30/55 Report of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

GE.15-12286(E)

*1512286*

Human Rights Council Thirtieth session

Agenda item 5

Human rights bodies and mechanisms

Report of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

Chair-Rapporteur: Angélica C. Navarro Llanos

Summary

The Chair-Rapporteur has the honour to transmit to the members of the Human

Rights Council the report of the open-ended intergovernmental working group on the draft

United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural

areas, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolutions 21/19 and 26/26.

Contents

Page

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

II Organization of the session .............................................................................................................. 3

A. Election of the Chair-Rapporteur and the Vice-Chair .............................................................. 3

B. Attendance ............................................................................................................................... 4

C. Documentation ......................................................................................................................... 4

III. Panel discussion ............................................................................................................................... 5

A. Panel I. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of peasants

and other people working in rural areas and gaps ................................................................... 5

B. Panel II. Rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

in other international instruments and gaps ............................................................................. 8

IV. General statements ........................................................................................................................... 9

V. First reading of the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas ...................................................................................................................... 11

VI. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 18

VII. Recommendations of the Chair-Rapporteur ..................................................................................... 19

VIII. Adoption of the report ...................................................................................................................... 19

Annexes

I. Agenda ......................................................................................................................................... 20

II. List of speakers for panel discussions .............................................................................................. 21

I. Introduction

1. The open-ended intergovernmental working group on a draft United Nations

declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas (hereinafter,

“the working group”) was established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 21/19

and recalling Council resolutions 13/4, 16/27 and 19/7, with a mandate of negotiating,

finalizing and submitting to the Human Rights Council a draft United Nations declaration

on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas. Council resolution 26/26

of 23 June 2014 mandated the working group to hold its second session for five working

days before the twenty-ninth session of the Council; requested the Chair-Rapporteur of the

working group to conduct informal consultations with Governments, relevant special

procedures of the Human Rights Council, regional groups, intergovernmental

organizations, United Nations mechanisms, civil society and representatives of peasants

and other people working in rural areas; requested the Chair-Rapporteur of the working

group to prepare a new text on the basis of the discussions held during the first session of

the working group, the draft declaration presented by the Advisory Committee, and the

informal consultations to be held, and present it to the working group at its second session

for consideration and further discussion. The resolution also requested the Office of the

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the working group with

the human, technical and financial assistance necessary for it to fulfil its mandate; and

requested the working group to submit to the Council for consideration at its thirtieth

session a report on progress made, which should be published as an official document in all

the official languages of the United Nations.

2. Following the resolution, the working group held its second session from 2 to

6 February 2015.

3. The second session was opened by Craig Mokhiber, Chief, Development and

Economic and Social Issues Branch on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights on 2 February 2015. Mr. Mokhiber noted that people working in rural

areas were more vulnerable to emergencies, diseases and conflicts because of the multiple

forms of discrimination they faced from long-term failures by States to protect, respect and

fulfil their rights. Mr. Mokhiber highlighted that people working in rural areas also faced

structural inequalities that often impacted upon small-scale farmers’ abilities to protect

agricultural values, determine prices and access markets for agricultural production, as well

as to facilitate biological diversity.

II Organization of the session

A. Election of the Chair-Rapporteur and the Vice-Chair

4. At its second session, on 2 February 2015, the working group re-elected Ms.

Navarro Llanos (Plurinational State of Bolivia) as its Chair-Rapporteur, by acclamation.

Guatemala, on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, stated that it had

nominated Ms. Navarro Llanos based on the leading role of the Plurinational State of

Bolivia in moving the working group forward and her leadership in the first session of the

working group and intersessional informal consultations. Guatemala further underscored

that Ms. Navarro Llanos possessed all the necessary credentials to successfully carry out

and accomplish her mandate.

5. Owing to the ill health of Ms. Navarro Llanos, the 5th meeting of the session

(3 February 2015, morning) was suspended and the Chair-Rapporteur proposed electing a

Vice-Chair as a temporary measure to ensure continued smooth proceedings of the rest of

the second session of the working group. The 5th meeting of the session was resumed in the

afternoon. A representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights (OHCHR), on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, opened

the meeting and, hearing no objection on the Chair’s proposal, proceeded to the election of

a Vice-Chair. Guatemala nominated Luis Espinoza (Ecuador). With no other nominations,

Luis Espinoza was elected as Vice-Chair of the open-ended intergovernmental working

group on the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas, and he assumed the responsibility for the rest of the second session

of the working group as a temporary measure. The Vice-Chair chaired the 5th, 6th and 7th

meetings.

B. Attendance

6. Representatives of the following States Members of the United Nations attended the

meetings of the working group: Afghanistan, Algeria, Austria, Argentina, Bahrain,

Bangladesh, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia,

Cuba, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador (on behalf of the Latin American and

Caribbean Group), El Salvador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Guatemala (on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group), Italy, India, Indonesia,

Iran (Islamic Republic of) (on behalf of the non-aligned movement), Iraq, Ireland, Japan,

Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia

(on behalf of the European Union), Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar,

Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation,

Romania, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic,

Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela

(Bolivarian Republic of).

7. The following non-Member States were represented as observers: Holy See.

8. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented at the meetings of

the working group: the European Union and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO).

9. The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in consultative status with

the Economic and Social Council were represented: Foundation Bread for All, Center for

Legal and Social Studies, Europe – Third World Centre, Friends World Committee for

Consultation, Foodfirst Information and Action Network, Programme on Women’s

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Quaker United Nations Office, International Union

of Food Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers

Associations, Réseau International des Droits Humains, VIVAT International, United

Villages and American Association of Jurists.

