The Right to Food: A Paper Tiger?

The right to adequate food is legally enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966. But is it toothless in the shadow of rising global hunger?

Michael Windfuhr: That would be a misunderstanding of what human rights are. Just because they are written down doesn’t mean they’re automatically implemented. That’s why the French Revolution was called a revolution, not an evolution. Rights need to be recognized within national legal frameworks and actively enforced by governments. Until that happens, we need civil society to push for them—or national human rights institutions to keep up the pressure.

What role does the right to food play in your respective ministries?
Bernd Schwang: For 20 years, we’ve had clear guidelines on how to implement the human right to food. But we must acknowledge that the number of people suffering from hunger remains unacceptably high. We need to critically assess whether our tools and communication are sufficient. My background is in project collaboration, where we use dialogue formats and work with global partners to make clear what human rights actually mean on a practical level. That’s our current focus.

Andreas Schaumayer: For us in development cooperation, the right to adequate food means having the ability to guide our work based on legally binding reference documents that are agreed upon multilaterally. This is crucial because it allows us to engage in dialogue with partner governments and civil society based on an internationally recognized standard. The right to adequate food also serves as a participatory element, which we leverage in our work.

Windfuhr: Let me add a point on implementing human rights: every country faces resistance when implementing rights. Hunger predominantly impacts rural areas, where 60 to 70 percent of those affected live, often due to issues related to land access.These people are rural producers, and their hunger reveals a governance issue. They lack secure land titles, credit, storage access—this reflects a lack of political will.

How can we motivate governments to address these issues?
Schaumayer: By engaging in a constructive exchange with our partner governments. It is then our task to build local institutions together with these partners, guided by the right to adequate food, to ensure that it reaches the people. This is especially important for minorities and women, as they are more often affected by food insecurity.

Schwang: We agree on the importance of reference frameworks that guide our work. In project collaboration, these themes must be addressed directly. I found it particularly interesting that this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics went to three researchers who demonstrated that inclusive political systems contribute to sustainable prosperity.

Inclusive political systems, as demonstrated in their work, can be powerful in convincing partners of the value of such approaches!

Do you have an example?
Schwang: For instance, involving women in agricultural systems leads to progress. In a project on water rights, a multi-stakeholder platform helped bringing all interests together to find solutions.

Windfuhr: Take Brazil as an example. Under President Lula’s first administration, the Zero Hunger Program removed Brazil from the global hunger map in just four years—a record reduction. The government implemented welfare programs for citizens unable to work, such as single parents and the elderly, and also focused on school meals. But under a later administration, these efforts were reversed, and Brazil reappeared on the hunger map. The new government is now working to reverse this setback. This illustrates how much impact governments can have. In 2003, African Union heads of state in Maputo committed to spend ten percent of their national budgets on rural and agricultural development, but only nine of 54 countries have met this goal. This shows that it’s not always a priority. The processes take time, but Brazil has shown that success can come quickly once efforts are in place.

Mr. Windfuhr, you've mentioned elements of Brazil's package under Lula. What else does the right to food encompass?
Windfuhr: The right to food is unique because achieving it requires a multi-sector approach. Unlike education, which primarily relies on the education budget, the right to food involves supporting people’s ability to provide for themselves. For farmers or fishers, this means job security or guarantees for fair wages. It also includes labor laws, school meal programs, and support for groups that can’t sustain themselves. It’s a complex set of measures across policy areas, making it particularly challenging to implement.

Schaumayer: That’s why we also support national action plans for transforming food systems in our bilateral cooperation with these countries, and thereby advancing the right to adequate food. There simply isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. Where this is implemented—whether in an agriculture ministry, a presidential office, or a health ministry—each country must decide for itself. But as Mr. Windfuhr just mentioned, it’s a cross-sectoral, holistic approach.

Schwang: I’d like to add that Brazil is a model for how governance can drive transpolitical processes. Brazil’s food councils consist mostly of civil society representatives, alongside policymakers from almost all ministries. These councils develop ideas that cross sectors, addressing women’s issues, school meals, and indigenous rights. They are also thoroughly familiar with the texts of the various laws and discuss them with the government. It’s a participatory model that Germany could also learn from.

