HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD
The Human Rights Council in its midday meeting held a clustered interactive dialogue with John Knox, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, and Hilal Elver, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
Mr. Knox, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, presented his report on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The report underscored that the full enjoyment of human rights depended on healthy ecosystems, and healthy ecosystems depended on biodiversity. In protecting biodiversity, States had procedural obligations, substantive obligations and obligations relating to those who were most vulnerable. He spoke about his country visit to Madagascar.
Ms. Elver, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presented her third report to the Council, which focused on pesticide use in agriculture and its impact on human rights. Rather than safeguarding the right to adequate food, pesticide use might actually endanger that right, the report concluded. Moreover, certain groups were at higher risk of pesticide exposure, which could linger in the environment for decades and cause loss of biodiversity. She urged the international community to work on a comprehensive, binding treaty to regulate hazardous pesticides. She also spoke about her missions to Paraguay and Poland.
Madagascar, Poland and Paraguay spoke as concerned countries.
During the discussion on human rights and the environment, several speakers recognized that biodiversity was necessary for an ecosystem that supported the full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and culture. Some touched upon the role of business in achieving best practices, while others stressed the need to assist developing countries in helping them reach related targets.
On the right to food, a number of delegates expressed concern about the use of pesticides and its adverse effects on human rights, while calling for further action aimed at the consolidation of food and nutritional safety. Several speakers outlined measures their Governments had taken at the national level to address the risks associated with pesticide use. Others called for additional efforts to protect vulnerable persons.
Speaking during the discussion were the European Union, El Salvador on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Tunisia on behalf of the African Group, Slovenia, Holy See, France, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Venezuela, Cuba, Palestine, El Salvador, Peru, China, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Morocco, South Africa, Maldives, Philippines, Indonesia, India, Kyrgyzstan, Turkey, Iraq, Sudan, Togo, Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Djibouti, Paraguay, Ghana, Gabon, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Mexico and Ecuador. International Development Law Organization and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe also took the floor.
The following civil society organizations also spoke: International Union for Conservation of Nature, Scottish Human Rights Commission, Association des Etudiants Tamouls de France, FIAN International, Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), Centre for International Environmental Law, and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
The Council will conclude its interactive dialogue on human rights and the environment and on the right to food on Thursday, 9 March.
Speaking in right of reply were Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
At 3 p.m. the Council will hold a panel discussion on good practices and key challenges relevant to access to medicines.
Documentation
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment (A/HRC/34/49).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment – mission to Madagascar (A/HRC/34/49/Add.1).
The Council has before it the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/HRC/34/48).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food – mission to Poland (A/HRC/34/48/Add.1).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food – mission to Paraguay (A/HRC/34/48/Add.2).
The Council has before it an addendum to the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food – comments by Poland (A/HRC/34/48/Add.3).
Presentation of Reports
JOHN KNOX, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, presented a report on the human rights obligations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The message of the report was simple: the full enjoyment of human rights depended on healthy ecosystems, and healthy ecosystems depended on biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity undermined the ability to enjoy human rights to life and health, to food and water, and to cultural life. Biodiversity provided a treasure house of sources of medicinal drugs, and our debt to nature was particularly great with respect to antibiotic and anti-cancer medications: the leading treatment for childhood leukaemia was derived from rosy periwinkle, a flower used as a traditional medicine in Madagascar. In protecting biodiversity, States had procedural obligations, substantive obligations and obligations relating to those who were most vulnerable, said Mr. Knox, noting the procedural safeguards and innovations at the national level in many States. Shortcomings still remained, especially in continued failure to protect environmental human rights defenders, 185 of whom had been killed in 2015 alone and countless others who were subjected to violence, unlawful detention, or other types of harassment.
Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, States had adopted a comprehensive strategic plan for the decade 2011-2020, which had set out the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, but were not meeting those. The drivers of biodiversity loss continued, including habitat destruction, poaching and pollution. One unmistakeable sign of the failure to safeguard biodiversity was the increasing loss of animal and plant species, and the world was well on its way to the sixth global extinction of species in the history of the world. The last global extinction had occurred 66 million years ago, when an asteroid had struck the planet, altering the climate and destroying the dinosaurs and three-quarters of all species on Earth. But this time, humans were the asteroid, bringing the catastrophe upon themselves, warned Mr. Knox, urging States to recognize that the biodiversity crisis was also a human rights crisis.
