Original Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3894.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3894.doc.htm October 25, 2007 25 October 2007 General Assembly GA/SHC/3894 Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York NOTE:  FOLLOWING ARE SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS IN TODAY’S THIRD COMMITTEE (SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN AND CULTURAL) MEETING.  A COMPLETE SUMMARY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING AS PRESS RELEASE GA/SHC/3894. Background The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today continued its general discussion on human rights.  For more background, please see Press Release http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3893.doc.htm \t _blank GA/SHC/3893 of 24 October 2007. The committee also had before it the note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/62/223).  The report “deplores” the extension of the house arrest of the National League for Democracy (NLD) General Secretary Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and notes that human rights concerns highlighted in the present report are largely very similar to those highlighted by the Special Rapporteur last year, with the occurrence of forced labour and numerous other human rights violations. Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health PAUL HUNT, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, recalled that more than 500,000 women died during childbirth or from complications of pregnancy every year –- one death a minute -- with 95 per cent of the fatalities either African or Asian.  The scale of maternal mortality dwarfed the number of “disappearances” and death penalty cases, which attracted much more attention.  An international initiative, driven by civil society, was launched at a conference last week in London on maternal mortality and human rights.  The Human Rights Council could play a leadership role by convening a Special Session on maternal mortality; that could save women’s lives and reduce suffering. Among some Governments and international organizations, there had been a tendency to pay too much attention to medical care, at the expense of the underlying determinants of health, he said.  Access to better water and sanitation would save millions of lives; it would also reduce malaria, diarrhoeal diseases and other illnesses.  Every dollar invested in better water and sanitation would yield economic benefits of between three and 34 dollars, depending on the region, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).  Effective monitoring and accountability mechanisms on water and sanitation had yet to be put in place by States.  Global warming had led to a decline in dependable access to water, leading people to resort to polluted alternatives that led to ill health.  A study on the impact of climate change on human rights should be undertaken by the Human Rights Council as soon as possible. Mr. HUNT drew attention to neglected diseases, which mainly afflicted the poorest people in the poorest countries, such as river blindness, sleeping sickness and lymphatic filariasis.  According to WHO, almost 1 billion people suffered from disabilities and deformities caused by such diseases.  Basic public health measures, such as access to clean water and sanitation, would significantly reduce the impact of several neglected diseases.  Development of new drugs and vaccines for neglected diseases had historically been under-funded, largely due to the lack of a market incentive, although in recent years active steps had been taken by some pharmaceutical companies to redress that imbalance. He referred to his report on his 2006 mission he had undertaken to Uganda, and a report that he had co-authored titled “Neglected Diseases:  A Human Right Analysis” which, when read together, provided a practical introduction to the issue.  They showed that the right to the highest attainable standard of health was not mere rhetoric, but a practical tool for good policymaking.  While States had primary responsibility for enhancing access to medicines, pharmaceutical companies had responsibilities as well.  What precisely were the human rights responsibilities of those companies in relation to access to medicine, and how could those companies be expected to respect human rights if it was not clear what was required of them?  Draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies vis-à-vis access to medicines had been prepared by the Special Rapporteur; these were available for comment until 31 December 2007.  He sought to be practical and constructive, and deliberately avoided controversial doctrinal issues that had plagued debate about corporations and human rights.  Substantive meetings had been held with a number of pharmaceutical companies, in conjunction with Realizing Rights:  The Ethical Globalization Initiative led by Mary Robinson. The Special Rapporteur set out a two-phase proposal:  first, a small group of human rights experts and representatives of pharmaceutical companies should work together to identify as much common ground as possible; second, after perhaps two years of consultations by that group, another small group could be appointed to evaluate the policies and practices of certain pharmaceutical companies over a three-year period, with the evaluations to be made public.  Two pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and NovoNordisk, were willing to proceed with that proposal, but the majority of others were not.  The Special Rapporteur, with Mrs. Robinson, thus felt that there was no alternative but to put the two-phase proposal aside.  But, work still needed to be done.  It was hoped that the guidelines would clarify what would be expected of pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines and the highest attainable standard of health.  The Special Rapporteur’s aim was to finalize those guidelines in 2008. The representative of Libya said that pharmaceutical companies nowadays had a great influence on everything, and their status was reminiscent of arms companies long ago who had great influence on politicians.  Did the Special Rapporteur, with respect to the guidelines he had drafted, put in any legally binding human rights standards for those pharmaceutical companies?  He also asked why only two pharmaceutical companies were willing to join the two-phase proposal. Brazil’s representative asked how States could contribute to the process Mr. Hunt had initiated, and to the efforts to address neglected diseases, which were very important to developing countries. The representative of Portugal asked about the prioritization of health interventions, and how treaty bodies could give more guidance to States in that regard.  