Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Politics/100592592-003-accountability-and-the-right-to-food-a-comparative-study-of-india-and-south-africa-authors-ebenezer-durojaye-enoch-macdonnell-chilemba.html
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 18:49:31
Document Index: 715331244

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 11', 'art 11', 'Art 11', 'Art 11', 'Art 11', 'Art 11', 'Art 24', 'art 28', 'Art 14', 'Art 16', 'Art 12', 'Art 1', 'Art 2', 'art 11', 'art. 107']

#003. Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa. Authors: Ebenezer Durojaye Enoch MacDonnell Chilemba - PDF
#003. Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa. Authors: Ebenezer Durojaye Enoch MacDonnell Chilemba
Download "#003. Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa. Authors: Ebenezer Durojaye Enoch MacDonnell Chilemba"
1 Food Security SA Working Paper Series: #003 Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa Authors: Ebenezer Durojaye Enoch MacDonnell Chilemba i
2 DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security Food Security SA Working Paper Series DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security (CoE) is an initiative of the Department of Science and Technology National Research Foundation. The mission of the CoE is to examine how a sustainable and healthy food system can be achieved, to realise food security for poor, vulnerable and marginal populations. Our goal is to fill knowledge gaps by undertaking research that is of strategic and policy importance. We also seek to contribute to capacity building efforts and dissemination of information, to make our Centre the leading hub of knowledge production on Food Security and Nutrition in Africa. The CoE is jointly hosted by the University of the Western Cape and the University of Pretoria. This Working Paper Series is designed to share work in progress. Please send suggestions or comments to the corresponding author. Website: Series Editor: Stephen Devereux Design and Layout: Mologadi Makwela ii
3 Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa May 2018 #003 AUTHOR S NAME Ebenezer Durojaye AUTHOR DETAILS INSTITUTION Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville, Western Cape, South Africa Address: Enoch MacDonnell Chilemba Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville, Western Cape, South Africa Suggested Citation Durojaye, E. and Chilemba, E.M. (May 2018), Accountability and the right to food: A comparative study of India and South Africa Food Security SA Working Paper Series No DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Food Security, South Africa. Some parts of this research have been accepted for publication in the Commonwealth Law Bulletin (2018). iii
4 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY Ebenezer Durojaye is Associate Professor and head of the Socio-Economic Rights Project at the Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape. Enoch MacDonald Chilemba is a lecturer at University of Malawi and Post-doctoral fellow Dullah Omar Institute, University of the Western Cape. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the Centre of Excellence in Food Security (CoE). The authors are grateful for the assistance received from Gladys Mirugi-Mukundi and Keathelia Sapto during the preparation of this research. Thanks also go to the reviewers, Serges Djoyou Kamga and Stephen Devereux, for their very useful comments. iv
5 ABSTRACT It remains a great source of concern that, as richly endowed as the world is, each day millions of people go to sleep hungry and almost 870 million people, particularly in developing countries, are chronically undernourished. Also, every year, 6 million children die, directly or indirectly, from the consequences of undernourishment and malnutrition that is, 1 child every 5 seconds. The international community at various forums in the last twenty years or so have committed to ending undernourishment in the world. The right to adequate food is guaranteed in a number of international and regional human rights instruments. Despite these developments, many countries have not lived up to their obligations to realise this right. South Africa and India provide an interesting comparison. On one hand, South Africa has a progressive constitution that explicitly guarantees the right to food, while the Indian Constitution does not recognise the right to food as justiciable right. Yet the Indian courts have developed rich jurisprudence to hold the government accountable for failing to realise the right to food of the people. Indeed the courts have played key roles in ensuring the judicialisation of the right to adequate food in India in the wake of the fact that the Constitution does not expressly set out the right. This report shows that South Africa can learn from the Indian experience by using litigation as a tool for holding the government accountable to its obligation under international and national laws. Besides litigating the right to food to hold the government accountable, it is noted that chapter 9 institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the Gender Equality Commission and the Public Protector all have important roles to play in holding the government accountable to the realisation of the right to food. This is because these institutions are constitutionally empowered to monitor and report on the measures and steps taken by the government towards the realisation of socioeconomic rights, including the right to food under the Constitution. The report concludes by noting that civil society groups in South Africa will need to be more active in monitoring steps and measures adopted by the government to realise the right to food. It also notes that, where necessary, litigation can be employed as a useful strategy to hold the government to account for its obligation to realise the right to food. KEYWORDS Accountability, right to food, judicialisation, South Africa, India Word count: 17,006 words v
