Personal experience from the symposium on the Right to a Healthy Environment

In the weekend of 18 and 19 October the YEE advocacy project on the Triple Planetary Crisis was concluded during a two-day symposium in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

During this weekend, I joined nine other students from the field of environmental law, eighteen young environmental advocates and the YEE team to work on a draft protocol for the Right to a Healthy Environment (RtHE) which we hope will be included in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Right to a Healthy Environment (RtHE) includes ‘the right to enjoy clean air, safe and sufficient water, healthy and sustainably produced food, a safe climate, healthy biodiversity and ecosystems, and non-toxic environments where people can live, work, learn and play’.

As such, it can be said that the RtHE lies at the root of most human rights and – if protected – will be central to addressing our triple planetary crisis. This gives me cause for hope, especially since it has already found recognition in the domestic legislation of 164 UN Member States. Not only that, it has also been recognised inter alia by the United Nations General Assembly with a wide consensus of 161 votes in favour and none against. Other notable recognitions of the RtHE were made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2024 and the International Court of Justice in July 2025. All these developments are grounds for quiet optimism, and a feeling that our work over this weekend, and the weeks leading up to it, will not be in vain.

In preparation for the symposium, as LLM students we prepared a legal publication exploring the implications of the RtHE for the regional legal order. Each chapter was drafted by a team of two, with each team providing peer feedback to the others.

During the seminar, we presented our chapters in short form and received feedback from the audience.

While I thought all the presentations were illuminating, this is not the place to discuss them in depth. To give an idea nonetheless, I will highlight just one (of the many) interesting points that were made. The team working on the legal impacts of the RtHE examined the margin of appreciation as the ECHR’s means of giving States discretion in implementing of human rights. They explained that, while this flexibility helps maintain cooperation and respect for sovereignty, it also limits the Court’s ability to address cross-border and global challenges, especially environmental ones such as climate change and pollution. Because these crises do not stop at national borders, too wide a margin can undermine collective protection.

I thought this was particularly strong because, when a clear European consensus exists, the Court can narrow the margin and strengthen common standards. I felt that this presentation clearly showed that Europe’s caution in this regard has become outdated, and that a new and explicit recognition of environmental rights could make human rights law and environmental protection both more preventive and more effective.

To us law students, in turn, it was inspiring to see the work done in the twenty-three local advocacy campaigns, which were displayed in a ‘science-fair’ style during one part of the symposium. Fighting food waste, cleaning up beaches and making flower bombs. Simply put, it was impossible to turn my back without facing another inspiring project, always proudly showcased by its beaming propagators.

While this is still not the place for a deep dive – which can be found in the accompanying documents – all projects combined a mixture of research and awareness-raising with education of the public and real action. One example of such action that stirred me most came from a campaign that put the spotlight on bees as an indicator species of the world’s welfare, spreading bee-friendly flower bombs that sowed not destruction, but life.

With the symposium wrapped up and the project a great success with new friends and connections, what’s next? For one thing, we finalised the legal publication I mentioned. In addition, we prepared a Youth Perspectives document during the symposium, reflecting on the experiences gathered during both the campaigns and the legal research. Both documents have informed a final pièce de résistance in the form of an additional protocol to the ECHR, which was produced collaboratively by all participants at the symposium. All documents will be considered by the Council of Europe and forwarded to relevant decision-making bodies.

In this way, our symposium has created its very own verbal flower bomb – we can’t wait to see it take root!