Study 3: Ecodestruction and the Right to Food: The Cases of Water ...

Starving the Future Study 3 

Study 3: 

Ecodestruction and the Right to Food: The Cases of Water and Biodiversity 

FIAN International, June 2002 

Table of Content 

I Introduction: Water, biodiversity and the right to food 100 

II Responding with ecodestruction to Nature’s blessings: Water and biodiversity 103 

A. Basics on water 103 

1. Types of freshwater systems 103 

2. Human benefits from freshwater systems 103 

3. Damage to freshwater systems due to human activities 105 

B. Basics on biodiversity 108 

1. Types of biodiversity 108 

2. Human benefits from biodiversity 108 

3. Damage to biodiversity due to human activities 109 

III The right to water: A part of the right to food? 114 

IV Water as a major limiting factor of food production 118 

V Violations of the right to food through destroying the water cycle 120 

A. Water – a look at FIANs work on the issue 120 

B. Violations of the right to food through the destruction of water ressources 121 

1. Pollution by gold mining: Profit for the few ... but at the 

expense of people and their environment. 121 

2. Other human activities polluting or alterating freshwater systems 125 

VI Violations of the right to food and the destruction of biodiversity 129 

A. Biodiversity - Evaluation of FIAN interventions 129 

B. Destruction of biodiversity through agribusiness; related violations 

of the right to food 

1. Agribusiness - violations of the right to food 131 

2. Agribusiness - causing genetic erosion and loss of biodiversity 134 

VII Conclusion 140 

FIAN International 99 

June 2002


I. Introduction: Water, Biodiversity, and the Right to 

Food 

Water is the cradle of life – and biodiversity is life’s unfolding symphony. It is between these two poles 

that ecosystems develop, such as the soils, forests and marine systems. Their links to the human right 

to food have been investigated in earlier studies. 1 Human society together with its political and social 

institutions and its economy are but a part of the larger ecosystems of Nature and subject to the same 

laws and limitations. 

Through overconsumption and population growth the human species has recently started exhausting 

and polluting the cradle of life – and diminishing the voices in life’s symphony: Upto a hundred species 

get extinguished every day 2 – the largest rate of extinction in the history of life on this planet. 3 

The dependence of human society on water is obvious. Water is crucial: a determinant of health, an 

ingredient to agriculture, an input for industry. Whereas the importance of water as a part of food and for 

the production of food are easy to grasp, the food-related importance of biodiversity might not be quite 

as obvious, although in a more intricate way it is equally essential for the production of food (and for 

many other human purposes) – besides having an intrinsic value in itself. Both, the water cycle and 

biodiversity suffer man-made destruction with grave consequences for people’s access to food – now 

and in future. Control over water and (nowadays also) biodiversity can be a tool for oppression. The 

freedom and human dignity of marginalized groups – and sometimes even large sectors of the 

population – is at stake. 

The first civilizations have developped around the control and management of water: Mesopotamia 

(Euphrates and Tigris), Egypt (Nile), India (Indus), China (Hoangho, Yangtze). Civilizations since the 

dawn of civilization have been beset with oppression, violence and the exercise of brute force. Access 

to water has been a key issue in this context. The concept of civilization, on the other hand, also 

embodies an attempt to confine the use of force and put a check on oppression within a concept of 

social justice and – in modern times - have it based on transparent mechanisms and legal procedures: 

The rule of law, based nationally and internationally on human rights. 

The human right to food – just as other human rights as well - is meant as a mechanism for deprived or 

threatened persons or groups to secure a certain basic standard in society without being dependent on 

the benevolence of the rich and powerful who control the bulk of resources. Human rights are to be 

realized with certainty through courts or similar procedures - even against the interests of ruling elites. 

In the past decades human rights have become increasingly important terms of reference: Economic 

and social human rights categories were applied to a growing number of contexts without giving up the 

essential unity across the different classes of economic, social, cultural, civil and political human rights. 

Three key elements of human rights are to be distinguished: Certain basic standards in the different 

realms of life in society to which everybody in society has a legitimate claim. Secondly the idea that 

states must not be oppressors but protect people against oppression. Thirdly the duty to introduce legal 

or other mechanisms which would allow victims of oppression to have the State do its duty. 

The basic standard (or “normative content”) of the right to adequate food describes a certain quality of 

life to which everybody is entitled to under this right. The absence of this basic standard would be 

conceived as deprivation – and pushing people into deprivation and/or keeping them there is seen as 

oppression. 


June 2002


The right to adequate food as a human right entitles each and every human being to access to 

adequate food. When, however, is food adequate? And what kind of access is meant? The most 

authoritative interpretation so far of international right to food law (the 1999 General Comment 12 of the 

UN CESCR) sees the right to adequate food as much more than the absence of hunger and 

malnutrition: According to GC 12 the right to adequate food is fully 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" and (as may be added for the sake of completeness), if this access 

is safeguarded by justiciable provisions providing remedy and satisfaction. In particular: "The right to 

food shall therefore not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with a minimum 

package of calories, proteins and other specific nutrients." Adequate food must be "sufficient to satisfy 

the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture 

(para 8)". Each of these three aspects is further detailed in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the Comment: 

Dietary needs require a mix of nutrients for "physical and mental growth, development and 

maintenance" depending on the respective occupation, gender, or age. "Measures may therefore need 

to be taken to maintain, adapt or strengthen dietary diversity and appropriate consumption and feeding 

patterns, including breast feeding, while ensuring that changes in availability and access to food supply 

as a minimum do not negatively affect dietary composition and intake." 

Food must be free from adverse substances. Adverse substances include those that originate through 

contamination or adulteration in the food chain, but also naturally occuring toxins. 

Cultural acceptability refers to non-nutrient based values attached to food and food consumption and 

informed consumer concerns regarding the nature of accessible food supplies. 

"Accessibility encompasses both economic and physical accessibility: ..." (para 13). Food is 

economically accessible for a person or community if the person or community has access to food as a 

result of its economic activities in the widest sense. These economic activities can be direct food 

production based on access to natural productive resources (land, water, forest, pastures, fishing 

grounds) and other resources and means of production. It can also mean work as a selfemployed or 

wage-employed person. 

Para 12 specifies for the availability of food: Availability refers to the possibilities either for feeding 

oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources, or for well-functioning distribution, 

processing and market systems that can move food from the site of production to where it is needed 

...Moreover 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.(para 13) The income generated by such acquisition patterns and 

entitlements is to be sufficent for an adequate standard of living including food and other basic needs as 

well: Economic accessibility implies that personal and household financial cost associated with the 

acquisition of food for an adequate diet should be at a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other 

basic needs are not threatened or compromised.(para 13). Without means for the procurement of food, 

economic access to food is impossible. The normative content containing both economic and physical 

access to food implies therefore the entitlement to access the means for its procurement: Natural 

resources and other resources (skills, knowledge, markets etc.). 

The Comment (in para 8) puts particular emphasis on "The accessibility of such food in ways that are 

sustainable …” This can be seen as an ecological as well as an economic requirement. “The notion of 

sustainability is intrinsically linked to the notion of adequate food or food security, implying food being 

accessible for both present and future generations and ... sustainability incorporates the notion of longterm 

availability and accessibility” (GC 12, para 7). Whereas long-term availability points to the 

ecological limitations of food production and distribution, long-term accessibility (of available food) points 

to the need that the access to food itself must not be risky but reliable over time - even over a long 

period of time. 


June 2002


Human rights are a source of states obligations. This is true for the right to food as for any other human 

right. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes some of these 

obligations as legal obligations under international law. 

The general legal obligation appears in article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and 

Cultural Rights: "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and 

through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum 

of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights 

recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of 

legislative measures. " 

There are three types of states obligations linked to each human right, including the right to food: 

Obligation-to-respect (or respect-bound obligations). Obligation-to-protect (or protect-bound obligations) 

and obligations-to-fulfill (or fulfil-bound obligations). What is to be respected, protected and fulfilled 

should be clear: It is the basic standard (or normative content) linked to the human right in question - its 

first key element. 

The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires states parties not to take any 

measures that result in preventing such access. The obligation to protect requires measures by the 

State to ensure that enterprises or individuals do not deprive individuals of their access to food. 

Whereas the target groups of the obligations to respect and protect access to food are individuals or 

groups who enjoy such access, the obligation to fulfil refers to the situation of individuals or groups 

deprived of such access. 

The fulfilment-bound obligations require that the State must take the necessary measures to guarantee 

deprived groups’ access to adequate food and to food producing resources. Under the right to adequate 

food, access to food for deprived persons includes access to productive resources including 

employment - and the sharing of resources and food in systems of social security (based on the state, 

community or family). General Comment 12 insists both on physical and economic access to food and 

hence on sharing resources and income. Resource shared could be natural resources (such as land in 

a land reform, or water), capital resources, human resources (such as skills), while income sharing 

programmes might include minimum income programmes (minimum wage enforcement, employment 

programmes, basic income, social security payments), food stamps and food subsidies, or emergency 

food aid. 

Violations of a human right are breaches of states obligations, in particular breaches of one of the 

generic obligations - or a discriminatory way of meeting them. States discriminate, if they make 

differences between categories of people when meeting their obligations. 

Violations are therefore always an act (or inaction) of states (including their national and international 

states’ authorities). 

The destruction and/or control of water and biodiversity raises the issue of oppression of marginalized 

groups (today and in future), and the issue of related states obligations. The conceptual background 

given in this introduction will serve as a tool to consider these questions. Before doing so, however, we 

shall take a closer look at the human benefit derived from water and biodiversity and the damaging 

effects of current human activities both on water and biodiversity even to the extent of ecodestruction. 


June 2002


II. Responding with Ecodestruction to Nature’s 

Blessings: Water and Biodiversity 

A. Basics on Water 

Looking at the Earth from outer space one could think that the water resources were so plentiful that 

they could sustain all life forever. But, almost all of Earth's water is the salty water of the oceans. This 

water supports an incredible biodiversity of marine life, but humans and land-dwelling animals cannot 

drink it, and we cannot water our crops with it. Humans require fresh, clean water to drink, and can 

survive for only about one week without it. 

Only a very tiny portion of all the Earth's water is fresh water, and an even smaller amount of the fresh 

water is available to us. Most of the fresh water is locked up in frozen glaciers, in humidity, or fossil 

water way deep in the Earth. Rivers, lakes and wetlands represent only 0.01% of freshwater supplies 

and 1% of the surface of our planet. 4 Although desalination provides the possibility of producing fresh 

water from the seas, the amount of energy required in this process for the production and distribution 

prevent this technology from offering a large scale solution to the growing scarcity of fresh water. 

1. Types of freshwater systems 

Freshwater systems include rivers, lakes and wetlands. In addition to this surface water, there are 

ground water sources. Those sources can be classified into two different categories: Water that is 

independent of the normal runoff cycle (a minor proportion) and water that comes from shallower 

aquifers fed by the normal runoff (which also feeds rivers and lake). There is therefore an intimate link 

between ground and surface water sources. In fact, it is often difficult to separate the two because they 

"feed" each other. In order to better understand this fundamental interdependence, we can describe the 

hydrologic cycle: 

As rain or snow falls to the earth's surface some water runs off the land to rivers, lakes, streams and 

oceans (surface water). Water also can move into those bodies by percolation below ground. Water 

entering the soil can infiltrate deeper to reach groundwater which can discharge to surface water or 

return to the surface through wells, springs and marshes. Here it becomes surface water again. And, 

upon evaporation, it completes the cycle. This movement of water between the earth and the 

atmosphere through evaporation, precipitation, infiltration and runoff is continuous. 

i. Rivers/Streams and Lakes 

Streams and rivers take part in the physical and chemical cycles that shape our planet and allow life to 

exist. They provide different habitats for plants and animals, and are a source of food for animals, plants 

and human communities. Rivers and lakes are nurseries for salmon and for many insects. Rivers carry 

glacial silt and sediments down from the mountains, creating rich agricultural lands by depositing it 

downstream on its floodplain and fertilizing the ocean, allowing marine organisms to thrive near the 

river's mouth. Even a small mountain stream provides an astonishing number of different habitats for 

plants and animals. 

ii. Wetlands 

Wetlands is the collective term for marshes, swamps, bogs and similar areas. It also includes 

floodplains and flooded forests. Wetlands are found in flat vegetated areas, in depressions of the 

landscape and between water and dry land along the edges of streams, rivers, lakes and coastlines. 

Wetland areas can be found in nearly every country and climatic zone. Inland wetlands receive water 

from precipitation, ground water and/or surface water. 


June 2002


iii. Groundwater 

Groundwater is the water that saturates the tiny spaces between alluvial material (sand, gravel, silt, 

clay) or the crevices or fractures in rocks. Most groundwater is found in aquifers-underground layers of 

porous rock that are saturated from above or from structures sloping toward it. Groundwater is a highly 

vulnerable resource. Its purity and availability were used to be taken for granted. Now pollution and 

overuse are seriously affecting the supplies: Excessive pumping of groundwater has dramatically 

lowered groundwater tables in many areas – in Bangkok for example by 25 meters since 1950. 5 

2. Human benefits from freshwater systems 

In the continuous natural cycle of water, different ecosystems perform irreplaceable functions, secure a 

stable water balance in terrestrial areas and thus enable the use of water by human beings. Only a 

sustainable use that has been adjusted to these natural cycles can maintain the productive interplay 

between water and nature on a lasting basis. It is only within the confines of this natural cycle that water 

can be regarded as a “renewable resource”. 

Agenda 21 states "Water is needed in all aspects of life. The general objective is to make certain that 

adequate supplies of water of good quality are maintained for the entire population of this planet, while 

preserving the hydrological, biological and chemical functions of ecosystems, adapting human activities 

within the capacity limits of nature and combating vectors of water-related diseases. The multisectoral 

nature of water resources development in the context of socio-economic development must be 

recognized, as well as the multi-interest utilization of water resources for water supply and sanitation, 

agriculture, industry, urban development, hydropower generation, inland fisheries, transportation, 

recreation, low and flat lands management and other activities" . 

i. Water supply: vital element for food 

The most essential food services delivered by freshwater systems is the provision of water supply. On 

the one hand, water is vital to human beings as drinking water. As such it is part of food. On the other 

hand, water is essential for washing and cooking the food items that have to be processed. Moreover, 

water has become a key element of agriculture. Food production would not have reached the levels it 

has achieved without significant progress in irrigating agricultural land. The agrarian sector highly 

depends on freshwater availability and quality. With the development of industrialized agriculture, water 

consumption for irrigation purposes has drastically increased. Water has become the major limiting 

factor in food production as will be detailed in chapter IV. 

ii. Freshwater habitats as a source of protein 

Freshwater systems provide habitats for fish and other aquatic species, which are food resources for 

billions of people. Indeed, in many countries and regions, fish capture from freshwater systems is one of 

the main sources of protein. This especially concerns the most deprived groups of the population. For 

instance, the FAO reports that inland fisheries yield three-quarters of the animal protein for poor families 

in Malawi. In Zambia, fish is also the first source of animal protein, and plays a fundamental role in the 

nutrition of lower-income groups. Finally, the FAO observes that fish represents the single most 

important source of animal protein for the Ugandan population. 6 

In addition to human food, fish is also used for animal feed, which in turn provides humans with animal 

proteins. 

iii. Other vital services for human life 

Freshwater systems have regenerative capacities as ecological sinks for human wastes. Thanks to the 

oxygen it contains, moving surface water (and especially rivers) has the ability to dilute, process and 

clean dumped wastes. 

Freshwater is a key element of human economic and industrial activity: Most industrial processes use 

water as an input. Rivers are important for the transportation of raw materials and other goods. Finally, 


June 2002


water is a renewable source of energy and already plays a key role throughout the world providing 

hydroelectricity. Due to huge dams projects, Asia and in particular China rely increasingly on 

waterpower. In China, the share of renewable energy (mostly hydro) amounts to 20% of the total 

national energy production. This share amounts to 28% in South America: In countries like Brazil 

hydroelectricity plays a major role. 7 

Last but not least, human beings need water for curative (thermal cures, etc…) and recreational 

purposes (water sports and hobbies such as fishing). 

iv. Essential services for the balance of ecosystems 

In addition to the provision of water for domestic use, freshwater ecosystems fulfil many other functions 

which are fundamental for the various ecosystems and for the environment in general. Freshwater 

systems have the major role to feed aquifers which in turn supply ground water sources. They are also 

responsible for insuring water quality, as well as regulating floods. Moreover, well functioning freshwater 

systems are a precondition for maintaining biodiversity. Indeed, freshwater systems are the habitat of a 

great variety of species with 12% of all animal species living in them and many more depending on them 

for their survival. The richness of these ecosystems is especially important considering that they only 

cover a tiny part of the global surface. 8 

v. A special look at wetlands 

Wetlands play an essential role in freshwater ecosystems. They help to regulate water levels within 

watersheds. They also provide carbon storage, water purification, and goods such as food, timber, etc. 

