The Challenges to Implement the Right to be Free from Toxics | Geneva Toxic Free Talks 2025

About this Session

The growing intoxication of both the environment and human health, due to the constant expansion of the use of toxic substances and their release, intentional or unintentional, into the air, water, and soil, is becoming an increasingly difficult phenomenon to counter. Approaching this challenge through the impact on human rights provides a different perspective than the one focused on substances, analyzed one after the other in a never-ending race. How does this rights-based approach, based on the impact on human beings, societies, and the environment, fit with traditional approaches of prevention or remediation? How can the work of the Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights help define responsibilities, formulate more effective policies, and, through the law, increase everyone’s capacity to act?

Environment @ HRC60

The 60th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council (HRC60) is taking place in Geneva from 8 September to 8 October 2025. Consult this regularly-updated page that highlighted the environmental-related activities of this session.

Speakers

Marcos ORELLANA

UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

Francesca MINGRONE

Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law

Andrés DEL CASTILLO

Senior Attorney, Environmental Health Program, Centre for International Environmental Law

Alisson Felipe MORAES NEVES

Member, Chemicals and Waste Youth Platform and Chancellor Fellow (AvH Foundation), Goethe University Frankfurt

Yves LADOR

Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Earthjustice | Moderator

Highlights

Summary

Yves LADOR | Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Earthjustice | Moderator

• The last of the Geneva Toxic Free Talks of 2025 concludes with reflections that look forward, aiming to answer the question: what are the challenges to implementing the right to be free from toxics?
• The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and toxics made it clear: we must be able to live free from toxics. We’re living in a difficult context right now, and if international law does not deliver, the number of victims will only increase.
• Reflections
  1. On possible instruments to deal with private actors.
  2. On the situation after the plastics negotiations — was it truly meaningful, or are we overemphasizing it?
  3. And, as we did this morning, we’ll hear from youth groups — the Chemical and Waste Youth Platform, which is one of the great achievements in recent developments on plastics, chemicals, and waste.

Opening

Marcos ORELLANA | UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

• The right to be free from toxics is part of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It is intrinsically linked to the right to life, health, physical integrity, and others as toxics cut across and engage many existing rights.
• Multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and other agreements that carry forward protection on toxics, like the treaty under negotiations on human rights responsibilities of business enterprises and transnational corporations. The UN General Assembly stressed how important these agreements are for realizing the right to a healthy environment.
• Some argue MEAs displace human rights law or exhaust the content of the right to a healthy environment because they provide more specialized norms and standards regarding a specific issue. But this has been rejected by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as their recent opinions find that conflicts of norms that would otherwise serve to displace treaties do not exist.
• Treaties on climate change do not displace other sources of international obligations established in other areas of international environmental law. Instead, there is synergy and mutual support.
• This means the right to a healthy environment coexists with MEAs, creating various sets of obligations that apply.
• In the case of the right to be free from toxics, as exemplified by the treaty negotiations on plastic pollution, there are already baseline obligations in place. Yet, a plastics treaty is still urgently needed, as shown by my country visit to Samoa, where imported poor-quality plastics overwhelm the country.
• Treaty on business and human rights, whatever label we give it, its obligations would also coexist with the right to be free from toxics.

Panel Discussion

Alisson Felipe MORAES NEVES | Member, Chemicals and Waste Youth Platform and Chancellor Fellow (AvH Foundation), Goethe University Frankfurt

