A/HRC/36/58 202. Guatemala disagreed with extending indigenous peoples’ rights to peasants in paragraph 4. 203. Ecuador stated that reference to land and territories was relevant in paragraph 4 as pollution by toxic waste could affect the lands and resources of any community, not only indigenous peoples’. 204. The Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights proposed referring, in article 18, to an environment free of all forms of violence and discrimination and to access to clean, renewable energy for livelihood and domestic use. 205. La Via Campesina (Palestine) suggested adding references to weapons and ammunitions affecting biodiversity, to the safe and productive use of land and to the responsibility of the polluter to restore. 3. Article 19 206. Uruguay highlighted that the article should be considered in the light of States’ international obligations and commitments in relation to intellectual property rights. Guatemala informed participants that consultations were under way on the compatibility of article 19 with national law and ratified international instruments, and therefore placed a reservation on the article in its entirety. 207. Brazil enquired how compatibility with article 19 with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was ensured. Switzerland proposed replacing article 19 entirely with article 9 of the Treaty, which captured the key components of the draft declaration. 208. The European Union, with Japan and the Republic of Korea concurring, indicated that they could not agree to a reference to the right to seeds, as such a reference was not in compliance with international conventions. The article should refer, rather, to access to seeds. Paragraphs 1 and 3 should also refer to “access”. 209. The Plurinational State of Bolivia stated that the right to seeds had been recognized in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and that article 19 of the draft declaration sought to contribute to rebalancing rights in a context where international seed companies had the upper hand over peasants Paragraph 1 210. The European Union suggested deleting subparagraph 1 (a), explaining that the right set out therein should not be included in the declaration. Ecuador stated that deletion of subparagraph 1 (a) would be wrong, as traditional knowledge had to be preserved; otherwise, for example, the patenting of formulae would have a negative effect on the ability of local communities to use traditional knowledge. The representative added that FAO instruments did not restrict intellectual property regime. 211. Chile, with the Republic of Korea concurring, suggested including in paragraph 1 the phrase “subject to national legislation”, as in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Chile enquired whether the seeds covered by the draft declaration could be expanded beyond the crops listed in the annex of the Treaty. 212. La Via Campesina (Europe) suggested replacing “farm-saved” with “their” in subparagraph 1 (d). Paragraphs 2-8 213. The European Union suggested replacing “have the right to” in paragraph 2 with “should be able to”. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that “right” needed to be retained in the whole article. It suggested adding “ancestral knowledge and practices” to paragraph 2. 214. Chile enquired whether the seeds covered by the draft declaration were those that were conserved from one generation to the next, and whether the text excluded seeds owned by third parties. 17