HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES REPORTS FROM EXPERTS ON RIGHT TO FOOD, SAFE DRINKING WATER AND ADEQUATE HOUSING

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed reports presented by Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food; Catarina de Albuquerque, Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to safe drinking water and sanitation; and Raquel Rolnik, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context. At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its panel discussion on the right to food.

Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presenting his report, said donor States should make measurable progress towards contributing to the full realization of human rights by Governments in developing countries, by maintaining and increasing levels of aid; providing aid on the basis of an objective assessment of the identified needs in developing countries; respecting their commitments to provide certain levels of aid at a specific time and in a given period; fully respecting the principle of ownership in their development cooperation policies by aligning those policies with national strategies for the realization of the right to food defined with the participation of national parliaments and civil society; and promoting the right to food as a priority of development cooperation where hunger or malnutrition were significant problems, and with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

Catarina de Albuquerque, Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to safe drinking water and sanitation, presenting her first report to the Human Rights Council, said she had three tasks to carry out as Independent Expert - first, to identify, promote and exchange views on best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and, in that regard, to prepare a compendium of best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; second to undertake a study on the further clarification of the content of human rights obligations, including non-discrimination obligations, in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; and third to make recommendations that could help the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular Goal 7.

Raquel Rolnik, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, presenting her first report to the Human Rights Council, said that the recent housing and mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial crisis had been at the forefront of the media and international attention. The financial crisis was not only an issue in developed countries, it had and it would increasingly affect the developing countries and those that had already been hard-hit by food and energy price increases. While political discussions and bail-outs to save the financial system were ongoing, she believed that it was important to consider the linkage of the crisis with human rights, especially with the right to adequate housing, and to look at the causes of the crisis and avoid repeating the same mistakes in any new national and global agenda.

Canada, Maldives and the World Trade Organization spoke as concerned countries and parties.

In the interactive dialogue, speakers raised several issues, including the negative impact of the economic and financial crisis on global food prices; the role of trade and trade distortion; the volatility of food prices and international cooperation in support of the fight against hunger; the unintended consequences of food aid; the liberalisation of food markets; South-South trade as a tool for development; linkages between the access to safe drinking water and to sanitation; the impact of the recognition of the right to water in the national legal systems on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; and additional challenges to adequate housing due to the economic and financial crisis.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue were Indonesia, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Qatar, Philippines, Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Nigeria, Germany, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Uruguay, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, Venezuela and Yemen on behalf of the Arab Group.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its panel discussion on the realization of the right to food. Speakers raised a number of issues, including how the hardest hit by the food crisis had been the poorest. They supported what the Special Rapporteur on the right to food said that the right to adequate food could not be fulfilled by any State in isolation.

The five panelists: Paul Nicholson, of La Via Campesina; Andrea Carmen, of International Indian Treaty Council; David Nabarro, Coordinator of the Secretary-General's High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis; Jean Ziegler, Member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee; and Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, made concluding remarks at the end of the discussion.

Speaking in the panel discussion were Turkey, Tunisia, Republic of Korea and Morocco. The Indian Council of South America and the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations also took the floor.

Sudan exercised its right of reply.

The Council is scheduled to conclude its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the Independent Expert on access to safe drinking water and sanitation and the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing when its meets at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 10 March. It will then start its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances.


Continuation of Panel Discussion on Realization of the Right to Food

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said Turkey believed that all necessary measures should be taken to ensure the realisation of the right to food as an essential human rights objective. The food crisis had affected millions of people - unfortunately, those hardest hit had been the poorest and the efforts towards the realisation of the right to food had been undermined. As stated by the Special Rapporteur, the right to adequate food could not be fulfilled by any State in isolation. All States had a responsibility to respect, protect and fulfil the right to food for their own populations. The global measures that had to be taken for protecting and promoting the right to food should also provide States with the flexibility to look after their agricultural producers whose livelihoods could be threatened.

According to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States should not only abstain from taking measures that had a negative impact on the right to food in other countries, but also needed to adopt positive measures in order to protect and fulfil the right to food abroad. The recommendations of the Special Rapporteur in his report on the role of development cooperation and food aid in realising the right to adequate food could be duly considered for identifying the most adequate positive measures. The outcome of the panel should contribute to the identification of possible new ways and means of strengthening the protection and promotion of the right to food.

MOHAMED CHAGRAOUI (Tunisia) said that all observers agreed that the most vulnerable were most affected by the negative effects of the economic and financial crisis and the increase in food prices. The presentations of the panelists this morning shed fresh light on the question showing that hunger and volatility were two facets of the same phenomenon, which was financial speculation. This fact called on the international community and all stakeholders to double their efforts in order to guarantee the right to food and the right to decent life. The guarantee of the right to food was certainly a major challenge in national politics. In this vein, Tunisia did not stop to undertake measures in order to reach self-sufficiency.

As a measure to meet the growing need of food, Tunisia had provided considerable financial resources to the rural zones and had protected long-term the sources of food. The implementation of a social protection mechanism called Caisse Generale de Compensation had as an objective to intervene on prices that were considered basic foods. This mechanism contributed substantially to the State’s efforts to promote and protect the right to food. Tunisia was working towards guaranteeing the right to development in a durable and holistic way.

H.A. WIE-YOUNG (Republic of Korea) welcomed the distinguished panellists and expressed the appreciation of the Republic of Korea for their thought-provoking presentations. The Republic of Korea believed that today’s panel discussion would enrich the current international dialogue on seeking solutions to the crisis. In particular, it was noted that the panellists had emphasized the centrality of a need-based approach in food aid with the active participation of people as beneficiaries and of civil society organizations in effectively coping with the crisis. It was also interesting to hear Mr. De Schutter’s suggestion of introducing the re-insurance mechanism in food aid so as to encourage developing countries to focus on setting up social security nets. The Government of the Republic of Korea had exerted its utmost efforts to do its part in overcoming the crisis. Most of all, with its first-hand knowledge of agricultural development, the Republic of Korea planned to extend its assistance in various areas, including farming infrastructure, agriculture technology, and coherent policy-making.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said the Human Rights Council was determined to seek the conditions that ensured the right to food for all - the lack of which was a source of suffering for millions. The true exercise of the right to food continued to depend on the conditions required for a healthy social climate. Food aid and development cooperation should help in this regard. The Special Rapporteur had identified donors and partners who could help guide international cooperation towards the best exercise of the right to food. Effective implementation of the right to food was essential.

