IGWG RTFG INF/2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Human Rights Treaties

A. Ratification

B. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

C. States’ Reports to CESCR

D. Applicability of the ICESCR at the national level

III. National Constitutions

A. Dimensions of the Right to Food

B. Level of constitutional protection

IV. Jurisprudence on the Right to Food

A. Justiciability

B. Switzerland

C. India

D. South Africa

V. Conclusions

ANNEX I: STATUS OF RATIFICATION OF RELEVANT TREATIES

ANNEX II: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD

ANNEX III: ASSESSED LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

I. Introduction

1. The Right to Food has been recognized and affirmed at the international level on many occasions. But to what extent is international recognition reflected at the national level?
2. This paper provides an overview of the various ways in which the right to food is recognized in different countries. It gives an indication of the number of countries which recognize the right to food, the extent to which they do so, their understanding of this right, and the respective levels of protection provided. The paper is based primarily on reviews of State reports to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and on analysis of constitutional provisions

II. Human Rights Treaties

A. RATIFICATION

3. The first step in the inquiry is to gauge the commitment of individual States to the Right to Food by measuring the status of ratification of food related human rights treaties. If on the one hand the adoption in international forums of resolutions and declarations is an important indicator of the level of awareness and will to proceed in protecting human rights, on the other hand the real legal commitment is only created through the national process leading to ratification of legally binding instruments.

4. States that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) have recognized the right to adequate food as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, and the fundamental right to be free from hunger (Article 11 ICESCR). States Parties have committed themselves to progressively realizing this right, to the maximum of available resources through all appropriate means, including in particular legislative measures (Article 2 ICESCR). As of December 2003, 149 States were Parties (while 6 remained Signatories) to the ICESCR.
5. States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) have agreed to take special measures to eliminate discrimination against women, including insurance of equal access by rural women to food security measures (Article 14 CEDAW) and appropriate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation (Article 12:2 CEDAW). As of December 2003, 175 States were Parties to the CEDAW.
6. States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), have undertaken to respect and ensure the right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (Article 27:1 CRC). States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall, in case of need, provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing (Article 27:3 CRC).
7. The right of the child to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 24:1 CRC) must be implemented, inter alia, through the provision of adequate nutritious food and clean drinking water (Article 24:2:c CRC). In addition, States Parties shall ensure that parents and children are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents (Article 24:2:e CRC).
8. These rights are to be ensured for each child within a State Party’s jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. (Article 2:1 CRC). As of December 2003 there are 193 State Parties to the CRC, which is close to universal ratification.
9. Annex I shows the status of ratification of the ICESCR, CEDAW and CRC.

B. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

10. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), established in 1987 by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The State Parties, according to Article 16 of the ICESCR, have the duty to report on the measures which they have adopted and the progress made in achieving the observance of the rights recognised therein. These reports are submitted to the CESCR every five years after the initial report which must be submitted within two years of ratification. If a report is not submitted, the CESCR may elect to review a State’s compliance with the Covenant without a report. The CESCR submits annual reports to ECOSOC.
11. The CESCR has issued “General Guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by State Parties under articles 16 and 17 of the CESCR”¹. According to these Guidelines, State Reports should contain the following information:

• Current standard of living of its entire population, with particular attention to the changes occurred in the short period (e.g., in the last 5 – 10 years), also through statistical instruments;
• The extent to which the right to adequate food has been realized in the country, through nutritional surveys and detailed information on malnutrition, dividing the population in groups depending on sex, age, race, origin, geographical collocation, and other similar criteria;
• Recent legal and political developments and measures considered necessary by the Government to guarantee access to adequate food for each of the vulnerable or disadvantaged groups and for the worse-off areas;
• Measures taken to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food, by making full use of technology and scientific knowledge;
• Evidence of any groups lacking knowledge of principles of nutrition;
• Agrarian reforms made in order to improve efficiency of the agrarian system;
• Measures taken to ensure equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need, taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries.
12. These Guidelines reflect paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 11 of the ICESCR, as well as paragraph 2 of Article 2 ICESRC, which forbids discrimination in relation to any of the rights recognized in the ICESCR. It should be noted that these guidelines precede General Comment 12 of 5 May 1999², and are in the process of being revised to take account of normative developments in the understanding of the right to food.

