METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

VOLUME I

BOOK |2
METHODS
TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT
TO ADEQUATE FOOD
VOLUME I
Making the Case for Rights-Focused and Rights-Based Monitoring

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information
product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part
of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the
legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does
not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to
others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-106060-5

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information

product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without
any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully
acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other
commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.
Applications for such permission should be addressed to:

Chief
Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch
Communication Division
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
or by e-mail to:
copyright@fao.org

© FAO 2009
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Preface III
Acknowledgements V
List of Acronyms VI

1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW 1

Understanding the human right to adequate food in the context of international
human rights 1
The right to adequate food in rights based development 2
The Right to Food Guidelines 5
Types of activities that are promoted in the Right to Food Guidelines 5
Right to Food Guidelines and monitoring the right to adequate food 6
What exactly is rights-focused monitoring? 6
What do we monitor from a human rights perspective? 8
Two additional monitoring approaches 9
Who are the users and providers of monitoring information? 10
Talking the same language – an overview of commonly used terms 10

2. THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS- 11

BASED MONITORING
What do we understand by rights-focused monitoring? 11
What do we understand by rights-based monitoring? 12
What does rights-focused monitoring add over and above conventional
monitoring? 13

3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD INTO PRACTICE 15
Understanding opportunities and constraints to implementing
rights-focused monitoring 15
A checklist of possible opportunities 16
A checklist of possible challenges 17
• Understanding the right to adequate food concept 18
• Institutional limitations 18
• Political commitments and sensitivities 18
• Weak information systems 19
• Technical capacity to monitor the right to adequate food 19

I
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

How to assess opportunities and challenges to implementing rights-focused 19

monitoring?
How to address country level challenges? 20
• Create an enabling policy environment 21
• Introduce human rights approaches in ongoing monitoring 21
• Strengthen institutional capacities 22
• Awareness building and public education 22
• Mobilising right-to-food “champions” 23
• Civil society-government partnerships in monitoring the right to adequate food 24

4. DEFINING ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS 25

Towards an analytical agenda 26
• Who are the food insecure and vulnerable? 27
• Food security and vulnerability situation analysis, targets and benchmarks 27
• Policy and programme inventories and impacts 27
• Analysing the implementation of political commitments through budget 28
analysis
Towards a methodological agenda 28
• Identification and development of indicators for rights-focused monitoring 29
• Identification of users and uses of rights-focused monitoring information 30
• Participatory monitoring approaches 31

5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS FOR MONITORING THE RIGHT TO FOOD 33

Monitoring the legal framework to realise rights 33
Institutional frameworks to monitor the right to adequate food 34
Strengthening the sustainability of monitoring the right to adequate food 37

6. GETTING STARTED 39
How do we get started? 39

ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS 43

ANNEX 2. WHAT CAN BE LEARNED SO FAR FROM COUNTRY EXPERIENCES? 57

II
 PREFACE

Preface
The right to adequate food is enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and in a number of subsequent international and regional covenants. It has
been reaffirmed by world leaders at the World Food Summits in 1996 and 2002 and
concrete commitments were made to promote its progressive realisation. Since then
governments and international civil society organisations have come together, under
FAO’s leadership, to pledge their renewed commitment to the realisation of the right to
adequate food. In November 2004, the FAO Council adopted the “Voluntary Guidelines
to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context
of National Food Security” (from here on called Right to Food Guidelines), following
a two-year long negotiation process, which was marked by active and constructive
participation by civil society organisations and the international donor community. The
entire process represented the first time that member states have worked together
to draft such a document for any one of the economic, social and cultural right. It
represents a milestone in the advancement of basic human rights.

The Right to Food Guidelines are intended to provide practical guidance and advice
to states in establishing priorities and in implementing ways to promote, protect and fulfil
the right to adequate food in their own countries. First and foremost, the Right to Food
Guidelines present a broad normative framework within which this may take place. In
practice, an additional step is required, that is, transforming their contents into practical
tools for: (i) development planning, policy formulation, and programme and project
design and implementation, and (ii) monitoring the implementation of all measures and
actions that should contribute to the right to adequate food being realised over time for
more people.

These two volumes of the Methods to Monitor the Human Right to Adequate
Food contribute to this additional step. These volumes are part of a series of reference
guides that the Right to Food Unit has prepared. They aim to be highly practical and
to provide the most current and relevant methodological and operational information
related to monitoring the right to adequate food. No recipes are presented but instead,
methodological options are explained and discussed. Information regarding specific
methods are summarised, and references to easily accessed sources of technical and
methodological documentation are provided. In most cases, the methods included are
already being applied in more general monitoring of food security, nutrition and poverty
reduction.

Volume I presents a broad framework for monitoring the protection and realisation of
the right to adequate food, within the broader context of rights-based development.
In “making the case” this volume attempts to contribute to a common understanding
of what rights-focused monitoring and rights-based monitoring mean. Issues are
introduced that will undoubtedly be involved in country-level monitoring of the right to
adequate food. An analysis of likely opportunities and constraints can help to put in place
strategic approaches. In-country monitoring the right to adequate food also involves

III
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

institutional issues that need to be considered and addressed, as well as analytical

and methodological issues involved in rights-based monitoring. Finally, some hints are
provided as to how to go about organising at country level to implement monitoring the
right to adequate food, building on existing monitoring systems.

Volume II provides a detailed overview of various methods and approaches relevant

to monitoring the right to adequate food. The primary target users of Volume II are
expected to be technical staff in public sector institutions and civil society organisations
that are responsible for planning and monitoring food security, nutrition, and poverty
reduction policy development and programming, and of progress towards achievement
of food security, nutrition and poverty related goals and targets. Volume II is meant to
help make their work easier, more efficient and effective.

We consider both volumes to be “living” documents, in the sense that it is through in-
country application and use that it will be possible to gauge needs to introduce changes
and modifications in order to increase their usefulness. We expect these documents
to be adapted to specific situations and refined as they are being implemented. We
therefore kindly invite users to share with us their experiences with the use of these
documents, as well as any comments and suggestions that will allow us to improve the
contents, organisation and/or presentation of these volumes.

Barbara Ekwall
Coordinator,
Right to Food Unit
Agricultural and Development Economics Division

IV
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acknowledgements

The development and preparation of these two volumes on Methods to Monitor the
Human Right to Adequate Food consisted of a participatory process that involved a
number of collaborators as well as potential in-country users of these volumes. The
process started off as a collaborative effort between the Right to Food Unit at FAO and
the International Project on the Right to Food in Development (IPRFD) at the University
of Oslo and Akershus University College in Lillestom, Norway. The lead author was
Maarten Immink and co-authors were Wenche Barth Eide and Arne Oshaug. Other
members of the IPRFD who made important contributions were: Asbjorn Eide, Bard A.
Andreassen and Kaia Engesveen.

Members of the Right to Food Unit at FAO have made comments and provided
important inputs on drafts: Margret Vidar, Frank Mischler, Barbara Ekwall, Mauricio
Rosales, Isabella Rae, Dubravka Bojic Bultrini and Lidija Knuth. Other colleagues at FAO
also reviewed various drafts, and made suggestions for improvements: Mark Smulders,
Cristina Lopriore, Ricardo Sibrian, and Julian Thomas. Gabriele Zanolli undertook the
lay-out work.

A number of drafts were submitted for comments to experts in food security, nutrition
and human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
in Geneva, and FIAN International in Heidelberg joined the collaboration and provided
valuable inputs. Special mention is due of the contributions made by Rajeev Malhotra
(OHCHR), and Flavio Valente, Ana Maria Suarez-Franco and Sandra Ratjen (all of FIAN
International).

All these contributions are gratefully acknowledged, as well as the contributions made
by the participants in two regional validation workshops held in 2006 in Uganda and
Guatemala. Not only did these volumes benefit from their inputs, but the participants may
also have benefited from participation in the workshops. We shall list all in alphabetical
order: Angela Adamo Abdula, Fatima Albuquerque, Carmen Priscilla Bocchi, Nathan
Byamukama, Johanna Calvo, Mario Chavarra, Julio Cochoy, Irayda de Alcazar,
Negussie Dejene, Daisy Eresu, Ilka Esquivel, Rocio Flores, Martin Fowler, Kurmwenda
Hannock, Julio Hernandez, Henk Hulshof, Richard Nick Kabuleta, Tom Kakuba,
Gertrude Kambauwa, Juvenal Kisanga, Marilia Leao, Ibrahim Maalim, F.M. Maumbe,
Javier Medina, John Mngodo, Luis Enrique Monterroso, Juan Carlos Morales, Patrick
Muhofa, Tom K. Mugisa, Mayra Muñoz, Slaus T. Mwisomba, Lubega Irene Namatovu,
Rosa M. Novygrodt, David Nsamba, J.M. Aliro Omara, Byron Ponce, Victor Puac, Iskra
Rodriguez, Mwanahewa Sango, Amarilis Then, Gerald Tushabe, Ursula Wangwe and
Kofi Yakpo.

V
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

List of acronyms

AGN Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
ESC Economic, Social and Cultural
ESCR Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FIAN Food First Information and Action Network
FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IAWG Inter-Agency Working Group
IDS Institute of Development Studies
IGWG Inter-Governmental Working Group
IPRFD International Project on the Right to Food in Development
MDG Millennium Development Goal
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
PDSA Participatory Service Delivery Assessment
RFM Rights Focused Monitoring
RTFG Right to Food Guidelines
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WHO World Health Organization

VI
VII
 1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW

1.
MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT
TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW
IN THIS CHAPTER WE SHALL:

● Review the human right to adequate food in the context of

international human rights law.
● Place the right to adequate food in the context of rights-
based development.
● Discuss the Right to Food Guidelines and specifically
Guideline 17.
● Present an overview of some key questions that need to be
considered for country level implementation of monitoring
the human right to adequate food.

These Methods to Monitor the Human Right to Adequate Food are intended to
assist countries that are committed to the protection and realisation for all of the
human right to adequate food. The focus is on the need to continuously assess
and to monitor the implementation of measures that are expected to make the
human right to adequate food a reality for all. This means examining the results and
impacts of development processes, and of policies, programmes and projects,
against specific goals that have been set as desired outcomes for the enjoyment
of economic, social and cultural rights. Where food insecurity exists, measures
should be implemented to restore or create physical and economic access to
adequate food for those who are food insecure. Monitoring can significantly
contribute to protect the enjoyment of the right to adequate food for those who
presently have it, and of the elimination of food insecurity and vulnerability for
those who do not.

UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD IN THE

CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

The human right to adequate food became part of internationally recognised

human rights in 1948 through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article
25. It was further elaborated as international human rights law through Article 11
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966. At present the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been ratified by 157 States.
The right to food for all children is implied in Articles 24 and 27 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations in 1989, and now ratified
by all States of the world with two exceptions.

1
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Under international human rights law, States have the primary responsibility for
their countries’ economic and social development, and for the fulfilment of all
human rights. States are therefore the primary duty bearers in implementing
the right to adequate food, and are required, under the United Nations Charter,
Articles 55 and 56, to cooperate with each other for that purpose.

BOX 1.1

Heads of State and Governments at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996
reaffirmed:
“...the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the
right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger”.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has, in its
General Comment No 12 on the Right to Food, stated that

“The right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child,
alone or in community with others, has physical and economic access at all
times to adequate food or means for its procurement”.1

Food is considered “adequate” when three conditions are fulfilled. These are:

• Daily food intake meets all nutritional requirements, quantitatively (energy

content) and qualitatively (protein, vitamins and minerals content).
• The food is safe for human beings to eat and does not cause any disease.
• The food is culturally acceptable by those who consume it.

THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD IN RIGHTS BASED DEVELOPMENT

What is rights-based development? One definition is:

“Human rights add significance to the agenda of development. They draw

attention to accountability for the delivery of development benefits to all
people, and lend legal and moral legitimacy and a sense of social justice to
the objectives of human development”

The following specific and unique elements are all considered necessary for a
human rights-based approach to development 2 :
1 UNDP. Human Rights in UNDP. A Practice Note. New York, April 2005
2 Statement of Common Understanding, 2003

2
 1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW

• Assessment and analysis is critical in order to identify the claims of right

holders and the corresponding obligations of duty bearers as well as for
understanding the immediate, underlying, and structural causes that limit the
realisation of human rights.
• Programmes assess the capacity of right holders to claim their rights, and
of duty bearers to fulfil their obligations. They then develop strategies to
strengthen and enhance these capacities.
• Programmes to monitor and evaluate both outcomes and processes are
guided by human rights standards and principles.
• Programming is informed by the recommendations of international human
rights bodies and mechanisms.

Rights to adequate food should also be integrated with additional human rights
principles to support harmonised development processes. Such an integrated
approach aims at:

• Equitable distribution of development benefits.

• Transparency in governance and in the use of public resources.
• Efficient and effective use of all resources.
• Non-discrimination in development processes.
• Gender equality.
• Strengthening capacity to implement human rights principles and practices.
• Effective mechanisms to hold those responsible accountable for meeting
development, poverty reduction and human rights goals and targets.
• Informed participation by right holders (and/or their representatives) in
development planning and policy and programme formulation, implementation,
and monitoring.

The processes of making human rights a reality for all and the processes of
development are recognised as interrelated and mutually reinforcing. By applying
a ‘human rights lens’, development is understood as a people-centred process
that aims to fully and totally respect the dignity and the full capacities of all human
beings. Rights-based development involves the integration of human rights
norms, standards and principles in all national plans, policies and development
processes. Democracy, development, respect for and protection and fulfilment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms are recognised to be interdependent
and mutually reinforcing3.

The interrelatedness of human rights has definite implications for monitoring the
right to adequate food. Some methodological tools are specific to monitoring
the degree to which the right to adequate food is being fulfilled. Others may be
applied to broadly monitor Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and those rights
that enhance the enjoyment of the right to adequate food (such as freedom of
speech and the right to organise).

3 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993

3
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

However, taking all of these rights and principles into account can easily become
an overwhelming monitoring agenda. Care should be taken that a framework to
monitor the right to adequate food clearly indicates what other rights are to be
included. For example, rights to water and to work, and the obligation to provide
land when this is important for a chosen livelihood, may be included because they
are considered to be essential for the enjoyment of the right to adequate food.