C. Documentation

10. The working group was provided with the new text of the draft declaration

(A/HRC/WG.15/1/2) as well as the following documents:

(a) Resolution 21/19 on the promotion and protection of human rights of

peasants and other people working in rural areas;

(b) Resolution 26/26 on the promotion and protection of human rights of

peasants and other people working in rural areas;

(c) Final study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the

advancement of the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

(A/HRC/19/75);

(d) Report of the Chair-Rapporteur on the first session of the open-ended

intergovernmental working group on a draft United Nations declaration on the rights of

peasants and other people working in rural areas (A/HRC/26/48).

Adoption of the agenda and organization of work

11. In her opening statement, the Chair-Rapporteur thanked the delegation of Guatemala

and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries for her nomination as Chair-

Rapporteur and welcomed their encouraging remarks about the working group. The Chair-

Rapporteur informed the participants that two informal consultations had been held on 12

November and 4 December 2014. She also noted that all relevant information regarding the

working group could be found on the OHCHR website. In referring to the draft declaration

before the working group, the Chair-Rapporteur informed the working group participants

that the programme of work would include two thematic panels, with eight panel

participants. She noted that one panel would discuss the civil, political, economic, social

and cultural rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas and gaps and the

second panel would focus on rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas in

other international instruments and gaps. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that, after the panel

discussions, there would be an opportunity for general statements, followed by the first

reading of the new draft of the declaration on the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas. The Chair-Rapporteur highlighted that no list of speakers would be

provided during the general statements, as the session would be open to all participants

wishing to take the floor. She also highlighted that the reading of the draft declaration

would be done in five groups of articles: the first would include articles 1 to 6, the second,

articles 7 to 14, the third, articles 15 to 18, the fourth, articles 19 to 23, and the fifth,

articles 24 to 30 of the draft declaration. The reading would take place over three and a half

days and would be open to the floor. The Chair-Rapporteur also noted that there would be

no public consultation at the first meeting of the last day and informed the participants that

the final report would include: details of summaries of the debate, summaries of the panel

discussions and a summary by the Chair-Rapporteur. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that she

had conducted informal consultations with delegations and regional and political groups,

and that she looked forward to fruitful group work based on the various views of the

participants.

12. The Chair-Rapporteur noted the basic principles for conducting the session of the

working group, namely transparency, inclusiveness, accountability and objectivity.

13. The Chair-Rapporteur asked if there were any opposition to the programme of work

and, hearing no objections, declared the programme to be adopted.

III. Panel discussion

A. Panel discussion I. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights

of peasants and other people working in rural areas and gaps

14. One panellist noted that the great majority of the rights in the draft declaration were

not new rights, with many of them having been recognized in other international human

rights instruments. The issue of small food producers was raised, as was the need for the

recognition of the part they played in feeding the planet. It was also argued that small food

producers needed to be informed about their rights and that the draft declaration, if it were

to be adopted, would help facilitate that transfer of knowledge. Some panellists argued that

the right to water should include the right to water for irrigation use and should not be

limited to water for sanitation or drinking purposes.

15. A number of panellists highlighted the need to protect peasants’ civil and political

rights, noting that often peasants lacked access to justice and were not given the same

protection as to others. They were often persecuted, detained, arrested or subjected to

violence upon the expression of their right to freedom of association and to protest. One

panellist also noted that cattle breeders usually worked in different countries and therefore

crossed international borders, which often meant their freedom of movement needed to be

protected by all States concerned.

16. One panellist noted that indigenous peoples had historically been forgotten and that

more emphasis needed to be placed on the relationship between peasants and indigenous

people as they were often one and the same thing. They also noted that the vision of Mother

Earth of indigenous peoples should be part of the declaration. Another panellist noted that

cultural rights, including traditional forms of knowledge, had not been adequately protected

in international law. However, there was a growing body of international law, such as

article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and

general comment No. 21 (2009) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights on the rights of everyone to take part in cultural life on that article, the reports of the

Special Rapporteur on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and various

multilateral treaties on biodiversity, cultural heritage and intellectual property, that

recognized the right to cultural identity, including traditional forms of knowledge, and the

obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfil cultural rights.

17. Some panellists noted that it was essential to include the principles of gender

equality and non-discrimination in the draft declaration, as those were fundamental

principles of international human rights law. It was emphasized that peasants and other

people working in rural areas were frequently unable to enjoy human rights on an equal

basis. International human rights mechanisms had observed that gender-based

discrimination against rural women was widespread. It was also underlined that

intersectional and compound forms of discrimination must be identified and remedied.

Peasants and people working in rural areas were diverse and might be confronted with

discrimination on the basis of several different grounds: gender, age, ability, socioeconomic

status, ethnic origin, religion, etc. Intersectional forms of discrimination were quantitatively

and qualitatively different from discrimination on a single ground and could give rise to

mutually reinforcing violations of several different human rights. It was further noted that

international law requires that both formal (de jure) and substantive (de facto) equality be

guaranteed and that direct and indirect discrimination were effectively prevented and

remedied. That necessitated the adoption of positive measures — including, where

necessary, temporary special measures —to redress prior disadvantage and to ensure real

equality of opportunity. Two panellists argued that rural women faced specific

discriminatory barriers to equal access to productive land and resources, such as customary

systems of land titles which frequently denied women direct rights of ownership or

inheritance. They also noted that the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination

against Women was in the process of adopting a general recommendation on article 14 of

the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women that

explicitly recognized rural women’s rights to equality with respect to reproductive rights

and health care, social security programmes, training and education, self-help groups,

community activities, credit, adequate living conditions, prevention of gender-based

violence, succession rights, inheritance and land rights.

18. It was also noted that international obligations concerning the availability,

accessibility, adaptability and acceptability of education had not been adequately

implemented in rural areas. The international legal framework concerning the right to

education was well developed in international law; however, the United Nations

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and other sources had noted that rural

areas often lagged behind other regions in terms of the availability and accessibility of

good-quality education. The right to education, as contained in article 26 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights, required States to ensure that formal and non-formal education

was available and accessible to all on the basis of equality. Measures must be taken to

ensure that every level of education from early childhood education to universal primary

education, secondary and vocational education, tertiary education, and continuing and non-

formal education, such as literacy and livelihood programmes, were effectively available

and accessible without any discrimination.