Turning to his country visit to Madagascar, the Special Rapporteur remarked that he had witnessed the benefits of community-based conservation in this country which had perhaps the most unique biodiversity in the world. But Madagascar faced enormous challenges in conserving its biodiversity: poaching and illegal logging drove species such as tortoises and rosewood trees closer to extinction, and habitat loss threatened many animals, including lemurs. Madagascar had tripled its coverage of protected areas since 2003, to nearly 12 per cent of the country, and many were managed by local community associations. Mr. Knox expressed concern about the rapid increase in the number of mining licences issued during the period of political turmoil, often without consultation with local communities, and as a result, protests and conflicts had proliferated. Illegal logging and trafficking had also exploded, facilitated by official corruption. Madagascar was also vulnerable to climate change and was suffering the effects of one of the worst droughts in its history, which had caused nearly 850,000 people to become food insecure.
HILAL ELVER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, presented her third report to the Council, along with two reports summarizing her official country visits to Poland and Paraguay. The first report sought to provide an account of pesticide use in agriculture and its impact on human rights. Rather than safeguarding the right to adequate food, pesticide use might actually endanger that right. The Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes had collaborated on the report. Certain groups of the population were at higher risk of pesticide exposure, which could linger in the environment for decades and cause loss of biodiversity. Hazardous pesticides also posed a threat to the right to health, and it was unacceptable to permit the use of intensive pesticides to provide food for certain segments of society while endangering the health of vulnerable groups, in particular agricultural workers. Without proper management throughout their life cycle, the impacts of pesticides were felt far beyond their target crops. Reviewing how conventions and non-binding mechanisms and initiatives related to the use of pesticides, she said the limited regulatory framework allowed for “highly disturbing” practices that permitted certain hazardous pesticides to continue to be produced in industrialized countries which had banned their use for export to other countries. She urged the international community to work on a comprehensive, binding treaty to regulate hazardous pesticides throughout their life cycle, which took into account human rights principles and which actively promoted agro-ecological practices.
Turning to her country reports, she said of her visit to Poland that it was primarily an agricultural country where innovative agricultural technologies had resulted in increased yields, allowing surpluses for export. She encouraged the Government to develop an overarching framework law on the right to adequate food. Despite its food self-sufficiency, Poland suffered from the “triple burden” of malnutrition, where obesity and eating disorders were on the rise. A lack of disaggregated data available in Poland meant social protection and assistance programmes might not be designed to efficiently target relevant population groups; rural women, women farmers, Roma communities and seasonal migrant workers would benefit from further monitoring.
Turning to her visit to Paraguay, she said there were high levels of inequality and exclusion of significant sectors of society from the country’s rapid economic development. Food insecurity among children was alarming, and the chronic malnutrition rate among the children of indigenous people was very high. Paraguay’s most salient issue in relation to the right to adequate food was unequal access to land and resources. The adoption of a human rights-based national framework law on the right to food would be beneficial in improving the situation of the right to food in the country.
Before closing her remarks, the Special Rapporteur highlighted her grave concern regarding ongoing hunger and malnutrition crises in several regions of the world, with millions of people going hungry in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria and Somalia. Recently, the United Nations had declared a famine in parts of South Sudan, and approximately 5 million South Sudanese were “severely food insecure” as a result of three years of conflict. The critical question of how to eliminate hunger and famine was still a critical question which merited the immediate attention of the international community.
Statements by Concerned Countries
Madagascar, speaking as a concerned country, said that the visit by Special Rapporteur John Knox had been an opportunity to undertake a frank, open and constructive dialogue with all actors in the domain of the protection of the environment. Madagascar reiterated the commitment to the protection of human rights and of biodiversity, which was a part of the global heritage. The National Policy for Development had been adopted which prioritized reforms to the Mining Code. Madagascar was taking special measures to combat illegal logging. Special financial allocations had been allocated to support the population affected by the drought in the south of the country. Even though significant progress had been made, formidable challenges remained and Madagascar welcomed the cooperation and the support of the international community in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur.