C. STATES’ REPORTS TO CESCR

13. In order to provide an overview of State Parties’ understanding of State obligations relating to the right to adequate food and freedom from hunger, a survey of the 69 State Reports, submitted during the decade 1993-2003, was undertaken by the FAO Legal Office in July 2003. The main findings are reported below.
14. Thirty-two reports - almost half of those submitted - contain various statistics, such as on poverty levels, cost of living, food consumption, per capita consumption of goods and services, average income and average expenditure, economic production, agriculture. In general, a State report may cover a variety of issues, such as agriculture, economic production, health, social security, nutritional habits or poverty in general. This is an indication of a broad understanding of the enabling environment necessary for the enjoyment of the right to food by all.
15. Many State Parties report on institutional measures taken to implement the right to adequate food. In particular, food safety and control institutions and food security coordination mechanisms, such as specific bureaus, agencies or committees are mentioned. Such coordination mechanisms may also have a mandate to identify legislative gaps.
16. A vast majority of the Reports are selective in the issues they report on, choosing one or two they deem most important, and many provide only major statistics. Less than a dozen of the 69 Reports give a coordinated and complete representation of all aspects of the implementation of article 11 in the national legal systems.³
17. Legislative measures are mentioned in the vast majority of State Parties’ Reports. Such measures normally fall into one of three broad categories:
• Specific legal measures adopted in specific fields, in order to guarantee the direct implementation of the right to adequate food in those contexts⁴;
• Analysis on general legislation forming the legal basis for the implementation of large-scale programmes and reforms⁵;
• Description of legal instruments creating coordination mechanisms to implement the right to adequate food⁶.
18. Common law countries may report on relevant jurisprudence, in particular on instances where a court has created ex nuovo rules and constitutionally protected rights. In common law jurisprudence the right to a decent standard of living, free from need and starvation, has been recognized⁷.
19. Various programmes and plans may be presented in a Report of a State Party with regard to:
• Agrarian reform⁸;
• Economic growth plans⁹;
• Social security measures¹⁰;
• Distribution of land and resources¹¹;
• Public health measures¹²;
• Special programmes to address the needs of a minority group or a particularly disadvantaged group¹³.

D. APPLICABILITY OF THE ICESCR AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

20. One of the measures consistently advocated by the CESCR is the incorporation of the provisions of the ICESCR in the constitutions or national legislation of the State Parties, to ensure that the provisions can be directly applied by national courts and other agencies. It should also be noted that some State Parties to the ICESR follow the so-called monistic system, which means that once ratified, a treaty becomes part of the law of the land and thus applicable by courts. States which follow the dualist approach normally need to adopt specific legislation to this effect before the provisions of a treaty becomes applicable.
21. Based on a review of Constitutions and of State Parties Reports to the ICESCR, the FAO survey found that in 77 State Parties to the ICESC the provision of international treaties such as the ICESCR are part of the domestic legal order and directly applicable, while in others the incorporation of such provision in the domestic system is subject to the adoption of specific national laws. In this regard, some countries have taken important steps to incorporate the entire Covenant¹⁴, while others took action to enforce single rights alone¹⁵. A full list of the State Parties where the ICESCR is part of the domestic legal order is provided in Annex II.

III. National Constitutions

A. DIMENSIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD

22. The right to food is a multidimensional right, the realization of which depends on many factors. In a normal situation, for the majority of persons, the right to food is realized primarily through their own efforts, by producing or procuring the food they need. This depends on access to land and other productive resources and on access to paid employment. Some people are unable to provide for themselves, for reasons beyond their control - such as unemployment, age, sickness, disability, natural catastrophes, and war. Their food entitlements depend on transfer of food or cash from their families, communities, countries or international aid organizations. The right to adequate food also implies that the food obtained must be of adequate quality. This entails that food purchased on the free market or given as food aid must fulfil minimum safety standards. The right to food is linked to various other human rights, from property rights and access to justice, labour rights and the right to information and education.
23. Exploring the constitutional protection of the right to food therefore is a more complex endeavour than simply searching for keywords such as “food” or “nutrition”.¹⁶ On the other hand, if the survey is to remain meaningful, some limits must be set to its scope. The FAO Legal Office undertook a survey of all national constitutions in June and July 2003, using the following criteria for inclusion:
• Explicit recognition of the right to food of everyone;
• Explicit recognition of the right to food of specific groups (such as children, the elderly, pensioners, prisoners);
• Implicit recognition of the right to food through explicit recognition of a wider right, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, a decent life or a livelihood;
• Recognition of a right to social security for non-workers, which constitutes an implicit recognition of the right to food;
• Recognition of the rights of the child, which can normally be taken to include their nutrition rights;
• Recognition of a right to minimum wage for workers, enough to provide for the basic needs of the worker and his or her family, including food needs;
• Recognition of the importance of agriculture, food safety or consumer rights through explicit provisions on rights or on a duty of the State;
• Recognition of the right to health, in such a way as to include food rights.
24. There is considerable overlap between those different dimensions of protection and recognition of the right to food; some Constitutions contain provisions falling into most of these categories. On the other hand, some Constitutions contain no such provisions at all. Map No 1 aims at capturing the scope of recognition of the right to food in the world based on some of these dimensions.
25. The most common constitutional provisions are formulated along the lines of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothes and shelter. Others refer to a decent living standard or life in dignity. Yet other constitutions list component rights only, such as food or nutrition. There are some Constitutions where the right to food as such is not mentioned, and reference is made only to the obligation of the State to ensure an adequate standard of living or level of nutrition of the population, which for the purpose of this paper is deemed equivalent to implicit recognition of the right to food.¹⁷
26. Constitutions that recognize the rights of the child almost always state that the parents have the obligation to feed their children; often they also contain reference to obligations to provide state support to parents or to ensure the care of orphans. Specific groups other than children, whose food rights are specifically protected in some constitutions, include pensioners, the elderly, war widows, veterans and prisoners. Such provisions often coexist with more general provisions concerning the right to food.