There is room for flexibility as each country develops its own monitoring framework,
adjusted for its own realities. United Nations development bodies recently agreed
on what is implied in human rights approaches to development cooperation and
programming. They affirmed that all programmes of development cooperation,
policies and technical assistance should further the realisation of human rights,
that human rights standards and principles should guide all development
cooperation and programming in all sectors, and that development cooperation
should contribute to the development of the capacities of ‘duty bearers’ to meet
their obligations, and of ‘right holders’ to claim their rights 4. It was further stated
that:

Human rights principles guide all programming in all phases of the

programming process, including assessment and analysis, programme
planning and design (including setting of goals, objectives and strategies);
implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Among these human rights principles are: universality and inalienability;

indivisibility; inter-dependence and inter-relatedness; non-discrimination and
equality; participation and inclusion; accountability and the rule of law. See Annex
1 for a brief explanation of these terms. We expand on these further on within the
context of monitoring the right to adequate food.

How can development processes be made more rights-based and contribute

more specifically to the realisation of the human right to adequate food? In Part
II of the Right to Food Guidelines, important elements of a development policy
agenda are spelled out and are designed to foster an enabling environment. It is
implied that development policies should address problems of:

• Unstable food supplies.

• Marketed foods being unsafe and culturally unacceptable.
• Inadequate access to food, specifically by food insecure and vulnerable
population groups.
• Underlying causes for food insecurity and vulnerability.

4 The Statement was adopted by UN development bodies which met at the Interagency Workshop
on Human Rights Based Approach in the Context of UN Reform, held in Stamford, May 2003.

4
 1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW

Underlying basic causes for food insecurity and vulnerability within the context of
low levels of development include:

• Low levels of investment in human capital (health, education).

• Poor conservation and management of natural resources.
• Non-functioning markets.
• Little investment in infrastructure.
• Little participation of the poor in policy decisions and programme implementation.
• Lack of access to affordable technologies and financial resources by the poor.
• Lack of policy and regulatory environments that are conducive to more equitable
sharing of development benefits among different population groups.
• No enforcement of the rules of law, leading to high levels of corruption.

After a thorough assessment of its food insecurity, development and human rights
situation, each country should establish its own policy priorities to address its
most pressing problems.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINES

The Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to

Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (now referred to as “Right to
Food Guidelines”) were adopted by the FAO Council in November 2004. Formulation
of the Right to Food Guidelines followed a two-year process that included the
establishment of an intergovernmental working group by the Council in 2002 following
a recommendation by the World Food Summit.

BOX 1.2

The objective of the Right to Food Guidelines is to:

“…provide practical guidance to States in their implementation of the progressive
realisation of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security, in
order to achieve the goals of the Plan of Action of the World Food Summit…”

TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PROMOTED IN THE RIGHT TO FOOD

GUIDELINES

The Right to Food Guidelines address a range of activities that states should ideally
undertake in order to realise the human right to adequate food. They are divided into
three sections. The first section explains the objective of the Right to Food Guidelines
and refers to relevant international instruments, and explains what the right to
adequate food and the achievement of food security mean. Section two deals with
creating an enabling environment for the implementation of the right to adequate

5
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

food, assistance and accountability mechanisms and outlines the nineteen

Guidelines, identifying a wide range of components integral to the realisation of
the right to adequate food5. The third section refers to commitments that States,
relevant international organisations and other stakeholders should make towards
the fulfilment of the human right to adequate food, and to a range of actions they
should undertake to meet those commitments.

RIGHT TO FOOD GUIDELINES AND MONITORING THE RIGHT TO

ADEQUATE FOOD

Various guidelines deal with monitoring the realisation of the right to adequate
food, and with evaluating the impacts of these measures. The importance of
monitoring in a rights based way is recognised in Guideline 17 (see Box).

Guideline 17 also develops an analytical and methodological agenda to monitor

the realisation of the right to adequate food. Additional relevant aspects related
to monitoring are covered in other guidelines. For example, (i) undertaking right-
to-adequate food assessments to formulate a national human-rights based
strategy ( Guideline 3.2 ), (ii) establishing national intersectoral coordination
mechanisms to monitor and evaluate policies, plans and programmes ( Guideline
5.2 ), (iii) involvement of stakeholders, particularly communities and local
government in monitoring and evaluating food production and consumption
programmes ( Guidelines 10.3 ), (iv) undertaking disaggregated food insecurity,
nutrition and vulnerability analysis to assess forms of discrimination ( Guideline
13.2 ), and (v) participation by civil society organisations and individuals
in the monitoring activities of human rights institutions ( Guideline 18.1).

WHAT EXACTLY IS RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING?

In general rights-focused monitoring can be defined as:

Rights-focused monitoring within a country consists of periodic collection,

analysis and interpretation, and dissemination of relevant information to
assess the progress in the realisation of the right to adequate food among all
members of society, and whether this is being achieved in ways compatible
with human rights principles and approaches.

5 The themes of the nineteen Right to Food Guidelines are: 1 Democracy, good governance,
human rights and the rule of law; 2 Economic development policies; 3 Strategies; 4 Market systems;
5 Institutions; 6 Stakeholders; 7 Legal framework; 8 Access to resources and assets; 9 Food safety
and consumer protection; 10 Nutrition; 11 Education and awareness raising; 12 National financial
resources; 13 Support for vulnerable groups; 14 Safety nets; 15 International food aid; 16 Natural
and human-made disasters; 17 Monitoring, indicators and benchmarks; 18 National human rights
institutions; 19 International dimension.

6
 1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW

BOX 1.3 - GUIDELINE 17: Monitoring, Indicators and Benchmarks

17.1 States may wish to establish mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of these Guidelines towards the progressive realisation of the right to
adequate food in the context of national food security, in accordance with their capacity
and by building on existing information systems and addressing information gaps.

17.2 States may wish to consider conducting “Right to Food Impact Assessments”
in order to identify the impact of domestic policies, programmes and projects on
the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food of the population at large
and vulnerable groups in particular, and as a basis for the adoption of the necessary
corrective measures.

17.3 States may also wish to develop a set of process, impact and outcome indicators,
relying on indicators already in use and monitoring systems such as FIVIMS, so as to
assess the implementation of the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food.
They may wish to establish appropriate benchmarks to be achieved in the short, medium
and long term, which relate directly to meeting poverty and hunger reduction targets as a
minimum, as well as other national and international goals including those adopted at the
World Food Summit and the Millennium Summit.

17.4 In this evaluation process, process indicators could be so identified or designed

that they explicitly relate and reflect the use of specific policy instruments and
interventions with outcomes consistent with the progressive realisation of the right to
adequate food in the context of national food security.
Such indicators could enable States to implement legal, policy and administrative
measures, detect discriminatory practices and outcomes, and ascertain the extent of
political and social participation in the process of realizing that right.

17.5 States should, in particular, monitor the food-security situation of vulnerable

groups, especially women, children and the elderly, and their nutritional status, including
the prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies.

17.6 In this evaluation process, States should ensure a participatory approach to

information gathering, management, analysis, interpretation and dissemination.

Rights-focused monitoring encompasses approaches that fully incorporate

human rights principles in monitoring the formulation, funding, implementation and
impacts of relevant policies, programmes, projects and community activities. They
echo the human rights principles that should guide rights-based development,
which are:

• Equity in terms of resource distribution, and of policy and programme impacts.

• No discrimination against any population groups.
• Transparency in public affairs and administration.
• Increased capacity among public officials with responsibilities related to the
realisation of the right to adequate food (‘duty bearers”).
• Popular participation in the formulation of policies, programmes and other State
actions.

7
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

• Mechanisms in place to hold public officials accountable for their performance.

• High degree of human rights awareness and capacity among all people (‘rights
holders’).
• Adequate capacity within the regulatory and legal framework to process claims
of rights violations.
• Full respect for the rule of law.

Information resulting from rights-focused monitoring provides guidance for the

improved implementation of measures towards making the human right to adequate
food a reality, and in ways that in themselves are fully consistent with human rights
principles and approaches. This means that such implementation processes
are equitable, non-discriminatory, transparent, participatory and inclusive. For
example, implementation of right to adequate food measures should ensure
equity in terms of resource distribution, should not discriminate against certain
population groups, should guarantee transparency in public affairs, administration
and decision making, and should ensure informed popular participation in the
formulation of public policies and programmes. Information generated through
rights-focused monitoring should foster accountability and respect for the rule of
law, and should increase knowledge among food insecure and vulnerable groups
about their right to adequate food, and about ways of claiming that right (as well
as other rights).

WHAT DO WE MONITOR FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE?

A monitoring framework maps out and identifies what to monitor, suggests

what methods to apply, how to interpret the results, and what information and
indicators to include. These issues are covered in much greater detail in Volume II.
To illustrate what additional dimensions are introduced in conventional monitoring
from a human rights’ perspective, we include the following questions:

• Are the norms, standards and principles of international human rights

treaties and instruments followed up in national policies, regulations and in
development programmes and sector plans?
• Are there gaps in the achievement of human rights norms, and of targets and
benchmarks, and what are the causes of non-achievement?
• Are public decision-making and the implementation of pro-food security and
nutrition policy and programme measures transparent and in accordance with
good governance principles?
• Are rights holders becoming rights claimants because mechanisms are in
place to seek redress for violations of the right to adequate food?
• Does the monitoring information make it possible to hold state duty bearers
accountable for inappropriate use of public resources and poor delivery of
public services, and for decisions that adversely affect the realisation of
rights? Does the monitoring information contribute to the understanding of
reasons for poor public performance?

8
 1. MONITORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO FOOD – AN OVERVIEW

• Are decisions and actions by non-state actors that impact on the enjoyment
of the human right to adequate food covered by the monitoring information?
• Does the monitoring information cover legal and institutional frameworks that
condition the realisation of the human right to adequate food?
• Does the monitoring information focus on food-insecure and vulnerable
groups and on the underlying causality in these groups of food insecurity,
vulnerability and malnutrition, for efficient policy and programme targeting
and for relevant and effective follow-up actions?
• Is the implementation of pro-food security and nutrition measures non-
discriminatory, and is the distribution of benefits of policy and programme
measures equitable?
• Are monitoring processes participatory and inclusive, and are all those who
participate in monitoring empowered in the process so that they plan actions
in line with their own priorities? In other words, is the monitoring process itself
rights-based?

TWO ADDITIONAL MONITORING APPROACHES

Two additional approaches focus on monitoring compliance with state obligations

and of individual or group violations. These two approaches are often linked and
are more likely reflected in monitoring activities of civil society organisations.
According to international human rights law, the state has legal and moral duties
or obligations towards the country’s inhabitants. These duties and obligations are
spelt out in international agreements and covenants to which the state is a party.
The State is bound by these obligations whether they are incorporated in domestic
law or not. Three levels of state obligations related to the realisation of the right to
adequate food are distinguished: (i) obligation to respect, (ii) obligation to protect,
and (iii) obligation to fulfil. An expanded explanation of these state obligations is
provided in Annex 1. Monitoring focuses on the extent to which the State (usually
specific state institutions) is acting in accordance with these obligations.

This is often in concert with the violations approach, i.e. when someone’s right
to adequate food is violated. Such violations, when reported by the affected
person or on her behalf by an organisation, to a human rights institution, may be
investigated through judicial or quasi-judicial means. One part of the investigation
will focus on how and why the State failed to respect, protect or fulfil the right to
adequate food. Civil society organisations typically register cases of violations
during given years. A change in the number of reported violations over time does
not necessarily mean that more or less violations are taking place, or that the state
performs better or worse with respect to its obligations. There is still relatively
little country-level experience with these approaches, which also depend on
the existence of judicial or quasi-judicial means available to claim the right to
adequate food.

9
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

WHO ARE THE USERS AND PROVIDERS OF MONITORING

INFORMATION?

The main user groups of monitoring information are government officials, civil
servants, civil society groups representing right holders, and private sector
actors (for example, food producers and processors). In each case, the specific
information requirements of these individual user groups should be recognised
and appreciated. Their information needs should be understood before information
collection is undertaken. This will help ensure that the final information produced
and disseminated is technically and socially accessible, and relevant to different
user groups. The right to adequate food is a multi-faceted right that is intertwined
with other economic, social and cultural rights, as well as political and civil rights.
Monitoring the right to adequate food requires information from different sources
at different levels, such as sector databases, censuses, national surveys, poverty
and livelihood vulnerability analyses, policy analyses, programme assessments
and evaluations, food security and nutrition situation analyses, etc. Rights-based
monitoring also requires establishing an institutional framework that specifies:

• Those institutions and organisations that will participate in the main components
of the monitoring process and how responsibilities for information collection
and analysis are divided among these entities.
• Which institution will have primary responsibility for monitoring.
• How monitoring information will be exchanged (horizontally and vertically)
among institutions and organisations at national and local levels.
• What existing institutional capacities are, as well as gaps in those capacities,
to adequately undertake rights-based monitoring of the right to adequate
food.
• How to ensure that monitoring information is directly linked to follow-up
decision-making and action.

The institutional implementation framework has to be country-specific and requires

the enactment of appropriate legislation, as resources are needed to support the
framework. Ideally it will involve a strong partnership between government and
civil society, and will be implemented within the context of a food and nutrition
policy or strategy with solid human rights underpinnings. Institutional issues are
further discussed later on.

TALKING THE SAME LANGUAGE – AN OVERVIEW OF COMMONLY USED TERMS

Before monitoring processes can be put in place, it is important that all persons
and agencies that will play a role share a common understanding of the different
terms that are typically used. Lack of a common understanding has been one
of the stumbling blocks to implementing rights-focused monitoring to date. Key
terms are reviewed in Annex 1.

10
 2. THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING

2.
THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF
RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED
MONITORING
THIS CHAPTER COVERS :

● The various meanings of rights-focused monitoring.

● The meaning of rights-based monitoring.
● Discuss the Right to Food Guidelines and specifically
Guideline 17.
● The additional elements that rights-focused monitoring
brings to conventional monitoring.

WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING?

Rights-focused monitoring can be understood in different ways and can be

undertaken for different purposes.

Three different ways of considering rights-focused monitoring are specified

*
here. One relates to planning and implementation processes and two focus on
outcomes and their impacts on the realisation of a right.

Rights-focused monitoring of implementation

processes and outcomes...
• involves monitoring the decisions, actions, and conduct of political,
economic, social and institutional systems and actors that are expected
to contribute to the realisation of rights,
• means monitoring the impact of measures that are expected to
contribute to the progressive realisation of human rights, and
• involves assessing final impacts to determine whether or not human
rights have been increasingly respected and protected, and are being
fulfilled in practice.

The first point refers to the processes of developing and implementing measures
that are expected to impact on the realisation of the right to adequate food, the
analysis and monitoring of these processes, and the application of human rights

11
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

principles. It means, for example, monitoring of public budgets from a rights’

perspective by asking: do budget allocations and expenditures reflect the principle
that states should take measures ‘to the maximum of their available resources’
for the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights6 ? Another example may
be to monitor the implementation of a school feeding programme to see whether
the programme reaches the most needy children, does not discriminate against
children from certain population groups, is implemented with participation from
parents and the community, and who can also hold school officials and local
authorities accountable in case of poor performance and misuse of public
resources.

Measures include policies, programmes and projects and other actions at

national, local and community levels. Within this context, examples may include:
a national food and nutrition policy or strategy, a poverty alleviation programme, a
community-based project to increase food production, or programmes to improve
access to rural markets or to public health services. Progressive realisation means
that plans and policies are developed and implemented to make possible over a
reasonable period of time the realisation of rights. It further recognises that this
progress must be made within the resource constraints the state faces. Monitoring
the progressive realisation of ESC rights requires benchmarks, set as a minimum
threshold for the realisation of the rights. Benchmarks define where the country
should be at specific points in time, as intermediate points towards reaching more
long-term goals and targets. The Millennium Development Goals establish such
targets, the achievement of which requires establishing benchmarks at specific
points in time prior to 2015. With the violations approach, State actions are
monitored to examine whether these in themselves result in violations of rights: the
right to adequate food, and/or associated rights, such as right to employment, to
land or to productive means to access adequate food. For example, a government
programme to relocate a community of small farmers because of the need to
construct a dam may seriously affect the community’s access to productive
resources and hence negatively affect their capacity to acquire adequate food,
perhaps further aggravating their vulnerability to food insecurity and malnutrition. In
other words, rights-based monitoring also examines whether there are regressions
in the realisation of the right to adequate food and/or any associated rights.

WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING?

The focus of rights-based monitoring is on the monitoring process itself. The

monitoring process needs to be transparent. Right holders and their representatives
should have an equal opportunity to participate in the monitoring process, and
their partecipation should empower them. Right holders and duty bearers should
have full access to monitoring results and outcomes, thus enabling them to act
on this information. This is sometimes referred to as “evidence-based decision
making”.
6 Article 2, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

12
 2. THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING

*
Rights-based monitoring
Means analysing the monitoring process to see if it is rights
compliant and is conducted in ways that are consistent with human
rights principles and approaches.

A typical monitoring process generally consists of at least five sets of activities.

These are:

• Information organisation (including constructing indicators).

• Information (data) gathering from primary and secondary sources.
• Processing and transformation/tabulation of information.
• Information analysis and interpretation.
• Information sharing and dissemination (reporting).

It will be indicated throughout which meaning is being referred to. A complete

monitoring framework would include the three RFM meanings, which are considered
complementary. The monitoring framework should also include monitoring
methods and approaches that are human rights based. Thus, a comprehensive
monitoring framework should include indicators that cover all four of the above
purposes or objectives. Which approach applies at a given instance depends on
the specific purpose for which monitoring is undertaken, and on the mandate of
the in-country institutions that will be undertaking rights-based monitoring tasks.

Most importantly, the rights-focused monitoring concept should not be understood

too rigidly, otherwise it may too difficult to apply in practice. Implementation of a
rights-focused monitoring framework should also proceed in an incremental way,
building on what already is in place in terms of relevant information systems. We
shall return to this issue below.

WHAT DOES RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING ADD OVER AND ABOVE

CONVENTIONAL MONITORING?

In summary then, what are the additional elements that are introduced by applying
human rights principles and approaches in monitoring? What is the “value
added” of rights-focused monitoring over and beyond traditional monitoring and
evaluation. The important points are:

• Rights-based development provides a comprehensive analytical framework

that reflects economic, social, cultural and political factors in the design of the
monitoring system.

13
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

• A rights-based approach to development integrates the norms, standards and

principles of international human rights treaties and instruments, and requires
that these are followed up in national policies and development programmes.
• By definition, rights-based approaches address gaps between norms and
reality, and helps to identify how public policies and programmes, or activities
by non-state actors, may impede the enjoyment of human rights.
• Human rights based monitoring requires transparency and allows rights-holders
to hold duty-bearers accountable for the delivery of public services to realise
the human right to adequate food.
• It also increases transparency in the way that policy measures are implemented
and public resources are used, and thus makes it easier to assess how the
State responds to emerging needs. This in turn identifies areas in which the
capacity of duty-bearers to deliver services may need to be strengthened.
• Monitoring processes strengthen the capacity of right holders to claim their
rights, and to plan actions in line with their own priorities and needs.
• Under a rights-focused monitoring approach, information is gathered that
assesses: the legal and institutional framework for the realisation of the right to
adequate food, whether steps have been taken to legally incorporate the human
rights provisions of international treaties and conventions that the country
has ratified, and whether adequate institutional arrangements are in place to
implement those provisions.
• The impact of relevant policy measures are monitored and assessed over time
and compared to established targets and benchmarks related to the progressive
realisation of the right to adequate food.
• Special emphasis is placed on monitoring food insecure and vulnerable groups,
particularly by analysing the underlying causes that lead to their suffering from
food insecurity and/or vulnerability to food insecurity, so that they may be better
targeted to benefit from right to food measures.
• The principle of non-discrimination is upheld and firmly integrated in monitoring
decisions, actions, and conduct of political, economic, social, and cultural
institutions, and in the allocation of public resources, thereby enhancing social and
gender equity.

14
 3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTO PRACTICE

3.
PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND
RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE
RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD INTO
PRACTICE
IN THIS CHAPTER THE READER WILL FIND :

● Checklists of potential opportunities and challenges to

implementing rights-focused monitoring.
● Ways to take advantage of opportunities to promote rights-
focused monitoring.
● Ways to address challenges and constraints.
● Lessons learned from specific country experiences.

What needs to be done to get from the normative statements contained in the
Right to Food Guidelines to truly implementing rights-focused monitoring of the
right to adequate food at country level? Opportunities and challenges will differ
among countries. These should systematically be assessed. It is also useful to
learn from available country level experiences, even if these are limited.

UNDERSTANDING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS TO

IMPLEMENTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING

The development and implementation of a rights-focused monitoring process is likely

to encounter difficulties or challenges that need to be overcome. This is inevitable.
But there are also likely to be many opportunities that facilitate the rights-focused
monitoring process and enhance the advancement of rights-based development.

Opportunities and constraints are likely to be found at national, regional and local
levels. An assessment of the situation should be made early on with respect to the
country-specific opportunities and difficulties, to make best possible use of those
opportunities, and to give adequate attention to ways in which difficulties may be
overcome.

We list below some potential opportunities and challenges, some of which may
be found to be present in a specific country. This checklist should assist with the
assessment of the situation with respect to introducing and implementing rights-
focused monitoring.

15
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

A CHECKLIST OF POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunities to implement rights-focused monitoring are directly tied to country

level commitments to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.
Where true commitment to the realisation of these rights exists, the need to have
adequate monitoring information will become clear, and in fact is consistent with
this commitment.

Checklist of Opportunities

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD IN NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS

POLICY COMMITMENTS TO FOOD SECURITY, POVERTY REDUCTION, SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENT

POLITICAL REFORMS AND DEMOCRATISATION PROCESSES

HUMAN RIGHTS MAINSTREAMING EFFORTS

STRONG OR EMERGING POPULAR MOVEMENTS

The human right to adequate food is explicitly or implicitly enshrined at present

in the constitutions of 23 countries. Efforts are also underway in a few countries
to have constitutional amendments adopted that recognise the right to adequate
food. This opens up in those countries political space that can be capitalised
on by ensuring that the relevant constitutional provisions translate into national
legislation, policies, strategies and programmes. This in turn requires monitoring
whether this is indeed happening.

Democratisation processes in a number of countries, facilitated by increasing

decentralisation towards sub-national levels of policy and programme
implementation by government, make possible more effective participation by
rights holders and duty bearers at local level in policy dialogues, and programme
formulation and monitoring. It is also recognised that the local conditions that
give rise to food insecurity and malnutrition, and to vulnerability to food insecurity
and malnutrition, need to be analysed and understood, so that locally developed
actions will be more effective.

This means that monitoring systems can be designed that: are relevant to the
information needs of local decision makers and stakeholders for follow-up actions,
are participatory and more inclusive.

Food security and poverty reduction are increasingly becoming national policy
priorities, in part because of large-scale efforts in some countries by civil society
and technical cooperation agencies to galvanise national efforts around these
issues. International efforts to mobilise policy responses (for example, to achieve

16
 3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTO PRACTICE

the Millennium Development Goals), have also increased demand for human
rights to be put on the political agenda. Monitoring the right to adequate food can
be more easily inserted when monitoring of food security and poverty reduction
goals and targets is foreseen as part of policy or strategy implementation. There
is a body of accumulated and relevant experience with rights-oriented advocacy
work by civil society and other social actors.

Rich experience exists with regards to, for example, gender mainstreaming as a
human rights issue. Such parallel and complementary human rights efforts offer
opportunities for learning. They represent relevant examples from which lessons
to promote the right to adequate food, and the need for rights-focused monitoring
of the right to adequate food, can be drawn. In a few countries, like Brazil, civil
society is well organised and effectively engages in pro-right to adequate food
advocacy work. All these advocacy efforts can benefit in turn from monitoring
information to make them more effective.

Popular and grass roots movements in some countries are growing in terms of
influence. This in turn, at least potentially, opens up new spaces at the grass roots
level for self-determination and for claiming of rights. Turning these new social
spaces into effective areas of grass roots action requires, among other things,
monitoring information that is produced at grass roots level, or through grass
roots participation in monitoring of public programmes and local projects.

A CHECKLIST OF POSSIBLE CHALLENGES

One or more of the following challenges may be encountered at country level, but
not necessarily all. Some of these apply more generally to the realisation of the
human right to adequate food, but have practical implications for how the right
to adequate food will be monitored. Others constitute more specific constraints
to the implementation of rights-focused monitoring at country level. By reviewing
them here it will be easier to anticipate their impact at the country level and to
prepare accordingly, when they are indeed encountered. A few suggestions along
these lines follow this section.

Checklist of Challenges

POOR UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

INSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

POLITICAL COMMITMENTS AND SENSITIVITIES

WEAK INFORMATION SYSTEMS

LOW TECHNICAL MONITORING CAPACITY

17
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Understanding the right to adequate food concept

Government officials and others poorly understand the true meaning and
significance of “the right to adequate food” and what is required to make it
a reality. The concept is often equated with the act of directly providing food
to all who do not have adequate access. This is unrealistic in most cases and
may be seen as threatening to the achievement of government priorities. How
authorities understand and act upon compliance with the right to adequate food
makes a big difference. Rights-focused monitoring, and the application of human
rights principles and approaches are unlikely to be implemented under these
conditions.

Institutional limitations

There are a number of challenges with institutional limitations. Fragmented

institutional responsibility for food security often leads to fragmented monitoring
responsibilities and uncoordinated monitoring activities. There is also often a strong
tendency for governmental institutions, donor agencies, and even academia to be
fragmented along sectoral lines. This poses a barrier to developing an integrated
monitoring framework, which is important since the causes of food and nutrition
insecurity are complex, interrelated and demand integrated solutions. Public
officials are often unaware of what their obligations and duties are in fulfilling
the right to adequate food, because State obligations are not yet directly tied to
specific positions. Obligations may be subject to individual interpretation, and
persons occupying specific posts change over time. This makes it difficult to hold
public officials accountable when monitoring their performance.

Many countries lack an institutional culture of monitoring with respect to human

rights. There may be different reasons for this: (i) a lack of political commitment to
human rights, (ii) civil servants, at all levels of the government bureaucracy, lack
competence to deal with social and economic issues as human rights issues, and
(iii) the lack of commitment to monitoring allows duty bearers to avoid being held
accountable for poor performance.

Political commitments and sensitivities

The discontinuity of governments and of government policies and programmes is

a fact of life. In practical terms, what is to be monitored with respect to policies
and programmes towards the realisation of the right to adequate food also
changes over time. It demands that information systems must be flexible as to
what they measure and analyse. Political commitments are often not followed by
implementation. Monitoring can reveal this lack of action, which may negatively
affect the level of political support for right to adequate food measures. Political

18
 3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTO PRACTICE

considerations may also influence the selection of indicators to be applied in

monitoring. This may mean that those criteria which are most relevant to rights-
based monitoring and the right to adequate food are not included because they
cover politically sensitive issues, or may measure lack of progress.

Weak information systems

Monitoring of the right to adequate food should build on existing information

systems. Some of the problems that may be encountered are: (i) gaps in
geographic coverage, (ii) low validity of the data, (iii) long delay in data availability,
and (iv) incompatibility among different data sets with respect to geographic or
household-level identification, thereby limiting the extent to which data sets can be
linked. These are factors that need to be remedied if rights-focused monitoring is
to analyse, for example, equitable outcomes of policy and programme measures.
The development, implementation and maintenance of solid information systems
require considerable human, financial and organisational resources. These may
not sufficiently be available in developing countries, often also requiring donor
funding and international technical assistance. This in turn brings into question
the sustainability of information systems and of long-term monitoring.