They are important spawning and nursery areas and provide plants for food and medicinal needs. They 

serve as filter against pollution improving water quality. They help control floods and damages caused 

by storms. 

3. Damage to Freshwater systems due to human activities 

Overuse and pollution of surface and groundwater threaten the prospects for human living conditions. 

Moreover they restrict diversity and productivity in the ecosystems to an increasing degree. Water 

consumption has strongly increased mainly owing to agricultural overuse, but also because of the 

growing population – in particular in the urban centres. Severe conflicts over water use are already 

appearing on the horizon the regions presently lacking water. Experts have identified water as a major 

challenge of the 21 st century, with new conflicts emerging for control over water supplies, and because 

of increasing demographic pressure on scarce water resources. 

i. Stress on water supplies 

Water is vital to human beings as drinking water and in food production. Water resources, however, are 

not unlimited. Human activities have largely contributed to endanger world water supplies as to quantity 

and quality. 

Both surface and ground water supplies are threatened. Reasons for the alarming state of freshwater 

resources are various and numerous. One of the main reason is population growth and the other is 

increasing per capita consumption through the proliferation of water-intense life-styles. The quantity and 

quality of water available from freshwater systems is deeply altered by the modifications which humans 

operate in the landscapes. Building of human settlements including cities, industrial facilities, dams and 

roads, as well as agriculture have a great influence on the water supplies and on water cycles. 

ii. Threats to water quantity 

Each year, human beings withdraw about 4,000 km 3 of water, which represents about 20% of the 

normal (nonflood) flow of the world’s rivers. 9 The situation is all the more alarming since human 

withdrawals increase very fast, faster than the demographic growth. 10 


June 2002


Human pressure on water supplies are not the same everywhere. Some regions are more particularly 

affected and threatened by scarcity than others, unfortunately those regions are often the ones 

experiencing fast population growth or are already dry areas. Projections estimate that water scarcity 

will concern half of the population in the world by 2025. River basins such as the ones of the Volta, Nile 

and Narmada rivers will be among the most affected by water stress. 11 

Population growth is not the only threat to water quantity. Modern schemes of agricultural production 

imply a huge use of water especially for irrigation purposes. Industry is also a great consumer of 

freshwater. Freshwater systems and water cycles are affected by human activities such as canalization 

and dams. River flows are slowed down through fragmentation (by dams and other facilities) and 

overextraction of water to such an extent that several big world rivers do not reach the sea any longer 

during the dry season. Dams and their reservoirs have a further negative impact on freshwater systems 

since they strongly affect soil fertility by preventing sediments to be carried and disseminated 

downstream. Today, free-flowing rivers have become rare and the world major rivers are canalized, 

diverted from their original wetlands or floodplains, fragmented in reservoirs. All this has a very negative 

impact on the balance and cycles of freshwater systems as well as on other ecosystems and entire 

landscapes. 

As far as groundwater is concerned, excessive pumping from the aquifers leads to loss of storage 

capacity, of renewal and filtration capacities. The damage on aquifers can even have consequences on 

the soil layer above them by creating serious terrain alterations. 

iii. Threats to water quality 

In industrialized countries, surface water quality has improved during the last decades thanks to 

recycling and pollution control facilities. Nonetheless, water contamination due to nitrate and pesticide 

persists. Chemical contamination and water quality degradation are a common feature to all regions in 

the world. Inorganic and organic compounds, (sometimes pathogens) attack water quality, menacing 

human and wildlife health. Groundwater contamination is due to the human use of contaminants such 

as oil, road salts and chemicals. These contaminants get into the groundwater, which becomes unsafe 

for human consumption. Diseases due to poor water quality spread. 

iv. Threats to food production 

As we have seen, inland fisheries are essential to a great part of the world population to feed 

themselves. Following demographic growth, food needs increase and overcatching becomes acute 

danger. Harvests have increased significantly in recent decades and are estimated to continue 

developing. According to FAO data in 1997, more than 7.7 million tonnes of fish were caught in lakes, 

rivers, swamps, marshes, water reservoirs and ponds, which represents some 6% of the total world fish 

production. Catches are especially high in China, where the production amounts to some 1.8 million 

tonnes. 12 Freshwater ecosystems already face such severe attacks that their ability to support wild fish 

stocks is strongly reduced. In order to cope with the problem of a growing demand and a limited and 

more and more threatened supply, aquaculture is booming. 

v. Habitat degradation: Threats on freshwater biodiversity 

Damage suffered by freshwater systems are threats for species living in and depending on these 

systems. In addition to the general alteration and overuse of water supplies, overharvesting and the 

introduction of nonnative species belong to the great menace. The following figures illustrate this 

dramatic erosion of biodiversity that is already taking place. More than 20% of the world’s 10.000 

freshwater fish species have become extinct, or threatened. In the USA, 37% of freshwater fish species, 

67% of mussels, 51% of crayfish and 40% of amphibians are affected. 13 

vi. Conversion of wetlands 

Conversion particularly affects wetlands which have been drained and converted to farmland, filled for 

human settlements and economic activities. Wetlands also experience heavy pollution and overuse of 


June 2002


their waste processing capacity. There is a lack of data on the original surface covered by wetlands but 

a consensus seems to exist on the alarming extent of their disappearance. It is also clear that 

conversion through drainage, deep alteration of surface and groundwater, added to fragmentation and 

diversion of rivers have greatly affected the ability of wetlands to provide their fundamental services and 

goods such as agricultural land and water filtration. 

References: 

• (2000) UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Institute, World Resources 2000-2001 : 

People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life, World Resources Institute 2000, Washington DC 

• (1997), Shiklomanov I. A., Comprehensive Assessment of the freshwater resources of the world: 

Assessment of water resources and water availability in the world. Stockholm, Sweden:WMO and 

Stockholm Environment Institute. 

• (1997), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater 

Resources of the World. Geneva. 

• (1998), International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), World Register of Dams 1998, Paris. 

• (1990), L´vovich M.I. and White G. F., Use and transformation of terrestrial water systems. Pp:235- 

252 in The Earth as Transformed by Human Action:Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere 

over the past 300 years. Turner B. L., Clark W. C., Kateset R. W. al, eds. Cambridge University 

Press. 

• (1996), Abramovitz J. N., Imperiled Water, Impoverished future: The decline of freshwater 

ecosystems. WorldWatch Paper 128. Washington, D. C.: Worldwatch Institute. 

• (1990), Dahl T. E., Wetland losses in the United States 1780 to 1980s, Washington D. C.:U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

• (1999), Europeen Environment Agency (EEA), Environment in the European Union at the turn of the 

century, Environmental Assessment Report No. 2. Copenhagen. 

• (1997), Myers N., The rich diversity of biodiverstiy issues. Pp: 125-138 in Biodiversity II. 

Understanding and Protecting our Biological Resources. Reaka-Kudla M. L., Wilson D. E. and 

Wilson E. O., eds. Washington D.C.:Joseph Henry Press 

• (2000), Brunner J. et al. Water Scarcity, Water Resources Management and Hydrological 

Monitoring (Draft). Unpublished Report. Washington D.C.:World Resources Institute 

• Wetlands: Several definitions: http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/wetlands/definit.html 

• Issues-Freshwater, United Nation Sustainable Development: www.un.org/esa/sustdev 

• US Energy Information Agency, www.eia.doe.gov / International Energy Outlook 2001 

• WaterWebs. Watersheds, lakes, rivers, streams: www.eco-pros.com/waterwebs.htm 

• Economic Benefits of Wetlands: www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact4.html 

• Policy paper for the Bonn International Conference on Freshwater 2001, Forum Umwelt und 

Entwicklung: www.foumue.de/forumaktuell/positionspapiere/0000001e.html 

• FAO Fisheries database www.fao.org/fi 


June 2002


B. Basics on Biodiversity 

1. Types of Biodiversity 

Biological diversity or biodiversity is a term that is used to describe the variety of living beings, their 

relationships to each other and interactions with their environment. Biodiversity encompasses several 

different levels of biological organization, from the very specific to the most general, which form a 

hierarchy of categories: 

i. Genetic diversity: The basis of biological diversity is formed by the variety of information contained in 

the genes of specific organisms. This covers distinct populations of the same species (such as the 

thousands of traditional rice varieties in India) or genetic variation within a population. Different 

combinations of genes within organisms, or the existence of different variants of the same basic gene 

are the basis of evolution. The wealth of life on earth today is the product of hundreds of millions of 

years of this evolutionary history. 

ii. Species diversity: At the next hierarchical level is the variety of different species that exist on Earth. 

A concept that includes not only the number of species in a region – its “species richness” - but also the 

relationship of different groups of species to each other. 

iii. Ecosystem diversity: Biodiversity also describes the varied composition of ecosystems and the 

variety of different sorts of ecosystems. 

The knowledge about the world’s life forms lags surprisingly far behind other fields of scientific inquiry. 

While a great deal is known about individual species of bird, fish, mammals and plants, the total number 

of species that inhabit the planet remains unknown. The UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment uses an 

estimate of about 13 million, but the range varies from 8 to 50 million or more, out of which only about 2 

million species have been described scientifically or studied in detail. Nevertheless it is not necessary to 

know the exact number of species to be concerned about the rates at which the documented species 

are now disappearing or even already disappeared from our world. Today, most extinction will occur 

before the species have even been named and described or known ecologically. 

2. Human benefits from biodiversity 

All life on earth is part of one great, interdependent system. It interacts with and depends on the nonliving 

components of the planet like atmosphere, oceans, freshwater, rocks and soils. Humanity 

depends totally on this community of life, this biosphere: Many essential goods for human societies 

derive from the variety of natural ecosystems; including seafood, game animals, fodder, fuelwood and 

timber. But natural ecosystems also perform fundamental life support services like the purification of air 

and water, detoxification and decomposition of wastes, regulation of climate, regeneration of soil fertility, 

and last but not least the production and maintenance of biodiversity, from which key ingredients of our 

agricultural, pharmaceutical, and industrial enterprises are derived. Hence the variety of the world’s 

organisms, the biological diversity is a direct source of ecosystem goods and is the blanket term for the 

natural biological wealth that sustains human life and well-being. 

Our lifes depend on biodiversity in ways that are not often appreciated. It is well understood by most 

people that we rely on the earth’s non-renewable resources of oil and other fuel and non-fuel minerals 

Due to the technological advances that dominate our lives, we can easily forget the extent to which the 

modern, industrial world is embedded in the biological world. Ecosystem services operate on such a 


June 2002


grand scale and in such intricate and little-explored ways that most of them cannot be replaced by 

technology. 

i. Food-supply: 

“Agricultural biodiversity” is a vital part of biodiversity. It is a creation of humankind whose food security 

depends on the management of the biological resources that are important for food and agriculture. 

Those food crops and livestocks are part of biodiversity, just like their wild relatives. Farmers bred and 

maintained a tremendous diversity of crop varieties around the world until this century. Nevertheless out 

of the 30000 today known edible plant species, human beings have only utilized around 7000 plant 

species for food over the course of history of which no more than 120 are cultivated today on a larger 

scale: 90 provide 5 % of human food, 21 provide 20 % of human food, 9 provide 75 % of human food. 14 

On-farm diversity is shrinking fast, due to the planting of comparatively fewer varieties of crops that 

respond better to water, fertilizers and pesticides. This has lead to the fact, that in today’s world 75% of 

the human food supply actually depends on only 9 plant species. 

ii. Biodiversity as “food insurance” 

Biodiversity is a form of ecosystem health insurance: Ecosystems that include several species fulfilling 

the same or similar functions are more resistant to environmental stress and recover faster from 

perturbations. This is due to the genetic variety, through which every species ecan respond with 

different adaptabilities and tolerances. Ecosystems that have lost either genetic or species diversity are 

similar to monocultures and less resistant to the effects of environmental perturbations, such as 

droughts, soil salinity, pests and diseases. Regarding the food supply mentioned above, the loss of 

genetic or species variety could thus have a great impact on human food security. Problems with any of 

the 9 plant species covering 75 % of the human food supply, this could lead to food shortages and 

hunger on a large scale. Hence biodiversity is not only an ecosystem health insurance but also an 

insurance for our food security and is therefore vitally important for the right to food. 

iii. Medicinal resources 

Four out of every five of the top 150 prescription drugs used in the U.S. are based on natural 

compounds. 74% on plants, 18% on fungi, 5% on bacteria, and 3% on one vertebrate (snake) species. 

(Grifo and Rosenthal, as cited in Dobson 1995). A famous example is aspirin - a derivative of salicylic 

acid which was first taken from the bark of willow trees. Looking at the global situation, it has been 

estimated that 80% of the human population relies on plant-based medicines for their primary health 

care, and about 85% of traditional medicine involves the use of plant extracts (Farnsworth et al. 1985). 

Yet it is estimated that of the approximately 270000 plant species, only less than half of 1% have been 

screened for their beneficial pharmaceutical properties. 

Consequentially, in connection with medicinal resources, again biodiversity plays a vital role. Different 

populations of the same species may produce different types of defensive chemicals that have potential 

use as pharmaceuticals. It is therefore obvious that the loss of species will also result in a severe loss of 

medicinal resources. 

3. Damage to biodiversity due to human activities: 

Ecosystem services are essential for guaranteeing food security, health and well-being for citizens in all 

societies. Nevertheless human activities are already impairing the flow of ecosystem services on a large 

scale, due to the continued degradation and erosion of the resource on which they are based, which is 

biodiversity. 

It will take at least decades until depleted marine resources can regenerate. The same is true for forests 

– unless the soils have been washed away. It will take at least hundreds of years to rebuild just a few 

centimeters of topsoil. 15 A species lost, however, is lost forever. 


June 2002


The loss of biodiversity is measured in terms of destruction and fragmentation of habitats as well as in 

species extinction. Some estimates of the rate of species loss are about 100 per day predicting the 

disappearance of more than a quarter of all species within the next 50 years. Unfortunately these 

numbers exceed the rate of evolution of new species by a factor of 10.000 or more. The disappearance 

of any specie is a critical endpoint, marking the end of 3.5 billion years of evolutionary development. 

Each species is a reservoir of unique genetic information that cannot be reproduced once it is gone. In 

this broader sense, any extinction, however trivial it may seem, represents a permanent loss to the 

biosphere as a whole. 

The extinction of species is only the final act in a process driven by unsustainable human economies. 

The loss of local populations of species disrupts the sensitive web of interactions and, as mentioned 

above, causes the loss of different ecosystem services essential for civilization. Undisturbed 

ecosystems have shrunk dramatically in area over the past decades as human population and resource 

consumption have grown. 98% of the tropical dry forest along Central America´s Pacific coast has 

disappeared. Thailand lost 84% of its mangroves since 1975 and virtually none of the remainder is 

undisturbed (overall it is estimated that half of the world’s mangroves forests has been destroyed). In 

freshwater ecosystems, dams have destroyed large sections of river and stream habitats. In marine 

ecosystems, coastal development has wiped out reef and near-shore communities. In tropical forests, a 

major cause of forest loss is the expansion of agriculture, though in specific regions commercial timber 

harvest may pose an even greater problem. 

i. Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

Destruction and fragmentation of habitats caused by land-use changes are probably the principal 

contributor to the loss of biodiversity. About 1%-2% of the earth’s land surface is used for urban 

purposes, but other land acquisitions, especially for agriculture, far exceed the impact of the land sealed 

by urbanisation: Homo sapiens has already converted about a quarter of all the land surface to 

agricultural uses. The expansion of agricultural land has often been at the expense of species-rich 

forests and wetlands which sustain a much bigger biodiversity than agriculturally used areas. 

