http://www.id21.org/insights/insights73/art07.html


15/23


15

ANNEX 1: Preliminary Draft of the Convention for the Eradication of Hunger

and Malnutrition

Preamble

The Parties to this Convention:

Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental humanrights, and in the dignity and worth of the individual person;

Affirming that the assurance that all people can have access to adequate food throughout their lives is a commonconcern of humankind;

Recalling the recognition under article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of thefundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger;

Conscious that, in spite of repeated commitments by governments to eradicate hunger, the number of people who sufferfrom chronic hunger continues to rise, and that it is most unlikely that the intermediate global targets for halving hungerby 2015 will be attained;

Concerned that, even when global food production has been sufficient to meet the needs of all the worlds people,hunger and malnutrition continue to kill millions of people, including many children, every year; expose many others todisease and ill health and to impaired mental and physical growth; hold back economic and social development;predispose people to extreme vulnerability to shocks, and rob large numbers of fellow humans throughout their lifetimeof all dignity and opportunities for self-enhancement;

Believing that it is now possible, with existing knowledge, institutions and resources, for humanity to bring about arapid and permanent end to hunger and malnutrition;

Mindful that some States have been successful in making fast progress in improving the food security and nutrition oftheir citizens, showing that this is feasible;

Recognizing the vast potential benefits to mankind as a whole from the eradication of hunger and severe malnutrition;

Are determined to eradicate hunger and malnutrition and thereby prevent massive needless human suffering, ill health

and premature mortality especially of children;

Welcoming the adoption by the governments present at the World Food Summit of 1996 of the goal of eradicatinghunger and their reiteration of their commitment to this goal at the World Food Summit five years laterin 2002 and atthe Summit on World Food Security in 2009;

Noting that the first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;

Acknowledging the practical guidance on the means by which States can assure that all their citizens can enjoy thehuman right to adequate food contained in the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Rightto Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security;

Acknowledging that, since the highest concentrations of hunger and severe malnutrition are in low-income food deficitcountries and least developed countries, these will require special attention including provision of financial resources

and access to relevant technologies and knowledge:

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

ARTICLE 1. Objectives

The objective of this Convention is to enable governments that are committed to eradicating hunger and malnutrition towork together with greater effectiveness to attain the intermediate target of halving the number of hungry within their


16/23


16

own territory by 2015 (in relation to a base period of 1990-92) and to achievement of the eradication goal in the shortesttime that is humanly possible and no later than 2025.

ARTICLE 2. Use of Terms

Food Security is a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access tosufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Thefour pillars of food security are availability, stability of supply, access and utilization.

Food Insecurity is the absence of food security. The distinction is often made between transitory, seasonal and chronicmanifestations of food insecurity.

Hunger is a condition in which people lack the basic food intake to provide them with the energy and nutrients requiredfor fully productive, healthy lives.

Undernourishment is an inadequate consumption of food, usually measured by the availability of dietary energy supplybeing less than that required for any significant physical activity.

Malnutrition results from inadequate, unbalanced or excessive food consumption, often combined with infection.

Severe Malnutrition When malnutrition is sufficiently serious to result in reduced life expectancy and hence inpremature death.

ARTICLE 3. Principles

States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and according to the principles of international law,the sovereign right to determine what actions they shall take within their own territories pursuant to their own foodsecurity policies, and the responsibility to ensure that actions that they undertake within their jurisdiction do not havenegative repercussions on the food security of other States.

In addition, States signatories to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have theobligation to respect, protect and fulfil the fundamental right to be free from hunger of all their citizens.

ARTICLE 4. Cooperation

Each Party shall cooperate with other Parties, directly or through international organizations, to contribute to the extentpossible to the achievement of the common goal of eradication of hunger and malnutrition.

Parties will also ensure that any decisions on the design and arrangements for implementation of programmes under theConvention shall be taken with the full engagement and participation of people who, themselves, suffer from hungerand malnutrition and of those who contribute, through their work, to their eradication.

