The People’s Monitoring Tool is an initiative of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition that aims to guide communities, movements, civil society, academics and even civil servants in monitoring the human right to food and nutrition (RtFN), based on a holistic understanding of the right.    

Next

Introduction

The numbers of people globally affected by hunger and malnutrition have been consistently on the rise for several years. The United Nations (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (SOFI) report estimated that 2.37 billion people globally – one in three – suffer from food insecurity. Behind these figures lie increasing and multiple forms of violence, which negatively impact the realization of the human right to adequate food and nutrition (RtFN) and other related human rights.
Continue Reading

Introduction

Violations of the RtFN result from the failure of states to respect, protect or fulfil people’s rights. For example, by directly contributing to or tolerating land and ocean grabbing, forced evictions, child marriage and gender-based violence, labour exploitation, use of harmful agrochemicals, criminalization of social movement leaders and human rights defenders, and abusive marketing of junk food. These violations lead to hunger, malnutrition, and loss of livelihoods. They reflect the lack of people’s sovereignty over their own lives and bodies, and importantly, the failure by states to comply with their internationally subscribed human rights obligations.

In the face of such challenges, peoples, communities and grassroots groups have been mobilizing around the RtFN as a way to unify their struggles, hold governments accountable and develop policies and laws to provide structural conditions for achieving food sovereignty and dignified lives.

Why is monitoring important? 

Ensuring that policies are coherent and that they adequately respond to the structural and underlying causes of hunger and malnutrition is paramount for the realization of the RtFN and other related rights. As a consequence, the way in which hunger is defined, measured and monitored becomes crucial, as it ultimately impacts the design and implementation of policies. Monitoring is therefore not merely a technical or ‘neutral’ process but rather an active process with political implications. The current mainstream measurements and methods for calculating the numbers of hungry and malnourished people worldwide (such as the SOFI report’s) whilst providing interesting information, raise methodological issues and fail to paint a full picture of hunger. These monitoring mechanisms are largely ‘food security-focused’ and are dependent on quantitative data which measure caloric intake, income or food related expenditures, and agricultural production, among other indicators. As a result, dominant narratives and policy recommendations on hunger and malnutrition have focused on the price of healthy diets, the inefficiencies of food production, or the outbreak of natural disasters. A human rights approach, which captures the multiple dimensions, root causes, and consequences of hunger, is absent. Crucial indicators to address issues of discrimination (linked, inter alia, to gender, race/ethnicity or socio-economic status), patterns of ownership and access to land, popular participation, governance, accountability, and policy coherence with human rights are thus missing from mainstream monitoring exercises.

Monitoring the RtFN is therefore a key activity for building advocacy strategies that address the root causes of hunger and malnutrition and hold states accountable for these. As an example, Solidaritas Perempuan (Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights), member of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition in Indonesia, elaborated a “Guide to Assess the Fulfillment of Women’s Right to Food” and supported 504 women to monitor their RtFN and assess where and why violations persist today.

The findings of this exercise highlighted the many challenges women face in realizing their RtFN due to patriarchal, sociocultural, and state systems which ignore women’s experiences and knowledge. To reclaim their rights, the women developed different initiatives. For example, peasant women in Sidodadi, Mahalo and Kuku villages are building local food systems, and the women in Makassar have advocated the government to recognize the Cambaya and Tallo coastal areas as managed by fisherfolk.

Predominant RtFN monitoring methodologies also need rethinking in terms of meaningfully engaging those affected by food insecurity and malnutrition, rather than framing them as mere objects of study. These individuals and communities are the real ‘experts’ who should be included in the design of monitoring methodologies, agenda setting, and policy-making. They can also provide qualitative assessments of wellbeing and human capabilities that enable a better understanding of the underlying structural causes of hunger and malnutrition  than the masses of often corporate-supported statistical data, which ignore the lived experiences of people facing food insecurity and malnutrition.

