A/HRC/36/58 108. South Africa appreciated the current streamlined text and supported the inclusion of language regarding the role of women in food security. B. 1. Articles 5-8 Article 5 Paragraph 1 109. The European Union stated that the right to natural resources did not exist and thus suggested deleting “the right to have” and referring instead to “access to and use of natural resources”. 110. Several States stated that natural resources were public possessions and that their use and exploitation were regulated by national laws. 111. Brazil, Jordan and the Russian Federation concurred with the proposal of Egypt to add “in accordance with national laws and legislation” at the end of the paragraph. Moreover, the European Union and Egypt proposed replacing “to participate in” with “to be consulted about”. Jordan reiterated its reservations to article 5, especially its paragraph 1. 112. Guatemala stated that, due to conflicts with the Constitution and national legislation, it reserved its position on the right to natural resources and could not accept the current wording of paragraph 1. 113. Switzerland argued that the wording of article 5 (1) would be better if it reflected that of article 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Similarly, it suggested that the second part of paragraph 1 would benefit from borrowing the exact wording of article 9 (2) (b) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 114. Several chapters of La Via Campesina stressed that the right to natural resources was key to ensuring the livelihoods of peasants, was often recognized as a de facto right and needed to be explicitly recognized as such in the declaration. 115. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Pastoralists suggested replacing “present in their communities” with “where these communities are based”. Paragraph 3 116. Switzerland and the Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights suggested adding “economic impact” and “gender indicators” to subparagraph 3 (a). 117. The Russian Federation argued that the language and terminology in paragraph 3 inaccurately suggested that the instrument was a legally binding document and requested that the wording be changed accordingly. 118. Egypt suggested deleting the reference to free, prior and informed consent in subparagraph 3 (b). Mexico said that the language on consultations could be improved in line with that used in other instruments, to ensure implementation. 119. Switzerland suggested using, in subparagraph 3 (c), language from either the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture or the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization. 120. Ecuador noted that the language in paragraph 3 came from already adopted instruments and stressed the need to be consistent with existing language while also going further with regard to protecting the rights of peasants. 121. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Pastoralists drew attention to the fact that exploitation should not lead to the exclusion of communities and that prior consent might be required. 10