19. It was emphasized that the right to education for peasants and people working in

rural areas must be respected, protected and fulfilled and that the draft declaration should

more adequately reflect the general international legal framework in that respect, while also

highlighting the obligation (contained in draft article 28 of the declaration) of States to

adapt education to the specific needs of peasants and people living in rural areas.

20. Some panellists noted that peasants’ rights to health and a clean environment were

often negatively affected by the use of chemicals. They noted that it was important that

peasants had the right to control the use of pesticides and chemical products. They further

noted that peasants should have the right to know what health problems could be caused by

use thereof, such as cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure. One panellist highlighted the

need for peasants to have a right to keep their own seed and to be able to take decisions not

to use genetically modified organisms. Some panellists noted that peasants could not

control market prices alone, as prices were also determined by the level of demand, and that

their rights to a decent income and an adequate standard of living should be protected.

21. During the panel discussions, the Chair-Rapporteur informed the participants that, in

her view, new human rights were often created and rights had been adapted, that

intersectional discrimination against most vulnerable groups was common, and that a

positive connotation of the word “peasant” was being led from the grass roots, as well as in

the working group. The Chair-Rapporteur also noted that the incorporation of the concept

of “Mother Earth” in the declaration could be included on the basis of previously accepted

language.

22. In relation to a number of questions provided by the participants, panellists noted

that States had the obligation to not remove peasants from their lands and to help facilitate

food aid. They also had the obligation to protect them and to protect the prices of

agricultural products so that peasants could access households and food. They noted that

States must have the right to establish agricultural policies to further enable work with

sustainable methods and sustainable development.

23. One panellist noted that the United Nations system as far back as 1948 had already

declared the right to food and the right to an adequate standard of living for peasants and

other people working in rural areas and that those rights had also been enshrined in the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as in FAO

instruments. Some panellists also highlighted the difference between individual and

collective rights and their view that the great majority of the rights proposed were

individual rights, which could only be meaningfully exercised collectively. One panellist

noted that there were already examples of discrimination faced by various groups, such as

indigenous peoples, persons from the Roma community and persons of African descent,

and this was an opportunity to expand on what was meant by equality and non-

discrimination within the context of specific groups. Another highlighted that anti-

discrimination and equality rights had both negative and positive action, and that there was

a level of interpretation where every right was seen as having both negative and positive

obligations attached to them. All the panellists argued that there was a need for a United

Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas and

urged that the text of the declaration be comprehensible and understandable in order for

peasants to enjoy their rights.

B. Panel discussion II. Rights of peasants and other people working in

rural areas in other international instruments and gaps

24. Two of the panellists highlighted the various applicable provisions of international

law and the United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the special procedures,

and FAO guidance on the promotion of the right to food. They also noted that the

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its general comment No. 12 (1999)

on the right to adequate food, explained that the right to food included access to adequate

food or means to obtain it; the availability of safe and nutritious food could be obtained

through cultivation of land and therefore access to natural resources was fundamental

dimension of the right to adequate food.

25. One expert noted that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples and the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of

Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security re-emphasized human

rights principles such as human dignity, gender equality, participation, transparency,

accountability and rule of law, and that the FAO guidelines furthermore included in its

general principles the duty of States to respect, safeguard and promote legitimate tenure

rights. The guidelines also addressed, inter alia, restitution and redistribution of land,

fisheries and forests, including the possibility to introduce limits on land property. It was

clear that the intention of States when adopting those guidelines was not to create new

rights but to give practical guidance in terms of policies and measures regarding the

compliance of States with their obligations on the right to food. At the same time, it was

clear that those guidelines represented an unprecedented international consensus about what

States should do with respect to responsible governance of tenure. It was argued that this

had contributed enormously to developing international law and what still needed to be

clarified were the entitlements of the rights holders, such as the landless, peasants, artisanal

fishers and nomadic pastoralists, with respect to land and natural resources, so that there

was finally legal certainty about their rights to land and natural resources that could be

claimed, including through the courts.

26. One expert discussed extensively the various International Labour Organization

(ILO) conventions that supported the call for a declaration on peasants and other people

working in rural areas. These included ILO Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention,

1921 (No. 11), Plantations Convention, 1958 (No. 110), Rural Workers’ Organisations

Convention, 1975 (No. 141), Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169),

Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184) and those related to workers’

rights. The panellist highlighted the various workers’ rights in those conventions, such as

freedom of association, the elimination of all forced or compulsory labour or child labour,

the right to organize for agricultural workers, the obligation of States to actively encourage

agricultural unions and ensure that national laws did not inhibit the work of those

organizations, and detailed guidance on minimal wages, maternity protection, labour

inspection, housing and medical care. She also argued that protection gaps remained,

particularly in relation to migrant workers and rural women who were often subjected to

sexual harassment in the workplace.

27. One expert explained that most of the rights introduced by the draft declaration and

referred to as “new rights” were not completely “new” in international law, for they

reflected obligations that States had already undertaken in a number of international

instruments. She noted that instruments for the protection of the environment and cultural

heritage imposed on States the obligation to respect and protect traditional cultural practices

of peasants and other people working in rural areas and to adopt measures to safeguard their

access to natural resources, including lands and seed. She also noted that the right to

participation and the principle of free, prior and informed consent were entrenched in a

number of international instruments, some of them widely ratified, such as the United

Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious

Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, the International Treaty on Plant

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic

Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization to

the Convention on Biological Diversity. The panellist also explained that international

courts had increasingly recognized those rights and a number of States had already

incorporated them into their national legal systems. She expressed her opinion that it was

fundamental that the Human Rights Council compiled the existing legal guidance into one

single instrument so as to secure the realization of the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas all over the globe.