ARTICLE 5. General Measures

Each Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and institutional and financial capabilities: Develop and implement national strategies, programmes or plans for the eradication of hunger and

malnutrition within a time frame that it considers feasible but no later than 2025, or adjust existingprogrammes to achieve this goal;

Define the ways in which it intends to assist other countries in fulfilling their commitment to the eradication ofhunger and severe malnutrition;

Participate in, and contribute financially to, international governance and decision-making processes aimed atcreating a favourable global policy environment for the permanent eradication of hunger and malnutrition.

ARTICLE 6. National Programmes


17/23


17

Each Party, in developing national programmes for the eradication of hunger and malnutrition, shall, with the fullparticipation of those most affected and those who can contribute to solutions:

Identify the extent, location, nature and underlying causes of hunger and malnutrition amongst the populationliving within their territory of jurisdiction;

Examine options to overcome the problems, especially through enabling affected families to improve theirnutrition, including through strengthening food production, storage, marketing and distribution systems;enabling universal access to adequate food in terms of both quantity and quality, and raising the level of

knowledge amongst citizens of how best to utilize food for healthy living; Identify complementary measures, especially those related to the supply of clean water and provision of

sanitation and access to basic health services, that can contribute to better nutrition and health; On this basis, define policies, programmes and institutional arrangements to achieve the goal to which the

government has committed itself and to monitor and report on progress, using formats and indicatorsestablished by the Conference of Parties under Article 12;

Submit for approval by the countrys legislature, draft food and nutrition security legislation reflecting thecommitments made by the government through its participation as a Party to the Convention. This legislationshall endorse the national programme; create or strengthen institutions responsible for its implementation;assure an appropriate and predictable level of resource allocation, to be sustained over the number of yearsrequired to attain the goal, and put in place arrangements for monitoring and reporting on progress.

ARTICLE 7. Mutual Assistance between Countries

Each Party shall, within its means, assist other Parties, as requested by them, in the design and implementation of theirnational programmes through:

Sharing of experience and knowledge, including the findings of research; Training and technical cooperation; Provision of financial resources and aid-in-kind including food assistance, either bilaterally or through

multilateral channels.

All assistance will be provided in ways that conform to the principles set out in the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness, the Accra Agenda for Action and the Marrakech Declaration on South-South Cooperation.

ARTICLE 8. Cooperation on Global and Regional Policies

Each Party, through its participation in the governing bodies of the Convention, its membership of the United Nationsand of Specialised Agencies and Funds of the UN, multilateral financing institutions, regional organizations, and othergroupings, commits itself to participate actively in the development of policies, agreements, institutions and instrumentsthat create a supportive environment for the rapid and sustained eradication of hunger and malnutrition at national andhousehold level. Such global and regional policies will relate, in particular, to international trade in food commodities,safe global food stock levels, the sustainable use of natural resources for food production, public investment inagricultural research, and adjustments to global and regional institutions responsible for food system management.

ARTICLE 9. Public Awareness and Education

The Parties, individually, jointly, through international bodies or through the engagement of civil society organizationsand non-governmental organizations, and through the media, shall cooperate in promoting public awareness andunderstanding of the scale of human suffering caused by hunger and malnutrition, of the available solutions and of theways in which individuals, groups of people and nations can contribute to the Conventions goal of eradicating hunger

and malnutrition.

ARTICLE 10. Financial Resources

Each Party shall make an annual payment towards the costs of the Conventions Secretariat and related operationalexpenditure, assessed according to standard rates of contributions adopted by the UN system, adjusted appropriately.Voluntary contributions towards the operating costs of the Convention may also be made by international organizationsand by civil society organizations, provided that these are made without conditions that could compromise theindependence and integrity of the Secretariat or its subsidiary bodies.


18/23


18

Each Party undertakes to provide, in accordance with its capabilities and the magnitude of the food insecurity situationwithin its borders, financial support towards the implementation of its national policies, programmes and plans,intended to achieve the goal of the Convention. The level of financial commitment shall be defined for a rolling periodof at least 4 years.

All Parties may voluntarily commit resources, both financial and as aid-in-kind, to support the implementation of other

Parties national programmes, as requested by them. However, developed countries shall commit and provide new andadditional resources, on a predictable basis for a rolling period of at least 4 years, towards the costs of theimplementation by other Parties of national programmes, as set out in Article 11.