27. Some constitutions contain reference to the resources available to the State in connection with the realization of the right to food, which echoes the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and should therefore be interpreted in accordance with the obligations of a State Party to that Covenant.
28. A statistical review of the results reveals that a majority of countries recognize some dimension of the right to food. The Table below gives a breakdown of the statistics. It should be noted that no account is taken of overlaps between the categories, of which there are some instances. It must also be acknowledged that these categories are by their nature loose, and the placement of a particular provision in one category rather than another may be disputable.
29. Annex II contains the full list of constitutional provisions.

B. LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

30. Given the considerable overlap between the various constitutional provisions, which is not reflected above, a subjective judgment was made as to how strong the constitutional protection of the right to food is deemed to be. For instance, while the Constitution of Bolivia does not have a provision classified by the survey as explicit recognition of the right to food of the entire population, there are provisions about the right to food of various groups and the rights of the child and recognition of the right to an adequate standard of living, as well as protection of the right to social security and to a minimum wage²⁰. Taken together, the constitutional protection of the right to food in Bolivia is, in fact, very strong.
31. Some countries do not have written constitutions. Nevertheless, the judiciary in those countries may recognize constitutional rights, and there are examples of the right to food having been so recognized in case law.²¹ These countries have been taken into account in this survey.
32. Map 2 depicts the assessment of degree of constitutional protection in different countries on the basis of the cumulative constitutional provisions and direct applicability of the ICESCR noted in Annex II and partly reflected in Map 1. Annex III provides the complete list of countries and the assessment of the level of protection. It should be noted that this part of the survey did not distinguish between justiciable and non-justiciable provisions.
33. The conclusion of this – rather subjective – assessment is that a total of 57 countries²² provide rather strong constitutional protection, and another 55 countries have medium level protection, while 28 countries provide some, but more limited, protection of the right to food. The majority of countries therefore recognizes and protects the right to food to some extent.

IV. Jurisprudence on the Right to Food

A. JUSTICIABILITY

34. The review of the constitutional protection of the different dimensions of the right to food referred to above does not distinguish between provisions that are justiciable, and those that are not. Nor does it give an indication as such whether the right to food is well protected in law or in practice. It should furthermore be noted that perceived justiciability may change over time, notwithstanding the original intention or interpretation. At the present time there is little jurisprudence available specifically on the right to food although a growing body of case law exists for various other economic, social and cultural rights.²³ The following sections will briefly review relevant jurisprudence from three countries in different continents.

B. SWITZERLAND

Constitution fédérale de la Confédération suisse
Art. 12
Droit d’obtenir de l’aide dans des situations de détresse
Quiconque est dans une situation de détresse et n’est pas en mesure de subvenir à son entretien a le droit d’être aidé et assisté et de recevoir les moyens indispensables pour mener une existence conforme à la dignité humaine.

35. An important case on the right to food and minimum subsistence comes from Switzerland. In 1996 the Swiss Federal Court, which is the highest court in Switzerland, recognized the right to minimum basic conditions, including “the guarantee of all basic human needs, such as food, clothing and housing” to prevent a situation where people “are reduced to beggars, a condition unworthy of being called human”. The case was brought by three brothers, state-less Czech refugees, who found themselves in Switzerland with no food and no money. They could not work, because they could not get a permit, and without papers they could not leave the country. Their request for assistance to the cantonal authorities in Bern was refused.²⁴
36. The Court in this case deemed that it lacked the legal competence to set priorities for the allocation of resources necessary to realize the right to minimum conditions of existence, including food. However, it determined that it could set aside legislation if the outcome of this legislative framework failed to meet the minimum claim required by constitutional rights. In this case, the exclusion of three non-nationals from social welfare legislation was found to be a violation of their right to food, despite the fact that they were illegal immigrants. The Swiss Federal Court decision determined that the right to food in this sense could be the foundation of a justiciable claim for official assistance.²⁵
37. Transforming the hitherto unwritten constitutional right, the 1999 Swiss Constitution contains an explicit Constitutional provision on the right to assistance in situations of distress, as set out in the box above.

C. INDIA

38. The Indian Constitution recognizes the right to life, and contains a specific provisions related to food, as shown in the box below.

The Constitution of India
Part III – FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Article 21
Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Part IV – DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
Article 47
Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

