MORNING - Human Rights Council Discusses Artificial Intelligence in the Context of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Importance of Farmers’ Seed Systems to Ensure Food Systems that were Biodiverse, Resilient and Just
The Human Rights Council this morning held an interactive dialogue with Gerard Quinn, the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, on artificial intelligence in the context of the rights of persons with disabilities, and started an interactive dialogue with Michael Fakhri, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, on the importance of farmers’ seed systems to ensure food systems that were biodiverse, resilient and just.
Gerard Quinn, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, said his report gathered together the balance of risks and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence in the context of the rights of persons with disabilities. On the plus side, artificial intelligence could meaningfully drive forward the search for inclusive development in favour of persons with disabilities, but artificial intelligence could also reflect and embed ableist assumptions. The core question posed by this analysis was how humanity could harness the positive potential of artificial intelligence whilst mitigating its known (and often unknown) impacts on persons with disabilities?
In the ensuing discussion, speakers said that it was of utmost importance to bring those debates to the national level in order for progress of technology to be harvested properly and in order not to leave anyone behind. “Nothing about us without us”, the motto of the disability movement, should be taken into account as disability inclusion helped make societies more resilient. Speakers considered innovation as a transformative force and raised awareness on the need to consider the obligations arising from the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. One speaker regretted that the theme of the report was far removed from the reality of millions of people in the world who did not even have access to water and food, let alone digital technology.
Speaking in the debate on the right to food were the European Union, Norway on
behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, Côte d’Ivoire on behalf of the African Group, Ecuador on behalf of a group of countries, Croatia on behalf of a group of countries, Paraguay, Israel, Food and Agricultural Organization, Canada, Qatar, UN Women, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Nepal, Djibouti, Libya, Fiji, United Nations Children’s Fund, Malaysia, Cuba, Ecuador, Japan, Venezuela, France, Kenya, Senegal, Luxemburg, India, China, Marshall Islands, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Lesotho, Mexico, Russian Federation, Cambodia, Indonesia, Benin, Australia, Panama, Morocco, Algeria, Chile, Uganda, South Africa, Ireland, Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, Tunisia, United States, Côte d’Ivoire, United Kingdom, Azerbaijan, United Nations Refugee Agency, Portugal, Hungary, Malawi, Georgia, Malta, Cyprus, Belarus, Viet Nam, Bosnia and Herzegovina, New Zealand, Gabon, Organization for Islamic Cooperation, United Arab Emirates, Costa Rica, Ukraine, Iran, Chad, Sovereign Order of Malta and Namibia.
Also speaking were National Human Rights Commission of India, Burundi Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme, International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse and International Disability Alliance.
On the right to food, Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said that the more ecologically diverse the food system, the more options there were when it came to developing plants that were resilient to climate change. Countries today were faced with two types of seed systems. On one hand there were farmers’ seed systems that allowed farmers to grow food in a way that responded and adapted to change, making communities stronger and food systems more resilient. On the other hand, there were commodity seed systems, which were dedicated to the reproduction of homogenous varieties, and depended on chemical inputs. The legal problem could be solved if all Member States enacted farmers’ rights into national legislation and prioritised the national and international support of farmers’ seed systems.
In interim remarks, Mr. Fakhri said the global food crisis had begun long ago, before the pandemic, when things got worse. The issue was not this or that conflict: the international community was going to see more violence. The challenge had grown over the last two years: there was a global food crisis, but no global response. There should be a global, coordinated, multilateral response to this crisis.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers highlighted the need to protect farmers rights, more particularly small farmers and indigenous farmers. Concerns were expressed about the impact of climate change, land degradation and water pollution. The right to food was closely linked to the right to life. Concerns were expressed about the fact that 3 billion people in the world could not enjoy a healthy diet. Other speakers underlined that flourishing and resistant seed systems as well as food sovereignty were vital.
Speaking in the discussion on the right to food were the European Union, Norway on behalf of the Nordic-Baltic countries, Cuba, Sovereign Order of Malta, Cuba, Nepal, Angola, Djibouti, Malaysia, Iraq, France, Venezuela, Maldives, China, Luxemburg, India, Namibia, Lesotho, Pakistan and Russian Federation.
The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s forty-ninth regular session can be found here.
The Council will next meet at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will conclude its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and will then hold a panel discussion on the rights of persons with disabilities, focusing on statistics and data collection under article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Documentation
The Council has before it (A/HRC/49/52), report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities entitled the rights of persons with disabilities, including a thematic study on artificial intelligence and the rights of persons with disabilities .
