Embed Size (px)
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 with 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.
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
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.
1
Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8(j) Subject to its national legislation, a State party should
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;
Kabir Bavikatte, Natural Justice
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.”
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 non-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-level
support organisation/NGO
providing coordinating and advocacy support to the region’s San communities.
Andries Steenkamp, Hoodia Trust
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, nothing
has been paid by SAHGA to WIMSA and stated that he doubts whether the monies will be realized. 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.
Robby Gass closed by detailing the Memorandum of Understanding that exists
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.
Jörn Miller, Hoodia Growers Association of Namibia
Muleso Kharika, Department of Environment and Tourism, South
African Government
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 provide 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 South Africa,
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 differ 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 of
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 are
unable to benefit from their TK, and the fact that other indigenous peoples such as the Nama also hold 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
Pierre du Plessis, Advisor to the Namibian Government
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?
The conference room
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.
Robby Gass, Southern Africa
Hoodia Growers Association
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: Friday 23 January
Kabir Bavikatte
opened the morning after a prayer by Fransina Ghauz.
He drew on the previous day’s 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 benefit 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 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
Mario Mahongo, Hoodia Trust
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 supports 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
Lazarus Kairabeb, Nama Technical Advisor
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 provincial 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 remain 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
Workshop discussion
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 this was called for at a meeting in Upington in 2008. 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
donors and participants. Doris Schroeder
thanked Natural Justice for coordinating the
meeting.
Fransina Ghauz, Namibian San Council, closed the meeting with a prayer.
The Venue
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Private Bag x447
Pretoria
0001
Linda Garlipp: Chief Director, Legal Services:
Tel: 012 310 3313, fax 0123229597
Private Bag x447
Pretoria
0001
Email: [email protected]
Cell: 078 458 6732
Also:
Sonia Meintjies
Mrs Carina Malherbe at 012 310 3799,
e-mail:
NAMIBIAN GOVERNMENT Elly Hamunyela:
Tel: +264 61 284 2526
Fax: +264 61 259 101
Email: [email protected]
Magdalena ya Kasita: Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Chair: Hoodia Working Group
Tel: +264 61 284 2545
Fax: +264 61 259 101
Email: [email protected]
Steve Carr
Email: [email protected]
And associate
Pierre du Plessis: CRIAA SA-DC/Hoodia Working Group
+264 61 220 117/254 766
Fax: +264 81 251 0672
Email: [email protected]
HOODIA TRUST
Zeka Shiwarra, 082 626 1545
Tommy Busakhwe,
Helena Heystek, 012 841 2201, [email protected]
Collin Louw, 084 748 0363, [email protected]
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: [email protected], [email protected]
Petrus Doeseb
Fransina Ghauz
Naftalie Soroseb
SA HOODIA GROWERS ASSOCIATION Robby Gass
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Adolf Joubert SAHGA/ BZH Exporters and Importers
Tel: 083 290 7691
Email: [email protected]
HOGRAN Jörn Miller
Email: , [email protected], [email protected]
Tel: +264 63 683314
Abraham Christiaan
Cell: 081 2772 615 (Namibia)
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 064 57 0153
Christian Motinga (cc Daisy: [email protected])
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: [email protected]
NAMA LEADERSHIP Chief Dawid Fredericks c/o Lazarus Kairabeb
Chief Josef Christiaan c/o Lazarus Kairabeb
NAMA TECHNICAL ADVISOR Lazarus Kairabeb,
Email:
[email protected], [email protected]
P.O.Box 2017, Walvis Bay, Namibia
Cell :0811297208 / Telefax: +26464207208
SAN LEGAL ADVISOR Roger Chennells
[email protected], [email protected]
RSA TECHNICAL ADVISORS Rachel Wynberg, [email protected]
Axel Thoma, [email protected]
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: [email protected], [email protected] 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: [email protected]
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
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
Harry Jonas,
Upington
Tel: 054 332 3887
Cell: 076 838 7443
Email: [email protected]
Scott Dunlop: 021 426 1633/ 084 719 8258/ [email protected]
Tarryn Lawrence: 074 100 9558/ [email protected]
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW AND POLICY UNIT Faculty of Law
University of Cape Town
Johanna von Braun:
Tel: 073 7388505
And guest:
Dr M. Neelika Jayawardane: OSWEGO State University of New York
Assistant Professor
Department of English and Creative Writing
Email: [email protected]
Apologies:
Kevin Povey, Unilever: [email protected]
Sonja Meintjies, DEAT: [email protected]
Vanessa Bendeman, DEAT: [email protected]
Vinesh Maharaj, CSIR: [email protected]
