of the right to food. The burden is on the State to demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all resources that are at its disposal in an effort to ensure, as a matter of priority, that each individual has access to the minimum essential level of food required to be free from hunger.[21] The Special Rapporteur was impressed by the level of commitment of Brazil to the full realization of the right to food, as illustrated by the policies described below. 1. The national “Zero Hunger” strategy 33. An impressive set of social policies have been grouped under the “Zero Hunger” strategy pursued by the Federal Government. The strategy is to be commended, in particular, for its participatory dimension: the various policies it comprises are characterized by an impressive degree of involvement of civil society in their design and implementation, as well as by a decentralized approach that empowers local authorities and improves targeting. The “Zero Hunger” strategy encompasses 53 initiatives implemented by 11 different ministries. Among these are social protection programmes, the most important of which are the Bolsa Família cash-transfer programme and the National School Feeding Programme. They also include a low-income restaurant programme, food banks, community kitchens, and cisterns, as well as the improvement of facilities for the storage of food in rural areas. It further includes income-generation initiatives, including support for family agriculture and “solidarity economy initiatives”. The strategy has achieved significant results in reducing malnutrition and poverty: child malnutrition has been reduced by 73 per cent between 2002 and 2008 and child deaths by 45 per cent.[22] Brazil should be commended for these efforts. 34. The indigenous communities and Quilombolas face specific difficulties in accessing the programmes developed under the “Zero Hunger” strategy. Geographical distance from urban centres is, in many cases, a major obstacle. Illiteracy and lack of understanding of the procedures are also a barrier, as is the lack of cultural sensitivity in the design and implementation of the programmes concerned. It is the responsibility of the State to remove these obstacles. 2. The maximum use of available resources 35. The programmes implemented under the “Zero Hunger” strategy will only be effective if their funding is sufficient. As a minimum, the funding of these programmes should be insured against the risk of economic shocks, whether of a domestic or foreign origin: it is precisely in times of crisis that the role of such programmes is most important. The Special Rapporteur therefore encourages Brazil to include the right to food among the social objectives to be pursued by the Pre-Salt Social Fund. However, other reforms may also be required to ensure adequate funding of these programmes. Social spending has increased consistently since 1995 in nominal terms, and reached over 15 per cent of GDP in 2007 (from 11 per cent in 1995).[23] This sum was equivalent to US$ 1.3 trillion (in 2007) but included all spending by the ministries of health, pensions, education, social development and the fight against hunger. The budget allocated to food and nutritional safety[24] has also increased steadily in nominal terms, but has remained roughly constant as a percentage of the budget effectively disbursed in social policy (averaging 4 per cent), and of the national budget (1 per cent). Of this amount, a growing part is linked to the Bolsa Família cash-transfer programme, while other programmes of the “Zero Hunger” strategy have not used their budgets fully: although on average over 80 per cent of the budget allocated to “Zero Hunger” since 2004 was spent, the percentage would be considerably smaller — around 68 per cent — without Bolsa Família. So, although the data available suggests that there is no reduction of the budgetary effort of the State, the distribution of these resources and the modalities of expenditure vary considerably. The 1-per-cent national budget allocation to the “Zero Hunger” programme contrasts with the 48 per cent of the 2009 budget earmarked for the issuance, rescheduling, reimbursement and servicing of the public debt.[25] 36. The tax structure in Brazil remains highly regressive. Tax rates are high for goods and services and low for income and property, bringing about very inequitable outcomes. According to one estimate, families with an income amounting to less than two minimum wages pay an average of 46 per cent of their income in indirect taxes, while families earning over 30 times the minimum wage pay around 16 per cent in indirect taxes.[26] A recent report by the Tax Services[27] confirms the very low levels of property taxes. In particular, the rural territorial tax collected, in 2008, a mere R$ 416 million (US$ 239 million) nationwide.[28] As a percentage of GDP, this amounts to 0.01 per cent and, as a percentage of total taxation, the tax accounts for only 0.04 per cent. Given the very high level of land concentration and the large incomes generated by the agricultural sector, this is highly regressive. In contrast, taxes on goods and services, as well as social contributions to pensions and social security accounted for the lion’s share of Government income: over 70 per cent in 2008. The Special Rapporteur concludes that, while the social programmes developed under the “Zero Hunger” strategy are impressive in scope, they are essentially funded by the very persons whom they seek to benefit, as the regressive system of taxation seriously limits the redistributive impact of the programmes. Only by introducing a tax reform that would reverse the current situation could Brazil claim to be seeking to realize the right to adequate food by taking steps to the maximum of its available resources.[29] 3. Supporting family agriculture 37. Under Brazilian law, a family farm is an agricultural establishment that occupies up to four fiscal modules,[30] employs family labour predominantly, and is run by family members. Family farming plays a vital role for the food security and economy of Brazil (as proven by the latest agricultural census), accounting for R$ 54 billion worth of agricultural production. It outperforms large-scale plantations on land productivity measurements (R$ 750 per hectare per year compared with R$ 358 per hectare per year for largescale plantations). It also has a positive impact on rural communities and the environment. It is therefore welcome that, following decades of relative neglect, family agriculture is now supported actively by the Government. The results have followed: although extreme poverty is higher in the rural areas than in cities, extreme poverty in rural areas has decreased in relative terms from 28 to 9 per cent between 2002 and 2008, lifting over 1.5 million people out of extreme poverty and 4 million out of poverty. Part of the “Zero Hunger” strategy aims at supporting family agriculture, in particular through the provision of credit under favourable terms (PRONAF). Resources allocated to PRONAF since 2003 have gone from R$ 2 to 15 billion and an additional 1 million families have been given access to rural credit under better-than-market terms. This encouraging development must be tempered, however, by the observation that, according to data from the 2006 Agricultural Census for 2006, large landowners owning only 1 per cent of