Morocco had made agricultural and food security a national priority, with a range of measures and provisions aimed at ensuring this and with a view to reducing poverty, exclusion and starvation. The rapid development of Moroccan agriculture should ensure sufficient means for food production. Food prices should also be controlled, and the agricultural prices sector controlled.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South America, said that a discussion on the right to food had to take into account the right of indigenous peoples. There were already a series of rights in place to bar the territory of indigenous peoples from exploitation, for example through mining or nuclear testing. For example depleted uranium missiles had devastating effects on fishing and agriculture. Further, oil spills would damage agriculture in South America. The Indian Council of South America suggested that the Council took up this topic for discussion.

Mr. RICHIE,of Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO), said that they were committed to food security. Food security only existed when all peoples, at all times had physical access to food that met their dietary needs. They requested that Governments substantially increased their investments in the sector of agriculture, to strengthen the position of small landholders, to stop the non-sustainable import of products grown far away and of genetically modified products, and to enhance the use of local and indigenous agriculture knowledge, practices, and inputs.

Paul Nicholson, of Organization via Campesina, responding to these questions and others, said there was a general consensus that the world was faced with a financial crisis, a climate crisis, and a food crisis, and those could not be tackled separately, on a sectoral basis. This was a crisis which affected everything. It was also an opportunity and there was a need to change the paradigms in coming up with solutions. Free trade and technological innovations would not find the solution. It was time to take up the challenge of changing those policies, introducing new policies and paradigms to save the planet and better manage natural resources.

It was time to face up to what the food crisis and the climate crisis actually meant: small agriculture fed the world. The globe was being devastated and only fair and lasting distribution would solve the problems of hunger and of climate change. There was no solution based on more biotechnology and more trade. Free trade meant excluding peasant farmers, generating more hunger and a totally unsustainable society. Family form agriculture was feeding the world and helping to solve climate change problems. The international community should help the peasants and family farmers of the world.

ANDREA CARMEN, of the International Indian Treaty Council, one of the panellists, in concluding remarks, thanked the Council because it attached importance to discussing the right to food from the perspective of indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples could be a key part of the solution; they were not an impediment to a rights-based approach. Taking bio-fuels as an example for a so-called market-based solution, whose impact had in fact had an exacerbating effect on the food crisis, Ms. Carmen noted that it was a good example to show what happened if a solution was not human rights based. Durable solutions could be implemented on a state, regional and global level. Taking her tribe as an example, she mentioned that it had been victim of the use of pesticides. The tribe could not live anymore from their traditional farming and that was why 80 per cent of her tribe was now affected by diabetes because the diet they were now getting was not appropriate.

DAVID NABARRO, Coordinator with the Secretary-General’s High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis, one of the panellists, in response to questions and comments made during the discussion on the right to food, said that the panel heard from a number of Member States about a range of activities adopted by Governments to address problems faced by the food crisis, which also included reference to international and regional agendas. Norway and Switzerland, suggested the work on the right to food was addressing new ideas which needed to be considered. On behalf of the Task Force, and the Secretary-General, he appreciated what was said. There would need to be a more imaginative and critical response to questions of the right to food. The Task Force sought to work in partnership with States, civil society and other stakeholders to address those comments and looked forward to doing so in the coming months.

JEAN ZIEGLER, Member of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, speaking in his personal capacity as one of the panellists, said the true number of victims was much higher than the extrapolation raised from Millennium Development Goal number one. The situation was far more dramatic than one would believe. It was true that Tunisia and Morocco had an agricultural policy which gave priority to food self-sufficiency from a budgetary point of view, but in the past there had been International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural readjustment programmes that had caused riots. These countries were strong if they could resist the IMF - and it was not the case for many other, weaker countries, where structural adjustment programmes were still being imposed. The figures were quite clear - everywhere there was an IMF structural adjustment programme, hunger increased, due to the inherent logic of the way in which the foreign debt was managed. With debt servicing, the only way progress could be made was to export. Plantation agriculture was the only one favoured by the IMF, and this led to enormous distortion, including the need for agricultural countries to import the majority of their own food, when they were perfectly able, were there no imposition of policies, to feed their own people.

The IMF needed to radically renounce its structural adjustment programmes if the right to food was to be guaranteed. The structural adjustment programmes needed to be dropped. There was a need for a total, immediate prohibition for States to buy future certificates in goods, which would take the need for speculation away from them. Buying futures killed children. With sovereignty and standardisation, this would no longer be the case.

OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, one of the panellists, said in concluding remarks that the High Level Task Force and he had very well worked together. The statement of the Secretary-General in Madrid had very well recognized the need of coordinated response. It was encouraging that institutions such as the World Food Programme were taking into account the right to food in a very much more operational way. As the global food crisis began, they had been reacting to the spike of prices by fearing this increase and therefore increasing production. High prices were a problem, mainly because prices were volatile and because the poorest could not afford food. But the main problem was not high prices, but the lacking purchasing power of the poor. There needed to be bargaining power of small stakeholders, the right of workers needed to be reformed and they had to reinforce legal protection and give access to production means, such as water, credit and input. Regarding access to land, Mr. Schutter said that he was working with various partners on issues such as adequate housing, water and sanitation in order to develop answers to the problems peasants were currently facing.