6 ACRONYMS African Charter African Commission African Children Charter African Women s Protocol Committee on ESCR CEDAW CRPD CRC ECJ FCI ICESCR ICN IFS PDS PUCL SANHANES UDHR UN African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Convention on the Rights of the Child European Court of Justice Food Corporation of India International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Conference on Nutrition Integrated Food Security Strategy Public Distribution System People s Union for Civil Liberties South African National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations vi
7 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION... 1 THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW... 1 The meaning of the right to food... 1 Soft law instruments and the right to adequate food... 7 Decoding the normative standards for the right to food... 8 JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD BY INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES Decisions of UN human rights treaty bodies Decisions from the African Commission Decisions from the European Human Rights System Decisions from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights/Commission JUDICIAL APPROACH TO THE RIGHT TO FOOD AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL: THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE Judicialisation of food as a significant tool for realising the right to adequate food Constitutional framework on right to food in India The Supreme Court of India and the Right to Food case Background to the case The legal arguments/issues raised in the petition The findings of the Supreme Court so far The Interim Orders The Supreme Court and other food cases Other right to food cases Observations on the judicialisation of the right to food in India Impact of the PUCL case JUDICIAL APPROACH TO THE RIGHT TO FOOD AT NATIONAL LEVEL: LESSONS FOR SOUTH AFRICA CONCLUSION REFERENCES vii
8 INTRODUCTION It remains a great source of concern that, as richly endowed as the world is, millions of people each day go to sleep hungry and almost 870 million people, particularly in developing countries, are chronically undernourished. 1 Also, every year, 6 million children die, directly or indirectly, from the consequences of undernourishment and malnutrition that is, 1 child every 5 seconds. 2 The international community at various forums in the last twenty years or so have committed to ending undernourishment in the world. This is exemplified in the 1996 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the Plan of Action of the World Food Summit, where it was pledged to halve the number of undernourished people in the world by This commitment has been severely threatened by 2008 global economic meltdown. While it can be said that the proportion of undernourished people decreased considerably in the 1990s, the situation has deteriorated since The situation is even more dire for some regions such as the Horn of Africa, where the food crisis has worsened. THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW The meaning of the right to food The right to adequate food is guaranteed in a number of international human rights instruments. 4 The right to food should be understood as the entitlement of all human beings as food consumers to have regular access, directly or by means of procurement, to adequate and sufficient food in terms of its quantity and quality which should also ensure a dignified life of the consumer. This elucidation has been deduced from the definition given by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and from the conceptualisation of the right by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee on ESCR). The UN Special Rapporteur has defined the right to food as: the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear. 5 1 The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) State of Food Insecurity in the World (2012) 4. 2 Ibid. 3 World Food Summit, November 1996, Rome, Italy. 4 The instruments are discussed from 2.2 through 2.6 below. 5 See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) The Special Rapporteur on food (accessed on 28 April 2018); OHCHR The right to adequate food (Fact Sheet No 32) 2. 1
9 He further defines the right to food to include the right to be helped if one cannot take care of oneself, but it is, above all, the right to be able to feed oneself in dignity. 6 It also includes access to resources and to the means to ensure and produce one s own subsistence: access to land, to security and to prosperity; access to water and to seeds, to credit, to technology and to local and regional markets, including (and especially) for groups that are vulnerable and subject to discrimination; access to traditional fishing areas for fishing communities that depend on such areas for their subsistence; access to a level of income sufficient to enable one to live in dignity, including for rural and industrial workers, as well as access to social security and to social assistance for the most deprived. It is noteworthy that the Committee on ESCR, which is the monitoring body for the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has outlined the core elements of the right to adequate food in General Comment No 12 (discussed below). 7 The outlined elements also give insights into what the right to adequate food entails. Amongst others, the Committee on ESCR has stated that the realisation of the right to adequate food is achieved when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement. 8 For this reason, the Committee has cautioned against interpreting the right to adequate food in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with a minimum package of calories, proteins and other specific nutrients. 9 The fact that the Committee expects every person to access adequate food at all times imposes an obligation on states parties to the CESCR, which recognises the right to food (as will be highlighted below), to take the necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger even in times of natural or other disasters. 10 This can be identified as a core obligation that is not subject to progressive realisation, although the right to adequate food broadly as a socio-economic right should be realised progressively. 11 Hence, situations of hunger that are not mitigated or alleviated will be inconsistent with the conceptualisation of the right to adequate food under international human rights law. It can be observed that the Committee s explanation of the right to adequate food bears close resemblance with the definition of the right given by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Indeed, the definition by the UN rapporteur has captured and restated the core 6 Ibid. 7 Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12 The right to adequate food (1999). Further discussion of the Committee and the General Comment is contained in 2.7 below. 8 See Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12 (1999) para 6. 9 See Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12, para See Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12, para See e.g. General Comment No 12, para 6. 2
