The very first article of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)1 proclaims ‘the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources’ as one of its three objectives.2 The other two objectives of the CBD are to conserve biological diversity and to use that diversity sustainably. The means to achieve these three objectives include ‘appropriate access to genetic resources’, ‘appropriate transfer of relevant technologies’, and ‘appropriate funding’.3 Both access to genetic resources and transfer of technologies moreover must take into account ‘all rights’ in a bifurcated fashion over resources on one hand and technologies on the other. It is important to note that the CBD’s references to Indigenous Peoples are in a specific context of respecting, preserving and maintaining the ‘knowledge, innovations and practices’ of Indigenous Peoples ‘embodying traditional lifestyles’.4 More specifically, the CBD only talks about the ‘desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices’ of Indigenous Peoples.5 What is more, the very first article of the CBD’s protocol, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity,6 singles out ‘the fair and equitable sharing’ as its sole objective in terms otherwise identical to the CBD without specifically referencing Indigenous Peoples.7