Addressing the Impacts of Pesticides on Human Rights in the Framework of the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions | Road to 2025 BRS COPs

About this Event

This event addressed the critical intersection between pesticide management and the enjoyment of human rights, with a particular focus on the right to food, the right to health and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Pesticides have played a significant role in global agriculture, yet their unsound management has far-reaching implications for human rights, ecosystems, and food security, nutrition and health. The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, as a voluntary framework, provides guidance to States for the development of tailored national pesticide management policies and normative frameworks. However, the 2013 version of the Code falls short by not incorporating a human rights-based approach, which significantly undermines its effectiveness in addressing the diverse risks that pesticides pose to a wide range of human rights. Moreover, the negative impact of poor pesticide management disproportionally affects groups of people in higher vulnerability situations (e.g. rural workers, children, pregnant women, Indigenous Peoples, etc.), whose protection needs to be prioritized by States when developing their normative frameworks.

The event will highlight the urgent need to align pesticide management practices with international human rights obligations. Unsound pesticide management not only contaminates soil, water, and air but also undermines the resilience of food systems, threatening long-term food security by compromising the nutritional quality, safety, and overall integrity of food. It disrupts ecological balance, reduces biodiversity, and exposes both consumers and agricultural workers to harmful chemical residues,  thereby undermining their health, impairing sustainable agricultural practices and the overall health of our food supply. A human rights-based approach to the Code of Conduct can foster accountability, transparency, and participation, ensuring that stakeholders, and rights-holders, including Indigenous Peoples and other affected communities, have a voice in decision-making processes. By embedding human rights principles into the Code, stakeholders can better address the disproportionate impacts of pesticides on marginalized groups and promote equitable access to safe and nutritious food. This event provided a platform for dialogue among policymakers, civil society, and experts to explore strategies for integrating human rights into the Code, ultimately contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the realization of a just and sustainable future for all.

Road to 2025 BRS COPs

In the lead up to the 2025 Meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, taking place from 28 April to 9 May 2025 in Geneva, the Geneva Environment Network is collaborating with various partners, including the BRS Secretariat, for a series of events providing information on preparations and facilitating dialogues on key issues to be discussed at the meetings.

Speakers

By order of intervention.

Marcos ORELLANA

UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

Shalmali GUTTAL

Member, Working Group on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

Juan Jose ECHANOVE

Right to Food Team Lead, FAO

Ana Maria SUAREZ-FRANCO

Secretary General, FIAN International

Tadesse AMERA

Executive Director, PAN-Ethiopia & Member, IPEN

Larissa MIES BOMBARDI

Professor of University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Leah UTYASHEVA

Policy Director, Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh

Pauliina NYKANEN-RETTAROLI

Senior Technical Lead and Unit Head on Human Rights, WHO

Rochelle DIVER

UN Environmental Treaties Coordinator, International Indian Treaty Council

Jago WADLEY

International Advocacy Manager, PAN UK

Fredrick OTIENO

Centre for Environment Justice and Development (CEJAD)

Ana Paula SOUZA

Human Rights Officer, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) | Co-Moderator

Diana RIZZOLIO

Coordinator, Geneva Environment Network | Co-Moderator

Highlights

Video

Summary

Welcome

Ana Paula SOUZA | Human Rights Officer, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) | Moderator

• We are here to discuss a pressing matter: the pervasive impact of pesticides on human rights. While pesticides have played an important role in global agriculture, their unsound management has far-reaching implications for human rights, ecosystems, food security, nutrition, and health.
• To help us contextualize better, some pesticides are so dangerous that they cannot be used safely under any circumstances. With an estimated 200,000 people a year dying from pesticide poisoning, this event is also timely as we prepare for the upcoming Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions known as BRS COPS, which this year focuses on the unsound management of chemicals and waste under the very clever title of “Making Visible the Invisible”.
• Around 70% of the chemicals covered by the Rotterdam Convention – a treaty that regulates the prior and informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade – are pesticides.
• Human rights law imposes specific duties on States to prevent, protect and remediate environmental harm. The BRS Conventions together with the FAO/WHO Voluntary Code of Conduct on Pesticides Management provides the necessary tools for managing pesticides throughout the life cycle approach and in doing so, protecting human health and the environment against their harmful effects.
• Yet the absence of a human rights-based approach is resulting in severe limitations to the application of these instruments. This is the core issue that our speakers will address today. Despite the widespread global use of pesticides in agriculture the far reaching implications of the unsound management of pesticides still remain largely invisible to those in vulnerable situations, including peasants and rural workers, Indigenous Peoples, and persons with disabilities and more particularly at risk.
• Despite the risks associated with the use of pesticides, it has been commonly argued that it is necessary to increase yields to feed the growing world population. But at what costs? Who are those disproportionately bearing such costs? What are the alternatives available, accessible and affordable to feed the world in a healthier and most sustainable way for people and the planet? What are the barriers preventing sustainable ecological alternatives to thrive?
• This event will explore the strategies for integrating human rights into the Code of Conduct on pesticides management, including by fostering access of information, inclusive and meaningful participation of rights holders, while considering the impacts on human rights with a focus on those most risks, and the need to ensure greater accountability for the mismanagement of pesticides.

