Council Concludes Dialogue on Adequate Housing and the Climate Crisis
The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food on his report on conflict and the right to food. The Council also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing on the climate crisis and the right to housing.
Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said his report was on conflict and violence in food systems. Conflict and violence were the primary causes of hunger, malnutrition, and famine. Hunger and famine did not arise because there was not enough food to go around; they were caused by political failures, meaning that hunger and famine could only be addressed through political action. Without international cooperation on recovering from the pandemic and tackling the food crisis, every national plan would fail to address rising rates of hunger, malnutrition, and famine.
In the discussion on the right to food, some speakers said they were deeply concerned about the increasing impact of violence in food systems, crops and livelihoods. Conflict remained a key driver for food insecurity and malnutrition, and represented one of the main hindrances for the fulfillment of the right to food. Conflict negatively affected entire food systems and exacerbated the unaffordability of healthy diets. Around 345 million people were projected to be food-insecure in 2023 – more than twice the number than in 2020.
Some speakers said that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine had aggravated the global food crisis, as these two countries supplied approximately 30 per cent of the world’s wheat. Russia had been cynically using food as a weapon, and the military had held the food supply hostage for millions of Ukrainians and millions more around the world. Other speakers said that the Special Rapporteur had not provided an objective analysis on food systems and the global economic, instead attributing all responsibility on Russia; these were unsubstantiated claims. Speakers also called on the United States to lift the uncoercive measures imposed on certain countries, which was impacting on their right to food
Speaking in the discussion were European Union, Norway on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, Brazil on behalf of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, United Nations Women, France, Ecuador, Portugal, Burkina Faso, Switzerland, Sovereign Order of Malta, United Nations Children’s Fund, United Arab Emirates, United States, Belgium, Colombia, Cyprus, Food and Agricultural Organization, Luxembourg, Togo, China, India, Viet Nam, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Morocco, Armenia, Iraq, Poland, World Food Programme, Djibouti, Tanzania, Malaysia, South Africa, Sudan, Maldives, South Sudan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Mauritius, Lesotho, Senegal, Algeria, Afghanistan, Malawi, Mauritania, Malawi, Croatia, Namibia, Yemen, Romania, Benin, Syria, Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Timor-Leste, Iran, and Pakistan.
At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the interactive dialogue with Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, which began yesterday afternoon. A summary can be found .
In concluding remarks, Mr. Rajagopal said he was very open to engaging bilaterally with countries in order to provide better responses. On some of the key comments, a set had been made revolving around international cooperation between States and how to strengthen this, in particular in the challenging context of climate change. There were multiple ideas sprinkled throughout the report, but certain key elements were essential, including the necessity to acknowledge that housing and climate needed to be recognised as being linked at the global level, without which recognition it was impossible to move to the next steps of ensuring that these links were meaningfully addressed.
Regarding the question of how to involve private-sector stakeholders to ensure the transition to sustainable housing, the Special Rapporteur said that this was a tricky issue, as many countries were locked into a way of doing business, making it harder to make this transition. What was needed was a carrot-and-stick form of encouragement, including funding for development and a stronger regulatory framework.
In the discussion on the right to adequate housing, speakers among other things, congratulated the Special Rapporteur for his report on the climate crisis and the right to housing, and took note of the recommendations made. The threats posed by the climate crisis to the enjoyment of the right to housing required human rights-based solutions both in the short and long term. Some speakers said that the aspects raised in the report were not achievable for developing countries, many of whom were impacted by universal coercive measures which had been imposed by other States. Countries needed to abide with their climate financing commitments to support developing countries.
Some speakers stressed the need for international cooperation, which should be focused on climate change. It was also important to provide financial support and substantial investments to support a just transition towards rights-compliant, climate-resilient and carbon-neutral housing, including the establishment of a fund to support climate mitigation measures in the housing sector for developing countries, vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Some speakers echoed the call of the Special Rapporteur for the creation of an international mechanism for obtaining redress and compensation for climate-induced impacts on housing from those most responsible for causing the climate crisis.