Technical capacity to monitor the right to adequate food

Rights-focused monitoring requires technical knowledge and experience

in monitoring and evaluation and expertise in human rights principles and
approaches. Capacity in both may be lacking at country level. Technical material
to guide the development and implementation of information systems that is
available at country level, such as handbooks and manuals, are often not user-
friendly, and consequently are not used or are accessible only to a small technical
group. So far these materials do not cover methods of rights-focused monitoring.
Lastly, monitoring information also needs to be generated at local and community
levels. This is precisely where capacity is most often the weakest, and also where
resources for capacity strengthening are usually the most limited as national level
needs are given higher priority.

HOW TO ASSESS OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES TO

IMPLEMENTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING?

The opportunities and challenges to developing and implementing rights-focused

monitoring of the right to adequate food should be assessed in each specific
country setting. Not all opportunities and challenges outlined above will be
present in one country. Some of the potential challenges are not unique to the
implementation of rights-focused monitoring. Particularly institutional constraints

19
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

and weak information systems affect the quality of monitoring of socio-economic

policies and programmes, including of food security, nutrition and poverty reduction
measures. Volume II provides more details, information, tools and methods that
can be applied in assessing country level opportunities and challenges. For
example, a “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Constraints” analysis can
be an useful tool to explore the opportunities and challenges that are present in the
legal, political, economic, social and institutional environment for the realisation of
ESCR, including the right to adequate food, and consequently for monitoring of
the right to adequate food.

Additional assessments will provide inputs for the formulation of a rights-focused

monitoring strategy and work plan aimed at addressing identified challenges.
These include:

• Assessment of the existing food security and nutrition related information

systems and ongoing monitoring activities.7
• Assessment of existing institutional roles and capacities (human, technical
and financial) in relation to the needs of a rights-focused monitoring system. 8
• Implementation of reporting procedures that ensure openness and
transparency in the monitoring process.9
• Identification of rights-focused monitoring information users, a clear
understanding of their information needs as rights holders and duty bearers,
and identification of information gaps.10

HOW TO ADDRESS COUNTRY LEVEL CHALLENGES?

A few lessons have been learned with respect to putting the right to adequate
food into practice at country level, and these may also be applicable to the
implementation of rights-focused monitoring of this right. Country studies
conducted in Uganda, Brazil, South Africa, India and Canada allow us to distil
some critical lessons and experiences11.

A brief synopsis of lessons learned is provided in Annex 2. Here we build on those

lessons to make some recommendations for strategic approaches to address
challenges to the implementation of rights-focused monitoring at country level. As
will become clear these approaches are mutually reinforcing.

7 Volume II, chapter 7;

8 Volume II, chapter 4;
9 Volume II, chapter 9;
10 Volume II, chapter 7.
11 FAO. Implementing the Right to Adequate Food: The Outcome of Six Case Studies.
IGWG RTFG Information Paper No. 4. Rome, June 2004. In spite of the title, only five countries were
involved.

20
 3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTO PRACTICE

Strategic approaches to implement rights-focused monitoring

CREATE AN ENABLING POLICY ENVIRONMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

INTRODUCE RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING IN ONGOING MONITORING OF FOOD

SECURITY, NUTRITION AND POVERTY

STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITIES TO MONITOR

DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN AWARENESS RAISING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION STRATEGY

MOBILISE NATIONAL RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD “CHAMPIONS”

FOSTER CIVIL SOCIETY-GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIPS

Create an enabling policy environment

Mainstreaming of human rights principles and approaches in national planning and

policy documents is presently ongoing in a number of countries. Other countries
have expressed an interest in this. There are several motivating forces. As indicated
above, a number of countries have the right to adequate food enshrined in their
constitutions. With respect to the mainstreaming process, much can be learned
from current efforts to mainstream food security and nutrition in national planning
and policy formulation. In fact, mainstreaming of right to adequate food should team
up with mainstreaming efforts related to food security and nutrition issues. This
is already starting to happen in a few countries in Eastern Africa, for example. It
is clear that capacity strengthening, public education and awareness raising, and
advocacy can contribute significantly to mainstreaming efforts. If issues related to
the right to adequate food are included in food security and nutrition planning and
policy documents, it creates a demand for rights-focused monitoring information
within the context of those strategies and policies.

Introduce human rights approaches in ongoing monitoring

The ultimate goal is for rights-focused monitoring and rights-based monitoring to

become standard routine activities. Rights-focused monitoring should build on
ongoing monitoring activities and should add value to these processes by introducing
rights-based approaches. The relevance of rights-focused monitoring, as part of
monitoring and evaluation activities, is more easily demonstrated when major policy
initiatives, strategies and action plans have a clear focus on right to food issues.
Monitoring of the implementation of the National Food and Nutrition Strategy in
Uganda, for example, envisages applying rights-based approaches, in line with the
human rights underpinnings of the National Food and Nutrition Policy.12

12 Government of Uganda. National Food and Nutrition Policy. Kampala, 2003. National Food and
Nutrition Strategy. Kampala, 2005.

21
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Strengthen institutional capacities

Capacity building is a cross-cutting activity that is likely needed by all individuals,

groups, households, communities, civil society organisations and government
institutions. Practitioners in charge of, or involved in, monitoring measures related
to the right to adequate food in general, need to have the capacity to assume their
respective responsibilities. In recent years it has become more fully appreciated
that to fulfil duties within a human rights framework necessitates capacity in
several different areas. In essence, capacity is understood to mean to:

• Be motivated and clearly understand the relevance and importance of what

you have to do.
• Have a degree of autonomy based on delegated authority.
• Be empowered with adequate access to human, financial and organisational
resources.
• Possess the needed skills to undertake the tasks for which you are held
responsible, including: technical skills, managerial skills, communications
skills, and appropriate knowledge and insights commensurate with the duties
they are being asked to undertake.

The Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS)
is an inter-agency initiative that aims to assist countries with strengthening
their information systems for the assessment and monitoring of food insecurity
and malnutrition situations13. The overall goal is “to reduce food insecurity and
vulnerability through better inter-agency and national coordination and networking
on food security information systems”.

Most of the country level FIVIMS activities aim at strengthening capacities in the
provision and utilisation of food security and nutrition information. Some of the
analytical tools developed under the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information
and Mapping Systems banner are discussed in Volume II within the context of
rights-focused monitoring. In addressing identified weaknesses in national
information systems, it is advisable to team up with the FIVIMS initiative and its
national partners, and seek support in strengthening institutional capacities. This
is recommended in the Right to Food Guidelines (see Guidelines 13.1 and 17.3).

Awareness building and public education

Awareness building among right holders and duty bearers is essential in order
to operationalise the right to adequate food at country level. People can only
participate meaningfully if they have appropriate and credible information and if
they are aware of the issues that affect their right to adequate food.

13 FAO-FIVIMS. Guidelines for National FIVIMS. Background and Principles. IAWG Guidelines Series
No. 1. Rome, FAO, 2000.

22
 3. PUTTING RIGHTS-FOCUSED AND RIGHTS-BASED MONITORING OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD INTO PRACTICE

This also extends to the implementation of rights-based monitoring. Information

providers (duty bearers) should clearly understand how to incorporate rights-
based approaches in their monitoring activities. Right holders and duty bearers,
as end-users of rights-focused monitoring information, should also understand
how monitoring information can be used and interpreted to help them in their own
sphere of action and respective responsibilities. In order to enable institutional
decision makers and technical staff to become fully aware of rights-based
monitoring approaches, and to help them link these to their own ongoing monitoring
activities, specific efforts have to be undertaken including:

• Formulation of a well-articulated advocacy and communications strategy

directed at managerial and technical staff with responsibilities for monitoring
food security, nutrition and the incidence of poverty.
• Outlining how rights-based approaches can be incorporated into ongoing
monitoring activities as part of an overall strategy, through the adoption of
progressive and incremental ways that build capacity over time and respect
resource constraints.
• Helping rights holders (or their representatives) understand how they can
become active partners in rights-based monitoring.

National human rights institutions, such as the South African Human Rights
Commission and the Uganda Human Rights Commission, as well as Non
Governmental Organisation right-to-food networks that exist in India, Brazil and
Uganda, for example, undertake awareness building activities targeted at both
right holders and duty bearers. Human rights education can be promoted through
the formal school system, and through professional and in-service training, as
well as at community level in poor areas.

Mobilising right-to-food “champions”

Often individuals are encountered who are aware of, and feel a personal
commitment to, a cause they believe in. They may actively engage in advocacy
on an individual basis, or as members of a group that has identified with that
cause. These persons, particularly when they enjoy a certain personal status and
universal recognition, may be called “champions” 14.

Often they are easily identified, because of their high profile due to current or past
accomplishments in their respective fields. Among them may be individuals who
are committed to furthering human rights. If properly approached in transparent
ways, these individuals may become powerful spokespersons for a right to food
movement, and for the need to monitor progress with the realisation of the right
to adequate food.

14 Examples may include: ex-presidents, award-winning actors/actrices, known literacy or sports

figures, renounced scientists.

23
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Civil society-government partnerships in monitoring the right to

adequate food

Partnerships between government and civil society are increasingly recognised

as important in the development and implementation of food security, nutrition
and poverty reduction programmes. Community-based and non-governmental
organisations, operating effectively at sub-national and community levels, are
often more successful in reaching those most in need than government agencies.
In some countries, civil society organisations play a significant role in monitoring
the realisation of the right to adequate food.

This is the case in Brazil, where currently civil society-government partnerships

are strong. Civil society organisations also develop and apply assessment and
monitoring methodologies that are more participatory and more adapted to
measure causes of food insecurity and malnutrition at local levels. Rights-based
monitoring should take full advantage of government-civil society partnerships
and appropriately incorporate relevant methodologies that are applied by non-
governmental organisations.

24
 4. DEFINING ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS

4.
DEFINING ANALYTICAL
AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS

IN THIS CHAPTER WE COVER :

● An analytical agenda.
● A methodological agenda, both part of implementing
monitoring of the right to adequate food.

These agendas are derived from the various meanings of

rights based monitoring, as explained in chapter 2.

The various meanings of rights-focused monitoring introduce additional analytical

and methodological dimensions into conventional monitoring.15 A first element that
right focused monitoring introduces relates to the way that outcomes and impacts
of policy measures and programmes are analysed. The human rights concern is
with the distributional effects and the question of who benefits and who does not.
Equity requires that the neediest are targeted with the highest priority. This in turn
means that the neediest are identified, are located and that the reasons why they
are poor, food insecure and/or vulnerable are clearly understood.

The universal and permanent fulfilment of the right to adequate food is a long-term
goal that needs to be achieved in stages. By establishing benchmarks and short-
term goals, it is possible to introduce remedial actions when the trend towards the
long-term goal is off. The monitoring question then becomes whether a certain
benchmark has been achieved.

Rights-focused monitoring also involves assessment over time to see whether

the implementation processes of pro-right-to-food measures and the provision
of public services conform to human rights principles. This was called process
monitoring in chapter 2, where it was indicated what needs to be monitored from a
human rights perspective. To capture human rights dimensions of implementation
processes requires the development of rights-focused indicators.

Development and testing of rights-focused indicators should thus become part of

a methodological agenda. To ensure that the monitoring process itself is rights-
15 The Right to Food Guidelines also introduce analytical and methodological agendas. See, for
example, Guidelines 3.2, 13.2 and 17.2 – 17.4.

25
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

based, i.e. participatory, inclusive and empowering creates a need to develop and
adapt methodologies for use by different groups, including rights holder groups
with little technical knowledge or experience.

Lastly, the Right to Food Guidelines themselves also introduce an analytical and
methodological agenda. For example, Guideline 3.2 (assessment of national
legislation, policy and administrative measures, and programmes), Guideline
13.2 (disaggregated analysis of food insecurity, vulnerability and nutritional status
of specific population groups) and Guidelines 17.2–17.4 (right to food impact
assessments, development of process, impact and outcome indicators).

TOWARDS AN ANALYTICAL AGENDA

An analytical agenda

IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERISATION OF FOOD INSECURE AND VULNERABLE

POPULATION GROUPS

TARGETS AND BENCHMARKS TO MONITOR ACHIEVEMENTS IN REALISING THE RIGHT

TO FOOD

POLICY AND PROGRAMME IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

ANALYSIS OF PRO-RIGHT TO FOOD BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES

Several lines of analyses can be prioritised when reviewing the relevant Right
to Food Guidelines. Assessing the legal, institutional and policy environment of
implementing right to adequate food measures is another line of analysis. We deal
with this topic in greater detail in the next chapter. A methodological guide for this
analysis is available in the form of a compendium volume in this Methodological
Toolkit16. We have selected the following analysis for a brief discussion here:

• Food security and vulnerability situation analyses17 that include the identification
and characterisation of food insecure and vulnerable population groups.
These analyses provide baseline information that allows planners and other
decision makers to establish targets and benchmarks, against which to
monitor progress over time.

• Establishment of an inventory of policies, programmes and projects relevant

to the realisation of the right to adequate food, and an analysis of their impacts
and distributional effects, particularly on food insecure and vulnerable groups.

16 FAO. Guide to Conducting a Right to Food Assessment. (draft, 2008).

17 Volume II, chapter 5.

26
 4. DEFINING ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS

Analysis of budgetary allocations and expenditures to assess and monitor

the extent to which political commitments towards the realisation of the
right to adequate food are backed by public resource allocations and actual
expenditures.

Who are the food insecure and vulnerable?

This is a critical question for rights-focused monitoring. In spite of poverty reduction

strategies and policies in many countries, the food-insecure and vulnerable are
often poorly identified and the reasons for their being food insecure are not
reflected in policy and programme designs. Pro-poor policies and strategies
often lack well-defined target groups mainly because the development paradigms
that are used to shape such policies are not people-centred. The rights-focused
monitoring approach stresses the clear identification and characterisation of food-
insecure and vulnerable groups. This in turn may contribute to improved and more
effective designs and better targeting of pro-poor policies and programmes.

