TASTE OF HOME: Identity, equity, clarity — and a cup of tea

South Africa has been blessed with an abundance of indigenous infusions. Beverages made from deliciously fragrant plants such as rooibos, buchu and honeybush are central to our nation’s sense of self. Rooibos is especially important – in a country where very few everyday pleasures cross divisions of race, class, gender and geography, it is a familiar friend to all.

Whether you favour the amber brew syrupy-sweet and milky, light and lemony or as a pot laden with leaves and stokkies, intensifying hour after hour at the back of a stove, rooibos is Mzansi’s traditional taste of home.

In recent years rooibos (and to a lesser extent buchu and honeybush) has gone global. These herbal teas now grace the elegant emporium shelves of Fortnum & Mason in London and the Parisian tea house tables of Mariage Frères. Celebrity fans abound. Chefs and mixologists have taken our humble leaves into a delicious diversity of cocktails and bonbons.

Their international importance extends beyond trendy tea parties and famous fans. As delegates gather in Yerevan, Armenia, for COP17 – the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (19-30 October 2026) – South Africa brings important experience to the debate about sharing biodiversity’s benefits fairly.

As with many indigenous ingredients, rooibos, buchu and honeybush are infused with unequal histories of land, labour and recognition. Colonial collecting and later research and commercialisation frequently treated African plants and knowledge as freely available inputs. The people who traditionally understood a plant’s uses and maintained its habitat or passed down preparations were often marginalised, even while their insights helped make business possible.

Calling a product “proudly South African” does not automatically right those wrongs. But the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act of 2004 (Nemba), the Bioprospecting, Access and Benefit-Sharing Regulations introduced in 2008 and replaced in 2015, and the 2019 Rooibos Traditional Knowledge Industry-Wide Benefit-Sharing Agreement have begun to address these inequalities.

The 2019 agreement recognises Khoi and San communities as traditional knowledge holders entitled to share in the commercial benefits of rooibos. Similar (but, as we shall see, different) agreements have subsequently been concluded for buchu and honeybush.

When South Africa’s delegates arrive in Yerevan for COP17, they bring significant success to the table. The rooibos agreement was the world’s first comprehensive, industry-wide benefit-sharing agreement under biodiversity legislation and is featured in the “good practice” section of the UN Human Rights Office’s Knowledge Gateway. Implementation is not perfect, but South Africa’s agreements have translated the principle of benefit sharing into practical arrangements and payments have been made, offering valuable lessons for other countries.

‘Fair and equitable to both parties’

There is always a but, so here it comes. Fair and equitable benefit sharing is an explicit objective of Nemba under section 2(a)(iii). Section 83(2) requires benefit-sharing agreements to be submitted to the minister for approval. Regulation 39(6)(a) of the 2015 regulations specifies that, before approving an agreement, the minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment “must be satisfied that the benefit-sharing agreement is fair and equitable to all parties”. 

Which sounds wonderful, but how are fairness and equity calculated? The regulations allow the minister to seek technical advice, and public consultation is encouraged, but we know very little about the thought processes that then guide decisions. I absolutely do not want to disparage hard-won, pathbreaking agreements created by skilled stakeholders over many years. I do, however, suggest that greater clarity would help everyone involved.

The rooibos, buchu and honeybush agreements share a purpose, but their payment arrangements differ. Rooibos processors pay 1.5% of the farm-gate purchase value of rooibos, excluding VAT. Buchu processors pay 1.2% of annual net sales revenue from specified products: dried buchu, essential oil, de-oiled leaves and hydrosol. Each levy is applied at a designated point in the value chain, rather than repeatedly at every stage. These points are different. Rooibos uses the processor’s purchase value of the crop as its calculation base; buchu uses the processor’s product sales. A percentage of one cannot be compared directly with a percentage of the other.

The honeybush agreement is less transparent in its publicly disclosed financial terms. Signed on 18 September 2025, it is described in the industry’s announcement as safeguarding financial benefits and meaningful inclusion of traditional knowledge holders in the value chain. However, the public sources I have found do not disclose the benefit-sharing rate or the basis on which payments are calculated.

