View
7
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
REPORT
HOODIA MULTI-STAKEHOLDER MEETING
!KHWA TTU, JANUARY 22 – 23 2009
Executive Summary
A meeting of South African and Namibian Hoodia stakeholders was held from 22-23 January 2008 at
!Khwa ttu (the San Cultural Centre), near Cape Town. 39 participants and observers attended the
meeting, including representatives from the South African and Namibian San, Namibian Nama, Southern
African Hoodia Growers’ Association, Hoodia Growers’ Association of Namibia, and from the
governments of South Africa and Namibia. The meeting addressed the perceived lack of dialogue
between the stakeholders on a number of shared concerns. Being held a month after the withdrawal by
Unilever from the licensing agreement relating to the development of products based on the CSIR
patent, the meeting focused attention on the benefit sharing arrangements relating to the growing of
Hoodia in South Africa and Namibia, and explored the scope for a joint Hoodia industry market
development strategy based on regional collaboration.
The meeting provided all stakeholders an opportunity to:
A. hear each other’s key concerns;
B. discuss in bilateral meetings their common interests and to explore divergent points of view;
C. meet as country groups to forge national approaches;
D. address areas of cross-border cooperation; and
E. to set out a roadmap for the future development of southern Africa’s Hoodia industry, for all
stakeholders to benefit mutually.
Participants agreed on a number of key issues, including needs for:
1. a San-Nama agreement in Namibia;
2. a negotiated agreement between the San-Nama and HOGRAN;
3. a renegotiation of the San-SAHGA benefit sharing agreement;
4. the rejuvenation of the Hoodia Trust Working Group;
5. work toward a regional approach (to include Botswana), and
6. engaging specialists in marketing, testing and selling Hoodia.
The stakeholders further resolved to invite PhytoTrade Africa to provide support to the regional Hoodia
Working Group.
Report of the Meeting
On Thursday morning, Kabir Bavikatte, Natural Justice, opened the meeting after a prayer by Mario
Mahongo from the South African San. He explained that the reason
different stakeholders from South Africa and Namibia are present is to
deal with the Hoodia, a trans-boundary biological resource, and the
traditional knowledge (TK) related to its use that is shared between
ethnically different communities in the two countries. For too long, he
argued, the lack of alignment in the Access and Benefit Sharing laws
(ABS) and policies of both countries have resulted in
miscommunication, suspicion and innuendo. The Hoodia case, being
the first ABS agreement in Africa, has been most affected by this
serious deficit in trans-boundary harmonization. He expressed his
hope that the meeting can to remedy this by bringing all the relevant
Hoodia stakeholders together to develop a common way forward, thereby ensuring that the
communities and the growers in both countries benefit from the Hoodia. We have a choice, he said, we
can either continue the current race to the bottom or collaborate and ensure that the final outcome is
bigger than that which each country can achieve individually. If we achieve the latter, then the first
African ABS case can also become the first best practice ABS case in the world dealing with a trans-
boundary resource and shared TK.
He said that the first step of any genuine dialogue is to listen and the second step is to listen some more,
and called on participants to walk a mile in each other’s shoes. He set out the challenges for each of the
stakeholder groups:
• The indigenous communities here must ask themselves how their traditional knowledge, as
developed through sharing and
custodianship, has ended up being
discussed in terms of ownership
and exclusion. Does this further the
spirit of Art 8j of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD)1 and the
bio-cultural values of the
communities that have conserved
and sustainably used biological
diversity for millennia?
• The Hoodia growers need to ask
themselves how they can work
together in a way that benefits
both communities and business, so
that communities can be active
agents in the growing, processing and marketing of the Hoodia rather than being mere
recipients of monetary benefits that are a long time coming.
• The governments of South Africa and Namibia will have to tell themselves that besides Hoodia
there are a number of other trans-boundary resources and if we do not develop a joint strategy
to share these resources, then we will have opportunity and transaction costs in nearly every
other ABS case involving indigenous biological resources.
He called on participants to spend the next two days identifying the main problems in the Hoodia case,
highlighting the points of convergence and finding solutions to the points of divergence.
Tim Hodges, Co-Chair of the CBD’s Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing,
underscored the importance of the meeting in the context of the negotiations of the international
regime on ABS (IRABS). He described a Catch-22 scenario: an international regime is needed to spur and
coordinate national implementation of ABS regulations, yet that process is hindered by the lack of
national experience of ABS. The Hoodia case, he said, is important in terms of the lessons it offers.
