A/HRC/34/48 Convention is its consensus-based decision-making process, allowing one country to obstruct the listing of hazardous pesticides, such as paraquat. States have also delayed listing of hazardous pesticides under the Stockholm Convention, and they have the ability to accept or reject a global “ban” through opt-in and opt-out provisions. Other relevant conventions 58. Although the Convention on Biological Diversity does not explicitly mention pesticides, it is still highly relevant in view of the negative impacts of pesticides on biodiversity. Article 6 of the Convention requires parties to create a national strategy for the conservation of biodiversity, promotes sustainable development and recognizes the need for food security. National legislation for the protection of biodiversity is increasingly being used in efforts to restrict the use of hazardous pesticides. For example, in the United States, several lawsuits are being brought under the Endangered Species Act to protect the loss of biodiversity from pesticides.52 59. The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is also relevant to the regulation of pesticides and derives many of its core obligations from human rights law. Article 1 sets out detailed obligations with respect to the matters covered by the Convention. 60. The Aarhus Convention has recently been invoked concerning confidentiality of information regarding glyphosate. In a recent case brought by non-governmental organizations to the European Court of Justice, 53 the Court ruled that health and safety information about the pesticide must be made available to the public. The case stems from the European Commission’s refusal to grant access to such information (see A/HRC/30/40, paras. 46-47). The ruling further demonstrates the international consensus that health and safety information about pesticides and other hazardous substances should never be confidential. C. International code of conduct and non-binding practices 61. The International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management, established by WHO and FAO, is a voluntary framework that guides Governments, the private sector, civil society and other stakeholders on best practices in managing pesticides throughout their life cycle, particularly where there is inadequate or no national legislation to regulate pesticide management.54 In 2013, the Code was updated to focus on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides to support healthy ecosystems and sustainable agricultural practices. It also emphasizes minimizing the use of pesticides, calls on countries to identify and, if necessary, remove highly hazardous pesticides and gives attention to vulnerable groups. 62. While several major pesticide companies have pledged to adhere to the Code through their membership of Croplife International, which states on its website that “leading companies of the plant science industry have agreed to abide by provisions in the latest revision to the Code”,55 civil society groups have recently made grave allegations regarding breaches of the Code by the pesticide industry. For example, a monitoring report 52 53 54 55 14 See, e.g., https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/endangered-species-litigation-and-associatedpesticide-limitations. Case C-673/13 P, Commission v. Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe, judgment of 23 November 2016. See article 1.1. See https://croplife.org/crop-protection/regulatory/product-management/international-code-ofconduct/.