A/HRC/36/58 pressing challenges faced by peasants, including the fact that prices for their produce were too low, poor agricultural infrastructure, housing and health rights. 35. Panama expressed support for the process, which was an effective way to fight poverty. It committed itself to contributing to the efforts made and would make comments on some articles. 36. ILO noted that the draft should be modified to better reflect international standards on the prohibition of child labour, the work of ILO and the common objectives set in the 2030 Agenda, in particular Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 8. 37. Global Women’s March highlighted the vulnerable situation of women peasants. The declaration would be crucial in helping to address their situation. 38. La Via Campesina (Europe) expressed concerns about the European Union position and stressed the need to revisit areas of progress in the working group. It was important to ensure security and access to resources for those living off the land. 39. La Via Campesina (Africa) drew attention to the need to strengthen international instruments. The adoption of a declaration would send a strong political message that peasants were critical to the future of humanity and increase their visibility. 40. The World Forum of Fisher Peoples underscored the need for a comprehensive instrument upholding the collective human rights of peasants, pastoralists and others. 41. The International Indian Treaty Council was encouraged by the new draft declaration, which was clearly underpinned by human rights standards. It expressed concern by States’ statements that did not recognize the collective rights of peasants. 42. La Via Campesina (Palestine) emphasized the need to protect access to seeds and land as a fundamental part of peasants’ lives. The representative highlighted how both seeds and land were now subject to speculation. 43. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Pastoralists observed that pastoralism was being threatened by the forced industrialization of livestock farming and that its very identity was being eroded. Pastoralists had a right to live a nomadic lifestyle. 44. La Via Campesina (North America) emphasized the importance of representing migrant and seasonal workers and highlighted that many young people no longer wanted to work in rural areas and that the draft declaration fuelled the hopes of young people. 45. Centre Europe—Tiers Monde observed that the declaration reflected agreed language and regarded the text as mature, with a coherent set of provisions. It was time for adoption. 46. Other civil society organizations observed that the international existing human rights framework had an urban bias that needed to be corrected to ensure universality. Norms were dispersed over several instruments and were fragmented. There were normative gaps in the rights to water for agriculture, seeds and land. 47. The International Union of Food Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations (IUF) stated that the exploitative situation of rural workers needed to be clearly addressed in the substantive articles. V. Reading of the draft declaration A. 1. Articles 1-4 Article 1 Paragraph 1 48. Guatemala expressed concern that the definition of “peasant” was based on the economic activity of a group and did not include the element of poverty affecting peasants. Clarifications were sought on the meaning of “attachment to the lands” and “rural areas”. 5