39. According to the “Right to Food Campaign”, the year 2001 witnessed a time of widespread drought across the country. In many states, it was the second or third successive year of drought. In this time of crisis, state governments often failed to meet their responsibilities towards drought-affected citizens, as spelt out in their respective "famine codes" or "scarcity manuals". This failure was all the more shocking in view of the country's gigantic food stocks (approximately 50 million tonnes at that time).
40. In response to this situation, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (Rajasthan) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in April 2001, demanding the immediate utilization of the country's food stocks for drought relief and prevention of hunger. The scope of the petition was not restricted to drought situations alone. It also focused on the general need to uphold the "right to food". The respondents to the lawsuit were the Union of India, all the state/UT governments, and the Food Corporation of India.²⁶
41. The Supreme Court held its first hearing on 9 May 2001 and has held regular hearings in the case since then. The case is still ongoing, but a number of interim orders have been issued. In its Interim Order of 2 May 2003 the Court stated:
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects for every citizen a right to live with human dignity. Would the very existence of life of those families which are below poverty line not come under danger for want of appropriate schemes and implementation thereof, to provide requisite aid to such families? Reference can also be made to Article 47 which inter alia provides that the State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties.” ²⁷
42. The Supreme Court has thus formally recognized the right to food, and has ordered the central and State governments to take a number of measures to improve the situation. The justiciability of this right is therefore confirmed, and the Court has issued a number of orders to government, entailing expenditure of resources. Among the decisions of the court case to date are:
• Benefits of eight nutrition-related schemes (PDS, Antyodaya, mid-day meals, ICDS, Annapurna, old-age pensions, NMBS and NFBS) have become legal entitlements;
• All state governments have been directed to begin cooked mid-day meals for all children in government and government-assisted schools;
• State and central governments have been ordered to adopt specific measures to ensure public awareness and transparency of assistance programmes;
• Government of India must develop a system to ensure that all poor families are identified as Below Poverty Line;
• Licences of ration shop dealers to be cancelled if they (i) do not open on time, (ii) overcharge, (iii) retain ration cards, (iv) make false entries in BPL cards, or (v) engage in black marketing;
• Especially vulnerable groups have been identified amongst the poor, including widows, the elderly, infirm, disabled, pregnant and lactating women without assured means of subsistence, as well as “primitive tribes”;
• All State Governments have been ordered to implement food for work schemes in scarcity areas.
43. In its Interim Orders of 2 and 8 May 2002, the Supreme Court appointed two Commissioners of the Court “for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of all orders relating to the right to food”. The Commissioners are empowered to enquire about any violations of these orders and to demand redress, with the full authority of the Supreme Court. They may enlist the assistance of NGOs and individuals. Resident Commissioners have also been appointed in each state, to assist the Commissioners of the Court. At the time of writing the Commissioners have submitted four reports to the Supreme Court, making a number of observations and recommendations.²⁸

D. SOUTH AFRICA

44. The South African Constitution adopted in 1994 after the abolition of apartheid, is in many ways very progressive.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Chapter 2
Bill of Rights

Section 27: Health care, food, water and social security
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to –
...(b) sufficient food and water, and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

Section 28: Children
(1) Every child has the right -
... (c) to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services;

Section 35: Arrested, detained and accused persons
(2) Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right -
... (e) to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment;

45. The way in which the social, economic and cultural rights are drafted leaves no doubt as to the justiciability of those rights. In section 7 (2) of the Constitution the State is required to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights. Section 38 of the Constitution states that a class, group or individual can “approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights”.
46. The justiciability of social, economic and cultural rights in South Africa has been confirmed in a Supreme Court judgment, in the Grootboom case²⁹, which concerned the right to adequate housing. The judgment developed a test of “reasonableness” against which to measure the performance of the government in dealing with the right to adequate housing, and established that priority must be given to those in desperate need.
47. The right to food is protected in three different articles of the Constitution, shown in the box above. While the general right to food is subject to available resources, no such limitation is listed on the nutrition rights of the child and of prisoners. In addition to the right to food being justiciable in South Africa, the Constitution also established a Human Rights Commission, with the mandate to monitor all human rights. The Commission has developed a set of questionnaires sent to relevant government departments at central and state levels, soliciting information about actions taken to implement the right to food. ³⁰

V. Conclusions

48. Food-related rights are recognized to some extent in a majority of countries, often on the same basis as the right to food is recognized in the ICESCR. However, the actual respect, protection and fulfilment of this right remains elusive and in most countries there is lack of clear definition and understanding of the content of these rights at the national level, let alone clear justiciable provisions on the right to food as such.
49. The right to food is underdeveloped as of yet; the understanding of the right, its content, limitations and application by oversight mechanisms, remain largely unexplored. The progress in the realization of the right to food is also very uneven in the world; while hunger and malnutrition have been largely eradicated in some countries, yet in others the situation remains critical, and many people have no effective entitlements and no effective ways of holding their governments accountable if they suffer from hunger and malnutrition. The ICESCR specifies the adoption of legislative measures for the realization of the rights recognized in the ICESCR, yet very few countries have taken legislative steps regarding the right to food beyond simple constitutional provisions, which, while important first steps, probably do not suffice for effective action.
50. Specific legislation, such as framework law, is urgently needed in order to ensure the process side of the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in all its implications, especially in countries where incidence of under nutrition is high. As noted earlier, the right to food is a multidimensional issue and demands cross-sectoral approaches. This may inadvertently lead to less accountability on the part of the State. It is therefore of crucial importance to assign responsibilities for coordination of efforts and for the various areas and levels of government that may help or hinder the enjoyment of the right to adequate food.
51. To date there have been very few instances in which national courts have adjudicated on the basis of provisions related to food rights. However, there are some signs of progress in the strengthening of judicial and other mechanisms, and as jurisprudence and administrative review cases gradually build up, the ways and means by which effective remedies for violations of the right to food can be provided will become increasingly clear.

ANNEX I: STATUS OF RATIFICATION OF RELEVANT TREATIES

The Table shows the status of ratification of three relevant human rights treaties, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The year refers to the entry into force of the instrument of ratification or accession. The symbol (s) denotes that the country in question has signed, but not ratified the instrument.

