A/HRC/36/58 Guatemala was of the view that collective rights had been recognized only in the context of self-determination. 49. South Africa suggested including in the definition the term “small-holder production” and a reference to others who also lived in rural areas, such as children who did not work. ILO suggested inserting a reference to children. 50. The International Network of Human Rights suggested including in the definition other workers in rural areas, such as those engaged in agritourism and peasants engaged in mining. Other civil society organizations suggested including sharecroppers and tenant farmers, who were very vulnerable to eviction. 51. Centre Europe—Tiers Monde recalled that article 1 was based on text adopted by States at FAO. It also resulted from consultations with persons who were directly concerned and had become vulnerable due to globalization. 52. Regarding the phrase “alone, or in association with others or as a community”, Mr. Golay explained that the word “or” provided for different possibilities and specified that recognition of collective rights for groups other than indigenous peoples featured, among others, in the 2012 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security. Paragraph 3 53. Colombia suggested deleting paragraph 3, arguing that it would discriminate against minorities, for example people of African descent. Guatemala too suggested deleting the paragraph. Ecuador indicated that the paragraph could be strengthened through the inclusion of other groups. The Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights suggested adding Dalits to the list. Paragraph 4 54. The European Union and Tunisia suggested adding “and as defined by national legislation”. Switzerland underlined that migrant and seasonal workers needed legal authorization before taking up work. 55. Jordan reserved its position on paragraph 4, especially regarding the reference to “migrant and seasonal workers, regardless of their legal status”. 56. ILO expressed support for paragraph 4 and referred to the underreporting of the number of waged rural workers. With IUF concurring, it suggested replacing “hired workers, and” with “hired workers, including”. 57. Ecuador, with the Philippines concurring, observed that the intention of the declaration was to enable aspirations to prevail over local legislation and added that those without legal status were particularly vulnerable. 2. Article 2 58. Guatemala shared some of the reservations expressed by other States. More generally, it mentioned that there was a conflict between the text, which mentioned the obligations of States, and its status as a non-binding document. 59. The Russian Federation noted that article 2 addressed a number of sensitive questions, such as extraterritorial application, and that it was unable to support the current version. 60. The European Union, with Colombia concurring, restated that “people” should be replaced by “persons” throughout the article. Egypt indicated that “people” should be maintained where appropriate, for consistency with the title of the draft declaration and the relevant Human Rights Council resolutions. 6