Listening to people in one of the world's poorest nations

In a world of inequality, suffering and early death, what can be done?

Supporting the Simultaneous Policy is something tangible and straightforward to achieve the structural change we need.

But we can also do something more immediate to help those whose lives are not so fortunate as the majority of those who have access to the internet to read this blog.

The most important thing is to first listen and to learn. For example, what is it that people in a village in Malawi want to improve their lives? A maize mill. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/mbewa/maizemill.html

I have tried to listen while returning to Malawi, one of the world's poorest nations, where I worked for four years in the 1990s. Since leaving I have been doing what I can do support some of the friends I made at Mbewa Village at the foot of Mulanje Mountain, the highest in Central Africa.

I've kept contact since those days with Francis Atiya, a mountain guide, who organised the first Mulanje Mountain Porters' Race with me in 1996, just before I left. There were 33 participants, mainly porters and guides, but me and a friend from the Mountain Club of Malawi, which sponsored the event, also took part. The route I chose covers 25 kms up one side of the Likhabula valley and down the other. The winner, Hamilton Makhalila, completed the course in 2 hours 39 minutes. After the prize giving (first prize - walkman, second prize - hurricane lamp) we had a slap up meal to celebrate and as a thank you to the porters' service over the past year.

I billed it as the First Mulanje Mountain Race, in the hope there would be more. And some dedicated people have kept it going. Last month, I was able to attend the 13th event and gave a speech as the founder of the race.

Amazingly, there were about 300 participants, including from outside Malawi, and the winning time was 2 hours 5 minutes. The event is now being promoted by the Ministry of Tourism to try to draw more people to Mulanje Massif. (The mountain has gained some unwanted publicity since then as a tourist attempted to climb the highest peak without a guide and died after becoming lost.)

While some people gain employment as porters and guides or carving the unique Mulanje cedar, the majority are subsistence farmers. Priorities are producing enough food to live through the year and finding a way to earn a little cash.

With the help of donations from family and friends, we set up a chicken raising project, profits from which have been used to help pay school fees for some of the village's orphans.

These small donations have also enabled the village of about 3,000 people to employ an agricultural advisor. One of his own innovations has been to implement an irrigation system for growing maize in the dry season as a cash crop. Water is routed from nearby streams through channels to the maize fields as shown in the clip below:

This scheme started with 7 farmers and proved so successful that many more have joined this year. My friends and family have been making loans for the fertilizer needed for the maize. Members of the farmers' club will pay for this when they sell the maize and those lending money will receive their repayment by 30 November. A little extra is raised at the same time to build up a fund for fertilizer for the next time.

I discussed many ideas for other schemes with the Project Committee, which has been elected by the village and we have a list to develop over the next three years of so. Their priority is to set up a maize mill for grinding maize into flour.

We've investigated the economics of this and put together a project to proceed in a phased way.

The Committee has identified suitable land, which the owner has donated. They were then to produce the bricks for the house for the mill, but another villager quickly donated a stock of bricks.

So they are ready to start as soon as I can raise the loans for the cement, roofing sheets and other materials.

While building proceeds, I will also be seeking funds for buying the milling equipment. Hopefully this money will be available to transfer to the manufacturer in Malawi once the house is ready, so the mill can immediately go into operation and generate income.

All the self-help projects aim to repay the investment and be self-sustaining. Income from the maize mill will be used to repay loans over the following 18 months. Additional income after running costs will contribute to a maintenance fund, other projects and for support for orphans and other vulnerable people in the village.

If you want to help by contributing a sum of money, be it large or small, then you can contact me or make a pledge via the website I've set up for the project. See:

http://www.maravilha.co.uk/mbewa/maizemill.html

This has information on other projects under way and some of those in development and lots of great photos.

Here's one of a mother working her irrigated field.

Sustainable populations and joined-up thinking

What I like about the Simultaneous Policy approach is that it promotes up joined-up thinking, in a way that current global policy making does not, as evidenced by our leaders efforts to tackle climate change, while increasing oil production or refusing to listen to the concerns of farmers in developing countries at the World Trade Organisation, while there is evidence that forcing open developing country markets has impoverished farmers and increased food insecurity in some countries (see past blogs).