What is the People’s Monitoring Tool?

The process undertaken to monitor the use and implementation of the Right to Food Guidelines within the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) in 2018 was a significant opportunity to reinforce the importance of RtFN policies and programs at national level, and to recognize the contribution that the CFS has had in supporting the normative interpretation of and guidance for the RtFN since its reform in 2009. The Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) – an autonomous part of the CFS that facilitates civil society engagement in CFS policy processes – contributed with a report assessing the use and implementation of the Right to Food Guidelines. The report sought to fully assess the progress made since the 2004 adoption of the Guidelines, including many achievements in international policy fora built largely through the efforts and organizing of social struggles on issues including rural women, tenure rights, peasants’ rights, small-scale fisheries, and protracted crises. This process also made clear the fundamental need to reassess existing strategies and approaches for monitoring the RtFN.

The People’s Monitoring Tool is an initiative of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition (GNRtFN) that seeks to build on previous monitoring methodologies, particularly FIAN International’s (2007) Screen State Action against Hunger, and go beyond these, towards a more holistic and systemic understanding of the RtFN (see Chapter on Holistic Approach to the RtFN). The GNRtFN, founded in 2013, is itself testimony to the evolved understanding of the RtFN and consequent broadening of the RtFN movement.

The network comprises civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples, social movements and community organizations, and supports a wide range of issues and struggles, from women’s rights to public health, from peoples affected by development projects to fishing communities.

The People’s Monitoring Tool aims to guide communities, movements, civil society, academics and even civil servants in monitoring the RtFN, based on a holistic understanding of this right and a food systems perspective. It provides helpful tools and a framework for assessing whether and how states are complying with their RtFN obligations throughout food systems.

The People’s Monitoring Tool is the result of a collective exercise by members of the GNRtFN. It should be considered a living instrument that adapts to the evolving understanding of the RtFN, and lessons learned from using it on the ground.

 

Back

How to use the tool

The People’s Monitoring Tool is structured around 6 different thematic modules:

  • Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems and Diets;
  • Women’s Rights;
  • Environmental Rights;
  • Democracy and Accountability.
  • Workers’ Rights; and
  • Food Sovereignty and Control over Natural Resources.
Next

These themes closely relate to one another and reflect an effort to think holistically about the RtFN and consider the interconnected, mutually dependent areas of policy-making that impact its realization. These themes were selected based on the main struggles faced by those most affected by violations of the RtFN and are not exhaustive, but rather indicative of some key priorities. The People’s Monitoring Tool remains open to additional modules and themes, and flexible to adapt to emerging standards and interpretations of the RtFN. In some cases, these modules might not entirely fit with local or national contexts. They should therefore be understood as templates, which can be adapted by users according to their different realities and particular monitoring exercises.

Continue Reading

How to use the tool

Each module aims to provide guidance on how to monitor states’ RtFN obligations relative to the specific theme at hand. They each follow the same structure: A short introduction on the theme and how it relates to the RtFN; what the corresponding state obligations are; a list of key words (core issues and main challenges); and a list of main international and regional instruments where the right is enshrined and elaborated in relation to the specific theme. The guiding questions make up the main body of each module. By answering the guiding questions, one can assess the respective state’s compliance with its RtFN obligations at different levels:

  • Structure: What are the legal and institutional structures within the state?
  • Process: What specific measures are taken by the state?
  • Outcome: What has been achieved?

Each module also gives some guidance on where to find relevant information to answer the guiding questions (e.g. laws, FAO statistics, national level data), and concludes with a list of references for the module’s specific theme.

When undertaking a monitoring exercise, it is advisable to combine different modules depending on the particular focus. Naturally there are overlaps between the different themes and, consequently, the guiding questions. The introductory chapter on the Holistic Approach to the Right to Food and Nutrition provides users with a better understanding of the current conceptualization of RtFN and hence the framing behind the guiding questions.

Example – How to select the right modules?

