Following the presentation there were a number of questions and comments:

• There are paper parks although national approaches attempt to finance the parks.
• How can ABS help finance PAs? 

Suhel al Janabi commented that other approaches such as global views and ecosystem approaches need to be considered.

Following the discussion, there were a number of comments and questions, including:

• How can non-experts be kept out of the PAs?
• How is PIC obtained from the communities?
• To what extent are local communities involved in tourism;
• How is the 20% that communities receive split;
• How have you dealt with human-animal conflict;
• How do you determine the size of MUZs.

He answered the questions by explaining that: communities use the money for joint facilities such as schools; that communities are involved in tourism; the size of 20% is considered the highest level that can be MUZ in protected parks.  He also explained that they have ensured that the lives of the pygmies and other local communities are included in the tourism.

Following the presentation there were a number of questions and comments, including:

• Which parks are included in the MoU and for how long are do they have access for?
• Why was Novozyme chosen over local industries?
• Please re explain the ABS aspects, the feeling is that ABS is in there as words only?
• What types of enzymes are being extracted?
• Where is the community involvement?
• What is the benefit sharing agreement and is it possible a deal until we have the certificate of origin? 
• What is the local share of consumption of the projects and what pressure is being placed on our resources? 

He answered the questions by stating that:

• All stakeholders have to be involved.
• Novozyme has no exclusive rights.  They are provided access to exploit the fungi with a view to developing and commercializing products.
• KWS and Novozyme will share the benefits.
• Much of the local industries are foreign owned and because it is not an exclusive right, local companies can express interest. 
• The partnership is bona fide.
• He clarified the fact that the work is not genetic engineering.
• He explained that compared to poaching, enzyme research does not reduce game in the parks.
• Many products are consumed locally.
• The benefits will trickle down via the Kenya Community Service.

Dirk Jung reminded participants about the 4 questions they were asked to bear in mind:

1. Access to protected areas: what has to be particularly considered?
2. Who should decide about access permits?
3. Benefit sharing: which stakeholders may benefit from the utilization of genetic resources from PAs?
4. How can ABS agreements contribute to financing the management of PA’s?

Following the presentation there were a number of questions and comments, including:

• Is the MoU available? 
• How are the communities being involved?
• From whom would KWS seek PIC from?
• Has transfer of enzymes begun?
• Have the licensing fees been organized.
• A participant from Burundi explained that during the worst time in the war Kenya welcomed human and animal refugees.  She asked about the return of the Chimpanzees.

Anne Angwenyi answered the questions by saying: that one can put in a futures clause to deal with issues that may arise and to include an arbitration clause; the ABS laws are gazetted and are therefore law now; and some NGOs and CBOs were included in the negotiation.  Regarding PIC, she explained that when land is a PA, only the Agency has jurisdiction over the resources contained therein.  She concluded by saying that the MoU is not yet operational, owing to the fact that it has not been finalized, and advised KWS to upgrade the MoU to a more comprehensive contract.  

The email contained the following 8 questions:

1. What CSR policies do you have?
2. From where else have you taken GR?
3. How are you complying with Kenyan ABS laws and regulations?
4. Are you aware of the provisions of the CBD?
5. What is the most difficult part of any MoU or Contract? 
6. How long is the project going to be?
7. How many samples will be collected?
8. Where will the research be undertaken? 

The email contained the following 8 questions:

1. What CSR policies do you have?
2. From where else have you taken GR?
3. How are you complying with Kenyan ABS laws and regulations?
4. Are you aware of the provisions of the CBD?
5. What is the most difficult part of any MoU or Contract? 
6. How long is the project going to be?
7. How many samples will be collected?
8. Where will the research be undertaken? 

Ole Kirk answered the questions one by one:

1. The information is on the home page (www.novozymes.com), but in general Novozyme does try very hard to be responsible.
2. They had a agreement in China and Zimbabwe, and are now involved in Portugal and Kenya.
3. They are doing their best to comply, by going through KWS and negotiating an agreement.
4. They are well aware of the CBD.
5. The longest resulted from intractable financial terms.
6. They see the project being 5 years long.  The agreements may take a while, but the exchange process will be between 3 and 5 years.
7. This was in his view a very difficult question: between 100 and 1000 collected. 
8. 2 labs in the US and one in Japan and Denmark.

There followed further questions:

• How can Kenyan scientists be trained to assist Novazyme?
• Under the KWS agreement will scientists be trained?
• Has any material been extracted from Kenya? 
• You are well aware of the CBD provisions, but have you any plan related to local communities? 
• Have you engaged in technology transfer agreements – and if so what is your experience?
• Are you dependant on TK?  

Ole Kirk answered by stating that:

• No GR have been taken yet, but KWS will do the collection.
• The biodiversity focal points have been contacted and KWS will manage that element of the agreement. 
• Novozyme have many transfer agreements, for both providing and obtaining GR. 
• Benefit sharing in the case of this agreement, will include technology, local capacity building and skills transfer.
• We share the benefits with the parties to the contract.
• He explained that it is pharmaceutical companies that are more dependent on TK.
• The royalty payments are confidential.