28. A number of participants asked the panellists to elaborate on the right to land and its

consequences for States obligations. One panellist noted that normative gaps remained in

relation to the right to land and that land should be recognized among the fundamental

rights, as it was vital to rural communities’ existence. She also noted that land was often

privatized, sold and marketed without due attention to the fact that all human beings need

land to live.

IV. General statements

29. Many delegations noted that they would not be able to provide comments on the

draft declaration owing to the tight time frame since receiving the text, and therefore their

comments and positions would be preliminary. For the same reason, many States who

attempted to engage noted that they had to reserve their positions on the draft. A number of

States highlighted their concerns regarding rights that were not already established as

international human rights. They also raised concerns regarding the elaboration of existing

human rights in the new draft declaration, and their reach beyond the agreed language. A

number of delegations expressed concerns about the procedural process regarding the first

draft declaration circulated by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. They

argued that the Council had not mandated the drafting of the declaration and voiced

concern regarding the scope and length of the latest version of the draft declaration. A

number of States argued that the draft declaration focused too much on the rights of

indigenous peasants and that, by singling out that group, others could be discriminated

against. One State noted that the free, prior and informed consent principles were not

appropriate in the draft declaration. Another delegation stated that the Human Right

Council was not the right forum for a declaration on peasants and other people working in

rural areas. All delegations stated their willingness to participate in the working group in a

constructive manner in order to find common ground and discuss appropriate ways forward.

30. A number of States highlighted their support for a United Nations declaration that

specifically focused on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, as a

new human rights instrument. They argued that was due to the vulnerability of peasants and

other people working in rural areas as a group and because they represented over a billion

persons. Those States highlighted the mandate given by the Human Rights Council to the

working group in resolutions 21/19 and 26/26 to negotiate, finalize and submit to the

Council a draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas. They also stressed that the draft declaration was provided through

informal consultations and collaboration through views from the first session of the

working group held by the Council. A number of States noted that there was a need for

delegations to come together to find a consensus on the text of the draft declaration and one

State argued that this should be based on the principle of international solidarity. Many

States congratulated the Chair-Rapporteur on her re-election and thanked her for her

ongoing work on the draft declaration.

31. A number of NGOs highlighted their support for the new text of the draft

declaration, noting they were satisfied with the new length and scope of the draft text. They

welcomed the inclusion of civil and political rights and their application to the specific

needs and realities of peasants. They welcomed the recognition of important rights, such as

the right to land, the right to seed or the right to biological diversity, and noted that those

so-called “new” rights were already agreed upon in other international instruments and that

at one point all rights had been considered new. They also welcomed the inclusion of

specific State obligations for each article and a general reference to extraterritorial

obligations and non-State actors. Several NGOs noted that an effort had been made to use,

as much as possible, agreed language and hoped that this would provide a more suitable

basis for the negotiations and help all States to engage constructively. Furthermore, they

recalled the importance of the declaration to better protect the rights and improve the

livelihoods of millions of peasants, fisherfolk, pastoralists, nomads and others peoples

working in rural areas who were victims of multiple forms of discrimination and human

rights violations. They also emphasized that the adoption of the declaration would

ultimately reinforce food security and food sovereignty at the global level, and thus benefit

all humanity.

32. The participants agreed that there was a need to improve the situation of peasants

and other people working in rural areas. In particular, some participants noted that extreme

poverty, hunger and malnutrition were concentrated in rural areas, despite peasants’

substantial contribution to food security and food sovereignty. A number of participants

also highlighted that 75–80 per cent of people affected by hunger and malnutrition were

people working in rural areas and that peasants experienced discrimination in many forms.

Participants also argued that women were especially vulnerable due to factors such as age,

gender, marital status, indigenous and peasant identity. It was further noted that other

challenges facing peasants included the denial of their means of livelihood, and their ability

to control their own means of production and to set market prices for their products. The

participants argued that those issues were detrimental to the livelihoods of peasants and

other people working in rural areas.

33. A number of delegations and participants noted that the rights under discussion

already existed as civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights. They noted

that economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to food, health, water, and

education were regularly denied because States had often underinvested in facilities for

peasant communities. They also noted that civil and political rights were denied because

peasants who organized protests were often subjected to imprisonment, detention, laws and

government policies that were used to limit their freedom of expression and association.

34. Some participants noted their support for the right to water and the need to widen the

scope to include water used in agricultural production. They argued that, in developed

countries, that right was already available, but it was being denied to small-scale famers

operating in developing countries. Other States argued that further analysis was needed of

the elaboration of already agreed international language in relation to the right to water and

sanitation.

35. A number of participants highlighted the various forms of discrimination faced by

peasant women, owing to the lack of education available to women working in rural areas.

It was also argued that, if women were to be able to gain access to education, they would be

able to fully participate and better fulfil their human rights. One participant also noted that

some of the work that peasant women undertook was often invisible and limiting their

access to education. They furthermore argued that States must address structural problems

through targeted policies if they were to improve access to education. Another participant

noted that women faced discrimination based on land policies and cultural practices, as they

were often landless or culturally excluded, as land titles were often registered to the men in

the family. The increasing price of land was also highlighted by one participant, who noted

that it was for that reason that many in developed countries could not become small-scale

farmers and that government policies were hindering their ability to work in rural areas. A

number of NGOs noted that women should be specially recognized throughout the

declaration because they are the poorest among the food-insecure peasants, and

disenfranchised in entitlement to land and other rights. One NGO highlighted the need for

the draft declaration to include miners and communities living in mining areas, and to take

into account States and non-State actors’ responsibilities and obligations towards them.

Another NGO called for the declaration to include specific State obligations to respect,

protect and fulfil the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, the State

extraterritorial obligations with regard to those rights, the distinction between progressive

and immediate realization of certain of those rights, and ways to ensure accountability.