Tea plantation workers in India are mostly women – their working conditions are appalling and their wages are so meagre that they are not able to feed themselves adequately. If you want to monitor how the Indian state is realizing its obligation vis-à-vis the RtFN of tea plantation workers, you may want to look into modules 1 (Healthy and Sustainable Food Systems and Diets), 2 (Women’s Rights), and 5 (Workers’ Rights).

Methods of collecting information

The People’s Monitoring Tool emanates from the conviction that people and communities on the frontline know best about their local situation, and can testify to the barriers they face in adequately feeding themselves and their families. The tool is meant to support processes of participatory analysis and evidence collection with and in service of communities claiming their rights.

The guiding questions are focussed on what states (the “duty bearers”) are doing or not doing, as this provides the basis for assessing where they have failed in their human rights duties, and for calling for change.

Before entering this analysis, one may however want to start with some basic questions to get a general and more spontaneous picture of the situation and the main challenges from the perspectives of those affected. For example:

  • What is the food insecurity and malnutrition situation in your country / region / community?
  • What are the main barriers / challenges people face in feeding themselves and their families?
  • Has the situation always been like this, or has it changed in the recent past? If it has changed, what are the reasons for this?

Asking these questions will help connect the concrete situation and lived experiences of people with the policy, legal and institutional framework in place, and help identify the critical areas where change is needed. With this first “problem analysis” in mind one can move to the guiding questions to get a more in-depth understanding where the challenges stem from and what the responses of the state have been.

  • What is the state doing to support people / respond to these challenges? What is the legal, policy and institutional framework in place? Does it contribute to the realisation of the right to food or rather undermine it?
  • Where is the gap? How do public policies, legislations, programmes, institutions, actions, etc. need to change to address the barriers people face in feeding themselves and ensure the right to food and nutrition?

With this an advocacy agenda can be built which entails a clear analysis of the problem from the perspective of the groups affected themselves, an analysis of existing policy, legal and institutional frameworks that give rise to the problem and/or fail to address it, and initial proposals on how the shortcomings can be addressed.

Several creative methods – in addition to conventional research – can be applied to answer the guiding questions. For example, techniques often used in participatory action research, such as community and territorial mapping, focused group discussions, observations, stories and anecdotes, photovoice, etc.

The People’s Monitoring Tool can be combined with other tools, such as the ETO Handbook and Toolkit (guidance for analysing and arguing cases of extraterritorial violations of rights) or the Cooking up Political Agendas: feminist guide on the RtFN (methodological guide for building advocacy agendas around rural women’s RtFN), depending on the particular focus of the monitoring exercise. Recommendations for more specific toolkits and other material can be found at the end of each module (“Useful resources”).   

Using the tool for advocacy

The ultimate goal of using the People’s Monitoring Tool, as already mentioned above, is to ensure that policies address and respond to the structural causes of hunger and contribute to the realisation of the RtFN. The process of monitoring itself, as well as the outcome of the monitoring can transform into concrete actions by people and communities to hold states accountable. Here are some examples:

→ To advocate for changes in policies and actions by national authorities

By presenting specific and concrete information which clearly underlines a state’s failure in ensuring the RtFN, communities can have greater leverage to press that state to make appropriate changes in policies and take right actions.

→ To generate public awareness on the RtFN and the state’s compliance vis-a-vis its human rights obligations

Frequent occurrences of RtFN abuses and violations prompt the general public to believe that such condition is normal, to be tolerated, or cannot be changed. Often, people are not aware of the dire impact of inadequate and insufficient public policies. The monitoring result, accompanied by a well-thought communication/media strategy, can help raise awareness within broader society to raise their voice towards changing an unjust situation.

→ To elaborate monitoring reports (e.g., reports to national human rights commissions and parallel reports to the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural rights)

The monitoring exercise can bring RtFN violations which were previously invisible to light so that they can be brought to court by lawyers and human rights defenders, or brought to the attention of national human rights commissions and international human rights bodies, such as the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This can generate international pressure by highlighting the state’s non-compliance with international standards, and thereby leading to improvements on problematic situations or even result in a halt to violations.