Agricultural land acquisition mainly focuses on those areas with the most favourable environmental 

conditions, like fertile soils, which are often the areas of the greatest biological diversity. As much as 

30% of the potential area of temperate, subtropical, and tropical forest has been lost to agriculture 

though conversion and land-use changes, accompanied by the extinction of a multitude of local species. 

The ecological impact of agriculture, however, largely depends on the type of agriculture applied. 

ii. Industrial agriculture - agribusiness 

Industrial agriculture is based on a strictly limited number of varieties where breeders cultivate just a few 

high-yielding but uniform crops. Linked to agribusiness is the need for massive fertilization and the 

introduction of monocultures which are vulnerable to diseases and pests. These trends are strongly 

promoted in the South as well due to policies which integrate southern agricultural systems into the 

world market. Large-scale plantations (or dependent contract farmers) grow only a narrow range of 

crops like coffee, cocoa and bananas. As a consequence of agribusiness the cultivation of a multitude of 

well adapted local varieties has been abandoned and already lead to the entire loss of some varieties of 

non-commercial crops. Together with this shrinkage of plant species, there is a decline of the complex 

network of supporting species, like pollinators or seed dispensers. 

In addition, the privatization of genetic resources that have been engineered and patented accelerates 

the trend toward monocultural cropping. Just a handful of varieties of patented hybrid corn now cover 

millions of acres of the midwestern U.S. corn belt, at the expense of prairies which once hosted 

thousands of varieties of grasses supporting birds and butterflies, bees and other life. Similarly will the 

biodiversity of other areas shrink as patented crops take over. 


June 2002


Of particular importance for biodiversity are also the consequences of the auxiliary means of industrial 

agriculture: Heavy applications of fertilizers and pesticides are causing environmental problems and 

affect the abundance and viability of other plants and animals in this areas. Intensively used fields lead 

to a run-off of pesticides and herbicides which results in adverse effects on other non-target species. 

Huge fields suitable for heavy agribusiness machines destroy the bushes and trees which had been 

important habitats in different agricultural systems. The use of heavy machines leads to large scale 

destruction of animal life in the fields. Loss of organic life in the soils accelerates erosion through wind 

and water. 

iii. Industrial forestry 

Forests are particularly important ecosystems for biodiversity since they harbor about two-thirds of the 

known terrestrial species, have the highest species diversity and endemism of any ecosystem, as well 

as the highest number of threatened species. But similar trends as in industrial agriculture transforms 

the diverse forest ecosystems into high-yielding monocultural tree plantations, and even fewer tree 

genes than crop genes have been preserved off-site in gene banks as an insurance policy against 

disease and pests. 

The Global Biodiversity Assessment conducted in 1995 under the auspices of UNEP found that if recent 

rates of tropical forest loss continue for the next 25 years, the number of species in forests would be 

reduced by approximately 4-8%. 

iv. Over-exploitation of plant and animal species 

Numerous biological resources have been over-exploited, sometimes to the point of extinction. There is 

overfishing, overhunting, overpicking, overgrazing and the like. The extinction rate is increasing, making 

it altogether possible that well over half of all the species, which still remain will have disappeared by the 

year 2100 even without global nuclear war or catastrophic destruction of the ozon layer. Many 

extinctions are caused by industrial food system. Besides that the search for pets, souvenirs, curiosities 

and collector’s items has also obliterated some populations. 

A famous example is the passenger pigeon which was most abundant in North America in the early 

1800s. By the end of the last century it had been hunted to the brink of extinction, and in September of 

1914, in a Cincinnati zoo, the passenger pigeon disappeared forever with the death of the last remaining 

bird. Another example is the current and rapid loss of tropical woods in many regions due to high 

commercial demand, low rates of successful replacement, and the long periods of growth necessary to 

produce new, marketable resources. 

v. Pollution of soil, water and atmosphere 

The widespread increase of various pollutants and poisonous or toxic substances in the environment 

has had obvious local impacts on biodiversity in acutely affected areas. Pollutants stress ecosystems 

and may reduce or eliminate populations of sensitive species. Contamination may reverberate along the 

food chain – for example from plancton to small fish, to bigger fish and to human consumption. The 

degree to which chronic, low-level pollution constitutes a risk to biodiversity is less clear than for acute 

exposures, but some facts are worth noting. One is that the transport of many pollutants has been 

surprisingly wide and rapid. For example due to atmospheric transport, DDT or similar substances, can 

almost be found all over the world, and they often remain and accumulate in parts of both terrestrial and 

aquatic food chains. Another concern is that pollutants in soils and ground water, once introduced, 

remain there for a long time, due both to the chemical stability of many of the compounds involved, and 

the extremely slow rates at which ground water is circulated or exchanged. This can affect whole 

ecosystems. 

Pollution of the soil, water or atmosphere, become more severe in their effects because there are fewer 

genetic varieties and species combinations with which Nature can experiment in order to resist the 

contamination and produce continued vigor. 


June 2002


vi. Alien species 

Species are “alien species” in an ecosystem if they were introduced into the ecosystem comparatively 

recently - usually by human intervention. Alien species are responsible for many recorded species 

extinctions, especially on islands. In these isolated ecosystems, a new predator, competitor, or 

pathogen can rapidly imperil species that did no co-evolve with the newcomer. In Hawaii for example, 

some 86 alien plant species seriously threaten native biodiversity; one of them has now displaced more 

than 30.000 acres of native trees, resulting in large changes in ecosystem dynamics. One of the alien 

tree species has the ability to convert atmospheric nitrogen to ammonia just like peas and beans. This 

ability increases the nitrogen content of soils, and thus alters the raw materials on which many other 

plant species depend. Another example for the adverse effect of alien species was the well-meant 

introduction of game fish to many lakes and streams throughout the world, resulting in the replacement 

of many native varieties. 

vii. Global climate change 

Human-caused increases in “greenhouse gases” (mostly CO2 from fossile fuels) in the atmosphere are 

likely to commit the planet to a global temperature rise of some 1 to 3 degrees Celsius during the 

century, with an associated rise in sea level of 1 to 2 meters. With this global warming some species will 

find less optimal habitat than before, particularly in higher latitudes. Plants and animals that now inhabit 

montane and alpine habitats - and which are there through an evolved dependence on cooler 

temperatures and higher altitudes - may with warming of these regions have nowhere else to go. Each 

1°C rise in temperature will displace the limits of tolerance of land species some 125 kilometers toward 

the poles, or 150 meters vertically on the mountains. Many species will not be able to redistribute 

themselves fast enough to keep up with the projected changes, and considerable alterations in 

ecosystem structure and function are likely. 

Ecologically and socially acceptable management of biodiversity is a prerequisite for the preservation of 

the wealth and productivity of natural ecological systems. The Agenda 21 adopted at the UNCED in Rio 

in 1992 calls for concerted action by governments, governmental and non-governmental organizations, 

and the scientific community for the preservation of biodiversity. 

References: 

• Dobson A., Campbell M.S., Bell J., Fatal synergisms: interactions between infectious diseases, human 

population growth, and loss of biodiversity. 

• Grifo F., Rosenthal J., editors (1997). Biodiversity and human health. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997: 

87-110. 

• Daily G., Ehrlich P. (1992). Population, sustainability, and Earth's carrying capacity. Bioscience, 42, 761-771. 

• Daily G. et al. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human society by natural ecosystems: 

http://esa.sdsc.edu/daily.html 

• Hughes J. B., Daily G. C., Ehrlich P. R. (1997). Science 278, 689. 

• Farnsworth N. R., Akerele O., Bingel A. S., Soejarto D. D., Guo Z. (1985). Medicinal Plants in Therapy. 

Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 63(6): 965-981 

• Lawton and May (1995): http://essp.csumb.edu/esse/ecoservintro/ecoservthreats.html 

• Wilson E.O. (1989). Threats to biodiversity. Scientific American 261: 108-16. 

• C. Pearl, 54-69. New York: Oxford University Press. 

• FAO, Food For All (1996) 

• FAO: www.fao.org/biodiversity/index.asp 

• Tuxill J. (1999). Nature’s Cornucopia: Our stake in plant diverstiy, WorldWatch Paper 148. 

• Biodiversity and protected areas, World Resources Institute: www.wri.org/biodiv/bri-why.html 

• New Biodiversity Assessment, World Resources Institute: www.igc.org/wri/wr-96-97/bi_txt2.html 

• Global Biodiversity Assessment, Policymaker’s summary, United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP, 

1996): www.unep.org 

• Loss of biodiverstiy: www.earthgreen.org/biodiversity.htm 


June 2002


• Biologische Vielfalt, Ernährungssicherheit, BIOPOLY-Buko Agrar Koordination: 

www.bukoagrar.de/biopoly/biodiv.html 

• Die biologische Vielfalt unserer Erde: www.leben-ist-vielfalt.de/specials/biolog.shtml 

• Janetos A. C. Do we still need nature? The importance of Biological Diversity: 

www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol3no1/biodiversity.html 

• Dawkins K., Thom M., Carr C. Intelectual property rights and biodiversity, Institute for Agriculture and Trade 

Policy: www.netlink.de/gen/biopiracy.html 

• Land use-Causes and processes of loss of biodiverstiy: www.ciesin.org/TG/LU/biocause.html 

• World resources 2000-2001: People and ecosystems: The fraying web of life, World Resources Institute 

2000, Washington DC 

• Sustaining agricultural biodiversity: Genetic, species, ecosystems, cultural and temporal dimensions: 

www.ukabc.org/ukabc3.htm 

• Heywood V.H. (ed.) (1995). Global biodiversity assessment, United Nations Environment 

Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 


June 2002


III. The right to water: A part of the right to food? 

Water is a very particular substance. Its true nature is largely unknown and much needs to be 

discovered. Be this as it may: Water is certainly both the source of life and its basic substance. 

i. Is drinking water food? 

Can freshwater be considered food? Most dictionaries would agree to this in the general sense of the 

term food. A more specific use of the term food (which some see as secondary, whereas others claim it 

to be exclusive) would reserve the term food for solid food or for food with caloric value. This, of course, 

would exclude water from being considered food. There is a point in considering drinking water to be 

food. In fact it may be hard to draw the line between “solid food” and “liquid food”, as most “solid food” 

contains water (unless “dehydrated”). And most liquids are full of nutrients and caloric value – most 

prominently the food par excellence in the first years of human life: Milk. Water moreover is needed for 

cooking, and is often mixed with solid substances in the process of food preparation. 

The situation nevertheless is sometimes confusing and the meaning of food switches back and forth 

between the different more general or more specific uses of the term. Drinking water, for example would 

not be seen to fall into the mandate of the FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN. The 

FAO therefore, sees food as an organic substance – primarily produced by agriculture. In the UN 

system (and elsewhere) drinking water is rather seen as an issue for health: It is dealt with by the WHO, 

the World Health Organisation. Drinking water is closely related to health (of course), but so is all other 

food as well. Sometimes drinking water is also dealt with under the aspect of housing. But access to 

food in general (or to markets, work and resources to procure it) is an aspect of housing as well: 

Adequate housing would certainly require that such access to (other) food is available – and not only the 

availability of drinking water, although water – for its many uses in the household besides drinking water 

- needs to be even more readily available. There are therefore good reasons, not to consider drinking 

water primarily under the housing or health aspects – but as food. This does not exclude its prominent 

position in the fields of health and housing. 

ii. Water for food production, irrigation 

Drinking water is not only food in itself, but also necessary to produce food. It can be seen as the 

primary input for food production in agriculture, as important as topsoil: Agriculture needs rains and/or 

irrigation to yield crops. The prominence of water in food production and the consequences of ecodestruction 

and sustainability will be dealt with in chapter IV below. 

In rural areas it is hard to distinguish between water for drinking and for irrigation. In fact, many 

scientists argue that irrigation water should have drinking water quality to secure that healthy food will 

be produced. 

On a global scale agricultural use of water accounts to two thirds of humanity’s water use. In Europe this 

proportion is down to one third with some 54% being used up for industrial purposes and the rest for 

domestic use. In Asia on the other hand agriculture consumes 84% of all water with the rest being split 

somewhat equally between industrial and domestic use. Distribution figures for Africa are similar to Asia, 

even though Africa uses a mere 150 cubic kilometres per year, compared to 1317 cubic kilometres used 

in Asia. 16 Asia and Africa are the two continents which are home to the majority of humankind. This 

indicates the enormous importance of water in Asia and Africa as food and food producing resource. At 

the same time the demand of the urban centres (domestic and industrial use) is increasing. 


June 2002


iii. Oppression related to water 

The per capita use of water is very unevenly distributed between and within countries. These 

differences can have very different reasons. One of them is oppression. Between regions in the same 

river basin there can be conflict over the extraction of waters upstream limiting the use downstream. 

Even where it is not used as a possibility for blackmailing different countries or states, upstream users 

simply put up with the water deprivation of downstream communities, or urban users with the 

deprivation of marginal peasants. In India (and other places) deep reaching power driven pumps in the 

fields of rich farmers lower the water level and therefore deprive neighboring poor peasants whose wells 

dry up and who cannot afford a power driven pump. Controling the sources of drinking water is a 

stronghold of oppression. In India traditionally the Dalit community (“untouchables”) was excluded from 

using the village well. Use of the general water supply by Dalits was seen as destroying the “purity” of 

the source and has been met with caste violence. 

The control over water as food and as a prime food producing resource is a source of power and a tool 

for oppression. Demand for water is on the increase almost everywhere due to increasing per capita 

consum and to population growth: Between 1950 and 2000 per capita availability of water was halfed in 

North America and reduced to 25% in Africa. In 1995 more than 230 million people lived in 20 countries, 

mainly in Africa and the Near East, where less than 1000 cubic metres of water are available per person 

each year. The number of countries below this “limit to scarcity” will have increased to 38 by 2025. The 

power related to control of water will consequently increase and so will the risk of oppression. 

iv. The right to water as a human right 

Water is a classic example of the need to regulate resources for the common good - and perhaps the 

reason for the first states in history in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Water shows the potential for 

cooperation – both in terms of improving the resource base and for distributing it. And at the same time 

it exhibits the potential for oppression. 

With water being a basic need carrying a high risk of oppression water may very well be considered a 

human right: There is an obvious need for states and the communities of states to respect, protect and 

fulfil peoples’ access to water. Nevertheless the right to water as a human right was propagated only 

comparatively recently. A major factor provoking a human rights debate about water has been the thrust 

of transnational corporations to get the water systems privatized. Traditionally water has been in most 

countries a public good, managed by the state. The corporations argue that with the increasing scarcity 

of water they rather than the states should take care of it. On the other hand the very reason for treating 

water as a public good has been the recognition (since times immemorial) that handing over water 

resources to “water lords” seeking profit and power will be detrimental to the common good – and in 

particular to the poor. 

There can be no doubt about growing scarcity. Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years. 

If current trends persist, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to have risen to a level 56% 

above what is currently available. Urgent steps are necessary to avert the water crisis. A public good 

does not mean that it is a free good. Considerable investments will be necessary. One key item will be 

saving water. Are states not in a position to finance or manage those investments? Are water 

monopolies (after “mono-privatization”) in a better position to do so? Would weakening state control 

over domestic water supplies (as some governments do in the context of NAFTA and WTO) and 

handing it over to transnational corporations alleviate the crisis or exacerbate it? These are some of the 

issues raised by civil society organisations and they are raised in the context of human rights. 


June 2002


The Dublin Declaration on “Water in a perspective of sustainable development” originating from the 

International Conference on Water and Environment in 1992 in preparation of UNCED had noted that: 

“[I]t is especially crucial to recognize the basic right of all human beings to have access to drinking water 

and sanitation at affordable price.” 

“Blue Gold”, the 1999 special report on “The global water crisis and the commodification of the world’s 

water supply” published by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), advocates that access to 

clean water for basic needs is a fundamental human right. This is echoed in one of the ten principles 

formulated in the report: “An adequate supply of clean water is a human right.” 17 This may sound 

elemental, but at the Second World Water Forum in the Hague in March 2000, it was the subject of a 

heated debate. The World Bank and the water companies reportedly tried to declare it merely a “human 

need” in order to avoid states obligations to protect and fulfil access to water. Such states obligations 

would not necessarily rule out private sector activities in the water system, but would exclude handing 

over the water system to the private sector. Human rights are by nature inalienable: They cannot be 

signed away even by the beneficiary of this right – let alone by her state. 