• The Environmental Diplomacy Group of the University of São Paulo’s work looks at the gaps between international commitments and national implementation, including through publications on compliance under MEAs like the BRS and Minamata Conventions.
• As we prepare for the Minamata COP-6 in November 2025, I want to highlight how mercury pollution fits into the broader conversation on the right to be free from toxics:
  • We need to make the invisible visible—especially the experiences of people living with chemical pollution. Fighting mercury pollution is a race we are not yet winning. Mercury is not just about banning a substance. It’s about addressing a technological gap. At the recent Minamata regional preparatory meeting we discussed how mercury-free gold extraction requires technology-based solutions. If miners don’t have safe and viable alternatives, they may turn to other toxic substances that cause even worse harm.
  • Many small-scale miners are socially and economically vulnerable. They use mercury because it’s how they feed their families. In Brazil, indigenous peoples, women, children, and youth are already suffering the worst consequences of mercury contamination.
  • This is a violation of fundamental human rights: the rights to health, food, and a clean environment. And it’s also a matter of intergenerational justice, since children live the longest with these toxic effects.
  • Economic realities drive mercury use. Simply telling miners to stop won’t work.
  • We need a just transition—reshaping local economies, providing training and skills, and creating sustainable alternatives. For example, vocational schools that teach mercury-free gold mining can both protect communities and invest in a new generation of professionals.
• Implementing the right to be free from toxics requires a holistic approach which includes: reshaping systems with technology; mobilizing society; and listening to communities.
• That’s why youth movements, like the Chemicals and Waste Youth Platform, are so important. Despite being among the most impacted, the rights of children and youth are rarely included in policies on chemicals and waste.
• At the Minamata COP-6 in November 2025, we will propose recommendations, including a global declaration on chemicals and waste, and a children and youth action plan in multilateral agreements.
• A toxic-free future is possible—but only if young people and communities are recognized as experts of lived experience and as partners in shaping solutions.

Yves LADOR, Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Earthjustice | Moderator

• In the field of chemicals and waste there are state obligations under international human rights law. But it doesn’t stop there—we also need to address the responsibility of private actors. Within the UN system, for almost a decade now, there’s been an initiative to develop a treaty on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
• It’s a process that has made some progress, and it’s very relevant for our discussion today.

Francesca MINGRONE |  Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law

• The Draft Legally Binding instrument to Regulate in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises does not yet count as a multilateral environmental agreement, it still requires work to ensure the environment is fully included.
• Together with FIAN International—and with contributions from Franciscans International, FES, ISHR, and ESCR-Net—we are working on a publication aiming to discuss ow can this treaty address the triple planetary crisis, and ensure an intersectional approach.
• Important missing elements from the current draft include a lack of mentions of future generations ad of explicit mentions of the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
• The process started in 2014, and the environment wasn’t even mentioned in the resolution that created this working group. But since then, we’ve seen major legal developments—the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the Inter-American Court, and most recently the ICJ have all confirmed the centrality of this right. Therefore, states should build on that progress in the next session in October.
• Our publication — to be soon published — takes an article-by-article approach, highlighting four dimensions:

1. Consistency with existing law

• • The treaty must be consistent with human rights law and environmental law.
  • Make the environment explicit across the text—not only human rights risks but environmental risks too.
  • Include the right to a healthy environment directly in the preamble and relevant articles.
  • Reiterate the primacy of human rights law and the centrality of environmental law.

2. Who counts as a victim?

• • Article 5 defines victims—this needs to be broader.
  • Specifically name environmental human rights defenders, not just “human rights defenders.”
  • Extend protection to family members, witnesses, and others at risk.

3. Prevention and liability

• • Articles 6 and 8 are crucial.
  • Current approaches rely too much on “due diligence checklists.”
  • We need real prevention, not just risk mitigation.
  • Corporations must face liability if harm occurs—even if they claim to have followed due diligence.
  • Introduce enhanced due diligence, the precautionary principle, and the idea of strict liability for especially dangerous activities.
  • Include human rights and environmental impact assessments—with meaningful community consultation and even the right to say no.

4. Access to justice and remedy

• • Enable collective actions and popular actions, especially relevant in environmental cases.
  • Reverse the burden of proof: companies must prove they did not cause harm.
  • Expand jurisdiction to include courts in countries where harm occurs, not just where companies are based.
  • Consider universal jurisdiction for the most serious crimes.
  • Remedies must include restitution, compensation, and remediation—explicitly for environmental harm.
  • Finally, we must address corporate influence on policymaking—what we call corporate capture. The treaty should include transparency mechanisms to limit corporate interference in governance.
  • The next negotiation session is scheduled for 20–24 October. We don’t expect it to be the last round, but it’s a crucial moment. We hope our publication will help push for stronger environmental language in the text.