Would that be a good approach for Germany, Mr. Windfuhr?
Windfuhr: Absolutely. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture recently conducted a study on the nutritional situation in Germany, but we lack detailed data. Why are more people turning to food banks? It could be income issues or mental health problems. Even in a country that has a lot of resources, like Germany, hunger exists.

At the World Food Conference in Rome in late October, the right to food was on top of the agenda. Were new perspectives introduced?
Schaumayer: I was there. It’s a great success that, despite the challenging global situation, key decisions were made as the result of a participatory negotiation process. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) was also marked by tensions related to Gaza and the Russian war on Ukraine. Such geopolitical conflicts make it increasingly difficult for all countries to develop a common language. That’s why the World Food Council, as an inclusive institution—with the involvement of civil society, the private sector, and academia—is so important to help guide countries away from the edge. This is because, in my view, these non-governmental actors are sometimes even closer to those affected than some governments. This format of exchange is, in my view, an exemplary way to achieve greater legitimacy through a potentially slower but inclusive process. It may also provide a way out of the deadlocks that can develop between governments.

Schwang: I fully agree. We coordinated closely with the BMZ and presented ourselves as a united German delegation. I think we made a very strong impression. There was a clear vision, and everyone involved who was there on the ground in Rome was genuinely euphoric.

Schaumayer: Especially considering the 20th anniversary of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food, we, as the federal government, have actively addressed the right to adequate food this year in various formats, including through the Arbeitskreis welternährung (AKWE), which we lead here in Germany in collaboration with civil society and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. Our key to success: the path to Rome was prepared together with civil society.

Windfuhr: It must be acknowledged, to be fair, that a lot has been achieved. The right to food has now received broad support in the CFS, which was unprecedented at this scale. In the end, the delegates adopted an entire package of decisions focused primarily on an improved update of the right to food in various countries—with many concrete measures that had been developed collectively by the program committee beforehand. This is a milestone.

After 20 years of voluntary guidelines, it’s been a long journey…
Windfuhr: Now there’s real consensus. Hunger has traditionally been seen as something to address through increased production. But we're now realizing that in many countries with food surpluses, hunger remains widespread.. The focus now is to understand the root causes of hunger, ensuring sustainable resource management so that the right to food is protected in the long term.

Mr. Schaumayer, I sense a certain level of collaboration between your ministries on an operational level. How extensive is this?

Schaumayer: The collaboration is, on the one hand, quite conventional and formal; we coordinate wherever we are mandated to do so. Beyond that, though, all players are truly pulling in the same direction. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Development have undergone a transformation process in recent years, resulting in the transformation of agricultural and food systems.

The challenges have grown, haven’t they?

Schaumayer: Absolutely. Mr. Windfuhr is right: production alone is not enough to achieve goals such as health, combating climate change, and economic growth within planetary boundaries. It makes sense to combine the technical expertise of the Ministry of Agriculture with the international expertise of the Ministry of Development.

Schwang: I agree. We work closely with the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to assess where we can step in and where to scale up efforts. This coordination has improved during this legislative period, particularly due to crises like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which required a quick and close coordination. It was also critical that we presented a unified front as a government at the Committee on World Food Security (CFS). CFS is a unique inclusive forum within the UN system.

Windfuhr: There are still other policy areas that could be better coordinated. Think about trade policy or the European agricultural policy, which can sometimes have very negative effects on developing countries. By using the right to food as a guiding principle, we could further improve these areas.

The guidelines were formulated 20 years ago with strong civil society involvement. What is the influence of civil societies today?

Windfuhr: Within the CFS, there’s a Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism that brings together over 1,000 organizations from all parts of the world. This is exemplary for other UN sectors. Recent resolutions at the United Nations need civil society’s active engagement to be effectively implemented; it’s an essential leverage point.

Schwang: Civil society’s role is central for us. Social innovation comes from civil society. That’s not to say politics can’t be innovative, but real impulses come from civil society. Agricultural policy only works when it’s enriched and supported by civil society.

Schaumayer: Beyond the contributions of civil society and Indigenous peoples, I would also like to include the private sector. It is often entrepreneurs, whether on a small or large scale, who take the first steps locally—and thereby help achieve food security on the ground. An approach I find essential is participation, which helps ensure entrepreneurial freedom while embedding it within a regulatory framework that we have agreed upon internationally.