Speaking in the discussion were Bangladesh, Mauritius, Georgia, Algeria, Chile, Tunisia, Malawi, Mexico, Mauritania, Namibia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Panama, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Vanuatu, Brazil, Ukraine, Cambodia, Indonesia, Kenya, UN HABITAT, and Niger.
Also speaking were the Federation ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾e des droits de l’homme du Burundi, ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Human Rights Commission of India, Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland, VIVAT International, Center for International Environmental Law, Franciscans International, iuventum e.V., World Barua Organization, Maat for Peace, Development and Human Rights Association, Association pour la défense des droits de l’homme et des revendications démocratiques/culturelles du peuple Azerbaidjanais-Iran – ” ARC “, Association pour l’Intégration et le Développement Durable au Burundi, and the Palestinian Return Centre Ltd..
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found . All meeting summaries can be found . Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-second regular session can be found
The Council will next meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon to conclude the interactive dialogue on the right to food. It will then hold an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on albinism, followed by the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the environment
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing
The interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found .
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers, among other things, congratulated the Special Rapporteur for his report on the climate crisis and the right to housing, and took note of the recommendations made. They agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s view that the climate crisis posed a serious threat to the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing world-wide, in line with Sustainable Development Goal 11 of the 2030 Sustainable Development Programme. Speakers outlined the negative impacts of climate change which had impacted many countries around the world, including droughts, high sea levels, cyclones, fires, floods, and the rural encroachment on agricultural land.
The enjoyment of the right to housing had serious setbacks in the face of the climate crisis, and some speakers said it was extremely important that the Special Rapporteur had focused his annual report on this matter. The threats posed by the climate crisis to the enjoyment of the right to housing required human rights-based solutions both in the short and long term. Local governments would be key to develop local strategies to map, identify, prepare for and mitigate climate risks.
The right to housing was an inalienable and basic right, but this remained threatened by climate change. The report showed that the relationship between climate change and adequate housing was undeniable. On the one hand, the impact on soils and access to water resources produced by the climate crisis translated into a housing crisis. But at the same time, an unsustainable development of the housing market contributed significantly to climate change. Countries that were highly vulnerable to climate change were consequently vulnerable to a housing crisis. To ensure a balance between economic, social and environmental needs, there needed to be harmony with nature.
Some speakers outlined national solutions and said they would work to promote the just transition to rights-respecting, climate-resilient and carbon-neutral housing for all, especially the most vulnerable groups. Housing should not only be climate-resilient but equally carbon-neutral. It also needed to be affordable. Speakers recognised the significance of climate change and its impact on the right to adequate housing of vulnerable populations, particularly in the Pacific and small island developing States. The use of modern and polluting materials had increased the negative effects of climate change and worsened the living conditions of these communities.
Some speakers said that the aspects raised in the report were not achievable for developing countries, many of whom were impacted by universal coercive measures which had been imposed by other States. Countries needed to abide with their climate financing commitments to support developing countries. It was also important to address countries whose right to housing was impacted by conflict in their territories.
A number of speakers stressed the need for international cooperation, which should be focused on climate change. It was also important to provide financial support and substantial investments to support a just transition towards rights-compliant, climate-resilient and carbon-neutral housing, including the establishment of a fund to support climate mitigation measures in the housing sector for developing countries, vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The international community was called on to take immediate action to address the impact of climate change on housing and ensure that the right to adequate housing was respected, protected, and fulfilled for all, particularly for vulnerable communities in the Pacific and small island developing States.
Some speakers echoed the call of the Special Rapporteur for the creation of an international mechanism for obtaining redress and compensation for climate-induced impacts on housing from those most responsible for causing the climate crisis. The international community were urged to prioritise eco-friendly and traditional building materials in constructing new homes. These materials were sustainable, cost-effective, and culturally appropriate, and would significantly contribute to mitigating the adverse effects of climate change on housing.
