1. Access and Benefit Sharing

2. Three pillars of the Convention on Biological Diversity: –Conservation – Sustainable Use – Equitable Sharing of the Benefits (Abs negotiations started in 2006, 14 years after the signing of the CBD)

3. NGO campaigns on biopiracy –No patents on life –Respect for indigenous people (Fundamental argument, possible undermining of land use rights, conflicts within communities) -Bioprospectors are nearly all from rich countries. Bio-patents will imply a significant shift from poor to rich. -Derivatives

4. Between 70 and 90% of the value of the patent is in the derivative, not the genetic material. Legal problems with definitions (date, use, geographical limitations etc.)

5. So do we need a regime? No: governments will use this regime to further marginalise the position of indigenous people. Yes: This is only way to get some compensation, even if imperfect. Conclusion: To what extent do you have faith in your own government, answer will vary from case to case.

6. The bio-economy will grow strongly in this century (allergies, weight loss), so no regime would be risky. There already is a regime. Bonn Guidelines, regional agreements. United States developed a regime

7. All in all, I think the ABS negotiations will be one of the more important regimes for the next 100 years, remarkably little attention from NGOs