Since starting this blog and thinking in a little more depth of the possibilities of the Simultaneous policy, there seem to be a multiplicity of ways that different global problems can be tackled in a coherent way.

Sustainability, population growth and protecting the right to food came together for me this week, re-reading Michael Latham's chapter in Global Obligations for the Right to Food about tackling the curse of worms, measles and malaria. Professor Latham recommends governments to take a Resolution to the World Health Assembly calling for a strategic program for tackling these three illnesses. This could be worth proposing for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy.

Here's how some issues were joining up for me this week. I read that in Brazil, the birth rate has fallen to 1.8 children per woman, a level similar to that in industrialized countries. This level was not anticipated by the Brazilian National Institute of Geography and Statistics until 2043. The rapid drop is attributed to urbanization, where more children cost more money, in contrast to the countryside where historically more children have been seen as more hands to tend the land. But the rate has fallen in rural areas as quickly as in cities, attributed to the success in promoting family planning and the rising living standards experienced, or aspired to.

The expectation is that Brazilian's population will stabilise around 290 million inhabitants in 2050. The population if growth was at the rate of 1991, would be 377 million. With the rate of 1970, it would be 623 million.

If the average Brazilian was to increase their demand on the land to 4.1 hectares per person (the same as in Switzerland), then a population of 220 million could be supported. With present consumption levels, Brazil could support 384 millions. This is based on a study by the World Wide Fund for nature. All the above statistics are drawn from Brazil's news weekly, Veja, whose 30 July issue led with the cover story: "Where are all the babies?"

So achieving a sustainable population is within easy reach for Brazil, somewhere around the 220 - 290 million mark.

Sometimes in my work campaigning against the aggressive marketing of baby foods, practices which contribute to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies in conditions of poverty and compromises development elsewhere, I come across people who suggest that it is better that babies are dying in poor countries to limit population growth. Really. That's how some people think.

But the fact is that populations stabilise when parents have the expectation their babies will survive and outlive them. It is in conditions with high infant and young child mortality that birth rates tend to be higher. Rising standards of living also reduce birth rates as people are both more educated and raising children is more expensive. Parents choose to focus resources on a fewer number.

In the interests of sustainability for the global human population - and our lives on this planet are inextricably linked - reducing childhood mortality rates and raising standards of living benefits us all.

Michael Latham, like the rest of us who contributed chapters to Global Obligations for the Right to Food, makes the case that governments have obligations under existing human rights conventions to take collective action to deliver and protect the right to food. Promoting, protecting and supporting breastfeeding is part of the measures he highlights for improving child short and long-term health.

He also argues that relieving hunger encompasses relieving malnutrition and that is achieved not only by providing more food, but ending endemic parasites and illnesses that compromise nutrition.

I don't want to reiterate everything that is in his chapter - you really should buy the book - but the three principal concerns (worms, measles and malaria) are embarrassingly cheap to address. Embarrassing, because governments with the resources are failing to do so. They are not only failing in their human rights and moral obligations, they are, in some respects, costing themselves unnecessary expenditure.

Worms, parasites in the intestines that may affect organs such as the lungs, infect probably 2 billion people. Cambodia's de-worming programme cost US$ 0.06 per child.

There are about 50 million cases of measles every year, with about 1 million deaths. Immunization can have significant impact. "Six southern African countries that recorded 60,000 measles cases in 1996 reduced this to 117 cases in 2000". While national governments should be taking this action, where they cannot, the support of the international community is vital, argues Professor Latham, and will save them money if a concerted global campaign wipes out measles.

He writes: "It cost the United States US$ 124 million a year to keep itself free of smallpox for the twenty-five years prior to when smallpox was eradicated in 1978. Thus the US$32 million that the United States invested in the global Smallpox Eradication Program was recouped in about three months once smallpox vaccinations could be discontinued."

It is estimated that there are 1200 million cases of malaria every year, resulting in 1.5 million deaths annually. Impregnated bed nets are seen as an effective way to greatly reduce this toll. A net costs typically just US$ 3, but many people in poor countries cannot afford them. Malaria is so widespread that its impact is far greater than that counted in deaths. Lost schools days, days off work and unmet potential are also a blight.