36. Some participants also raised concerns over not including migrants under the

definition of “peasant”. They highlighted the need for special protection measures,

especially in relation to migrant women, as they faced discrimination and limited access to

land and other resources. They highlighted that there was often a lack of protection for

migrants, including no access to health services, water and sanitation.

V. First reading of the draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas

37. The Chair-Rapporteur noted that there were over 50 international conventions,

covenants and instruments that had been used as the basis for the new draft declaration.

including international human rights treaties and standards developed by the United Nations

human rights mechanisms; regional human rights treaties; General Assembly and Human

Rights Council resolutions; instruments adopted by FAO and ILO; and a number of other

international treaties, outcome documents of international conferences, reports of the

United Nations, as well as instruments developed by civil society, social movements,

academics and experts.

38. The Chair-Rapporteur introduced articles 1-6, indicating the background of each

article, and opened the floor for comments from representatives of States and civil society

and other participants.

39. Many States reserved their position because of the late distribution of the draft

declaration. Some stated that it was premature to present a draft at this session. Some

participants raised concerns over the implementation of the declaration, highlighting that

various human rights international declarations lacked implementation even after signing

and ratification by the Member States. A number of participants also raised objections over

the use of the term “peasants”. They noted that the term was derogatory and disrespectful

and asked for more discussion over it. Some participants argued that the definition under

article 1 was narrow and proposed that it to be broader, while others said it was right to

define “peasants” in article 1 of the declaration, but that the proposed definition was too

broad. One State indicated that it would be difficult to comment on the text as it was only

provided in English. That delegation noted that there was no concept of “peasants” in his

country and that the United Nations translation of “peasant” into Arabic was “farmer”,

which could include large-scale farmers.

40. An NGO raised its concern that Dalits, tenants and sharecroppers were not included

in the definition of “peasant”. It proposed that those groups be included in the definition of

“peasants” within the framework of declaration.

41. Several delegates sought clarification of the phrase “access to natural resources” and

its meaning and scope under the draft declaration. One delegation also raised concerns over

the definition of natural resources and community right over them. Delegates also

highlighted that, under article 2 of the declaration, extraterritorial obligations of States were

noted, but said that more clarification was needed on the responsibilities of States and non-

State actors. It was also argued that this term had been elaborated on, but specific

responsibilities of international enterprises needed to be defined.

42. A number of States asked for further clarification of article 5 of the draft declaration

and the concept of sovereignty. They argued that food sovereignty was a concept under

discussion in international forums and not fully defined. Some NGOs also stated that food

security and food sovereignty were two different concepts and should not be used

interchangeably. They also argued that both terms should be defined clearly and developed

sufficiently. One NGO noted that article 5 could be divided into two separate

articles dealing with food security and food sovereignty independently. Another NGO

noted that food sovereignty was, in its view, directly related to the right to self-

determination and therefore should be central in the first articles of the draft declaration. A

number of delegations noted that the language of article 5 should be grounded in human

rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

43. One delegation argued that there was a need to use language relating to gender

discrimination rather than gender identity because it was more universally accepted.

Another delegation also sought clarification and elaboration of the terms “subsistence” and

“small farm holders” and proposed the recognition of the term “justiciability” and the use

of human rights principles such as discrimination, as well as the right to development, in

the declaration.

44. Several NGOs, including representatives of peasants and other peoples working in

rural areas, expressed their general support for articles 1-6. They welcomed the inclusive

character of the definition of “peasant” and the recognition of the peasant identity. They

proposed to include in the definition the specific relation of peasants with the land, the fact

that peasants did not seek primarily profit and accumulation but rather their subsistence and

the reproduction of their families. They insisted that they would prefer to see the notion of

“peasant agriculture” used rather than “small-scale agriculture”. They welcomed the

inclusion of the right to food sovereignty and suggested it could be separated from the right

to sovereignty over natural resources, as those were two distinct issues. They also strongly

supported the inclusion of article 6 on the right of rural women, as women were the most

discriminated against in rural areas.

45. The Chair-Rapporteur introduced articles 7-14, indicating the background of each

article and opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants.

46. An NGO asked why the word “liberty” had been used instead of “freedom”, while

another NGO noted that States must have effective mechanisms for the prevention of

violations of the right to life. Another delegation noted that article 7 should be seen in the

light of territorial unity and that the use of local customs must not be used as a justification

to violate national and international law.

47. Participants highlighted that under article 9 of the draft declaration, freedom of

movement of mobile peasants was not expressly defined. Some participants argued that

States should do more to promote cross-border mobility and facilitate free movement of

herds, with proper safeguards. One participant proposed including collective remedy

mechanisms in the declaration. Participants also highlighted the need for access to justice

and justice mechanisms for women in rural areas.

48. Several NGOs, including representatives of peasants and other peoples working in

rural areas, welcomed the inclusion in the new draft of those articles on civil and political

rights. Those were already recognized as human rights, but they argued there was a need to

include them in the declaration to give them more visibility and adapt them to the specific

needs and realities of peasants. They noted that peasants and other peoples working in rural

areas continued to suffer multiple violations of their civil and political rights, in particular

their rights to freedom of association, freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and that

they were often denied access to justice. They insisted that there were continual human

rights violations against peasant leaders and that the right to life was being violated.

49. Some participants highlighted that under article 12 of the draft declaration, peasants

should be given the right to participate in the formulation of government policy and

programmes that affected peasants and other people working in rural areas. They argued

that would enable peasants and other people working in rural areas to access information

and markets easily. One participant highlighted the lack of participation in politics by

peasants and other people working in rural areas and proposed that States ensure that there

be at least 50 per cent participation rate for peasants in the decision-making process.

50. One participant noted that article 13 was too detailed and unrealistic and asked for

detailed information in a timely fashion on the ways in which a purchaser intended to

market produce purchased.