In recent years Riccardo Petrella (former president of the Group of Lisbon) and others have advocated a 

“World Water Contract”. Part of that initiative is to strengthen the right to water as a human right. In his 

new book “The Water Manifesto” 18 Petrella suggests “the drafting and approval of a legally binding 

world water convention which integrates the political, economic and social right of individual and 

collective access to water into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The same approach will have 

to be applied to other charters and conventions bearing upon human rights, national rights and minority 

rights.” 

A right to water, in fact, has not been explicitely referred to neither in the 1948 Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights (UDHR) nor in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 

(ICESCR) – the main sources of livelihood rights in international law. There may be some speculation 

why a right to water had not been spelled out. At the time when the Declaration and the Covenants were 

drafted (between 1946 and 1966) water related oppression was already well-known: Nevertheless the 

full scarcity dimension of water became clear only after the 1970s with the enormous importance which 

irrigation developped for food production in the context of the “Green Revolution” and with the stark 

growth of human consumption and population pressures. 

v. The right to drinking water – a part of the right to food? 

In the UN human rights system so far the issue of water has been dealt with in the context of the rights 

to health, to housing – and most recently – the right to food. Its natural place is in the ambit of the right 

to an adequate standard of living. Article 25 of the UDHR proclaims that “Everyone has the right to a 

standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, 

clothing , housing, medical care and the necessary social services …” It should be clear that access to 

drinking water is a basic element of any definition of “standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing”. 

UDHR art. 25 then gave rise to the right to an adequate standard living including food, clothing 

and housing (ICESCR art.11) the right to health (ICESCR art.12) and other rights. ICESCR was 

therefore seen to contain a right to food and a right to housing as well. Water was taken up explicitely in 

the General Comments on the Rights to Housing and to Health. General Comment No.4 (1991) on the 

Right to Housing notes (in para 8.b) …”All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have 

sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, …” General Comment 14 

(2000) on the Right to Health stipulates as a core obligation “to ensure access to basic shelter, housing 

and sanitation, and an adequate supply of safe and potable water.”(para 43(3)). Curiously enough 

General Comment 12 (1999) on the Right to Food does not make explicite mention of water. In the 

sense that water is just a special type of food – this may not have been deemed necessary. 


June 2002


In order to clarify the issue the Commission on Human Rights asked (in resolution 2001/25) the Special 

Rapporteur on the Right to Food appointed in the previous year to pay attention to the issue of drinking 

water, taking into account the interdependence of this issue and the right to food. In his second report 

submitted in December 2001 the Special Rapporteur noted (para 25) “Like solid food, drinking water is 

also in short supply for hundreds of millions of people in the world”. The introduction of the word solid 

before food and the juxtaposition of solid food and drinking water is an indication that drinking water is 

seen by the rapporteur as liquid food. The report concluded in (para 130) “The Special Rapporteur 

believes that drinking water is essential for healthy nutrition, so that it should be considered a public 

good. … Including drinking water in the right to food is an important way of ensuring [that] accountability 

and justiciability .” and finally (para 138) “The Special Rapporteur recommends that the question of 

drinking water is also given adequate respect, as this is a fundamental component of the right to food 

…”. 

The most recent development is the preparation of a draft general comment on the Right to Drinking 

Water, by the Committee on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights. The draft is currently (summer 2002) 

circulated among the members of the Committee. It is based on articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant 

seeing the right to drinking water for example as a guarantee for securing an adequate standard of living 

on a par with food, housing, clothing in ICESCR art.11.1, even though food, housing, clothing are 

mentioned in a (non-exclusive) list of this article, while water is not. Moreover the draft general comment 

mentions a number of international documents recognizing the right to drinking water (such as the 

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimitation against Women (1979), the Convention on 

the Rights of the Child (1989), as well as the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. Moreover 

the draft recollects previous work of the Committee on the right to drinking water. It remains to be seen 

how the final general comment on the right to drinking water will look like. Currently it seems as if the 

right to drinking water will not be included in the right to food – as suggested by the special rapporteur 

on the right to food - but primarily in the right to an adequate standard of living stressing the close link to 

the human right to health (art.12.1). 

The right to water clearly goes beyond the right to drinking water. Access to water for purposes other 

than drinking needs to be respected, protected and fulfilled as well. One of the main such purposes is 

food production. 


June 2002


IV . Water as a major limiting factor of food production 

Water consumption in urban centers can be roughly described at 70 percent industrial, 20 percent 

institutional and 10 percent domestic. In all regions except Europe, however, the largest consumer of 

water is agriculture. It consumes some 65 to 70 percent globally 19. In Africa and South Asia, two areas 

with very high rates of hunger and malnutrition, even 84 percent of water are consumed by agriculture. It 

should also be noted that industrial agriculture is the biggest polluter of water due to pesticides, 

phosphates and nitrates. Urban and in particular industrial water are increasing, which may divert water 

from agriculture. Agricultural yields in many areas, however, are highly dependent on irrigation: The 

FAO observes that availability of fresh water is likely to be the major factor limiting food production. 

While it is true that hunger and malnutrition today have more to do with lacking purchasing power or 

lacking access to land and other resources than with the overall national availability of food, a return of 

scarcity due to lack of irrigation water would dramatically increase the number of the hungry and 

malnourished. Besides the overuse and destruction of the water cycle (and loss of topsoil) there will be 

another factor which would lead to additional malnutrition: Climate change will lead to changes in the 

agricultural production patters – with some countries (basically in the global North) gaining and others 

losing. The production losses will mainly occur in some 40 countries of the global south (with altogether 

2 billion inhabitants – 450 million of them currently malnourished) and could drastically swell the ranks 

of the malnourished. 20 Climate change would also effect the water cycle. By the year 2050 half the 

world’s population of some 9.3 billion could be living in conditions of malnutrition and poverty. 

There is still considerable scope for food production – even outside the perview of the green revolution - 

on the fields of marginalized peasants in the South, which currently feed more than 2 billion people. 

Their production could probably be at least doubled. 21 The rising yields of green revolution technologies 

on the most fertile soils (feeding 2.5 billion people) seem to have reached their ecological limits (in terms 

of land degradation, salinity and water use). 

In 1994-96 the South had some 702 million hectars under rainfed cultivation of major food and fiber 

crops. The irrigated area amounted to an additional 208 million hectars. 

Land with cultivation potential (suitable and very suitable) amounts to 1.872 million hectars, 433 million, 

however, in forest ecosystems. Irrigation does not make much of a difference in bringing hitherto 

uncultivable land into production. The importance of irrigation, however, is in providing a stable water 

supply in areas of rainfall variability. In the tropics resp. subtropics, irrigation can increase maximum 

yields of wheat by 20 resp. 30 percent, of rice by 24 resp. 35 percent and of maize by 23 resp 37 

percent. 

Irrigation is a very important pillar of food production in the global South: More than half of the cereals 

produced in the South (56%) are due to irrigation. For cereals and non-cereal crops together the 

percentage due to irrigation in the South is still as high as 40%. 54% of irrigated land in the South is 

located in India and China – countries inhabited by more than one third of humankind. 

The impact of irrigation on the remaining cultivable land is still considerable. For staple food and oil 

crops the increase would be in the range of 13 to 30 percent. For sugar crops and cotton even more. 

Future food production in the South (on all currently cultivated and all potentially cultivated land) is 

sensitive to irrigation. The importance of irrigation can be understood by comparing yields under rain-fed 

and irrigated multiple cropping to yields under rain fed multiple cropping on all currently cultivated and 

potentially cultivated land: The difference in increase would amount to 40%. 


June 2002


If all cultivable land would be taken into irrigated production, crops in the South would increase by 

140%. World population is expected to stabilize at 12 billion around the year 2080. This would mean an 

increase of the population in the global South from 5 billion to 11 billion – 120%. Taking all cultivable 

land into irrigated production would be sufficient to feed the South – but only if there is no major change 

of consumption patterns in the South – an assumption that is rather unlikely given the current trends 

towards western style meat products. It should also be kept in mind that the 140% increase would mean 

the destruction of some 433 million hectares of forest systems. If this is avoided – as it should be – the 

increase would have to be reduced to 110%, which is slightly below the population increase. Staving off 

widespread malnutrition with such a slim margin requires extraordinary national and international 

measures to secure the human right to food. And even this slim margin is very sensitive to irrigation. 

Depending on the amount of irrigation water available, the increase would be somewhere between 80% 

and 110% or (sacrificing forests) between 100% and 140%. Every sacrifice of forests, however, could 

have severe repercussions on agriculture for three reasons: It adds further damage to the water cycle 

and hence to the prospects both for rains and irrigation. Secondly it further reduces the global 

absorption capacity for CO2 and accelerates global warming and the related adverse effects on the 

water cycle (see below). Thirdly it means further heavy losses in biodiversity. 

It should be kept in mind that all these data are estimates only (by scientists from IIASA and FAO 22) and 

have been used here in a back-of-the-envelop calculation. Nevertheless it emerges that water will be 

most likely the major limiting factor in food production. 

Unfortunately, the situation will be further aggravated by the effects of climate change. Through rising 

sea levels low lying agricultural areas, such as in Bangladesh, Senegal or elsewhere, run increasing 

risks of flooding. Securing such areas will need immense investments. One of the results of climate 

change will be a change in rainfalls. The corresponding changes in the water cycle will be most 

important for agriculture. Increased carbon concentrations, global warming and changes in rain falls will 

have different effects on the yields in different areas. In some areas (mostly in the Global North) crop 

production may be increased. Other areas (mostly in the South) will be negatively affected by changes 

in rain falls: The mentioned study by the FAO and IIASA estimates that land suitable in the South for 

cereal production would decrease by 6% to 11%. 

Losses in rain-fed cereal production through climate change by 2080 are predicted to be drastic in a 

number of countries: India could lose a massive 18% of its rain-fed cereal production potential. Brazil 

would lose 14%, Central America and the Caribbean would lose 9%. Sixty-five countries of the global 

south (with more than half the Southern population in 1995) would lose, whereas fifty-two might gain – 

such as China (15%). For some 40 among the Southern countries (currently populated by 2 billion 

people – 450 million of them malnourished) the loss in rain-fed cereal production as a consequence of 

climate change could drastically increase the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition: The total loss is 

expected to amount to about double the current food gap. And these countries often lack foreign 

currency for food imports. 


June 2002


V. Violations of the right to food through destruction of 

the water cycle 

A. Water – a look at FIANs work on the issue 

The main means of action at FIANs disposal is to intervene against violations of the human right to food 

at the international level. How does FIAN "intervene" against these violations? Interventions can take 

different forms: protest letter campaigns distributed through the FIAN international network or advocacy 

of the FIAN International Secretariat reminding authorities of their legal obligations, long term work of 

local FIAN groups on specific cases, international fact finding missions enabling to document specific 

cases of violations, personal advocacy with authorities etc. However, in the narrow sense, the word 

interventions refers to “hotlines”, i.e. international letter campaigns which target states’ authorities failing 

to meet their obligations under the right to food standards (national and/or international). 

During the last 7 years, FIAN launched 142 hotlines. In the framework of the FIAN studies on the right to 

food and ecodestruction, an evaluation of these hotlines has been carried out based exclusively on 

international letter campaigns and not including case work by local groups, special interventions of 

FIANs Secretariat or international fact finding missions. In a first study, the evaluation identified 45 

hotlines against violations of the right to food accompanied by severe damage to local ecosystems as to 

topsoil, marine and forest resources. Those 45 hotlines proved to contain what has been called an 

ecological “link of the first kind”: Here, the ecodestruction leads to a violation of the right to food 

(depriving people of their access to food or food producing resources). Due to the intimate relation 

between the different categories of ecosystems, most of these 45 cases entailed a serious threat or an 

erosion of biodiversity and not rarely a degradation of water quality or water supply. For instance, 

industrial activities on former agricultural land can not only imply the loss of precious topsoils but also 

the loss of water supply to the detriment of marginalized groups. Pollution of soils due to mining or 

industrial activities go most of the time hand in hand with pollution of ground water and rivers. 

Destruction of ecosystems (such as forest and marine ecosystems) can have ultimate and severe 

repercussions on biodiversity. This is especially the case in areas where a significant part of the species 

(plants and animals) are endemic or even still unknown to the scientific world. The Amazonian rain 

forests belong to these ecosystems such as the mangroves in Madagascar. 

Water and biodiversity issues can therefore be found in many of the hotlines linked to ecodestruction. In 

the FIAN interventions against violations of the right to food, however, water appears to have been more 

directly dealt with as a food producing resource whereas biodiversity was hardly mentioned. And even if 

the erosion risks in terms of biodiversity are a clear consequence of the ecological destruction 

documented in the selected hotlines, the latter do not allow to point out an immediate correlation 

between violations of the present victims’ right to food and the loss of biodiversity. The next chapter will 

deal with right to food questions around biodiversity in a more general "risk" approach and not by 

analysing again all cases in which the ecodestruction affects biodiversity. 

In the current chapter deals with just a few FIAN cases on violations of the right to food linked to 

ecodestruction of freshwater systems. Many other FIAN interventions with a water component are 

omitted in order to avoid repetition of hotlines which have been evaluated in the context of topsoil, 

forest, and marine systems. 23 


June 2002


B. Violations of the Right to Food through the Destruction of 

Water Resources 

Water quality is challenged by heavy pollution and contamination of ground water and rivers. In almost 

all regions, fresh water supplies are already threatened and overexploited. Human beings need fresh 

water as drinking water to survive, as resource to cook their food but also to produce their food 

(irrigation). These are the basic and vital services provided by the ecosystem freshwater in relation to 

the nutrition. As struggling for people ´s right to feed themselves implied to intervene for the access to 

and control of food producing resources, it is not rare to find a water component in FIAN interventions. 

Land and water as resources are intimately linked. Frequently, peasants who have been evicted from 

their land have simultaneously lost their access to freshwater either because people have to become 

dwellers in the poorest urban areas where there is no access to drinking water or because they have to 

rely on public water distribution systems (these situations are indeed often linked with a shift from a 

situation of a self-reliant community access to water to a dependent and paying access to water). In 

other cases, large industrial projects like hydroplants or dams for irrigation of big estates or water supply 

for the surrounding urban areas are implemented at the cost of small producers and the marginalized 

rural population. Finally, the analysis of FIAN Interventions shows that people do lose access to their 

water supply because they cannot use it any longer due to attacks on the water quality. States failure to 

stop severe pollution through chemicals dumped or leaked into the rivers on which the local population 

depends for fishing, drinking water and irritation, the right to feed themselves of the concerned people is 

violated. The case of gold mining is an illustration of the link between destruction of freshwater 

ecosystems and violations of the right to adequate food. 

1. Pollution by gold mining: Profit for the few ... but at the expense of people 

and their environment. 

Gold has been a symbol for wealth and power – at least in the western world. Many wars, conquests, 

crimes and human rights violations have been due to appropriation and accumulation. 24 Today, gold for 

the international market allows to draw enormous profits. But gold mining does not prove to be in favour 

of the local population which has been living in the extraction area. First of all, many small peasants and 

other vulnerable rural groups are forcibly evicted from their land. They lose their means of subsistence 

(including land and water), which enabled them to feed themselves. The private company equipped with 

an extraction licence for the area rarely offer adequate compensation to the people for the loss of their 

livelihoods. More often, pressure and harassment are preferred to negotiation and consultation. Second, 

this mining activity is highly polluting. In addition to the loss of topsoils due to the extraction itself, gold 

extraction need chemicals like cyanide or mercury. The use of those is paraded as an “efficient and 

competitive” way to extract the ore – but freshwater systems are particularly affected by dumpings and 

inadequate storage of contaminants and waste. Technologies based on the use of cyanide and mercury 

have make it profitable to extract gold even in areas of low quality ore, which has led to levelling whole 

mountains and destroying entire landscapes. Figures for the year 1992 indicate that some 650 million 

tons of waste were generated for the production of only 2,170 tons of gold. 25 

Waste is sometimes simply dumped in rivers and lakes, infiltrates through soils into groundwater 

aquifers. Waste is often stored under inadequate conditions. Of course, these techniques are mostly 

used by large mining companies. However, small-scale miners are also attracted by this method of 

extracting gold even in difficult or poor mining areas. Currently a worrying trend is to be observed, i.e. a 

boom in mining and a diminution of standards for human rights and ecology. Encouraged by the World 

Bank, several African countries have “liberalized” or want to weaken their mining codes and legislation 

in favour of foreign investors. The deregulation is frequently at the expense of human rights and 

ecosystems, among them freshwater. 


