World food day 2018: law is key for achieving zero hunger in the context of climate change
Since 1979, the World Food Day (WFD) is celebrated every year around the world on 16 October, marking the foundation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1945. WFD has adopted a different theme each year to raise awareness of the problem of hunger, and to highlight key action areas to promote food security.
WFD 2018 focused on achieving zero hunger, recognized as a key priority of the international community through Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 (which aims to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” by 2030). WFD2018’s thematic focus is timely, as recent reports account that, despite the call of SDG2 and related efforts:
- After a period of decline, world hunger is on the rise again since 2014: over 820 million people are suffering chronic undernourishment;
- Paradoxically, over 672 million people suffer from obesity, and a further 3 billion are overweight – to the point that the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified obesity as a global epidemic – which threatens to revert progress made in the fight against hunger and malnutrition.
This situation will be aggravated as climate change and its related challenges – such as increased occurrence of extreme weather events, changing of distribution of rainfall and changes to ecosystems all over the world – threaten the capacity of agriculture systems to feed humanity in the near future. Furthermore, global food demand is projected to increase by 60% by 2050, driven by population growth (by 2050 the world should have 9 billion people, an extra 2 billion to what we have today) and income growth, as well as urbanization levels. Therefore, the relationship between climate change and agriculture will need to be at the center of the debate around eradicating hunger and poverty by 2030.
Agriculture, food security and climate change: the role of law
Food security is a concept that expresses the situation when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for a healthy life”. It encompasses several dimensions such as availability (and stability) of sufficient food of appropriate quality (through domestic production or imports); and accessibility of such food resources to individuals (which means food that people can afford).
The imperative of food security finds a legal basis on the right to food (RTF), recognized as a human right as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in Article 25(1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and included in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The RTF encompasses two essential components: the right to adequate food (understood as a right to have stable access to affordable and nutritious food, as expressed through food security) and the fundamental right to be free from hunger. Realizing the right to food is a key priority, and a primary means, to fulfill the WFD2018 and SDG2 goal of zero hunger by 2030.
However, it has been recognized that climate change is going to pose (or is already posing) serious challenges for the fulfilment and enjoyment of human rights, including the RTF. Through its impacts on agriculture, climate change will exacerbate the negative effects of the trends highlighted above. What’s more, agriculture is not only affected by climate change, but contributes directly and indirectly to significant emissions of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Anthropogenic GHG emissions originating in “agriculture, forestry and other land use” (AFOLU), caused mainly by deforestation, livestock production and soil and nutrient management, have been estimated at 21% of total global emissions.
The UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement (PA, 2015), which is at the center of the international responses to climate change, has set the goal of holding the global average temperature increase to “well below 2 °C” above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. Of note, the PA preamble recognizes “the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change”, and the goals inserted in art. 2.1(b) include the “ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production”. It does not come as a surprise that food security and agriculture are recognized as key areas in the NDCs submitted by member parties to the UNFCCC so far. An FAO report that analyzed the NDCs summited this far shows that:
- Agriculture and land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) are among the most frequently included sectors in countries’ mitigation contributions (targets and/ or actions): when considered together, 89% of countries cover agriculture and/or LULUCF.
- 54 countries explicitly refer to food insecurity and malnutrition among the major risks they face under climate change, and include actions to address these challenges.
Furthermore, the work program set in motion through the “Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA)”, agreed at COP23 in 2017, represents a milestone in the agriculture debate within the climate change regime, and is expected to incentivize and provide guidance on this matter over the two coming years. This will be instrumental for member parties to meet their obligations under the PA and commitments under their NDCs, including food security.
However, studies of the aggregate effect of actions proposed through the NDCs show that much greater efforts than those proposed so far will be required to hold the temperature rise below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In fact, projections estimate that current proposed actions can lead up to a 4 °C increase, which will create serious challenges for achieving the zero hunger, food security and the RTF. This demonstrates a challenge of coordination of the international community for stronger efforts if these goals are to be met.
It should be noted that action at international level is far from enough to address such complex issues. National translation of these goals and obligations is also key, and includes roles for a multitude of stakeholders. Governments have, among others, duties to operationalize the international obligations related to the RTF, the SDGs, and the PA; this can include, among other actions, the provision of incentives and enabling conditions for a transition to a lower carbon economy that, at the same time, promotes food security and livelihoods for all. The private sector has also an important role to play, by incorporating good practices of corporate social and environmental responsibility, as well as promoting research and development of new clean technologies and solutions for climate change and agriculture. Last but not least, civil society has fundamental responsibilities, including disseminating information and promoting greater awareness among all the population about these challenges; changing behaviors towards more sustainable consumption habits (and demanding more sustainable production from the private sector), and finally holding the government accountable for the implementation of international obligations and, in last instance, for fulfillment of all human rights including the RTF.
One tool that is increasingly being used, in this regard, is public interest litigation – that is, the use of litigation to advance the implementation of legal issues such as fulfilment of human rights and equality, or raise issues of broad public concern. As demonstrated through a recent report, economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) such as the RTF are being successfully adjudicated in national courts all over the world, as well as in regional and international human rights systems. All three duties of the State — to respect, to protect, and to fulfill the right – have led to litigation before domestic courts, with increasingly encouraging outcomes.
In a similar fashion, a new wave of strategic court cases linking climate and rights is emerging, with around 1,000 climate court cases now identified. Notably, the 2015 decision in Urgenda Foundation v. Kingdom of the Netherlands case has been a landmark. The Dutch Government was brought to court by NGO Urgenda, backed by more than 900 citizens, who argued that the Netherlands plan as stated in the NDC (aimed at 17% reduction of GHG emissions), was failing to protect Dutch people from climate threats like sea level rise. Plaintiffs requested the court:
- To declare that global warming of more than 2oC will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights worldwide.
- To declare that the Dutch State is acting unlawfully by not contributing its proportional share to preventing a global warming of more than 2oC Celsius.
- To order the Dutch State to drastically reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 below 1990 levels.
The District Court of the Hague’s decision held that the Dutch government breached its ‘duty of care’ for failing to adopt sufficiently ambitious mitigation targets (with three judges declaring that state “should not hide behind” the argument that it could not tackle climate change alone) and determined that further emission reductions should be pursued. This was the first case in Europe of citizen’s attempt to hold a state responsible for inaction, and the first case in the world in which human rights are used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change. The Dutch government appealed of the decision, but it was recently sustained.
This case can provide inspiration for similar action elsewhere, which is already happening and could have significant impact in holding governments and greenhouse gas emitters accountable for climate change – and consequently helping to achieve zero hunger by 2030. This is especially relevant in the current scenario, where leaders of key countries around the world threaten to leave the multilateral pathway provided by the PA to face climate change.
In sum, achieving the WFD2018 goals of zero hunger will face serious challenges also associated with facing climate change. Law plays a key role in this scenario: at the international level, the PA provides the only multilateral avenue to address climate change in a coordinated fashion – which is also key for realizing human rights such as the RTF. At national level, laws and policies play an important role to operationalize the international obligations of the PA, and legal tools such as litigation might be a strategic means to hold governments accountable when adequate action is not taken.
This article is the second in the series about the role of law for “UN International Days”. Check the others in the blog section.
Fabiano de Andrade Correa 