Poland, speaking as a concerned country, said that the 2016 Act on Public Health had opened a new chapter in the approach to health and quality of life. It presented the basis for the National Health Programme 2016-2020 which defined the actions to improve nutritional habits of the population, ensure access to high quality food, reduce prevalence of obesity and increase physical activity. Children were at the heart of the policy-making, thus amendments to the Act on food safety and nutrition adopted in July 2016 addressed the quality of food in schools and kindergartens and restricted sales of foods high in salt, sugar and fat in school shops and vending machines. Steps had been taken to promote breastfeeding, while the Programme 500 PLUS, a pioneer family policy initiative introduced in April 2016 to improve birth rate, reduce poverty among children, and invest in human capital, had introduced a parental benefit in the amount of 500 PLN or $123 per month per child under the age of 18. As a country with strong agricultural traditions, Poland was attached to food safety and had taken steps to ensure the safety of the primary production of food of non-animal origin.
Paraguay, speaking as a concerned country, said that it had been taking big steps to reduce poverty and contribute to the right to food, food security and nutrition, however, challenges related to social inequalities remained. Paraguay recognized the importance of the general legal framework and the legal recognition of the right to food; Parliament was considering the draft bill on food security and the right to food in line with the Rome Declaration on Global Food Security guaranteed the right of individuals to good quality food and the right not to suffer from hunger. The strengthening of the institutional infrastructure aimed to ensure food security for indigenous peoples, and efforts to broaden coverage of pupils with school meals continued. Paraguay agreed on the promotion of organic farming and was already taking steps to coordinate efforts in this regard. In closing, Paraguay reiterated its commitment to the right to have regular and permanent access to food that was sufficient, adequate – qualitatively and quantitatively – and culturally appropriate, and which guaranteed dignified life.
Interactive Dialogue
European Union noted that Mr. Knox had observed a lack of effective implementation of the existing obligations, and asked how the international community could address those implementation gaps. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food was asked if the role and relevance of voluntary guidelines for the private sector could be further developed or updated. El Salvador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, expressed concern about the negative impact of pesticides on human rights, urging the Special Rapporteur to continue actions aimed at the consolidation of food and nutritional safety and security. The report on the environment had highlighted the importance of measures to protect ecosystems, especially the indigenous flora and fauna. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, thanked both Special Rapporteurs and said the protection and preservation of the environment could not be overemphasized, adding that the international community should engage in technology transfer to developing countries.
Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity was crucial for Africa, and shared the Special Rapporteur’s view that all countries should enjoy their rights in that regard. Technology transfer was crucial to reduce poverty. Slovenia said the protection of biodiversity in Slovenia was integrated into all programmes, but despite frameworks for biodiversity protection, more needed to be done. Mr. Knox was asked to share how good practices on guiding principles on business and human rights had contributed to biodiversity protection. Holy See said nature could not be regarded as something separate from ourselves, noting that the entire human community was part of one interdependent human family, adding that a lifestyle based on a “throwaway culture” was unsustainable and should have no place in the international community’s models of development.
France reiterated its support in favour of conserving biodiversity. French assistance in this area had reached 270 million Euros in 2015 and the country would double its global biodiversity funding between 2015 and 2020. On the right to food, France agreed that legislation was not enough to protect humanity from dangerous pesticides. Russian Federation said there was no doubt that attempts to see a link between biodiversity and certain aspects of human rights were not very convincing. This issue belonged to the agenda of organizations like the World Health Organization. In that vein, the Russian Federation called on the Special Rapporteur to focus his work on his entrusted mandate. Switzerland said it shared concern on the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment. In order to feed 9 billion people by 2050, an alternative needed to be developed. Governments needed procedures to evaluate the risks of pesticides and regulate pesticide producers. On human rights and the environment, States must commit to protecting ecosystems and biodiversity in order to protect human rights.
Venezuela said it agreed with the Special Rapporteur that protecting human rights also meant protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. There was a need to establish policies that reflected the relationship between man and nature. On the use of pesticides, Venezuela regulated the use of pesticides that were harmful to human health and was committed to policies aimed at food health. Cuba said it was important to ensure that there was a healthy environment for human rights. Governments needed to raise awareness on the significance of biological diversity. On the right to food, Cuba would be presenting a resolution on the right to food and would be carrying out consultations in the coming days. State of Palestine said Israel had sprayed illegal pesticides on Palestinian lands and caused tremendous losses to Palestinian farmers. Palestine also expressed concern about Israel’s practices of illegally transporting and dumping hazardous waste into the occupied State of Palestine.