For an inspiration on specific advocacy avenues see following case study from Mali.

Building collective advocacy for women’s rights in Mali using the People’s Monitoring Tool

Twenty-six rural women and girls from different regions of Mali came together in a two-day workshop organized by UACDDDD[1] and ADDA[2] to share different issues affecting the realization of their human rights. They used the Women’s Rights Module of the People’s Monitoring Tool to test its usefulness in their context. The objective was also to come up with a plan for collective advocacy using the outcomes of the monitoring exercise. Workshop participants came from women’s groups set up in the villages where UACDDD is supporting programs to secure community land through the establishment of gender-mixed village land commissions. On the other hand, participants from ADDAD were women and girls who migrated from their villages and are working as domestic workers in cities. Facilitated by representatives from UACDDDD and ADDAD, the workshop consisted of presentations and group discussions where women freely chalked out human rights that were most relevant to them for their everyday lives and the ones they wanted to defend collectively. These included the right to land, right to health and wellbeing (including the right to education, social security and protection), right to respect, to physical integrity, to non-discrimination, to free expression (around marriage, divorce and sexual abuse of young girls as issues identified by domestic workers), and the right to work. The participants greatly appreciated the open and collective space where they were able to fully express their concerns and discuss issues that are crucial to them. At the end of the workshop, the participants drafted recommendations to ask the State to introduce canteens in schools to give children more chances to reach higher education and request State officials to conduct surveys to find out the percentage of women who reach higher education and the percentage of malnourished women.

Back
Next

The holistic approach to the RtFN

The human right to adequate food and nutrition (RtFN), as well as its evolving understanding, was borne out of people’s struggles for human dignity and against discrimination, exploitation, hunger and malnutrition. The international community of states formally recognized the RtFN in Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and Article 11 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), as part of the right to an adequate standard of living.

Continue Reading

The holistic approach to the RtFN

The precise content of this right and corresponding states’ obligations were subsequently spelled out in General Comment No. 12 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (1999), and further elaborated in the FAO Right to Food Guidelines of 2004.

Although these instruments have served in advancing the understanding of the RtFN, they predominantly take a food security perspective, which sees it as the right to foodstuff, or to access food that is adequate and safe. Conversely, a holistic approach to the RtFN follows the principles of interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights, and recognizes the importance of each one for the realization of the RtFN. For instance, it requires paying attention to women’s rights, the right to health, the right to freedom of association, and the right to a healthy environment in an integrated manner. The holistic understanding of the RtFN goes beyond a narrow food security perspective and firmly embeds the right within the food sovereignty framework. It thereby places emphasis on people’s autonomy, power dynamics, and participation for the realization of the RtFN, raising important questions concerning who holds control over natural resources and food production, as well as the exchange and consumption of food. It fundamentally understands that the RtFN cannot be realized in a vacuum, and therefore considers the different political, social, cultural and environmental conditions surrounding food and nutrition.

The holistic approach places emphasis on the nutritional dimension of food and overcomes the artificial separation of food and nutrition. The right to food is not realized with the simple intake of food, but rather when such foods lead to nutritional wellbeing. Nutrition is about how food is transformed into healthy human beings who are able to achieve their full potential and lead dignified lives. The nutrition and health dimension of food cannot be separated from the way food is produced. Nutritious food means food produced in a sustainable and healthy manner, using agroecological practices, which provide for nutritionally rich, diverse, healthy and culturally appropriate diets.

A holistic approach to the RtFN places women’s rights at the centre. Gender-based discrimination and violence against women are the foremost structural causes of hunger and malnutrition, with women and girls increasingly comprising the overwhelming majority of the hungry in the world. Violence against women manifests itself throughout their life cycle, leading to a loss of control over their lives and bodies and limiting their self-determination and rights to participation. Women’s lack of access to natural resources is also an underlying cause of the disproportionate gender difference in the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition worldwide, as legal and customary practices continue to exclude women from tenure rights.