Regarding impact assessments, he asked how Member States could receive assistance from the United Nations in implementing their recommendations. Cuba’s representative asked what the Special Rapporteur had meant when he said donors should ensure that their programmes were in accordance with national priorities.  Should donors support his work on access to medicine, for example? The representative of Indonesia asked about the integration of health into national and international policymaking, and said that while all of the policies were intended to realize the right to health, scarce resources often dictated decisions.  She asked if there was a definite plan to discuss the Special Rapporteur’s report on impact assessments some more. PAUL HUNT replied to Libya’s question by saying that the draft guidelines would not be legally binding, but he hoped they would be so persuasive and credible that they would be of assistance to States, pharmaceutical companies and international organizations.  He also hoped the proposed guidelines would assist pharmaceutical companies to formulate their projects in a way that respected human dignity and communities, as well as all right-to-health considerations.  Those guidelines were a tool to assist pharmaceutical companies, because a lot of them said they would like to respect the highest attainable standard of health, but they did not know what that meant vis-à-vis access to medicines. Regarding the declination by other pharmaceutical companies to participate in the two-phase proposal, he said it was best if he did not speak for them, but allowed them to explain themselves.  He had gone to a lot of trouble to try and frame the proposal to make it acceptable to all, he said, but in the end an insufficient number of pharmaceutical companies were prepared to join.  Those companies could not hold veto power over the work, and if the cooperative method could not work, another method had to be found.  That was why he had taken on the consultative role of preparing draft guidelines. In response to Brazil’s question on how States could participate, he said countries had a critical role to play.  He would be most grateful if other States were able to organize informal consultations like Brazil had recently done, so the guidelines could be discussed further.  He also welcomed country’s comments on the guidelines.  Addressing neglected diseases, he said he had completed two reports on the issue.  The right to health had a number of components, and all sorts of political initiatives were required, he said.  His two reports could help to show how human rights could help policymaking vis-à-vis health, thus making such policies more just and helpful. In response to Portugal’s question about the issue of prioritization, and what role of treaty bodies in the matter, Mr. Hunt said, “I have grasped this nettle.”  More work on the issue was needed, and the treaty bodies should look at the matter more carefully than they had done before.  In his past, in one of the treaty bodies, he said, “We didn’t look at this issue of prioritization in a systematic way.”  There was not a lot of guidance from treaty bodies about choosing between competing health interventions with a finite budget.  There should be more guidance to Governments from treaty bodies, he said.  Turning to health impact assessments, he said they were “really important”, because before States introduced a policy, they had a duty to reflect on the impact it would have on the right to health of those living in poverty.  How could a State make sensible choices without an assessment of the impact, he asked.  “It has to have a way to predict,” he said, adding, “I tried to signal a methodology.” In answer to Cuba’s question about whether donors should support the draft guidelines, he said a number of States’ responses, particularly the United Kingdom, had been inspiring, and he hoped that recipient countries and donor companies would support the initiative. In answer to Indonesia’s question, he agreed that one size did not fit all; the integration of the right to health into existing frameworks was the best approach.  He said he hoped the report on impact assessments would be more widely read.  In conclusion, he acknowledged that cultural considerations did have to be taken into account in policymaking on impact assessments. The representative of Venezuela raised the matter of health insurance, asking whether guidelines should be directed at insurers as well. The representative of China asked what role international cooperation could play in improving health standards, and what steps the Special Rapporteur was taking to bring pharmaceutical companies into the guidelines process, which should also include States.  The representative of South Africa voiced support for the Special Rapporteur, saying she looked forward to interaction with him in Geneva. Mr. HUNT said he would be putting a significant report before the Human Rights Council in the new year to identify the key right-to-health features in a health system.  The matter of health insurance was not on his agenda, but he had taken note of the representative of Venezuela’s remarks with interest.  On the role of international assistance and cooperation, he recalled that last year, he had been invited by Sweden to look at the right-to-health there.  While there, he had been invited to study Sweden’s impact on the right-to-health in Uganda.  That report was in preparation, and it would look at what happened in practical terms between donor States and developing countries vis-à-vis cooperation on health matters.  While it was regrettable that the proposal to draft guidelines for pharmaceutical companies had been put aside, contacts with those companies and industry groups continued.  Inputs were being actively sought and encouraged.  The Special Rapporteur then thanked South Africa for its words of support. Right to Food JEAN ZIEGLER, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, focused his presentation on the injustices committed against refugees who were fleeing starvation.  Old standards to define refugees did not include those who were running from hunger, and thus were of limited use, he said.  European agricultural subsidies caused agricultural dumping of European products in African markets, undercutting African agriculture.  The World Trade Organization (WTO) did not recognize the right to food, and other Governments did not recognize economic, social and cultural rights as human rights, focusing only on civil and political rights.  “We must combat the new total free trade agreement,” he said, and establish a new human right of non-refoulement of refugees from hunger.  The World Food Programme (WFP) published a map every three months that indicated where it was not possible for people to subsist, and under numerous laws, the people falling into that category were classified as in need.  This could be objectively illustrated, he said, using the example of an ambulance on First Avenue, New York, going twice the legal speed limit, thus breaking the law.  This was tolerated, however, because of the greater need to save a life than to follow the speed limit.  The treatment of refugees from hunger should benefit also from that way of thinking.  New standards of international law had to be established for refugees from hunger. Turning to biofuels, he said that the United States and Brazil had invested hugely in the production of biofuels using food crops.  Those countries had allocated thousands of acres of arable land for biofuel production.  It would be very negative if the situation escalated.  Hundreds of millions of cars produced greenhouse gases at intolerable levels.  A superior interest -- the survival of mankind –- was also at stake.  To fill a car’s tank with 50 liters of biofuel required enough maize to feed a Mexican child for a year.  The price of wheat throughout the world had also doubled, while the price of maize had quadrupled. Numerous countries, even without disasters, were not self-sufficient in food.  With food prices increasing, many African countries would not have the money to keep their people alive.  The United States would only be able to give WFP half of last year’s donation because of increasing prices, he said.  Using food crops to provide bioethanol was a crime against humanity.  There should be a moratorium on the transfer of arable land to the production of bioethanol so that kind of land cannot be converted to produce biofuels.  In five years, the technology to produce biofuels with agricultural waste would be in place, so the international community should wait for that instead of using the plains of India and Brazil that were now using food to make fuel. Multinational companies were making huge profits, he noted, adding that such organizations were not the Red Cross, but rather worked for profit, as was their right.  But, when the right to food was denied, the international community had to act.  He then quoted Rousseau, who said in The Social Contract that “between the rich and the poor, it is freedom which oppresses and it is law which liberates”. The representative of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), asked what could be done to alleviate the plight of children affected by hunger.  On biofuels, she also asked what role corporate social responsibility might play.  The representative of Cuba asked what positive developments had been seen in developing countries.  She also enquired about a shortage of funding for the WFP, particularly in southern Africa, and the work of the Special Rapporteur’s successor, particularly on emerging issues.  The representative of Brazil asked if more attention could have been given by the Special Rapporteur in his report to the relationship between food and trade; she also said it was hard to see how biofuels would affect the right to food; in her country, biofuel production had lifted incomes and living standards in rural areas -- ethanol manufacture over 30 years had shown that biofuel production was fully compatible with food production. The representative of Burkina Faso noted that subsidized cotton from the European Union had as much an impact on developing countries such as his as subsidized food exports.  He called for “a level playing field” in global trade.  The representative of Nigeria drew attention to his country’s experience with cassava production, suggesting that lessons could be drawn for other countries.  The representative of Venezuela rejected the idea of replacing gasoline with biofuels, predicting that doing so would “bring death and devastation” to many countries and create food refugees.  She asked if the Special Rapporteur might elaborate on possible legal instruments to protect people from hunger, and to ensure that they were not turned away from borders when they had to migrate to find food.  In that context, she also asked about possible cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The representative of Colombia said his country had embarked on biofuel production without jeopardizing its food industry.  Some 40,000 jobs were being created thanks to such production, which had provided an alternative to illegal products.  He suggested a full analysis of the idea of a moratorium on biofuels.  The representative of South Africa asked for the proposal for a new standard of international law on hunger, saying that such an effort would be “very challenging.”  The representative of Switzerland said biofuels were an alternative source of energy that was clean -- they also created jobs and would help resolve trade issues.  He also asked what should be the standard to ensure the right to food.  The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea asked to “set the record straight” on remarks Mr. Ziegler had made in his report about his country.  The representative of Libya praised the Special Rapporteur for the “hell of a job he had done”, and asked if something should be done to urge rich countries to help starving children in the developing world.  He also cited the “negative impact of genetic food on people’s health”. The Observer for Palestine, referring to the “strangulation policies of the occupying power”, enquired about the legal ramifications of an occupying power denying food to those whose lands were being occupied.  The representative of Indonesia said that several aspects of biofuel production had been overlooked by the Special Rapporteur, adding that such production could help overcome poverty.  The representative of China, noting falling poverty in his country, asked to what extent the Special Rapporteur could contribute to WTO’s Doha Development Round.  The representative of Norway referred to the integration of voluntary guidelines to eradicate hunger in the context of the Millennium Development Goals.  The representative of Paraguay expressed reservations about the recommendations that had been made about biofuels.  His was a landlocked country that was vulnerable to the price of imported fuels, and it therefore did not agree with a moratorium on the production on biofuels.  The representative of Peru asked about the relationship between the right to food and indigenous populations. For information media • not an official record