Food security and vulnerability situation analysis, targets and

benchmarks

Information is needed with which duty bearers can be held accountable for lack of
progress in national goals and targets, and through which ways can be identified
to improve and accelerate progress in the future. Central to this process is
establishing targets and benchmarks. Often countries have adopted international
targets, such as halving the number of hungry by the year 2015, reducing the
number of underweight under-five children by 50 percent or halving the percent
of children and women suffering from iron-deficiency anaemia. Food security,
nutrition and vulnerability situation analyses can help adjust these international
targets within a specific national context, so that they become national targets.

Policy and programme inventories and impacts18

Policy and programme formulation and implementation processes are part

of rights-focused analysis. These should also be directly linked to appropriate
corrective measures to:

• Improve policy and programme targeting of the most needy.

• Reduce or mitigate negative effects on achieving the right to adequate food.
• Strengthen positive effects.
• Provide inputs for the formulation of new policies, programmes and projects
that are human rights based in their intended impact.

18 Volume II, chapter 5.

27
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Analysing the implementation of political commitments through budget

analysis19

Political commitments to the right to adequate food are expressed in domestic

policies, laws and regulations, and should be reflected in public budgets. A high
level of commitment should translate into a significant portion of public resources
being allocated to, and expended on, measures that aim to further the right to
adequate food. When the results of a public budget analysis are appropriately
and widely disseminated, it provides information that rights holders and others
can use to hold policy decision makers, planners and public budget managers
accountable when budgetary allocations and expenditures, and trends therein,
are not in line with the expressed political commitments. Public budget analysis
can be a good monitoring tool of implementation processes. It generates process
indicators that can be useful to:

• Assess the implementation of specific policy instruments.

• Detect in particular discriminatory implementation procedures.
• Analyse whether allocations and expenditures are consistent with the
progressive realisation of ESCR.

TOWARDS A METHODOLOGICAL AGENDA

A methodological agenda

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF RIGHTS-BASED INDICATORS

IDENTIFICATION OF MONITORING INFORMATION USERS AND USES, AND OF

INFORMATION PROVIDERS

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PARTICIPATORY MONITORING APPROACHES

Three cross-cutting methodological issues related to rights-focused monitoring and

rights-based monitoring have been singled out here, and these are:Identification,
development and testing of appropriate indicators, identification of users and
uses of monitoring information, and participatory monitoring approaches.

These cross-cutting issues are directly linked to the question: How to monitor
from a human rights’ perspective? As before, separate chapters are included in
Volume II that elaborate further on these methodological issues.

19 Volume II, chapter 4.

28
 4. DEFINING ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS

Identification and development of indicators for rights-focused monitoring20

Many of the technical discussions related to monitoring of economic, social and

cultural rights centre on indicators. It is useful to bear in mind, however, that the
identification of indicators, and the development of indicator lists, are necessary,
but not sufficient conditions for the implementation of an effective monitoring
system. Indicator sets relevant to food insecurity, vulnerability and poverty can
be found internationally and in many countries, and should be drawn upon for
rights-focused monitoring when appropriate. Such indicators are often more likely
to cover the impacts or outcomes of right to adequate food measures, rather than
the processes by which such measures are implemented. As a first step, available
indicators and their actual use should be assessed. Many outcome indicators
generated by conventional food security monitoring systems are applicable for
monitoring the actual progress in realising the right to adequate food. They may
not all be suitable for assessing, for example – the enjoyment or denial of the right
to adequate food at the household or individual level. Yet, this is precisely what
rights-focused monitoring is concerned with: to understand the distributional
effects of policy measures and programmes, and thus outcomes: whose right to
adequate food is not being respected, protected or fulfilled?

Identifying and developing indicators to monitor the right to adequate food requires
several specific inputs. These are:

• A conceptual-analytical framework that specifies what is to be monitored.

• A set of guiding human rights principles and methodological considerations
that help in the selection of indicators.
• An inventory of candidate indicators that are already being produced as part
of ongoing monitoring activities.
• An assessment of these indicators as to their relevance in relation to the
monitoring framework and the possibility of consistently being constructed
and analysed in accordance with human rights principles.
• Other normative principles or standards, internationally agreed to and relevant
to what is to be monitored (some of which may already be used in ongoing
monitoring activities).21
• A gap analysis to assess what is needed to close the gap(s) between desirable
outputs and outcomes (norms) and actual outputs and outcomes.
• Additional indicators that need to be identified or constructed in order to
complete the monitoring framework.

The identification and application of indicators should start from what already
exists. This should normally be the approach in rights-focused monitoring: building
upon what is already in place, but looked at through a ‘human rights lens’. The

20 Volume II, chapter 3.

21 For example, the set of norms agreed to as to what constitute good breastfeeding practices (see
the so-called Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative launched by WHO and UNICEF in 1990).

29
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

modification of indicators already in use or in construction, and the development

of additional indicators should be done incrementally so as not to overburden
ongoing monitoring activities. The identification of appropriate indicators should
directly involve all stakeholders including programme managers, legislators, as
well as representatives of food-insecure and vulnerable groups. The indicators
should correspond to the monitoring questions of different user groups who
participate in the monitoring process.

Identification of users and uses of rights-focused monitoring information22

In the effort to contribute to “evidence-based decision making”, it is necessary to identify:

• Who the end users of rights-focused monitoring information are, and for what
purposes they need rights-focused monitoring information.
• What can be done to assist the different stakeholder groups to transform
rights-focused monitoring information into better and more effective decisions
and actions?
Communication and transparency are critical between both duty bearers and
rights holders. Structured and continuous dialogue between information users and
providers can contribute to ensuring that rights-focused monitoring information is:

• Timely.
• Relevant to duty-bearers’ responsibilities and their information needs.
• Technically and socially accessible to targeted information users.
• Is appropriately disseminated to different users groups.

Right holders and their representatives constitute an important rights-focused

monitoring information user group. The right to information is essential to claim
all other rights. Access to information empowers and gives real meaning to
‘participation’. If appropriately disseminated, ways in which right holders may use
rights-focused monitoring information include:

• Reaffirmation and claiming of their rights.

• Participation in public policy debates and consultations.
• Participation in social control mechanisms to hold duty bearers accountable.
• Planning self-reliant actions to address their prioritised problems.
• Political and social mobilisation efforts.
• Acquisition of greater awareness and understanding of their human rights.

A monitoring system is rights-compliant when information outputs are directed at

specific right holder groups, and when the content and dissemination methods
fully take into account the constraints to information access that these groups
face (such as literacy constraints or language differences). An interesting example
from Uganda is presented in the following box.

22 Volume II, chapter 7

30
 4. DEFINING ANALYTICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL AGENDAS

BOX 4.1 - The Importance of Public Information

A ‘Communications Lesson’ from Uganda

In Uganda each year the national budget preparation phase ends with so called Budget Day
in June. On that day, the national budget is officially launched. Two days later, a newspaper
insert comes out in two prominent newspapers (The Monitor and New Vision), called
Budget Highlights, which attempts to explain in lay terms what is contained in the year’s
budget. The insert is also translated in four local languages (paid for by the newspapers),
and appropriately inserted on a regional basis. A second publication called The Uganda
Budget 200x/200x – A Citizen’s Guide comes out annually and targets citizens at national,
local and community levels. The publication is prepared in English and eight local languages.
The content and translations are tested and validated as being appropriate for community
level before dissemination. The publication is distributed through local government. The
Office of Information and Communication of the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development in Kampala prepare both publications.

Participatory monitoring approaches23

The Right to Food Guidelines suggest that the monitoring process itself be
participatory and inclusive, i.e. that it be rights-based. Often, both participation in
the monitoring process and access to the monitoring information, are limited to
small technical groups. Participation can be directly by individual rights-holders,
or indirectly through organisations that represent rights-holders’ interests, such
as consumer protection and advocacy agencies, ombudsmen, human rights
commissions and community-based organisations. The meaning of participation
can range from people being asked to provide information, to being consulted
on certain issues, all the way to people initiating and undertaking the monitoring
process, and directly benefiting from the monitoring results linking these to follow-
up actions decided on by them. In the last case, people become empowered
through learning, their capacity for self-determination is respected, and their
capacity to claim rights and hold government officials accountable is enhanced.
Participatory monitoring (and evaluation) has been around for some time now.
There is considerable documentation both on participatory monitoring techniques
and tools, as well as on experiences with their application. The techniques and
tools are further described in Volume II. A few examples are listed below24.

Much can be learned from documented approaches and tools in designing

participatory monitoring systems. If truly participatory, it may be difficult to talk

23 Volume II, chapter 8.

24 Institute of Development Studies. “Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation : Learning from
Change”. IDS Policy Briefing No. 12, November 1998. “Brief Notes on the Essence and Use of
Participatory Service Delivery Assessment (PDSA) in Zanzibar”. Zanzibar Economic Bulletin, Vol. 3,
No.1, January-March 2005. Institute of Development Studies. “The Power of Participation: PRA and
Policy”. IDS Policy Briefing No. 7, August 1996.

31
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

of “designing a system”, as methodologies are adapted by those engaging in

monitoring. It is also possible that some organisations in the country are already
applying participatory monitoring methods, and if so, this should be capitalised on.

BOX 4.2 - Examples of participatory monitoring tools

Example 1: Zambia
CARE/Zambia wanted to implement community projects that responded
to communities’ needs, while at the same time learning more from project
implementation. Applying wellbeing ranking and other participatory methods,
a baseline was established in scores of villages. Changes in the worst and
best-off families were being monitored to assess project impacts and plan new
initiatives. Joint analysis by villagers and project staff encouraged communities
to take actions on their own.

Example 2: Zanzibar
A participatory service delivery assessment was recently piloted in Zanzibar,
as part of monitoring and evaluating the Zanzibar Poverty Reduction Plan (now
called Zanzibar Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction or Mkuza). The main
instrument was the citizen’s report card that was first introduced in 1993 in India.
This instrument collects user feedback information on the provision of public
services. It becomes a monitoring instrument when periodically applied. In the
Zanzibar pilot the focus was on public education and water delivery among poor
population groups. Even the results of the pilot prompted the Department of
Water to revive wells for use in the dry season, thus addressing water scarcity,
and the Ministry of Education to start installing toilet facilities in schools.

Example 3: Indonesia
Maps as an instrument of participatory rural assessments have reportedly been
used by farmers in Indonesia to monitor pest infestations and plan appropriate
actions as part of integrated pest management programmes.

32
 5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
4. DEFINING
SETTINGS
ANALYTICAL
FOR MONITORING
AND METHODOLOGICAL
THE RIGHT AGENDAS
TO FOOD

5.
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
FOR MONITORING THE RIGHT TO FOOD

IN THIS CHAPTER WE COVER :

● Legal and institutional issues that may be relevant for

implementing rights based monitoring.
● Ways to promote institutional participation and
coordination in the monitoring process.

Legal and institutional settings in a country help determine what to monitor.

Institutional mandates and capacities will also determine how the right to adequate
food can be monitored, and which institutions participate in this process.

MONITORING THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK TO REALISE RIGHTS

The national legal framework should be conducive to the protection and promotion
of all human rights. This framework essentially consists of the country’s constitution,
laws and regulations, customary law, and institutions with the responsibility to
respect, protect and fulfil human rights. This legal framework is the basis for rights
holders to claim their right to adequate food relying on legal provisions, recourse
mechanisms, jurisprudence and institutional remedies. Assessing and then
monitoring changes in the legal framework is an important contribution to turn rights
holders into rights claimants. It can also bring about discussion and dialogue about
changes needed to make the legal environment more accessible. Courts can play
a monitoring role in assessing whether a particular administrative decision, policy
or piece of legislation violates the right to adequate food. Capacity strengthening of
courts to play a role in monitoring the right to adequate food should be considered in
each country. In turn, court proceedings can be monitored for cases filed and cases
resolved, and their outcomes. In practice, however, not many cases concerning the
right to adequate food are submitted to courts. One outstanding example is from
India (Box). Assessment of the relevant legal and regulatory arrangements is an
important first step25. The analysis should indicate what parts of these arrangements
require adjustments. For example, in some countries this process starts with the
introduction of a constitutional amendment. Implementation of the changes to be
introduced in the legal framework need to be monitored.
25 Volume II, chapter 4

33
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS TO MONITOR THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

One of the first priorities in designing a national level rights-focused monitoring

framework is the analysis of existing legal and administrative frameworks to determine
their level of adequacy. Behind every effective and functioning monitoring system is
a solid legal and administrative framework. Firstly, a set of criteria is needed against
which to examine existing institutional conditions and to help to identify gaps that
will need to be addressed. The analysis should include an examination of the various
institutions that are likely to be involved, their institutional mandates and their degree
of authority (as provided for by law), their capacity to gather information and undertake
analysis and assessment, as well as their official reporting responsibilities.

BOX 5.1 - An example from India

The landmark case concerning the right to food is the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
petition to the Supreme Court filed in 2000, in response to starvation deaths in rural areas,
especially in the drought-affected areas of Rajasthan and Orissa. The petitioners claimed that the
State failed to properly implement the famine code and had thus violated the constitutional right
to life and the right to food. In 2003, in its Interim Order, the Supreme Court acknowledged the
violation of the constitutional right to life by interpreting it in the light of Article 47 of the Directive
Principles and the State’s duty to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people.
The Court also issued several orders to Central and State governments to take measures to
improve the situation; these included orders for the opening times of ration shops, the provision
of grain at the set price to families below the poverty line, the publication of information about
nutrition-related schemes and the progressive introduction of midday meal schemes in schools.
The Court recognised that all benefits provided for by the relevant nutrition-related schemes are
legal entitlements, and thus redress can be sought in case of violations.

Access to information and information sharing among different public institutions

should ideally be mandated by law, and be considered in designing the rights-
focused monitoring framework with the various institutional stakeholders to be
involved.

