In order to give some personal conclusions on this Forum, I seize this opportunity to take up again some of the main ideas and discussions that, in my opinion, merit particular attention. Throughout the last three days, a key debate was the one related to the global and local dimensions of the implementation of the right to food.

Some participants considered one dimension more important than the other and vice versa. For example, taking up again the final words of the Special Rapporteur, Olivier de Schutter, local strategies are a condition for an effective implementation of the right to food.According to him, the useful responses to the victims can be given, above all, at local level. He also shared with us his doubts regarding the proposal of a right to food global agenda. He suggested that by launching this strategy a scenario could appear in which other sectors could advance with a parallel agenda not necessarily conducive to the realization of the right to food.

The importance of the local level for the implementation of the right to food takes also into account the fact that every country case is unique within its own context. Following this perspective, it would be impossible to create a model at the global level indicating how the right to food has to be implemented. The Rapporteur of the Forum, Marc Cohen, expressed this idea with illustrative words saying that one of the lessons of this Forum was that each context was unique and therefore, “fordism” strategies were definitely not adequate. The discussion about the Indian case was also a very good example of this point. Finally it could also be added that within this position we could also explain the reason why the right to food seems to be sometimes invisible and not very concrete. Establishing parameters aimed at avoiding the perception of the right to food as a diluted notion among other public policies is a big challenge for the near future.

Other participants instead stressed the need for having a global strategy as the best framework for adopting consensus, definitions and practical tools for the effective realization of the right to food. From this point of view a fundamental human right such as the right to food, demands to assume not only a legal but also a moral responsibility. And for a real and effective application, it looks at the inclusion of mechanisms aimed at defending and implementing the right to food as a justiciable human right (a specific right to food framework law, judicial and administrative recourses and the adoption of human rights based principles). Besides, the content of the right to food can’t be defined at a global level without taking into account its close link to other global sectors such as the financial, economic, and commercial one. This is exactly the reason why a discussion at global level of the food issues would be from this point of view so important.

It has been very relevant to hear these two perspectives throughout the Forum because it let me appreciate these two dimensions as being essentially complementary. Despite considering each experience as unique, and despite understanding that it is at local level where changes are most useful for victims, the global dimension of the right to food is decisive for a sustainable implementation of the right to food throughout the next years. The global level is a good framework for building better policies and also for establishing clear limits aimed at protecting people that are right now affected and can not feed themselves in dignity. Taking up again the words of Colin Gonsalves for India, leaving the realization of the right to food in the hands of market forces is definitely not the solution because hunger is not an economic or technical problem but a political one. It is clear for everyone that global decisions affect local situations and that is precisely the reason why a coordinated and complementary work between these two dimensions is essential.