Reports on the Right to Food, Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Right to Adequate Housing

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter on the role of development cooperation and food aid in realizing the right to adequate food: moving from charity to obligation (A/HRC/10/5 and Add.1 and 2), which examines the contribution of development cooperation and food aid to the realization of the right to food. Development cooperation and food aid increasingly form a continuum ranging from interventions aimed at providing long-term support for food security to short-term answers to emergency situations. Both of these policies have been under increased scrutiny in recent years, and both are in need of reform. The report makes a number of suggestions on how to reorient such policies by better integrating a perspective grounded in the human right to adequate food at three levels: in the definition of the obligations of donor States; in the identification of the tools on which these policies rely; and in the evaluation of such policies, with a view to their continuous improvement. At its core, a human rights approach turns what has been a bilateral relationship between donor and partner into a triangular relationship, in which the ultimate beneficiaries of these policies play an active role. Seeing the provision of foreign aid as a means to fulfil the human right to adequate food has concrete implications, which assume that donor and partner Governments are duty-bearers, and beneficiaries are rights holders.

A first addendum to the report contains, on a country-by-country basis, summaries of communications alleging violations of the right to food and related rights worldwide, including urgent appeals, allegation letters and follow-up, for the period 5 December 2007 to 5 December 2008 and the responses received until 6 February 2009. It looks at situations in Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Colombia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ethiopia, French Guyana, India, Iraq, Italy, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Niger, Panama, Peru, Philippines as well as with regard to two transnational corporations – the Syngenta Company and to ITM-Mining Angola.

A second addendum contains a report on the mission of the Special Rapporteur to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and explores the relationship between agreements concluded under the framework of the WTO, particularly the Agreement on Agriculture, and the obligation of the Members of the WTO to respect the human right to adequate food. If trade is to work for development and to contribute to the realization of the right to adequate food, it needs to recognize the specificity of agricultural products, rather than to treat them as any other commodities, and to allow more flexibilities to developing countries, particularly in order to shield their agricultural producers from the competition from industrialized countries’ farmers. Main impacts of the current multilateral trade regime on the right to food include increased dependency on international trade; potential abuses of market power in increasingly concentrated global food supply chains and further dualization of the domestic farming sector; and potential impacts on the environment and on human health and nutrition. The report proposes ways to reconcile trade with the right to food and invites States to assess the impacts of trade agreements on the right to food and ensure they do not accept undertakings under the WTO framework that are incompatible with right-to-food obligations.

The Council has before it the report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (A/HRC/10/6), which reviews the history leading up to the establishment of the mandate of the independent expert, and notes meetings already held with various stakeholders to discuss matters related to the mandate. In particular, it explains that the independent expert intends to take a thematic approach to her mandate, focusing on different themes each year, with the first year concentrated on sanitation. The independent expert provides a brief overview of the problem of lack of access to sanitation and its connection to other human rights violations. She also announces her hope to hold two consultations in 2009, one focused on elaborating the normative content of human rights obligations related to access to sanitation, and one focused on developing criteria for identifying good practices with regard to the human rights obligations related to water and sanitation and indicates her desire to present a deeper analysis of the issues identified in this report in her next report to the Council.

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Raquel Rolnik (A/HRC/10/7 and Adds.1-4), which looks at the consequences of certain economic, financial and housing policies that have seriously impacted the right to adequate housing in the past decades and have contributed to the present crisis. A first chapter discusses the housing/mortgage and financial crisis. A second chapter relates these crises to prevalent economic, financial and housing policy approaches and their impact on the right to adequate housing. The report finds that globalization of the housing and real estate finance markets and economic adjustment policies have meant that cities have become unaffordable for inhabitants of lower-income - and increasingly middle-income - groups. In the majority of countries, the market has become the regulating institution, while the role of the State in the management of public housing has generally decreased. This has contributed to strengthening the perception of housing as a mere commodity and a financial asset, neglecting other dimensions of the right to adequate housing and negatively impacting on the enjoyment of human rights for all. The Special Rapporteur believes that these crises provide an opportunity to reflect on the current housing system and the adoption of a human rights-based approach, to introduce changes to make the system sustainable and allow the provision of adequate housing for all. Among recommendations are that human rights-based public housing policies be adopted which support access to adequate housing by different means, including through the development of new financial mechanisms and tenure arrangements.

A first addendum to the report contains, on a country-by-country basis, summaries of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur to States, responses received from States, observations of the Special Rapporteur for the period from 5 December 2007 to 5 December 2008 and replies received for the period from 24 January 2008 to 6 February 2009. During that period, the Special Rapporteur sent a total of 34 communications concerning the right to adequate housing to 25 States, for which 17 replies were received from Governments. A large number of the communications relate to forced evictions, and it is noted that, in the majority of cases, State authorities carrying out evictions appear completely unaware of their human rights obligations, in particular the need for assessing the impact of evictions on individual and communities, the need to consider eviction only as a last resort, meaningful consultation with affected communities, adequate prior notification and adequate relocation and compensation.

Addendum two assesses the status of implementation of recommendations elaborated by the former Special Rapporteur in the framework of country missions undertaken in 2002 and 2003 to Afghanistan, Mexico, Peru and Romania. For each country, the Special Rapporteur presents a summary of information received from the Government as well as of information received from United Nations entities and non-governmental organizations and formulates some recommendations based on the analysis of the information received. The report concludes with general observations, including that actors dealing with issues related to the right to adequate housing, including public officials and institutions, United Nations agencies and international organizations and donors, continue to work without applying a rights-based approach and ignoring the right to adequate housing in their activities, planning and programmes.

A third addendum is the report of the Special Rapporteur’s mission to Canada, from 9 to 22 October 2007, focusing on four areas: homelessness; women and their right to adequate housing; Aboriginal populations; adequate housing and the possible impact of the 2010 Olympic Games on the right to adequate housing in Vancouver. The report acknowledges the State’s historically successful social housing programmes and commends a number of good practices. Recommendations include the need to commit to a comprehensive national housing strategy with stable and long-term funding; the need to address the situation of Aboriginals in and off reserves through a comprehensive and coordinated housing strategy and to refrain from any actions that could contravene the rights of Aboriginal peoples on Aboriginal land under claim until a settlement has been reached; and the need to ensure equitable representation of all indigenous women in modern-day treaty negotiations and agreements.