El Salvador said it was of crucial importance for society that States took additional efforts to protect persons in vulnerable situations, sharing the views of both Rapporteurs that the international community should work on a broad and binding treaty. Peru thanked the Rapporteurs for their presentations, and said Peru was working on strengthening biodiversity, noting that indigenous people enjoyed a special regime of community reserves where they could manage forests in full autonomy. China noted the list compiled by Mr. Knox and said human rights could only be protected by protecting the environment. Food was the basis for all human rights, and Ms. Elver’s report had noted that the international community should create favourable conditions for food security, which China agreed with. Egypt thanked Mr. Knox for his detailed presentation, and had taken note of the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, underscoring the need for assisting developing countries to help them reach their targets. The Special Rapporteur on the right to food was welcomed, and her report shed light on the use of pesticides. Iran said biodiversity could not be reduced to a single indicator, and living processes were interrelated in so many complex ways that they were only just beginning to be understood. Environmentally friendly pesticides were being used around the world, and there was a need for technology transfer to developing countries. Ethiopia said today’s model of agriculture with the use of pesticides was highly problematic, but underscored that in many developing countries, population growth increased geometrically while food production increased arithmetically, indicating the increasing gap between food demand and supply.
Costa Rica underscored the importance of better understanding of biodiversity and supported the Special Rapporteur’s work on how human rights were undermined by the lack of access to food, water and sustainable environment. Costa Rica urged all countries to pay attention to how much human rights were affected by the unsustainable use of the environment. Malaysia noted that for many developing countries food security and the right to food was not only a right that was aspired to, but also one of the most challenging to address, with direct effects on the right to health and the right to life. There needed to be adequate control of the injudicious use of banned or off-label pesticides. Morocco shared the Special Rapporteur’s opinion on the importance of biodiversity for ecosystem services, which was a matter to which the Government of Morocco had paid great attention for a long time. It shared the view of the Special Rapporteur that it was possible to produce food without the use of chemicals.
Pakistan said it had made concerted efforts to ensure food security through a number of policy initiatives. Biodiversity was necessary for ecosystem services that supported the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights. South Africa drew attention to the need to work together to bridge the protection gaps within international human rights law with respect to the effects of pesticides on human rights, especially in developing countries. Businesses also had human rights responsibilities. Maldives recognized that biodiversity was necessary for the ecosystem services that supported the full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and culture. The international community had to work on a comprehensive and binding treaty to regulate hazardous pesticides.
Philippines said that a healthy and sustainable ecosystem was needed to secure a range of human rights. The Philippines had a significant number of designated protected areas to help maintain a healthy and sustainable ecosystem and biodiversity. Indonesia concurred that the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems was crucial in promoting and enabling conditions to support the full enjoyment of human rights. The Government had enacted various regulations related to the environment and biodiversity, particularly with regards to the impact of business activities. Indonesia also looked forward to the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food this year. India said it had taken note of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food’s recommendation to develop comprehensive national plans to address hazardous pesticides. A grow safe food campaign had also been launched in the country to raise awareness on the safe use of pesticides.
Kyrgyzstan said the impact of pesticides on human rights was of particular interest to the country. Recent research showed a high level of pollution of soil in some areas of Kyrgyzstan that exceeded the permissible concentration norms. On human rights obligations relating to the environment, Kyrgyzstan was organising a global summit on snow leopard conservation. Turkey said the right to food was of particular importance given the increasing number of countries facing famine. The international community must ensure that humanitarian aid reached those in need. On the use of pesticides, a multi-dimensional framework was needed, with the involvement of all actors at international, regional and national levels in that area. Iraq said food security required working on establishing a conducive environment, including capacity-building for farmers and combatting economic decline. Iraq asked what role could international stakeholders play to give a hand to countries like Iraq that were hard-hit by various crises?
