A/HRC/30/55 water for irrigation. They argued that the management of water should have local leadership, as peasants and small stakeholders understood the effect of the misuse of water. They also noted that peasants and other people working in rural areas wanted a fair and sustainable solution, considering the old systems for distributing water to be unfair and outdated. 66. Two NGOs noted that not only people who dwelt in urban areas had the right to social security; specific measures should be put into place to ensure that women, older persons and individuals affected by climate change were also protected. Some delegations supported the inclusion of the right to social security as that right was essential for peasants and other people working in rural areas. One delegation noted that different countries had different domestic laws, and that there was no universally recognized system for social security. 67. One delegation noted that the right to health was already recognized and that right, along with others, in the declaration were already well defined. A number of NGOs highlighted the need to include article 26 because of the need to keep references to the harmful effects of chemicals and other pesticides. They furthermore highlighted the negative effects of chemicals on peasants and other people working in rural areas, particularly with regard to women’s reproductive rights. 68. A proposal was made to include the specific obligation of States to take measures to limit the use of chemicals in agriculture. The importance of article 25 on social security was also emphasized and its inclusion in the new draft was welcomed. Proposals were made to include the obligation of States to implement insurance against environmental and climatic events for peasants. 69. One delegation asked how article 30 of the draft declaration would be implemented. 70. At the end of the meeting, the Vice-Chair clarified the term “water poisoning”, explaining it meant “slow poisoning” and provided the example of fish living in waters polluted by mercury, who consumed the mercury and then transferred it to humans. 71. The Vice-Chair introduced the preamble, indicating its background and sources, then opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants. 72. A number of delegations noted that they felt the declaration gave special rights to people in certain groups and that this might negatively affect other groups of people. They also noted that they wanted to avoid ambiguities and said that more clarification was needed regarding the term “harmonious practices with Mother Earth”. They also highlighted that each country had its own practices, and that the term did not have the same definition everywhere. They also noted that FAO, ILO and the World Intellectual Property Organization should have been consulted in the drafting process and that they were the adequate forums to discuss those topics, rather than the Human Rights Council. Another delegation noted that it would be better to analyse the existing declarations and conventions to address the various issues related to peasants and other people working in rural areas. Some delegations discussed on the extraterritorial scope of the declaration, highlighting that threats to peasants and other people working in rural areas often originated from outside the national territory. 73. A number of delegations thanked the Chair-Rapporteur and the Vice-Chair for the transparent way in which the working group had been conducted and noted that they were particularly satisfied with the mainstreaming of a gender perspective. One delegation also highlighted the need to focus more on children and people with disabilities. 74. One delegation noted they would prefer the term “food security” rather than “food sovereignty” because it was more widely accepted, and that they would prefer wording that was in line with language found in existing instruments of international human rights law. 16