At the beginning of the day I was inspired by the words of The Special Rapporteur who stressed the fact that hunger is not a technical question but rather one of political powers. He highlighted the importance of current work in the areas of a broadening of venues for victims of violations of Right to Food; the need for institution mobilization beyond courts and the development of the normative content of the right to Food. He identified as challenges the management of food aid, the negotiation of international trade agreements and the preparation of public budgets, and the regulation of private sector activities. The right to food has a richer solution to address these problems. It was interesting to see haw the Rapporteur thought right to food advocates were still a minority voice while according to the Assistant Director-General, Hafez Ghanem this voice was the voice of a majority starting in FAO.

The contrast between the US and the Russian Federation was interesting. While the US insisted on the fact that not all countries are parties to right to food conventions and therefore obligations are not universal, the Russian federation stressed the need to ensure the right to adequate food as a fundamental human right trough collective efforts starting with governments’ obligations to meet the needs of vulnerable populations.

I was very surprised to hear that Brazil has already achieved the Millennium Development Goal one of halving the number of hungry people. Its Zero Hunger Programme has been so far extremely successful. At institutional level the creation of the CONSEA, National Food and Nutrition Security Council, was a milestone in the articulation of synergies between government and civil society.

I was shocked by the figures indicated by Luis Fernando Monterroso for Guatemala: 70% of malnourishment in rural areas of the country. He saw a need to strengthen human capital and for a change of mentality and attitudes in addressing food security issues. Legal documents per se are not sufficient unless effective implementation is guaranteed. Information is key: how can an individual go to a government official to complain about a failure if the government official doesn’t know about right to food? The crucial role of the media was stressed: “By convincing the media you put pressure on policy making” he concluded.

The 2001 right to food case in India is, in my opinion, a unique success in existing jurisprudence over economic and social rights. Colin Gonsalves stressed the fact that India doesn’t need food aid the country is self sufficient but access for everyone is the challenge. The need for adequate data collection through commissioners is essential.

It was really interesting to hear that in Mozambique there has been an evolution in the ESAN, Food Security and Nutrition Strategy, towards the inclusion of right to food and human rights principles.

The Phillipines highlighted the importance of right to food in the context of the Accelarated Hunger Mitigation Programme. Multisectorial action was indicated as key in reducing poverty and hunger following the Right to Food Guidelines recommendations. In 2007 NGOS started working on shadow report on Government compliance to the Covenant on Economic and Social rights, participation and transparence were key in the this process.

I was happy to hear that in Uganda a food and nutrition bill is currently being developed. The adoption of this bill will add a specific legal dimension to the already existing political and institutional framework for the right to food in the country. The crucial role of the national Human Rights Commission in receiving complains of violations of Human Rights will represent an excellent avenue for right to food justiciability.