Governments have signed up to the human rights instruments, that include the right to health as well as the right to food, and the Millenium Development Goals, but are failing to meet the obligations that arise from these.

A joined up approach would suggest serious and concerted effort to tackle worms, measles and malaria is a worthy candidate for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy as it will not only address the injustice of people on our planet suffering from preventable illness, but will help reduce costs for all people and lead to lower mortality rates and smaller families and towards sustainable populations.

Join the discussion in the Simpol Forum at:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/forum/

Sign up as a Simultaneous Policy Adopter to vote on suggestions and put forward your own. Call on your political representatives to pledge to implement the Simultaneous Policy alongside other governments.

WTO and the danger of compartalised thinking

The World Trade Organisation negotiations have collapsed after China and India took the view that no deal was better than a bad deal and the US wouldn't budge. It was billed as the 'development round', where issues such as rich countries dumping cut price goods on developing countries while shutting those countries out of their own markets were to be addressed. But, in the view of the developing countries - most of whom were shut out of the Green Room where negotiations took place - the rich world was more intent on gaining further access to their markets.

The Guardian reports:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/wto.india

---extract begins
The US trade representative, Susan Schwab, said it was "unconscionable" that developing countries were insisting on shielding their farmers. "In the face of the food price crisis, it's ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food."

Kamal Nath, India's trade minister, said he was representing the position of all the G33 members, who were "concerned about the livelihood of poor and subsistence farmers", and said he hoped the talks could eventually be revived.
---extract ends

Demonstrators in India were against a deal on opening their country to food imports. Developing countries have good reason to be wary. Case studies have shown what sometimes happens when developing countries are forced to open their markets. In Haiti tariffs on rice were cut from 50% to 3% and Christian Aid reports that Haiti has gone from being self-sufficient in food to using 80 per cent of its export earnings to pay for food imports. Rice production has fallen by almost half, and three-quarters of the rice consumed comes from the US. See The Guardian via:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/cambodia-haiti-food-security.html

That countries put their own best interests first - even if these means avoiding their human rights obligations - is not surprising. But governments are accused of following the demands of lobbyists rather than the greater good of their citizens as a whole, let alone the wider world.

The Simultaneous Policy approach has two great advantages over the 7 years of negotiations that failed this week.

Firstly, it encourages joined up thinking. Why is international trade - the movement of goods around the world - being discussed separately to climate change? A system that included the cost of pollution would encourage local production, processing and consumption, while items that need to be transported (such as agricultural goods from tropical countries) would still be economic - and sustainable - to transport.

Secondly, it encourages people around the world to participate in the policy development process. Certainly US farmers - and agrobusiness - who are subsidised to export their soya, cotton, corn and rice below cost price are likely to oppose measures that could have a negative impact on them. Those affected are welcome to sign up as Simultaneous Policy Adopters to make their case, but it has to be made transparently and it is for other Adopters to decide whether to accept their alternative suggestions or not. It provides a way for US citizens as a whole to reclaim their sovereignty. Farmers in India and Haiti have equal right to put forward their proposals.

For discussions that are already underway see the Simultaneous Policy Forum.

Existing global policy making has undermined food security in Cambodia and Haiti

Free market structural adjustment strategies forced on Cambodia and Haiti are in the news as the World Trade Organisation meets and discussion of agricultural subsidies and protectionism are taking place. Indian farmers staged a protest last week for agriculture to be excluded from the WTO agreement. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/indian-farmers-protest.html

Before anything else, the fact that many in Cambodia, Haiti and India have slipped into food insecurity as a result of globalization of food markets and, to greater or lesser degrees, the policies pursued by WTO should dispel one criticism of the Simultaneous Policy campaign. There is nothing outlandish about suggesting there should be global policies to address global problems. Global policies are already in existence and are being developed at meetings such as that of WTO.

What the Simultaneous Policy strategy provides is transparency and the involvement of those who are affected, some to the point of starving to death, by such policies.