Addendum four is a preliminary report on the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Maldives from 18 to 25 February 2009 to examine the impact of climate change on the right to adequate housing and the achievements and difficulties encountered in the post-tsunami reconstruction process. It posits that climate change has aggravated and will further amplify some of the problems linked with Maldives characteristics, including land scarcity and vulnerability to natural phenomena, and notes the already existing overcrowding and land scarcity in Male and some islands impedes the realization of the right to adequate housing of many. Moreover, the authorities have, in some case, pursued “consolidation” strategies, consisting in concentrating inhabitants of less populated islands in one island to achieve economies of scale, whereas other alternatives to displacement of entire communities, sometimes against their will, may be possible. Among preliminary recommendations are that internationally funded studies, internal capacity building and innovative approaches are required to allow the design of adequate housing and infrastructure as well as of climate change adaptation programmes and projects. The Authorities and private contractors are also urged to take immediate measures to improve the housing and living conditions of international migrants.

Presentations of Reports on the Right to Food, Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Right to Adequate Housing

OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presenting his annual report (A/HRC/10/5 and Add.1 and 2), said that it focused on the role of the right to food in development cooperation policies, and in the organization of food aid, particularly through the Food Aid Convention. The Food and Agriculture Organization now considered that governance and the right to food should constitute the third track of its efforts to combat hunger, in addition to providing emergency help in times of crisis and to promoting investment in agriculture. Development cooperation and food aid had traditionally been seen as purely voluntary – as a form of charity. Human rights considerations had not in the past been guiding the design and implementation of those policies. Adopting a human rights approach required a fundamental change of perspective. At its core, such an approach turned what had been a bilateral relationship between the donor and partner into a triangular relationship, in which the ultimate beneficiaries of those policies played an active role. Seeing the provision of foreign aid as a means to fulfil the human right to adequate food had concrete implications, which assumed that donor and partner Governments were duty-bearers, and beneficiaries were rights-holders. That not only improved the legitimacy of such aid; it also improved its effectiveness.

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness had been adopted in 2005 as an attempt to improve the quality of aid. In September 2008 the third High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness had reviewed the Paris Declaration and adopted an Agenda for Action that aimed to accelerate and deepen its implementation. The commitments contained in the Paris Declaration focused on five principles: national ownership, alignment, harmonization, the management of conditions established by donors, and mutual responsibility. Those principles marked a shift from donor-driven to needs-driven aid strategies, and emphasized the need for evaluating the performance of both donors – particularly with regard to harmonization and predictability of aid – and their partners. The Paris Declaration could be further concretized if placed under a human rights framework, Mr. De Schutter stressed.

Among his recommendations to donor States were that they should make measurable progress towards contributing to the full realization of human rights by Governments in developing countries by maintaining and increasing levels of aid; that aid be provided on the basis of an objective assessment of the identified needs in developing countries; that they respect their commitments to provide certain levels of aid at a specific time and in a given period; that they fully respect the principle of ownership in their development of cooperation policies by aligning those policies with national strategies for the realization of the right to food defined with the participation of national parliaments and civil society; and that they promote the right to food as a priority of development cooperation where hunger or malnutrition were significant problems, and with a focus on the most vulnerable groups. Consistent with the principle of mutual accountability and with their own obligations towards the right to food, States receiving official development assistance should also ensure that aid contributed to the full realization of the right to food, which could be greatly facilitated by the adoption of national strategies, Mr. De Schutter concluded.

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to safe drinking water and sanitation, presenting her first report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/10/6), said the report traced events behind the creation of the mandate. She had three tasks to carry out as Independent Expert: first, to identify, promote and exchange views on best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and, in that regard, to prepare a compendium of best practices related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; second, to undertake a study on the further clarification of the content of human rights obligations, including non-discrimination obligations, in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation; and, third, to make recommendations that could help the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular Goal 7 (on ensuring environmental sustainability).

Ms. de Albuquerque said the report also indicated her intention to focus on sanitation in the first year of her mandate. The international community had not done enough to address the sanitation crisis. Historically, sanitation had been viewed as a lower priority than water supply, and had attracted less investment in international development assistance. That fatal under-prioritization had resulted in the loss of millions of lives each year. Part of the reason for that was the taboo surrounding the issue – the topic was unpopular and unmentionable. Starting with a focus on sanitation should contribute to putting that vital matter on the international human rights agenda and to reversing this tragic trend.

Sanitation, could, in fact, be related to human rights in at least three different ways, Ms. de Albuquerque observed. Lack of access to sanitation had dire consequences for a series of human rights, especially the right to health, the right to education and the right to adequate housing. Improved sanitation, which ensured separation of waste from human contact, was crucial. Lack of sanitation was also frequently a consequence of larger societal discrimination, inequality and exclusion, fundamentally inconsistent with human rights protection. Lack of access to sanitation constituted, in itself, a serious human rights concern, as it was related to the inherent dignity of the human being. Sanitation was, in fact, a matter of human rights. Of course, that the Special Rapporteur would pay special attention to sanitation in 2009 did not mean that she would disregard water – there were inextricable links between the two, and public policies for water and sanitation had to be seen as part of an integrated strategy.

RAQUEL ROLNIK, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component on the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, presenting her first report to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/10/7 and Adds 1-4), said that the recent housing and mortgage crisis and the subsequent financial crisis had been at the forefront of the media and international attention. Late last year, she had decided to devote her annual thematic report to this question as little had been said on their global impact on the right to adequate housing. The financial crisis was not only an issue in developed countries, it had and it would increasingly affect the developing countries and those that had already been hard-hit by food and energy price increases. While political discussions and bail-outs to save the financial system were ongoing, she believed that it was important to consider the linkage of the crisis with human rights, especially with the right to adequate housing, and to look at the causes of the crisis and avoid repeating the same mistakes in any new national and global agenda.