10 elements of the right as outlined by the Committee. For example, the Committee mentions the entitlement to have access to adequate food at all times; whilst the Rapporteur mentions the entitlement to have regular and permanent access to quality and sufficient food. Similarly, the Committee emphasises that every person should have physical access to adequate food or the means of its procurement; whilst the Rapporteur stresses the need to ensure that every person has the means to access adequate food directly or through means of financial purchases. Therefore, the right to food can be briefly understood as the right of every person as a consumer to have access at all times, directly or by means of purchase, to adequate food that fosters a fulfilling life of dignity. The right to food is recognised in article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the first human rights instrument. This is followed by the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 11 of the CESCR 12 contains a framework for the recognition of the right to adequate food. 13 In terms of this provision, every person has the right to an adequate standard of living for themselves or their families, including adequate food and the right to the continuous improvement of living conditions. 14 In addition, the provision recognises the right of every person to be free from hunger. 15 The provision imposes obligations on states parties to take necessary measures, including specific programmes, aimed at ensuring improved methods of production, conservation and distribution of food; 16 and ensuring an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need. 17 It can be observed that the drafting of the provision suggests that the Covenant envisages a situation of food security at all times as it requires a hunger-free 12 Adopted on 16 December 1966, entered into force on 3 January Art 11 provides as follows: 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realisation of this right, recognising to this effect the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent. 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognising the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed: (a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilisation of natural resources; (b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need. 14 CESCR, art 11(1). 15 Art 11(2). 16 Art 11(2)(a). 17 Art 11(2)(b). 3
11 environment in addition to emphasising the need to ensure improved and sustainable food production and equitable food distribution responsive to need. As will be discussed in more detail below, 18 the Committee on ESCR has elaborated on the right to adequate food under article 11 of the Covenant. As highlighted above, the Covenant recognises the right to adequate food within the broad right to adequate standard of living; whilst also recognising the right to freedom from hunger. The right to adequate food is broad. 19 This is because, amongst others, it implies the existence of such an economic, political and social environment that will allow people to achieve food security by their own means. 20 On its part, freedom from hunger is a minimum core obligation that is more immediate. 21 Freedom from hunger could also be construed from reduced numbers of people facing malnutrition or starvation. On the other hand, the right to adequate food goes beyond ensuring the absence of malnutrition or starvation and has within its scope the full range of qualities associated with food, including safety, variety and dignity, in short all those elements needed to enable an active and healthy life. 22 Lastly, the drafting of the CESCR s provision on food shows that the Covenant takes the view that freedom from hunger would depend on matters relating to production; the agriculture and global supply; and hence, it would require measures taken individually and through international cooperation. 23 Under the CEDAW, there exist provisions which protect the right of women to equal access of land, work, credit, income and social security essential for women s enjoyment of their right to food. More specifically, article 14 of CEDAW contains useful provisions aimed at eliminating discrimination against women in rural areas through the creation of an enabling environment for women in order to enable them enjoy their right to food. Also, article 12 of the Convention provides that women should be assured adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation. Other international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Disability Convention also have provisions relating to the right to food. For instance article 24 of the CRC which relates to the right to health also requires states to combat malnutrition through, amongst others, the application of readily available below. 19 Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) The right to food: Guide on legislating for the right to food (2009) Ibid See Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 3 The nature of states parties obligations (1990) para 10; FAO The right to food: Guide on legislating for the right to food (2009) 14 & See Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission JAIPUR Project on right to food. 23 Art 11(2). 4
