A/HRC/12/31* page 16 V. PROTECTING THE ENTITLEMENTS OF THE POOREST: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL PROTECTION 26. The global food crisis is primarily the result not of too little food being available, but of food prices that are high in relation to the incomes of individuals. The recent sharp increase in food prices has occurred in a context in which the incomes of affected persons have not increased commensurately. The resulting decreases in real income and the ability to command food would have been less consequential had the individuals been more adequately shielded by social protection systems. In such circumstances, where food can be procured provided the purchasing power is sufficient, implementing the right to social security, as required by article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,17 may be the most effective means of ensuring food security when real income is so volatile. The provision of social assistance in the form of food vouchers, cash transfers, employment guarantees or other mechanisms may also contribute to this.18 27. A significant number of countries reacted to the global food crisis by establishing or strengthening safety net programmes, in particular, by raising their levels of support in order to help cope with the rising food prices.19 Others relied on existing programmes.20 In April 2009, the World Bank reported that funds granted under the Global Food Crisis Response Programme the Trust Fund and the Additional Funding Grant - were designed to support safety-net programmes in Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Nepal, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Republic of Moldova, Sierra Leone and Yemen and social protection systems in general in Djibouti, Kenya and the Philippines. Nearly 36 of the 100-odd countries surveyed by the International Food Policy Research Institute in September 2008 had used social protection measures, particularly conditional cash transfers and midday meals, in order to protect their population from the higher prices of food commodities.21 In the Philippines, a pilot conditional cash transfer programme, the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme, which was launched in February 2008 in four municipalities, was soon scaled up so as to reach 320,000 beneficiaries by January 2009. 17 See general comment No. 19 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/GC/19). 18 See also the Comprehensive Framework for Action of the High-level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis, para. 1.1. 19 This was observed in a number of Latin American countries: in Panama, the Red de Oportunidades cash transfer programme was re-evaluated from $35 per household to $50; in Ecuador, the Bono de Desarollo was re-evaluated from $15 to $30 monthly per household. 20 “Doubled-Edged Prices: Lessons from the food price crisis: 10 actions developing countries should take”, Oxfam International, October 2008. 21 Todd Benson, Nicholas Minot, John Pender, Miguel Robles, Joachim von Braun, “Global food crises: monitoring and assessing impact to inform policy responses”. Food Policy Report No. 19, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., September 2008.