1 Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and
maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider
application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices
and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge,
innovations and practices;
Focussing on the negotiations, he stated that the overall goal of the international regime is to relocate
ABS into the broader CBD framework, to ensure that ABS deals lead to the conservation, sustainable use
and protection of traditional lifestyles, according to the CBD’s founding principles. Looking towards the
international regime, he described a number of associated challenges, including:
• the 2010 deadline;
• how best to engage users and providers of genetic resources;
• how to reconcile claims of national sovereignty with calls from indigenous and local
communities for greater rights to manage their resources;
• the interface between the CBD and international intellectual property laws; and
• the need for communication, education and public awareness about ABS issues.
Hodges discussed how indigenous and local communities are engaging with the negotiations and
described a series of key questions that have yet to be resolved, namely: how to differentiate between
commercial and no-commercial uses of genetic resources, how to ensure fair and equitable benefits
and/or access, and whether to adopt a sectored approach. He concluded by saying that whilst significant
differences still exist between parties, an international regime can offer all parties some benefits, and
with this in mind, he suggested that a spirit of compromise is an efficacious approach.
Naftalie Soroseb, Namibian San Council, provided an
overview of the San Hoodia negotiations and stated
that the San approach the meeting with open hands.
Andries Steenkamp presented on behalf of the South
African San Council – describing how it represents the 3
key South African communities (namely, the Khomani,
Kung and Khwe). He further explained how the South
African San Council forms an integral part of the
Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern
Africa (WIMSA). Petrus Doeseb spoke on behalf of the
Namibian San Council, explaining that it has a similar
role to the South African San Council, but represents 6
communities, each sending two people onto the
Council. Helena Heystek (Hoodia Trust) explained that the San Hoodia Benefit Sharing Trust is the body
established to manage the Hoodia funds from the CSIR agreement. Silke Felton presented for WIMSA,
the San’s highest support organisation/NGO providing coordinating and advocacy support to the
region’s San communities.
In the discussion, Unilever’s withdrawal from the Phytopharm licensing agreement was raised and it
was explained that further meetings between Unilever and Phytopharm will take place before the full
facts are available. The status of the Namibian San-Nama was raised, and a report was provided to the
effect that the negotiations are ongoing.
Lazarus Kairabeb, Chief Advisor to the Namibian Nama Traditional Leaders Association, stated that the
lack of real understanding about ABS led to the initial Nama indifference during the negotiation of the
two San benefit sharing agreements. Only through real understanding, he argued, can an agreement
that truly benefits communities be crafted. He continued to note the limiting realities of community
organization, including a lack of money for meetings and other practical challenges such as time,
distance and expertise.
Dawid Fredericks, Namibian Nama Chief, acknowledged the claim by the San to be holders of the
traditional knowledge (TK) relating to Hoodia, but questioned the validity of the suggestion that they
have an exclusive right to that TK. He argued that the Nama should not be expected to play “second
fiddle” in this regard. Looking ahead, he called for a consensus between the communities about the best
way to manage their natural resources and expressed a readiness to explore the root of the issues
towards achieving a common position.
Robby Gass, Southern African Hoodia Growers’ Association (SAHGA), began by emphasizing the critical
importance of the market to the agenda of the meeting. Whilst a buoyant Hoodia market has the
potential to create livelihoods, nothing will come of investing in the industry if the market for Hoodia
folds. He urged participants to move beyond disagreements to make a plan. He explained that on 15
March 2007, an agreement was reached between the San and SAHGA and that the ABS agreement had
been sent to Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), but has not yet been signed by
the minister. He explained that the price was negotiated – on the basis of the San’s knowledge and
farmers’ investment – within an agreement based on mutual interests. The agreement states that
ZAR24 per dried Kg exported is due to WIMSA. He explained that despite sales of Hoodia, none has been
paid by SAHGA to WIMSA and stated that he doubts whether the monies will be realized. He closed by
detailing the Memorandum of Understanding that exist between SAHGA and HOGRAN. He explained
that the reason for the non-payment is due to Cape Nature’s inability to provide official figures of the
amounts of Hoodia exported and the member companies responsible for the said amount, available to
them due to their role in the CITES permitting system. Adolf Joubert, SAHGA clarified that the growers
are not necessarily the exporters, hence what is produced and exported are two separate amounts.
He closed by detailing the Memorandum of Understanding that exist between SAHGA and HOGRAN.
In discussion: the South African government asked whether the San could become growers of Hoodia,
to which Adolf replied that the process is expensive and intensive, making it difficult for small-scale
operations to generate incomes by cultivating Hoodia. Gass added that the San must become the “face
of Hoodia” in order to help market Southern Africa’s produce. Collin Louw, Hoodia Trust, criticised Cape
Nature for their inaction.