Sudan noted that exposure to pesticides could have severe impacts on human rights, especially on the right to adequate food and health. Sudan called for the utilization of ecological farming to protect crops from damage by enhancing biodiversity. Togo reminded that the environment was a major concern globally, regionally and nationally. Humanity held a solemn responsibility to preserve and improve the environment for future generations. Bolivia raised serious concern over the use of pesticides and their negative effects on peasant communities and soil, rejecting the market-based approach to nature and life. What kind of measures could be taken to make environmental concerns prevail over market interests? International Development Law Organization reminded that ecosystem degradation continued at rapid rates. In the context of the 2030 Agenda it was important to emphasize that those who depended closely on ecosystems tended to have few alternatives when natural resources were lost.
Azerbaijan stated that if the environment was polluted and destroyed, there could be no sustainable peace. It reminded that Armenia had conducted widespread destruction and exploitation of natural resources in occupied Azerbaijani territories. Djibouti noted that soil contamination posed a major obstacle to States’ capability to ensure food security. Despite a large number of international instruments, they had a limited constraining effect on the use of pesticides. Paraguay prioritized the improvement and preservation of the environment in order to aid human development. The sustainable use of biodiversity was promoted in its policies and action plans. Ghana underlined the importance of the right to access sufficient food for all. It urged Member States not to be indifferent to the call for a global effort to regulate hazardous pesticide use.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe said that inclusive governance, participatory decision-making, transparency and proper law enforcement could provide an effective response to mitigate biodiversity loss and protect ecosystems. In that context, enabling all stakeholders to support this response by guaranteeing their rights to access information and justice was critical. International Union for Conservation of Nature expressed particular concern for the threats faced by defenders of the environment and called for urgent measures to ensure their protection. The organization was working on initiatives focused on the preservation of human rights and called on the Council to continue to highlight the link between biodiversity and human rights. Gabon highlighted the link between human rights and biodiversity and agreed that States had a duty to protect the environment. Gabon had a three pillar strategic plan that set out provisions for the protection of the environment in the country. Ukraine said there was one additional aspect that deserved the attention of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment - the environmental consequences of armed conflicts. Many countries were facing serious environmental issues as a result of armed conflicts, including Ukraine. Bangladesh said the right to food stood out of all human rights. It was undeniable that food safety was also important. Bangladesh noted the impact of pesticides outlined in the report, and underscored their risks to women and children. Mexico said the preservation of biodiversity was a priority for Mexico, which was committed to work with the Special Rapporteur on a cross-cutting approach. Mexico expressed concern about the use of pesticides that were a direct threat to life and stressed the need to review public policies and look at best practices in the area. Ecuador stressed the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems and said related policies should be comprehensive and respect cultural traditions. Ecuador needed to better understand the role of biodiversity in the protection of human rights and ensure support to developing countries with indigenous persons.
Scottish Human Rights Commission welcomed the recommendation that gaps and inadequacies in the existing legislative framework for protection against hazardous pesticides had to be confronted on a human rights basis. The right to food in Scotland had been seriously affected due to reductions in the income of vulnerable groups. Association des Etudiants Tamouls de France drew attention to the ongoing land grab and military occupation of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, which had led to the destruction of Tamil agricultural lands and the local economy. Security forces continued to occupy Tamil fishing areas and blocked access to sea food. FIAN International noted that the increase of agro toxic consumption was directly proportional to the increase of the monoculture of agricultural commodities and plantations with genetically modified seeds. There was a deeply concerning lack of Government regulation of the use of agro toxics. Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers) agreed that genetic diversity was a source of traits that provided resilience and it underlined the importance of seed banks. Industrial agriculture, driven by corporate interests, was the largest driver of biodiversity loss. Centre for International Environmental Law, in a joint statement with Earthjustice, noted that States had to engage in sustainable development to avoid overexploitation of ecosystems that could lead to severe human rights violations. They had to protect environmental defenders, indigenous peoples and others who directly relied on natural resources to satisfy their basic needs. International Association of Democratic Lawyers regretted that many Member States had failed to protect human rights from hazardous pesticides, and stressed the role and responsibility of multinational corporations in the widespread sale and use of pesticides.
Remarks by the Special Rapporteurs
JOHN KNOX, Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, welcomed the very rich discussion and urged the international community to assist and support Madagascar in protecting its valuable biodiversity. Supporting the preservation of biodiversity in Madagascar was not only altruistic, but it was in the interest of the whole world to protect a good that benefited the whole world. The world could never repay the benefits of ending childhood leukaemia, made possible by a Malagasy flower. The implementation gap was a big topic, and the Special Rapporteur emphasized that it was vital to strengthen procedural safeguards for the protection of biodiversity. Prior to issuing any licence or approving any project, there must be a full environmental impact assessment and consultations must be conducted with the people, especially with those whose livelihoods depended on nature. It was particularly important to obtain their free and informed consent.