A checklist of institutional attributes

A CLEAR MANDATE

ADEQUATE AND IDENTIFIABLE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES

A WORK PLAN THAT SPECIFIES TIME-BOUND OUTPUTS

A STRONG DISSEMINATION PLAN TARGETING DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS

A HIGH LEVEL OF CREDIBILITY

GOOD ACCESS TO ALL RELEVANT SOURCES OF INFORMATION

ADVISORY COMMITTEES WITH HUMAN RIGHTS AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

GOOD ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATIONS CAPACITY

34
 5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS FOR MONITORING THE RIGHT TO FOOD

A checklist against which to assess attributes and responsibilities of an

institution with primary responsibility to monitor the realisation of human rights
may cover the following26 :

a. The institution/organisation should have a clear mandate for monitoring the

right to adequate food. This mandate should be endorsed at the highest level
(for instance, by Parliament), explicitly stated in the Constitution (as is the case
in South Africa), or enshrined in specific legislation. The institutional mandate
should be widely known and understood by key stakeholders.
b. The institution/organisation should have adequate and identifiable human and
financial resources to undertake the monitoring tasks.
c. There should be a well-defined work plan on the basis of which the institution/
organisation can be held accountable for the production and dissemination of
rights-focused monitoring information outputs.
d. The institution/organisation should be organised in such a way that the
monitoring information outputs easily reach key stakeholders at all levels in
both the government and in non-governmental sectors. It is important that
such monitoring information effectively influences decision-making, planning
and programming.
e. The institution/organisation should have a high level of credibility in the eyes
of both those with responsibilities to act upon the monitoring information, as
well as right holders. It should be seen as objective and independent, free
from political influence. The realisation of human rights should be a major part
of its institutional agenda.
f. The institution/organisation should have effective access to all relevant
information, and be able to rely on existing information networks in both the
government and non-governmental sectors. It should have both the mandate
and the capacity to verify the validity of the information received from all
sources.
g. The institution/organisation should, as part of its mandate, establish advisory
committees that represent specific expertise in both technical and human
rights aspects needed to monitor the right to adequate food.
h. The institution/organisation should have a good communications and advocacy
strategy in place when its mandate provides for pro-active promotion of the
realisation of the right to adequate food. Monitoring information should likewise
be designed to input into the communications and advocacy strategy.

It is unlikely that any one single institution (or unit within an institution) will meet
all of the above criteria. Nor may it be wise to concentrate all monitoring functions
in one institution. Nevertheless, efforts should be made to approach the high
institutional standards outlined above. The term “institution”, as used here, refers
not only to government institutions, but can include other agencies such as non
governmental organisations and faith-based organisations.
26 These approximately follow the so-called Paris Principles of 1991 which provide reference points
for establishing and operating human rights institutions.

35
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

There may exist different institutional situations with respect to responsibilities

to generate monitoring information, to monitor progress, and to implement pro-
right-to-adequate food measures. This is compounded by a diverse food security
mandate among various institutions, as pointed out in chapter 4. One way to
overcome some of these inter-institutional aspects is to strengthen an inter-
institutional network to monitor the right to adequate food, with some institutional
members identified as primary or leading monitoring institutions or organisations,
and others as associated institutions that may undertake specialised and highly
technical tasks, the results of which feed into the overall monitoring function.
Several scenarios are possible.

One scenario would be where a human rights institution assumes a central

monitoring role, relying largely on information generated by associated institutions,
such as line and planning ministries, statistical offices, poverty monitoring units,
and Non Governmental Organisations. Technical monitoring expertise may have
to be seconded to the human rights institution. A second scenario may be where
monitoring is part of the mandate of an inter-ministry body, like a national food
security and nutrition council, that relies on information from various sources. The
human rights institution should be a member of this body. Such a council would
need a technical secretariat, with capacity to analyse information including from a
human rights perspective. For example, staff from a human rights institution can
be seconded to this technical secretariat. A third scenario is where most of the
monitoring of the realisation of human rights is undertaken by a network of non-
governmental agencies, in first instance, monitoring government efforts to realise
human rights. Civil society organisations often rely on government statistics to
monitor the realisation of human rights, though they may have means to generate
additional information and/or to verify government statistics. Rather than being
an antagonistic relationship, efforts should be made that this eventually leads
to a government-civil society partnership in monitoring and ultimately in the
implementation of pro-right-to-adequate food measures. This is what happened in
Brazil: civil society networks first undertook monitoring of government actions. At
present a great deal of the monitoring role has been assumed by the National Food
Security Council (and similar councils at state level), two-thirds of its members are
from civil society and one third from the government sector. Academic institutions
often conduct food security and nutrition related research. Primary monitoring
institutions may also rely on research results from universities and research
centres. Research institutions are usually seen as being independent and neutral,
and generate normative information that may serve as standards to be used in
rights-based monitoring.

Below is a look at a few concrete country examples that illustrate how various
agencies may take on specific tasks and responsibilities in the rights-based
monitoring process (Box). The case from South Africa is a special one, and even
the process in Brazil has many unique features.

36
 5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS FOR MONITORING THE RIGHT TO FOOD

STRENGTHENING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF MONITORING THE RIGHT TO

ADEQUATE FOOD

The lack of sustainability has repeatedly been identified as hindering monitoring

information systems at country level. National information systems are often at
least partially dependent on donor funding. This may be true for sector information
systems, national surveys, population or agricultural censuses. Sustainability has
political, social, institutional, technical and financial dimensions that are closely
interrelated. Capacity strengthening can contribute to institutional and technical
sustainability. An information system that is politically and socially supported, that
has a strong institutional base or network, and that produces relevant, timely and
technically sound information outputs, will most likely have adequate financial
resources on a long-term basis.

BOX 5.2 - Examples of agency tasks and responsibilities in Right based monitoring

Example 1: Brazil
In Brazil, the Ministero Publico has a clear mandate to monitor the realisation
of economic, social and cultural rights. However, it seems to lack adequate
human and financial resources to undertake necessary monitoring tasks
itself, while the Office of the National Rapporteur for the Right to Food, Water
and Rural Land monitors rights violations and reports these to the Ministerio
Publico for follow-up action.

Example 2: South Africa

The South African Human Rights Commission is constitutionally mandated to
monitor the realisation of all human rights (not only the right to adequate food),
is autonomous and has unlimited access to information from all government
departments. The Commission reports to, and can make legislative proposals
to the Parliament. As an independent organisation, South Africa Human Rights
Commission obtains information from line ministries and other duty bearers,
analyses the information and issues a public report to Parliament.

Example 3: Brazil
A network of Non Governmental Organisations, social associations and
institutions in Brazil called Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Alimentar e
Nutricional, undertakes research and fieldwork to generate and analyse
information related to food and nutrition. The outputs produced by the network
and individual members are used for policy and programme proposals
and for monitoring. This type of networking – through the establishment
of collaborative links among different agencies is a model that should be
encouraged in all countries.

37
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Experience to date suggests that the likelihood of successful monitoring will be

enhanced through:

• An inclusive and participatory process, involving key stakeholders (monitoring

information providers and users).
• A good communication process which clearly articulates the value added of
the information system in integrating human rights principles and approaches
in existing monitoring activities.
• An early demonstration of what the information system is capable of
producing in response to information needs on the part of various users.
• A realistic and transparent assessment of the information system, and a
clear identification of what is needed to improve the system’s efficiency and
effectiveness.

Applying these ideas may help to improve the chances of successful, more
meaningful and long-term realisation of the right to adequate food and other
economic, social and cultural rights.

38
 5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS FOR MONITORING6.THE
GETTING
RIGHT TO
STARTED
FOOD

6.
GETTING STARTED

SOME IDEAS ARE PRESENTED IN THIS CHAPTER :

● About how to go about introducing at country level

rights based monitoring as part of conventional
monitoring of food insecurity, malnutrition and poverty.

Effective implementation of the Right to Food Guidelines at country level requires

the development of an implementation strategy that covers awareness raising,
advocacy, public education and communication, capacity strengthening, the role
of civil society, and rights based monitoring. Awareness raising, public education
and promotion of human rights, including the right to adequate food, and the
development and implementation of rights-focused monitoring must go hand in
hand. Rights-focused monitoring of the right to adequate food only makes sense
when there are real political and social commitments to human rights. This way
we can also expect the monitoring process itself to be rights compliant, and the
monitoring information to be useful to further the fulfilment of human rights. The
creation of an enabling human rights environment, by means of a process that is
owned by the country and by the principal stakeholders at different levels, is the
first necessary step. Creation of an enabling human rights environment is not the
primary responsibility of monitoring practitioners.

However, rights-focused monitoring information can in turn contribute to creating

an enabling human rights environment if the information outputs are well targeted
in reaching important decision makers, and are relevant and timely.

HOW DO WE GET STARTED?

There is no set way as conditions to implement human rights measures, and to

develop and strengthen food security information systems will differ from country to
country. Nor is there a lot of in-country evidence to learn from at present. Country-
specific opportunities and challenges need to be clearly understood up-front. For

39
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

example, a programme of capacity strengthening for rights-focused monitoring

and rights-based monitoring ideally should begin with an institutional assessment
to determine existing needs for capacity strengthening. The assessment should
not only consider human resource factors, but also institutional and financial
factors, and should concentrate on those institutions and organisations that have
clear duties to generate, synthesise, manage, analyse and disseminate information
for monitoring. Assessment results can then provide the basis for the formulation
of a strategic ‘capacity strengthening’ work plan. This plan may include:

• Skills-building.
• Knowledge acquisition.
• Technological or methodological development.
• Improved communications.
• Internal reorganisation to establish clear job responsibilities and lines of
authority.
• More effective ways of information sharing among institutions and
organisations.

One approach that may be considered is to convene a small inter-institutional

working group to develop a rights-based monitoring system. This was done in
Uganda within the context of monitoring implementation of the Uganda Food and
Nutrition Strategy.

BOX 6.1 - Developing a rights-focused monitoring module in Uganda

To develop and operationalise the monitoring module of the 2005 Uganda Food
and Nutrition Strategy, an inter-institutional working group was convened by the
Secretariat of the Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture. The group consisted of
a representative of the following institutions: Uganda Human Rights Commission,
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (Poverty Monitoring and
Analysis Unit), Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Ministry of
Health, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, and the Food Rights Alliance Network (a Non
Governmental Organisation network).

The working group was mandated by high level management in each institution to
ensure continuous participation in the group’s work. The group was assisted by a
national consultant hired by FAO. The final output to be produced was a practical
toolkit to monitor Ugandan Food And Nutrition Strategy implementation, applying
rights based approaches. The first task that the group completed was a work plan
that outlined specific tasks to complete and outputs to produce within a given
timeline, and assigned specific responsibilities to members of the group. The
group periodically reported to the Plan For The Modernisation Of Agriculture Sub-
committee on Food and Nutrition Security and consulted its members individually
when needed.

40
 6. GETTING STARTED

For such an inter-institutional working group to function well requires:

• A clear description of the tasks to be undertaken by the group, and of the

results to be produced within a given time line.
• Technical guidance as needed in the form of on-the-job training.
• Creation of awareness and understanding at high management levels of
the right to adequate food concepts and principles, of the importance and
relevance of rights-based monitoring and of the monitoring outputs that the
system will or can produce.
• Participation in the inter-institutional working group by individual staff members
from different institutions to be mandated by high-level management in
participating institutions.

As the Uganda case demonstrates, it is also helpful when there is a specific context
within which the rights-focused monitoring module is to be developed, in this
case the need to monitor the implementation of the Uganda Food and Nutrition
Strategy. It is a good starting point, making the monitoring outputs “demand-
driven” and thus providing guidance as to what to monitor. A more comprehensive
rights-focused monitoring system can over time build on such a specific module.

In the case of Brazil, current efforts in developing a rights-based monitoring system

are guided by the needs to monitor the implementation and outcomes in sixteen
policy priority areas related to food and nutrition security. These policy areas in
total encompass 59 programmes. Participation of monitoring practitioners in the
working group is fundamental, in order to see what needs to be introduced in
routine or ongoing monitoring activities to make the monitoring process rights-
based and the information outputs relevant to monitoring the right to adequate
food.

Institutional leadership is another important ingredient. An institution should

convene the working group with strong ties to key institutions and organisations,
and should continuously consult stakeholders at national and sub-national
levels, and provide feedback on progress in its work to those institutions and
organisations. This will facilitate the eventual implementation of the rights-based
monitoring system, as those same institutions and organisations will participate
as providers of monitoring information and/or as users. It means that some of the
institutional issues outlined in chapter 5 also need to be attended to with some
priority.

41
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

ANNEX 1.
CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND
COMMONLY USED TERMS

FOOD SECURITY

Food security exists when all people have, at all times, physical, social and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary
energy requirements and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Household
food security means that all members of the household are food secure.

Food insecurity exists when people lack adequate physical and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development, and
for active and healthy lives. Household food insecurity means that one or more
members of the household are food insecure. Food insecurity can be caused
by unavailability of food, lack of sufficient purchasing power to acquire and/or
produce sufficient, safe and nutritious foods.

At the household level, inappropriate acquisition and distribution, and/or inadequate

use of foods can contribute to food insecurity of one or more members. People
or households that suffer from periods of a lack of physical and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious foods, while having adequate access at other
times, are still considered food insecure. Food insecurity can thus be chronic (at
most or at all times), seasonal, or transitory when an extraordinary event occurs
that negatively affects food access after which adequate access is restored (see
Vulnerability to food insecurity). When people or households suffer from food
insecurity, their right to adequate food is not realised, even if the food insecurity
condition is temporary. Only when people or households are food secure do they
fully enjoy their right to adequate food.

NUTRITION SECURITY

Nutrition security means that a person enjoys at all times an optimal nutrition
condition for an active and healthy life. An optimal nutrition condition is relative to
age, desired life style, and physiological condition, and covers both quantitative

43
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

(dietary energy requirements) and qualitative (protein, mineral and vitamin

requirements) aspects. Persons who at no time, or who at some times only, enjoy
an optimal nutrition condition, are nutritionally insecure. As with food insecurity,
nutrition insecurity can be chronic (at all or at most times), seasonal or transitory.
Persons can be nutritionally insecure due to food insecurity, or due to non-food
causes, such as poor health and sanitation conditions that result in certain diseases
that affect the absorption of food by the body. Particularly relevant to the nutrition
security of small children are childcare and feeding practices that negatively affect
children’s nutrition condition. Nutrition security means the enjoyment of the right
to adequate food and of the right to health.