Jörn Miller, Hoodia Growers Association of Namibia, explained that
the association constitutes 200 members, 30% are white
commercial farmers with up to 5 hectares under cultivation, with
the remaining 70% of the membership being from communal areas,
including resettled farmers. Of those, 95 % have less than one
hectare devoted to Hoodia growing. He explained that the Hoodia
Commercialization and Poverty Reduction Programme (HCPRP) is
funded by the EU who provided c 10m Namibian Dollars. The
project’s goals are to set up a business model for small scale Hoodia
farming, to ensure that the system does not discriminate between
large scale and small scale farmers and to combat agents who drive
down the price. The project, he explained, is under pressure as the
time-period for the monies has been cut from three years to two,
with a four-month delay, leaving only 20 months to progress from planting to harvest. Whilst he
acknowledged the uncertainty in the Hoodia market, he underscored the opportunity Hoodia presents
to diversify farming opportunities within the Namibian climate, with many Hoodia farmers in SA also
able to cultivate Sceletium and Pelargonium. Addressing the issue of intellectual property within the
Hoodia debate he made three points:
1. More than half of HOGRAN’s membership are Nama people and he would not entertain the
notion that they are less entitled than the San to benefit from the trade. He argued that the
Nama and the San share the same ancestors but developed in parallel along different paths, and
that this point is based on mutual respect between the communities. He called for discussions
to proceed on that basis;
2. HOGRAN works on the principle that small-scale farmers should have the opportunity to
participate in the economic opportunities to let them be primary producers, to give traditional
custodians the chance to exert their pride and grow their legacies; and
3. (Regarding royalty payments): Small-scale farmers will be adversely affected if they are subject
to transaction costs (money / practicalities) as barriers to entry. For the majority of HOGRAN’s
membership to make profits from Hoodia, the business model must be based on small-scale
farming, but marketed in partnership with commercial growers to reassure buyers that supply
can be ensured reliably.
In discussion, Lazarus Kairabeb said that money cannot be exchanged for the Nama’s knowledge or
their heritage, but that Hoodia cultivation must be participatory.
Muleso Kharika, DEAT, South African Government, explained that
because South Africa has moved more quickly than most countries,
promulgating ABS regulations (the Bioprospecting and Access and
Benefit Sharing Regulations: BABS Regulations) ahead of the
international regime, the Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism faces challenges in its implementation. He provided the
historical context for the regulations, drawing on the National
Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and detailed the BABS
Regulations. Focussing on the Hoodia case, he explained that both
benefit sharing agreements have been submitted to DEAT and are
currently under review. He noted a number of interlinked
challenges, including: the fact that Hoodia is a cross-border
resource; Hoodia is regulated nationally and internationally (by the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species); the fact
that Botswana, Namibia and South Africa have yet to develop a regional policy on Hoodia; and the
practical difficulties involved in tracking and monitoring permit compliance once genetic resources have
left the source country.
Pierre du Plessis, advisor to the Namibian Government, explained Namibia’s focus on ABS, namely a
keen interest in exploring its potential for the reduction of rural
poverty, and the government’s active involvement in the ongoing
negotiations of the international regime. He explained that the
Namibian government neither has a legal mechanism to enforce
benefits sharing agreements, nor to stop the export of Hoodia
beyond the controls stipulated under CITES. That said, he explained
that all species of Hoodia are protected, and cannot be harvested or
sold without a permit. He detailed the work of the Hoodia Working
Group that is formed of government ministries, growers and NGOs.
He stated that there had been no negotiations with Namibian
stakeholders during the San-CSIR patent stage, after which the CSIR
agreed to collaborate in future bio-prospecting of which little has materialized. He explained that the
San-SAHGA agreement generated a bad reaction in the Namibian government and there was work to be
done in restoring a partnership approach to the management and exploitation of Hoodia. He concluded
by saying that there have been subsequent patents relating to Hoodia, and called for a follow-up of their
status.
In discussion Collin Louw, Hoodia Trust, underscored that the San have been forcibly moved during
their history. Hence, the point cannot be made that the Nama rather than the San now reside in Hoodia
areas as evidence of TK holdership.
Roger Chennells, San lawyer provided a summary of the main external and internal issues currently
affecting the San regarding the Hoodia. Externally, there were firstly problems relating to lack of an
international ABS regime. This had allowed plantations to spring up in many countries despite CITES
attempts at control, including Australia, Argentina and the USA which now provided the bulk of raw
Hoodia on the market. No regime exists as yet to force these suppliers to disclose their origin, or the fact
that they do not have a benefit sharing agreement. In addition, user countries have no coordinated
system to identify Hoodia products on their shelves that are in breach of ABS principles, including the
need for benefit sharing. South Africa had started talking with Switzerland and Germany at the CBD
meeting in Bonn during May 2008, (with the assistance of an NGO the Berne Declaration) with the
intention of forming a voluntary compliance mechanism between these countries. Regionally, there is
no uniform ABS policy or approach between RSA, Namibia and Botswana which has led to much illegal
cross border trade of Hoodia. In addition compliance and enforcement of conservation, permitting and
ABS principles differed in each country, making it difficult for the San and also for growers to collaborate
fully across borders. Growers in each country compete with each other in the world, instead of taking
advantage for being the source of “genuine Southern African Hoodia”. A geographical indication system,
whether regulated or self-contracted, as well as a joint marketing and branding strategy, would assist.