One of the fundamental errors had been to consider housing only as a commodity and an investment asset. While the Council might clearly see the various human rights aspects of housing, the actual decision-makers in this field had taken a wrong path: considered as a commodity, the provision of housing was left to the private market. The belief that markets could regulate the production of housing as the most rational means of resource allocation, as well as the growing role of investment in housing under a globally integrated financial system, had led public policies towards increasing State withdrawal. The result had been a significant reduction of national budgets and available public funds for housing, as well as their role in the promotion and creation on an enabling environment to attract national as well as international capital and foreign investments for real estate operations. That new role was far from being passive. It was an active role, which implied creating conditions, institutions and regulations aiming at supporting financial activities, Ms. Rolnik pointed out.

Governments had encouraged the accession of low-income households to homeownership with the dual idea of enhancing the financial assets of those households and reducing their reliance on Government aid. While that option might work to provide better security of tenure to some households, it also led to credits being attributed by the private sector to households that in normal circumstances would not be eligible for loans. The risk for private companies had not only increased, but low-income households were also made even more vulnerable to economic and financial changes. The fact that in some cases members of certain communities were additionally confronted with less favourable conditions for a mortgage, when one was obtained, aggravated their vulnerability. Those groups had been more exposed to unethical private actors’ behaviour, such as he so-called predatory lending. Ms. Rolnik reiterated that markets alone could not provide adequate housing for all. Moreover, the economic and financial crisis should not constitute an excuse for not respecting and fulfilling States’ human rights obligations both at international and national level.

Statements by Concerned Countries and Parties

DANIEL OLMER (Canada), speaking as a concerned country on the right to adequate housing, thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing for her report which focused on the global economic and financial crisis and its impact on housing. However, their remarks were limited to the addendum report of the previous Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Miloon Kothari, whose mission to Canada had taken place in October 2007. During his visit, he had met with federal and provincial Government officials, as well as representatives from civil society, including community based housing and homelessness service providers and aboriginal groups. Despite Canada’s overall satisfaction with the Special Rapporteur’s visit, it was important to note that the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights allowed States a margin of flexibility in determining precisely how they would implement its provisions. Canada disagreed with the Special Rapporteur’s assertion that, in all cases, States had to explicitly legislate the right to housing at all levels of Government.

Within Canada’s federal system, housing was a shared jurisdiction between federal, provincial, territorial and municipal Governments. Canada faced a number of housing-related challenges and was working hard to respond to them. The Government believed that the report did not sufficiently take into account the strength of Canada’s commitment to housing and the number of substantial investments the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal Governments made to address the housing needs of Canada.

ZHAZRA ABDUL SATTAR (Maldives), speaking as a concerned country, said, with regard to the Preliminary Note by the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, the Government warmly welcomed that note, which came at a crucial time for Maldives. Reform of the housing sector remained one of the urgent priorities of the new, democratic Government of Maldives. It also remained the single biggest challenge. Climate change posed a grave threat to the provision of adequate housing to the people of Maldives. Coastal erosion, tidal swells and flooding was a reality for Maldivians.

In that regard, Maldives echoed the recommendations contained in the Special Rapporteur's Note, in particular the international responsibility to urgently support adaptation strategies for the impact of climate change. Maldives also called on its international partners to contribute to the unique environment of Maldives through funding of studies, capacity-building, and innovative approaches. The Government assured the Council that Maldives would continue to utilize available resources towards enhancing the housing sector, and was ready to engage with the international community and play its part. The Government was confident that the international community would continue to work with Maldives in addressing its key developmental challenges.

CLEMENS F. J. BOONEKAMP, of the World Trade Organization (WTO), speaking as a concerned party, said that there were many places where the WTO could agree with Mr. De Schutter. There was one place, where Mr. De Schutter was right on the mark: trade was a tool, it was to be pursued as a goal, not for its own sake. Trade was part of a policy package and could not do the job alone. That policy package had to include social policies geared to the needs of the people, including policies geared towards food security. In negotiations, 150 WTO members were all bringing their own packages to the table and what followed were laborious negotiations. Those policies were in accordance with their national interests.

The WTO could not, however, agree with Mr. De Schutter’s recommendation that countries should avoid excessive reliance on foreign imports, because it was hard to know what “excessive” meant. Volumes were not the issue, trade had to be a tool that promoted national goals, trade was not a goal in itself. The WTO had difficulties with the recommendation that States should control trade, since there were dispute-settlement systems in place that had worked very well.

Interactive Discussion on Reports on the Right to Food, Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, and Right to Adequate Housing

MOHAMMAD ATHO MUDZHAR (Indonesia) thanked the Special Rapporteur, Mr. De Schutter, for his report on the right to food. His report examined the contribution in which development cooperation and food aid made to the realization of the right to food. In that regard, Indonesia asked the Special Rapporteur what he considered to be the most important lesson learned with regard to international cooperation, as well as the results that could be expected to be seen in the near future following the global financial food crisis of 2007 and 2008? And especially what were his views given the steep drop in official development assistance for agriculture? Indonesia also thanked the Independent Expert for her concise report on the access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and encouraged her to continue her efforts to cohesively formulate international strategies that promoted the access to drinking water and sanitation.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group believed that the recommendations in the report on the right to food provided a valuable contribution to the discussion of the matter, and shared the views expressed by the Special Rapporteur on the obligation to provide aid. The universally agreed human rights law obligations, the Millennium Development Goals and the 2005 World Summit Outcome clearly established the responsibility of the international community in that regard.

It was of grave concern to the African Group to see the attention of the international community totally focused on the responsibility to protect while there was no serious discussion of the responsibility to assist. As for the potential impact of the emerging financial and economic crisis on the already escalating food crisis, the African Group would appreciate receiving an elaboration from the Special Rapporteur in this regard.

