Sharing Traditional Knowledge: Who benefits? Cases from India, Nigeria, Mexico and South Africa - Benefit Sharing - page 82

The first setback for the San became public a few months after the agreement
was concluded. As part of a company restructure, Pfizer elected to withdraw from
the venture and return the licence to Phytopharm (Phytopharm 2003 ). Phytopharm
subsequently entered into a sublicence with international food giant Unilever,
with a new vision of developing the P57 technology into a food supplement as
opposed to a clinical drug. The second setback occurred in December 2008, when
Unilever and Phytopharm announced a mutual termination agreement. As a result,
the patent rights once again reverted to Phytopharm. This news was unexpected, as
Phytopharm had noted the successful progression to stage three of product devel-
opment with Unilever in September 2007, which meant that the final stage before
regulatory approval had been reached (Glasl 2009 : 301-302).
Meanwhile, in the expectation that millions of South African rands, or even
US dollars, would flow into the Kalahari, the San Hoodia Benefit Sharing Trust
was formed in 2005 by the San and the CSIR in accordance with South Africa's
Trust Act. This trust was intended to be a stable institution that would receive and
distribute Hoodia royalty money among the San. To date, the trust has received
two major payments, one milestone payment each from Pfizer (R259,660 in
2000 = $40,000 US) and Unilever (R309,423 in 2005 = $28,000 US). The disap-
pointment in the San community over the Hoodia agreement illustrates one of the
major pitfalls of CBD benefit sharing, namely the raising of unrealistic expecta-
tions. Only a fraction of research projects in the health care sector ever lead to mar-
ketable products that may result in royalty payments. However, in contrast with the
Kani, the San have negotiated a subsequent benefit-sharing agreement with com-
mercial Hoodia farmers, and others covering different plants have since followed.
4.6.2 The Second Hoodia Benefit-Sharing Agreement:
Hoodia Growers
Between 2001 and 2005 the international market for Hoodia exploded, with liter-
ally hundreds of dietary products being advertized on the Internet and appearing
on pharmacy shelves. Most products were of dubious authenticity and no distribu-
tors had made benefit-sharing arrangements with the San (Glasl 2009 : 305).
Poaching and illegal harvesting of wild Hoodia were widespread, and farmers
planted hundreds of hectares in expectation of the boom that was to follow.
Legislation in South Africa was one step behind, and the listing of Hoodia in
Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in order to control the unbridled commercial trade
was only effected in October 2004 (CITES 2004 ), 27 too late to save many wild
Hoodia populations.
27 This listing established a standardized international trading framework and monitoring regime
for Hoodia . See Wynberg ( 2004 : 854).