Finally, San in each country were unable to benefit from their TK, and the fact that other indigenous
peoples such as the Nama also held TK relating to the Hoodia has not yet been incorporated in an
agreement. The San and Nama need to meet further to resolve these issues. Finally, in South Africa, the
complexity of the regulations which only came into force on 1 April 2008 has resulted in the fact that the
SAHGA San benefit sharing agreement has not yet resulted in any benefits for the San. Growers are
permitted to export without sharing with the San, with impunity. South Africa urgently requires a
Hoodia Working Group (similar to the Namibian HWG) in order to iron out all of the compliance and
enforcement difficulties. The SAHGA San agreement has expired, and needs to be renegotiated.
Bilateral Discussions
On Thursday afternoon, the participants moved to stakeholder bilateral discussions. The bilateral
discussions were intended to facilitate open dialogue
between the representatives of the matching trans-border
stakeholders:
1. San & Nama
2. SAHGA & HOGRAN
3. South African and Namibian governments.
Each bilateral group was asked to work towards identifying
common interests, explore disagreements and develop
innovative ways of moving forwards. On areas of
disagreement, it was proposed that they clarify the other stakeholder’s views and explore ways in which
they might be resolved.
The following questions arose in discussions with the stakeholders in the run up to this meeting or were
raised in the morning’s presentations. Participants were asked to use them to spur debate without
becoming the sole focus of the bilateral meetings.
San & Nama
• Can you agree about the shared ownership of the traditional knowledge?
• How will you share benefits amongst yourselves?
• How can the various communities get more involved in the growing and processing of Hoodia?
• Why have we not seen any real monetary benefits yet? What can be done about it?
• How can you help promote Hoodia?
SAHGA & HOGRAN
• Small farmers can neither pay high royalties nor cover regulatory fees, but how can they honour
communities’ traditional knowledge?
• What can be done to protect farmers against the slump in the Hoodia market?
• What joint branding / marketing strategies can be pursued?
• What are the pros and cons of a regional approach?
• What can you offer San communities in terms of capacity building around the growing of
Hoodia?
South African and Namibian Government
• How can national ABS policies be aligned to better manage cross border genetic resources and
traditional knowledge?
• Is there need for a joint committee or a joint cooperation agreement to take the process
forward?
• How can the governments promote SAHGA and HOGRAN’s interests abroad?
• What more can be done to support communities’ livelihoods relating to cultivating Hoodia?
• What is SADAC’s role in ABS?
Participants then reported back on their discussions.
San and Nama
Lazarus Kairabeb reported back on the San-Nama discussions. He said that the group had acknowledged
the San as the First People, as shown by recognition of their TK. He said that they had, amongst
themselves, identified common interests in the Hoodia which require further evaluation. The San had
expressed fears about the ramifications of the Namibian San-Nama agreement regarding the South
African Nama. They had agreed to meet in early 2009 to negotiate further an agreement and to look at
post agreement issues such as joint marketing strategies.
Hoodia Growers
Jörn Miller and Robby Gass reported back on behalf of HOGRAN and SAHGA. They had discussed the
point at which any levy should be charged, preferring that point to be the moment of export. They
recognized the need for the conclusion of the negotiation of the benefit
sharing agreement between the San and Nama and called on the respective
national authorities to support this process. They highlighted the need for a
working group to be established between HOGRAN and SAHGA, to include
governmental and San / Nama representation. They considered the pros
and cons of a regional approach: the cons being the disparities in the
membership between the two bodies that hinder unification; and the
benefits arising from increased market presence and economies of scale
when it comes to testing, marketing and branding. Specifically on
marketing, they recognized a need for a joint branding strategy, increasing world awareness of Hoodia
including making the case for its efficacy. They called on the CSIR to release any information it has on
testing of Hoodia and Hoodia related products. Concluding, they suggested that for the Hoodia trade to
stimulate San development, government funding is required as well as San interest in cultivation
projects.