Panel Discussion

• Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights, emphasized the need for a human rights-based approach to pesticide management, prioritizing the protection of people in vulnerable situations. He called for the phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), stressing that personal protective equipment shifts the risk onto the most vulnerable. Orellana highlighted the injustice of pesticides banned in certain countries being exported to other countries lacking risk assessment capacity, urging shared responsibility between exporting and importing nations. He underscored the role of multilateral agreements like the Rotterdam Convention, warning that their effectiveness is weakened by the science-policy disconnect. Access to accurate information, justice, and effective remedies for those harmed by pesticide exposure was highlighted as essential.
• Shalmali Guttal, Member of the UN Working Group on the Rights of Peasants, underscored that human rights protections must be enforceable, not voluntary—especially for peasants and rural workers. She called for the integration of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP) into frameworks like the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management to strengthen accountability. Guttal emphasized that there are clear provisions under UNDROP to regulate pesticide use, ensure safe working conditions, and prevent exposure to hazardous chemicals. Articles 14 and 18 of UNDROP affirm the right to a healthy environment and safe labor practices, including the right to refuse dangerous work. She urged states to regulate corporate actors, build strong enforcement systems, and raise public awareness. Guttal reiterated that UNDROP offers a holistic and rights-based foundation for advancing pesticide regulation and environmental justice.
• Juan Echanove, Right to Food Team Lead at FAO, emphasized that the right to food is a binding legal obligation under international law, central to FAO’s mandate. He highlighted that unsafe pesticide use threatens food safety, environmental health, and the resilience of food systems, constituting a human rights violation—especially for vulnerable communities. Echanove provided concrete examples of situations where pesticides have vulnerated right to food and other basic human rights stressed that states, not farmers, bear the primary responsibility to regulate, monitor, and protect against pesticide harm. He called for greater respect for procedural rights, including participation and access to justice. To strengthen the Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, he suggested undertaking mandatory Human Rights Impact Assessments, banning exports of domestically prohibited pesticides, and creating independent national grievance mechanisms to uphold accountability and justice.
• Ana María Suárez-Franco, Secretary General of FIAN International, exposed how agrochemical corporations shape dominant narratives that dismiss agroecological alternatives and deepen peasant dependency through seed-pesticide-fertilizer packages. These companies, backed by industrial farming subsidies and political influence, use voluntary agreements to avoid legal accountability and greenwash harmful practices.  Suárez-Franco warned of regulatory capture through collusion between corporations, governments, and international institutions providing examples from Thailand, Mexico and FAO. Suarez emphasized that millions of farmers—especially women—face toxic exposure, threatening their right to health, food, and a healthy environment.
• Tadesse Amera, Executive Director of PAN-Ethiopia and IPEN Member, highlighted the economic and ecological toll of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) in low- and middle-income countries. He noted that while banned pesticides are exported to these countries, products cultivated with such pesticides are regularly denied entry into foreign markets, causing major losses for farmers and economies. He shared how agroecological practices in Ethiopia revived pollinators and boosted livelihoods, demonstrating the potential for ecosystem restoration. Amera stressed that HHPs harm both the environment and human health, especially where protective equipment is lacking. He emphasized that the right to food includes the right to safe food, and called for scaling up proven agroecological alternatives across regions to replace HHPs and support the implementation of global chemical safety strategies.
• Larissa Mies Bombardi, Professor at the University of São Paulo, highlighted Brazil as a stark example of global pesticide injustice, with the highest pesticide use per crop area worldwide. While Europe has slightly reduced pesticide sales, Brazil has seen a 166% surge, exposing a double standard, as many pesticides banned in the EU—such as Atrazine—are still widely used in Brazil, including in the Amazon, causing severe environmental and health impacts. Official reports recorded over 56,000 poisoning cases, though the real number may exceed 2 million, disproportionately affecting Indigenous Peoples, women, and children. Bombardi pointed to ongoing resistance efforts led by Brazil’s National Forum Against Pesticides, which promotes transparency, phase-outs of hazardous pesticides, and bans on aerial spraying, marking a critical push toward environmental justice and public health protection.
• Leah Utyasheva, Policy Director at the Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University of Edinburgh, emphasized that pesticide self-poisoning, responsible for over 100,000 deaths annually, is not just a personal issue but a public health and human rights concern, particularly in rural, low- and middle-income countries. She criticized the exclusion of intentional poisoning from international regulations, like the Rotterdam Convention, and called for urgent regulatory action to restrict access to highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs). Utyasheva challenged harmful narratives that blame farmers for “misuse”, arguing that safe use is often impossible due to systemic barriers such as poverty, lack of training, and toxic nature of products. She urged policymakers to retire misleading terms like “safe use” and “misuse”, and to prioritize banning HHPs to protect vulnerable communities and uphold the right to life, the right to health, and the right to non-discrimination.
• In her intervention, Pauliina Nykanen-Rettaroli, Human Rights Unit Lead, WHO, emphasized the severe health risks associated with pesticide exposure, ranging from acute poisoning and suicide to long-term issues such as cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive health impacts. She highlighted that vulnerable groups—especially children, pregnant women, and farm workers—are most at risk. Nykanen-Rettaroli called for a human rights-based approach to pesticide policy, ensuring affected communities are involved in decision-making and have access to health information. She stressed the importance of governments taking stronger accountability measures, banning the most toxic pesticides, and regulating the industry to prioritize public health over profit. Additionally, she warned against industry interference in public policy and advocated for accessible redress mechanisms for those harmed by pesticides.
• Rochelle Diver, UN Environmental Treaties Coordinator, International Indian Treaty Council (IITC), highlighted the deep connection between Indigenous rights, cultural rights, and food sovereignty. She emphasized the importance of securing collective rights, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and self-determination, which are essential in the efforts to amend the FAO/WHO Code of Conduct on pesticide management. Diver outlined the long history of the International Indian Treaty Council’s work on pesticide harm, starting with efforts in 2003 to document the devastating impacts on the Yaqui people in Sonora, Mexico. She described how aerial pesticide spraying led to severe developmental disabilities, particularly in children, and pointed out the stark contrasts in development between children exposed to pesticides and those in less affected areas. Diver also shared the significant milestones in this fight, including the 2015 recommendation from the Committee on the Rights of the Child to halt the import of harmful pesticides and the 2022 call from the UN Permanent Forum to include FPIC in pesticide governance. Diver highlighted that the IITC work aims to integrate Indigenous rights and strong human rights language into pesticide policy to ensure a clean and healthy environment for all, especially future generations.
• In his intervention, Jago Wadley, International Advocacy Manager, PAN UK, stressed that pesticides pose a significant threat to a wide range of human rights, including the right to life, health, food, and a clean environment. He highlighted how current pesticide policies and practices lead to widespread violations, affecting billions of people annually. Through PAN UK’s global monitoring program, Wadley shared alarming findings, such as 44% of farmers reporting acute pesticide poisoning in the past year. He pointed out that pesticides also contaminate the broader public through food, water, and the environment, causing widespread, non-consensual exposure. Wadley criticized the FAO/WHO International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management for its lack of human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, arguing that voluntary standards are insufficient. He called for a revision of the Code to explicitly include human and Indigenous rights, emphasizing the need for proactive harm prevention, the precautionary principle, and stronger legal obligations for both governments and industry. Additionally, he urged the Code to support global efforts to phase out harmful pesticides and regulate the export of banned chemicals.
• Fredrick Otieno, Programme Officer, the Centre for Environment Justice and Development (CEJAD), shared the findings from community-based pesticide monitoring in Kenya, where local teams documented severe health and environmental impacts, including miscarriages linked to pesticide exposure and the loss of honeybees. Otieno emphasized the lack of centralized, accessible data on pesticide impacts, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and called for governments to invest in independent, community-driven monitoring. He criticized industry narratives that dominate policy spaces, weakening regulatory frameworks, and highlighted the need for greater community involvement in decision-making. Otieno also addressed the issue of regulatory capture, where pesticide regulators prioritize profit over public health, and stressed the importance of legal pathways for those harmed by pesticides. He advocated for stronger national pesticide laws, including bans on highly hazardous pesticides and mandates for transparency and accountability, to ensure that policies protect people’s health, rights, and the environment.

Throughout this event, several critical challenges have been underscored:

• The regulatory asymmetries between the Global North and South, with double standards allowing harmful pesticides to be exported to countries with weaker safeguards.
• The urgent need to strengthen institutional capacity in importing countries, not only to regulate pesticides effectively, but to hold agrochemical corporations accountable.
• The impact of pesticides on food security, soil health, and farmer well-being, with rising health burdens and even deaths among agricultural workers.
• Pesticides are a human rights issue. They affect the right to health, the right to food, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, peasants, and local communities.

Looking ahead, important opportunities for advocacy and change were identified:

• A broader review of the Code of Conduct. As it stands, the current mandate is too narrow. A rights-based revision could help ensure stronger protections for those most affected.
• Beyond voluntary frameworks, many envision a future with a binding international treaty that would hold transnational corporations accountable for the impacts of pesticide use across borders.
• The evidence is already here—from Brazil, Africa, and elsewhere. What’s needed now is sustained pressure to ensure that evidence translates into action.

It was underlined that behind every policy discussion, real lives and real communities are at stake. The obligations of State to protect people’s health, dignity, and rights were reiterated.

Documents

• Presentations made during the event

Links

• Road to 2025 BRS COPs
• Towards the 2025 Meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions