A/HRC/36/58 188. La Via Campesina (Palestine) proposed inserting “and means of production” after “houses”. 189. Chapters of La Via Campesina suggested that “compensation” in paragraph 5 should entail land and natural resources of equivalent agronomic value, should be sufficient to enable the resumption of agricultural work and be provided to peasants unable to return. 190. On paragraph 6, the Republic of Korea made the following suggestions: in the first sentence, replace “carry out redistributive agrarian reforms” with “introduce domestic legislation”; in the second sentence, replace “Redistributive reforms must” with “States should” and “shall” with “should”; and, in the last sentence, replace “in the allocation of” with “to access”. The European Union proposed replacing “shall carry out” with “can decide to implement, when appropriate,” in the first sentence of the same paragraph. 191. The Russian Federation stated that the article was problematic, as a number of items contravened Russian legislation, in particular paragraph 6. It requested that “shall carry out” should be changed to “decide to implement when appropriate” in paragraph 6. 192. Ecuador concurred with the proposal of the International Indian Treaty Council to add an article similar to article 45 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 193. Several civil society organizations stressed the importance of the right to land and the inclusion of redistributive agrarian reforms, especially as regards States’ obligation to implement it. 2. Article 18 Paragraph 1 194. The European Union stated that it was not in a position to support an article on the right to the environment and proposed referring to having access to a safe, clean and healthy environment. 195. Switzerland stated that many countries did not recognize the right to the environment and found it difficult to affirm that right for peasants. The representative proposed transposing language from subparagraph 6 (a) of Human Rights Council resolution 34/20. 196. South Africa indicated that the objective of the process was to set norms at the international level. Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) expressed support for the current formulation of article 18. 197. The World Forum of Fisher Peoples indicated that replacing “right” with “access” would be inappropriate for a right that had been recognized in many States. Paragraph 2 198. The European Union, with Guatemala concurring, suggested inserting “contribute to” before “the conservation and protection of the environment”. 199. Guatemala enquired about the existence of “territories and territories of peasants” in the paragraph. Mr. Golay suggested that adding “that they use, manage and control” after “lands, territories and resources” could clarify which resources the draft refers to. Paragraph 4 200. The European Union suggested replacing “take effective measures” with “comply with their international obligations”. Ecuador noted that effective measures could be taken while also complying with international obligations. 201. The European Union suggested replacing “materials” with “waste” and deleting the reference to free, prior and informed consent. Ecuador stated that free, prior and informed consent required discussion and that it was worth focusing on how to strike a balance in the language. 16