In the discussion: Helena Heystek, Hoodia Trust, stated that the CSIR does not have information on
Unilever analysis. Adolf Joubert, SAHGA, expressed frustration at the difficulty experienced in accessing
government funds for Hoodia development projects. Johanna von Braun, University of Cape Town,
stated that clinical trials should not be rerun, and urged stakeholders to obtain the results of tests
already undertaken. Pierre du Plessis, Namibian Government, argued that the Hoodia industry centres
on the work of a few key growers / exporters, and thus suggested that commercial considerations must
be at the forefront of any development projects, and avoid exposing vulnerable communities / small-
scale farmers to market risks.
He stated that there are limits to what the Working Group can do and called for it to engage a
commercial partner. Axel Thoma, Advisor to the San Council, suggested that the Hoodia might be better
used as a food product and not as a medicine, which led participants to discuss the novel foods market,
with reference to EU regulations and the GTZ project looking into this. Roger Chennells, San legal
advisor, asked for South Africa to have its own Working Group, to focus on the key issues in South
Africa.
South African and Namibian Government representatives
Mahgdalena ya Kasita and Muleso Kharika explained that they had agreed on the necessity of reviving
the regional Hoodia Working Group and undertook to contact the Botswana Government in relation to
this matter. They suggested the terms of reference of that group be expanded so it can create an
enabling framework for marketing of Hoodia, and to promote the alignment of policies in the region
The day closed with a prayer by Mario Mahongo.
DAY 2
Kabir Bavikatte opened the morning after a prayer by Fransina Ghauz. He drew on the previous days’
bilateral meetings, reports back to the meeting and discussions, to synthesize areas of agreement and
addressed issues that require further work. He used a Venn diagram to illustrate that some issues are
only relevant to South Africa, others only to Namibia, with certain matters requiring a cross border
collaborative approach. Beginning with Namibia, he highlighted the need
for the San and Nama to conclude a benefits sharing agreement to pave the
way for a Namibian San-Nama agreement with HOGRAN – both to be
negotiated under WIMSA’s tutelage. Referring to South Africa, he showed
how the Namibian communities-growers agreement will affect (but not be
contingent upon) the San-SAHGA agreement. He pointed out that
communities, growers and governments will have to work in a unified
manner towards each stakeholder’s objective and in the South African
context this would happen under the auspices of the a Hoodia Task Team.
He then moved to the issue of regional cooperation and harmonization,
reminding participants that the growers had suggested a need for a
growers’ Working group, as well as a regional Working group to include participation from all the
stakeholders.
Kabir Bavikatte also noted a number of issues, which were raised by the diagram, namely:
• Trials
• Market analysis
• Government assistance
• Livelihoods for San / Nama
• Business Development
• Novel Food issue
• Strategy to engage
In the discussion, it was pointed out that Botswana was missing from the diagram and it was added, to
reflect the fact that Botswana has an integral part to play. Roger Chennells underscored his
commitment to the principles outlined by Kabir Bavikatte, but warned against micromanaging the
process. He agreed that if the Nama are engaged in Namibia, there may be consequences in South
Africa, and as the lawyer for the San he is advising doing the right thing in Namibia, but to avoid
anything that sets the South African San back 5 years. Pierre du Plessis pointed out that the San-CSIR
agreement seems to prohibit the Nama from doing any deals on ABS, and this, he underscored, goes
beyond the remit of the San’s rights over Hoodia TK. Roger Chennells responded by explaining that
when the SAHGA deal was set up there were many potential free-riders, necessitating a clause to the
effect that in the future, when the ABS Regulations were promulgated (as they now have been), anyone
who is not part of the benefit sharing agreement will be illegal under CBD and National regulations. This
led to the cross-border dispute, but was not intended to.
SAHGA and HOGRAN representatives confirmed that they had discussed the issue of who should pay a
levy for growing Hoodia, and that they had discussed the need to be sensitive to small farmers’ needs.
Lazarus Kairabeb stressed that whatever results emerge from the San and Nama discussions, will be
addressed in such a way that it addresses the issues so that no one should be disadvantaged, and
whoever has a claim can be further involved in the negotiations. He called for government involvement
so as to ensure that the agreement conforms to government policy.
In discussion, Collin Louw argued that the San did well from the initial negotiations, but are now doing
badly. He highlighted earlier attempts to forge an agreement with the Namibians in South Africa, but
said that governmental involvement sowed havoc and broke that agreement. He underscored that the
San have still received only marginal benefits from the agreements, and called on government to explain
how they could support Hoodia related livelihood generation. Mario Mahongo, Hoodia Trust, added
that the agreements between the Nama and the San in South Africa were going well, but government
intervened and decided that because the TK benefits would flow to the San, the Nama would benefit
from the projects on livelihoods – this possibly affecting future trans-border agreements. Magdalena ya
Kasita said that the Namibian government did not utilize the Hoodia Poverty Reduction Programme to
specifically support Nama, it was allocated to the region which happens to be majority Nama, and du
Plessis added that it was an EU funded project. Magdalena ya Kasita also stressed that the government
of Namibia support San specific programs.