12 technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water in realising the right of every child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. 24 Also, article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 25 contains specific provision on the right to food of persons with disabilities. 26 The drafting of the pertinent provision shows that the right to food falls within the broad right to an adequate standard of living, as is the case with the CESCR, discussed above. In terms of the CRPD stipulation, every person with a disability has the right to adequate food and to continuous improvement of living conditions for themselves and for their families. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) has elaborated on the provision on adequate standard of living, which includes the right to food, in its concluding observations made after examining reports submitted by states parties. However, the elaborations thus far have been made with respect to the broad right to adequate standard of living and not the right to adequate food specifically. 27 At the regional level, the right to adequate food is implicitly or explicitly recognised in the major human rights instruments of the African union. While the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights does not expressly recognise the right to adequate food, 28 the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has noted that the right to food is linked to the dignity of human beings and is therefore essential for the enjoyment and fulfilment of such other rights as health, education, work and political participation. 29 The African Commission has indicated that states parties to the African Charter can be guilty of violating the right to food when the Charter is read with other pertinent international human rights instruments. 30 It further listed certain core elements of the right, discussed below. 31 Therefore, the right to food exists under the Charter. 24 Art 24(2)(c). 25 Adopted on 13 December 2006, entered into force on 3 May The applicable treaties are discussed below. Nevertheless, this paper focuses on the CRPD. 26 See art 28(1), which is couched as follows: States Parties recognise the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realisation of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability. 27 On this account, a discussion of the concluding observations does not fall within the scope of this article. 28 Adopted on 26 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001) para SERAC v Nigeria (2001) para See 3.2 for a discussion of the right to food jurisprudence of the African Commission. 5
13 Also, article 14 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (African Children Charter) 32 contains provisions relevant in realising the right to food of children. It provides that states parties have the obligation to ensure provision of adequate nutrition for all children in realising the right of every child to enjoy the best attainable state of physical, mental and spiritual health. 33 Hence, the Africa Children s Charter recognises the right to adequate nutrition within the broad right to health. It is noteworthy that in the absence of the realisation of the right to food, one of the end results is malnutrition. From this provision it is clear that the right to food is implicit in the right to adequate nutrition, even though the right to adequate food is broader than the right to nutrition. A similar provision is found in article 16 of the African Youth Charter, where states are required to provide food security for people living with HIV/AIDS in realising the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical, mental and spiritual health. 34 Unlike the African Charter, the African Children s Charter and the African Youth Charter, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (African Women s Protocol) 35 expressly sets out the right to food security. 36 The provision identifies the right as the entitlement of all African women to nutritious and adequate food. 37 In terms of the provision, states parties to the Protocol are obliged to take measures that include providing women with access to clean drinking water, sources of domestic fuel, land, and the means of producing nutritious food; 38 in addition to establishing adequate systems of supply and storage to ensure food security. 39 Under the Inter-American system, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) 40 recognises the right adequate nutrition. 41 The Protocol requires that the implementation of the right must guarantee the possibility of enjoying the highest level of physical, emotional and intellectual development. 42 On the contrary, the European human rights system does not take this approach; instead the right to food has to be read into other substantive rights such as the right to life. 32 Adopted on 11 July 1990, entered into force on 29 November Art 14(2)(c). 34 Art 16(1) & (2)(h). 35 Adopted by the African Union on 11 July 2003, entered into force on 25 November Art Sec 15(1). 38 Sec 15(2)(a). 39 Sec 15(2)(b). 40 Adopted on 17 November 1988, OAS Doc. OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4 rev Art 12. The marginal heading identifies this right as the right to food. 42 At 12(1). 6
14 Soft law instruments and the right to adequate food A number of declarations relating to the right to adequate food have been adopted; whilst world conferences on food have also been held. These declarations, despite constituting soft laws, have aided the understanding and elaboration of the right to adequate food in addition to making states commit to taking measures for realising the right. 43 First, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) 44 provides that every person has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself/herself and his/her family, including food. 45 This provision is significant as it demonstrates that as early as 1948, the UN regarded adequate food as a human right falling within the broad right to a decent standard of living. Secondly, the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition (1974) 46 states that [e]very man, woman, and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties. 47 Thirdly, the Rome Declaration on World Food Security (1996) 48 reaffirms the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. 