A number of comments and questions following the presentation.  They included:

• Confidentiality agreements are not good for local communities?
• What level were the women involved and how have the lives of the women changed?
• What percentage goes to the women and what is a process patent? 

Pierre du Plessis explained that confidentiality agreements are for the companies commercializing the product, that women’s incomes have increased, and that women are involved in the women’s cooperative AGM.

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

• How successful is the project comparing to the income?
• What is the number of people involved it the factory and how are they benefiting from it?
• Regarding the community, are they legally constituted?
• Why are you concentrating in Baringo? How will you broaden the benefit sharing across communities and countries?
• How many people are involved?
• How has the TK been dealt with?
• Is there a programme to look at the community issues about how they will use the 40%? 
• What are the challenges at the sub-regional level dealing with the transboundary nature of aloes. 
• Who funded the communities to negotiate the contract.

Kakvaka Watai Mukoni responded by explaining that:

• the communities supply the sap, gel and flowers.
• The project is for more than just Baringo. 
• Communities have established a cooperative;
• There are 60 types of aloes, but no aloe vera;
• There is a move towards non monetary benefits such as the transfer of technology, and spreading the benefits of those jobs and skills. 
• KWS is working to stop the illegal trade in aloes, some of which is smuggled to other African countries before being exported from there.
• Up to 600,000 people will benefit from this benefits sharing arrangement.
• TK is protected by the acknowledgement of the knowledge and who owns it. 
• KWS is working with communities around issues of TK to assess what is best commercialized. 
• They are looking for funds to further develop how the communities are going to use their funds.

Questions from the participants included:

• Who is benefiting?
• Whose TK was used?
• Is there provision for the drug to be affordable to the people of the region?
• What other international law regulations were considered? 
• What PIC was obtained?
• How are you harmonizing ABS regulations with other partners?
• How do you ensure protection of the material and monitor the change of use?
• How do you intend to address the capacity needs of the farmers?
• How would an international regime change the situation?

David Hafashimana made a number of points, including:

• The project is still at a research level.
• Before a CITES permit is given the owners of the trees must have been paid. 
• He pondered when a product changes from being a biological resource to a commodity. 
• Ugandans have identified the way to debark sustainably. 
• PIC was not such an issue because the use of Prunus africana was already known and the trees grown widely across Africa.
• Institutional skills are already on the way, but because of the nascent stages of the projects communities are not being trained. 
• Inventories are being produced. 
• He warned about moving too quickly to commercialization because of the potential to stimulate illegal sources. 
• If an international regime was in place, the certificate would help greatly to monitor the transfers of Prunus. 
• In situ and ex situ conservation is managed by the Ministry. 
• The re-growth period for bark seems to be between 5-8 years.

Suhel al-Janabi explained that regarding the way Prunus is valued, that Uganda is far ahead Cameroon where it is seen as a pure commodity.  This is a case where the same resource is managed very differently.  He suggested that there may be scope for a regional meeting looking at one resource such as Prunus.

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

• Is all lost or can rights be regained?
• Is there any employment being generate in Côte d’Ivoire?
• The crop belongs to the people and must not be lost. 
• They could still use their own genetic resources, and that they could go ahead and develop their sweetener on the grounds that it is biodiversity supporting and providing benefits for communities.
• Patents and challengeable and GRAIN and the Gaia Foundation could assist in this regard. 

Bernard Brou said that the resource has already gone and regaining it is too late.  He does want to explore how local benefits can be generated and stated that although Côte d’Ivoire does not have any industrial production of the plant, he argued that Africa could not get it back, calling it a case of genetic misappropriation.

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

• How effective is the cure and will it become a global drug?
• What measures are there to promote awareness about it? 
• What is a sufficient level of consultation before you can say there was PIC?
• How do you harmonize the work of orthodox and native practitioners?
• How do you begin to work with the communities?
• What are you doing for awareness raising?
• If you sign a MoU with one community? Does it not leave out other communities?
• To what extent have you worked with other traditional products?
• What PIC was sought from the communities?

Dr. Dorothy Balaba answered by making the following points:

• Research is phased, but partners have not been identified to do phase 1 and 2 of the trials. 
• THETA works with traditional healers for a long time, and uses focus groups to explore their knowledge. 
• THETA considers the TK to belong to the communities.       
• THETA can only do as much as possible, because even the communities are exploited by their leaders.
• On access to information, THETA state that they will not pass on the information without seeking further PIC. 
• She explained that there are a number of reasons why traditional knowledge is not being used as much as it should, while medicine from the local health centre remains unaffordable.  As a result in some areas the incidence of malaria is actually increasing.

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

• It was praised as a good example of using benefit sharing to protect TK and to biodiversity;
• The uses of the medicine are going back to the community.
• How do you avoid the company becoming removed from the communities?
• Who owns the forest resources that are used?
• What measures are put in place to protect the owners of TK?
• Although the information was in the public domain, the resource was still in the areas inhabited by the community, so access should still an issue.

Dr. Wilbur Lwande answered with the following points:

• In Kenya there was no law on access until 2006.  There was only a framework.  Now the law stipulates that individuals and companies have 6 months from the time the law came into being to become compliant including requirements relating to PIC and MTA.  
• The forest is a protected area so KWS is providing access to ICIPE on the basis that their work is providing benefits directly to the communities and indirectly to the nation.
• Most people destroy the forest because they are unaware of the benefits a forest can give.   
• All the development was done locally brings direct benefits.
• The project now encompasses 600 people and a percentage of their profits go into a trust fund to assist other communities.
• They ensure that there is a wide benefit by helping communities near forest resources to better understand and profit for the forest, something that in turn benefits the nation.
• ICIPE aims to improve rural livelihoods, so this work falls under their mandate.
• ICIPE is a not for profit body and all benefits go to the communities and to protect biodiversity.

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

• Will climate change affect the work if icipe?
• In Egypt the water hyacinth was dealt with mechanically, but a shrimp was introduced that feeds on the hyacinth.  But there the shrimp then caused problems. 
• Indigenous knowledge may be involved more than is given credit for.     

Dr. Fabian Haas explained that climate change will affect insects, that will in turn direct icipe’s research; that biological control needs up to 3 years to take effect; but questioned whether there was TK involved in the research of the natural enemies.