We need global agreements, whether on climate, biodiversity, or desertification. A legal framework is necessary. This also creates economic and individual opportunities to move things forward. For me, that’s also participation.

Windfuhr: In human rights, there are three principles that are necessary for implementing rights: participation, transparency, and non-discrimination. A fourth principle, sustainability, is now being discussed. If we fail to secure food production or to manage water and other resources sustainably, then we risk jeopardizing the right to food in the long term.

That all sounds very abstract at first, but it presents an enormous challenge for concrete processes.

Schwang: I’d like to add the element of education. It’s crucial that people know their rights and how to assert them. Knowing how to insist on participation is vital. We could improve how we communicate the guidelines themselves, which are sometimes written too formally.

The world is undoubtedly in transformation, whether we like it or not, affecting agricultural and food systems. Does this present concrete opportunities for the right to food?

Schwang: Our guiding compass is agroecology. Agroecology has evolved from an activist term into a truly dynamic concept that’s gaining attention. It’s a transformative approach because it sees agriculture as a process constantly shaped by participation and knowledge generation.

Schaumayer: Reality will catch up with us regarding what we need to do. The challenge will be to scale this transformation globally. The Planetary Diet, for example, is a way of eating that benefits not only the human body but also the global environment. But as we increasingly face droughts, floods, economic crises, and conflicts, we need to engage people’s awareness that things must also change on a global level. I see this more as an opportunity.

What needs to be included in this effort?

Windfuhr: Climate and biodiversity trends will bring even more issues. The opportunity in transformation lies in structuring these processes to benefit those who have been overlooked. Brazil, for instance, has linked support for school meals to regional purchases from small farmers, creating closed cycles. Implementing circular economies in certain areas can empower specific user groups. Learning from indigenous communities on biodiversity conservation, we have many options. However, this change won’t happen on its own. Transformation may also result in income loss for farmers here, which we must address carefully to manage potential losses effectively.

Resistance to transformation is already significant, so the chance lies in understanding sustainability not just as a mindset of the wealthy middle class but as an existential foundation that benefits others if implemented with social sensitivity.

That was a necessary appeal. Do you see concrete opportunities to involve people on this path and make the transformation meaningful?

Windfuhr: Absolutely. Take the Future Commission on Agriculture established after farmers’ protests a few years ago, which envisioned a broad consensus on potential paths forward. For instance, it included reducing meat consumption, not as a mandatory or prohibitive measure, but as a societal shift. Certain groups should not be neglected or socially overburdened, so no fears arise. That’s a significant challenge for politics, often limited by four-year cycles and unable to easily guide these overarching processes. Failing to transform would lead to far greater costs, and  must be communicated, too.

Schwang: An inspiring transformation means turning things for the better. For example, Germany’s shift in the meat sector has provided many businesses again with stable economic perspectives. Organic farms now often achieve above-average results, and this model could be extended to other sectors. Agroecology can bring more employment to rural areas when planned comprehensively, from production to processing and trade.

Unfortunately, the debate around “transformation” is somewhat tainted and, unfortunately, a bit cold. We need a different approach—focusing on the opportunities.

Schaumayer: Transformation is always linked to the concept of innovation. But innovation doesn’t only mean what we’ve seen in the past 150 years in terms of technological innovation; it also includes organizational innovation. This is where we can make a connection. It’s important to have a positive outlook on the future: not all the problems we face in 2024 can be solved with the knowledge and resources we have in 2024. Innovation will allow us to address problems differently in the future.

What should be avoided during transformation and the pursuit of the right to food?

Schaumayer: As a global community, we should avoid regressing, as we are not at the "end of history," as it was termed in the early nineties. Instead, we should work against the formation of different power blocs, as these will severely restrict human development and force us to spend vast resources balancing competing interests. From a human rights perspective, this is a fundamental issue, as it greatly undermines both our individual and collective opportunities. Our challenge, as Europe or specifically as Germany, is already apparent. We must work actively to prevent this polarization from escalating further, so that the right to adequate food is not severely restricted due to renewed proxy wars.

Schwang: A human-rights-based transformation must succeed. Period.