Voluntary contributions may also be made under the Convention by international organizations and by civil societyorganizations in support of national programmes, at the request of the concerned Party. Should such resources becommitted to the multilateral fund set up or recognized by the Convention (as defined in Article 11) these would beaccepted only if, in the judgment of the Secretariat (applying criteria approved by the Conference of Parties), they werefree from conditions that could compromise the independent management of the fund in line with the objectives of theConvention.

In the allocation of financial resources, particular attention shall be given to the needs of low-income food deficitcountries and least developed countries.

In becoming Parties to this Convention, developed countries recognise that the extent of progress by developingcountries, especially low-income food-deficit countries and least developed countries, towards the achievement of thegoal will be highly dependent on the extent to which they meet their agreed share of the costs of implementing endorsednational programmes.

ARTICLE 11. Financing Mechanisms

Financial resources in support of national programmes may be provided by the concerned Party, by other Parties or byother institutions, including civil society organizations. Externally provided funds may be transferred, as a result ofagreements between recipient governments and donors, through bilateral channels, specialised agencies of the UnitedNations, existing regional organizations, civil society organizations, or a multilateral fund to be established under orrecognized by the Convention. In all cases, the amounts of funds (and the value of aid in kind, including of technicalcooperation as defined in Article 7) committed and transferred to the recipient Parties and the relevant terms andconditions applying to these transfers, will be communicated annually, within 3 months of the end of each calendaryear, by donors to the Secretariat, with explanations given for any discrepancy between commitments and transfers.

The Conference of Parties shall select either an existing international financing institution or fund to manage themultilateral fund on behalf of the Convention, and enter into an agreement with it for this purpose. The selectedinternational financing institution or fund may enter into subsidiary agreements with Implementing Agencies for theprovision of technical or monitoring services in support of programme implementation.

The Conference of Parties shall decide on the criteria to be applied in the appraisal of requests to the multilateral fund insupport of national programmes, submitted for approval by States Parties. Appraisals shall be conducted according tothese criteria by peer review teams including expertise from both developing and developed country Parties as well asstaff of the institution responsible for the management of the multilateral fund. Appraisal reports shall be available forconsultation by all Parties.

The Conference of Parties shall also decide on the conditions to be applied to the acceptance of funds contributed to the

Multilateral Fund, in order to ensure that no restrictions or conditions are applied that could interfere with theindependence of its management or infringe the sovereignty of Parties applying for use of the funds.

ARTICLE 12. Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation

Each Party shall report every two years to the Conference of Parties on its progress in relation to the goal of theConvention, using formats and indicators to be approved by the Conference of Parties.


19/23


19

Under the guidance of the Conference of Parties, the Secretariat shall establish a monitoring system designed tomeasure progress at national, regional and global levels in terms of both inputs, and impact, and enter into agreementswith appropriate institutions for the collection, analysis and interpretation of the relevant data.

The Secretariat, drawing on information provided under Article 11 and on further enquiries as needed to ensureaccuracy of the information, shall issue biannual reports detailing the progress made globally and by each Party inrelation to the commitments and transfers made under the Convention and towards the achievement of the goal of the

Convention.

Upon the request of concerned Parties, the Secretariat will facilitate the occasional deployment of peer review teams toassess the progress of national programmes and to engage in the review of options for their improvement.

Under the guidance of the Conference of Parties, the Secretariat will design and implement a programme designed toevaluate progress at national, regional and global levels within two years of the entry into force of the Convention andsubsequently at intervals of no more than 5 years. Responsibility for the implementing the evaluation programme willbe contracted to an independent institution selected through international tendering.

ARTICLE 13. Relationship with Other International Conventions and Treaties

The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the rights and obligations of any Party deriving from any internationalagreement, except in such cases where the exercise of such rights and obligations could be detrimental to theachievement of the goal of the Convention.

ARTICLE 14. Conference of the Parties

The Conference of the Parties consists of the representatives of countries that have signed and ratified the Convention.A first meeting of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the (title

Documents

The Governance of Hunger (AM JLV) Book Huygens 2011