A/HRC/13/33/Add.4 24. Although Guatemala is still a net exporter of food commodities, its dependency on imports for basic foods has been increasing since the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s.23 Such dependency creates a vulnerability to price shocks on the international markets. Although the sharp increases of food prices on the international market sparking the global food crisis in 2007-2008 do not appear to have translated into similar prices hikes domestically, staple food prices did record a modest increase. As farmers in Guatemala and smallholders in particular, are generally net buyers of staple foods, they were thus negatively affected by these increases.24 25. In order to deal with the impacts of the 2008 global food crisis, and later with the 2009 drought, the Government took the decision to reduce tariffs on certain foods, notably white corn. Temporary measures of this nature can be effective as long as measures are taken to ensure that tariff reductions lead to a reduction in consumer prices. This did not happen in Guatemala. Agribusinesses managing imports maintained high prices and there does not appear to have been any trickle-down effect to the ability of the poorest segments of the population to purchase imported food. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned that such tariff reductions reduce revenues flowing into the State budget, while the arrival of imported grains drives less competitive small farmers in Guatemala out of the market. It is therefore important that such tariff reductions remain temporary and are combined with support measures to local producers, including price support mechanisms. V. The obligation to protect the right to food 26. Following the above review of issues falling under the obligation to respect the right to food, this section will turn to relevant aspects of the obligation to protect. Under this heading Guatemala should ensure appropriate protection against labour rights and other abuses by private businesses, including transnational corporations. A. Protection against violations of labour rights 27. The Special Rapporteur observes that labour legislation remains insufficiently protective of the rights of workers in certain areas.25 In particular, he notes a provision in the labour code, which stipulates that benefits that are not claimed within 30 days of the termination of employment are considered forfeited. This provision should be abolished immediately, as it is routinely abused by employers who make verbal promises that they will re-hire laid-off workers, but fail to do so within 30 days after which these workers lose their benefits. 28. Low salaries also remain an element of concern. According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, 50.1 per cent of workers currently receive a salary that is below the legally established minimum wage.26 Furthermore, the cost of the basic food basket (canasta básica alimentaria) is higher than the minimum salary.27 While the minimum salary has been increased three times since 2005, these increases were below the level of 23 24 25 26 27 For statistics on import dependency ratios see FAOSTAT, FAO Statistics Division, 2009. See footnote 11 above. E/CN.4/2006/44/Add.1, para. 13. ENCOVI, 2006, see footnote 8 above. Ibid. The National Institute for Statistics (INE) also uses a so-called basic vital basket (canasta básica vital), which in addition to food includes education, health, clothing, housing, transport and leisure; 87 per cent of the economic active population has a salary lower than this basket, which amounts to US$ 421.54. The price of the basic food basket stood at US$ 231 as of November 2009. 9