Placing women’s rights at the heart of the holistic understanding of the RtFN is also recognizing the vital role they play for the nutrition of new generations. Gender-based violence, especially against girls, leading to teenage pregnancies, early forced marriages, and child labour contribute to the social reproduction of poverty, and to the poor nutritional health of women and their children.

The holistic approach to the RtFN highlights the importance of incorporating a food systems perspective when analyzing states policies and actions in relation to the right to food and nutrition. Looking at food systems in their totality means paying attention to the various interactions, actors, elements and activities related to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and how these impact on the right to food and nutrition. Thereby, it is important to understand that food systems not only produce food but serve many different public objectives in the realms of health, culture, the environment, livelihoods, and social cohesion. In this sense, their impact on the right to food and nutrition is multi-dimensional.

For example, when considering healthy diets, it is not enough to focus on making healthy food accessible (e.g., affordable) to people. Rather one needs to consider: how is the food produced (e.g., is agricultural production diversified and does it preserve soil health), does it provide for decent work conditions and pay (e.g., are women workers able to breastfeed their children and not exposed to toxics; can workers afford buying healthy food), and does it foster local food cultures and knowledge exchange (critical for example for preserving knowledge on healthy culinary practices). A food systems perspective highlights the interconnectedness of things and that one cannot address one dimension of the right to food – such as nutrition – without addressing others, such as workers’, peasants’ or women’s rights.

A full realization of the RtFN and related rights requires food systems based on human rights and food sovereignty, which prioritize the public interest and recognize food as part of human societies’ commons rather than as a mere exchangeable commodity.

What are states’ obligations relative to the RtFN?

As with all human rights obligations, states’ RtFN obligations are threefold: states have an obligation to i) respect, ii) protect and iii) fulfil the RtFN.

The obligation to respect can be understood as a ‘do no harm’ obligation, requiring states to refrain from taking actions or measures which can impact the enjoyment of the RtFN. For example, state policies or programmes that restrict access to or destroy peoples’ sources and means to access food (e.g. land or crops), or restrict their access to food through income deprivation, constitute violations of a state’s obligation to respect the RtFN.

The obligation to protect requires states to ensure that individuals or non-state actors, such as corporations, do not infringe on other people’s RtFN. Under this obligation, states must take actions to regulate non-state actors, for example, to ensure that food commercialized by enterprises is safe and healthy, to protect breastfeeding by circumscribing the marketing of breastmilk substitutes, or, to protect communities from corporate land grabbing.

The obligation to fulfil entails both an obligation to facilitate and to provide this right. The obligation to facilitate requires states to take measures to foster people’s capacities to exercise and realize the RtFN.

For instance, this could include measures that actively promote breastfeeding or healthy and sustainable diets by promoting healthy food environments at schools or other public places.

The obligation to provide, on the other hand, is an obligation for states to directly provide people with the means and conditions to exercise the RtFN, when they are unable to do so for reasons beyond their control. Social protection programmes, among other forms of state support, exemplify this obligation, which aims to establish strategies for people to regain their ability to exercise the RtFN.

Although states have the obligation to progressively realize the RtFN in accordance with “maximum available resources” (similarly to other economic, social and cultural rights), they must nevertheless take immediate steps to this effect, and towards eliminating all forms of discrimination in the realization of this right. States additionally have an obligation to refrain from taking retrogressive measures regarding the RtFN. Lastly, they have an obligation to guarantee a minimum core protection of the RtFN irrespective of the resources at their disposal, such as ensuring immediate protection from starvation.

States’ extraterritorial obligations

States’ human rights (including RtFN) obligations do not stop at their borders and cannot be understood as strictly limited to the territory of each state. In many cases, states can take measures that negatively impact the enjoyment of the RtFN of people in other countries.