49 Fourthly, the Plan of Action of the World Food Summit (1996) seeks to clarify the content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger and to give particular attention to the implementation and full and progressive realisation of this right as a means of achieving food security for all. 50 Fifthly, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) 51 declares the right of every child to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services and to be among the first to receive relief in all circumstances. 52 Sixthly, the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflicts (1974) 53 pronounces that women and children finding themselves in armed conflict in the 43 It is not within the scope of this article to provide a detailed discussion of these soft laws. 44 Adopted by GA Res 217A (III) on 10 December Art Adopted on 16 November 1974 by the World Food Conference. 47 Preamble, para See Population Council The Rome Declaration on World Food Security (1996) 22 Population and Development Review Art See Objective Adopted unanimously by all 78 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 1386 (XIV) of 20 November Principles 4 & Adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 3318 (XXIX) of
15 struggle for peace, or who live in occupied territories, shall not be deprived of shelter, food, medical aid or other inalienable rights. 54 Seventhly, the World Employment Conference (1976) 55 observed that adequate food and safe drinking water constitute certain minimum requirements of a family for private consumption as two elements of Basic needs, as understood in the Programme of Action. 56 Eighthly, the Declaration of Principles of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (1979) 57 states that the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition is the primary objective of world development. 58 Ninthly, the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the Code of Ethics for International Trade (1979) recognises that adequate, safe, sound and wholesome food is a vital element for the achievement of acceptable standards of living. 59 The Code applies to all food introduced into international trade and establishes standards of ethical conduct to be applied by all those concerned with international trade in food. Lastly, states represented at the International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) World Declaration on Nutrition (1992) pledged to act in solidarity to ensure that freedom from hunger becomes a reality, bearing in mind the right to an adequate standard of living including food, contained in the UDHR. 60 It is noteworthy that it could be argued that the right to adequate food is now part of international customary law, on the grounds that there are many international pronouncements on the right. 61 Decoding the normative standards for the right to food The Committee on ESCR, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and other pertinent institutions have elaborated on the international normative standards relating to the right to food. However, the most instructive clarification on the right to food is made by the Committee on ESCR in its General Comment 12. The General Comment commences with the Committee stressing the significance of the right to adequate food by stating that it is 54 Art Held in June See Headline 2 of the World Employment Conference. 57 Resulted from the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, held on July 1979 in Rome, Italy. 58 Art 1(7). 59 Art 2(1) & 2(2). 60 See FAO & World Health Organisation (WHO) World declaration and plan of action for nutrition: International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) (1992). 61 See S Narula The right to food: Holding global actors accountable under international law (2006)
16 inseparable from social justice and requires states to adopt appropriate economic, environmental and social policies that are oriented to the eradication of poverty and the fulfilment of all human rights for all. 62 The Committee provides the normative standards of the right to food and notes that the right is subject to progressive realisation. 63 This comes as no surprise since socio-economic rights are generally expected to be realised progressively. 64 However, the Committee explains that taking necessary measures in order to alleviate or mitigate hunger (ensuring freedom from hunger), 65 even in times of natural or other disasters, constitutes a core obligation of the right to food. 66 Furthermore, the Committee singles out the broad principal standard of ensuring the adequacy and sustainability of food availability and access namely; acceptability, availability, accessibility, adequacy, sustainability, freedom from adverse substances; and fulfilling, or responsiveness to, dietary needs. 67 According to the Committee, adequacy is largely determined by prevailing social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other conditions; whilst sustainability embodies long-term availability and accessibility. 68 With regard to adequacy, the Committee observes that this concept requires states to ensure that particular foods or diets that are accessible have to be considered the most appropriate under given circumstances. 69 For this reason, the Committee regards adequacy as particularly significant in relation to the right to food. 70 Regarding sustainability, the Committee highlights that this concept implies food being accessible for both present and future generations with the effect that sustainability is inherent in ensuring adequate food or food security. 71 It is noteworthy that the Committee has explained the core content of the right to adequate food under the CESCR. 72 According to the Committee, the core content of the right to food includes availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture ; 73 whereby 62 Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12, para Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12, para See generally Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 3 The nature of states parties obligations (1990) para See CESCR, art 11(2), explained in 2.2 above. 66 Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 12, para See General Comment No 12, paras General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para 8. 9
