Taking the right to adequate food seriously: Reflections on the International Agreement on Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food SystemsPosted: 23 February, 2015 Filed under: Bereket Kefyalew | Tags: Africa, agriculture, CFS, Committee on World Food Security, development banks, food security, gender equality, global economic crisis, human rights, indigenous peoples' rights, PRIAF, Principles of Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food systems, right to adequate food, right to food, sustainable development, UN agencies, United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Leave a comment
Author: Bereket Kefyalew
Freelance consultant and researcher in human rights and development
After two years of negotiations the Principles of Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (PRIAF) were approved by the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) on October 15, 2014. This has been endorsed by some as a breakthrough for realising the right to adequate food and ensuring food security for all.
Since the 2007/2008 global economic crisis, agricultural investments, particularly large scale investments have flourished across the globe. Africa has become a major destination for large scale agriculture investors largely due to the cheap and fertile land, and poor protection of land rights. The investments are apparatuses of the market led agricultural trade liberalization model claimed to be the panacea for food insecurity in the world by hegemonic industrialized states.
It is evident that some of these investments have utterly affected the right to adequate food in Africa and elsewhere as the investments, for instance, displaced people from their land, or registered futile contribution to food security and nutrition. For this reason some practitioners proposed human rights based regulation of global and national food and nutrition related policies. Nevertheless the investors and host nations defended the investments and denied the adverse effects.
The PRIAF was born out of these competing views on agricultural investments. It brought together major stakeholders to come into consensus on common principles on how to conduct agriculture investments. It is an effort to regulate agriculture investments globally; and to strike a balance between investment promotion and protection of human rights and ensuring sustainable development.
Multinationals and land grabbing in Uganda: A business human rights perspectivePosted: 8 May, 2013 Filed under: Samuel Matsiko | Tags: Committee on World Food Security, Fisheries and Forests, food crisis, food insecurity, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, human rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Fund for Agricultural Development, land grabbing, National Association of Professional Environments, Protect, Respect and Remedy, Uganda, UN Human Rights Council, United Nations, Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, World Bank 2 Comments
Author: Samuel Matsiko
Lawyer, International Justice Mission, USA
On 11 May 2012 the Committee on World Food Security endorsed the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security to promote secure tenure rights and equitable access to land. These Guidelines offer a framework through which multinational investors may acquire and manage land without affecting the rights of local communities. However, this remains on paper while in practice the narrative is different.
In Uganda, land grabbing involves large scale land acquisitions by multinational and domestic investors either through buying or leasing large pieces of land. A study by the National Association of Professional Environments indicates that communities in the oil rich region of Bulisa in western Uganda, Kalangala Island in the Lake Victoria region, Mabira forest in the central region, and Luwunga forest reserve in Kiboga district have been affected or are yet to be affected by the land grabbing phenomenon.