A/HRC/17/34 51. Taxation reform that comes in the form of cuts, exemptions and waivers may also disproportionately benefit the wealthier segments of society, discriminating against people living in poverty. States that institute tax cuts will decrease the resources available to realize their economic, social and cultural rights commitments and increase the risk that they will be unable to meet their obligation to utilize the maximum available resources for their fulfilment. D. Limiting food subsidies 52. A considerable proportion of States has indicated that they plan to limit or eliminate food subsidies as part of their response to the crises.35 From a human rights perspective, the decision to limit food subsidies at a time when food prices are escalating drastically36 and there is still a pressing need for public food and nutrition support is extremely worrying. 53. In recent years, food subsidies have become a common means of ameliorating the devastating effects of food scarcity and rising commodity prices on those living in poverty. The reduction of taxation on or subsidization of staple foods is aimed at providing immediate relief to those experiencing the most pressing forms of food insecurity. By providing access to a basic form of food security, food subsidies can limit the prevalence of hunger, increase consumption and improve nutrition in recipient households. Food subsidies also contribute to ensuring price stabilization and thus create greater food access for all.37 To this extent, they are one way in which States can ensure that they meet their obligations regarding the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to food.38 54. The recurrent crises have taken an extremely harsh toll on the access of those living in poverty to food and nutrition, and limited food subsidies may be a blow that many are unable to bear. Policies that limit or eliminate food subsidies would seriously threaten the ability of States to ensure minimum levels of enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, particularly for the most vulnerable. These policies may also undermine other efforts to address the effects of the crises through, for example, investments in social protection systems. Higher food costs can have an adverse impact on social protection systems as a result of real losses in the value of cash transfers or income received through social protection.39 55. While commodity prices continue to escalate and another food crisis is imminent, from a human rights perspective it is imperative that food subsidy schemes remain intact or be replaced with alternatives policies that ensure food security for those living in poverty. Universal access to food subsidy programmes is the most effective means of reaching the poorest sections of society, but where resources are scarce, targeting may be necessary. If States decide to implement targeted schemes, they should do so within a long-term strategy of progressively ensuring universal protection and in compliance with a human rights framework. 35 36 37 38 39 Ortiz and others, “Prioritising Expenditures”, p. 21. Isabel Ortiz, Jingqing Chai, Matthew Cummins, “Escalating food prices: the threat to poor households and policies to safeguard A Recovery For All”, UNICEF Policy and Practice, 2011. Shikha Jha and Bharat Ramaswami, “How can food subsidies work better? Answers from India and the Philippines”, Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series, No. 221, 2010, p.4. Such as those under article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; article 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and articles 24 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ortiz and others, “Escalating food prices”, p. 13. 13