The rooibos agreement includes a confidentiality clause; equivalent restrictions have not been verified for the buchu and honeybush agreements. Commercial confidentiality may explain some gaps in public information, but it need not prevent disclosure of the reasoning behind an agreed share.

Economic viability

Published accounts of the rooibos negotiations suggest that collecting a single industry-wide levy made practical sense: no one benefits from an arrangement that cannot be administered. They also describe consideration of processors’ economic viability, which again makes sense because no one wins if an access and benefit-sharing (ABS) agreement bankrupts the business. But explaining why a levy is workable is different from explaining why its rate is fair.

I have not found a published calculation explaining how the agreed 1.5% was determined. This does not establish that the rate is unfair, but it does limit our ability to assess it, compare it with other agreements or use its reasoning to inform future negotiations. Why not 5% or 0.5%? We cannot at present understand the logic behind that particular number. There may well be very sound reasoning but it is not currently available for scrutiny.

Establishing an entitlement does not establish its value, and successfully making a payment does not, by itself, demonstrate that the amount is fair. Each decision needs a clear rationale that can be understood and scrutinised. Which is why Chirandu, a South African biodiversity intelligence and innovation group (www.chirandu.com), is proposing a methodology that makes three decisions explicit: the legal trigger, valuation and payment.

At the trigger stage, the method establishes whether the law applies, whose rights are involved and what consent and representation are required. It traces the resource’s journey and the knowledge that informed its use, drawing on oral, historical, customary and scientific evidence. These considerations are already central to the existing rooibos, buchu and honeybush access and benefit-sharing processes.

Valuation

Valuation asks how the relative contributions of indigenous communities, other local communities, farmers, scientists, investors, manufacturers and market builders should inform a fair share. This means examining how each contribution enabled the commercial outcome, what evidence supports that assessment and how the proposed share changes when different assumptions are applied. These contributors do not necessarily have the same legal entitlements. Recognising commercial contributions must not displace traditional knowledge holders’ established rights or consent requirements.

Traditional knowledge holders must participate in defining the valuation criteria and testing the assumptions, rather than simply being presented with a calculated result. The parties will not necessarily agree on the value of each contribution. But setting out the evidence, assumptions and proposed valuations transparently, including in numerical terms, gives them a basis for negotiation. 

Differences can be debated openly. Numbers cannot remove unequal bargaining power, but they can make the assumptions shaping a proposed settlement easier to identify and challenge. The proposed percentage should follow an explicit valuation, with its assumptions open to scrutiny.

Payment asks how the agreed share reaches those entitled to receive it: who pays, on what calculation base, at which point in the value chain, to whom and how often. It also requires arrangements for reporting, verification and review. A defensible valuation must become a payment that can be delivered and checked.

Methodology

Chirandu’s methodology would make contributions and assumptions explicit and translate them into a proposed benefit share. The framework requires testing and calibration; it is not a universal tariff or a substitute for negotiation and ministerial approval. Numerical precision alone does not establish fairness: the evidence, weightings and assumptions must be open to scrutiny and challenge.

Within this proposed framework, commercially sensitive details could remain confidential and accessible only to authorised advisers and regulators. A public account could explain the method, calculation base, payment point, principal reasons for the agreed share and aggregate outcomes. The aim is to give negotiation a transparent, testable foundation, with provision for review as evidence and commercial circumstances change.

South Africa goes to Yerevan with achievements worth celebrating and valuable experiences to share. Our herbal tea agreements have put traditional knowledge holders’ entitlement to benefit into practice. Making the reasoning behind their share transparent would strengthen that achievement, giving those entitled to benefit a clearer basis on which to assess, negotiate and, where necessary, challenge the terms.

All over the world, people find ways into difficult topics over cups of tea. Such conversations can make room for honest questions and clearer understanding. The reasoning behind how rooibos, buchu, honeybush (and indeed all indigenous ingredient and associated knowledge) benefits are shared deserves the same openness.

Such transparency would have an impact worldwide. DM

Dr Anna Trapido works at the Chirandu Institute; www.chirandu.com