51. A number of participants raised concerns regarding article 14 and noted that the

language should be more closely associated with agreed international human rights

language. Some participants also noted that there was a need to introduce government

policies for compensation for peasants and other people in rural areas facing human rights

violations.

52. The Vice-Chair introduced articles 15-18, indicating the background of each article

and opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants.

53. A number of delegations raised concerns over the Chair-Rapporteur’s description of

the working group as holding a “favourable view” of the draft declaration, which was seen

from their perspective as an inaccurate characterization of discussions. They also raised

questions of the legal basis of new rights mentioned in the draft. They sought clarification

regarding the procedure of work of the second session and asked the Vice-Chair to

elaborate on what the outcome of the session would be. The Vice-Chair responded to those

concerns by noting that the objective of the second session was to share views and

information, and that there would not be a line-by-line examination of the draft text during

the session. Some participants stated that they saw the current process as a first reading of

the draft declaration. One delegation noted that it would like further information regarding

the term “create an enabling environment” and associated State obligations in article 15.

One delegation raised the point that it would need to consult labour experts on articles 15,

16 and 18 and asked if the Human Rights Council was the most appropriate forum for that

discussion, rather than the International Labour Organization. One NGO noted that it

supported article 15 of the declaration and recommended that migrant workers who worked

in the agricultural sector be specifically highlighted, as they were often subjected to

trafficking and exploitation. Another delegation noted that it was important to add

references to forced and bonded labour in order to help fight against exploitation.

54. One delegation stated that a clear definition of peasants was needed so that

government policies could focus on framing and implementing article 16. One delegate

argued that article 16 could be linked with other articles that refer to the right to health and

inquired whether there was a need for separate articles. An NGO responded to that query by

highlighting that it was appropriate to have an article on the right to safety and health at

work, because peasants and other people working in rural areas worked in some of the most

hazardous and dangerous work environments.

55. One delegation noted that article 17 should have more focused gender-

mainstreaming language. The delegate had concerns surrounding price-setting and its

impact on States’ obligations. One NGO supported article 17, noting that the text should

include as much as possible about nutrition and the right to a healthy diet. A number of

participants asked for sources and clarification regarding the term “culturally acceptable

food”.

56. A number of States raised concerns regarding the language of article 18, noting that

the suggested text pertaining to markets could imply that the Human Rights Council was

going beyond its mandate. Another delegation also raised concerns regarding the term

“community-based commercialization system” and asked for more clarification regarding

the text. Two delegations highlighted their support for article 18 and noted that it was

important that the article stayed in the draft declaration because it was important for

peasants and other people working in rural areas to be able to sell their produce at prices

that allowed for an adequate standard of living.

57. Several NGOs, including representatives of peasants and other peoples working in

rural areas, stressed the importance of articles 15-18. They highlighted that those were

economic, social and cultural rights already recognized but that needed to be given more

visibility and applied to the specific needs and realities of peasants and other peoples

working in rural areas. A number of participants stressed the importance of the right to

food, as peasants and others peoples working in rural areas represented 80 per cent of those

in the world that are hungry. The point was made that the key element of a right to food for

peasants must be the right to produce food, and that aspect should be reinforced in the

drafting of the article. Several participants also welcomed the inclusion of the right to a

decent income in the declaration. They stressed that one major obstacle for peasants to have

a decent income was the fact that peasants were not able to sell their production at a fair

price. They proposed therefore the inclusion of some State obligations related to the need to

regulate food markets in order to ensure a fair price for peasant products and also abuse of

power by intermediaries, the dumping of agricultural products and the monopolies of

transnational corporations be prohibited. They also stressed the necessity of including

provisions on the need for States to support access to local markets for peasant production

and stop applying to peasant products the same standards and regulations that they applied

to industrial agricultural producers. Some participants also highlighted the issue of public

subsidies and aids and proposed including the obligation of States to give priority to

peasants for the attribution thereof. The problem of decent income for agricultural workers

and the lack of implementation of existing instruments, including ILO instruments, was

also highlighted by several participants and the point was made that the language of the

article should be strengthened in that regard.

58. The Vice-Chair introduced articles 19-23, indicating the background of each article

and opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants.

59. A number of delegations noted that article 19 should be discussed in other United

Nations forums and that many points in that particular article needed clarification. One

delegation sought clarification on the sources for article 19. Other delegations noted that it

was important to recognize those rights, building upon already agreed international

standards, such as those existing on the responsible governance of land, fisheries and

forests. A number of NGOs argued that, although the right to land was considered a “new”

right, it was already established in other international instruments such as in the Declaration

on Social Progress and Development and that the right to land needed to be kept in the

declaration, because peasants and other people working in rural areas had a specific cultural

relationship with their land and territories. They also noted that business enterprises were

able to claim their rights to land and private property, which was denied to peasants and

other people working in rural areas.

60. One delegation raised concerns regarding article 20 and noted that they would like

further clarification regarding the term “transboundary environmental harm” and how that

impacted State obligations.

61. A number of delegations raised concerns regarding article 22 noting that it was a

“new” right, and that it should be dealt with in a different United Nations setting. They

noted that the proposed right was not in line with many national policies and trade

agreements. It was also recommended by some delegations that the issue of seed rights

should be taken up in the World Intellectual Property Organization rather than the Human

Rights Council. Other delegations noted that it was important to include that right in the

declaration, even if the wording could be adapted to take other international instruments

into account. A number of NGOs argued that article 22 was key to the draft declaration

because peasants and other people working in rural areas were subjected to pressure from

business enterprises to use genetically modified seeds rather than seeds that they had

traditionally used. They also noted that patent laws were being used to compel peasants and

small-scale farmers to use seeds of specific companies.

