A/HRC/36/58 4. Article 16 174. The European Union expressed serious concern about the listing of rights that had not been recognized nor defined. The European Union and New Zealand proposed inserting “access to” before “the means of production”. 175. The Plurinational State of Bolivia stated that it would like to retain the reference to “right” and referred to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which the means of production was interpreted to form part of the right. 176. The European Union and Guatemala proposed deleting “individually and collectively” from paragraph 1. Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) said they wished to retain the reference to collective rights, which reflected the way in which those rights were exercised. Ecuador explained that the language reflected the fact that peasants had always been organized and would continue to do so. 177. Ms. Suarez Franco suggested replacing “individually and collectively” with “alone and in association with others or in community with others”. 178. The European Union, Chile, Guatemala and Japan proposed deleting the sentence on price-setting in paragraph 3, as such a practice would interfere with free market principles. The Plurinational State of Bolivia explained that the provision on price-setting sought to address speculation and reduce price volatility. Ecuador referred to the fact that subsidies distorted market prices. The Dominical Republic insisted that producers should be able to participate in price-setting, which could help ensure a decent income. 179. Several civil society organizations supported the article. ILO suggested including a reference to employment policies promoting decent non-farm employment in the rural economy in paragraph 4. While acknowledging the fact that the proposed article targeted the small-holder farm sector, ILO, with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and IUF concurring, proposed adding language on decent wages. 180. Guatemala requested clarifications on the “market failures” mentioned in paragraph 5 and on how they were related to natural disasters. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that paragraph 5 was necessary as markets were unpredictable. 181. La Via Campesina (South Africa) suggested adding “by creating agricultural compensation funds” at the end of paragraph 5. 182. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wished to maintain the formulation of article as it was in the document. Several chapters of La Via Campesina defended the right, which was needed to protect their sustainable food systems. E. 1. Articles 17-19 Article 17 183. The European Union stated that there was no right to land, so the title and content of the article should read “access to land”; that position was supported by the Russian Federation. Cuba called for agrarian reform to be reflected in the title of article. 184. The European Union restated that the term “individually and collectively” should be deleted and suggested inserting “should” before “have” in the first line of paragraph 1. 185. The Republic of Korea expressed reservations about the right to land and concurred with the statement of the European Union. Guatemala and Jordan also expressed reservations on the entire article. 186. Guatemala and New Zealand expressed concern about extending the right to land, which had until then been attributed only to indigenous peoples. 187. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, with El Salvador and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) concurring, defended the use of the “right to land” in the title and paragraph 2 as it was. 15