The case of policy and perception is similar to that of performance distribution, with both parties willing to make the BAA and successive agreements work. This assumes that each party sets aside its own short-term interests. Since there is no well-established market for biodiversity resources or databases with details of other ASAs, the biodiversity resource assessment will ultimately be limited to discussions between the biodiversity employee and the company. As with all negotiations, the parties are well advised to understand the motivations and interests of their negotiating partners. Employees and businesses must have the general objective of making cooperation work and be flexible enough to encourage agreement (and respond equitably to all incentives offered by partners). Current good bio-prospecting practices, in agreement with cbD, are found in U.S.-backed International Biodiversity Groups (ICBGs.5 Second, the benefits of both access to genetic resources and the use of the Community`s “traditional knowledge” of the studied pharmacological properties of local flora and fauna are shared.6 Both principles seem strange.7 Because it is natural to believe that Community members deserve some of their benefits because of their ownership over organisms that contain genetic resources. But property usually implies that people can do what they want with their possessions (within moral limits). In this case, for example, individuals could sell plant products. Why, in the case of bio-prospecting, are the rights of the individual suppressed? Compensation for the use of traditional knowledge also seems strange. Compensation is also necessary when the creators of knowledge are not alive and when knowledge is widespread in the Community.