Jörn Miller also emphasized that HOGRAN did not intentionally exclude the San by choosing the Hoodia
gordonii distribution range which grows in the South, a predominantly Nama area. He further suggested
that the San adopt a HOGRAN type model for Hoodia cultivation, because Hoodia can be cultivated in
the Kalahari.
Kabir Bavikatte picked up this point asking how best the San can become involved in the cultivation of
Hoodia. Abraham Christiaan agreed with the suggestion, stating that the San must be given the
opportunity to grow, “to become growers.” Muleso Kharika noted that while bioprospecting is time and
money intensive and it takes time for benefits to flow, livelihood generation can be more immediate,
given government support and inputs by growers and/or NGOs. He suggested the Task Team should
look at how to address this issue with funds from DEAT. The criteria for proposals to DEAT need to be
evaluated.He proposed a working group in South Africa and undertook to listen to the emerging issues
with a view to approaching other government departments. Adolf Joubert summed up the discussion
thus far by saying that to focus on benefit sharing is to miss the central issue – how best to generate
livelihoods and income for communities, which he said was by growing and marketing. Doris Schroeder
underscored the need to look at Hoodia trade (demand), before dealing with the livelihoods issue
(supply).
Axel Thoma suggested that the San fought for years to assert their identity, so to say at this workshop
that the San and Nama are the same people is to put
them back to the Khoi San “pot”. Lazarus Kairabeb
responded that such issues were for the San and Nama
to discuss among themselves.
Kabir Bavikatte closed the discussion, noting the
goodwill among stakeholders, convergence on issues
and an optimism that a unified approach is attainable,
adding that drivers are needed within the process. The
stakeholders broke into country groups and reported
back.
Namibian Meeting
Steve Carr reported on the discussion under the following headings:
1. HOGRAN
• Namibian Hoodia producers should organize themselves according to their own needs and
national requirements, but with reference to South Africa. HOGRAN and SAHGA remain
separate entities which share common ground.
• HOGRAN awaits outcomes of the San-Nama negotiation before dealing with their benefit
sharing agreement.
• HOGRAN needs to increase market access, possibly by engaging specialists.
2. Nama Traditional Leaders Association
• Discussions with San Council of Namibia on ABS (+) to discuss the broader issues surrounding TK
to continue.
• ABS compliance structures must operate internally
• National sovereignty must be respected: All are Namibians firstly.
3. San Council of Namibia
• Continue the negotiations with the Nama Traditional Leaders Association with support from
WIMSA
• Support from HOGRAN to be expanded to San to enable them to cultivate Hoodia
• San Council of Namibia to communicate and inform their people of the opportunities from
indigenous plants associated with TK.
• Expect others to adhere to ABS international and national regulations.
4. Government
• Waiting for outcome of agreement between Nama and San and HOGRAN
• The Interim Bio-prospecting Council could be involved in the negotiations or approve the
agreements.
• The Govt wants to participate in the regional Working Group.
• Suggested an approach be made to Phytopharm on regulatory compliance, market development
and on new supply chain arrangements to ascertain if there is any common ground between
producers and Phytopharm for possible further investigation.
5. Common position going forwards:
• Develop regional marketing strategy
• Safety and efficacy trial at the regional level if necessary without replicating earlier trials.
• Agreement between Namibia, South Africa and Botswana, in conjunction with ABS agreements,
and cooperate in range states and speak with one voice on Hoodia.
• Approach PhytoTrade Africa to bring new products to market, with possible input from GTZ.
South Africa
1. Task Team (regional Hoodia Working Group),
• Membership: DEAT, DST, Agriculture, CSIR, MRC, WIMSA, and 2 provincials governments,
Hoodia Trust, NGOs, Phytotrade Africa, Industry (SAHGA), SAN Council.
• Timing: preparatory/ formal meeting in April 2009.
• Coordinators: DEAT officials will seek to obtain high level support for the task team and
dedicated driver be appointed, budget (travel costs, venue, catering – Cape Town).
• Action: WIMSA & SAN Council will write a letter to Minister. Hoodia Growers and SAGCA will
write a separate letter.
• Action: Roger Chennells to approach the CSIR regarding sharing of Hoodia-related data.
• Terms of Reference: compliance with and enforcement of legislation; requirements for success
for Hoodia Industry; market business and entrance analysis; collation of research; trials/ results;
novel food potential; government / donor support to generate livelihoods out of Hoodia;
partners for business development; information and
skills transfer; strategy to remained informed of
Hoodia activities.