June 2002


FIAN interventions in Turkey and Ghana are well documented illustrations of gold mining impact on 

water supplies and thus on the right to food of communities depending on these supplies. 

Case 1 (Bergama/Turkey, 1994-2001) 

Despite legal decisions and 8 years of struggle, the mining project goes ahead 

The village of Kücükdere is located on a hill overlooking the Edremit bay, at the Turkish coast of the 

Aegean Sea. The coast is famous for its wonderful natural landscapes. Millions of olive trees cover the 

valleys and have been cultivated by local peasants for thousands of years. In Kücükdere, about 1000 

peasants earn their living with olive cultivation. The means of livelihood of the local rural population are 

threatened by a gold mining project promoted by an international consortium. Two subsidiaries have been 

set up in Turkey, Tüprag and Eurogold. Tüprag has chosen Kücükdere , while Eurogold (which is 

supported by large European Banks) wants to extract gold at Bergama (with its ruins of the ancient city of 

Pergamon). The mining projects imply the destruction of agricultural land, of the environment and of a 

historic site. The populations of Bergama, Kücükdere and of the whole region including the Greek island of 

Lesbos have expressed their total disagreement with the mining project. Inspite of the decisions by 

different courts including the Turkish Supreme Court (1997) and the High Court (1999) prohibiting cyanide 

gold mining, Eurogold and the Turkish government ignored the judgements. Meanwhile Eurogold has 

started its mining activities and removed thousands of olive trees. People fear for their right to food and for 

their environment. Activists are harassed and put in jail. 

Human Rights Impact 

• Access to food and resources 

The mining activities in the region of Bergama and Kücükdere threaten the livelihoods of thousands of 

small peasants. Cutting olive trees, polluting essential food producing resources and leveling hills leads to 

the eviction of people from their land and prevents them from feeding themselves. Peasant thus suffer 

from the loss of agricultural land and olive trees. The means of subsistance of the rest of the local 

population is also at stake insofar as tourism, a vital activity for this coastal region, is directly challenged. 

The victims´ protest has not been heard. They even face severe harassment by parts of the authorities. 

• Violation of the right to food - Statesóbligations 

Gold extraction, ecodestruction and the destruction of people´s livelihoods has been started by the 

companies inspite of legal decisions against the mining project. The concerned Turkish ministries and 

the Prime Minister had ignored the judgements and encouraged the resumption of the preparation 

works. Therefore, the Turkish state violated the right to food of the affected population by failing to 

respect their access to food producing resources without proper rehabilitation and compensation. In this 

case, the state is also violating the economic and social rights of future generations by authorizing long 

term destruction and contamination of food producing resources. 

Ecological Impact 

The cyanide leaching technique, which is to be used in the Aegean mining project, represents a great 

threat to the local environment. The technique promoted by the mining companies destroys topsoils 

pollutes the local water table. Cyanide is one of the most toxic substances. Large pools of cyanide 

contaminated water have to be collected at the end of the extraction process and even in normal 

conditions, it is not realistic to expect a total control of the stored contaminants. The conditions, 

however, are not normal. They are particularly unfavourable to the storage since Bergama lies within an 

earthquake zone so that tailings pond would sit on an active earthquake fault line. Environmentalists 

and the local population warn therefore against high risks that tanks might crack, releasing poisonous 

liquids, which would infiltrate ground water sources. 


June 2002


In the long run 62 similar mining projects from Troy to Pergamon are planned and finally 560 projects all 

over Turkey. 

Case 2 (Western and Ashanti region/Ghana, 2000) 

Gold mining versus right to feed oneself 

Several thousand people in the Western and Ashanti Region of Ghana suffer from the consequences of 

increased gold mining activities threatening their right to feed themselves. Generous incentives (e.g. the 

reduction of corporate income tax from 55% in 1975 to 35% now) have contributed to a booming interest 

of transnational investors in Ghana’s gold mining sector. Around 30 percent of Ghana´s surface is 

planned to be given out as concession areas for gold mining. It is estimated that more than 70 percent 

of the land surface in the Tarkwa-Prestea- Bogoso- Aboso-Nsuata axis is under concession of mining 

companies. The concessions cover farming areas. The affected farming communities are rarely 

informed about details and have hardly any chance to get their land rights recognised. Even if 

companies only need 25 percent of their concession area for the actual mining activity, the legal status 

of the other 75 percent of the concession area is dependent upon them. For the farming communities 

that live off the land, this causes extreme legal insecurity for their future access to land and their ability 

to feed themselves. Furthermore, the amount of compensation payed is not defined in fixed regulations 

but rather to be determined by the parties concerned. The people of Atuabu village, for example, were 

offered new houses at a new location and financial compensation. Both housing and financial 

compensation were totally inadequate or simply non existent. The financial compensation provided to 

the people only covers the crops on the farm and not the land itself. As soon as the meagre 

compensation package is exhausted people will face hunger and malnutrition. There is no seriously 

effort to provide alternative farm lands. If new housing is provided, it is often inadequate in size and 

location. If communities go to court, the cases are often pending for several years due to frequent 

adjournments: Meanwhile people are fighting for their subsistence. In the case of Atuabu, FIAN 

contributed to an out of court settlement securing people’s right to feed themselves. 


• Access to food and resources: 

The consequences of Ghana´s expanding gold sector jeopardises the right to feed oneself for several 

thousand people. Giving prospecting licences to mining companies for land, on which people´s 

livelihoods depend, and without adequate compensation violates the population´s right to feed 

themselves. Companies try to "clear" the areas and consequently, resettlement and relocation 

procedures are on the daily agenda. These are most often implemented by forced evictions with the 

help of police, military and private forces. Such forced evictions are gross violations of human rights. It 

was reported that certain companies pressurise the affected people and communities by cutting their 

electricity and water supply. For instance, on February 6, 2001, Kyekyewere village was demolished by 

police forces. 300 villagers were evicted to make way for the Australian TNC affiliate Aboso Ghana Ltd. 

• Violation of the right to food - Statesóbligations: 

As a State Party to the African Charter on Human Rights, Ghana has the obligation to ensure that „All 

peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the 

exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it. (Article 21.1). More 

specifically, Article 21.2 states that „In case of spoliation the dispossessed people shall have the right to 

the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an adequate compensation“. 


June 2002



Ghana´s gold exploitation has shifted from underground to surface mining during the past eight years. 

This is regardless of the destruction of huge areas of land, and the resulting loss of agricultural 

activities, in these regions. Ghana´s environment is adversely affected by careless handling of the 

mining sites and its operations. Several spillages are reported where cyanide polluted rivers and nearby 

farms. High suspended sediment concentrations render water supply for villages unfit for drinking and 

other domestic purposes. The fish population is highly polluted and diminishing in the concerned areas. 

Furthermore, arsenic trioxide is discharged into the atmosphere which damages crops and causes eye 

problems among residents. They have to inhale the dust as well. 

Cyanide Spillage in the Western Region of Ghana 

In October 2001, FIAN has been informed about a recent cyanide spillage in the Western Region of 

Ghana. The dimension of the accident cannot be estimated at the moment. Water from the nearby 

streams is polluted and fish and other animals have been found dead. Many villages in the surrounding 

area of the spillage are lacking clean and safe drinking water. Some villagers have taken water for 

consumption from the polluted streams without knowing of the accident and are complaining about 

stomach problems, now. FIAN-Ghana reports: 

"A major disaster has hit a number of villages in the Wassa West District of Ghana's western region, 

this follows the spillage of thousands of cubic metres of wastewater, contaminated with cyanide and 

heavy metals, into the river Asuman last Tuesday 16th Oct, when a tailings dam at a mine operation 

owned by the South African company, GOLDFIELDS Ltd. ruptured. 

In what observers consider as the country's worst environmental disaster, hundreds of dead fish, crabs 

and birds can be seen littering the banks of the river while others floated on the water which is the only 

source of drinking water for Abekoase, Huni and surrounding villages. 

Virtually all life forms in the river and its tributaries including plants have been decimated and people's 

livelihoods endangered. Now scientists fear the cyanide and heavy metal residue from the spill could 

remain for decades thus posing serious health and environmental threat to the people in the area and 

surrounding towns. 

With a fragile ecology comprising a greater chunk of the country's remaining tropical rain forests and its 

complex biological diversity and a network of rivers that meander through a chain of scarps within the 

mining concessions, the Wassa West district of Ghana's Western region remains the most impacted by 

mining activities and the most vulnerable to surface and groundwater pollution. Sulphur fumes and 

mercury contamination from both small and large scale mining activities also pose a real threat.. 

Over the years mining activities in the Wassa West District have generated tremendous social conflicts 

arising mainly from land use conflicts, unfair compensation schemes for displaced communities and 

tremendous environmental degradation. 

Surface mining in particular and its associated clearing of vast stretches of land has already decimated 

large tracts of the country's remaining tropical rain forests which can be found in the area. A number of 

rivers and streams are also known to have dried up in the area and protected species such as the Red 

river hog, the roan antelope, the Red Colobus Monkey and the Black and White Colobus Monkey and 

some medicinal plants are believed to have been swept into oblivion by surface mining. 

After heavy rains in June 1997 cyanide spilled from the Teberebie goldmine into river Angonaben (in the 

same district) killing fish and destroying vast stretches of farmland. Leg injuries were caused to villagers 

wading through the water, nine villages were left without drinking water and as usual no compensation 

was paid to the villagers. 


June 2002


Four years later, little appears to have changed in terms of government oversight or industry practice 

and another cyanide disaster has struck. This adds to the legacy of environmental disasters by mining 

companies. " 

2. Other human activities polluting or alterating freshwater systems 

Gold mining and mining activities in general have a severe impact on water supplies in terms of 

pollution. However, there are numerous other industrial projects and other activities which lead to 

serious and long term pollution of the surface and groundwater sources preventing affected people from 

feeding themselves. Hereafter, two cases drawn from the FIAN interventions databank provide some 

illustration of violations of the right to feed oneself associated to industrial and chemical pollution of 

freshwater systems. It is on the one hand the case of paper industry in Tamil Nadu (South India) and, on 

the other hand, the fumigation process taking place in South America against illegal crops. 

Case 3 (Tamil Nadu, India, 1994) 

Cauvery river under attack by paper industry 

The Tamilnadu Newsprint and Paper Ltd (TNPL) is a state owned public sector company situated in 

Kagithapuram, Pugalur, Karur Taluk in the Trichy District of Tamilnadu State. 

TNPL was set up in 1985 on a 200 acres site. In 1994, TNPL was planning a 100% expansion with 

substantial funding from the World Bank. 

The planned expansion was opposed by the local population and environmentalists who were already 

struggling against the ecodestructive effects of the plant. Peasants had been directly affected by the heavy 

pollution of water and prevented to continue producing enough food for themselves and their families. 

The irrigated area polluted by TNPL amounted to around 13,000 acres of arable land, feeding about 50,000 

people. The local agricultural yield was said to have been reduced by 50% through the pollution. The 

ground water was made useless for the human and cattle consumption, and even for secondary use. 

Moreover, the pollution decimated the aquatic life of the region. 



Already in 1992, smallholders and support groups had started to raise awareness on their case. They had 

various pieces of evidences for the pollution: The water pipes showed cracks. The water was thick, smelly 

and dark through the paper and other material residues in it. Once dried up, it left a layer obstructing the 

crop, rendering it unable to grow. Small farmers, who represent a large majority of the local population, 

directly depend on subsistance agriculture to feed themselves and their families. 


TNPL is a public company. Public authorities failed to meet their obligation to abstain from destroying the 

existing access of the affected population to food and food producing resources. Facing this inacceptable 

situation, victim groups tried to get the state respect their right to food but they were unable to reach any 

positive response towards a more appropriate industrial exploitation. No one from the administration even 

visited the affected site and some villages must now buy their water elsewhere to meet their domestic and 

livestock consumption requirements. Instead of a satisfactory response, an expansion of the plant by 100% 

was planned. 


June 2002



The plant was supposed to be an environmentally friendly local economic potential as it is using sugar cane 

waste bagasse in the production process and also because an effective effluent treatment plant was to be 

built along with the factory. TNPL, however, has turned out to be a major harm for the local environment 

and it dangerously reduces the access to food of the local smallholders: TNPL has a huge water demand, 

pumped from the Cauvery river, the lifeline of Tamilnadu. Furthermore, the effluent treatment plant did not 

let the 38 tons of wastes per day off on a tract of dry waste land, as foreseen in the original plans, but into a 

major canal and some irrigation drainage of the Cauvery river. This discharge heavily polluted the water as 

no chemical water treatment was implemented, so that the water turned saline. Moreover, a commissioned 

assessment on the pollution level in the area proved that is far higher than the norm as stated by the Indian 

Bureau of Standards. 

Colombia 

Fumigation leading to heavy pollution of peasants’ water sources. 

The "war" led by some Southamerican states, and especially Colombia, against illegal crops has 

already proved to have severe impacts on the environment and freshwater systems. Heavily subsidised 

by the US government, the so-called Plan Colombia has not produced evidence of its effectiveness in 

terms of reduction of drug traffic. Nevertheless, it has contributed to the worsening food situation of 

peasants and indigenous communities of the Amazon region – primarily because no sustainable and 

satisfactory alternatives are proposed for the loss of livelihoods and crops. Moreover the technique used 

in the fumigation process severely damages the local ecosystems and thus the food producing 

resources of the local population. Water sources are particularly at risk because of the contamination by 

the chemicals used (gliphosphate). Water wells and ground water are affected through spraying and 

infiltration in soils. One of the major concerns of opponents to the method is the incapacity to really 

control where the chemicals land. This makes it unlikely that only illegal crops are destroyed and that 

vital water sources are not contaminated. 

As noted in section II.A, big dams and hydroelectricity facilities have greatly altered freshwater systems. 

Free flowing rivers have globally become rare and the basins of world major rivers, on which the survival 

of millions of people directly depends, have faced major disruptions. Hydropower is gaining interest and 

share in the energy production as the main and fast developing renewable energy. Construction of big 

dams and hydroplants, however, is often linked to violations of people’s right to feed themselves. The 

benefits accrue to urban areas and industrial centres (high consumers of water and energy) and to large 

scale irrigation projects for agribusiness. There has been quite a number of FIAN interventions in this 

context. Two of them are the Urra 1 project in Colombia and the Biobio project in Chile: 

Case 4 (Sinú Valley/Colombia, 2000) 

Power plant destroys the means of subsistence of fisherfolks and peasants. 

The Sinú river and its basin are of special cultural and historical importance. The establishment of the 

hydroelectric power plant Urra 1 on the Sinú has led to a large number of violations of the rights of the 

indigenous, peasants and fishing communities. Inspite of international protests, the fishers and peasant 

communities, especially those down the river Sinú, still have to struggle for an improvement of their 

situation. A large number of families left their original location as a consequence of the complete 

economic disintegration, poverty, hunger and misery. The water level decreased by 75%, thereby 

reducing the area’s fishing resources. Peasants’ crops, particularly rice, were also adversely affected. 

Consequently, in 1999 the Association of Growers for the Community Development of the Ciénaga 

Grande de Lorica (ASPROCIG) took a case against the enterprise Urra 1 to court. The Colombian 

Constitutional Court (c.p. Sentencia No. T-194/99) decided in favour of the association. Yet, so far, the 


June 2002


agreements signed in October and November 1999 by the government and the enterprise have not 

been implemented. Neither were the agreements signed on 31 st of September 1999 regarding the fisher 

communities’ development plan for the valley of the Rio Sinú honoured, which foresaw the immediate 

implementation of productive pisciculture projects, agri-ecological projects, resettlement , impact 

assessment and others. 



The productive resources of 60,000 fishing and peasant families are affected by the hydroelectric power 

plant. The communities organised within the ASPROCIG have signed agreements with the government. 

The State of Colombia however has failed to comply with these agreeements. Without their fishing 

ground, these communities lose their means of livelihood. 


Colombia is a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and 

therefore duty-bound to protect and to fulfil the right to feed oneself of all parts of the population. The 

Colombian government failed to respect and protect people’s access to food producing resources in 

particular feshwater habitats, contrary to its obligations under the ICESCR, to which Colombia is a State 

party. 