Andrés DEL CASTILLO | Senior Attorney, Environmental Health Program, Centre for International Environmental Law

• Negotiations are very complex. You have different rooms, different discussions happening at the same time.
• In that sense, the participation of civil society is essential—it often supports these small delegations.
• But what we’ve seen in the plastic treaty negotiations is worrying. Since INC-3 and INC-4, more and more doors have been closed. Observers—including civil society—are being excluded from negotiations. Participation is crucial, not just a nice addition.
• Of course, there are pros and cons. Sometimes, when industry representatives are present, delegates may hold back. But that is very different from excluding the public altogether. What we have seen is negotiations starting open and public, and then—after one, two, three days—becoming narrow and closed, only for delegates.
• This matters because participation is directly linked to procedural rights. When we talk about the right to be free from toxics, or the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment—procedural rights are part of that.
• Intersessional work, a key perioe when much of the progress happens between meetings, often takes place excluding observers, specially in “heads of delegation” meetings.
• This needs to change. We need meaningful public participation not only during negotiations, but also in-between them.

Positive elements of INC-5.2 include:

• For the first time, some countries proposed a CRP (conference room paper) on human rights, with specific language for the preamble and principles and one on Indigenous Peoples’ rights; one on health, calling for a dedicated article in the plastic treaty. Plus, a proposal for remedy—tied to access to justice and reparation. All of these were significant steps forward.
• The problem is, in the final draft, these advances were ignored. The text did not reflect what had actually been discussed in the room, upsetting many countries.
• To support the right to be free from toxics, having a dedicated article on health is important, but the core issue is regulating products and chemicals in plastics.
• Efforts to do so in the traety text have grown weaker. This is important because out of the over 16,000 chemicals used in plastics, more than 4,000 are considered chemicals of concern, stressing the need strong for precautionary measures.
• A hazard-based approach forbids the use of substances regardless of exposure levels shifts the burden of proof away from vulnerable communities, who otherwise have to spend years proving causation.
• If we want to protect communities from toxics, we need hazard-based approaches embedded in the treaty.
• At the next round of negotiations we need:
  • More participation—both during and between sessions,
  • Explicit human rights language in the treaty.
  • Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable communities like waste pickers and coastal communities.
  • A hazard-based approach to chemicals.

Closing

Marcos ORELLANA | UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights

• On mercury use in small-scale gold mining: I previously presented a thematic report on this issue and have engaged with the Minamata Convention for many years. Minamata is the youngest of the multilateral environmental agreements and, while strong in many areas, leaves a major gap because it still permits mercury use in gold mining.
• This gap is significant because small-scale gold mining is the largest source of mercury emissions and releases, leading to serious violations of human rights, sacrifice zones, and intergenerational harm.
• Many communities depend on this activity for survival, but “just transition” does not mean doing nothing. It means ensuring that no one is left behind while phasing out mercury. Mercury use in gold mining should be addressed as an environmental crime, in the same way as trafficking ozone-depleting substances or hazardous waste.
• More broadly, there is an irony in the way human rights treaties struggle to integrate the environment, while environmental treaties struggle to integrate human rights. This results from a siloed mentality—human rights are often dealt with in Geneva, and environment in Nairobi—even though the issues are deeply interconnected.
• Integration is essential not only for legitimacy but also for effectiveness. For example, plastics is not just an environmental issue; it involves fossil fuels, trade, biodiversity, health, and chemicals. Addressing it requires a full life-cycle approach.
• With respect to the treaty on transnational corporations, I recall working closely with Ecuador and South Africa when the Human Rights Council first passed the resolution. At that time, environmental concerns were central, but these have since been diluted in later drafts.
• Over the years, I have contributed comments, including on the importance of statutes of limitations in toxics cases given latency periods. My 2024 guidelines on access to justice and remedies in the context of toxics could also help strengthen the environmental and human rights aspects of this treaty.
• The main challenge ahead is to overcome siloed thinking and build bridges between human rights and environmental law. Institutions may resist this because of mandates and budgets, but without integration we will not be able to fully protect the right to live free from toxics.

Video

Live from Palais des Nations

Links

• Geneva Toxic Free Talks | GEN
• Human Rights, Hazardous Substances, and the Role of Geneva  | GEN
• Human Rights and the Environment | GEN

Other Events @ Geneva Toxic Free Talks 2025

Précédent Prochain

Tackling Toxics on the Ground

17 September | 11:30 – 12:30 CEST

Protecting Human Rights in the Face of Ocean Pollution: Access to Justice and a Toxic-Free Future | HRC60 Side Event

17 September | 13:00 – 14:00 CEST

The Toxic Impact of Military Activities | HRC60 Side Event

17 September 2025 | 14:00-15:00 CEST