Speakers encouraged the Special Rapporteur to explore how modern and traditional practices could work together to promote sustainable, climate-resilient housing solutions that protected the environment and eliminated the use of polluting materials. To what extent did the Special Rapporteur believe that the use of local building materials contributed to reducing carbon emissions in the building sector? Could the Special Rapporteur provide more information about the mechanism for obtaining compensation for climate impacts on housing? Could the Special Rapporteur map out how existing technology could be harnessed by small island developing States to create affordable social housing and meet the housing needs of their populations?
Concluding Remarks
BALAKRISHNAN RAJAGOPAL, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, said he was very open to engaging bilaterally with countries in order to provide better responses. He drew attention to the side event organised with the Core Group, and urged as many as possible to attend and participate in further discussions. On some of the key comments, a set had been made revolving around international cooperation between States and how to strengthen this, in particular in the challenging context of climate change. There were multiple ideas sprinkled throughout the report, but certain key elements were essential, including the necessity to acknowledge that housing and climate needed to be recognised as being linked at the global level, without which recognition it was impossible to move to the next steps of ensuring that these links were meaningfully addressed. Early warning systems needed to be recognised in this regard, with investment in these systems, ensuring that countries were better prepared.
Regarding the question of how to involve private-sector stakeholders to ensure the transition to sustainable housing, this was a tricky issue, as many countries were locked into a way of doing business, making it harder to make this transition. What was needed was a carrot-and-stick form of encouragement, including funding for development and a stronger regulatory framework. On the comment concerning the appropriate place for discussing the links between climate change and other macro-phenomena when they impacted human rights, he remained open to engaging in further detail as to why these links were not only essential and obvious, but also that if the human rights impacts of larger structural impacts could not be addressed at the United Nations, where else could they be addressed, as the United Nations had the mandate to address human rights impacts around the world. His next report to the General Assembly would be on the topic of affordability, a topic of great interest not just to poor and emerging countries, and he hoped there would be more constructive engagement on this issue.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Report
The Council has before it the by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, addressing conflict and the right to food (A/HRC/52/40).
Presentation of Report
MICHAEL FAKHRI, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said throughout the pandemic, there had been no multilateral response by Member States to the food crisis in any forum. Hunger and malnutrition had been on the rise even before the pandemic, starting in 2015. Finally, the right to food was being recognised in multilateral forums all over the world, and recognised as key to understanding and recovering from the pandemic and food crisis. The next step was to put the right to food into action. The report was on conflict and violence in food systems. Conflict and violence were the primary causes of hunger, malnutrition, and famine. Hunger and famine did not arise because there was not enough food to go around. They were caused by political failures, meaning that hunger and famine could only be addressed through political action. In 2021, the General Assembly had passed a resolution explicitly asking the Special Rapporteur to focus on the pandemic and food crisis. This was the first multilateral action addressing the pandemic and food crisis.
Right now, over 120 countries had developed a national food pathway. These were national food plans, involving all of government, identifying a way to transform their food system, and they had to be turned into “right to food plans of action”. Without international cooperation on recovering from the pandemic and tackling the food crisis, every national plan would fail to address rising rates of hunger, malnutrition, and famine. Conflict and violence were the main sources of food insecurity. What happened was that violence struck certain communities and these were often food providers: peasants, workers, fishers, pastoralists, and women. When food providers were made vulnerable to violence, all went hungry. Violence was endemic in all food systems in times of war and peace; it was built into the current system. This was why it was important to eliminate violence in all its forms from all food systems. Some countries today would only focus on unilateral coercive measures, which almost always harmed people and resulted in human rights violations. But countries that were hit by unilateral coercive measures could not use those measures to ignore the other forms of violence in their food systems that they could prevent.
The report re-framed and outlined four interconnected forms of violence: discrimination; bodily harm or assault against a person’s physical and mental integrity; ecological violence; and erasure. The plan must be to eliminate all forms of violence in all food systems. Systemic violence violated people’s right to food because it limited and denied people’s access to the necessities of life. Based on the report, the Special Rapporteur suggested a paragraph for the proposed resolution before the Council on this matter: “Calling for a coordinated multilateral and human rights-based approach to end all forms of violence from all food systems”. The Human Rights Council should be a space to discuss these matters pragmatically despite geopolitics and conflict.
Discussion
Some speakers in the discussion, among other things, welcomed the interactive dialogue and the Special Rapporteur’s report on “Conflict and the right to food”. His analysis of dependency relations and structural inequalities underlying food markets were noted, and speakers appreciated the attention paid to phenomena such as the prevalence of child labour and the relative absence of trade unions in the agricultural sector. The role and the voice of the Special Rapporteur were more important than ever.
Some speakers said they were deeply concerned about the increasing impact of violence in food systems, crops and livelihoods. Conflict remained a key driver for food insecurity and malnutrition, and represented one of the main hindrances for the fulfilment of the right to food. Conflict negatively affected entire food systems and exacerbated the unaffordability of healthy diets. Seventy per cent of the world’s hungry people were living in areas afflicted by war and violence. Conflicts caused food shortages and the severe disruption of economic activities, which threatened the means of survival of entire populations around the world.
Around 345 million people were projected to be food-insecure in 2023 – more than twice the number in 2020. As mentioned in the Special Rapporteur’s report, violence in food systems was systemic and the result of human choices, and therefore avoidable. It was time to break this cycle. While structural violence was one factor in explaining hunger and deprivation in the right to food, actual armed conflict added another dimension in explaining how famines were triggered.
The world was facing severe global hunger, which had been fuelled by climate change and COVID-19 and decidedly worsened by conflicts, notably Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine. Some speakers said that the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine had aggravated the global food crisis, as these two countries supplied approximately 30 per cent of the world’s wheat. Russia had been cynically using food as a weapon, and the military had held the food supply hostage for millions of Ukrainians and millions more around the world.
Depriving citizens from food through blockades, such as against the Yemeni population, or disrupting global supply chains by attacking a global breadbasket, such as with the Russian aggression against Ukraine, jeopardised basic rights of many innocent people. Often this provoked grave international consequences, as was made clear in the case of Ukraine.
Some speakers were deeply concerned about the systemic discrimination, including based on gender, and structural inequalities embedded in food systems. Women and girls were food producers, traders, consumers, caretakers, decision-makers and negotiators, and protecting them from violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, was crucial to eliminating hunger. In many households, food insecurity and poverty prevailed when women were hurt. There needed to be targeted measures to strengthen women, including rural and indigenous women and girls and other vulnerable groups’ position in the food systems. Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls could result in greater food security, better nutrition, and more inclusive, resilient, and sustainable food systems for all. Even in times of peace, women were more likely to suffer from food insecurity than men; but amid conflict and crises, entrenched gender inequalities implied that women and girls often ate less and last, and their nutritional needs may be side lined, deepening hunger, malnutrition, and poverty.
Children were most impacted by violence in the food system, with deep concern being expressed that the levels of undernutrition continued to rise in many countries, especially those affected by conflict and natural disasters, putting children at greater risk of dying from common infections. States were called on to enact laws and policies to protect and sustain breastfeeding, and access to safe, nutritious diets, and care.
A number of speakers highlighted that the climate crisis and demographic pressures also destroyed lives, crops, and livelihoods, and undermined peoples’ ability to feed themselves, affecting women and girls in particular. Short-term efforts to counter the current global food crisis also needed to support the transition towards sustainable and resilient global food systems in the long run. Combatting hunger required more investment in sustainable models, particularly compact agricultural systems.
Some speakers said that the Special Rapporteur had not provided an objective analysis on food systems and the global economy, instead attributing all responsibility on Russia; these were unsubstantiated claims. Other speakers urged the United States to abandon its abuse of unilateral coercive measures in order to safeguard food security. Speakers also called on the United States to lift the uncoercive measures imposed on certain countries, which were impacting on their right to food.