62. A number of delegations noted that article 23 was considered to be a “new” right

and therefore they would need to consult with their Governments. It was also argued that

the right to biological diversity was not an issue for the Human Rights Council. Other

delegations noted that the right was important for peasants and other people working in

rural areas.

63. A number of NGOs, including representatives of peasants and other peoples

working in rural areas, welcomed the new draft of articles 19-23, and stressed that those

articles were probably the most important in the whole declaration. They highlighted in

particular the right to land and the right to seeds as crucial for peasants and other peoples

working in rural areas. They stressed that many elements in those articles were in fact not

new but taken from other existing international instruments. On the right to land, several of

those participants identified access to land and security of tenure as the key elements that

should be recognized. They welcomed the effort to use agreed language but highlighted

some important elements that had been lost in the process and that should be reintroduced,

emphasizing in particular the agrarian reform, which, they argued, was recognized to a

certain degree in a number of United Nations human rights conventions, but also the social

function of land, the prohibition of latifundia and the obligation of States to act against the

concentration of the ownership of land. One NGO suggested including specific

extraterritorial obligations, as well as the obligation to regulate non-State actors.

64. The Vice-Chair introduced articles 24-30, indicating the background of each article

and then opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants.

65. A number of delegations noted their concerns regarding article 24 and asked for

more clarification with regards to the terms “customary water management system”,

“cultural use of water” and “use of water not only for personal use”. One delegation noted

that the language used in article 24 could be considered discriminatory as it only referred to

disadvantaged groups. Further clarification was requested as to the term “water poisoning”.

Other delegations noted that the inclusion of that right in the declaration was important.

One delegation also stated the view that, while it supported the right to water and sanitation,

it was important for the language used to match national legislation. A number of NGOs

noted that it was important to take into account the special need of peasants, including for

water for irrigation. They argued that the management of water should have local

leadership, as peasants and small stakeholders understood the effect of the misuse of water.

They also noted that peasants and other people working in rural areas wanted a fair and

sustainable solution, considering the old systems for distributing water to be unfair and

outdated.

66. Two NGOs noted that not only people who dwelt in urban areas had the right to

social security; specific measures should be put into place to ensure that women, older

persons and individuals affected by climate change were also protected. Some delegations

supported the inclusion of the right to social security as that right was essential for peasants

and other people working in rural areas. One delegation noted that different countries had

different domestic laws, and that there was no universally recognized system for social

security.

67. One delegation noted that the right to health was already recognized and that right,

along with others, in the declaration were already well defined. A number of NGOs

highlighted the need to include article 26 because of the need to keep references to the

harmful effects of chemicals and other pesticides. They furthermore highlighted the

negative effects of chemicals on peasants and other people working in rural areas,

particularly with regard to women’s reproductive rights.

68. A proposal was made to include the specific obligation of States to take measures to

limit the use of chemicals in agriculture. The importance of article 25 on social security was

also emphasized and its inclusion in the new draft was welcomed. Proposals were made to

include the obligation of States to implement insurance against environmental and climatic

events for peasants.

69. One delegation asked how article 30 of the draft declaration would be implemented.

70. At the end of the meeting, the Vice-Chair clarified the term “water poisoning”,

explaining it meant “slow poisoning” and provided the example of fish living in waters

polluted by mercury, who consumed the mercury and then transferred it to humans.

71. The Vice-Chair introduced the preamble, indicating its background and sources,

then opened the floor for comments from States, civil society and all participants.

72. A number of delegations noted that they felt the declaration gave special rights to

people in certain groups and that this might negatively affect other groups of people. They

also noted that they wanted to avoid ambiguities and said that more clarification was

needed regarding the term “harmonious practices with Mother Earth”. They also

highlighted that each country had its own practices, and that the term did not have the same

definition everywhere. They also noted that FAO, ILO and the World Intellectual Property

Organization should have been consulted in the drafting process and that they were the

adequate forums to discuss those topics, rather than the Human Rights Council. Another

delegation noted that it would be better to analyse the existing declarations and conventions

to address the various issues related to peasants and other people working in rural areas.

Some delegations discussed on the extraterritorial scope of the declaration, highlighting that

threats to peasants and other people working in rural areas often originated from outside the

national territory.

73. A number of delegations thanked the Chair-Rapporteur and the Vice-Chair for the

transparent way in which the working group had been conducted and noted that they were

particularly satisfied with the mainstreaming of a gender perspective. One delegation also

highlighted the need to focus more on children and people with disabilities.

74. One delegation noted they would prefer the term “food security” rather than “food

sovereignty” because it was more widely accepted, and that they would prefer wording that

was in line with language found in existing instruments of international human rights law.

75. One delegation noted that the preamble highlighted a number of international human

rights treaties and instruments and that articles 22 (1) and 23 (1) should also be included in

the preamble, as they did not generate any specific obligations. It also recommended that a

reference be included to the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural

Development.

76. A number of States noted that, although they needed more time to further study and

analyse the declaration, they were convinced that it was highly necessary to guarantee the

rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas and to encourage the international

community to support the declaration. One delegation also noted that articles 24-30 were

essential to ensuring and protecting economic, social and cultural rights.

77. Another delegation noted that promoting and defending peasants and other people

working in rural areas was essential and that the declaration would strengthen national and

international initiatives to combat hunger and food crises and support the preservation of

biodiversity. They also noted that clear instruments for economic and social inclusion of all

those living in rural areas and fishing communities were needed and that the aim of the

declaration was to ensure access to markets, credit and sophisticated irrigation mechanisms

in order to reduce poverty. They also noted that guaranteeing social security and protection

was still a major challenge, and that rural women had a key role to play.

78. One delegation argued that the declaration could contribute to improving the

potential growth of peasants and other people working in rural areas by improving their

welfare. It also noted that it supported the concept of food sovereignty, because it

emphasized the need for fair trade, particularly for small producers. It furthermore noted

that articles 5, 18 and 21-24 were key to the declaration because they guaranteed land,

seeds, cultural knowledge, agricultural loans, ecosystems for future generations, marketing

services, appropriate technologies, equal treatment in agrarian reform, and the quality of

life of peasants and other people working in rural areas.