2. Unilever
• Results of trials by Unilever, if relevant – How can that
be accessed? WIMSA should ask Unilever whether
clinical trials, chemical analysis, toxicity trials,
cultivation trials had been done and whether the
information could be released to WIMSA. The
regional Hoodia Task Team will be tasked to find out
whether government can conduct trials, if information cannot be obtained.
• Contact Person: Philemon Mosana (contact details below).
The meeting then discussed how best to engage PhytoTrade Africa and decided to table a resolution.
The following resolution was unanimously agreed:
Representatives of the following six stakeholders in the trade of Hoodia met at !Khwa ttu (Cape Town)
from 22 – 23 January 2009:
1. South African and Namibian San
2. Namibian Nama
3. SAHGA
4. HOGRAN
5. SA government and
6. Namibian government
They made the following resolution:
We resolve to work towards a common regional approach to Hoodia, in which we intend to include
Botswana. We also agree to work towards a regional marketing strategy. The stakeholders invite
PhytoTrade Africa to support the regional Hoodia Working Group to promote that regional strategy and
nominate the Indigenous Plants Task Team (IPTT) (Namibia) to forward to PhytoTrade Africa this
resolution.
Participants further suggested that the IPTT discuss with PhytoTrade Africa the possibility of one of their
staff performing a coordinating role for the region’s Hoodia activities.
• Action: IPTT to draft letter to PTA
Pierre du Plessis mentioned the American Herbal Professional Association with regard to trials and
Andreas Drews, GTZ, explained that there will be an individual in Namibia working on the Novel foods
programme. Axel Thoma suggested that GTZ provide a dedicated individual to advise the Working
Group and Pierre du Plessis mentioned a GTZ project on non-tariff barriers to trade. Adolf Joubert
called for one person to be available to coordinate all of this. Axel Thoma suggested that Natural Justice
coordinate the process, with Pierre du Plessis proposing CRIAA and also suggested seconding an
individual to Phytotrade. Andreas Drews, GTZ noted that one cannot recruit a GTZ person onto activities
such as this one outside of existing projects.
Roger Chennells suggested that geographical branding of Southern African Hoodia is a way to proceed.
Pierre du Plessis asked how this would happen in practice – but suggested it is worth pursuing – despite
WTO uncertainty. Roger Chennells added that the branding should also underwrite southern Africa’s
Hoodia as being genuine, effective and ABS compliant regarding local communities. Axel Thoma
reminded that at a meeting in Upington in 2008 this was called for. Steve Carr offered to provide KB &
HJ with the DURAS Project contact details, so more information can be obtained regarding Geographical
Indications.
• Action: SC to forward to KB & HJ the DURAS Project contact details
Kabir thanked participants, donors and participants. Doris Schroeder thanked Natural Justice for
coordinating the meeting. Fransina Ghauz, Namibian San Council, closed the meeting with a prayer.
PARTICIPANTS LIST
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
(RSA)
Muleso Kharika: Director: Resource Use
Tel: 012 310 3451/3578
Fax: 012 320 4087/7110
Cell: 083 272 0302
Email: jkharika@deat.gov.za
Private Bag x447
Pretoria
0001
Phillemon Mosana: Environmental Officer- Resource Economics
Tel: 012 310 3934
Fax: 012 320 4087/322 6426
Cell: 079 514 9652
Email: pmosana@deat.gov.za
Private Bag x447
Pretoria
0001
Linda Garlipp: Chief Director, Legal Services:
Tel: 012 310 3313, fax 0123229597
Private Bag x447
Pretoria
0001
Email: L.Garlipp@deat.gov.za
Cell: 078 458 6732
Also:
Sonia Meintjies
Mrs Carina Malherbe at 012 310 3799,
e-mail: cmalherbe@deat.gov.za
NAMIBIAN GOVERNMENT
Elly Hamunyela:
Tel: +264 61 284 2526
Fax: +264 61 259 101
Email: ehamunyela@met.na
Magdalena ya Kasita: Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Chair: Hoodia Working Group