In an article on current WTO discussions in The Observer, Heather Stewart, recalls the structural adjustment policies forced on Haiti by the World Bank and IMF. Import tarifs on rice were cut from 50% to 3%. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/20/globaleconomy.wto1

Indigneous farmers could not compete with imported rice and so stopped farming, resulting in lost production and lost income. The result : "In a recent report, Christian Aid found that Haiti has gone from being self-sufficient in food to using 80 per cent of its export earnings to pay for food imports. Rice production has fallen by almost half, and three-quarters of the rice consumed comes from the US."

With food prices soaring on world markets, people have been taking to the streets to protest that they cannot feed their families.

Cambodia also had policies forced upon it by the World Bank and IMF. Again it was capable of feeding its population. Cambodia still produces more rice than it needs, but it has opened its borders and exports much of the rice to Vietnam and Thailand, where it is processed and sold back. Now slotted into the world market, rice prices have increased three-fold in two years, as Alex Renton explains, also in The Observer.


It is surely a cruel shock of the reality of free trade. Children are being taken out of school by parents who need their help to bring in enough money to buy enough rice and other food to survive.

If Cambodian rice processing had been modernised then the value-added part of the process would have remained in country. But, Alex Renton, writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/20/food.cambodia

---extract from Observer article
"Mr Yang [of the influential farmers' assistance and education organisation Cedac] moans that, despite all the investment put into the country by the World Bank and other international institutions, no one thought to build up the rice-processing industry, or even increase storage capacity. 'I don't understand why we can't invest in these facilities: it makes profit for the farmers, for the country and provides jobs.'

The truth of course is that, as their ideology dictates, the expert western economists prevented the Cambodian government from making such public investments. These things should be left to the private sector and free trade, they said. The problem is, though, that these mechanisms seem to have left Cambodia in the lurch where it matters most - providing the security of adequate, affordable food for its people.

---extract ends

These cases show a lack of joined-up thinking on food security. I wrote recently of how existing human rights norms can be used to argue that international organisations such as the World Bank and IMF should ensure they do not undermine the right to food, as covered extensively in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food', available via this blog. See:

http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/food-prices-rights.html

In their chapter in this book on 'International Legal Dimensions of the Right to Food', Federica Donati and Margret Vidar, address International Financial Insitutions specifically in one section. They state, in part:

---extract from 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food'

Some studies claim that impoverished countries still face an unacceptably high and rising number of conditions in order to gain access to World Bank and IMF development finance. On average, poor countries face as many as sixty-seven conditions per World Bank loan. Many of the conditions relate to privatization reforms. It could be argued that this is not in line with the essential role of international cooperation in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to food as provided for by the ICESCR (International Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and interpreted by the CESCR (Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

General Comment 2 [of the Committee] holds that even when structural adjustment programes are unavoidable and when they entail austerity measures that affect economic opportunities and social entitlements, endeavors to protect the most basic economic, social and cultural rights become more, rather than less, urgent. In this regard the CESCR made it clear that the relevant United Nations agencies should make a particular effort to ensure that such protection is, to the maximum extent possible, built into programs and policies designed to promote structural adjustment. The General Assembly resolution discussed above [see full text] also singles out the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in its call on International Governmental Organisations to respect and support the realization of the right to food.

---extract ends

This book and the arguments it presents, are part of the effort to encourage broader respect for existing human rights norms, including by International Governmental Organisations.

Within discussion of the policy content of the Simultaneous Policy, there are already proposals for reforming international financial institutions. It may well be relevant to include within the terms of reference of the reformed institutions a requirement to act in accordance with human rights norms.

Protecting water resources - lessons from a Brazilian success

A few years ago I worked with Brazilian water campaigners trying to stop Nestlé from exploiting water in São Lourenço, an historic spa town. Nestlé's operation broke federal laws regarding demineralisation of a precious resource, which formed the basis of tourism in the town. Nestlé had sunk two boreholes and was pumping volumes of water that was affecting the springs used for treating various ailments. Subsidence was also reported in the water park, where chapel-like buildings were built over the springs, some a century old.

It took ten years of campaigning to force Nestlé to stop pumping and to gain some level of compensation for the town, in the form of renovation of the park.

A key element of the campaign, was the civil public action brought by citizens. They collected petition signatures and presented these to the public prosecutor who, under Brazilian law, had to investigate to see if there was a case to answer. He concluded that there was and took Nestlé to court for a variety of irregularities. Nestlé's was ordered to stop pumping immediately. This was over-turned just days later by a higher court that ruled that Nestlé could continue pumping while the case was heard. Campaigners received the backing of members of Congress, where a hearing was held that took evidence from officials veryifying that laws had been broken. A legal opinion was commissioned from a federal prosecutor, who not only supported these views, but called for an investigation of possible corruption as Nestlé had not been required to stop pumping by the authorities responsible for mineral water resources.

The campaign came to Europe and I played a part, in my position with Baby Milk Action, in bringing it to the attention of UK development organisations (who backed a public meeting on the topic, with Franklin Fredrick from the Brazilian campaign). I also worked with the BBC radio, which made a programme on the case. See:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/press/press2march06.html

Campaigners did well in publicising the case in Nestlé's home country of Switzerland and, when questioned, the then Chief Executive Officer, Peter Brabeck-Letmathé (who continues as Chairman), would give encouraging signs that they were in the process of complying with the law, only for further challenges to be made by the company in Brazil.

Finally the company gave in to pressure and, no doubt mindful that it was likely to lose the court case, settled out of court, agreeing to stop pumping or face punitive fines. It has now stopped.

Nestlé claims that it did nothing wrong and says it commissioned an independent audit that confirmed it was in compliance with the law. When I contacted the auditors, Bureau Veritas, and brought to their attention some of the illegalities, they commented: "our work did not constitute a legal audit as such, nor did it include a review of the on-going civil action."

Here is an image from the environmental impact assessment, commissioned retrospectively by Nestlé, which shows its bottling plant was built in the red of area of high risk to the aquifer.

This case was one of those informing my chapter on holding corporations accountable in the book 'Global Obligations for the Right to Food' - available to order on this blog - and the proposal for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority, put forward for inclusion in the Simultaneous Policy. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/07/world-tnc-regulatory-authority.html

I particularly like the idea of a citizens' petition, which was instrumental in resolving the case of Nestlé in Brazil, though this took far too long. If national measures are ineffective, I propose that citizens be permitted to bring such as petition to the World TNC Authority to prompt an investigation. If it is found that there is a case to answer, this would go forward to the prosecutor of a reformed International Criminal Court or other specially-created court.

Around the world, communities are battling to protect their water resources. A couple of significant campaigns are being run by the Polaris Institute and Action for Corporate Accountability. Feel free to add comments with other resources.

Simpol-UK has held policy fora on protecting the right to water, for example at the European Social Forum in London in 2004. A past newsletter includes an article from Franklin Fredrick of the Brazilian campaign.

This can be downloaded from the 'campaigns' section of:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/

Or directly from:
http://www.simpol.org.uk/Pages/PDF/simpolautumn04.pdf

Food prices, biofuels and joined-up thinking

The Simultaneous Policy campaign aims to achieve joined-up thinking about global problems. But it is not alone in trying to achieve this. The book, Global Obligations for the Right to Food, to which I contributed a chapter, argues that governments have an obligation under existing human rights agreements to act cooperatively and that these obligations should be reflected in decisions taken at the international level.

There is a lot of depth to the argument in the book. Various chapters explore how these obligations manifest themselves in particular areas, such as regulating transnational corporations, protecting breastfeeding, enacting programmes against parasitic infections and more. Here I want to briefly discuss some of the background argument for action and explore its implications for current increases in food prices that have forced an additional 100 million people into hunger. It has been suggested that a large proportion of the price increases - and consequent hunger - can be traced to increased demands for biofuels and incentives from governments for farmers to grow these rather than food. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/03/biofuels.usa

As explained by Fedrica Donati and Margret Vidar in their chapter 'International Legal Dimensions of the Right to Food', the human right to food is contained in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. The UN special rapporteur on the right to food has explained this right in the following terms :

--- quote begins
The right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unobstructed 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 ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free from anxiety.
--- quote ends

I imagine anyone reading this would want to live under such conditions themselves, but may balk at the thought that there is some kind of obligation to ensure all people enjoy the same right, particularly when there are so many hungry in the world.