79. One NGO noted that farmers specifically in South Asia usually only referred to men

and therefore requested that “peasant men and women” be added to the preamble.

80. One NGO noted that the concept of Mother Earth was not new within the United

Nations system and that it was a valuable concept for peasants and other people working in

rural areas, particularly in countries that recognized collective rights. They also noted that

the consideration by the Human Rights Council of those rights from a human rights

perspective emphasized their importance and the obligations of States to comply therewith.

81. Some NGOs highlighted the need for the text to be easy to understand for peasants

and other people working in rural areas to read. They furthermore noted the need to

acknowledge that it was important to remember the importance of peasants’ food

production and their collaboration in maintaining the environment in the context of climate

change. They also noted the importance of land, seeds and water as rights and highlighted

that peasants and other people working in rural areas had a special relationship with nature.

They argued that contributed to the preservation of biodiversity and that without food

sovereignty it was almost impossible to guarantee any other human right. Welcoming the

term “food sovereignty”, they noted that food security and food sovereignty were not the

same thing and could not be used interchangeably.

82. A number of NGOs noted the discrimination that peasants faced and emphasized

that they were the most vulnerable in accessing justice, particularly in the context of land

reform and land grabs.

83. A number of NGOs underscored the importance for peasants and other people

working in rural areas to have access to seeds and information especially on genetically

modified organisms. One NGO also noted that when addressing development it was

important to clarify the distinction between drug trafficking and illicit crops, as some

peasants had been arrested for drug trafficking for growing certain plants.

84. The Vice-Chair informed participants that they were able to submit comments in

written form and closed the meeting, as there were no further requests.

85. The Chair-Rapporteur opened the final meeting to States, civil society and all

participants of the working group for comments on the proposed language of the conclusion

and the recommendations.

86. One delegation suggested changing the word “negotiations” to “discussions” as, it

argued the word “negotiations” suggested that a formal dialogue had taken place during the

second session of the working group. That position was supported by a number of

delegations, who highlighted that they were not entering into negotiations because they had

not been given a formal mandate by their Governments. They furthermore noted that the

text of the draft declaration had not been translated into all official United Nations

languages and had been distributed late. The delegations suggested including a change to

the text in paragraph 91 (a) to include the word “continue”. Those positions were also held

by other delegations.

87. A number of delegations noted that they disagreed with the other delegations and

that negotiations had indeed taken place throughout the week because the very nature of

holding a working group was to negotiate, and that the word “negotiation” was specifically

mentioned in the various resolutions that set out the mandate of the working group. One

delegation noted that, although the word “negotiation” was open to interpretation, they

understood that any informal consultation held in the United Nations was by default a type

of negotiation. One participant noted that they agreed that the word “negotiations” should

remain and that they supported the delegations’ arguments.

88. The Chair-Rapporteur thanked all the participants and suggested taking out the word

“negotiation” from where it was first mentioned in section 91 (b) but leaving the word in

paragraph 91 (a), and the remaining text, while including the suggested word “continue”.

89. Hearing no objections from the floor, the text was adopted and the Chair-Rapporteur

informed the participants that they could send any suggested changes to the secretariat by

20 February 2015. The Chair-Rapporteur also thanked the participants for their

participation in the working group and closed the session.

VI. Conclusions

90. At the final meeting of its second session, the open-ended intergovernmental

working group on a draft United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other

people working in rural areas welcomed the participation of the Chief of the Development

and Economic and Social Issues Branch from OHCHR, as well as a number of independent

experts who took part in the panel discussions, acknowledged the constructive dialogue that

took place between Governments, regional and political groups, civil society, non-

governmental organizations and all other relevant stakeholders and took note of the inputs

received from them.

VII. Recommendations of the Chair-Rapporteur

91. Following the second session of the open-ended intergovernmental working

group on a United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people

working in rural areas, the Chair-Rapporteur recommended to the Human Rights

Council that:

(a) A third session of the working group be held to continue negotiating on

the basis of the draft declaration presented by the Chair-Rapporteur at the second

session of the working group, while taking into consideration the report of the Chair-

Rapporteur on the second session, as well as informal consultations to be held in the

intersessional period;

(b) Informal consultations with Governments, regional groups,

intergovernmental organizations, United Nations mechanisms, civil society and

representatives of peasants and other people working in rural areas, as well as other

relevant stakeholders, be held by the Chair-Rapporteur in the intersessional period;

(c) The Chair-Rapporteur, with the support of OHCHR, intensify its efforts

towards further engagement and active participation of all relevant stakeholders, in

particular intergovernmental organizations, United Nations mechanisms, civil society

and representatives of peasants and other people working in rural areas, in the work

of the working group.

VIII. Adoption of the report

92. At its ninth meeting, on 6 February 2015, the working group adopted the draft report

on its second session and decided to entrust the Chair-Rapporteur with its finalization.

Annex I

Agenda

1. Opening of the meeting.

2. Election of the Chair-Rapporteur.

3. Adoption of the agenda and organization of work.

4. Programme of work.

5. Panel discussion.

6. General statements, followed by the first reading of the draft declaration.

7. Adoption of the report.

Annex II

List of speakers for panel discussions

Panel discussion I. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of peasants and

other people working in rural areas and gaps

Christophe Golay, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

Jose Francisco Cali Tzay, Chair of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination

Joanna Bourke-Martignooi, University of Fribourg

Genevieve Savigny, La Via Campesina

Panel discussion II. Rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas in

other international instruments and gaps

Sofia Monsalve, Food First Information and Action Network International

Sue Longley, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering,

Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations

Adriana Bessa, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights

Henry Saragih, La Via Campesina