A/HRC/19/70 40. Paul Quintos, IBON Foundation, speaking on Rio+20 and development challenges, expressed the view that the Declaration on the Right to Development was an advocacy tool for a more equitable and democratic international order. In his view, a comprehensive and multifaceted development advocacy campaign could be built around the concept of the right to development, allowing linkages to a wide range of issues, such as poverty eradication, food sovereignty, ecological/climate justice and national sovereignty. The campaign could be advanced at the national and international levels, targeting national Governments, regional bodies, international organizations and transnational actors to hold them to account. In his view, the potential of the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as that of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development remain unrealized, with continuing strain on the environment and retrogression with regard to the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. To promote the right to development and the Rio principles, Mr. Quintos recommended the use of the occasion of Rio+20 to promote a human rightsbased approach to sustainable development. Demonstrating the relevance of the right to development to issues such as energy, food and water security would raise the utility of the right to development for social mobilization and civil society advocacy. Mr. Quintos called upon the United Nations agencies to engage more aggressively in policy advocacy. There was a need to re-examine values and lifestyles, conceptions of the good life, social relations and relationship with nature. 41. Shabalala Dalindyebo, Maastricht University, speaking on climate change, human rights and intellectual property, underlined that the right to development was a core element of the climate change legal regime. It was the basis for developing countries’ demand for transfer of technology, part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. In practice, unfortunately, that transfer of technology was not taking place. The main constraining reasons were intellectual property regimes and the unwillingness of developed countries to fulfil their obligations. Mr. Dalindyebo pointed to the conflict of norms between the trade and human rights regime and the expanding power of the World Trade Organization (WTO), combined with limiting applicable law in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. The approach followed by the International Law Commission when dealing with fragmentation of international law, namely “systemic integration” could help address potential conflicts that arose a result of the diversification and expansion of international law. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could provide direction and guidance on how that could happen in real terms to take into account other regimes through impact assessments. The other question related to that was of course whether or not the respective body was competent and had a mandate to consider norms belonging to a different regime. 42. Fried Didden, Kosovo Health Foundation, introduced the work of the Kosovo Health Foundation, a non-profit organization working on mental and reproductive health. He also provided a description of the environment in which the organization was operating, the legal and factual constraints attached to the health service system in Kosovo, 5 the financial constraints and the lack of transparency and participation in the distribution of national resources but also in the allocation of international donor resources. 43. In the ensuing interactive debate, representatives of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Housing and Land Rights Network, the Association of World Citizens, Egypt, North-South XXI, the Global Network for the Right to Development and the Institute for Social and Economic Studies took the floor. It was said that international cooperation should be strengthened without imposing conditions or obligations on 5 14 All references to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in the context of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.