In terms of best practice, Mr. Knox highlighted the example of the United Nations Development Programme small grant programmes which supported numerous communities around the world with $25,000 to build their environmental protection and management skills which saw benefits in terms of income from tourism and in environmental protection. There was a need to support those bottom-up initiatives. Corporations were often involved in massive human rights abuses in connection with the environment, said the Special Rapporteur, and underlined as an example of good practice the largest nickel mine in Madagascar which had put in place a number of measures to minimize the environmental impact of its operations and support the surrounding communities.
HILAL ELVER, Special Rapporteur on the right to food, expressed sincere gratitude to the countries she had visited and welcomed the impact her visits had had on their national agendas. Small countries needed technical assistance and the help of the international community. Concerning the pesticide report, she welcomed the generally positive comments from Member States and welcomed the legal and institutional structures that countries were putting in place. However, most countries agreed that such measures needed to be undertaken in a more coordinated way. To do something about pesticides, cooperation with experts in other areas was needed and they must communicate with each other, she said. There also needed to be a balance between sustainability, human rights, biodiversity and the private sector.
At the same time, many Member States talked about the Sustainable Development Goals and how to cooperate to achieve them. There needed to be a more comprehensive understanding to solve problems and it was important to understand that some issues needed to be prioritised. There were alternative practices: agroecology and sustainable agriculture were not new and had been talked about for many years, but now they were at the stage of implementation. In terms of development and research funding, financial help should be diverted to alternative agriculture to secure the future and feed 9 billion by 2050. Money needed to be funnelled to agroecology and local practices. In terms of global treaties, the international community was not keen to enact a new global treaty that lacked the finance. Nevertheless, there were international codes of conduct by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization that were voluntary but could be used as guiding principles with friendly governments as a first step. In that regard, the Human Rights Council may consider organising a working group on guiding principles that all stakeholders could use in reducing the use of pesticides. Some should be banned, while others could be used in a very strict sense.
Right of Reply
Russian Federation, speaking in a right of reply in response to statements by Ukraine and Lithuania, noted that those countries continued to use any opportunity to slander the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation referred to children being killed in the conflict in Ukraine and denied social benefits and access to food and water in the Donbas region, where the Russian Federation provided regular humanitarian assistance. It asked Kiev not to mislead the international community. The resolution of the problem began with the recognition of the true situation on the ground. Russia invited Kiev to listen to the experts with respect to the protection of the environment.
Armenia, speaking in a right of reply, noted that Azerbaijan had been continuously trying to mislead the international community by spreading false information at all international gatherings. Armenia reminded that protecting children and civilians and pursuing accountability in conflict situations was a primary responsibility of any Government. However, that did not seem to be true when it came to Azerbaijan, which rejected the proposal of establishing a mechanism of investigation of the incidents of cease-fire violations which resulted in the death of civilians, including children and the elderly. Azerbaijan continuously defied numerous calls of the international community on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through negotiations, resorting instead to provocations and anti-Armenian propaganda.
Azerbaijan, speaking in a right of reply, noted that by enjoying the luxury of impunity, Armenia conducted aggression against Azerbaijan. It undermined efforts for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Armenia had conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory of Azerbaijan and a transfer of the Armenian population into Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia also ignored United Nations resolutions which strongly condemned the use of force against Azerbaijan and the breach of its territorial sovereignty.
Armenia, speaking in a second right of reply, reminded the audience that in 1989 the people of Armenia had exercised their right to self-determination. Azerbaijan continued to use Azerbaijani victims to exacerbate hate towards Armenians and it tried to deny its responsibility for civilian casualties in Nagorno-Karabakh. Baku had chosen to exacerbate the situation instead of seeking peace.
Azerbaijan, speaking in a second right of reply, regretted that the Armenian side considered the right to self-determination as an excuse to undermine the territorial sovereignty of another State under international law. It reminded the delegation of Armenia to admit that it had launched an illegal aggression against Azerbaijan and thus caused numerous civilian casualties.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC17/025E