So what does it mean in practical terms? Donati and Vidar quote from Article 2 of the ICESCR:

--- quote begins
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
--- quote ends

This is an obligation to the people within the state to realize the rights and to do so as a matter of urgency. Some actions - or more likely stopping of certain actions - can be taken immediately. The reference to 'available resources' is not intended as a justification for inaction, but as a requirement to apply those resources that are available.

The book as a whole argues that these obligations are not only for people within the state, however, they apply to the government's impact, or possible impact, on people in the rest of the world. For example, through the decisions that governments make as members of international organizations. This principle has been largely ignored to date as the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank etc. have not seen it necessary to consider whether their deliberations are in compliance with human rights norms. But if they are not, the states that control them are in breach of their commitments.

These commitments should be considered as governments address climate change, peak oil and the current increase in food prices. If a course of action impinges on the right to food, then it puts governments in breach of their human rights obligations.

As the editor, Professor George Kent, remarks in his introduction, world hunger could be ended tomorrow by providing everyone with sandwiches (of sufficient nutritional quality of course). But that is not the intention of governments having obligations to realize the right to food. In most societies the majority of people will be able to take responsibility for their own food and that is how it should be. Communities, states, international organisations and the community of nations only need to become involved when there are failures at a lower level.

The chapter explores in greater depth the nature of the obligations with reference to the Food and Agriculture Organisation's Right to Food Guidelines. Basically states have obligations to respect, protect and facilitate.

Quoting from Donati and Vidar: "The obligation to respect the right to adequate food requires state parties not to take any measures that result in reducing existing access to food.... The obligation to respect the right to food is effectively a negative obligation, as it entails limits on the exercise of state power that might threaten people's existing access to food."

Arguably pursuit of biofuels in the way that has occurred shows a failure to respect the right to food. Here is where joined-up thinking must be exercised. If policy makers were mindful of this obligation then planning would ensure no negative impact on the right to food.

Interestingly, Brazil claims that its programme of producing ethanol from sugar cane does not impinge on the right to food because it is not using land that would otherwise be used for agriculture. Indeed, it suggests that opening land to sugar cane production actually makes it possible to plant food crops in a rotation.

I have seen a defence of biofuels derived from corn, that argues that protein that is effectively a waste product of the biofuel process can be used as animal feed. If this is indeed the case, then consideration of the right to food would explore this possibility and programmes would be developed that are effective in providing food as well as fuel.

It may be the case, however, that biofuels will impinge on the right to food even then, in which case alternatives should be developed.

The chapter goes on: "The obligation to protect the right to food requires measures by the state to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate food. This obligation means that the government must pass and enforce laws to prevent powerful people or organizations from violating the right to food."

My chapter, which I'll discuss another time, examines in depth practical ways in which this can be done.

Thirdly: "The obligation to fulfill is a positive obligation, requiring direct action, through appropriate policies and programs to fulfill the right to food of those who are not able to realize it for themselves."

The obligation to 'fulfill' is subdivided into 'facilitate' and to 'provide'. On 'facilitate' : "the ICESCR gives some guidance, as it specifies production, harvesting, conservation, processing, retailing, and consumption of food. Further examples could include land reform and other measures to improve access to natural resources... measures to improve employment prospects, through training, equipment and credit in rural and urban areas are also facilitating measures."

Some countries have responded to food price increases by placing price controls on food (eg Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela). Brazil has taken the route of making lines of credit available to agrobusiness and smallholder farmers with the aim of increasing harvests and taking some heat out of speculation.

The obligation to 'provide' is the end stop. If people simply do not have the food they need, then there is an obligation to provide it. The international aspect of this obligation is well recognised when it comes to natural disasters, where the global community is quick to pledge assistance. Though as Rolf Künnemann and Sandra Ratjen explore in a chapter on Extraterritorial Obligations, the most effective action to realize the right to food may be to provide financial support to relief efforts for procurement of food in the surrounding area. Too often assistance is used as a way to off load surpluses and break into markets.

Having an obligation to provide food if all else fails, should act as a stimulus for realizing the right to food through other routes. Joined-up thinking is a far better approach than having to try to put failures right through direct intervention at the time when people are starving.

