Member profile
This member contributed to:
-
Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments
Consultation- -
-
I do not know if this is too late, but a major problem is that many states with inadequate institutional capacities relating to effective land management do make overestimates on their available land. I have done a study on Tanzania, that can be found here: http://www.academicjournals.org/jene/PDF/Pdf2010/March/Haugen.pdf
A brief comment to the document: It lacks references to human rights impact and the due dilligence requierement for companies, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/17/31), as well as the two standards by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/HRC/19/59/Add.5, Appendix, Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements and A/HRC/13/33/Add.2, Annex: Large-scale land acquisitions and leases: A set of minimum principles and measures to address the human rights challenge). The subsequent resolutions in the Human Rights Council did not endorse these Guiding Principles, unlike those on Business and Human Rights, but no states voted against the resolutions which welcomed the reports within which the two standards were found.
-
Hans Morten Haugen
I have three comments:
1) The reference to "broader principles and values, including respect for human rights, understood as universal, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, equity and non-discrimination, gender equality, social inclusion and good governance" on p 2 should be improved.
By this wording, the potential of human rights principles are undercommunicated. Human rights principles established minimum standards of conduct in any decision-making process, and this potential is not communicated by the term "broader principles and values". The term "values" should be avoided, and the terms "universal, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent" are more accurately describing the nature of internationally recocnized human rights.
My proposal is to use the approach communicated by FAO in several documents and in the Right to Food Methodological Toolbox. For one recent example, see Background Paper 3 to the 2013 International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition, listing on p 3 "seven human rights principles (known collectively as PANTHER): participation, accountability, nondiscrimination, transparency, human dignity, empowerment, and the rule of law."
2) There should be a reference to the UN Special rapporteur's Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements; A/HRC/19/59/Add.5. These Guiding principles should be much more known and applied.
3) It is positive that there is a reference on p 10 to "Participatory policy- and decision-making based on meaningful consultations and ensuring active, free, effective, meaningful and informed participation of those who are primarily affected are prerequisite to enable responsible agricultural investments." I have analysed the difference between the terms "effective participation" and "meaningful participation".
Moreover, there should be a specification of how to ensure that the most affected are adequately brought into the decision-making process, which might be a problem in cases where local customary law does not provide for the participation of women and young persons. This is addresses in Article 8.2 in ILO Convention 169:
These peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with internationally recognised human rights. Procedures shall be established, whenever necessary, to resolve conflicts which may arise in the application of this principle.
I refer to my article Deciding on Land and Resources: How to Increase the Influence of the Most Affected Within Communities?’ Human Rights and International Legal Discourse Vol 7, No 2, 260-288, which is attached in a word document (the issue is just out; has not been received)