A/HRC/30/55 country and that the United Nations translation of “peasant” into Arabic was “farmer”, which could include large-scale farmers. 40. An NGO raised its concern that Dalits, tenants and sharecroppers were not included in the definition of “peasant”. It proposed that those groups be included in the definition of “peasants” within the framework of declaration. 41. Several delegates sought clarification of the phrase “access to natural resources” and its meaning and scope under the draft declaration. One delegation also raised concerns over the definition of natural resources and community right over them. Delegates also highlighted that, under article 2 of the declaration, extraterritorial obligations of States were noted, but said that more clarification was needed on the responsibilities of States and nonState actors. It was also argued that this term had been elaborated on, but specific responsibilities of international enterprises needed to be defined. 42. A number of States asked for further clarification of article 5 of the draft declaration and the concept of sovereignty. They argued that food sovereignty was a concept under discussion in international forums and not fully defined. Some NGOs also stated that food security and food sovereignty were two different concepts and should not be used interchangeably. They also argued that both terms should be defined clearly and developed sufficiently. One NGO noted that article 5 could be divided into two separate articles dealing with food security and food sovereignty independently. Another NGO noted that food sovereignty was, in its view, directly related to the right to selfdetermination and therefore should be central in the first articles of the draft declaration. A number of delegations noted that the language of article 5 should be grounded in human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 43. One delegation argued that there was a need to use language relating to gender discrimination rather than gender identity because it was more universally accepted. Another delegation also sought clarification and elaboration of the terms “subsistence” and “small farm holders” and proposed the recognition of the term “justiciability” and the use of human rights principles such as discrimination, as well as the right to development, in the declaration. 44. Several NGOs, including representatives of peasants and other peoples working in rural areas, expressed their general support for articles 1-6. They welcomed the inclusive character of the definition of “peasant” and the recognition of the peasant identity. They proposed to include in the definition the specific relation of peasants with the land, the fact that peasants did not seek primarily profit and accumulation but rather their subsistence and the reproduction of their families. They insisted that they would prefer to see the notion of “peasant agriculture” used rather than “small-scale agriculture”. They welcomed the inclusion of the right to food sovereignty and suggested it could be separated from the right to sovereignty over natural resources, as those were two distinct issues. They also strongly supported the inclusion of article 6 on the right of rural women, as women were the most discriminated against in rural areas. 45. The Chair-Rapporteur introduced articles 7-14, indicating the background of each article and opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants. 46. An NGO asked why the word “liberty” had been used instead of “freedom”, while another NGO noted that States must have effective mechanisms for the prevention of violations of the right to life. Another delegation noted that article 7 should be seen in the light of territorial unity and that the use of local customs must not be used as a justification to violate national and international law. 47. Participants highlighted that under article 9 of the draft declaration, freedom of movement of mobile peasants was not expressly defined. Some participants argued that 12