A/HRC/17/34 least 100 million more people were hungry and undernourished because of the crises,19 a situation that continues to deteriorate owing to escalating food prices. 32. These are alarming numbers. What these figures do not show, however, is that those who are enduring the gravest effects of the crises are the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in society, including women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and migrants. Because of ingrained discrimination and structural disadvantage, vulnerable groups have restricted access to services and social protection, which help to cushion the effects of crises, and they are thus exposed to increased risk during times of economic shock. 33. The above-mentioned groups have suffered and continue to suffer the cumulative effects of previous crises and are in an increasingly weak and vulnerable situation. They have exhausted their coping mechanisms, such as eating fewer meals, cutting health expenditures, taking their children out of school and increasing working hours in the informal sector, and are left with very limited capacity for resilience. Their situation is further compounded by the current spike in food prices, which is forcing those living in poverty to buy even less expensive and less nutritious food. 34. To overcome the impact of economic deprivation and social exclusion, members of such groups require specific initiatives aimed at addressing their vulnerabilities and risks. Those living in poverty are the least equipped to benefit from the measures taken by States to respond to the crises. States must take measures that explicitly address those living in poverty, otherwise recovery measures will not reach them and inequality will become further entrenched. States should not presume that the recovery will simply “trickle down” to the most vulnerable. To ensure an inclusive rights-based recovery, States and the international community must address the specific needs of the poorest and most disadvantaged as a matter of great urgency. Failure to do this will imply lasting harm to those living in poverty. 35. The ways in which States have sought to respond to the global economic and financial crises have differed markedly across the globe, although some trends in crisis responses were clear. When the crisis first emerged, a large number of States introduced counter-cyclical measures (such as fiscal stimulus packages and social protection interventions) as a means of responding effectively and mitigating some of the most severe effects on the enjoyment of human rights by those living in poverty. While counter-cyclical measures proved to be crucial to protect the poorest, however, the fear is now that a number of States are discontinuing their counter-cyclical policies, retreating from fiscal stimulus plans and adopting fiscal austerity measures that reduce public expenditure, including social protection interventions.20 36. Reductions in public expenditure are likely to take the form of decreased spending on social services,21 which has the potential to significantly undermine the effective and efficient functioning of basic health and education services and social protection systems. These services are crucial for providing minimum essential levels of enjoyment of human rights and to protect the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. While the human rights framework does not exclude the possibility of States adopting 19 20 21 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economic Crises, Impacts and Lessons Learned, 2009, p. 4. Isabel Ortiz, Jingqing Chai, Matthew Cummins and Gabriel Vergara, “Prioritising Expenditures for A Recovery For All: A Rapid Review of Public Expenditures in 126 Developing Countries”, Social and Economic Policy Working Paper, UNICEF, 2010. Ibid., p. 21. See also the questionnaire responses of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, Portugal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. 9