LI YAN (China) said that China fully supported the work of the Special Rapporteurs. China regarded safe drinking water as a priority that should have been solved by 2008. In the future, China would improve protection of drinking water sources and was ready to cooperate with Experts on the subject. The economic and financial crisis had greatly impacted on the real estate and housing market of China and the Government attached great importance to the subject for people of all income levels. China had undertaken special efforts to provide housing for low-income families in urban areas. Also, 30 billion yen had been allocated to be used for post-disaster rebuilding efforts after natural disasters.

AHMED SULEIMAN IBRAHIM ALAQUIL (Saudi Arabia) congratulated the Special Rapporteur on right to food for his report. Saudi Arabia supported the efforts of Mr. De Schutter, and was ready to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur to ensure that his mandate was successful. Saudi Arabia was convinced of the need to step-up efforts with regard to the right to food and food security. The Government was ready to provide assistance both at a bilateral and multilateral level to provide adequate food. Saudi Arabia in the past had donated a total of $24 billion dollars for food aid. In 2008, the Government had donated $500 million to the World Food Programme to deal with the world food crisis and also contributed financially to ensure the right to food. Saudi Arabia looked forward to the result of this session and to concrete positive measures aimed at addressing the right to food.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) thanked the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for his perseverance and dedication in carrying out his mandate. The right to food was of vital importance. The appeal to step up international cooperation in support of the fight against hunger was of particular importance. The Convention on Food Aid should be reviewed with the aim of contributing to world food security and providing an effective response to the world food crisis. That was a responsibility of the international community, in particular the industrialized countries which had benefited most from a world order of injustice and inequity.

The growing gap between countries of the North and South was contributing to the gravity of the food crisis. Assistance should not be subjected to conditions, commercial factors or political considerations. The food crisis had exacerbated the marginality and vulnerability of millions. To ensure the survival of the human species, changes needed to be made. Cuba would be, in the near future, presenting its draft resolution on the right to food, and would be holding consultations in that regard with a view to arriving at a text that contained the required responses to the huge challenges facing food security and the enjoyment of the right to food throughout the world.

KHALED AL AL-MALKI (Qatar) said, regarding the report on adequate housing, that Qatar supported the recommendation of giving more attention to the right to housing. It also agreed to the role that mortgage-based ownership had in contributing to the crisis, particularly for people with low incomes. The housing situation had been deteriorating because it had been left to the market to be regulated, without integrating the human rights dimension. Qatar fully supported what was said in the report related to the human rights dimensions and the right to housing. The Constitution of Qatar, which talked about housing and private ownership, said that nobody could deprive a citizen of that right. In addition, a law had been adopted in 2007 that granted land to be given for construction. The needs of divorced persons were addressed, and recently married couples had been taken into account as well. It also governed the right to ownership for foreign residents, who had the full right to house ownership.

JESUS ENRIQUE G. GARCIA (Philippines) thanked all three mandate holders for their reports and statements. The Philippines found it appropriate for the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to focus his report on the role of development cooperation and food aid on the realization of the right to food. Especially in times of emergencies caused by natural disasters, the timely delivery of food aid could make a great difference in alleviating the suffering of victims. The Philippines agreed that conditionalities tied to development cooperation could cause further burdens on developing countries and could prevent benefits from accruing to those most in need, especially if they were tied to interests of the private sector in donor countries.

The Philippines asked the Special Rapporteur if he had shared his views with the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the Asian Development Bank and other development organizations? With regard to the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, the Philippines asked for clarification as to what kind of Government actions she recommended that could effectively address the great demand for adequate housing in developing countries, especially in large metropolitan areas, where there could be millions of informal settlers.

JOELLE HIVONNET (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great importance to the right to food and welcomed the work the Special Rapporteur had done in that regard. The European Union agreed that the implementation of the right to food should be taken into account thoroughly when delivering international assistance and evaluation of the effectiveness of development efforts benefited from a human rights approach. The report emphasized that human rights standards created an international obligation for donors to provide aid and the Special Rapporteur should elaborate in detail as to how that obligation was created. Further, what could be done to increase the participation and ownership of the targeted communities? Also, what were the Special Rapporteur's views on countries that obstructed food aid due to political reasons and what did that mean for donors?

With regard to the report on the right to water and sanitation, access to safe drinking water and to sanitation were closely linked. How would the Special Rapporteur use her mandate to promote that link? Regarding the Millennium Development Goal on water and sanitation, all reports showed that that was far from being on track. Did the Special Rapporteur intend to undertake a specific assessment of what impact had resulted on the ground in terms of access to water and sanitation, and therefore of achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, when States had recognized a right to water in their national legal systems? Turning to the issue of housing, the European Union observed that the challenges to the realisation of the right to adequate housing existed well before the financial crisis. How would the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing describe the increased challenge when resources diminished in relation to national policies in distributing the available resources without discrimination and with a human rights perspective?

IMRAN AHMED SIDDIQUI (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said, regarding the right to food, that if food aid were not tailored to needs, it could create unintended consequences. It should be targeted to the most vulnerable segments of societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference would like to have the views of the Special Rapporteur on how the partnership envisioned in Millennium Development Goal 8 (develop a global partnership for development) could be effectively utilized towards achieving the right to food? Was there a relationship between the current economic and financial crisis and the effective realization of all human rights, particularly the right to food?

On the report on housing, the Organization of the Islamic Conference appreciated the Rapporteur’s approach of analysing the question of housing from the prism of the current economic and financial crisis. The importance of the crisis called for an assessment of its impact by all Special Rapporteurs on their respective mandates. The Islamic Conference agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s observation that markets alone were unable to achieve adequate housing. What was the Special Rapporteur’s view on the level of market intervention and regulation by the State in the housing market? Should that intervention be targeted at specific market segment or should it be in the form of general guiding principles and should the portfolio investment in housing market be opened to private capital?