These obligations already exist under human rights norms having force into international law. This system is not yet functioning effectively, which is something that the Simultaneous Policy could perhaps address.

Global action needed on food security

It is in the media today that the World Bank has an unpublished assessment of the impact of biofuels on the price of food. According to the Guardian, the report suggests biofuels have forced up food prices by 75%. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

The Guardian also states:

---extract

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

"It would put the World Bank in a political hot-spot with the White House," said one yesterday.

The news comes at a critical point in the world's negotiations on biofuels policy. Leaders of the G8 industrialised countries meet next week in Hokkaido, Japan, where they will discuss the food crisis and come under intense lobbying from campaigners calling for a moratorium on the use of plant-derived fuels.

---extract ends

The fact is that if you are rich you can have your biofuels and eat your food too. But if you are poor, you may end up having neither.

Clearly this is an issue requiring global action. It also shows how cross-cutting global problems are. The Simultaneous Policy approach, by its very nature, envisions a coherent package of solutions, addressing the issues that SP Adopters deem to be important with the policies they have proposed, discussed, developed and approved (to join in, simply go to Simpol's website to sign up, which is free).

But what should be the global policies when it comes to food security? There are some proposals in the book :'Global Obligations for the Right to Food'. I have written a chapter for this drawing on my experience on infant feeding issues. You can order a copy through Baby Milk Action's secure on-line Virtual Shop by clicking the button on the right.

My chapter is about holding corporations accountable with relation to the right to food and the analysis informs the policy proposal I have submitted for inclusion in SP for a World Transnational Corporation Regulatory Authority.

I'll write about that another time. Here I want to quote something from Professor George Kent, the editor of the book:

---
There have been many global summits and declarations on food and agriculture. However, the dominant view always has been that the problems must be addressed by national governments, with little more than an advisory role for the global community. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on Agriculture has taken steps towards addressing agriculture issues from a global perspective, but without giving adequate attention to trade's implications for food security. These initiatives have not fully grasped the need for new institutional arrangements for the global governance of food and agriculture.

Global problems have been neglected partly because of the unspoken premise that national governments are the only legitimate actors. This preoccupation with the action at the nation-state level has been due, in part, to the system of international relations that has been in place since the middle of the seventeenth century, a system founded on the principle of state sovereignty. As a result, there is little institutional capacity for decision making and action at the global level. While it makes some sense, in legal terms, for states to be the primary authorities for policy making, this may not match the realities in which the problems take form. Global warming for example, clearly is a global problem, and not one that can sensibly be addressed on a nation-by-nation basis.
---extract ends

The book was produced by a Task Force of the Working Group on Nutrition, Ethics, and Human Rights of the United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition and has a chapter of recommendations that are well worth investigating by any Adopters or anyone else concerned about food security.

Now we are seeing the confluence of climate change and food security with food price inflation, it becomes clearer still there needs to be a global solution.

But are our leaders empowered to deliver it? What can we expect from the forthcoming summit? No doubt maneuvering to protect economic interests which will be as effective in addressing the food crisis as past meetings have been ineffective in addressing climate change.

Camaigners are on the case to push for a joined up approach from our leaders and there will be action we can take to support them. The Guardian states:

---extract
"Political leaders seem intent on suppressing and ignoring the strong evidence that biofuels are a major factor in recent food price rises," said Robert Bailey, policy adviser at Oxfam. "It is imperative that we have the full picture. While politicians concentrate on keeping industry lobbies happy, people in poor countries cannot afford enough to eat."
---extract ends

The Simultaneous Policy campaign surely has to address the issue of food security and can be supported as a parallel strategy. By linking people around the world, it can develop solutions that puts their interests first, not those of industry lobbyists. A coherent package of proposals, to be implemented simultaneous with the backing of the people of the world can deliver the solutions we need. But time is pressing. The number of Adopters and politicians pledging to implement SP needs to be growing at a faster rate. Which means you signing up today.

We can all call on our leaders to pledge to implement SP alongside other governments. This is a key time to do so in the US, with the Presidential election underway. US citizens can reassert their sovereignty by sending a message to the candidates. Other Adopters can support them by also sending a message. See:
http://globaljusticeideas.blogspot.com/2008/06/us-presidential-election.html