Environmental Impact 

The loss of three-quarters of the water level of the Sinú River is only one of the consequences of Urra 1. 

The Sinú basin as a whole has been affected by the construction of the power plant. Water extraction 

prevents for instance the normal sedimentation process and filtration capacity. The fauna and more 

generally speaking the biodiversity severely suffers from the drastic reduction. The river has more and 

more difficulties to reach the sea. 

Case 5 (Biobio river/Chile, 1996-2001) 

The struggle of the Pehuenche Indians against Hydroelectric Project 

The Biobío River has its source in the Andes, flows through forests, agricultural lands and cities, into the 

Pacific Ocean. The river watershed covers a surface of more than 24,000 square kilometers. Over one 

million people depend on the Biobío water resources for drinking water, irrigation and fisheries. The 

Chilean national power company ENDESA (Empresa Nacional de Electricidad) was privatised in 1980 

but remains the main power generator in Chile. One of ENDESA's major “development” projects is the 

construction of the six following hydroelectric power plants on the upper part of the river Biobío: 

Llanquén/Ranquil, Ralco, Pangue, Aguas Blancas, Huequecura and Quitramán. Planning and 

implementation was in continuation of the authoritarian decision-making common during the Pinochet 

dictatorship that ended in 1989. The Pangue project was accepted by the then Alwyn government in 

1990. The project has started and the Pangue dam is completed. The Ralco dam is on the agenda and 

the legal battle is currently ongoing. 


• Access to Food and Resources: 

The Pangue dam has submerged 500 hectars. 60 Pehuenche and 6 white settlers were forcibly 

resettled. The Pehuenche indigenous communities traditionally made their living by hunting and 

gathering, in a semi-nomadic way, with winter and summer settlements. Their position is quite 

precarious anyway as not all of them have official land titles and have therefore been repeatedly 


June 2002


subjects to land grabbing and harvest robberies in the past. When the Pangue dam was constructed, a 

resettlement took place on less hectars than the oustees originally had possessed, with no seminomadic 

way of life possible anymore. The oustees' right to feed themselves is at stake as the 

agricultural feasibility of the resettlement area has not been proved and the dams of the Biobío river 

severely reduce the oustees' access to water. 

• Violation of the right to food - Statesóbligations: 

The Pangue dam destroyed indigenous people’s access to their traditional lands. The Ralco dam is the 

next on the agenda of the Biobío project. The affected communities need to be involved in the decision 

making and both the national indigenous law and the international human rights law have to be 

observed, in particular the communities' human right to feed themselves. The state has also to respect 

its own legislation protecting the indigenous communities' access to their traditional area. Article 13 of 

the indigenous laws for instance protects indigenous territories from being acquired by third parties. 

Environmental Impact 

Once completed, the plants are due to generate some 2.680 MW. Their construction would result in the 

submergence of around 25.000 hectares on the traditional area of 3 Pehuenche indigenous 

communities. The risks for the Biobío basin and for more than 50 km of the river itself are considerable. 

First, the Ralco dam would cause a fluctuation of the water level of 20 meters in the reservoir, which 

would periodically threaten some 1400 hectares of reservoir banks with erosion and landslides. Second, 

the planned stagnant lake in the Upper Bio-Bio would represent a risk for the water quality and for the 

balance of the freshwater system (disruption of water flow, prevention of filtration, sedimentation, etc...). 

Eventually, the local animal species would greatly suffer from the alterations, and the quality of drinking 

water for nearly one million people downstream would be challenged. 26 

References 

• (1993), Greer, Jed : The Price of Gold / Environmental Costs of the New Gold Rush, In : The Ecologist, 

Vol.23, No.3, May/June 1993 

• (1993), Young, John E.: For The Love of Gold, World Watch, May/June 1993 & Mining the Earth, World 

Watch Paper 109, World Watch Institute, Washington DC. 

• American University Washington DC, www.american.edu/TED/ice/chiledam 


June 2002


VI. Violations of the right to food and the destruction of 

biodiversity 

A. Biodiversity - Evaluation of FIAN Interventions 

Destruction of biodiversity and of genetic resources have rarely been identified explicitely in FIAN’s 

actions. This is due to the fact that the impact of such destruction on the right to food is a medium or 

long-term effect, whereas the organization has so far been concentrating on violations linked to the 

immediate destruction of food producing resources. A great part of our FIAN interventions implicitely 

deal with the issue. Such links could be made explicite by incorporating sustainability concerns into 

FIAN interventions. Indeed, loss of biodiversity often results from replacing the sustainable use of a 

natural resource or an ecosystem by indigenous or local communities by an unsustainable management 

of those resources for the benefit of shor-term outside economic and financial interests. A number of 

FIAN interventions and cases dealing with ecodestruction imply serious or even irreversible damage to 

a fragile habitat and even the disappearance of species. Local indigenous or traditional rural 

communities are highly dependent on their land to feed themselves. They depend on the "health" of 

their environment. The natural resources and services of their ecosystems are vital to ensure their 

livelihoods (either as direct food supply or as essential inputs and preconditions for subsistence 

agriculture). Without idealizing indigenous communities or subsistence farming it can be affirmed that 

biodiversity has better chances to be respected and protected by these populations than in the context 

of the current “development” paradigm. Depending on the maintenance of the biodiversity (medical 

plants, animals...) in their environment for their survival and food, these groups are much more likely to 

manage the resources in a sensible manner enabling regeneration and preventing exhaustion. In 

addition sustainable management is also linked to traditions, spiritual and cultural habits recognizing 

themselves as an integral part of Nature and therefore giving another dimension to the relation between 

people and natural resources (including fears, taboos, respect and rituals). More traditional ways of life, 

knowledges and means of production often prevent overuse, pollution or destruction of the ecosystems 

and their genetic resources. For all these reasons, violations of the right to feed oneself of indigenous or 

subsistence farmersćommunities through forcible evictions, landgrabbing or polluting industrial projects 

often involve threats to or loss of biodiversity. 

The question whether a certain act of destroying or threatening biodiversity is already in itself a violation 

of the right to food (perhaps of future victim groups) will be dealt with in section B of this chapter. The 

current section will instead deal with the destruction of biodiversity implied by violations of the right to 

food which have been dealt with by FIAN interventions. Considering the cross-sectional nature of 

biodiversity in the framework of topsoils, marine, forest and freshwater systems, interventions dealt with 

in previous studies in the context of these ecosystems will be dealt with again – but this time with a 

particular focus on the implications of the related ecodestruction in terms of biodiversity. One example 

will be given for marine, forest and freshwater systems each. Topsoils are an ecosystem for themselves 

– a world of organic matter – much of it alive. The loss of biodiversity in topsoils can indeed be a result 

of their erosion, pollution, or conversion (for example to agribusiness 27). Moreover loss of organic life in 

topsoils can increase the risk of erosion by water and wind. These aspects of topsoil have so far not 

been directly evoked in FIAN interventions, and will therefore not be dealt with here. 


June 2002


i. Marine and coastal systems : Dramatic loss of fragile and rich habitats 

Case 6 (Orissa/India, 1993) 

Chilika Lagoon : a unique ecosystem menaced 

Lake Chilika is the largest lagoon in Asia, covers about 100,000 ha of land on the Indian east coast. It is 

located on the coast of Orissa state with a surface area of 916 square kilometers. It is connected to the 

Bay of Bengal by way of a narrow channel of 35 km length. It belongs to the six sites in India classified as 

wetlands of international importance by the Ramsar convention because of its very rich biodiversity. 

This huge brackisch lake is indeed the habitat of more than 400 vertebrates, including several 

endangered, threatened, and vulnerable species. Furthermore, the lake hosts more than one million 

migratory waterfowl and shore birds during winter. 28 The importance of the lake in terms of biodiversity 

is also illustrated by the classification of numerous species in the IUCN Red List of threatened Animals. 

According to figures mentioned by the organization Worldlakes, some 225 fish species along with a 

variety of phytoplankton, algae and aquatic plants are listed. Moreover, data collected in the framework 

of the 1985-87 study of the Zoological Survey of India, more than 800 species in and around the lake 

are recorded. The Nalaban Island within the Lake is classified a Bird Sanctuary under Wildlife 

(Protection) Act and the lagoon is also identified as a priority site by the National Wetland coral reefs 

Committee of Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. 29 Despite this clear importance 

of the lagoon and the necessity (and in fact legal obligation to protect it under the Ramsar Convention), 

the Orissa government started In the early 90s to lease out land on the lake to Tata Corporation, the 

biggest corporate giant of India, and eventually formed a joint venture with Tata Steel and Tata Oil Mills to 

develop large scale industrial prawn breeding in the lake by using enormous quantities of water polluted 

with high protein feed, fertilisers, chemicals and pesticides. Industrial shrimp aquaculture totally 

disregards the particular nature of Lake Chilika. At the same time it destroyed the means of subsistence 

of more than 100,000 traditional fishers in some 120 fishing villages surrounding the lake, who live off the 

lake from times immemorial as an integral part of the Chilika ecosystem. There is a large land mass of 

about 1400 acres within the lagoon. It serves as grazing grounds for herds of cattle, and in the rainy 

season when covered with water it is used for natural prawn breeding by the traditional fisherfolk. Protests 

(including FIAN’s) made Tata withdraw from the project – but the local “mafia” continued its investments 

with the blessings of local and state authorities who (at one point) shot down protesting fisherfolk. 

ii. Forest ecosystem: Conversion and destruction through industrial 

projects 

Case 7 (ARCO Block 10/Ecuador, 1993) 

Threats to biodiversity through oil extraction 

The area of Villano and Morete Cocha in the Province of Pastaza is one of the last ecologically surviving 

regions of the Ecuadorian Amazone. It is full of genetic resources and inhabited by the indigenous 

communities of the Quichua, Shiwiar, Zaparo and Ashuar peoples. 

In Napo, the province north of Pastaza, the rain forest and the territories of the indigenous peoples have 

been devastated during the past decade by massive and ruthless oil exploitation and the subsequent 

uncoordinated and destructive colonisation. It used to take the indigenous communities only one day of 

hunting or gathering to secure the food supplies, which now take a week or two, since the once plentiful 

flora and fauna is on the retreat. Today hunger, malnutrition and desease are spreading in the very 

same communities. The responsibility for this disaster rests not only with the transnational oil 

corporations and the Ecuadorian government, but also with the international community of "donor" 

countries and agencies, unwilling to solve Ecuador's debt problem, and evading their responsabilities 


June 2002


under international law to protect the human rights of the indigenous peoples and the ecosystem of the 

Amazone region. This makes it easier for transnational corporations to plunder the mineral and 

ecological resources in the indigenous territories. During the past decade FIAN has repeatedly 

intervened on behalf of indigenous land rights in southern Napo close to the border with Pastaza. After a 

spectacular march of 600 km to the Ecuadorian capital of Quito in June 1992, the indigenous 

communities of Pastaza finally obtained legal land titles for 1,115 million hectares of their traditional 

territorities. Today these land titles are under extreme pressure from oil corporations. 

iii. Freshwater systems : Dams destroying the balance of whole river basins 

Case 8 (Biobio/Chile, 1996-2001) 

The Ralco dam on the Biobío river 

The Chilean national power company ENDESA (Empresa Nacional de Electricidad) developed a huge 

project consisting of the construction of six hydroelectric power plants on the upper part of the river 

Biobío. The Ralco dam is second after the Pangue site. If the project is to be completed, the plants will 

generate more than 2,500 Megawatt. In order to build the 6 dams, it will be necessary to flood around 

25.000 hectares on the traditional area of Pehuenche indians. The local populations have been neither 

invited to participate in the decision process nor even informed in time about the possible submergence 

and other negative impacts of the project. 

According to environmental studies, it is estimated that some 3,400 hectares of native forest would be 

flooded, affecting about 45% of the local fauna and 60% of the indigenous flora. Furthermore, the 

creation of the planned stagnant lake would impair the survival of about 8 species of fish, 9 species of 

reptiles, 10 species of amphibians and 27 species of mammals. With an increased humidity rate in the 

region, food crops would be affected as well as the micro flora and micro fauna of the whole area. 30 

B. Destruction of biodiversity through agribusiness; related 

violations of the right to food 

1. Agrobusiness – violations of the right to food 

Agriculture has - etymologically speaking - two aspects: “ager” (latin: field) and “cultura” (latin: caring, 

planting, way of life, reverence). For thousands of years agriculture has meant a careful approach to 

food production and nature – sometimes with strong religious undertones. Agriculture was the life-blood 

of most peoples. Carefully developping biodiversity was part and parcel of peasants’ culture – and quite 

often the task of women.. 

It was only during the 20th century that food production turned from being a “culture” into being 

“business” – an industry turning money into more money. Agribusiness today is a system of food 

production dominated by corporations: Even if its few remaining farms are still run by farmers, the 

inputs, methods and marketing are controlled by corporations - nationally and increasingly 

transnationally. Agribusiness is exclusively oriented to the rate of profit on capital invested: It relies on 

high inputs of fossil energy, chemicals, and capital. In the context of globalisation agribusiness tries to 

take over agricultural systems all over the world. 

Corporate agriculture (or "agribusiness") is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The industrialization of 

the Global North in the 19th and much of the 20th century was not based on agribusiness but on the 

increasing yields per hectar of small farm agriculture. In the Global North agribusiness had its 

beginnings only in the 1920s in the USA and the 1950s in Europe, when it started marginalizing small 


June 2002


farm agriculture and capturing state subsidies: Farm subsidies were linked to a farm's volume of 

production, hence bigger farms (suitable for corporate agriculture) were heavily subsidized and became 

even bigger. Moreover some 75% of total agricultural subsidies in the EU did not even go to farms, but 

into storing, processing and marketing of surpluses in the hands of agribusiness. 31 

In the 1970s corporate agriculture made first inroads in the Global South by way of the Green 

Revolution. Both in the North and South agribusiness cooperates with groups of ex-feudalists and large 

landlords remaining from medieval or colonial times. In the 1990s corporate agriculture geared up for 

global takeover. 

People in the North are increasingly critical of agribusiness. The quality of food is deteriorating and 

some food has even become dangerous: Beef is hormone-treated or even infected with BSE, grains and 

vegetables carry pesticides, the nutritious content of fruits withers away, food additives (artificial colour 

and flavour) and advertising substitute for nutritional value. Inadequate food is the single most important 

root cause for health problems in the North. 

Corporate advertising boasts of the increasing food production under corporate agriculture and claims 

that agribusiness is necessary to feed the people and in particular to feed the hungry in the South. 

The eradiction of hunger and malnutrition, however, is not a question of insufficient global or national 

food production. The "problem" of the big food producers and traders today is too much food, not too 

little: Too much food destroys profits, with prices dropping faster than sales going up. New markets have 

to be conquered for new profits. Globalisation of agribusiness is a strategy to capture or generate 

markets in the South and access its natural resources. Food gluts are wellknown in the North. How 

about the South? India is the country with the largest number of malnourished people: More than 350 

million. India's granaries, however, have been overflowing. In 1999 yet another 25 million tons (of its 

farm produce of 200 mio tons) went to the buffer stocks. At the same time the poor are too poor to even 

buy the subsidized food of the public distribution system. 

Subsaharan Africa is the other hunger-prone subcontinent, and increasingly so. Its farmers (many if not 

most of them women) face an uphill battle against urban-biased policies that strongly discriminate small 

farmer agriculture. The region has abundant agricultural resources (with few exceptions, e.g. the Sahel). 

Insufficient agricultural techniques provide a great scope for improvement and for ample production 

once proper agrarian policies and extension services for small farmers are available. 

There are some 800 million hungry people in the world. Who are they? To give a rough estimate: Some 

300 million of them are small farmers, 200 million landless agricultural workers, 200 million urban 

unemployed, and 100 million rural non-agriculturalists (village artisans etc.). 32 Among these 

malnourished groups, women are particularly badly affected. 

Why are these people hungry? They are hungry because they are deprived of land, or of inputs and 

other resources to grow their food or because they cannot buy food for lack of money. In order to 

overcome hunger and malnutrition people have to be provided with access to productive resources to 

grow their food, or with employment, with minimum wages, with a basic income. The market offers no 

magic to transport corporate food to people who cannot buy it. 