Tel: +264 61 284 2545
Fax: +264 61 259 101
Email: yakasitam@mweb.com.na
Steve Carr
Email: stevec@nbri.org.na
And associate
Pierre du Plessis: CRIAA SA-DC/Hoodia Working Group
+264 61 220 117/254 766
Fax: +264 81 251 0672
Email: Pierre@criaasadc.org
HOODIA TRUST
Zeka Shiwarra, 082 626 1545
Tommy Busakhwe,
Helena Heystek, 012 841 2201, hheystek@csir.co.za
Collin Louw, 084 748 0363, wclouw@yahoo.co.uk
Andries Steenkamp, 079 631 2779
Mario Mahongo, 082 822 1586
Also: (Not present at conference)
Anna Festus - 076 021 7743,
Jason Marenda - 076 675 5169
NAMIBIAN SAN COUNCIL
All c/o Silke: coordinator.wimsa@iway.na, silkefelton@gmail.com
Petrus Doeseb
Fransina Ghauz
Naftalie Soroseb
SA HOODIA GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Robby Gass
zizamele@telkomsa.net, robby@zizamele-natural-health.com, volker@miros.co.za
Adolf Joubert SAHGA/ BZH Exporters and Importers
Tel: 083 290 7691
Email: adolf@bzh.co.za
HOGRAN
Jörn Miller
Email: , rmmiller@mweb.com.na, johnbass@iway.na
Tel: +264 63 683314
Abraham Christiaan
Cell: 081 2772 615 (Namibia)
Email: christiaan@mawf.gov.na
Fax: 064 57 0153
Christian Motinga (cc Daisy: manungo@nnfu.org.na)
PO Box 934
Mariental
Namibia
Regional facilitator: Hoodia Commercialisation and Poverty Reduction Programme (HCPRP)
CELL: +264 81 295 9525
Tel: +264 63 240 341
Fax: +264 63 240 347
Email: hardaphoodia@iway.na
NAMA LEADERSHIP
Chief Dawid Fredericks c/o Lazarus Kairabeb
Chief Josef Christiaan c/o Lazarus Kairabeb
NAMA TECHNICAL ADVISOR
Lazarus Kairabeb,
Email: kairabeb@iway.na, shb@iway.na
P.O.Box 2017, Walvis Bay, Namibia
Cell :0811297208 / Telefax: +26464207208
SAN LEGAL ADVISOR
Roger Chennells
scarlin@iafrica.com, wimsareg@iafrica.com.na
RSA TECHNICAL ADVISORS
Rachel Wynberg, rachel@iafrica.com
Axel Thoma, axel.sasc@telkomsa.net
WIMSA Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa
Silke Felton
Regional Coordinator
Tel: +264 (0)61 24490 1273101
Fax: +264 (0)61 272806
Email: coordinator.wimsa@iway.na, silkefelton@gmail.com
www.wimsanet.org
Mobile: +264 (0)81
IPACC (Indigenous Peoples' Coordinating committee IPACC)
Annetta Bok, 0768291079
ABS WORKING GROUP
Tim Hodges: Co-Chair of the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Access and Benefit Sharing
Email: timothy.james.hodges@gmail.com
GENBENEFIT
Prof. Doris Schroeder
Professor of Moral Philosophy and
Director of Centre for Professional Ethics
University of Central Lancashire
Preston, PR1 2HE, England
Tel. ++44 (0) 1772 892550
Fax. ++44 (0) 1772 892942
dschroeder@uclan.ac.uk
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/cpe
Professorial Fellow
Centre for Applied Philosophy
and Public Ethics
The University of Melbourne
Victoria 3010
Australia
GTZ :Programme Implementing the Biodiversity Convention
Dr Andreas Drews: Coordinator, ABS Capacity Development Initiative for Africa, Division 47-
Environment and Climate Change
(Germany)
Tel: +49 6196 79 1363
Fax: +49 6196 7980 1363
Email: andreas.drews@gtz.de
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Technische Zussammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH
Dag-Hammerskjold-Weg 1
65760 Eschborn
Germany
NATURAL JUSTICE
Kabir Bavikatte
5th
floor, 63 Hout Street
Cape Town
8000
Tel/fax: 021 426 1633
Cell: 073 045 6035
Email: kabir@naturaljustice.org.za
Harry Jonas,
Upington
Tel: 054 332 3887
Cell: 076 838 7443
Email: harry@naturaljustice.org.za
Scott Dunlop: 021 426 1633/ 084 719 8258/ dunlop70@gmail.com
Tarryn Lawrence: 074 100 9558/ tarryn@gmail.com
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND POLICY UNIT
Faculty of Law
University of Cape Town
Johanna von Braun:
Tel: 073 7388505
jvonbraun@gmail.com
And guest:
Dr M. Neelika Jayawardane: OSWEGO State University of New York
Assistant Professor
Department of English and Creative Writing
Email: jayaward@oswego.edu
Apologies:
Kevin Povey, Unilever: kevin.povey@unilever.com
Sonja Meintjies, DEAT: smeintjies@deat.gov.za
Vanessa Bendeman, DEAT: VBendeman@deat.gov.za
Vinesh Maharaj, CSIR: VMaharaj@csir.co.za
Recommended