17 the accessibility of such food must be in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights. 74 In order to comply with the aspect of satisfying dietary needs, states might need to take measures to maintain, adapt or strengthen dietary diversity and appropriate consumption and feeding patterns; whilst at the same time ensuring that changes in availability and access to food supply as a minimum do not negatively affect dietary composition and intake. 75 The Committee explains that the aspect of ensuring freedom from adverse substances sets requirements for food safety. 76 This aspect requires a range of protective measures to prevent contamination of foodstuffs through adulteration, bad environmental hygiene, or inappropriate handling at different stages throughout the food chain. 77 In order to adhere to the aspect of ensuring cultural or consumer acceptability, states are expected to take into account perceived non nutrient-based values attached to food and food consumption and informed consumer concerns regarding the nature of accessible food supplies. 78 On its part, the aspect of ensuring availability has two dimensions. First, it expects states to ensure that possibilities exist for persons to feed themselves directly from productive land or other natural resources. 79 Secondly, it expects the existence of wellfunctioning distribution, processing and market systems that can move food from the site of production to where it is needed in accordance with demand. 80 These dimensions must be available to every person to choose from either of them. 81 The Committee further explains that accessibility implies ensuring both economic and physical accessibility to food. 82 To comply with the aspect of economic accessibility, states must ensure that personal or household financial costs associated with the purchase of food for an adequate diet should be at a level that does not threaten or compromise the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs. 83 States must also ensure that any acquisition pattern or entitlement through which people procure their food must adhere to this aspect. 84 The aspect further expects states to take measures that pay particular 74 General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para
18 attention to vulnerable groups through special programmes to ensure economic accessibility. 85 On its part, compliance with the dimension of physical accessibility will expect states to ensure that adequate food is accessible to everyone, including physically vulnerable individuals, such as infants and young children, elderly people, the physically disabled, the terminally ill and persons with persistent medical problems, including the mentally ill. 86 The dimension might further expect states to pay special attention, and in certain cases, give priority consideration with respect to accessibility of food, to specially disadvantaged groups such as victims of natural disasters and people living in disaster-prone areas. 87 The Committee singles out the need to pay special attention to particular vulnerability of many indigenous population groups whose access to their ancestral lands may be threatened when ensuring physical accessibility. 88 As regards the nature of states obligations, the Committee reiterates that the right to adequate food imposes three types or levels of obligations, namely, to respect, to protect and to fulfil, as is the case with all other human rights. 89 It also explains that the obligation to fulfil incorporates both an obligation to facilitate and an obligation to provide. 90 Since the right to adequate food is a socio-economic right, every state party to the CESCR is required, as a principal obligation, to take steps to achieve progressively the full realisation of the right by moving as expeditiously as possible towards that goal. 91 At the same time, each state party is required to ensure that every person under its jurisdiction has access to the minimum essential food which is sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe, to ensure their freedom from hunger. 92 This would seem to confirm that this obligation constitutes the minimum core content of the right to food (as explained above). 93 Hence, the obligation to ensure freedom from hunger is to be realised immediately. 94 Similarly, the obligation not to discriminate against any person in the enjoyment of the right to adequate food is of 85 General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para 14. The drafting/phasing suggests that this obligation constitutes the minimum core content of the right. 93 See 2.2 above. 94 FAO The right to food: Guide on legislating for the right to food (2009)
19 immediate effect. 95 Therefore, the right to adequate food imposes certain obligations that should be discharged immediately and others that should be discharged progressively. Furthermore, the Committee observes that a violation of the right to adequate food occurs when a state fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, the minimum essential level required to be free from hunger. 96 In addition, any discrimination that impairs the enjoyment of the right to adequate food constitutes a violation of the right and the CESCR. 97 It is noteworthy that the Committee acknowledges that whilst the state is the primary duty bearer, all members of society, individuals, families, local communities, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, and the private business sector have responsibilities in the realisation of the right to adequate food. 98 In this regard, the Committee expects the state to provide an environment that facilitates implementation of these responsibilities by these non-state actors. 99 With regard to national implementation measures, the Committee expects states to take legislative and other measures for realising the right. For example, the Committee mentions the enactment of benchmark framework legislation; 100 adoption of national strategy; 101 and formulation of policies. 