FOLLOW THE CASE

In January 2012, we asked Mariam Mayet from the African Centre for Biosafety how the casehad developed since we had met and filmed with her in 2010.

Pelargonium Film: Has the bioprospecting permit application process submitted by Perceval and Schwabe been granted to them? 

Mariam Mayet: No, it has not. 

PF: Is the price for the resources set at a fixed price to guarantee fair trading relationship with the local communities, and more generally, do you know what has been set up regarding the benefit sharing agreement, i.e. what types of benefits have been granted to the local communities in exchange of the roots? 

MM: From what we have been able to put together, they are aiming to set a minimum price for the labour involved. The details of the benefit sharing agreement is not in the public domain. It appears as if the traditional chiefs are firmly in charge. 

PF: Do you know whether any other local economic actors have been allowed by the government in the extraction and preparation process (apart from Perceval/Schwabe) or is it going towards even more concentration of the production process ?

MM: What we have ascertained is that no provincial permits were granted for the wild harvesting and export of the roots for 2011. There was no real pressure for these to be granted because Schwabe had a tremendous stockpile for several years. What we have also been able to ascertain is that govt will be going for quite an intensive extraction process, with Parceval/Schwabe playing a lead role in the management of the trade of the species via the pelargonium working group which is a central body that govt has left to drive the entire process and has been established by Perceval. 

PF: Are middlemen and the local trust set up by the chieftainess still in place? Is the trust's control over the production process (extension of the cultivated Pelargonium field) been reinforced?

MM: There are also now further two traditional authority structures involved in taking control over both the land and the resources-the Rharhabe Kingdom and the King Sandile Development Trust. So, the issues have shifted now to greater control and power by especially the involved of these two entities.  

PF: Do you know whether the local government has managed to curb down the illegal/wild trading of the root that was still happening when we came, or at least improved the "traceability" of the extraction process? 

MM: No, they have not been able to do this. There are no real monitoring programmes in place. 

PF: Is their any likely threat of depletion of the Pelargonium resources due to illegal harvesting? 

MM: Yes, the issue is that it takes up to six years for the re-generation of new plants with viable roots. Unless there are proper conservation strategies in place, where a demand is created for the roots and money is offered to extremely poverty stricken communities, they will tend to harvest everything in a particular area, and depleting the stocks completely. Communities in that area will thus have no benefits after such depletion and will have to wait for another six years before they can participate in any programme. If this continues in every area, without a sustainable harvesting plan, of course we will see decimation of the species and further impoverishment of communities. 

PF: Is there any other development we wouldn't be aware of and that would be needed to be discussed about that case !

MM: The situation is that the Rharhabe Kingdom seems to be the central player in the game, as they seem to have control over the land –including the land belonging to the Maskahane community.  Govt is keen to resolve this issue however, they are not prepared to recognise the traditional knowledge of the Maskhane or any other community. The government also realised that the legislation created loopholes in that permits were being granted for essentially bioprospecting activities at the provincial level while at the national level, the Minister is supposed to be taking control over all bioprospecting activities and requiring proper consultation and benefit sharing. Hence, the laws are being re-drafted. At the same time, the agriculture component of the provincial govt in the Eastern Cape are also keen to invest some resources into developing the Masakhane land for productive agricultural purposes which will mean that increased livelihood opportunities may be created. The Maskhane have not yet received title to their land, although at least 10 or more years ago, the Minister of Land Affairs approved the transfer of the land to them. This issue-the land issue is a central concern for the Maskhane and they are receiving support to ensure they get the title deeds to their land. This will then give them the autonomy they so desperately seek, as they do not want any traditional authority controlling either their land or their resources. This year, will see quite a bit of movement. If the Minister grants the benefit sharing agreement, the Maskahne will then oppose this and institute legal action. The ball really is in the government’s court. 

***

We asked François Meienberg from the NGO Berne Declaration, his position regarding the New Nagoya Protocol that was signed in October 2010. In the documentary, Meienberg commented on his implication in the Schwabe's patent revocation.

This is what he told us:

"The Protocol that the 15 parties has agreed on and that still need to be ratified by each country is an important step since 1992, and specifically article 12: if ratified, each party shall have a way to guarantee that no genetic resources/traditional knowledge should be accessed in contradiction with prior informed consent/mutually agreed terms. It's very clear now that each country needs to take steps to fight against biopiracy.

The principles are now very clear and spelt out but the implementation is still open as the parties haven't agreed on any enforcement mechanisms.

An other negative aspect consists in the lack of legal clarity of some articles but this uncertainty was needed for the Protocol to be signed.

Given these negative aspects, the work of NGOs like the Berne Declaration is still needed to point out companies or any organisation in contradiction with the Protocol but also to ensure that the Protocol fulfil the spirit and values which have enabled it."