Category: Binding Treaty

Two powerful examples of international spaces where social movements, Indigenous Peoples and civil society organizations are working to challenge structural power imbalances from the local to the international level are the UN Negotiations on a Legally Binding Instrument on Transnational Corporations, Other Businesses and Human Rights (TNC Treaty), and the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). Movements and organizations engaged in these spaces have fought for long to protect people and nature from corporate abuse and impunity, and to make the right to food a lived reality – especially for underrepresented and historically disadvantaged communities.

Last month, FIAN International participated in both processes. In Geneva, we joined the 11th session of negotiations for the TNC Treaty, while in Rome we engaged in the 53rd plenary session of the CFS. In both arenas civil society showed its strength: organized from the grassroots to the global level, equipped with expertise and deep knowledge, and united in clear demands that put pressure on governments to adopt policies grounded in human rights and the protection of the planet.

Tireless mobilization and advocacy

In Geneva, the advocacy of the Treaty Alliance, the Global Campaign, Feminists for a Binding Treaty, ESCR-Net, and others has bolstered strong engagement from Global South states such as Colombia, Palestine, Uruguay, Mexico and Brazil. Together they are countering the push from Global North governments that, for over a decade, have sought to block progress toward ending corporate impunity, ensuring accountability along global value chains, and securing access to remedy for affected communities across borders.

Thanks to years of civil society and social movement advocacy, mobilization and perseverance, the current draft treaty reflects some key provisions demanded by civil society. The process remains essential—not only for advancing a TNC Treaty, but also to expose the gravity and extent of corporate capture, evident in the strong participation of corporate lobbies in the process, to connect affected communities worldwide, and to shape the future of international human rights law.  However, the EU’s recent approval of the Omnibus I package – erasing the timid advances achieved by the bloc on businesses and human rights, through a far-right alliance in the European Parliament – is a painful reminder of how corporations and their allies often put profit before people and the planet.

Food systems transformation

In Rome, the Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples Mechanism (CSIPM) continued to play a crucial role in ensuring that discussions on food systems transformation reflect the realities and demands of small-scale food producers, Indigenous Peoples, workers, consumers, women, LGBTQIA+ people, and other constituencies. At the 53rd plenary session of the CFS last month, states underscored the importance of the second International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD+20), a global forum on land tenure reform to be held in Colombia in February, and reaffirmed the relevance of human rights-based natural resource governance, as set out in the UN land tenure guidelines.

They also stressed the urgent need to implement the Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises, emphasizing the right to adequate food in conflict settings. Civil society side events showcased how CFS policy guidelines are already driving real change in countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Nepal, which happens also due to the intensive engagement of civil society.

The CFS remains a unique UN platform where governments, UN agencies, civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and other actors participate on an institutionalized way, while states preserve the decision power, producing negotiated, rights-based policy outcomes grounded in independent science and real-world demands.

Advance people’s struggles and human rights in multilateral spaces

These UN spaces and negotiations are imperfect and often reflect the same global power imbalances that civil society seeks to challenge. The failures of the international system to prevent or respond to atrocities — from Gaza to countless other crises — have exposed deep structural flaws, selective accountability, and the limits of multilateralism shaped by geopolitical interests. Yet, they also continue to be important sites of struggle. Engaging critically with these institutions, while never losing sight of their complicity in global inequality, remains vital to the struggle to confront corporate power and defend international law grounded in human rights and solidarity.

While these are two crucial global processes, we also recognize the significance of the Peoples’ Summit to COP 30. It is another reminder of people’s movements reclaiming multilateralism from below — building alliances that care for Mother Earth, and for one another.

In the context of increasing authoritarianism and unchecked corporate power, ensuring the meaningful participation of rights holders and their organizations in multilateral processes, is key to transforming these spaces into arenas that truly serve people, not power.

For more information, please contact Ana María Suárez Franco: Suarez-Franco@fian.org

FIAN International will advocate for an ambitious legally binding instrument (LBI) at the negotiations.  If states fail to support this, corporate impunity will continue to undermine human rights, justice, and dignity for people on the frontlines of extractivism, land grabbing, climate harm, labor abuses, and environmental destruction.

In their reports to the UN General Assembly, the Working Group on peasants and rural workers and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food have also warned that the growing dominance of transnational corporations and industrial agribusiness in global food systems poses an escalating threat to food security, rural livelihoods, and human rights. They stress that voluntary commitments are not enough. The rights enshrined in the UN declaration on rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas – including rights to land, seeds, biodiversity, and participation – must be implemented through binding laws and robust accountability mechanisms.   

Environmental rights have been particularly weakened in the latest updated draft of the LBI. FIAN and partner organizations call upon states to re-integrate in the instrument’s robust language enshrining the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as indicated in a recently published study.

“We stand ready – alongside movements of peasants, Indigenous Peoples, workers, environmental defenders, and affected communities – to push for a treaty with teeth,” says Ayushi Kalyan, corporate accountability coordinator at FIAN International.

“In Geneva we will push strongly with our partners for textual provisions that ensure justice, accountability, and respect for human rights above corporate profit.”

Robust rights-based treaty

This week will see the continuation of state-led negotiations on Articles 12-24 and an interactive discussion based on the Chair’s summary of the three intersessional consultations, that took place earlier this year, as well as his own proposals on redrafting Articles 4-11. These were only published five days before the start of the negotiations, giving civil society and states little time to properly analyse them. Corporate lobbies and business representatives actively participated in the intersessional consultations this year, further diluting the draft and pushing for voluntary standards, rather than legal binding provisions.

Moreover, the Chair-Rapporteur’s proposed redrafting of Articles 4–11 presents a streamlined and procedural version of the LBI that prioritizes textual convergence among states over substantive ambition. While the Chair’s sugestions includes some positive advancements, it narrows state obligations by conditioning them on domestic legal frameworks, not sufficiently integrating environmental and gender dimensions, and softening accountability provisions related to corporate liability and access to justice.

This approach diverges from FIAN’s positioning, which called for a robust, rights-based treaty grounded in binding state obligations, precautionary measures, strong environmental protection, compulsory joint and several liability and communities’ right to say “no!”. The timing and content of the Chair’s proposals risk sidelining these substantive civil society and Global South proposals, shifting the process toward procedural consensus rather than transformative justice.

Time for action

The choices made now will determine whether the final instrument is robust – or watered down to the point of ineffectiveness.

“Failure to adopt strong, binding norms will continue the impunity of transnational corporations,” says Stephan Backes, coordinator for extraterritorial obligations of states at FIAN International.

We call on all states to engage in this negotiating session with ambition and courage. We need a treaty that establishes binding obligations for transnational corporations, robust enforcement mechanisms, and effective remedies for affected peoples. It must address the interlinkages between corporate power, environmental destruction, climate injustice, military-industrial complex and gender inequality, including through reparations, sanctions, and divestment from abusive industries.

These dimensions must be integrated across the treaty, not treated as peripheral issues. It is also essential to prevent undue interference of business interests seeking to dilute human rights protections. The process should be driven by human rights principles not corporate interests.

These negotiations should not be rushed, nor watered down to accommodate corporate or geopolitical pressure. A weak or symbolic agreement would only legitimize the status quo of impunity.

For further information, please contact Ayushi Kalyan kalyan@fian.org or Stephan Backes backes@fian.org