Agribusiness offers no solution, but is part of the problem: Corporate agriculture provides no land to the 

poor, but takes it away. Small farmers cannot participate in capital intensive corporate agriculture for 

lack of funds: They have to take on heavy debts, become even more vulnerable and lose the little land 

they have. Moreover corporate agriculture offers hardly any employment, but tries to cut labour cost. 

How about population growth? More people will mean a larger need for food in future. Will the 

increasing yields of corporate agriculture (including GMOs 33) be necessary? Increasing yields will 

certainly be necessary, but where and by whom? The "middle scenario" of the UN predicts for 2075 a 

stable global population of 12 billion. Most of the population growth will take place in the South, and 

there among the poor. This means that we deal with a poverty problem that cannot be overcome by 

global food production and markets, unless this production takes place by the poor masses themselves, 


June 2002


or they find proper employment. Population in the South will more than double from 5 billion to 11 billion. 

Even without expanding the land in production, slightly more than doubling the yields would do - if there 

is no change in consumption patterns (like a move to the unhealthy excessive meat consumption of the 

North, which requires heavy use of food grain for animal feed). In the period 1800 to 1940 European 

small farm agriculture (for example in Germany) increased its yields by 300 percent. From 1940 to 1980 

the yields of heavily subsidized corporate agriculture increased by 100 percent, but so did the yields 

under sustainable small farm agriculture 34. Claiming that small farm agriculture has a low growth 

potential and that corporate agriculture is "the mother of food" and the only alternative to archaic 

agriculture is a fairy tale. On the contrary, the yields of small farm agriculture under mixed cropping 

(where different plants are planted on the same field) are much higher than the yields of corporate 

agriculture under monoculture. 35 

In the South we can identify agricultural prime regions with excellent soils, plenty of water, good 

infrastructure, roads etc.. Many of them are now under green revolution technologies. They feed 2.6 

billions of people, the other areas feed 2,2 billions. Yields in green revolution areas are stagnating. 

There is ample practical evidence that yields in less priviledged areas can double or triple - and this on 

the basis of sustainable small farm agriculture. 36 And that sustainable practices in the North and in the 

green revolution areas can at least maintain the yields. 

Corporate agriculture marginalizes small farm agriculture not on the basis of yields, but on the basis of 

subsidies and the economic and political power behind the corporations. Its overrunning "logic" is: 

Maximize the return on outside capital invested. This "logic", moreover, excludes the social and 

ecological cost - a cost dumped on the future generations, on the ruined peasants and agricultural 

workers, and on the consumers affected by health problems linked to inadequate corporate food. 

Agribusiness has been ruining most farmers in the Global North and destroying the rural communities. 

So far, Southern peoples through their governments have kept control over their agricultural systems. 

Through "structural adjustment agreements" the World Bank and IMF, however, have pressurized 

indebted Southern countries to open their markets under the banner of "free trade" to corporate 

agriculture and highly subsidized imports of agribusiness. These imports marginalize local farmers in 

their home market. And the subsidized promotion of corporate agriculture in the South starts leading to 

bancrupcies and loss of land among the small and medium farmers. There are news from India about 

small farmers selling their kidneys to pay back part of their debt and postpone foreclosure. Recurring 

articles in the Indian press report suicides of dozens of ruined small farmers facing hunger and 

malnutrition. 

In the North widespread starvation of the ruined farmers and related population in the rural areas has 

been prevented, because there was public social security and employment outside agriculture was 

readily available (at least until the 1980s). This is very different from the Global South. There is no social 

security for the victims of corporate agriculture - and no employment either, as the unemployment 

problem has reached gigantic proportions already. 

Under the new WTO agreement, Southern governments would be prevented from protecting their 

agricultural sector and from carrying out agricultural policies contrary to the interests of agribusiness. A 

globalisation of corporate agriculture to the South could destroy the lifes of 500 million peasants and 

landless workers. 

Cheap food imports flooding the local markets in the South would, of course, improve the situation of 

300 “non-agricultural” malnourished people who buy their food on these markets. Do these benefits 

"justify" the death blow that globalized corporate agriculture would deal to most of the 500 million 

peasants and agricultural workers? Human lifes are not for calculation. 

And both parts of the deprived population can be assisted - with other policies: Governments in the 

North, which subsidize measures destroying the lifes of 500 million people, and governments in the 

South, which fail to protect these people, both commit massive violations of international human rights 

law. 


June 2002


If Northern governments want to help Southern states to fulfill the right to food of malnourished persons 

outside agriculture, they could assist in establishing and financing self employment programmes, 

employment guarantee schemes and other minimum income provisions for this target group. Already 

half the annual subsidies given by Northern tax payers (through their governments) to corporate 

agriculture would be more than sufficient to provide each malnourished person in the target group with 

an income to buy sustainably produced local food at real prices. 37 

States failure to respect and protect agriculture against the onslaught of agribusiness violates the right 

to food of millions – and the right to feed oneself of many more. States’ failure to regulate agribusiness, 

however, is also a cause of ecodestruction. Agribusiness destroys the top soils and their natural fertility, 

it leads to erosion, it pollutes the ground water, it kills animal life in the fields and biodiversity in the 

ecosystem, it is energy intensive and relies on fossil fuels, it hinges on abundant water. All these 

essential inputs for food production and a healthy life are globally limited, but currently wasted by 

agribusiness. Corporate food production is unsustainable - an agricultural dead end providing a flash of 

profits for the shareholders and managers, and leaving the future in shambles. For sustainability 

agribusiness should be phased out in the North, and certainly not be globalized to the South. 

2. Agrobusiness causing genetic erosion and loss of biodiversity 

The impact of agribusiness on biodiversity is twofold: The erosion of biodiversity among food producing 

species – and the destruction of other species in general. The largest drain on biodiversity in general is 

caused by the destruction of primeval forests including rainforests. In this context the hunger for land for 

food production is only one of many causes 38. When it comes to the terrestrial species for example in 

industrialized countries, agribusiness is the most important destructive force for biodiversity. In 

Germany, for example, agribusiness is the single most important reason for the decreasing diversity in 

animal and plant life: According to data of the German government 39 for 711 red listed species 

(threatened by extinction), agribusiness was among the destructive causes for 513 of them. This was by 

far the most importart cause, the second most important cause being monocultural forestry/ hunting (for 

338 species). All other causes effected less than 161 species. 40 The reasons for the destructive role of 

agribusiness when it comes to biodiversity are manifold: The direct damage from pesticides and 

herbicides, the destruction of hedges, and other small ecosystems in order to adapt fields to the needs 

of heavy machines, the destruction of small fauna, nests of birds, etc by agribusiness equipment, 

fertilizers destroying the biodiversity of the soil and leading to eutrophysation of lakes. 

The awareness about the loss of biodiversity among agricultural species (genetic erosion) is not recent. 

The reasons for this erosion are overwhelmingly agribusiness activities. For decades, scientists in the 

field of biology, biotechnology and Agricultural Research Institutes have been alarmed about this 

erosion and its implications on human food production as well as on other vital services of genetic 

diversity like medical research and production of medicines. Already in the 1970s, seeds have been a 

central issue in the world food discussion. For instance, it appeared as a major concern during the 4 th 

session of UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade and Development) in Nairobi, 1976. Inspite of a 

consensus on the vital nature of seeds and genetic diversity for food security biodiversity experiences 

new attacks. 

i. Biodiversity and food production: relation and risks 

Genetic diversity and variety of species is vital because of the services it provides. Genetic diversity of 

cultivated plants is necessary in order to breed more productive and more resistent plants (key traits are 

most of the time searched in wild varieties by breeders when they cannot find them in cultivated 

varieties). Biotechnology cannot make up for varities lost: As stated by John Tuxill, the main problem is 


June 2002


that biotechnology enables us to "move genes around" but not to create new genes. When a gene is 

lost it is lost for ever. 41 

In India more than 30,000 rice varieties used to be grown; now it is expected that just 10 varieties will 

soon cover 75 per cent of the the rice area. In the Philippines before the advent of agribusiness in the 

early 1970s 3500 varieties of rice existed, now only 3 to 5 are grown in irrigated areas. In Europe half of 

all the breeds of domestic animals (horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry) have become extinct 

since the early 20 th century, a third of the remaining breeds is in danger of disappearing before 2010. 71 

percent of apple production in France is from one variety, 30 per cent of bread wheat from two varieties, 

68 percent of potatoes in the UK are planted to 3 varieties, and since 1900 the USA lost in terms of the 

percentage in varieties: 85 apples, 88 pears, 94 peas, 95 cabbage, 91 maize, 96 sweet corn, 81 

tomoato. 42 As far as Mexican peasants are concerned, the loss in maize varieties is estimated to 80% in 

comparison with the 1930´s. 

Moreover, according to studies mentioned by Mooney 43, a only 10% of the 300,000 plant species 

(except alguae, lichen and mushrooms...) of the Earth had been scientifically examined by the 1980´s 

and most of them in a very superficial way. Around 3,000 only have been analysed in depth. 

Furthermore, some 95% of all food products are based on not more than 30 crop plants. Three crop 

plants , i.e. wheat, maize and rice cover more than three-quarter of the total human cereal 

consumption. 44 

Genetic diversity is thus vital but it is also highly fragile and threatened. Worldwide the genetic diversity 

of crop plants is geographically highly concentrated. Indeed, almost all crop plants have their origins in a 

few regions in the world, i.e. the so-called Wawilow-Centres (named after the Russian botanist who 

traveled through the world in order to study and list crop plants). These centres are therefore of highest 

importance for world food security. They cover less than a quarter of the global arable land surface. 

There are five main Wawilow centres where a combination of conditions led to the development of the 

crop plants: The Mediterreanean; The Near East ; Afghanistan ; Himalaya / Northern India ; Malaysia / 

Java ; China; Mexico / Guatemala ; Peruvian Andes ; Ethiopia. 

These regions show that the genetic heritage for essential crop plants is largely vested with Southern 

countries. Industrialized nations appear poor in terms of genetic varieties in agriculture. Except for the 

Mediteranean, they are excluded from the Wawilow-Centres and therefore highly dependent on other 

regions. The importance of these Centres has long been ignored by industrialized genetically poor 

countries. 

Genetic erosion has already severely affected genetic diversity in the world through heavy handed 

interference with the Wawilow-Centres (see below). The loss of a heritage which has been cultivated 

and gathered by peasants over centuries leads to the standardization of the genetic resources. Of 

course, genetic diversity is subject to evolution. But what is really alarming is the massive and total 

disappearance of irreplaceable genetic material. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that a species 

does not disappear alone without impairing the survival of several other species. Concrete implications 

of genetic erosion are to be taken into account as to food production. Crop plants which are adapted to 

the local conditions are not only lost for the direct local cultivation, but also for the further development 

of the species. Genetic uniformity of a crop plant species represents a great risk it is much more likely to 

be the victim of epidemies. The “potato famine” in Ireland in the 1840´s was caused by uniformity of the 

plant which was the main food crop for the people to feed themselves. 2 million people starved. 

The standardization of the genetic material and subsequent i.e. genetic erosion is a result of economic 

and political influences. By far the most important among the main causes of genetic erosion (in terms 

of the number of countries affected) is the replacement of local varieties (80), followed by deforestation 

(60) and overexploitation (46). 45 Indeed, rationalization and efforts to draw as much profit as possible 


June 2002


have largely encouraged genetic standardization. For instance, a wheat variety or even more an hybride 

will be prefered to another because of small differences in the high yields that can be obtained (under 

standardized conditions). 

Today, no country is really protected against the dramatic consequences of genetic standardization in 

terms of food production for its population or for export. Given the geography of Wawilow centres and 

the high levels of biodiversity in areas so far not destroyed (yet?), it should not come as a surpize that 

the private actors and the governements who really push for patenting on genes are the ones in the 

genetically poor countries. Indeed, as we have seen, the major Centres of biodiversity are situated in 

the South while agribusiness and pharmaceutical companies willing to appropriate genetic material are 

overwhelmingly from industrialised countries. Biopiracy (legalised or not) is not rare: The world is 

witnessing the appropriation and privatization of resources which had been maintained and managed for 

centuries by subsistence farmers and indigenous communities. The communities rely on these 

resources for their survival and are aware of this dependence, but the whole human community is 

actually dependent on these resources. Genetic material is then kept in gene banks or private 

laboratories. The safest and most appropriate place for a variety, however, is a carefully cultivated 

ecosystem with a stable and high genetic biodiversity. 

ii. New Attacks on Biodiversity 

New attacks on biodiversity have come up with a potentially severe impact on biodiversity and its 

services for food production. It is necessary to carry out an analysis in terms of risks for the right to food 

and for future generations. 

The general trend is a loss of control over genetic resources by peasants and indigenous communities 

at the benefit of corporations, which consider these recources as mere commodities. 

TRIPS and Genetic Resources 

The control of peasants over seeds and biodiversity has become a major international issue. The WTO- 

TRIPS agreement (on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) entails risks for people´s 

ability to feed themselves. WTO-TRIPS means (inspite of theoretical saving clauses and procedures) 

that plants protected by patents must be used only under the conditions imposed by the patent holder – 

and that most patents will be held by agribusiness corporations from OECD countries. 

With the TRIPS agreement, deep changes are to be feared in the field of seeds. The survival of small 

and subsistence farmers in the South is highly dependent on their access to means of production and 

agricultural inputs like seeds. The latter have traditionally been freely selected, cultivated and 

exchanged between communities over generations. Plants are adapted to local conditions. This free use 

could be endangered by the TRIPS patenting process. Agrobusiness corporations are frequently 

reproached for monopolising essential inputs (seeds) which gives them a great influence on the 

agricultural production all over the world. In theory peasants can buy what they want or continue to trade 

their traditional varieties – in practice, however, the agricultural extension systems and agrarian policies 

get oriented (sometimes with the help of government agents) towards the interests of corporate 

agriculture. 

The UN Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights noted in August 2000 that “ 

actual and potential conflicts exist between the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and the 

realisation of economic, social and cultural rights in trelation to, inter alia, impediments to the transfer of 

technoology to developing countries, the consequences for the enjoyment of the right to foodof plant 

variety rights and the patenting of genentically modified organisms, “biopiracy” and the reduction of 

communities’ (especially indigenous communities’) control over their own genetic and natural resources 

and cutlural values, and restrictions on access to patented pharmaceuticals and the implications for the 


June 2002


enjoyment of the right to health.” It “reminds all Governments of the primacy of human rights obligations 

over economic policies and agreements”. 46 

Terminator seeds 

The so-called terminator seeds are a great danger for biodiversity and the ability of subsistence and 

small peasants to feed themselves. Terminator seeds are seeds that are genetically manipulated in 

order to produce plants that are sterile, i.e. unable to regerminate in a second growing season. For 

farmers, it means that they cannot use the seeds they selected from the last harvest to plant the next 

one. In southern countries, the selection of seeds was often the traditional task of women who have 

gathered a great experience in choosing the best seeds for the next harvests. This role is threatened to 

disappear with severe social, cultural and envrionmental consequences (loss of a know-how and thus of 

a conservation of biodiversity). However, one of the first implications is the economic dependence of 

producers upon seeds and chemical companies. The debate is ongoing but more and more voices are 

turning against the pressure exercised by the actors who have already legally patented the technology 

in the US in March 1998 (the US Department of Agriculture and the Delta and Pine Land Seed 

Company - a Monsanto subsidiary). The World´s greatest network of agricultural institutes, the CGIAR 

(Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), itself took position in 1998 against 

terminator seeds. CGIAR stated that the technology is bad for poor peasants and for biodiversity. 47 

GMOs and Biotechnology: a solution to world hunger ? 

Considering the results achieved in the field of genetic engineering, it appears doubtful that research 

has been carried out in order to eradicate hunger – contrary to the public statements by agribusiness 

corporations and part of the “development” bureaucracy: The innovations rather tend to ensure market 

shares (and to increase the farmers’ dependence on agribusiness products beyond the reach of those 

peasants who are threatened by hunger and malnutrition): Seeds patented by Monsanto corporation, for 

example, are only resistant to Monsanto herbicides. According to an unpublished study conducted on 

behalf of the EU and leaked out to Greenpeace, the financial and ecological implications of a large 

cultivation of GMOs would create problems even for EU farmers (not to talk about peasant farmers in 

the global South) and provide a threat for organic agriculture. Afraid of the political impact of this study, 

the EU decided not to publicize its results. 48 

GMOs carry high risks for health 49 and for biodiversity. It must be kept in mind that the usual “trial and 

error” method cannot be applied once a GMO has been released: If a certain type of medicine turns out 

to be risky it can be recalled from the shelfs – not so with genes once they have started proliferating. 