ANNEX II: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD

The list below lists countries containing constitutional provisions under each category, with reference to the Article or Section of the Constitution in brackets.

Constitutional provisions making direct mention of the right to food, applicable to the whole of the population

Bangladesh (15); Brazil (6); Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (25); Ecuador (23); Ethiopia (90); Guatemala (99); Guyana (40); Haiti (22); Iran (Islamic Republic of) (3, 43); Malawi (13, 30); Namibia (95); Nicaragua (63); Nigeria (16); Pakistan (38); Panama (106); Puerto Rico (2);Republic of Moldova (47); South Africa (27); Sri Lanka (25); Suriname (24); Uganda (14, 22); Ukraine (48).

Explicit protection of the right to food of a specific group
Bolivia (8); Brazil (208, 227); Colombia (44,46); Costa Rica (82); Cuba (9, 38); Dominican Republic (8); Ecuador (49,50); Guatemala (51); Honduras (121, 123); Panama (52); Paraguay (54, 57); Philippines (15); Peru (6); South Africa (28, 35); Sri Lanka (22); The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (40); Uruguay (56).

Constitutions protecting a broader right, including the right to food, such as adequate standard of living, or dignified life
Bangladesh (18); Belgium (23.1); Bolivia (158); Brazil (170); Canada (7); Colombia (46); Dem. Rep. of Congo (48); Cyprus (9); Dominican Republic (8); El Salvador (101); Eritrea (Preamble,10); Ethiopia (89); Finland (19); Germany (1); Ghana (36); Guatemala (119); Honduras (150); India (21, 47); Indonesia (28); Ireland (45); Liberia (8); Mozambique (41); Netherlands (20); Nigeria (16, 17); Norway (110 c); Pakistan (38); Paraguay (53); Peru (2); Puerto Rico (2); Republic of Korea (34); Romania (43); Russian Federation (7); Sierra Leone (8); Slovakia (39); Spain (Preambule); Sudan (11); Sweden (2); Switzerland (12); Syrian Arab Republic (44); Tajikistan (1); The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (40); Trinidad and Tobago (Preliminary, Sec. I); Turks and Caicos Islands (2); United Republic of Tanzania (8, 11); Vanuatu (5); Venezuela (3, 299).

Right of the child constitutionally protected
Bahrain (5); Bolivia (199); Brazil (203); Bulgaria (47); Cambodia (48, 73); Capo Verde (71, 86); Colombia (44, 45, 50); Comoros (Preambule); Congo (33,34); Costa Rica (55); Côte d’Ivoire (6); Croatia (62); Cuba (9, 38); Ecuador (50); Egypt (10); El Salvador (35); Ethiopia (36); Guatemala (51); Haiti (260); Honduras (121, 123); Hungary (16); Iceland (76); India (39); Indonesia (28b); Ireland (45); Italy (31); Kuwait (10); Latvia (110); Lesotho (27); Lithuania (39); Namibia (15); Nepal (26); Nicaragua (105); Nigeria (17); Pakistan (35); Panama (52); Paraguay (53, 54); Peru (4); Philippines (15); Poland (72); Portugal (69); Puerto Rico (2); Qatar (22); Republic of Moldova (50); Romania (45); Russian Federation (7); Sao Tome and Principe (51); Seychelles (31); Slovenia (56); South Africa (28); Spain (39); Sri Lanka (22); Sudan (14); Suriname (37); Switzerland (11); Syrian Arab Republic (44); Tajikistan (340); Thailand (53); The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (40, 42); Timor-Leste (18); Turkey (41, 61); Uganda (34); United Arab Emirates 916); Uruguay (41); Venezuela (78); Viet Nam (59, 65).

Constitutions recognizing a right to social security
Albania (59); Algeria (59); Andorra (30); Angola (47); Armenia (33); Azerbaijan (38); Bahrain (3); Bangladesh (15); Belgium (23); Belarus (47); Bolivia (164); Brazil (203, 230); Bulgaria (51); Burkina Faso (18); Cambodia (36, 72, 75); Cape Verde (7, 67, 72); Chile (19); China (45); Hong Kong Province of China (36, 145); Colombia (44, 46, 47, 48, 49); Côte d’Ivoire (6); Croatia (57, 58, 64); Cuba (9, 48); Cyprus (9); Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (72); Democratic Republic of the Congo (47, 50); Dominican Republic (8); Ecuador (55, 56, 57); Egypt (17); El Salvador (66, 70); Eritrea (21); Estonia (28); Ethiopia (41, 89); Finland (19); France (Preamble); Gabon (1); Georgia (32); Germany (20); Ghana (37); Greece (21, 22); Guatemala (94); Haiti (22, 260); Honduras (142); Hungary (70e); Iceland (76); India (41); Indonesia (34); Iran, Islamic Republic of (29); Ireland (45); Italy (38); Kazakhstan (24, 28, 29); Kuwait (11); Kyrgyzstan (27); Latvia (109); Liberia (8); Liechtenstein (26); Lithuania (48); Luxembourg (11, 23); Madagascar (30); Malawi (13); Maldives (28); Mali (17); Malta (Sec.17); Marshall Island (Sec. 15); Mexico (123); Mongolia (16); Namibia (95); Nepal (26); Netherlands (20); Nicaragua (82, 105); Nigeria (16, 17); Oman (12); Pakistan (38); Panama (109); Paraguay (58, 70, 95); Peru (4, 10, 11); Philippines (15); Poland (67, 69); Portugal (63, 72); Puerto Rico (2); Qatar (23); Republic of Korea (34); Republic of Moldova (47, 51); Romania (33, 43, 45, 46); Russian Federation (7, 39); Sao Tome and Principe (27, 43); Saudi Arabia (27); Seychelles (37); Sierra Leone (8, 22); Slovakia (39); Slovenia (50); South Africa (27); Spain (41, 49, 50); Sri Lanka (22, 25); Sudan (11); Suriname (50); Sweden (2); Switzerland (12, 41); Syrian Arab Republic (46); Tajikistan (39); Thailand (52, 54, 55); The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (34, 35, 36); Timor-Leste (20, 21, 56); Togo (33); Turkey (60, 61); Turkmenistan (34); Uganda (35); Ukraine (46); United Arab Emirates (16); United Republic of Tanzania (8, 11); Uruguay (44, 46, 67); Uzbekistan (39); Venezuela (80, 81, 86); Viet Nam (59, 67).

