A/HRC/22/43 D. Human rights obligations relating to transboundary and global environmental harm 47. Many environmental problems involve transboundary harm. In the words of the 2011 OHCHR report on human rights and the environment, “One country‟s pollution can become another country‟s environmental and human rights problem, particularly where the polluting media, like air and water, are capable of easily crossing boundaries” (A/HRC/19/34, para. 65). Such problems have given rise to much of international environmental law, from bilateral and regional agreements on cross-border air and water pollution to multilateral environmental agreements on global challenges such as marine pollution, ozone depletion and climate change. 48. The application of human rights law to transboundary and global environmental harm requires consideration of questions regarding the extraterritorial reach of human rights norms. Those questions are often complex, not least because human rights treaties employ varying language to define the scope of their application. Recent years have seen heightened attention to the extraterritoriality of human rights obligations, 34 but there is still a need for more detailed clarification (see A/HRC/19/34, para. 64). These issues are of particular importance in the environmental context, in the light of the number and intensity of transboundary and global environmental threats to the full enjoyment of human rights. E. Human rights obligations and private actors 49. Another set of issues concerns the application of human rights obligations to environmental harm caused by non-State actors, including businesses. In a review of the scope and pattern of more than 300 alleged corporate-related human rights abuses, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises found in a report (A/HRC/8/5/Add.2, para. 27) that “nearly a third of cases alleged environmental harms that had corresponding impacts on human rights … In these cases, various forms of pollution, contamination, and degradation translated into alleged impacts on a number of rights, including on the right to health, the right to life, rights to adequate food and housing, minority rights to culture, and the right to benefit from scientific progress”. The report noted that the environmental concerns were raised with respect to all business sectors, including heavy manufacturing, pharmaceutical and chemical companies, and retail and consumer products. 50. In principle, the obligations of States to protect human rights from infringement from private actors extends to infringement from environmental harm, as many human rights bodies have explained.35 However, the specific application of such obligations in the environmental context needs closer examination. In that respect, the “Protect, Respect and 34 35 16 E.g., Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (28 September 2011). E.g., Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 15, para. 23; African Commission on Human and Peoples‟ Rights, Ogoniland Case, para. 57; European Court of Human Rights, Hatton v. United Kingdom (application No. 36022/97), judgement of 8 July 2003, para. 98; López Ostra v. Spain, para. 51; OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96 doc. 10 rev. 1.