It has not been proved, for example, that there is no risks for consumers and that genetically engineered 

food has the same nutritional features. Altieri and Rosset (reference below) give the example of 

Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans which contain less isoflavones, an important phytoestrogen. 

In the field of insecticides, one of the innovations of biotechnology has been to engineer a gene against 

a pest into the plant instead of using a chemical or natural pesticide (like the engineering of the toxin of 

Bacillus thuringiensis normally used by organic farmers as a biopesticide) against a particular pest. 

Today, the development of "Bt-Crops" is largely questioned since the presence of the Bt toxin in the 

plant itself as genes has already caused damage on non target species like other plants, insects or 

herbivores. Moreover the genetic manipulation runs the risk of increasing the pest exposure to 

pesticides which in turn accelerates and improves resistance of this pest to the means used against it. 

Genetic engineering and the manipulation of genes of crop plants contributes further to the 

standardization of crops and therefore to the environmental risks linked to monoculture. 

Although many countries have decided a moratorium on the cultivation or on the commercialization of 

GMOs according to the precautionary principle 50, more and more cases of contamination, uncontroled 

dissemination or illegal growing of GMOs are reported. In Bolivia, the invasion of maize containing 


June 2002


traces of starlink generates strong concerns within the local population and indigenous communities. 

Starlink is a genetically manipulated maize produced by Aventis corporation and outlawed in the US and 

Europe because of risks for human health. Nevertheless, traces have been discovered in US food aid. 

This is scandalous both because GMOs are forbidden in Bolivia and because this very sort of maize is 

known to carry risks for human health. 51 Recently, Greenpeace revealed the presence of Monsanto’s 

genetically engineered variety of Roundup Ready GA21 in maize from Argentina that has been imported 

to Switzerland. The maize variety has not been approved for human consumption in Europe. Moreover, 

Argentina has not agreed to grow this crop for consumption and commercial purposes which means that 

illegal planting of GMOs in Argentina is most probably taking place. 52 Finally, the spreading of 

transgenetic plants over the world already affects biodiversity especially in the South. The following 

case from Mexico could just be the tip of the iceberg. 

Mexico: GMO contamination in the birthplace of maize 

In October 2001, FIAN was contacted by local indigenous communities and asked to intervene on 

behalf of small peasants and indigenous communities in Mexico against genetic contamination of their 

traditional maize varieties. The local organizations saw a direct link between the contamination by 

genetically engineered maize and the right to food of the 3.5 million Mexican peasants producing maize 

and the 100 million Mexicans consuming it. Indeed, the Mexican population in its great majority depend 

on maize as their staple food. Consumed in various forms, maize provides them with 70% of proteins 

and 75% of calories. 

The Mexican Ministry of the Environment had reported an alarming contamination of indigenous maize 

varieties by genetically manipulated maize. These finding were later on confirmed by two Berkeley 

scientists, Dr. Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, in an article published in the British scientific magazine 

Nature in September 2001 after the usual procedure of peer reviews. Pressured by a fierce campaign of 

rival scientists Nature had to officially withdraw this article – something unheard of so far for this 

prestigious magazine. 

The findings indicate that the contamination rate has reached high levels (such as 35 percent) in some 

indigenous areas of the Sierras de Oaxaca and Puebla. This is all the more worrying for biodiversity, as 

Mexico and especially the Sierras are the Wawilow Centre of genetic heritage for maize. The director of 

the related gene bank in Mexico and the CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre) 

assumes that contamination can affect the gene bank as well. 

The genetic material which contaminated the Mexican peasants’ crops comes from patented maize 

probably from US aid or imports. The peasants – unaware of what kind of maize they dealt with – 

applied the maize as seeds to their fields. The peasants’ ability to produce, to access and control foodproducing 

resources is now at stake, as – strictly speaking - the indigenous peasants and small farmers 

are now hooked on seeds they believed to be freely at their disposal – but which they might have to pay 

for in future. Food aid and imports as the Troyan horses of agribusiness? At least equally important is 

the implied a loss of biodiversity and genetic variety in this cradle of maize. The destruction of the 

genetic variety of maize in its Wawilow centre could have severe consequences for future breeders’ 

options to confront pests and diseases attacking the standardized maize varieties – and hence for the 

food security of Mexico and countries depending on maize as their staple food. It is high time to stop 

these new attacks on biodiversity before more irreparable damage is done. 

References 

• (1998), Shand, Hope and Mooney, Pat : "Terminator Seeds", Threatening an End to 

Farming, In Earth Island Journal, Fall 1998, Earth Island Institute 

www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fall98/fe_fall98terminator.html 

• (1998), Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) : "World´s Largest 

International Agricultural Research Network Vows not to use Terminator Technology", 

News Release, 23 rd October 1998 


June 2002


www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/biotech1.html 

• (1999), Tuxill, John : "Plant Losses threaten Future Food Supplies and Health Care", 

News Release, World Watch Institute 

www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990916.html 

• See RAFI´s reports and database on www.rafi.org 

• (1999), Altieri, Miguel and Rosset, Peter : Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure 

food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world, In 

Sierra Magazine, October 1999 or at Foodfirst Institute : 

www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/altieri-11-99.html 


June 2002


VI Conclusion 

The International Botanical Congress 1999, the world’s largest gathering of plant scientists held in 

August 1999 in St.Louis, documented the following grim perspectives: Half of the Earth’s land is 

transformed, 50 dead zones expand in the world’s oceans, and before 2100 two thirds of all plant and 

animal species could be lost. 53 

“Scientists have documented five mass extinctions since complex life emerged on the planet. It is 

generally accepted that each was caused by a catastrophic natural disaster. For example, the 

disappearance of the dinosaurs was likely the result of a large meteorite crashing on Earth about 65 

million years ago. Some scientists believe that we are in the midst of another mass extinction and that 

we are the primary cause. In contrast to previous mass extinctions, the current rate of biodiversity 

losses is higher than ever recorded. That is, we are losing more species per year than ever before.” 54 

Given the dependence of human beings on biodiversity and their supportive web of ecosystems, one of 

the species vanishing in this “catastrophic 

natural disaster” could be the human species itself. 

Nobody can say today that there is lack of scientific evidence of what is happening. There is also no 

serious dispute about the looming water crisis. The question is a question of political response. 

Obviously, political response has to address the causes for ecodestruction – which tend to be closely 

linked to the causes for oppression. “We are the primary cause” holds mainly true for that part of 

humanity which has the greatest impact on the planet’s ecosystems: Scientists have developped the 

concept of “ecological footprint” to measure the ecological impact for nations, regions, individuals. The 

ecological footprint is the size of the bioproductive area which would be necessary to run the economic 

activities of the nation, region or individual in a sustainable way. The ecological footprint provides an 

indicator for ecological impact : The larger the area, the bigger the impact. 55 

In terms of nations, US citizens have the largest impact with an average footprint of 9.6 ha per person. 56 

European citizens consume between 4 and 5 ha, whereas the Indians or Chinese take only 1.0 ha resp. 

1.4 ha - well below the sustainable global average of 2.1 ha. 57 Population, of course, plays a role – but 

what has to be counted is the footprints and not the heads: The US footprints add up to 25 billion km 2 

(about 20% of total human impact) for a population of just 4.6% of the global population, whereas 

China’s impact is 17.3 billion km 2 (13.7% of total global impact), but accomodating 21.4% of the world’s 

population. 

Total footprint has to be reduced very urgently – both in terms of unsustainable per capita footprint, as 

well as in terms of population size – in particular in those nations showing unsustainable per capita 

footprints, but elsewhere as well. The right of women to control the size of their families must be 

implemented. In many countries it is the victims of the violations of the right to food who have at the 

same time the least access to measures of reproductive health. Measures must be taken to stop 

population growth well before the carrying capacity of a country has been reached. Biodiversity 

concerns would also call for a policy of excluding a considerable portion of bioproductive area in each 

country from human use as a reservation for biodiversity. 

Ecodestruction is largely due to the economic activities under the current paradigm of “development” 

measured basically by growth of GNP. GNP, however, does not measure wellbeing, but 

ecodestruction. 58 The conclusion is obvious: A fundamental paradigm change is urgently necessary to 

halt the tendencies indicated in this study. Measures taken will have to curtail the “liberty” of 

corporations: Future regulation should be firmly based on human rights – not only to check powerful 

state and intergovernmental authorities, but also to provide protection and fulfilment for today’s victims 

of ecodestruction – the forerunners of future generations of victims: The indigenous peoples, the 

peasants and fisherfolk. 


June 2002


Within the corporate economic paradigm disrespecting, marginalizing and destroying small-scale 

sustainable economic activities of the so-called “poor”, the detrimental role of agribusiness was 

mentioned in this study in the context of biodiversity. Instead of a change of paradigm in the centers of 

“development” (calling themselves the “developped countries”) we witness the globalization of a 

destructive paradigm. Corporations taking over areas (in the name of progress, productivity and – 

ironically – the management of scarce resources and the fight against hunger) that have so far been 

managed sustainably by communities feeding themselves. 

Human rights like the right to food and the right to feed oneself need justiciable implementation in 

national and international law – and so does environmental law. Klaus Töpfer, the Director of UNEP, 

said in a recent interview: ”We now suffer from our failure in Rio [at the 1992 UN Conference on 

Environment and Development] to deal with the justiciability and control of the treaties [on Biodiversity 

and Climate Change] .” 59 The US administration has so far signalled more than others its disregard both 

for these treaties and for human rights law around the right to food. 

1 FIAN / The Impact of Ecodestruction on the Right to Food: On Topsoil, and in Marine and Forest Ecosystems; 

Heidelberg 2001; 

FIAN / Violations of the human right to food leading to Ecodestruction: Soil, forest and marine resources. 

Heidelberg 2002; 

2 P.Bartelmus (ed.) / Wohlstand entschleiern ; Stuttgart 2001;p.14 

3 A.Alonso, Francisco Dallmeier, Working for Biodiversity, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.2000, p.10 

4 (2000) UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001”, Washington DC, p.104 

5 FAO, Food for All, Rome 1996, p.23 

6 See FAO, Fishery Country Profiles, www.fao.org/fi/FCP. 

7 See US Energy Information Agency, www.eia.doe.gov / International Energy Outlook 2001 

8 (2000) UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001”, Washington DC, p.116 

9 (1997) Shiklomanov I. A., Comprehensive Assessment of the freshwater resources of the world: Assessment of water 

resources and water availability in the world. Stockholm, Sweden:WMO and Stockholm Environment Institute. 

10 (1997)World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World. 

Geneva:WMO 

11 (2000) UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001” 

12 See FAO data, www.fao.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/1999/pren9916.htm 

13 (2000) UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001” 

14 FAO 1996: Food for All 

15 Soil erosion is therefore – for all practical purposes – irreversible. 

16 All data: FAO 1996: Food for All 

17 www.ifg.org/gbsummary.html 

18 R.Petrella, The Water Manifesto, Arguments of a World Water Contract, Zed Books, London, 2001 

19 Data on water consumption from FAO / Food for All, Rome 1996 

20 These data and the following are taken from G.Fischer et al. / Global Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 

21 st Century, 2001 IIASA and FAO 

21 J.Pretty / Regenerating Agriculture, Earthscan, London 1995 

22 G.Fischer et al., op.cit. 

23 FIAN / The Impact of Ecodestruction on the Right to Food: On Topsoil, and in Marine and Forest Ecosystems;Heidelberg 

2001; 

24 To read more, see (1993), Greer, Jed : The Price of Gold / Environmental Costs of the New Gold Rush, In : The Ecologist, 

Vol.23, No.3, May/June 1993 

25 (1993), Young, John E. : For The Love of Gold, World Watch, May/June 1993 & Mining the Earth, World Watch Paper 109, 

World Watch Institute, Washington DC. 

26 http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/chiledam.htm 

27 cf section VI,B 

28 See www.panda.org/resources/programmes/mpo/library/download/rcindia.doc 

29 See www.worldlakes.org/Biodiversity.htm 

30 http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/chiledam.htm 

31 H.Priebe / Die subventionierte Unvernunft, Siedeler Berlin 1985 


June 2002


32The total figure and urban/rural figures are from FAO, the internal differentiation of rural figures are crude extrapolations of 

data from rural Bangladesh, World Bank 1985. 

33 GMO – Genetically Modified Organisms 

34 Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. U.S.Department of Agriculture, 1980 

35 Food First Institute, Oakland, California 1999 

36 Pretty / Generating Agriculture, Earthscan London 1995 

37 The absolute poverty line (indicating malnutrition) is generally set at 1 US$ per day or 365 US$ per year. Roughly 75% go 

for food. For the 300 million non-agricultural malnourished, this would mean 82 billion US$. The total OECD producer 

subsidies equivalent (PSE: the amount of tansfers from consumers to producers that result from agricultural policies) was at 

an average of 179 billion US$ in 1902-3 (J.Pretty / op.cit). The South Centre in Geneva puts it for 1998 even 274 billion US$ 

(www.twnsite/org/title/modalities.htm). Most of it was pocketed by agribusiness. The subsidies for agribusiness are therefore 

more than sufficient to carry most of the cost of this massive programme for an immediate eradication of malnutrition among 

300 million malnourished non-agriculturists – along with lavish support for a thorough agrarian reform towards productive 

sustainable agriculture for the 500 million malnourished peasants and agricultural workers in the South. 

38 H.Geist, E. Lambin / Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation, BioScience, February 

2002 / Vol.52 No.2, p.143 ff 

39 Umweltbundesamt, Daten zur Umwelt, 1988/1989, Berli,n according to 

E.U.von Weizsäcker / Erdpolitik; Darmstadt1992 

40 Due to multiple causation, figures don’t add up to 711. 

41 (1999), Tuxill, John : "Plant Losses threaten Future Food Supplies and Health Care", News Release, World Watch Institute 

www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990916.html 

42 all data: J.Pretty, op.cit 

43 (1977), Kendrick Jr., J.B. : Preserving Our Genetic Resources. In California Agriculture, September 1977, S.2 

44 (1978), Omang, J. : Plants with Alien Names Hold Promise of a Brave New World. In The Washington Post, 28th September 1978 

45 FAO / Food for All, Rome 1996, p.30 

46 Commission on Human Rights; Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/7 

47 http://www.rafi.org/article.asp?newsid=133 or www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/biotech1.html 

48 See Greenpeace Press releases. www.greenpeace.org. 16 May 2002. 

49 Certain “therapeutical” genetic manipulations even turned out to result in leukaemia, as was recently discovered at 

Hannover University’s Medical School. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 99, Heft 17, 26.April 2002 

50 The precautionary principle states that rather than await certainty, regulators should act in anticipation of any potential 

environmental harm in order to prevent it. This principle is so frequently invoked in international environmental resolutions 

that it can be seen as a basic normative principle of international environmental law. 

51 To read more, www.megalink.com/fobomade. Foro boliviano sobre medio ambiente y desarollo. 

52 See Greenpeace Press releases, http://www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/gmo/april24_monsanto.html 

53 Ens.lycos.com/ens/aug99/1999L-08-02-06.html 

54 A.Alonso, Francisco Dallmeier, Working for Biodiversity, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.2000 

55 Moreover ecological footprint provides an indicator for sustainability: The footprint indicates a sustainable way of life, if it 

stays with in the limits of the bioproductive area available. The bioproductive area per capita in 2000 was 2.1 ha on a global 

average, 5.5 ha in the USA, 0.6 ha in China, with an overshoot (demand-supply) of –0.3 ha globally, -4.1 ha in the USA, -0.8 

ha in China) 

56 The USA also shows the largest fertility rate (2.0 births per woman) of all OECD countries (average: 1.7).World 

Development Report 2000/2001 

57 N.Chambers, C.Simmons, M.Wackernagel / Sharing Nature’s Interest. London 2000 

58 N.Chambers, C.Simmons, M.Wackernagel, op.cit.p.125 ff 

59 „Da brennt es überall“ (DIE ZEIT, May 8, 2002, translation FIAN) 


June 2002

Study 3: Ecodestruction and the Right to Food: The Cases of Water ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?