Fernando Casas and Tim Hodges, co-chairs of the WG ABS, presented on common but differentiated positions in the negotiations. They introduced themselves and explained what their job as Co-chairs entails.  Within that explanation, Tim Hodges explained that one of their strategies is to push negotiators to say why they took the positions they took.  He said that Africa was the one region most ready to adopt this modified approach.  He further described the negotiating process as a dance.  Adapting the metaphor, Fernando Casas explained that it is similar to cooking, in the sense that there are as many cooks as there are parties to the CBD.  He said that the challenge is persuading all the cooks present to develop a single recipe.
Fernando Casas explained that huge questions still remains relating to the overall aims of the Convention into which the ABS process feeds.  Until those questions are resolved, agreement over the regime will be elusive.  Tim Hodges followed this up by explaining that the divergence of views over the role of the regime, from those that want tit to solve “all the issues”, to those that don’t want a regime at all, is a significant stumbling block.  The challenge of the working group is to agree that there is more than one way to affect change at the policy level and within that framework but to coalesce around core principles that everyone can live with.
Tim Hodges concluded by suggesting that the best way for African negotiators to prepare for the meeting is preparing to lead and to base interventions on real cases and experiences.  He said it was riskier, but has potentially high payoffs.  Fernando Casas urged the African delegations to involve as many of their experts as possible in the preparations, including trade, and financial experts as well as environmental and legal experts.

The African negotiators and national biodiversity focal points made a number of points, including:

• Africa needs to further negotiate among themselves before negotiating with the world;
• supporting local communities is vital;
• disclosure of origin at patent is important;
• a mandatory certificate of origin is required;
• a unified position at the negotiations is politically expedient;
• unless the international regime attends to the needs of the African people, the regime will undermine the continent’s development;
• Africa still needs to focus on its capacities at the local and institutional level.

Following the presentation and comments, participants made a number of comments including:

• A participant from Zambia explained how they choose delegates to attend the COP;
• Most of the indigenous contributions are made in regional meetings as opposed to in plenary.  She also highlighted the need to reach out and build capacity with indigenous people.

Sem Shikongo respoinsed to a number of questions.  He explained:

• Contact groups are set up to resolve difficult issues. 
• Consultations in Africa is a problem due to logistics, which is why forums such as this established by the Initiative are very welcome. 
• Regional meetings also take place at the meetings. 
• He concluded by saying that all the statements at Montreal can be made available.

Dr. David Hafashimana, also a negotiator form Uganda, explained that the sharing of information among stakeholders ahead of meetings is essential but seldom undertaken because of financial constraints.  He called for inputs from civil society organizations and suggested they contact their governments to be included in the delegations.  He closed by explaining that although working groups have simultaneous translation, contract groups are only conducted in English, thus excluding Francophone countries.

The co-chairs explained the agenda for WGABS-6. The central idea is to move from the range of views, taking into account the inputs, towards concrete options.  The key questions will be:

• Nature: legally binding or not;
• Scope: what will the regime cover;    
• Objectives: a vital question to be resolved if the negotiations can proceed; and
• Elements: what it will include.

The working group also wants to draft decisions to take to Bonn COP 9. They added that process will be a component of the deliberations as they will need to decide on the number of meetings and types of meetings: expert or parties.
They concluded by saying that the most important issues are the objectives, concrete options on elements and process.

They called for questions and comments, which included:

• regarding fair and equitable benefit sharing, there should be a consideration of the fair and equitable sharing of costs;  
• Although Africa is promoting indigenous rights they must remember that it is important to deal with international issues at the level that they can best be deal with i.e. at the national level, whereas, other issues within the ABS regime are best dealt with at the international level; and  
• What are the minimal elements of an international regime? 

Tim Hodges gave some answers: he suggested that he intends to push for an international regime by 2010.  He said that he embraces divergent views, and that not all issues will be resolved but some will be and they will be in.  He felt the big issue relates to TK and indigenous rights within the regime.  

Fernando Casas added that those insist that ABS can be solved at the national level are ignoring the reality that ABS in inherently multilateral.  He also argued that an anything goes attitude is important to unpack the issues, but that parties then need to build on that to converge towards consensus. He concluded by saying that key questions relate to the involvement of indigenous people in PIC and to the sharing of benefits.  He further added that the interlinking of the three aims of the CBD is the overarching challenge that is evident in the ABS debate.  

Tim Hodges concluded by stating that a failure to agree on a regime by 2010 will have an effect on the standing of the Convention itself.         

TK Group

The TK group discussed a number of case studies and how TK related to it. They discussed how TK can be conserved, within the context of various case studies.  They discussed the inclusion of indigenous people’s views in negotiations.

Scope Group

The scope nature and objectives group reported that there were disagreements about the resources to be covered, but eventually derivatives products and associated indigenous knowledge were included.  They suggested that the wider the scope the regime is, the more complex it becomes.  They insisted on a legally binging regime and that private international law should be used to settle disputes.  They argued that it would be expedient to leave very difficult issues off the table to get an agreement.

Capacity Building Group

The capacity building group suggested boosting capacity at each level, but said it had been hard to determine the priorities.

Compliance and Certificate

The compliance and certificate group reported a need for a legally binding and mandatory system.  Regarding liability and redress, they argued for a system of compliance.  They suggested the certificate may apply retroactively, to extend to material that is already transferred.

Equitable Benefit Sharing Group

The equitable benefit sharing group reported a consensus that the national biodiversity focal point should be the state or the local community, focussing on the point that although it is the state in Africa who owns the resources, the law is set up to benefit local communities. They dealt with the issue of derivatives, and argued that negotiations should keep derivatives an products in the text until decisions are taken on the issue.

Access Group

The access group distinguished between tangible and intangible resources. The linked access to compliance and customary law among other things.  They, like other groups, discussed products and derivatives.