Constitutional provision of minimum wage
Armenia (29); Azerbaijan (38); Belarus (42); Bolivia (157); Brazil (7); Bulgaria (48); Costa Rica (57); Croatia (55); Cuba (9); Democratic Republic of the Congo (37); Ecuador (35); El Salvador (37, 38); Guatemala (102); Honduras (128); India (43); Italy (36); Kazakhstan (28); Kyrgyzstan (29); Lesotho (30); Lithuania (48); Madagascar (63); Mexico (123); Namibia (95); Nicaragua (82); Nigeria (16); Norway (110); Panama (62); Paraguay (92); Peru (24); Portugal (59); Russian Federation (7); Slovakia (39); Spain (35); Turkey (55); Turkmenistan (31); Uzbekistan (39); Venezuela (91).

Constitution provides for State responsibility for food safety, consumers, promotion of agriculture etc.

Andorra (29); Argentina (42); Brazil (200); Bulgaria (21); Cambodia (64); Costa Rica (46); Ecuador (42, 43); El Salvador (69); Germany (74); Guatemala (96); Haiti (247,249); Honduras (146, 347); Iran (43); Nicaragua (105); Panama (114); Paraguay (72); Philippines (13); Republic of Moldova (37); Sierra Leone (7); Spain (51); Ukraine (50); Venezuela (305); Yemen (9).

Broad constitutional provisions on the right to health, which could include the right to food
Albania (59); Bangladesh (18); Burkina Faso (26); Cape Verde (68); Comoros (Preambule); India (47); Philippines (13); Portugal (64); Romania (33); Russian Federation (7); Seychelles (29); Spain (43); Uruguay (44).

State Parties to the ICESCR in which it is constitutionally directly applicable (Brackets refer to Article or Section of the Constitution, or to the source of the information)
Albania (122); Algeria (132); Angola (21); Armenia (6); Austria (9); Azerbaijan (148,151); Belarus (21); Belgium (1993/1997 Report to CESCR); Benin (146); Brazil (5); Bulgaria (5:4); Burundi (10); Cambodia (31); Cape Verde (11); Central African Republic (69); Chad (222); Congo (176); Costa Rica (7); Croatia (134); Cyprus (169); Czech Republic (10); Democratic Republic of the Congo (200); Djibouti (37); Ecuador (18); Egypt (151); El Salvador (144); Estonia (3); Ethiopia (9:4); Finland (1999 Report to CESCR); France (55); Gabon (114); Georgia (6); Germany (25); Ghana (37); Greece (28); Guatemala (46); Guinea (49); Honduras (16); Côte d’Ivoire (87); Kyrgyzstan (12); Latvia (89); Lithuania (138); Madagascar (82); Malawi (211); Mali (116); Republic of Moldova (8); Mongolia (10); Namibia (144); Netherlands (93); Nicaragua (46); Niger (132); Norway (110c); Paraguay (141); Peru (55); Philippines (XIII); Poland (91): Portugal (8:2); Republic of Korea (6); Romania (11); Russia (15:4); Rwanda (190); Senegal (79); Serbia and Montenegro (16, 124:2); Seychelles (48); Slovakia (11); Slovenia (8); Spain (10, 96); Sri Lanka (XXVI); Suriname (105, 106); Switzerland (189, 191); Tajikistan (10); The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (98); Timor-Leste (9); Togo (140); Turkey (90); Ukraine (9); Venezuela (23).

ANNEX III: ASSESSED LEVEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION

The list below shows the assessment made of whether the constitutional provisions of different countries, taken together, are deemed to be high, medium high, medium, medium low or low, with reference to the Article(s) or Section(s) of the Constitution in brackets.

High level of constitutional protection of the right to food
- These are the constitutions containing explicit provisions relating to the right to food.
Bangladesh (15); Brazil (6); Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (25); Ecuador (23); Ethiopia (90); Guatemala (99); Guyana (40); Haiti (22); Iran (Islamic Republic of) (3, 43); Malawi (13, 30); Nicaragua (63); Nigeria (16); Pakistan (38); Panama (106); Puerto Rico (2); Republic of Moldova (47); South Africa (27); Sri Lanka (25); Suriname (24); Uganda (14, 22); Ukraine (48).