IFEANYI NWOSU (Nigeria) endorsed the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African Group. Nigeria appreciated the report submitted by Mr. De Schutter on the right to food and the recommendations contained therein. The right to food was central to the right to development. Indeed, the right to food was at the centre of all human rights. The current global financial crisis had brought into light the lack of focus of the international community on the critical issue of the right to development. It was regrettable that hunger and poverty afflicted over 960 million people worldwide.

The global food crisis posed a serious challenge to the fight against hunger and poverty and therefore impeded efforts at attaining the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Against that background, Nigeria joined the Special Rapporteur on the right to food in calling on the international community to explore means of limiting the volatility of prices on the international commodities markets, particularly for tropical products, through commodity-stabilization agreements and the obligation to provide technical and technological know-how to the developing countries in their fight against agricultural impediments.

ANKA KONRAD (Germany), speaking on the report of the Independent Expert on access to safe drinking water and sanitation, remarked that water was one of the most fundamental needs of human beings and yet more than 1 billion people today lacked safe sources of drinking water and 2.5 billion people – almost 40 per cent of the world's population – lacked access to basic sanitation. Those conditions were inhuman and unacceptable to the international community. Germany supported the thematic approach of the Independent Expert and looked forward to the outcome of the clarification of the content of human rights obligations in relation to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, as well as the Independent Expert's recommendations that could help the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.

The Independent Expert should clarify her initial sense as to whether access to safe drinking water was to be considered a self-standing right, or a right derived from other human rights, Germany thought. Further, what were her views regarding precautions necessary to realize Millennium Development Goal 7, target three, which stated that by 2015 the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation should be reduced by half?

ROMAN KASHAEV (Russian Federation) welcomed the report on the right to food. In the recommendations to States and donors, the report said that the aid to be provided should be determined by the need of the recipient. How should those assessments be carried out? Regarding adequate housing, the Russian Federation thought that the role of the State in providing adequate housing should increase instead of decrease in an economic and financial crisis, such as the one they were witnessing right now.

NATALIE ERARD (Switzerland) said Switzerland already took into account the right to food in its development and aid cooperation strategies. The report on the right to food did not go into the role of other actors – such as receiving countries, among others – and as such Mr. De Schutter was asked what were the roles of different actors with regard to the right to food, development cooperation and food aid? Moreover, with regard to the Special Rapporteur’s mission to the World Trade Organization, and in particular with respect to international labour standards, was he planning to extend the study to include this aspect and, if so, Switzerland recommended that the International Labour Organization be consulted in that context.

Switzerland welcomed the inclusion of the question on sanitation as one that deserved attention. It was of the most forgotten of the Millennium Development Goals, and in the Independent Expert’s report on access to safe drinking water and sanitation it had been identified in many studies as allowing for significant return on investment with regard to health. With regard to report on adequate housing, Switzerland intended to look further into how one could improve the right to adequate housing.

MARIA LOURDES BONE (Uruguay) appreciated the report on the right to food. Lifting of restrictions on trade was certainly one of the responses to the food crisis – one could not imagine fighting this with less food trade, and this was why Uruguay supported Brazil's ideas, as elaborated this morning. Ensuring the right to food of an increasing world population was linked to a free and fair agricultural trade, which would include eliminating subsidies in developed countries. That would help the developing countries, allowing them better access to food. A balanced analysis showed the need to take into account the situation of developing countries that relied on agriculture to feed their people. In the last few decades, it could be seen that South-South trade would continue to be a tool for development.

The Independent Expert on water and sanitation was also thanked. Unrestricted access to water and sanitation was a fundamental human right, as its lack would fundamentally affect the population. In Uruguay this was recognized as a fundamental right and was included in Uruguay’s Constitution. The Administration was establishing a national sanitation plan, ensuring that the country had, for the first time ever, a national sanitation plan. It was important to create a compendium of good practices on access to water and sanitation. Uruguay was pleased to cooperate with the Independent Expert in the context of her mandate, and hoped for a visit this year if not next year.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said that mandate holders had to be committed to properly addressing human rights situations in view of the actual needs of the most needy. Unfortunately, the analysis of the right to food by the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council seemed to be suffering from critical problems of balance and a selective use of information. The difficulty of many countries in growing their own food was due to decades and sometime centuries of distortions in the international agricultural market. It was unacceptable to blame international trade negotiations for the challenges they faced regarding the realization of the right to food. For a long time now, the developing world had faced difficulties in the World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture due to the resistance posed by the developed world. That intolerable protectionism weakened and disorganized production in other countries, particularly the poorest. Those distortions had created dependency, when they had not simply dismantled entire production structures in developing countries. The concept of food security had been distorted by some to justify protectionist practices that harmed the countries that suffered from lack of food and economic options.

Food aid, whenever necessary, had to be complemented by productive cooperation and by opening new markets and opportunities. Brazil had always displayed its solidarity to the situation of net importing food countries. Brazil understood that there were cases that did require a particular form of support from the international community. They had to distinguish, however, between such cases and those in which countries had their potential ability to expand their production hampered by the unequal structures of international trade. They had to establish a fair and market-oriented trading system through a comprehensive reform to correct and prevent restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets.

JONATHAN KENNA (Australia) said that Australia remained concerned about the impact of food shortages and volatile food prices on the poor and vulnerable, particularly in developing countries. Australia had committed over 100 million Australian dollars since May 2008 to improve global food security in developing countries. The initiatives by the international community over the past year to develop practical measures to improve long-term global food security were welcome. It was important that Governments and international organizations continued to work together to address food security concerns.

Australia continued to work actively to improve global food security through development assistance; continued advocacy of trade and agricultural policy reform; and investments in improving agricultural productivity. Australia agreed that the major distortions in global agriculture and trade disadvantaged developing countries. Those distortions were what the Doha Round aimed to address. A Doha outcome would greatly assist in alleviating global food security problems. Liberalizing world food markets would expedite rational supply responses and the allocation of resources towards more efficient producers, thus lifting productivity and global output.