For example, development cooperation policies of some states can lead to displacements, land grabbing, the destruction of peoples’ livelihoods, and ultimately, violations of the RtFN in other states. States therefore also hold an extraterritorial obligation to respect the RtFN, by ensuring that their policies, for instance in the areas of trade, investment, and development cooperation do not harm the RtFN of people in other countries.

This requires them to monitor their policies and undertake human rights impact assessments to prevent violations of the RtFN beyond their borders. States also have an extraterritorial obligation to protect the RtFN, by, for example, regulating the activities of companies which they either control or are headquartered within their territories, to ensure they do not negatively impact the RtFN during business activities abroad. The extraterritorial obligation to fulfil the RtFN is also an obligation to support its universal realization by contributing to the creation of an enabling international environment.

These extraterritorial obligations emanate from the United Nations Charter, the ICESCR, as well as interpretations of states’ human rights obligations by UN Treaty Bodies. These obligations are clarified and outlined in the Maastricht Principles on the Extraterritorial Obligations of States, which serve as a useful tool in this regard. Moreover, the ETO Consortium – a network of organisations promoting the implementation of states’ ETOs – has developed a Handbook and Toolkit that guides affected communities and civil society organisations in holding states accountable for extraterritorial human rights violations.

The CSM vision document on food systems and nutrition

The CSM vision document was written through an autonomous, self-organized, and participatory process by the Working Group on Food Systems and Nutrition of the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism (CSM) for relations with the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). When the CFS embarked on the process of elaborating Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition in 2018, the CSM Working Group started a parallel process of building its own vision for the Guidelines to transform food systems, which has guided the CSM’s engagement throughout the CFS policy convergence process.

Its construction has since evolved, and it remains a living document. It is built around the experiences and struggles of the CSM constituencies, namely smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk, Indigenous Peoples, agricultural and food workers, the landless, women, youth, consumers, the urban food insecure, and NGOs. The vision document offers basic definitions and a set of guiding principles that should be observed to reshape food systems in order to make them healthy, sustainable, and just. It further provides a series of policy interventions in the following five key domains of food systems, before finally indicating a series of connected systems and policy domains in which structural changes and transformation are necessary to ensure policy coherence.

It is with deep disappointment and disheartenment that the CSM collectively decided that the CFS Voluntary Guidelines for Food Systems and Nutrition, endorsed by member states in February 2021, are inadequate for achieving the urgently needed transformation of food systems. Therefore, it is this collective vision document, rather than the Guidelines, that will guide the CSM constituencies in the future.

Back
Healthy
and Sustainable
Food Systems
and Diets
Women’s
Rights
Environmental
Rights
Democracy
& Accountability
Worker’s
Rights
Food Sovereignty
and Control over
Natural Resources

An initiative of

The People’s Monitoring Tool is an initiative of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, coordinated by FIAN International.