Medium high level of constitutional protection of the right to food
- These constitutions protect the right to food implicitly, through broader provisions dealing with the right to an adequate standard of living, as well as through provisions on either social security or worker’s rights - or both, cumulatively ,providing a high degree of protection of the right to food. The protection thus afforded may be in one or several sections of the Constitution.
Belgium (1, 23); Bolivia (8, 157, 158, 164, 199); Colombia (44, 46, 47, 48, 49); Congo, Democratic Republic of (37, 47, 48, 50); Cyprus (9); Dominican Republic (8); El Salvador (35, 37, 38, 66, 69, 70, 101); Eritrea (preamble, 10, 21); Finland (19); Germany (1, 20, 74); Ghana (36, 37); Honduras (121, 123, 128, 142, 146, 150, 347); India (21, 39, 41, 43, 47); Indonesia (28, 28b, 34); Ireland (45); Israel (courts); Liberia (8); Netherlands (20); Norway (110, 110c); Paraguay (53, 54, 57, 58, 70, 95); Peru (2, 4, 10, 11, 24); Republic of Korea (34); Romania (33, 43, 45, 46); Russian Federation (7, 39); Sierra Leone (7, 8, 22); Slovakia (39); Spain (Preambule, 35, 39, 41, 43, 49, 50, 51); Sudan (11, 14); Sweden (2); Switzerland (11, 12, 41); Syrian Arab Republic (44, 46); Tajikistan (1, 39, 340); United Republic of Tanzania (8, 11);The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (34, 35, 36, 40, 42); Venezuela (3, 78, 80, 81, 86, 91, 299, 305).

Medium level of constitutional protection of the right to food
- These constitutions either protect the right to adequate standard of living, or social security and worker’s rights.
Armenia (29, 33); Azerbaijan (38); Belarus (42, 47); Bulgaria (48, 51): Croatia (55, 57, 58, 64); Cuba (9, 48);Italy (36, 38); Kazakhstan (24, 28, 29); Kyrgyzstan (27, 29); Lithuania (48); Madagascar (30, 63); Mexico (123); Mozambique (41); Portugal (59, 63, 72); Trinidad and Tobago (I); Turkey (55, 60, 61); Turkmenistan (31, 34); Turks and Caicos Islands (2); Uzbekistan (39); Vanuatu (5).
- These countries provide for direct applicability of the ICESCR, which is assessed as equivalent to medium level of constitutional protection. Only those countries are listed which would otherwise not be listed at all or would be ranked as having lower level of protection.
Albania (122); Algeria (132); Angola (21); Austria (9); Benin (146); Burundi (10); Cambodia (31); Cape Verde (11); Central African Republic (69); Chad (222); Congo (176); Costa Rica (7); Côte d’Ivoire (87); Czech Republic (10); Djibouti (37); Egypt (151); Estonia (3); France (55); Gabon (114); Georgia (6); Greece (28); Guinea (49); Latvia (89); Mali (116); Mongolia (10); Niger (132); Philippines (XIII); Poland (91); Rwanda (190); Senegal (79); Serbia and Montenegro (16, 124:2); Seychelles (48); Slovenia (8); Timor-Leste (9); Togo (140).

Medium low level of constitutional protection of the right to food
- These constitutions protect only the right to social security or the right to minimum wage.
Andorra (30); Bahrain (3); Burkina Faso (18); Chile (19); China (45); Costa Rica (57); Timor-Leste (20, 21, 56); Hungary (70e); Iceland (76); Kuwait (11); Lesotho (30); Liechtenstein (26); Luxembourg (11, 23); Maldives (28); Malta (17); Marshall Islands (15); Nepal (26); Oman (12); Qatar (23); Sao Tome and Principe (27, 43); Saudi Arabia (27); Thailand (52, 54, 55); United Arab Emirates (16); Uruguay (44, 46, 67); Vietnam (59, 67);

Low level of constitutional protection of the right to food
- These constitutions have other, less important provisions, such as protection of the rights of the child, or promotion of agriculture, food safety etc.
Argentina (42); Canada (7)³¹; Comoros (Preambule); Yemen (9).

¹ UN document E/C.12/1991/1 (Basic Reference Document), 17 June 1991.

² UN document E/C.12/1999/5, General Comment 12, The right to adequate food (Article 11 of the Covenant).

³ Bolivia, 1999 (UN doc.E/1990/5/Add.44); Japan, 1998 (UN doc.E/1990/6/Add.21); Panama, 2000 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.24); Paraguay, 1999 (UN doc. E/1989/5/Add.13); Philippines, 1997 (UN doc. E/1989/5/Add.11); Sri Lanka, 1997 (UN doc. E/1990/5/Add.32); Switzerland, 1996 (UN doc. E/1990/5/Add.33); Syrian Arab Republic, 1999 (UN doc.E/94/104/Add.23); Trinidad and Tobago, 2000 (UN doc. E/90/6/Add.30); Tunisia, 1996 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.14).

