A/HRC/33/59 53. The representative of Centre Europe-tiers monde said that the Centre endorsed the concept of extraterritorial obligations. In the context of globalization, there was a need for oversight of the activities of transnational corporations. 54. The representative of the International Indian Treaty Council expressed support for the text as it stood and called for more consistency when referring to persons, women and men. The representative did not agree with some statements by representatives of States on the lack of legal foundation for articles 1-5. 55. The representative of Serikat Petani Indonesia highlighted the importance of the right to food and related general comments. 56. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia expressed support for the wording of article 1. Regarding article 5, the representative highlighted the importance of affirming the right to food sovereignty. 57. The representative of La Confédération paysanne (LVC member in France) requested that specific mention be made in article 1 of the special relationship that peasants had to the land, water and nature. That relationship was not purely economic but also social and cultural. 58. The representative of South Africa insisted on the importance of explaining what the term “peasant” entailed in a specific country or region. The representative expressed support for the need to ensure the accountability of transnational corporations in their operations, and for the principle of affirmative action in article 3 (4). The representative proposed the use of language from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Article 5 should draw from articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration on the Right to Development. Regarding the proposal to elaborate “the right to food sovereignty”, South Africa would welcome both more reflection on the internal dimension, which was elaborated in the current text, and the acknowledgement of an external dimension, namely the right of States to develop their agriculture, which was currently absent from the text. 59. The representative of the United States stated that article 1 needed clarification, considering that not all those engaged in the forms of labour described therein would define themselves as peasants. The representative made specific comments on article 2 and expressed disagreement with the notion of extraterritorial obligations. The representative raised the issue of how free, prior and informed consent could be applied to peasants and of how countries should implement article 2 (6). The representative requested clarification on the measures envisioned under 2 (7) (e), and suggested that the language on discrimination in article 3 should reflect the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and not refer to collective rights. The representative raised the issue of what affirmative action entailed in that context. Regarding article 4, the representative expressed satisfaction, especially about article 4 (3). The provisions in article 5 were similar to those in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it was unclear how they could be implemented in the absence of a representative Government. 60. The representative of Ecuador recalled the spirit of the declaration and its nonbinding character, and welcomed the inclusion of the principles of gender equality and nondiscrimination in the text. The representative highlighted the importance of the rights to health, education and a clean environment, and recognized that more discussion would be needed on the rights to land, seeds, the means of production and biodiversity. 61. The representative of Indonesia stated that sovereignty was held by States and that article 5 should be reworded. Article 12 could be included in article 5. 10