A/HRC/36/58 215. The European Union suggested deleting paragraph 3. Chile asked for clarifications on the types of measures foreseen under that paragraph. 216. Chile sought clarifications on the meaning of “seed systems” in paragraph 6. 217. The European Union, with Japan concurring, suggested replacing “oriented towards” with “duly takes into account” in paragraph 7. 218. The European Union suggested deleting the phrase “in particular the right to seeds” in paragraph 8. 219. Chile stated that the issues of intellectual property and trade needed to be discussed, as there was a need for synergies between various documents. 220. Centre Europe—Tiers Monde suggested including language requiring States to promote and support peasant seed banks and the in situ conservation and development of seeds, as well as to take measures for the regulation of non-State actors, such as agribusiness transnational corporations. 221. Other civil society organizations’ interventions focused on the need to keep article 19 and to retaining the word “right”. They stressed that there was no incompatibility between article 19 and other international agreements. F. Articles 20-23 1. Article 20 222. The European Union suggested deleting “right to” from the title. Ecuador, with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela concurring, indicated that any attempt to remove the word “right” required analysis and that, in principle, Ecuador opposed the deletion of the word. Mr. Goïta added that legislation at the national and regional levels had recognized the right of local communities to biological biodiversity and that there was no dichotomy between recognition in the draft declaration and international environmental law. 223. Guatemala informed participants that consultations were under way on the compatibility of article 20 with national law and that it therefore expressed reservations on the article in its entirety. 224. Switzerland noted that duplication of some elements of articles 20 and 26 of the draft declaration and article 9 (2) (a) of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture should be the basis for a discussion of the article. 225. Civil society organizations expressed their support for the article. One organization suggested that article 20 needed to include the protection of animal breeds. Paragraph 1 226. The European Union and Guatemala suggested deleting references to “individually or collectively”, to which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela objected, as recognition of collective rights was in line with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization. 227. Switzerland, with Ecuador concurring, suggested adding “forestry”. The World Forum of Fisher Peoples suggested deleting the word “agricultural” from the last sentence of paragraph 1 so that the right to biological diversity could be understood to encompasses forests and fisheries, for example. 228. The World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Pastoralists proposed adding a specific mention to livestock keepers’ rights in article 20. 229. In response to several queries, Mr. Esquinas explained that “associated knowledge” would include knowledge about how to use plants. 230. Several NGOs stressed the relationship between peasants’ rights and biological diversity, including by referring to a statement made in March 2018 by the Special 18