Speakers said they remained committed to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, and Member States to guarantee the human right to adequate food for everyone everywhere. Some of those speaking said they would do everything possible to secure global food security and would continue to provide food to countries that were at risk of famine. All parties to conflicts were urged to enable humanitarian access and to respect international humanitarian and human rights law, including the right to food.
Speakers asked the Special Rapporteur for recommendations, beyond the Black Sea Grain Initiative, for alleviating global food insecurity. Was land pressure also a major cause of conflict, putting at risk the right to food that needed to be addressed as well? What measures should States implement to prevent violence in food systems, and guarantee the right to food for the most vulnerable populations? How could the world address the effect of gender-based discrimination and sexual and gender-based violence in food systems? What measures could be taken to address the situation of the significant increases of the price of foodstuffs, caused by the fear and panic that took hold of financialised food markets? Was the world on track to meet Sustainable Development Goal Two by 2030?
Intermediate Remarks
BALAKRISHNAN RAJAGOPAL, Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, said on the issue of women and girls, if the international community enforced existing laws regarding land rights, labour rights, access to seeds and fisherpersons’ rights, this would make women stronger, giving them the power they needed to have access to land, to seeds, to waterways, and to labour organisation. In terms of what else needed to be done, Luxembourg and Bangladesh had shown the way forward: it was boosting local means for consumption using agroecology, which was the only way that aligned with scientific knowledge and indigenous knowledge, increasing access to food, whilst protecting the environment. Agroecology should be the main focus and transition to it in the long term.
The World Trade Organization did not work to meet food security: it treated food as a commodity, but food was not a commodity, it was life. All trade policies should be discussed – at the Food and Agricultural Organization, at the Human Rights Council – everywhere. The international economic system did not work; the war in Ukraine was an example of how markets took a regional war and created a global problem. If countries devoted more resources to increasing local production but also on trade based on solidarity, not on profit, the situation would change. The guiding principles on business and human rights had proved to be useless; corporate power continued to increase, as did their profits.
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for presenting his report on how food systems could cause, perpetuate or exacerbate discrimination and structural inequalities. The report had an important focus on conflicts and the right to food. Speakers reaffirmed their commitment to the realisation of the right to food as a key component of the enjoyment of social and economic rights. The right to food should be a priority.
Some speakers said problems of hunger and food insecurity had global dimensions. The COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis had already increased food shortages in some regions of the world, but armed conflicts remained the biggest driver of acute hunger. Concern was expressed at the rise in global hunger rates over the past four years, which were expected to continue to rise in the near future, leading to record humanitarian needs. Violence directly affected the right to food by restricting or denying people access to the necessities of life, such as land, seeds, water, fair and stable markets, and agricultural work.
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine had pushed millions of people, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world, into extreme poverty or severe food insecurity, with serious implications on the enjoyment of their human rights. The war in Ukraine had dramatically aggravated the global food crisis, raising already high prices of energy, fertilisers and raw materials. Around 345 million people were projected to be at risk of worsening hunger in 2023, with women and girls being particularly affected. Speakers welcomed the call for the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which was instrumental in bolstering global food security. They supported the Special Rapporteur in his call to Russia to immediately and unconditionally end the military attacks against Ukraine, and underlined the need of transition towards sustainable and resilient global food systems.
Speakers agreed with the close link drawn by the Special Rapporteur between food systems and malnutrition. The Rapporteur’s analysis on the impact of global food systems on women, young women, children, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, people with disabilities, the elderly, refugees, migrants, peasants, and indigenous peoples, was also highly relevant. The right of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories and natural resources, and the importance of this right to guarantee their food security, was recognised. Speakers outlined their commitment to the strategic challenge of food self-sufficiency.
Some speakers highlighted comprehensive and long-lasting unilateral coercive measures, which represented the use of food as a weapon. These prevented the provision of food stuffs and undermined the basic right to food. The selfishness of certain countries for using these measures, including the United States, was highlighted. Member States were called on to lift all unilateral coercive measures; it was vital to put an end to these violations and compensate for their occurrence.
Link:
