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