African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB)
South Africa
Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW)
Malaysia
Association Paysanne pour le Développement (Peasant Association for Development, A.PA.DE)
Togo
Association pour la protection de la nature au Sahel (Association for the Protection of Nature, APN Sahel)
Burkina Faso
Biowatch South Africa
South Africa
Brot für Alle (Bread for All)
Switzerland
Brot für die Welt
Germany
Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT)
Uganda
Centre for Social Development (CSD)
India
Centro Internazionale Crocevia (Crossroad International Centre)
Italy
CIDSE (International Alliance of Catholic Development Agencies)
Belgium
Coletivo de Entidades Negras (Collective of Black Organizations, CEN)
Brazil
Convergence malienne contre l’accaparement des terres (Malian Convergence against Land Grabbing, CMAT)
Mali
Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (CLOC)
Dejusticia
Colombia
Feminist Dalit Organization (FEDO)
Nepal
FIAN International
Germany
Focus on the Global South
Thailand
FoodShare
Canada
Fórum Brasileiro de Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (Brazilian Forum for Food Sovereignty and Food and Nutritional Security, FBSSAN)
Brazil
The Gaza Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Platform (GUPAP)
Palestine
Habitat International Coalition-Housing and Land Rights Network (HIC-HLRN)
Egypt
HEKS/EPER (Swiss Church Aid)
Switzerland
Independent Food Aid Network (IFAN)
United Kingdom
Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO Cooperation)
The Netherlands
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)
Switzerland
International Indian Treaty Council (IITC)
USA
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Association (IUF)
Switzerland
Justicia Alimentaria (Food Justice)
Spain
KATARUNGAN (Justice)
Philippines
KHANI (Food Security Network)
Bangladesh
Maleya Foundation
Bangladesh
Observatori DESC (Observatory of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)
Spain
Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee (PKRC)
Pakistan
People’s Health Movement (PHM)
South Africa
Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (Inter-American Platform for Human Rights, Democracy and Development, PIDHDD)
Ecuador
POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (Anti-POSCO People’s Movement, PPSS)
India
Rede da Sociedade Civil para a Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional na Comunidade de Países da Língua Portuguesa (Regional Civil Society Network for Food and Nutrition Security in the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries, REDSAN-CPLP)
Portugal
Réseau africain pour le droit à l’alimentation (African Network on the Right to Food, RAPDA)
Benin
Réseau des organisations paysannes et de producteurs agricoles de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (West African Network of Peasant Organizations and Agricultural Producers, ROPPA)
Burkina Faso
Right to Food Campaign
India
Right to Food Network – Malawi
Malawi
Society for International Development (SID)
Italy
Solidaritas Perempuan (SP)
Indonesia
SOS Faim Luxembourg (SOS Hunger Luxembourg)
Luxembourg
Sustain
United Kingdom
Terra Nuova - Centro per il Volontariato ONLUS (TN)
Italy
URGENCI
France
WhyHunger
USA
World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA)
Malaysia
World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP)
India
World Council of Churches – Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (WCC-EAA)
Switzerland
World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fish Workers (WFF)
Uganda
World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP)
South Africa
World Organization against Torture (OMCT)
Switzerland
WUNRN (Women’s UN Report Network)
USA
Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB)
Zambia

Impression

Published by FIAN International for the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition

Coordinators | Daniel Fyfe, Emily Mattheisen, Laura Michéle, Ayushi Kalyan, Yifang Tang (FIAN International)

Authors | Astrud Beringer, Angélica Castañeda Flores, Charlotte Dreger, Daniel Fyfe, Valentin Hategekimana, Ayushi Kaylan, Glory Lueong, Laura Michéle, Alejandra Morena, Andrea Nuila, Sabine Pabst, Philip Seufert, Yifang Tang (FIAN International)

Special thanks to the following members of the Global Network for the Right to Food and Nutrition, FIAN International and other partner organizations for their support in revising the content of the different modules of this publication: Association de Défense des Droits des Aides Ménagères et Domestiques, Mali (ADDAD), Ekologi Maritim, Indonesia (EKOMARIN), El Poder del Consumidor, Mexico, FEDO, Nepal, FIAN Brazil, FIAN Colombia, FIAN Germany, FIAN Indonesia, FIAN Pakistan Group, FIAN Sri Lanka, FIAN Sweden, FIAN Uganda, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tourism, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), Katarungan, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, India (NCDHR), National Fisheries Solidarity Organization, Sri Lanka (NAFSO), National Right to Food Network in Malawi, Solidaritas Perempuan Indonesia Union des Associations et Coordinations d’Associations pour le Développement et la Défense des Droits des Démunis, Mali (UACDDDD), YAC Nepal.

Copy-editing | Katie Anne Whiddon

Art Concept & Design | btta.cc

Financed by | Bread for the World – Protestant Development Service

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

DECEMBER 2021