VULNERABILITY TO FOOD AND NUTRITION INSECURITY

Vulnerability refers to the presence of factors that place people at risk of becoming
food insecure or malnourished, including factors that affect people’s capacity to
deal with, or resist, the negative impact of risk factors on people’s access to
adequate food and/or on their nutrition conditions. Vulnerability thus combines
exposure to one or more risk factors, and the capacity to withstand the effects of
that risk or those risks. People or households that are exposed to certain risks, but
have adequate capacity to deal with those risks and maintain or quickly recover
adequate access to food, are not considered vulnerable.

On the other hand, people or households that have little or no capacity to

safeguard their access to food, even when confronted with a minimal risk factor,
are considered vulnerable or even highly vulnerable. Vulnerability can be thought
of in terms of degrees, depending on the combination of: (i) the extent of exposure
to risks (and the types of risks) and (ii) the capacity to compensate for the effects
of those risks on the adequacy of food access or on one’s nutrition conditions.
Food insecure people or households are also vulnerable, because any exposure
to a risk will further aggravate their food insecurity condition.

External risks factors to which vulnerable groups may be exposed are far ranging.
They include:

• Climatic and environmental changes: droughts, floods, environmental

degradation, deforestation.
• Demographic and economic changes: rapid population growth, sharply rising
consumer prices or falling producer prices.
• Health and diseases: hiv/aids pandemic, high malaria incidence, plant pests,
• Wars and armed conflicts.
• Laws, policies and regulations that adversely affect the resource-poor.

44
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

Examples of risk factors for food security in selected countries

Droughts, floods, deforestation and soil erosion, as well as inadequate agricultural

and economic policies, have been identified as significant risk factors for food
availability in Guatemala. The sharply falling coffee prices over the last years has
markedly increased the vulnerability of the rural landless in Central America due to
loss of employment. The rapid rate of urbanisation in Mexico, with over 82 percent of
the population estimated to be living in urban areas by 2030, increasingly affects food
access for a significant share of the population. Rapid population growth constitutes
a risk factor for per capita food availability in Bangladesh.

The progression in the HIV/AIDS pandemic in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa

represents an increasingly serious risk factor for food security for the poor, especially
as incidence rates are the highest among the population in the productive age
range. Local armed conflicts and full-scale wars in many regions of Africa displace
population groups and separate them from their assets (land) and economic means
of livelihoods (employment). Consequently, their capacity to maintain their livelihoods
and cope with other risks is sharply reduced.

HUNGER

Hunger has been referred to as an uneasy or painful sensation that is caused by

a recurrent and involuntary lack of access to sufficient food27. Hunger can lead
to malnutrition (defined below) and is usually the consequence of food insecurity.
In the US, a distinction has been made when measuring food insecurity and
hunger, i.e. people may be food insecure without being hungry. In this case, food
insecurity refers to a continuous concern about acquiring sufficient food that is
not necessarily associated with a sharp reduction in food intake. In developing
countries, the reduction in food intake as a result of food insecurity among the
poor normally means that people are hungry. Hunger has also been described in
terms of degrees of severity, i.e. the extent to which people are forced to reduce
their daily food intake.

HIDDEN HUNGER

Hidden hunger refers to sustained deficiency in vitamins and mineral intake in

relation to a person’s requirements. The most prevalent deficiencies globally are in
intakes of iron, iodine and vitamin A. It is estimated that worldwide about 2 billion
people suffer from iron deficiency (the vast majority are women and children),
over 1.5 billion from iodine deficiency and 800 million from vitamin A deficiency.

27 Eileen Kennedy. Qualitative measures of food insecurity and hunger. In: Proceedings – Measurement
and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition. International Scientific Symposium, Rome
June 2002. FAO, 2003 (pages 165-180).

45
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

These deficiencies can be present even when daily energy intakes are adequate.
It is referred to as ”hidden” because often there are no visible signs (in mild to
moderate cases), and the persons suffering from these deficiencies are unaware
or do not have enough information to identify physical symptoms associated with
these deficiencies (in more severe cases).

UNDERNOURISHMENT

Undernourishment means a level of food intake with an energy content that

consistently fails to meet the dietary energy requirements of a person. In the same
way, overnourishment means a daily energy intake that consistently exceeds
energy requirements. Children and adults, whose body weight significantly, and
for an extended period, exceeds their normal weight, are thus overnourished.
Dietary energy requirements of an individual are determined by the energy needs
for normal body functions, and by energy needs to maintain good health and
normal activity. Dietary energy requirements vary with age, gender and life style.
They also vary between individuals of the same age and gender, as life styles and
activity levels vary. At the same time, as life styles and activity levels change over
time for the same person, so do her/his daily energy requirements, including for
short periods of time, such as in seasonal agricultural labour.

Household level survey data on food intake are often not available at country level.
To estimate the daily energy intake for a country, FAO uses the data from food
balance sheets to measure the daily energy available for human consumption,
or daily energy supply, which is thus an indirect measure of daily energy intake.
The prevalence of undernourishment, or food deprivation, is then estimated for
countries by applying mathematical formulas to approximate the distributions in
the population of daily energy requirements and of the daily energy supply28. Per
capita Daily Energy Supply and the prevalence of undernourishment are used to
monitor over time the country’s food security position.

UNDERNUTRITION

People suffer from undernutrition when they are undernourished, and/or when they
poorly absorb or when their bodies make poor use of, the dietary energy, protein,
vitamins and minerals contained in the foods they consume. Poor absorption
most often is due to the person suffering from one or more diseases. For example,
when children suffer from high worm loads, they poorly absorb and utilise energy,
proteins and minerals and vitamins, and often suffer from undernutrition, even

28 Loganaden Naiken. FAO methodology for estimating the prevalence of undernourishment. In:
Measurement and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition. Proceedings - International
Scientific Symposium, Rome June 2002. FAO, 2003 (pages 7 – 26 and appendices).

46
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

when their daily intake of these is in line with their normal, worm-free requirements.
Undernutrition has thus food and non-food causes, which in turn points to the
importance of enjoying both the right to adequate food and of the right to health.

MALNUTRITION

People suffer from malnutrition when they have a physiological condition that
may be caused by a consistently deficient intake of energy, protein, and/or of
vitamins and minerals, or by a consistently excessive intake of these, relative to
their requirements. Malnutrition thus refers comprehensively to all forms of under
or over-nourishment, and/or of consistent deficiency in the intakes of proteins,
vitamins and minerals.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

All human rights are characterised as political, civil, economic, social or cultural
rights. The political and civil rights are defined in the 1966 International Covenant
on Political and Civil Rights, and include the right to self-determination, the right
to freedom of opinion and expression, the right of association and assembly, the
right to name and nationality, and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference
with privacy, family and home. Economic, social and cultural rights are defined
in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
and further through interpretations by the UN Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights as expressed in General Comments. Economic, social and
cultural rights include: right to adequate living conditions, right to education, right
to health, right to adequate food, right to housing, right to work, right to social
security, right to participate in cultural life, and right to benefit from science and
intellectual property.

PROGRESSIVE REALISATION OF THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

Unfortunately, in most countries there are hungry people – worldwide over 800
million. Their rights to adequate food are violated. Yet it is highly unrealistic to think
that measures can be put into place immediately so that hungry people can start
enjoying their right to adequate food. So the notion of “progressive realisation”
means that over time the number of hungry people continuously diminishes. It
is incumbent on States to take actions, and put in place measures, so that the
number of hungry people diminishes over time at a rate that is commensurate
with maximum efficiency in the allocation of available resources. When States
periodically report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on
progress with the realisation of ESCR, they need to show that the progress is in
line with the best and maximum use of national resources.

47
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

CORE CONTENT OF THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

The core content of the right to adequate food consists of:

• Economic and physical access to food.

• Food availability.
• Food adequacy.

Economic accessibility implies that personal or household food costs for an

adequate diet should be at a level such that the satisfaction of other basic needs
is not compromised. Economic accessibility applies to any acquisition pattern or
entitlement through which people procure their food and is a measure of the extent
to which it is satisfactory for the enjoyment of the right to adequate food. Physical
accessibility implies that adequate food must be accessible to everyone. Victims
of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other disadvantaged
groups may need special attention, and sometimes priority consideration, with
respect to access to adequate food. Economic and physical accessibility must be
stable, meaning that food access must not fluctuate much over time, once it is at
adequate levels (See Food Security).

Food availability or supply must be adequate to meet food demand (at optimal
levels), and food systems must be environmentally and economically sustainable.
Food systems that make food available to the consumers consist of food
production (including food production for self consumption by the household),
processing, distribution and marketing, and all these processes must be efficient,
have long-term economic and environmental viability, and not produce ecological
damage. Otherwise, long-term food security is compromised (See Vulnerability
to Food Insecurity). For food (intake) to be ”adequate“, it must fulfil three basic
conditions:

• The diet must meet all nutritional requirements, both quantitatively (energy
content) as well as qualitatively (protein, vitamins and minerals content).
• It must be safe for human beings to eat and not cause any disease.
• The food must be culturally acceptable to those who consume it.

HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES AS DEFINED IN THE STATEMENT OF

COMMON UNDERSTANDING (MAY 2003) 29

The human rights principles are: (i) universality and inalienability; (ii) indivisibility;
(iii) inter-dependence and inter-relatedness; (iv) non-discrimination and equality;
(v) participation and inclusion; (vi) accountability and the rule of law.

29 Report of the Interagency Workshop on a Human Rights Based Approach in the Context of UN
Reform. Stamford, May 2003.

48
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

• Universality and inalienability: Human rights are universal and inalienable. All
people everywhere in the world are entitled to them. The person in whom they
inhere cannot voluntarily give them up. Nor can others take them away from
him or her. As stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

• Indivisibility: Human rights are indivisible. Whether of a civil, cultural, economic,

political or social nature, they are all inherent to the dignity of every human
person. Consequently, they all have equal status as rights, and cannot be
ranked, a priori, in a hierarchical order.

• Inter-dependence and Inter-relatedness. The realisation of one right often

depends, wholly or in part, upon the realisation of others. For instance,
realisation of the right to health may depend, in certain circumstances, on the
realisation of the right to education or of the right to information.

• Equality and Non-discrimination: All individuals are equal as human beings

and by virtue of the inherent dignity of each human person. All human beings
are entitled to their human rights without discrimination of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, ethnicity, age, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status as explained
by the human rights treaty bodies.

• Participation and Inclusion: Every person and all peoples are entitled to active,
free and meaningful participation in, contribution to, and enjoyment of civil,
economic, social, cultural and political development in which human rights
and fundamental freedoms can be realised.

• Accountability and Rule of Law: States and other duty bearers are answerable
for the observance of human rights. In this regard, they have to comply with
the legal norms and standards enshrined in human rights instruments. Where
they fail to do so, aggrieved right holders are entitled to institute proceedings
for appropriate redress before a competent court or other adjudicator in
accordance with the rules and procedures provided by law.

NON-DISCRIMINATION

Any discrimination in access to food, and in access to means and entitlements to

acquire food, on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, age, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status with the
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of
economic, social and cultural rights constitutes a violation of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

49
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Policies, programmes and institutions need carefully to be examined to detect

discriminatory outcomes and effects that they may produce when benefiting
certain groups at the expense of others. Strategies to eliminate discrimination in
access to food should include: guarantees of full and equal access to economic
resources, particularly for women, including the right to inheritance and the
ownership of land and other property, credit, natural resources and appropriate
technology; measures to respect and protect self-employment and work which
provides a remuneration ensuring a decent living for wage earners and their
families; maintaining registries on rights to land.

GENDER SENSITIVITY

In many countries, women and girls are more often victims of rights violations.
Although men and women are generally equal before the law, women are
usually discriminated against in access to food, land, credit and other means of
production. Applying a gender sensitive approach means going beyond equality
in the legal system, by considering the differences in living conditions and
interests of women and men from the outset, and in a consistent manner, when
formulating and implementing a social policy, programme or project. This also
implies the promotion of compensatory measures in order to achieve de facto
equality in accordance with Article 4, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women.

PARTICIPATION

Participation is a fundamental principle for human rights and should be applied

when the rights are being interpreted and developed as well as when States
develop their programmes aimed at realising the rights. When stakeholder groups
participate in policy formulation, programmes and in decisions related to human
rights, it is more likely that people’s needs and demands are appropriately met.
The right to participation can take many forms: political participation (political
rights), social participation (civil rights) and economic participation (economic,
social and cultural rights).

EMPOWERMENT

Participation and empowerment are closely linked; the latter makes the former
meaningful. Empowerment means that an individual has the capacity to make
effective choices, and thus has the capacity to effectively translate choices into
desired actions and outcomes. The individual’s capacity to make effective choices
is conditioned by: (i) ability to make meaningful choices, recognising the existence
of options, and (ii) the opportunities that exist in the person’s formal and informal

50
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

environment. Empowerment can either refer to a process: are efforts being made
to empower people; or to the outcome of a process: have people effectively been
empowered?

STATE OBLIGATIONS

According to international human rights law, the State has legal and moral duties
or obligations towards the country’s inhabitants. These duties and obligations are
usually spelt out in international agreements and covenants to which the State is
a party, and these may or may not be incorporated in domestic law. Three levels
of State obligations with respect to the realisation of the right to adequate food
are distinguished:
• Obligation to respect.
• Obligation to protect.
• Obligation to fulfil.
The State obligation with respect to the right to adequate food is often wrongly
interpreted to mean that the State must provide everyone with food at all times. The
obligation to respect the existing access to adequate food requires states not to
take any measures that result in preventing anyone from adequate access to food.
The obligation to protect requires measures by states to ensure that enterprises
or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to adequate (including
safe) food. The obligation to fulfil contains two dimensions: to facilitate, and to
provide. The obligation to facilitate means that the state must pro-actively engage
in activities intended to strengthen people’s access to and utilisation of resources
and means to ensure their livelihoods and food and nutrition security. The obligation
to provide adequate food is seen as a last resort, usually in emergency situations,
when the right to life is in jeopardy. International food aid, and drawing down of
national grain reserves, are means by which States provide food to population
groups at risk of suffering from hunger and malnutrition, either due to natural
(droughts, floods), or man-made causes such as complex emergencies.

OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS

State obligations are contained in very general terms in international human rights
law. Details had to be developed over time, increasingly through a normative
process which involves State practice, facilitated and strengthened by the dialogue
of the state parties with the treaty monitoring bodies. It has also been influenced
by normative developments within intergovernmental bodies, in particular the
United Nations, the specialised agencies and a few others. To fulfil their evolving
human rights obligations, States should adopt national law and administrative
regulations reflecting international normative developments, and update these
as the international normative development proceeds. Can non-State actors be
considered duty bearers under international human rights law? Since that law
is addressed to States, it binds only States. However, part of the obligations

51
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

undertaken by states is to impose duties on private persons under national law.

This can be illustrated by two examples:

• The right to adequate food involves the right to safe food. This implies a State
obligation to adopt legislation imposing duties on private food producers to
ensure that only safe food is marketed.

• The Convention on the Rights of the Child imposes obligations on States to

adopt legislation to ensure that parents respect and fulfil the rights of the child.
Although legal responsibility of non-State actors only arises as a consequence
of domestic law, they will be considered as duty bearers responsible for
human rights compliance, even when domestic law has failed to establish the
corresponding legal duties. It can be said that they are morally responsible
even when not legally responsible.

OBLIGATIONS OF CONDUCT

These obligations refer to States complying with their obligations to respect,

protect and fulfil rights.

OBLIGATIONS OF RESULTS

The obligation on the part of the State to work towards the right to adequate food
(and other ESCR) progressively being enjoyed by increasing numbers of people
constitutes an obligation of result.

DUTY BEARERS

The State has the primary responsibility with respect to the realisation of human
rights. State agents at all levels and in all capacities are primary duty bearers with
respect to the realisation of the right to adequate food. These range from the head
of state, to civil servants in public institutions, to public service providers (teachers
in public schools, medical personnel in public hospitals, health centres and posts,
extension agents, public safety personnel), and anyone else who is an employee of
a public institution. These individuals have a delegated duty, and the State can be
held accountable for any act or omission that these individuals undertake in their
official capacity.

Non-State actors (civil society, private sector) may acquire duties when the State
imposes such duties by means of national legislation and regulations. For example,
to protect consumers, the State may put into force certain food safety standards
and impose duties on the private food industry to adhere to those food standards
in producing and marketing certain foods.

52
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

RIGHTS HOLDERS

All members of society hold rights upon birth, and for the remainder of their
lives. Through empowerment and participation, rights holders can become rights
claimants, i.e. understand their rights and have access to the means to claim those
rights. Rights may also legitimately be claimed on behalf of rights holders by their
representatives, when the former do not have adequate access to the means to
claim rights. Claiming rights when rights are violated or not enjoyed also requires
that institutions, such as courts, a human rights commission, and/or a national
office of the ombudsperson, are in place and effectively functioning. Such claims
mechanisms have real meaning when their decisions can effectively be enforced.

MONITORING

Monitoring is a broad and extensive topic. Many definitions of monitoring can be

found in the development literature. Monitoring can take place at national, local and
community levels, and of policies, programmes, projects and community actions.
We highlight here some main elements of conventional monitoring, as identified by
the World Bank 30.

Monitoring

• Is a continuous activity that systematically uses information.

• Measures achievement of defined targets and objectives within a specified
timeframe.
• Provides feedback on implementation processes, and implementation problems.
• Tracks resource acquisition, allocation and expenditures, and the production and
delivery of services.

Monitoring and evaluation are often mentioned together, and are sometimes used
interchangeably because they are seen as closely integrated functions or sets of
activities. Others may argue that monitoring and evaluation are separate functions, in
part because the information is generated for different uses and different users. It is
possible to see these activities as complementary parts of an integrated information
producing and disseminating system.

30 Valadez, Joseph and Bamberger, Michael (Eds.). Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in
Developing Countries. A Handbook for Policymakers, Managers and Researchers. EDI Development
Studies. The World Bank. Washington, D.C., 1994.

53
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

STRUCTURAL INDICATORS

Structural indicators measure whether or not appropriate legal, regulatory and

institutional structures are in place that are considered necessary or useful for the
realisation of a human right. This refers to national law, constitutions, regulations
and legal, policy frameworks and institutional organisation and mandates.

Examples include: the legal status of the right to food and related rights, such as
to health and to education, mandates of institutions with responsibilities for the
core content of the right to adequate food, food security and nutrition policies and
strategies, etc. Most structural indicators are qualitative in nature, and a number
of structural indicators may be evaluated by a simple “yes“ or ”no“ answer, e.g.
if a particular law or policy is in place or not. However, sometimes these yes/no
answers need follow-up questions and additional clarification to capture qualitative
dimensions of the law or policy.

For example, whether the food security and nutrition policy specifically targets food
insecure and vulnerable groups, and policy measures are adequate to address the
underlying causes of food insecurity and vulnerability in those groups. Structural
indicators monitor the State obligations of conduct, i.e. the effort the government
has put forth towards the realisation of a human right.

PROCESS INDICATORS

Process indicators provide information on the processes by which human rights

are implemented, specifically through laws, policies, programmes, regulatory
measures, etc. These indicators are designed to assess how, and to what degree,
activities necessary to attain objectives specific to certain rights are put into
practice, and the progress of these activities over time.

Process indicators capture: (i) the quality of a process in terms of its adherence to
the key human rights principles (is the process non-discriminatory, accountable,
participatory and empowering, and can duty bearers be held accountable?),
and (ii) the type of policy instruments, and public resource allocations and
expenditures invested to further the progressive realisation of a specific right.
As with structural indicators, process indicators measure aspects of the State
obligations of conduct.

Examples, within the context of the right to adequate food, include: land and
environmental laws conducive to efficient food production by smallholder farmers,
food safety and consumer protection laws and regulations, food and nutrition
programmes targeted at vulnerable population groups, rural infrastructure
programmes, targeted food prices subsidies, and improving access to food
among the resource-poor by means of income generation programmes.

54
 ANNEX 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELEVANT AND COMMONLY USED TERMS

OUTCOME INDICATORS

Outcome indicators provide summary information on the extent of realisation of a

human right. These indicators assess the status of the population’s enjoyment of
a right, and thus measure the results achieved by means of policies, programmes,
projects, community actions, and others.

Outcome indicators relate more directly to the realisation of a right, i.e. a

“substantive right” with a clearly defined content. Indicators that measure
the various components of the core content of the right to adequate food are
outcome indicators. As there may be a series of processes contributing to a single
outcome, it becomes useful to make a distinction between process and outcome
indicators.

Example: if adequacy of dietary intake is used as an outcome indicator, it might be

useful to look at process indicators on food safety, income generation, nutrition
education, that are linked to producing this particular outcome. Outcome indicators
measure the state’s obligations of result.

BENCHMARKS

States can set benchmarks as mid-term goals against which to monitor over time
achievements and progress. In applying human rights principles, benchmarks
are important as part of mechanisms with which rights holders can hold duty
bearers accountable for poor progress and lack of achievement. Benchmarks
can be formulated in relation to outcome, structural and process indicators, and
are usually expressed as a quantitative and verifiable goal to be achieved at a
specific point in time. Benchmarks should periodically be assessed to examine
whether states’ capacities and use of available resources are adequately taken
into consideration, i.e. whether the set benchmarks are realistic, or require
adjustments (either up or down).

55
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

Reference sources:

❖ FAO. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000. Rome, 2000.
❖ FAO. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome, 2001.
❖ FAO. Measurement and Assessment of Food Deprivation and Undernutrition.
Proceedings of an International Scientific Symposium, Rome 26-28 June
2002. Rome, 2003.
❖ FAO (AGN) . Nutrition Country Profiles. Rome, various years.
❖ UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment
No. 12. Geneva.
❖ UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment
No. 3. Geneva .
❖ International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, 1966.
❖ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.
❖ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman
(CEDAW).
❖ Report of the Interagency Workshop on a Human Rights Based Approach
in the Context of UN Reform. Stamford, May 2003. (“Statement of Common
Understanding”).

56
 ANNEX 2. WHAT CAN BE LEARNED SO FAR FROM COUNTRY EXPERIENCES?

ANNEX 2.
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED SO FAR FROM
COUNTRY EXPERIENCES?

The systematic rights-based monitoring of the right to adequate food is still not yet
commonly implemented in many countries. So for this reason, there is still little in the
way of empirical evidence and practical experience from which to learn. Fortunately,
a few lessons have been learned with respect to operationalising the right to adequate
food at country level, and these can be applied to the implementation of rights-
based monitoring. Five country studies, conducted in Uganda, Brazil, South Africa,
India and Canada, have allowed us to distil some critical lessons and experiences .
These case studies were conducted specifically to examine the degree to which the
right to adequate food has been realised in each country, but were not specifically
conducted to examine the food security and vulnerability monitoring systems in
those countries in detail.

Five distinct over-arching ‘lessons’ were gleaned from these case experiences and
specifically identify the need for:

• Awareness building.
• Identifying the food insecure and vulnerable.
• Developing rights-based monitoring indicators.
• Capacity strengthening.
• Promoting a strong role of civil society in monitoring the right to adequate food.

NEED FOR AWARENESS BUILDING

Awareness building among rights-holders and duty-bearers is essential in order to

operationalise the right to adequate food at country level. People can only participate
meaningfully if they have appropriate and credible information and if they are aware
of the issues that affect the human right to adequate food. This conclusion also
extends to the implementation of rights-based monitoring. Information providers

57
METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD - Volume I

(duty bearers) should clearly understand how to incorporate rights-based

approaches in their monitoring activities. Right holders, and duty bearers as
end-users of rights-focused monitoring information, should also understand how
monitoring information can be used and interpreted to help them in their own
sphere of action and respective responsibility.

National human rights institutions, such as the South African Human Rights
Commission and the Uganda Human Rights Commission, as well as non
governmental organisation right-to-food networks, which exist in India, Brazil and
Uganda, undertake awareness-building activities targeted at both right holders
and duty bearers. Human rights education can be promoted through the formal
school system, and through professional and in-service training, as well as at
community level in poor areas. The challenge is to find ways to de-technify and
de-mystify the monitoring information field and to ensure that it is user friendly for
all stakeholders involved.

THE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE FOOD INSECURE AND VULNERABLE

In spite of poverty reduction strategies and policies in many countries, the food-
insecure and vulnerable are often poorly identified and the reasons for their
food insecurity are not reflected in policy and programme designs. Pro-poor
policies and strategies often lack well-defined target groups mainly because the
development paradigms that are used to shape such policies are not people-
centred. Thus, with a rights-focused monitoring approach, the identification and
characterisation of food-insecure and vulnerable groups needs to take centre
stage, and so contribute to improved design and better targeting of pro-poor
policies and programmes.

RIGHTS-FOCUSED MONITORING INDICATORS

Particular rights-related process indicators still need to be identified. Process

indicators to monitor the appropriateness and effectiveness of policy, legal
and administrative institutional frameworks that correspond to and reflect the
realisation of the right to adequate food still need to be developed and agreed
upon. Other process indicators that can be used to monitor budgetary practices,
public participation, public service delivery and the implementation of food
security, nutrition and poverty reduction programmes are also needed. The
identification of appropriate indicators should directly involve all stakeholders
including programme managers, legislators, as well as representatives of food-
insecure and vulnerable groups. Again, the latter must be involved through ways
in which these vulnerable groups, or their representatives, really feel that their
participation is meaningful and their voices have been truly listened to, rather than
for duty bearers to just check off that ‘participatory approaches’ have been used
and these groups ‘consulted’.

58
 ANNEX 2. WHAT CAN BE LEARNED SO FAR FROM COUNTRY EXPERIENCES?

CAPACITY STRENGTHENING

There is a very critical need for capacity strengthening so that policies are well
implemented and programmes are well targeted in line with policy priorities to
address food and nutrition problems in food insecure and vulnerable groups.
Within a human rights framework, capacity strengthening should target both right
holders and duty bearers in both public and private sectors. This directly involves
strengthening capacity for rights-based monitoring and joins both technical and
human rights expertise, creating capacity at grass-roots levels for meaningful
participation in subsequent monitoring processes.

ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY IN MONITORING THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD

Partnerships between government and civil society are increasingly recognized

as important in the development and implementation of food and nutrition
programmes. Community-based and non-governmental organisations, operating
effectively at sub-national and community levels, are often more successful in
reaching the poor than government agencies. In some countries, civil society
organisations play a significant role in monitoring the realisation of the right to
adequate food, particularly among the food insecure and vulnerable, such as in
Brazil. These organisations also develop and apply assessment and monitoring
methodologies that are more participatory and more adapted to measure underlying
causes of food insecurity at local levels. Rights-based monitoring should take full
advantage of government-civil society partnerships and appropriately incorporate
relevant methodologies that are applied by non-governmental organisations,
thereby taking advantage of, and leveraging, the monitoring-relevant information
that these organisations may generate.

59
 ETHODOLOGICAL
M

toolbox

METHODOLOGICAL TOOLBOX ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD

The purpose of the Methodological Toolbox is to provide a practical aid for

the implementation of the Right to Food Guidelines.

It contains a series of analytical, educational and normative tools that offer

guidance and hands-on advice on the practical aspects of the right to
food. It covers a wide range of topics such as assessment, legislation,
education, budgeting, and monitoring. It emphasises the operational
aspects of the right to food and contributes to strengthening in-country
capacity to implement this right.
METHODOLOGICAL TOOLKIT ON RIGHT TO FOOD:

1. GUIDE ON LEGISLATING FOR THE RIGHT TO FOOD

2. METHODS TO MONITOR THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD [VOLUME I - VOLUME II]

3. GUIDE ON CONDUCTING RIGHT TO FOOD ASSESSMENT

4. RIGHT TO FOOD CURRICULUM

5. GUIDE ON RIGHT TO FOOD BUDGET ANALYSIS

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) would like to thank the Government of
Norway for the financial support for the development
of this reference guide.

FAO also would like to thank the Government of

Germany for the financial support provided
through the project: “Creating capacity and
instruments to implement the right to
adequate food”, which made possible
the publication of this study.