102 Nonetheless, whatever implementation measures are taken, they must be necessary to ensure that everyone is free from hunger and as soon as possible can enjoy the right to adequate food. 103 It is noteworthy, for purposes of this article, 104 that the Committee expressly recognises judicialisation of the right to adequate food as one of the implementation measures to be taken by states. 105 As will be explained in more detail below, 106 judicialisation is a significant implementation measure as far as the realisation of the right to adequate food is concerned FAO The right to food: Guide on legislating for the right to food (2009) General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, paras 29 & General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para General Comment No 12, para As explained in the introduction in 1 above, the article focuses on judicialisation. 105 General Comment No 12, paras The discussion on judicialisation as an implementation measure is contained in 4 below, specifically in the introductory part. 107 See discussion in 1 st para in 4 below. See also discussion in 4.3 below. 12
20 JURISPRUDENCE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD BY INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS BODIES Decisions of UN human rights treaty bodies It should be noted that no communications directly relating to the right to food have been brought before any of the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies. The reason for this could be that the Committee on ESCR responsible for monitoring the ICESCR which has a specific provision on the right to food could not receive individual communications until May 2013, when the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR came into force. However, in some of their concluding observations to states, treaty monitoring bodies have tended to shed more light on the meaning and significance of the right to food. For instance, the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), has explained that the protection of the right to life requires States to adopt positive measures, such as measures to eliminate malnutrition. 108 Similarly, the Committee against Torture, which monitors the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), has pointed out that lack of adequate food in prisons may be tantamount to inhuman and degrading treatment. 109 Decisions from the African Commission As noted above, the right to adequate food is not explicitly recognised in the African Charter. However, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has interpreted the right to food as being implicitly protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1981) through the right to life, the right to health, and the right to economic, social and cultural development. In the celebrated case of Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and another v Nigeria. 110 In this case the complainants lodged a complaint against the government of Nigeria for human rights violations perpetrated against the Ogoni people of Delta area of the country. It was alleged that oil exploration activities carried out by Shell with the permission of the Nigerian government has resulted in pollution and destruction of means of livelihoods of the Ogoni. In this case, and for the first time, the African Commission concluded that the government of Nigeria was under obligation to recognise and protect the right to food of the Ogoni people, including protecting that right from violation by national and transnational companies. For the Commission: 108 Human Rights Committee General Comment 6 on the Right to Life. 109 Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture (2004) CAT/C/CR/33/1, para. 6(h). 110 Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Another v Nigeria (2001) AHRLR 60 (ACHPR 2001) para
21 the right to food requires that the Nigerian Government should not destroy or contaminate food sources. It should not allow private parties to destroy or contaminate food sources, and prevent peoples' efforts to feed themselves. The government has destroyed food sources through its security forces and State Oil Company; has allowed private oil companies to destroy food sources; and, through terror, has created significant obstacles to Ogoni communities trying to feed themselves. The Nigerian government, hence, is in violation of the right to food of the Ogonis. The significance of this case is that a government is not only to ensure the enjoyment of the right to food but must also protect citizens from deprivation of this right by a third party. Decisions from the European Human Rights System The right to food has not been a major focus of decisions before the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union has handed down a few decisions relating to the enjoyment of the right to food. For instance, in the European Commission v Italy, 111 an action was instituted against Italy for failure to comply with obligations as laid down in two Directives regarding labelling of cocoa and chocolate products. The Italian government had adopted a legislation, which purported to make a distinction between chocolate and chocolate products that do not contain vegetable fat other than cocoa butter. Consequently, the Italian government adopted a law, which allows the use of the adjective pure and or the words pure chocolate to the labelling of chocolate products that do not contain vegetable fat other than cocoa butter. The European Court of Justice held that the Chocolate Directive bars member states from adopting national legislation that is inconsistent with it. It therefore held that the law adopted by Italy is inconsistent with its obligations under the Directive. In another decision the Court of Justice was called upon to determine whether a rule of national law allowing information to be issued to the public in the event that food is unfit for consumption, is compatible with article 10 of the General Food Law. 112 The German government during several inspections of the product of a company involved in the production of meat found that some of the products were unfit for human consumption and thus unsafe. The government then held a press conference to inform the public about this fact. The company brought an application challenging the action of the government and claimed that tis reputation and business had been adversely affected. The ECJ held that the / C-47/09 25 November (Court of Justice of the European Union). 112 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) in the proceedings of Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern (Karl Berger) 2013/ C-636/11 11 April (Court of Justice of the European Union). 14
