A/HRC/39/67 discrimination, transparency, dignity, inclusion, equity, participation and and also proposed additional language for it. One delegation noted that discrimination listed in article 3 went beyond agreed United Nations suggested that an exhaustive list was not necessary. Another delegation article 3 should use agreed language. One civil society representative insertion of “caste” after race in article 3 (1). accountability, the criteria of language and suggested that called for the Article 4. Rights of peasant women and other women working in rural areas 51. There were no major objections to the content of article 4 but delegations and civil society made concrete language suggestions. After elaborating on the role of women in ensuring food security and agricultural development, one delegation called for their recognition and empowerment and suggested concrete language. Other delegations also proposed language under article 4 (2) (a), calling for greater participation of rural women in decision-making. One delegation suggested language deletion under article 4 (2) (b) proposing that “information, counselling and family planning” could include abortion and similar actions that were not in line with the interests of peasants. One delegation explained that natural resources were public property under the law of its country. 52. Speakers for civil society voiced their support for this article. One civil society representative stated that article 4 reflected language from the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Another civil society representative highlighted the importance of women’s right to property, including the inheritance of agricultural land and homes, and suggested language for that purpose. Article 5. Right to natural resources 53. The article benefited from a general discussion and language suggestions by delegations and civil society. One delegation suggested that the title of the article be changed, replacing “right to” with “access to”, which was endorsed by another delegation. The same delegation spoke out against the creation of new human rights. Another delegation suggested merging article 5 with article 17, which was also relevant to natural resources. 54. The experts also reacted to the suggestions put forward on article 5. One expert recalled that prior and informed consent had been removed from the draft, as some States had objected, so systematic interpretation was necessary in the light of the compromise made. The Convention on Biological Diversity and other guidelines and general comments of treaty bodies should guide the management of natural resources. Peasants contributed to the protection of the environment and biodiversity, rather than disrupting them. One expert referred to the issue of national specificity and suggested that it was addressed by article 28 (2), which should be read in conjunction with other articles. Experts called for a reference to “right to”, instead of “access”. They argued that “right” carried more weight than “access” and allowed for legal and non-legal recourse. Other documents, such as the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, had been adopted by consensus, using the term “right” more than 200 times. 55. Civil society representatives argued that article 5 should be kept as it currently stood, along with its title. In that connection, a civil society representative suggested that the article established a framework for international cooperation. Another civil society representative highlighted the rights of pastoralists, fishermen and peasants to natural resources, which were necessary for development in harmony with nature and were critical for their survival and the survival of the environment. A civil society representative underlined the importance of article 5 to guaranteeing access to land and natural resources for small farmers, as present legislation does not protect peasants from land-grabbing. Another civil society representative seconded the expert’s observation that the current text was in line with the FAO Voluntary Guidelines. 9