JOSE GUEVARA (Mexico) said that cooperation with all the international mechanisms for human rights was essential to support national efforts in protecting and promoting human rights. In the follow-up to international recommendations, that was an important element, and in that context Mexico welcomed the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing in order to follow up the recommendations of the mandate. For its part, Mexico had responded in a timely fashion to a request for information by the Special Rapporteur to draw up her report.

In the report, the methodology could be improved, in particular with regard to different sources of information and references thereto. Mexico was aware of the challenges it still had with regard to housing, and hoped the report would be useful in discussing the issue at a national level, between all actors. Mexico would continue to work with the Special Rapporteur in her mandate and with the actors of civil society.

SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) welcomed the report of the Independent Expert on the access to clean water and sanitation. The right to water was linked to other rights, such as the right to education. Non-discrimination of vulnerable groups, such as women, displaced persons, persons with disabilities was important as well. The challenges that had been mentioned in the report had been presented in a seminar in Madrid earlier on. Certainly, the success of the work of the Independent Expert would depend on invitations to countries and the contacts in those countries. Spain reiterated that she would get the same support by Spain in her work that she had had when facilitating earlier meetings in Spain.

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said that, in her report, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing had underlined that States should promote alternatives to private mortgage and ownership-based housing systems. Could the Special Rapporteur elaborate more on the idea of developing new alternative financial services and involvement of States as suggested in financing housing provisions, in view of the current economic crisis? Also, how could States best ensure that vulnerabilities of low-income households were duly taken into account by financial institutions?

Concerning the report of Ms. de Albuquerque, Turkey welcomed her plan to focus on access to sanitation and related human rights obligations in her initial work. That indeed was an important issue, which had not been adequately addressed from a human rights perspective. Turkey encouraged the Independent Expert to identify best practices and formulate recommendations that would assist States in achieving the related Millennium Development Goals. Furthermore, Turkey would appreciate further information from the Independent Expert on the consultation that she planned to organize on the content of human rights obligations regarding access to sanitation this year.

ENZO BITETTO GAVILANES (Venezuela) said the presentation of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food was truly welcome, and he should be encouraged to continue his work. For Venezuela, the right to food was a fundamental human right, closely linked to the right to life. The State must guarantee access to food for its population. It was a State responsibility, especially for the most vulnerable sectors of the population. It was possible if national and international obligations were complied with, within the human rights approach. The Government had been promoting a new approach to agriculture, establishing a legal framework guaranteeing food security. National agricultural capacity had been supported.

With regard to the international framework, Venezuela had signed treaties to increase food production sustainably in order to ensure independence for all parties to the agreement, including indigenous communities and those of African origin, and had installed mechanisms for food exchange. The human rights approach should ensure the population received the aid sent, and that according to their priorities. The necessity to provide aid highlighted that not doing so would be a backsliding of international law.

IBRAHIM SAIED MOHAMED AL-ADOOFI (Yemen), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said, regarding the report presented by Mr. De Schutter, that the Arab Group felt the report was an important step in ensuring the right to food. In terms of definition of international obligations, the report underlined that the negative repercussions of the economic and financial crisis were borne by the developing countries. The Arab Group also agreed that the burden of providing food was the concern of national Governments.

Regarding the report on drinking water and sanitation, the Arab Group said that the report of the Independent Expert had laid foundations for the next report that would be submitted to the Human Rights Council on that issue. This first report was a clear proof of the increasing interest of the Council in the subject. The Arab Group agreed with the Rapporteur and said that the foreign occupation was a major reason that hindered the Arab people in the enjoyment of those rights. The Israeli occupation hindered the Palestinian people in getting food aid, access to water and sanitation and adequate housing. The Arab Group was looking forward to working together with all Special Rapporteurs on their respective subjects.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on the Right Adequate Housing

RAQUEL ROLNIK, Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, responding to questions and comments raised, thanked all delegations for their questions and comments, and would respond to all questions not answered today in written form at a later time. With regard to possible alternative measures that could be put in place for slum dwellers, solutions were to provide full urbanization, amelioration of housing schemes, and micro-financing schemes. Those alternatives aimed at keeping those people where they were already settled, rather than moving them outside of where they lived. Regulation was one of the most important powers that States had, and equitable land-use policies ensured proper access to land for low-income people. In addition, rent control, and subsidies to compliment rent were also alternatives that could be handled in order to ensure proper access to housing.

It was very important for people to distinguish between construction industry policies and housing policies, as they were often confused or intertwined in their use, Ms. Rolnik underscored. Public and private entities in many countries had very little if any idea about what the right to adequate housing was. As such, she requested and was very grateful if members of the Council could forward the present report to relevant Government agencies and international and national institutions.

Right of Reply

OMER DAHAB FADOL MOHAMED (Sudan), speaking in a right of reply, said, with regard to the statement of Amnesty International this morning and the link between the Government's decision to review the situation of certain non-governmental organizations in Sudan and the food crisis in Darfur, that only 8 per cent of the organizations involved were working in Darfur. The Government had exercised its sovereign right to issue or withdraw licenses. Those organizations had claimed they had spent $2 billion in Darfur since the beginning of the crisis, but the Government's statistics showed that what had been spent on medicines and food was only $100 million – the rest had been spent on activities that had nothing to do with those organizations’ mandates, such as the production of films on entirely fabricated events, and information gathering exercises, with the fabricated evidence used to accuse certain Sudanese authorities, including the President of the country.

Those organizations were used as a political weapon against Sudan. Witnesses were being paid to provide false testimony. The Government had and continued to provide all necessary aid to the people of Darfur. The humanitarian situation would not change by the withdrawal of those organisations, as the Government was providing 90 per cent of the aid to Darfur. The Government had continued its efforts in the area of development, the provision of food, and other development projects. In the Special Session on the right to food, Sudan had requested international cooperation to tap the enormous potential of Sudan to provide food to the world, but this potential did cause problems for Sudan right now.

For use of the information media; not an official record


HRC09024E