Presentation of the Report
GERARD QUINN, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, said his report gathered together the balance of risks as well as opportunities presented by artificial intelligence in the context of the rights of persons with disabilities. On the plus side, the Special Rapporteur said, artificial intelligence could meaningfully drive forward the search for inclusive development in favour of persons with disabilities. Many business developers of the technology were alert to this positive potential and worked collaboratively with persons with disabilities in developing their products and services. On the negative side of the ledger, the predicates that underpinned the algorithms that drove artificial intelligence could reflect and embed ableist assumptions. Persons with facial disfigurement, for example, may find themselves shunned to one side as presumptively untrustworthy. Such persons may be ruled out of consideration for employment without ever considering their merits and whether a ‘reasonable accommodation’ might assist in enabling them to perform the essential functions of a job. The prospect, therefore, of challenging such behaviour was practically zero. The core question posed by this analysis was how humanity could harness the positive potential of artificial intelligence whilst mitigating its known (and often unknowable) impacts on persons with disabilities?
In conclusion, the Special Rapporteur said that his report proposed a way forward to get the best from the technology whilst avoiding the worst. He called on States to include disability within their national artificial intelligence strategies, to take care to ensure that anti-discrimination law was not undermined, and to ensure that the crucial obligation of ‘reasonable accommodation’ continued to apply throughout and that public procurement policies explicitly took disability into account when purchasing or commissioning artificial intelligence products and services. He further called for maximum transparency in artificial intelligence product design and application and called on the business community to directly involve persons with disabilities in assessing risks (and opportunities). Most importantly, he called for a new space – a collaborative space – between the corporate sector, Government and civil society – to work through and realise the positive benefits of the technology and to take active steps to reverse some of its known negative impacts and to avoid such impacts in the future.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, speakers welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur which comprehensively highlighted the intersectionality of disability and artificial intelligence. It was of utmost importance to bring these debates to the national level in order for progress of technology to be harvested properly and in order not to leave anyone behind. “Nothing about you without us”, the motto of the disability movement, should be taken into account as disability inclusion helped make societies more resilient. Persons with disabilities needed to live barrier free lives. Evidence suggested that bias could be unintentionally introduced in artificial intelligence and could therefore exacerbate already existing discriminations. It was necessary to support initiatives and projects that supported the capacity of persons with disabilities to participate in the digital economy as well as develop digital infrastructures that aimed to use artificial intelligence with guidelines that included ethical aspects. Artificial intelligence presented opportunities to promote human rights and artificial intelligence systems should be human centred and promote diversity. One speaker regretted that the theme of the report was far removed from the reality of millions of people in the world who did not even have access to water and food, let alone digital technology. Artificial intelligence was still very fancy for many developing countries and it was better to prioritise the rights of persons with disabilities in sectors that were impacting their daily lives.
Speakers considered innovation as a transformative force and raised awareness on the need to consider the obligations arising from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Other speakers highlighted the necessity to pay attention to those with multiple intersecting identities, as for example one in five women experienced some form of disability. Due to the gender gap, women, girls and non-binary people were more at risk. Promoting more women and particularly those with multiple intersecting identities would lead to a more inclusive world. Speakers also mentioned that 80 per cent of people with disabilities were living in low income countries and often experienced stigma, marginalisation and discriminations, as well as a higher rate of unemployment and poverty. They were less likely to participate in training and had access to assisted technology services. Calls were made for the mainstreaming of human rights of persons with disabilities in all aspects of life as well as the anticipation of the implications of new technologies such as artificial intelligence on the rights of persons with disabilities. Business needed to establish rules in the area of human rights that would consider the rights of persons with disabilities when developing digital tools. Persons with disabilities should be given the possibility to fully share the life of society and employment as well as follow academic studies. Universal access to education was to take into account the rights of persons with disabilities.
Concluding Remarks
GERARD QUINN, Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, said as all were aware, the fourth industrial revolution was well underway. Change happened, and what mattered was how to regulate it, frame it, and channel it for useful purposes. There was a need for a positive balance of the technology with the known and unknown risks. The sheer breadth and extent and transformative application of the new technology was amazing, offering unparalleled opportunities to leapfrog obstacles in development. The technology could help bridge the urban/rural divide across the world. There were also applications in the humanitarian context. The technology could be used to transform government services in the twenty-first century and genuinely personalise them, with great impact on community living, moving away from coercion in the mental health field.
The international community could do three things: there was a genuine lack of inclusive design right at the beginning of the design of goods using artificial intelligence, and there was a need for increased cooperation between the designers and civil society, requiring an upscale on both sides to improve cooperation, which should be done intersectionally; to turn it around, and instead of using the technology to short-circuit the search for reasonable accommodation, designers should be challenged to find reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities; and, third, to balance intellectual property rights, which kept the algorithms hidden, with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. On what the United Nations and regional organizations could do, what could be done was to try and make available existing platforms on business and human rights, to bring together in a much more intentional dialogue civil society, business organizations, and others, in order to create a better situation in an inter-sectional context.
Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
Documentation
The Council has before it a report (A/HRC/49/43) on seeds, right to life, and farmer’s rights by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
Presentation of Report
MICHAEL FAKHRI, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said for over 10,000 years, seeds had always been something sacred and central to human lives. For over 10,000 years, farmers’ seed systems had been the key to ensuring that food systems were biodiverse, resilient and just. The type of seed system supported would determine the ability to tackle hunger, famine and malnutrition. The more ecologically diverse the food system, the more options there were when it came to develop plants that were resilient to climate change. Unfortunately, in the last 60 years, more and more countries had been promoting the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and reduced their biodiversity, and countries today were faced with two types of seed systems. On one hand, there were farmers’ seed systems, systems that fulfilled people’s right to life and the right to food. Farmers’ seed systems allowed farmers to grow food in a way that responded and adapted to change, making communities stronger and food systems more resilient. These systems relied less on chemical fertilizers and pesticides and therefore protected the lives of agricultural workers and communities, and enhanced biodiversity.
On the other hand, there were commodity seed systems, which were dedicated to the reproduction of homogenous varieties, and depended on chemical inputs. Four agrochemical companies controlled 60 per cent of the global seed market and 75 per cent of the global pesticides market, meaning that a small number of companies unfairly controlled the price and distribution of seeds. The increasing use of pesticides also harmed the health and safety of agricultural workers, farmers and communities. Each type of seed system was associated with a different legal regime, that may be contradictory, because farmers’ seed systems ensured seeds were free and commodity seed systems turned seeds into property. The legal problem could be solved if all Member States enacted farmers’ rights into national legislation and prioritised the national and international support of farmers’ seed systems. If seed systems were protected by fully realising farmers’ and workers’ rights, by framing everything in terms of the right to life, blessings would be brought to the land during these violent times.
Discussion
In the ensuing discussion, speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for his report and highlighted the need to protect farmers’ rights, more particularly small farmers and indigenous farmers. Concerns were expressed about the impact of climate change, land degradation and water pollution on farmers' rights. The right to food allowed for the enjoyment of other human rights. The right to food was closely linked to the right to life and the human rights of farmers to the diversity of the global seed systems and agro-ecology. Concerns were expressed about the fact that 3 billion people in the world could not enjoy a healthy diet. Hunger and inadequate access to food could be the cause and consequence of conflicts. Concerns were expressed regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact it would have on hunger in the world. Speakers reaffirmed their commitment to support farmers’ rights and expressed concerns about the use of pesticides. Flourishing and resistant seed systems as well as food sovereignty were vital. Agriculture had been highlighted as one of the biggest sectors of developing economies. The development of rural economies was vital for the economies of the global south. Farmers needed to be the owners of the agricultural heritage they had. The importance of the Sustainable Development Goal two was highlighted. The biodiversity of the global seed system was vital. Concerns were expressed at the state of global food security as it was deemed not encouraging.
Interim Remarks
MICHAEL FAKHRI, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, said he wanted to address why seeds were central to the issue of the right to food and human rights in general; the relationship between the two different treaties; what countries could do; and the issue of the global food prices that the world had found itself in for at least the last three years. Concerning seeds, there were a number of human rights instruments coming out from the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council reaffirming farmers’ rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, and workers’ rights. Without these people guarding the seeds, all would go hungry. Seeds were essential to the issue of human rights. Thus seeds were vital to the rights of all. There were two treaties: the Treaty on Plants and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, often called the International Plant Treaty, and the International Convention on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. They might be complementary, but the way they were implemented today was in contrast, with many countries pressured to prioritise the latter first. He recommended that countries start prioritising the International Plant Treaty first.
Right now, the system was upside down. Farmer’s rights meant that people had the rights to freely save, use and exchange seeds: without this right, food systems would collapse. Local seed libraries were vital: they allowed local communities to share and save their seeds, and there should be free exchange and sharing between communities in different countries. There were a number of international organizations that were well-positioned to support this, and with increasing climate change, these exchanges were even more important. The global food crisis had begun long ago, before the pandemic, when things got worse. The issue was not this or that conflict: the international community was going to see more violence. The challenge had grown over the last two years: there was a global food crisis, but no global response. There should be a global, coordinated, multilateral response to this crisis. He hoped that at his next report, all would appreciate and understand that without immediate cooperation in solidarity, the issue was going to get even worse. There would be increased conflict over the next few years, and farmers should be supported in this regard. Wars and conflicts did end, but without long-term and medium-term thinking, there would be permanent damage to agricultural systems. The trade regime had proven to be very brittle, and should be discussed at all levels, including the Human Rights Council, and all should be thinking about what would be a new trade regime that would serve food systems, not food systems serving markets.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
HRC22.028E