⁴ See for instance Estonia, Food Act, Consumer Protection Act, Public Health Act, Water Act, Packaging Act, 2001 (UN doc.E/1990/5/Add.51); Finland, Living Allowance Act, 1999 (UN doc. E/C.12/4/Add.1); Japan, Soil Productivity Improvement Law, 1998 (UN doc.E/1990/6/Add.21).

⁵ See for instance Brazil, The Food and Nutritional Vigilance System (SISVAN), 2001 (UN doc.E/1990/5/Add.53); Bulgaria, National Food and Nutrition Policy, 1996 (UN doc. E/1994/104/Add.16); Canada, National Plan of Action and Nutrition, 1998 (UN doc. E/1994/104/Add.17); Ireland, National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS), 2000 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.29).

⁶ See for instance Slovakia, Subsistence Minimum Act, 2001 (UN doc. E/1990/5/Add.49);Tunisia, Seventh Economic and Social Development Plan, 1996 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.14).

⁷ See Israel, Judgment by the Israel’s Supreme Court in the case of Gazmo v. Ishayahu (REC 4905/98) 0F 19 March 2001, 2001 (E/1996/6/Add.32).

⁸ See for instance Brazil, National Agrarian Reform Programme, 2001 (UN doc.E/1990/5/Add.53.); Colombia, Agrarian Reform Bill, 2000 (UN doc. E/C.12/4/Add.6); Philippines, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme, 1997 (UN doc. E/1989/5/Add.11).

⁹ See for instance Bolivia, General Social and Economic Development Plan, 1999 (UN doc. E/1990/5/Add.44); Tunisia, Seventh Economic and Social Development Plan, 1996 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.14).

¹⁰ See for instance Argentina, Social Nutritional Programme (PROSONU), 1997 (UN doc.E/1990/6/Add.16); Panama, Social Assistance Programme, 2000 (UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.24).

¹¹ See for instance Armenia, Programme of Land Reforms, 1998 (UN doc. E/1990/5/Add.36); Philippines, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme, 1997 (UN doc. E/1989/5/Add.11).

¹² See for instance Bulgaria, Health Nutrition Information and Training Programme, 1996 (UN doc. E/1994/104/Add.16); Mexico, Nutrition and Health Programme, 1997 (UN doc. E/1994/104/Add.18).

¹³ See for instance Argentina, Nutritional Programme for Mothers and Children (PROMIN), 1997 (UN doc.E/1990/6/Add.16); See also Australia, protection of health of indigenous, 1998 (UN doc. E/1994/104/Add.22); Panama, laws protecting indigenous ownership of land, 2000 ( E/1990/6/Add.24); Paraguay, The Food and Nutritional Education Program – set up to improve living conditions in rural areas through health, nutrition and education programmes for vulnerable groups, 1999 (UN doc.E/1989/5/Add.13); Philippines, Government policies and social welfare focused on socially disadvantaged women, physically and mentally disabled persons and the more disadvantaged members of labour force, 1997 (UN doc. E/1989/5/Add.11).

¹⁴ See for instance Norway – the Human Rights Act of 21 May 1999 No.30 gave ICESCR, ICCPR and ECHR the force of Norwegian Law; Argentina – the 1994 Constitutional amendment included ICESCR into the National Constitution.

¹⁵ See discusses in the following section on protection of single rights though constitutional provisions.

¹⁶ This was the methodology followed in “The Right to Food in Theory and Practice”, FAO, Rome, 1998.

¹⁷ For instance, Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

¹⁸ See Annex III: High level of constitutional protection of the right to food.

¹⁹ See for instance Norway, which has a provision referring to all human rights recognized by Norway.

²⁰ See Articles 8, 157, 158, 164 and 199of the Constitution of Bolivia.

²¹ For instance, Israel , see Gazmo vs Ishayahu (REC 4905/98) delivered by the Supreme Court of Israel on 19 March 2001, quoted in Israel’s report to the CESCR in 2001, UN doc. E/1990/6/Add.32, paragraph 284

²² .

²³ Databases of such caselaw are available from various organizations, including the International Network on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net) www.escr-net.org, Interights www.interrights.org and the Nordic Human Rights Network www.nordichumanrights.net/tema/tema3/caselaw/ and the Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) www.cohre.org/litigation.

²⁴ The right to food, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Mr. Jean Ziegler, submitted in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/25 and General Assembly resolution of ****, UN document E/CN.4/2002/58, 20 December 2001, paragraph 58.

²⁵ Langford, Malcolm, Right to Food in International Law: Obligations of States and the FAO, LLM Thesis presented to the European University Institute, Florence, dated 1 October 2001.

²⁶ Right to Food Campaign (India) website, Legislative action. http://www.righttofood.com, consulted on 9 September 2003.

²⁷ PUCL vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001, available at www.righttofood.com

²⁸ www.righttofood.com, Commissioners’ work, consulted on 9 September 2003.

²⁹ See Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grotboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).

³⁰ See presentation entitled “The Right to Food – The South African Experience” by Commissioner Charlotte McClain at the “Forum national sur le droit à une alimentation adequate”, Bamako, Mali, 19 – 21 March 2003.

³¹ It has been argued that this article protects social rights, but it is uncertain (See Right to Food Case Study: Canada).