22 government had the duty to inform the public about the safety or otherwise of food products. It, therefore, found that the government s action was consistent with laid down law. Decisions from the Inter-American Court on Human Rights/Commission The only way for victims of violations of the right to food to obtain a hearing before the Inter- American Commission is to use civil and political rights to have their right to food respected. This is what happened in 1990, when a petition presented to the Commission in the name of the indigenous Huaorani people, living in the Oriente region in Ecuador, asserted that the activities of the Ecuadorian national oil company, Petro-Ecuador, and Texaco were contaminating their drinking water supply as well as the lands they cultivated to feed themselves. 113 In November 1994, following the publication of a report by the Center for Economic and Social Rights (United States), the Inter-American Commission undertook a trip to Ecuador. In its final report, presented in 1997, it concluded that access to information, participation in the decision-making and right to judicial redress (hence civil and political rights) had not been guaranteed to the Huaorani people, and that the oil companies activities in Ecuador were not sufficiently regulated to the indigenous peoples. Texaco, like Shell in Nigeria, ended up leaving Ecuador. Also, in 2006, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided that the Government of Paraguay had violated the right to life of members of the Sawhoyamaxa indigenous community by failing to ensure them access to their ancestral lands, which provided the natural resources directly related to their survival capacity and the preservation of their ways of life. 114 It was recognised that the denial of access to land and the traditional means of subsistence had led the community to extreme poverty, including deprivation of access to a minimum of food, and thus threatened its members right to life. The Court ordered Paraguay to take the necessary measures, within three years, to guarantee the members of the community tenure over their traditional lands or, if impossible, make over alternative lands. The Court also ordered that, while the community remained landless, the State should adopt measures to deliver basic services to its members, including sufficient quantity and quality of food. 113 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights The human rights situation of the inhabitants of the interior of Ecuador affected by development activities available at (accessed on 28 April 2018). 114 See discussion of Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay in Luisa Cruz, FAO Right to Food Team, Responsible Governance of Land Tenure: An Essential Factor for the Realisation of the Right to Food (Land Tenure Working Paper 15, FAO) (2010). 15
23 JUDICIAL APPROACH TO THE RIGHT TO FOOD AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL: THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE Judicialisation of food as a significant tool for realising the right to adequate food It is noteworthy that one of the necessary measures to be taken in implementing socioeconomic rights, including the right to adequate food, is ensuring the justiciability or judicialisation of the right(s). This implies that individuals should be able to obtain judicial redress and remedies for acts threatening or violating the right to adequate food and other rights. On their part, the courts, in dealing with right to food cases, should issue orders that give effective remedies; whilst also elaborating the state obligations for realising the right. In this way, the judicialisation of the right to adequate food will, amongst others, ensure accountability on the part of the government. Borrowing from FAO, judicialisation (justiciability) can be explained as: the possibility of a human right, recognised in general and abstract terms, to be invoked before a judicial or quasi-judicial body that can: first, determine, in a particular concrete case presented before it, if the human right has, or has not, been violated; and second, decide on the appropriate measures to be taken in the case of violation. 115 It is noteworthy that the requirement for ensuring judicialisation of human rights is well settled in international human rights law. 116 In addition, a number of domestic, regional and international instruments already provide the basis for judicialisation of the right to food. For example, the UDHR recognises the right of every person to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunal for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. 117 On its part, the Committee on CESCR has emphasised the need to put in place appropriate means of redress, or remedies, to any aggrieved individual or group and appropriate means of ensuring governmental accountability. 118 In this regard, the Committee has indicated that a person or group of persons constituting a victim of a 115 See FAO Intergovernmental Working Group for the Elaboration of a Set of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realisation of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, Justiciability of the right to food: Information Paper, (FAO Document IGWG RTFG/INF (2004) 7; FAO Legal developments in the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food (2014) See generally Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 3 The nature of states parties obligations (1990) para 4; Committee on ESCR, Reporting Guidelines (2008), Annex para 3, sub-para (e); CRC Committee, General Comment No 5 General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2003) paras 24 & Art Committee on ESCR, General Comment No 9 The domestic application of the Covenant (1998) para 2. 16